Undocumented Immigrants’ Mental Health

Posted on by

Undocumented immigrants, the majority of whom are Latino and of Mexican-origin, face poor health outcomes in the United States. The stigmatization and barriers that come along with undocumented legal status affect immigrants’ mental health. Moreover, immigrants face additional barriers as a result of linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic disadvantages. As a result of these disadvantages and the limitations that undocumented legal status poses, this vulnerable and marginalized population faces adverse health outcomes and is at a higher risk for mental and emotional problems.

Many undocumented immigrants come to the United States for family reunification, improved economic opportunities, and to escape poverty, or to flee political oppression. However, the very act of immigrating to another country or crossing the border results in separation from loved ones, discrimination, uncertainties, and even death. In addition,  immigrants experience stress while trying to navigate a new culture, language, and customs, and to gain access to needed resources in a new country. Along with these circumstances, undocumented immigrants are confronted with restrictive U.S. immigration policies, anti-immigrant sentiments, and the uncertainties that comes along with their legal status. This has placed undocumented immigrants in a situation where they are threatened with deportation, overly criminalized, and severely disadvantaged in the United States.

Along with these various social and economic hardships that undocumented immigrants experience, their legal status also affects their access to healthcare, which has major implications on their mental health. Many undocumented immigrants lack health insurance and are ineligible for Medicaid. Therefore, a lack of health insurance means that this vulnerable population’s health care needs are unmet. In an article titled “U.S. Immigration Policy and Immigrant Children’s Well-being: The Impact of Policy Shifts,” Androff et. al state that “[t]his deficiency in basic material supports and institutional resources has been associated with negative economic and psychological consequences for parents as well as lower levels of cognitive development among infants” (2011:88). Without these needed health services, undocumented immigrants must confront the stigmatization that comes with their legal status and many psychological consequences on their own.

Sullivan and Rehm’s article, “Mental Health of Undocumented Mexican Immigrants” states that “[t]he psychological burden of being blamed and stigmatized by media and the larger society is manifested in the daily experiences, perceptions, and actions of [Undocumented Mexican Immigrants]. They are at risk of low self-esteem, guilt, shame, fear, and insecurity” (2005:248). Undocumented immigrants are exposed to inadequate occupational safety and health conditions, and they are unable to speak out against these conditions because of their legal status.  In addition, their legal status often leads many undocumented immigrants to live in fear, and to isolate themselves, which further marginalizes them from society. Furthermore, they are confronted with their representation in the media, which portrays them as criminals who take jobs from U.S. citizens and exploit public assistance. The limited agency that undocumented immigrants have in the United States and the ongoing stressful experiences they experience has many psychological health implications, such as depression. Sullivan and Rehm’s article goes on to state that depression “can be incapacitating, rendering individuals unable to fulfill daily responsibilities. It is associated with other medical conditions, anxiety, eating disorders, and use of alcohol and illicit drugs” (2005:242). Therefore, the barriers that undocumented immigration status pose affects immigrants’ mental health and would render them incapable of making meaningful contributions to their families, the United States, and society. Granting undocumented immigrants access to quality health care would be a first step towards improving the welfare of this vulnerable population.

 

References:

Androff, D., Ayón, C., Becerra D., Gurrola M., Salas L., Krysik J., Gerdes K., and Segal E.  2011. “U.S. Immigration Policy and Immigrant Children’s Well-being: The Impact of Policy Shifts.” Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 38(1):77-98

Rehm R. and Sullivan M. 2005. “Mental health of Undocumented Mexican Immigrants: A  Review of the Literature.” Advances in Nursing Science 28(3):240-251

ICE Website Represents Immigrants As Criminals

Posted on by

The US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the largest branch within the Department of Homeland Security and, in addition, is responsible for the greatest number of deportations. Considering some of the literature our class has read this semester, it has become clear that ICE, whose website frames its goals as those of protecting our families, our borders, and the nation’s safety, is responsible for breaking apart thousands of families via the deportation of illegal immigrants.

Of the 396,906 immigrants deported last year (2011), 180,208 of them were deported for non-criminal reasons, which is nearly half of all deportations (ice.gov 2012).

Despite this large number of non-criminal deportees, ICE represents itself as an organization that “promote[s] homeland security and public safety” (ice.gov). The ICE homepage has a continuously rotating news ticker, which is constantly updating with news releases regarding the detention and deportation of criminal illegal immigrants. One of the headlines reads “HSI, local law enforcement joint operation nets 6 arrests, seizure of illegal weapons, drugs” (ice.gov 2012), offering a link to a news release describing various arrests and seizures. For example, a successful raid is described in which “task force officers seized five additional .40 caliber magazines; 58 rounds of 9 caliber ammunition; an AR15 rifle; 427 rounds of 2.23 caliber ammunition; a 9 caliber, Sig Sauer model P229 pistol; a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver; 52 rounds of 9 caliber ammunition; three .40 caliber and two 9 caliber magazines; and 910 capsules of crack cocaine” (ice.gov2012). Another article reads, “ICE arrests 80 criminal aliens in Georgia, Carolinas” and describes how “Of those arrested, 20 were immigration fugitives, 14 re-entered the United States after a previous deportation and 46 were at-large criminals. The arrested aliens came from Mexico, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic. ERO arrested 33 in Georgia, 15 in South Carolina and 32 in North Carolina” (ice.gov 2012).

If ICE was really interested in offering a full and complete representation of their deportation activities, they might post a picture of a child left alone in the U.S. whose parents are being deported due to a raid sponsored by ICE. Or, they might post an article about one of the 180,208 non-criminal immigrants who had been working in the United Sates for years and had made this country his home. Perhaps an exposé on how a family’s “separation poses huge economic costs to the family members in the U.S. household, who ironically may become more dependent on the U.S. government for assistance in the absence of the breadwinner ” or an article that focuses upon the tremendous “emotional, financial, and psychological trauma as a result of losing loved ones” (Hagan, Eschbach, and Rodriguez 2008: 84).

Obviously ICE isn’t going to be posting those articles anytime soon. However, what this class has taught me, and what is important for the public to understand, is that despite the stated aims of ICE, good people are being deported, losing loved ones, and being removed from their families. While the face of ICE is an anti-terrorist, anti-criminal organization, ICE is in many ways an organization that disrupts families, causing children (often times legal U.S. citizen children) psychological trauma and economic hardship.

The article “US Immigration Policy and Immigrant Children’s Well-being: The Impact of Policy Shifts” points out how “recent changes have led to a criminalization of federal immigration policy enforcement” (Androff et al. 2011:80). The way in which ICE chooses to represent itself and the people it detains is indicative of this criminalization, as it presents a much more sinister, and demonizing, depiction of who these deported immigrants are.

References:

Androff, David K., Cecilia Ayon, David Becerra, Maria Gurrola, Lorraine Salas, JudyKrysik, Karen Gerdes, Elizabeth Segal. 2011. “US Immigration Policy and Immigrant Children’s Well-being: The Impact of Policy Shifts.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare XXXVIII(1): 77-98.

Hagan, Jacqueline. 2008. “U.S. Deportation Policy, Family Separation, and Circular Movement.” Internal Migration Review 42(1): 64-88.

ICE 2012. “Home”. Washington DC: Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved            May 11 2012 (http://www.ice.gov/)

Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Immigrants

Posted on by

President Obama’s recent support of gay marriage is receiving an enormous amount of publicity. Whether you are a supporter of gay marriage or not, it is clear that gay rights will be a hot topic of debate in the upcoming presidential election.

Considering the current hubbub surrounding gay rights, I thought it would be relevant to discuss some of the issues pertaining to migration studies and sexual identity. In an article entitled “Queer Intersections: Sexuality and Gender In Migration Studies,” Martin Manalansan argues that the study of U.S. immigrants has been analyzed through a normative, heterosexual lens. Manalansan writes,

The implication seems to be that the nuclear family is the primary model of the transnational family and that heterosexual marriage or heterosexual partnering are only plausible cornerstones of family life with parenthood gendered in static biological terms and motherhood or maternal love, the province solely of biological (typically married) women with children. (2006: 237)

The issue he is getting at here is that information could be lost or misunderstood due to the fact that we judge immigrant success based on a heterosexual family unit. In Manalansan’s opinion, “a critical notion of sexuality enables a more inclusive and accurate portrait of global… migration” ( 2006: 224). Class, race, and economic status have all been taken into consideration when studying immigration. Why then has sexuality has been left out the discussion.? Manalansan argues that researchers and academics presuppose the heterosexuality of immigrants, as well as a desire to conform to normative heterosexual relationships when in the U.S.

The lack of scholarly research given to this topic is indicative of the lack of rights that homosexual immigrants exercise in the United States. For example, if a heterosexual married couple made up of one immigrant and one U.S. citizen decided to live in the United States, U.S. law has legal proceedings enabling the immigrant to become a U.S. citizen. No such help exists for immigrant homosexual couples.

An organization that is trying to raise awareness about queer immigrants and the issues they face is entitled Immigration Equality. Their mission statement is as follows:

Immigration Equality is a national organization fighting for equality under U.S. immigration law for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and HIV-positive individuals. Founded in 1994 as the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force, Immigration Equality provides legal aid and advocacy for LGBT and HIV-positive immigrants and their families.

The organization performs various services, specializing in legal services and legal advice for binational (one immigrant, one U.S. citizen) gay couples as well as having “also helped hundreds of immigrants and their attorneys to win asylum in the United States based on their sexual orientation, transgender identity, and/or HIV-positive status”(immigrationequality.org). In addition, according to their website, that there are 36,000 same sex binational couples in the U.S.

Hopefully the work of this organization and work by scholars such as Manalansan will inform people as to the presence of non-heterosexual immigrants in this country. The field of immigration studies might expand its theories, beliefs and assumptions to include sexual identity as determining and influential factor.

Sources:

Immigration Equality 2012. “About”. Immigration Equality. Retreived May 11 2012(http://www.immigrationequality.org/).

Manalansan, Martin F. 2006. “Queer Intersections: Sexuality and Gender in Migration Studies.” International Migration Review. 40(1): 224-9.

 

Bienvenido a Casa – El Salvador Welcomes Home Deported Immigrants

Posted on by

Immigration and deportation policy, and its implementation in the United States, are scarred by discrimination, bigotry, violence, and a blatant disregard for the well-being of immigrants and their families. El Salvador – a country bearing the name “The Savior” – offers a glimpse of hope for immigrants, or more adequately noncitizens, who are forced to return to a country they may no longer call home.

Immigrants in the United States are often stigmatized as criminals, but this is not representative of the entire population. In their 2008 article “U.S. Deportation Policy, Family Separation, and Circular Migration” Jacqueline Hagan et al. study Salvadoran deportees. Their work expands on the reality that the majority of deportees are poor Latin American immigrants deported for “non-criminal reasons, such as immigration violations, use of fraudulent documents, and petty crimes that were committed years earlier” (Hagan et al. 2008). Their study includes new arrivals apprehended at a port of entry, as well as settled migrants including “authorized permanent residents who may have violated immigration provisions or committed relatively minor criminal offenses.” They add to a more comprehensive narrative of immigration, which includes people deported after a long spell of residence in the United States, periods often exceeding 10 years – long enough to forge “stable family and household relationships in the United States” (Hagan et al. 2008). 31% of the respondents in their study reported living with a spouse or child and 78% had become part of the U.S labor force.

El Salvador, recognizing the hardships suffered by those deported, decided to help “los compatriotas que un día viajaron a alcanzar el sueño Americano sin imaginarse que ese sueño se convertiría en pesadilla” (la prensagrafica) – the compatriots who one day traveled to reach the American dream without imagining that that dream would become a nightmare – and develop a program called Bienvenido a Casa. Established in 1999, Welcome Home aims to “ease the reintegration of deportees into Salvadoran society” (Hagan et al. 2008), a difficult feat considering the hostile reception they receive from those in their supposed “home.”

In 2002, in an article titled “Unwanted in Houston, unwelcome at home / 230 Salvadorans are stuck in a local prison because their government won’t accept them,” the Houston Chronicle reported: “The last thing people in El Salvador want is to have immigrants returned there after they have problems here,” said Nestor Rodriguez, a professor at the University of Houston’s Center for Immigration Research. In his assessment, “Salvadorans believe those forced to return from the United States are changed for the worse…Many deportees suffer discrimination and have difficulty finding work in San Salvador.”

The program includes services such as “(1) funds and information to help deportees reach their homes; (2) referrals to an array of social service providers; (3) counseling services to assist with the trauma and stress of detention and deportation; and (4) a job placement initiative to help deportees locate work, a monumental task for many deportees in a country with high unemployment rates and little tolerance for the growing U.S. deportee population” (Hagan et al. 2008).

The effort is admirable. It counts with the collaboration of several organizations including the Ministry of Health, Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Tourism among others (laprensagrafica). It is comprehensive program with the potential to alleviate some of the damage caused by a country which presents itself to the world as the model of democracy and opportunity, but threatens the very livelihood of its neighbors.

References:

Hagan, J., Eschbach, K. and Rodriguez, N. 2008. “U.S. Deportation Policy, Family Separation, and Circular Migration.” International Migration Review 42: 64–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2007.00114.x http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2007.00114.x/full

Hegstrom, Edward. 2002. “Unwanted in Houston, unwelcome at home / 230 Salvadorans are stuck in a local prison because their government won’t accept them.” The Houston Chronicle. November 20, 2002. Retrieved: May 11, 2012. http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/2002_3601643/unwanted-in-houston-unwelcome-at-home-230-salvador.html

“Programa ‘Bienvenido a casa’.” Laprensagraficavideo on Youtube.com. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXSdNUxWmio

No Human Being is Illegal- Especially not Students

Posted on by

Each year, thousands of undocumented young children are brought to America by their parents.  They are raised here, and as Obama stated in the 2012 State of the Union Speech, “They are American through and through.”  These kids did not make the decision to come to this country, but they were integrated and Americanized- often to the point of no return.  As of now, they have no chance to become legal without marriage- even if they are of great moral character.  Despite societal blockades, they are here to stay, and they are accomplishing great things.  Denying these minors equal opportunity in education not only prevents them from being able to assimilate successfully, but it deprives children of a fundamental right.

In 1982, the Supreme Court decided that undocumented children deserved a free K-12 education, no matter the circumstances, in a case called Plyer vs. Doe. The court decided that all children in the U.S., regardless of legal status, have a right to a public education for many reasons, such as: children should not be punished for decisions made by their parents, the denial of education for all would mean higher crime rates, and that the consequences of having an illiterate population living in the U.S. would be monumental (Drachman 2006:96).  Thirty years later, we face another education rights conundrum with the Dream Act.  The proposed bill would put undocumented students on a path towards citizenship contingent upon their completion of two years of college or military service.

But who are the students who would be affected?  The numbers of students in this situation are enormous; 65,000 undocumented students graduate every year and 37,000 are Latino (Drachman 2006: 94). Many of these students have lived here all their lives, and some are valedictorians.  Many are high achieving individuals who participate in community service in their spare time.  One student rushed to help the Red Cross in the time of Hurricane Katrina (Perez, et. al 2010:45).

Yet we do not allow these students to pay in-state tuition to public colleges in their own state, or receive financial aid, making college education impossible for many. This is the case even though the students have not done anything to deserve these blockades.  One student says, “We’re not criminals, or we’re not trying to steal anything from anybody. It’s just that we want to continue the dream that our parents started when they brought us here for a better future” (Perez, et. al 2010:38).  Instead of continuing their education successfully, they are suffering from extreme discrimination and a sense of shame.

Americans have to decide if the fundamental right to education we granted in 1982 applies to higher education.  As it stands, these undocumented kids are a wasted investment in today’s economy.  We not only allow them to participate, but we require them to go to public school.  We invest taxpayer dollars to give them not only a seat in a classroom, but a fighting chance with programs like ESL.  Then, just before we can see our investment grow and feed back into the community, we cut off all resources and suffocate all potential for any return.

Today, college education is as essential for job opportunity as literacy was in the past.  College is the literacy of today.  Studies show that a college education affects many aspects of life the way literacy once did; college graduates are more civically engaged and even more likely to vote.  Public education is supposed to be the ultimate enforcer of everyone’s equal chance at the American Dream, but as it stands, we have left out a caste of people.  Let’s modernize a decision that we have already agreed on; let’s allow undocumented students the right to give back to this country.

Visit the New York State Youth Leadership Council to learn more about who these students are and how you can help!

Works Cited:

Drachman, Edward. 2006. “Access to Higher Education for Undocumented Students” Peace Review 18:1, 91-100.

Pérez, William, Richard D. Cortés, Karina Ramos and Heidi Coronado. 2010. “Cursed and Blessed”: Examining the Socioemotional and Academic Experiences of Undocumented Latina and Latino College Students.” New Directions for Student Services 131:35-51. doi: 10.1002/ss.366.

Is Education a Fundamental Right?

Posted on by

Article 26 – (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

– The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 26 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares “Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.” The declaration that elementary education should be free for undocumented youth in Texas was challenged in the 1982 Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe. Following the decision of Supreme Court case San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973), the court’s ruling in Plyler v. Doe enhanced the discussion of whether or not the right to education was a fundamental right or just an ordinary right.

A fundamental right is described as “a basic or foundational right, derived from natural law; a right deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of Constitutional protection against government interference” (yourdictionary.com). The naming of education as a fundamental right became a highlighted issue in the 1973 San Antonio v. Rodriguez hearing. The court case was concerning the matter of financing of public schools in Texas which led to disparities in individual school resources. The court decided that the fiscal plan implemented by the state has “abundantly satisfied this standard” (U.S. Supreme Court 1973). The Supreme Court decision in San Antonio v. Rodriguez found that there is no constitutional right to education because it is not expressed so in the Constitution (oyez.org).

Education as a fundamental right was revisited in Plyler v. Doe. The case concerned the issue of a Texas law that required undocumented youth to pay fees in order to attend K-12 public schools. In what Andrew Stevenson describes as “landmark decision,” the Supreme Court “established the right of undocumented immigrant youth to education to the U.S.” (2004: 562). The court discussed that “education as a special public benefit, holding that the right to education lay somewhere between an ordinary and fundamental right, regardless of a person’s immigration status” (Stevenson 2004: 563). However, the court ultimately decided that education was not a fundamental right. The decision of the court guarantees the right to free education for undocumented youth only for K-12 public education. This means that undocumented youths are unable to receive state and federal funds for postsecondary education.

The decisions made in San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973) and Plyler v. Doe (1982) continue to affect the lives of students in the United States today. Every year undocumented youth graduate from high school prepared to continue on in postsecondary education but soon find that they are ineligible to receive state and federal funds for financial aid. In reference to postsecondary education, Article 26 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.” Undocumented youth in the United States are not equally accessible to higher education, especially when considering the burden of tuition fees. It is time that the Court revisited San Antonio v. Rodriguez and Plyler v. Doe to reexamine the issue of education as a fundamental right.

Works Cited:

Chaltain, Sam. (May 16, 2011). Your education is not an equal opportunity. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/16/chaltain.equal.education/index.html

Fundamental Right. (n.d.) In YourDictionary.com. Retrieved from http://law.yourdictionary.com/fundamental-right

Stevenson, Andrew. (2004). DREAMing of an Equal Future For Immigrant Children: Federal State Initiatives to Improve Undocumented Students’ Access to Postsecondary Education. Arizona Law Review, 46, 551-580.

San Antonio School District v Rodriquez. Retrieved from <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/sanantoniovrodriquez.html>.

San Antonio Independent School Dis v. Rodriguez. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_1332

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Human Rights Violations Along the Border

Posted on by

Illegal immigration is a significant issue in the United States. There are over 11.5 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States, and many continue to enter the United States (Preston 2011). This tremendous flow of immigrants is monitored and regulated by the United States Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). The CBP prides itself on being “the guardians of our nation’s borders” and puts strong emphasis on the importance of Integrity: “integrity is our cornerstone. We are guided by the highest ethical and moral principles. Our actions bring honor to ourselves and our agency.” Although the CBP claims to give to integrity, there have been numerous instances of violence and mistreatment of immigrants by border patrol officers and the number of reported cases of misconduct continues to increase rapidly.

The Obama Administration's $600 million border security bill resulted in heightened security and increased enforcement personnel along the border.

The rapid increase of reported misconduct of Border Patrol officers is largely attributed to the rapid size increase of the CBP itself. In 2010, Obama signed a $600 million border security bill which resulted in strengthened armed patrol and a rapid increase of border patrol officers, as 1,500 enforcement personnel were sent to the U.S-Mexico border alone (Huey-Burns 2010). Due to this enormous enlargement, many poorly trained, inexperienced, and immature officers have been called to duty. Compounding the problem, there is very little supervision, and few to no inspections of Border Patrol powers. Although these officers are assigned to patrol the border, they are accountable only to the federal government, which is rapidly increasing their ranks (Hing 2010). This is a tremendous problem because these inexperienced officers are generally the ones responsible for the misconduct and mistreatment of many immigrants. Due to the lack of supervision–as well as the unfortunate circumstances of these immigrants, such as lacking legal status, heading to jail or deportation, small voice, and practically no rights–many of these officers believe that they can mistreat the immigrants without consequence. Although some of border police have been caught and convicted for their crimes, many do get away with their crimes, which in some cases results in severe injury or death, such was the case of Anastacio Hernandez Rojas.

Anastacio Hernandez Rojas

Anastacio Hernandez Rojas was an undocumented immigrant who was in the process of being deported from the United States at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. When Anastacio resisted, he was repeatedly shot by a Taser stun gun. According to NBC San Diego, the entire confrontation was witnessed and recorded on a cell phone by Humberto Navarrete. According to Navarrete, “I was on my way to Tijuana. One of the uniformed agents had a knee on his back; another agent had his other knee on the back of his neck.” Navarrete proceeded to ask a nearby U.S. agent why they were using such “excessive force” and the agent replied that Anastacio was not cooperating. The border patrol officers then tazed Anastacio and according to Navarrete, “On the fifth discharge, we couldn’t hear Anastacio yelling anymore.” Hernandez later died of a heart attack; he was only 42 years old. This blatant display of injustice was immediately followed by numerous protests and rallies by many immigrant rights groups, as well as the Mexican government (Payton 2012). Five days after the incident, Hernandez died. His death was deemed a homicide; hypertension and methamphetamine use were the main causes of his death.

The unfortunate case of Anastacio is just one of many instances of the injustices that occur within Border Patrol. Many awareness groups have been working tirelessly to increase the public’s awareness to the terrible crimes committed by border patrol officers. Music artists, such as Emilio Rojas (a half Venezuelan, half Caucasian rapper), have also raised awareness about this issue; releasing numerous songs—such as Right to Stay—exposing the abuse that thousands of illegal immigrants suffer every year. Hopefully, public awareness of this issue will begin to pressure the government to address this problem, and the injustices within the Border Patrol will begin to diminish, and eventually disappear entirely.

References

“CBP Mission Statement and Core Values – CBP.gov.” CBP Mission Statement and Core        Values – CBP.gov. Web. <http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/mission/guardians.xml>.

Hing, Juilanne. “As Border Patrol Expands, So Do Reports of Misconduct – COLORLINES.” <http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/09/as_border_patrol_expands_so_do_reports_of_misconduct.html>.

Huey-Burns, Caitlin. 12 Aug. 2010. “Senate Passes $600 Million Border Security Package.” US News. U.S.News & World Report,  <http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/12/senate-passes-600-million-border-security-package>.

“Illegal Immigrant Taser Death Ruled a Homicide.” 2 June 2010. NBC San Diego.  <http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Illegal-Immigrant-Taser-Death-Ruled-a-Homicide–95449094.html>.

Payton, Mari. 3 May 2012. “Vigil Planned for Alleged Border Brutality Victim.” NBC San Diego. <http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Vigil-Planned-for-Victim-of-Alleged-Border-Brutality–150043435.html>.

Preston, Julia. 2 Feb. 2011.  “11.2 Million Illegal Immigrants in U.S. in 2010, Report Says; No Change From ’09.” The New York Times

 

The Curse of Ignorance

Posted on by

After learning of the many injustices undocumented immigrants face on a daily basis, it is hard to not become infuriated. The laws and regulations the government enforces demonize the immigrant, whether undocumented or not, and this affects the way that immigrants are treated in society. Two days ago, I had to listen to a coworker furiously complain about “all the illegal students who are going to college for free.” She was upset because her two children are graduating college with over a hundred thousand dollars worth of college debt with an extremely high interest rate. Instead of being upset about the high costs of a college education, or even the companies who provide college loans with really difficult caveats, my coworker was insistent that her children were missing out on free education because of illegal immigrants. The ignorance she expressed is common in society and creates a hostile environment when advocating for immigrant rights.

Rallies, petitions and protests are commendable but I believe the biggest problem is changing society’s misconceptions of the immigrant. Immigrants are hard working individuals who aim to create a better life for their families. However, the overwhelming belief is that immigrants aim to take advantage of the systems and benefits set in place for citizens. There is also a concern among citizens regarding the growth of the Latino immigrant population in recent years and the increasing popularity of the Spanish language and culture, which is believed to compromise American culture. These concerns spawn hatred and ignorance in society and were the reasons for my coworker’s ridiculous claim.

The problem with these claims is that they have been disputed with research and declared incorrect by sociologists and educators, but the truth fails to reach a mass audience.  The education I shared with my coworker only corrected her ignorance on college admissions but I could not change her hatred of illegal immigrants. What I find is that too often people want to point fingers at another person (or race) and fail to realize that the government and huge corporations are the ones who are responsible for the problems they face. Immigrants, both documented and undocumented, have struggled to assimilate in the U.S. and have made numerous achievements that too often go unrecognized.

According to Dowell Myers and John Pitkin’s (2012) report, assimilation benchmarks – Citizenship, Home ownership, English language proficiency, Job status, Better Income – have been reached by numerous immigrants. Myers and Pitkin reported that “the longer immigrants are here, the more they assimilate, resulting in even greater levels of achievement for their children and sowing the seeds of progress for generations to come” (2010). Second and third generation immigrants often achieve the dreams of their immigrant parents in becoming successful members of society. To have personally achieved three of the five benchmarks, I realize my process of assimilation is still an on-going one. Assimilation is not immediate and it is unfair to judge and criticize immigrants without giving them a chance to attempt assimilation. Ignorance is a damaging curse to the progress of immigrant assimilation and must be tackled.

 

Reference

Myers, Dowell and John Pitkin. 2012. “Assimilation Today”. Center for American Progress, September 1.Retrieved May 5, 2012 (www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/09/immigration_assimilation.html)

 

2012 and 1070

Posted on by

“Imagine coming across a flower—the most precious, beautiful flower you have ever seen…You discover this flower, and you really want to have it, to own it as yours. But just as you lean over to pick it up, someone else suddenly swoops by and snatches it from your grasp.”

This parable, delivered by a high school student before a crowd of activists at this year’s May Day rally in Poughkeepsie, NY, was intended to convey a distinct form of oppression. According to the speaker, this oppression occurs when “something is available to you and is within your sight, but you’re prevented from ever achieving or attaining it.”

At the setting of the speech—a rally celebrating the spirit behind the collective struggle of workers and immigrants for dignified working conditions and basic human rights—the student’s words resonated with the crowd because they spoke to many of their problems. For the other students who were in attendance, many felt overwhelmed by the burden of debt from college loans, which can bury their career dreams. The workers who showed up to the rally expressed frustration with the state of the economy and healthcare costs, both of which continue to threaten the welfare of ordinary Americans. The most prominent voices at the rally, though, emerged from those in support of immigrants’ rights.

Various placards at the May Day rally

For many of them, oppression is when a hard-working student is denied access to higher education, or denied access to federal and state financial aid for college, by virtue of having unwittingly entered the country undocumented at a young age. Oppression can be when they are stopped and asked for their papers because of the color of their skin. Oppression is “the criminalization of the American Dream,” a student told me.

The plight of today’s immigrant population in America is quickly being recognized as one of the most important, and most pressing, civil rights issues of our time. From the 1990s to the early 2000s, immigration—specifically from Mexico and other Latin American countries—spiked to record levels, and studies have determined that a majority of those arriving during this period have found success and have integrated into the American mainstream. A 2010 paper published by the Center for American Progress found that the share of foreign-born men earning median incomes has nearly doubled since 1990, from 35 percent to 66 percent in 2008. During that same time immigrants have bought homes at increasing rates, from 9.3 percent to 58 percent.

Despite these promising gains, the immigrant community finds itself in a position of great peril today. Recent legislative developments in states like Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina have rendered it nigh-impossible to live as an undocumented immigrant, and have even led to the diaspora of immigrants with legal status, in those states. The laws that passed are littered with pernicious measures that make it a crime to work in the state without authorization, while empowering the police to stop and detain any person suspected of being in the country illegally, without regard for warrants.

Of these bills, the one that has garnered the most amount of attention is Arizona’s SB 1070. It was passed in 2010 and set off a cascade of reactionary fear-mongering across the other southern states, and today it finds itself challenged by President Obama’s Justice Department before the Supreme Court. The President has repeatedly criticized SB 1070 for the potential of racial profiling, arguing that no one “should be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.” Yet, the Supreme Court has evaded any arguments pertaining to the discriminatory nature of the law, preferring to assess the constitutional allocation of state and federal power.

Students and Workers march for justice

At the May Day rally, people whom I asked about the court’s hearings were disappointed that this aspect of the law was being brushed aside. “It’s the institutionalization of state-supported racism,” one person told me, “you cannot judge the law without acknowledging this.” Another expressed resentment towards the bill’s “attrition through enforcement” mechanism, which reasons that in order to reduce the undocumented population, the government must create egregious living conditions for those immigrants so that living in the United States becomes undesirable. “It’s contrary to everything I’ve known about this country; it’s impulsive and irrational,” the student said.

These arguments, of course, fall on deaf ears in the Supreme Court, but for those attending the rally, these words formed a chorus of pride and passion. Hundreds of miles away from the court’s steps in Washington, D.C., the people who gathered to celebrate May Day in Poughkeepsie remained adamant about improving their future and eliminating oppression. No matter each individual’s reason for showing up to the march, the group in attendance was unified in chant: El pueblo vive, la lucha sigue. “The people live, the struggle continues.”