Keaton Robertson and Dr. Charlie Morgan, Sociology

Social movements, such as the Utah Minuteman Project (UMP) play an important role in shaping public opinion on critical immigration issues. Utah, regarded as a sanctuary state by antiillegal immigrant movements, is one of ten states that grant in-state tuition to anyone who graduates from a Utah high school without proof of residency. Furthermore, it was the first state to offer driving privilege cards to “Individuals who are unable to establish legal/lawful presence and who are ineligible for a US Social Security Number,” including undocumented immigrants. After the emergence of the Minutemen, numerous so-called “anti-immigrant” legislation has been proposed at the state level. In addition, the Minutemen have successfully lobbied for the passage of many bills that affect undocumented immigrants.

We address two key questions: first, what is the link between symbolic boundaries and social boundaries? In other words, how does a group, such as a the Utah Minutemen, create a social boundary between themselves and illegal immigrants using symbolic boundaries?; and (2) how do these symbolic boundaries redefine or solidify the very social boundary the group was created in response to? Given that this group exists in a non-border state, we will examine how their experiences at the literal border translate into symbolic boundaries represented in Utah.

These symbolic boundaries are the mechanisms that lead to a social boundary between the Minutemen and undocumented immigrants, the primary group they oppose. Despite forming a collective identity that has created this social boundary, the unique personal and political identities of the Minutemen result in a variety of symbolic boundaries between themselves and immigrants, both illegal and legal. The very same symbolic boundaries—legal status, nationalism, culture, and race—that created a social boundary which led to the formation of the Minutemen highlight the differences and hybridity of their cultural membership. These symbolic boundaries are critical because they determine each individual Minuteman’s view of what the problem is, as well as how he or she proposes to address that problem. As we understand these boundaries, both symbolic and social, we will better understand how to create comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the concerns of both sides of the debate.

We use fieldnotes and in-depth interviews with twenty members of the Minutemen and their spouses to our research questions. Relatively little academic research has focused on the Minutemen Project, let alone the Utah Minuteman Project. Of the studies and research that have been conducted, none take an ethnographic approach. While survey research and other quantitative data from previous studies is useful because it provides a general understanding of the Minutemen and their stance on key issues, in order to understand processes of symbolic and social boundary construction, in-depth interviews and fieldnotes are necessary.

Momen (2005) argues that borders are records of past and present histories. Indeed, in our study we found that literal borders and symbolic boundaries provide glimpses into the past and present history of the Utah Minutemen. In other words, the boundaries that groups like the Minutemen construct not only leave a record of how those boundaries were constructed, but also a view of what those boundaries will look like in the future.

The literal and symbolic meanings attributed to the U.S.-Mexico border was the motivating factor for Utah citizens to go to the border as Minutemen (sometimes more than once a year for several years) and to establish the UMP. The importance of the literal border gradually faded as the group expanded to include members who have not gone to the border (including the current Chairman) and shifted to symbolic boundaries within the state of Utah as issues centered on identity theft, crime and employment. These symbolic boundaries were transmitted and constructed through narratives, marches and protests, and involvement with immigration-related legislation at the state level. Through these symbolic boundaries, members of the Utah Minutemen became united in a common collective identity in the creation of a social boundary between themselves and “illegal aliens” despite the diverse personal identities among the group.

Studies of boundary maintenance show the importance of viewing these symbolic boundaries as fluid and ever-changing concepts (DeChaine, 2009; Naples, 2009; Van Houtum, 2005). Because these boundary constructions are a fluid process we saw instances where the way in which one member constructed a symbolic boundary influenced the way other members constructed their boundaries. For example, David saw many illegal immigrants as victims of human trafficking and focused less on legal status and national boundaries and thought of the problem as a global boundary rather than an issue centered on the U.S.-Mexico border. With the ease of travel and communication, symbolic boundaries are certainly blurring through the process of globalization (Appadurai, 2006). David’s boundary construction influenced many members of the Utah Minutemen as evidenced by their discussions of his views of the problems and solutions to illegal immigration, particularly the current Chairman Terry: “He opened up a whole new avenue for procession that has really changed me as a person because I can no longer condemn, castigate, whatever term you wanna use, these illegal aliens as faceless, nameless, brown people from south of the border.” And more importantly, ultimately this shifted the social boundary upon which this group was founded, from all illegal aliens to a more complex view of different types of illegal aliens.

If we are ever to see eye to eye on immigration issues it is important to understand all the different viewpoints, including what some think of as racist anti-immigrant viewpoints. Research can only influence public policy to the extent that we first understand how others view the issues and then to the extent that we can bring all sides to the table and have meaningful discussions of what the problems are and possible solutions that deal with those problems. Our study has provided an important glimpse into who the Utah Minutemen are and how they are using symbolic boundaries to construct social boundaries surrounding illegal immigration.

References

• Momen, M. (2005). Are you a Citizen? Insights from Borderlands. Citizenship Studies, 9(3), 323-334.
• Dechaine, D. R. (2009). Bordering the Civic Imaginary: Alienization, Fence Logic, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 95(1), 43-65.
• Naples, N. A. (2009). Crossing Borders: Community Activism, Globalization, and Social Justice. Social Problems, 56(1), 2-20.
• Van Houtum, H. (2005). The Geopolitics of Borders and Boundaries. Geopolitics, 10(4), 672 – 679.
• Appadurai, A. (2006). Fear of Small Numbers: An Essay on the Geography of Anger. Common Knowledge, 13(1), 143.