Given a long and ongoing history of racism, characterized by the enslavement, repression, and exploitation of black bodies, what prompts the world’s Black communities to join the American public as immigrants?

Source: Kent 2007, Figure 1

Because of the color of their skin and shared ethnic roots, international Black peoples may not be unaffected by the racial caste system which U.S. native-born blacks have endured since this country’s founding. Despite this, about eight percent of the U.S. foreign-born population is comprised of Black immigrants (Faris 2012). These immigrants were even responsible for at least one-fifth of US-born black population growth between 2001 and 2006! The foreign-born Black population has been on the rise since the latter half of the 20^th century, proceeding from a 150 year period of sparse immigration (Kent 2007:3,4). As America – the ‘Nation of Immigrants’ – approaches an increasingly cosmopolitan population, how will the future of race relations and international diplomacy shape the trajectories of our Black immigrant communities?

A clarification of terms: Who, what, and where is Black?

‘Black’ is used loosely in this discussion so as to represent both the racial and ethnic categories which Black individuals embody. When populations are referred to as Black in an ethnic context, it is to say that they have common ancestry and cultural elements rooted in African diasporic communities. These are the cultural groups which originated on continental Africa and were dispersed throughout the Americas and the Caribbean during the Atlantic slave trade. Black ethnic communities will differ from one another; there is no single culture that represents the Black ethnicity. In a racial context, Black will be discussed as the American classification of individuals who might have a common skin-tone, ethnic background, or social/cultural affiliations often associated with those who might be called ‘African American,’ or those with longer US-born lineage dating back to American slavery. Diamond Sharp, editorial fellow at The Root, sheds light on the Black racial/ethnic distinction,

“I think what’s at the heart of much of the discord is that, because of racism in the United States, “black” people get lumped together. Our respective histories and cultures are not recognized or valued. We may all share a skin tone, but our cultures are not the same. People have the right and the need to identify themselves with their respective cultures.” (2014)

In respect of the multitude of cultural realities that blackness encompasses, it may be useful to read into the context in which a community is labeled or self-identified as Black throughout this article.

Black Immigration: Demographics and Origins

About two thirds of America’s 2.8 million foreign-born Black population in 2005 came from the Caribbean and Latin American countries while one third were born in Africa. Black foreign-born Caribbean immigrants are largely from Jamaica, Haiti, Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago. From Spanish-speaking countries, most Black immigrants are from the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Panama, and Cuba. The majority of black African immigrants are from ten countries: Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ghana, Liberia, Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Eritrea, and Guinea. Together, these ten countries account for 70 percent of black immigrants of African origin (Kent 2007:4-7). Black immigrants, like many others, settle throughout America’s metropolitan cities, as seen in the figure below:

Source: Kent 2007, Figure 4

While all Black immigrants tend to settle in America’s metropolitan centers, Black African immigrants are more largely dispersed throughout the country. A look at the contexts of Black African and Caribbean/Latin American immigrants sheds light on the factors that lead these groups to the US.

Source: Kent 2007, Figure 3

Black Caribbeans and Latin Americans

Observable by their high numbers, Caribbean/Latin American immigration is facilitated by their close proximity to the US. Over 80 percent of recent immigrants form these regions gained entry to the country through family members who already lived in the US. As seen above, a large majority of these families were already situated in metropolitan areas (Kent 2007:5). These immigrants were largely driven from their home countries due to a lack of economic opportunity. Thus, facilitated by their strong English skills, many Caribbean immigrants will enter the country as business travelers, or will join a temporary work or study program (5, 11).

Source: Kent 2007, Figure 2

Black Africans

With the African continent more distant and  voluntary migration being minimal after the slave trade, most of the growth in the black African population has occurred within the last two decades. In fact, Black Africans are now some of the fastest growing immigrant populations in the US.(Capps 2012:2).  The 1980’s is (crudely) considered by many to be Africa’s “lost decade,” when many African countries experienced political instability, economic deterioration, and extreme poverty. At the same time, America was becoming a hub for international study with the introduction of diversity visas, which sought to increase the influx immigrants from underrepresented countries (Kent 2007:4,5). The factors drove most recent Black Africans to enter the country as refugees or through diversity visas (See Kent 2007, Figure 3 above).

The Bigger Picture of Black Immigration

Education

The Center for American Progress states that Black immigrants are among the most educated immigrant populations in the US! This might reflect the fact highly educated Black Africans and Caribbeans are selected for immigration. Grace Kao in Education and Immigration states that immigrant populations may differ from the general population of their home countries because certain individual characteristics provide better opportunity for entry to the US (2013:76,77). The most educated and highly skilled African and  Caribbean immigrants will be more likely to receive diversity visas, or be able to afford the cost of travel to the United States. In fact, recipients of diversity visas require at least a high school degree or two years of employment or training (Capps 2012:12).

Transnational Identities

Black immigrants often retain strong cultural ties to their home countries. Black Caribbean immigrants speak more English at home than African immigrants, but they are likely to speak an English dialect such as Jamaican or French Creole. Black Africans are more likely to speak an African language in the home (Kent 2007:11). Some Black immigrants may live together in ethnic enclaves. These are communities of people with common ethnic roots, where individuals can retain their cultural values and network with one another through businesses and other institutions (Rumbaut and Portes 2001:loc.1414). Some of the economic success that Caribbean immigrants are often associated with reflects the mobility that Caribbean enclaves have enabled. Caribbean immigrants, being so close to the US, maintain strong connections to family and friends abroad. African immigrants are likely to continue to engage in their home country’s politics. Both groups may send money home to their families (Kent 2007:15). These connections help Black immigrants craft their dual identity as Americans and peoples of the international Black community.

Facing Discrimination

Persisting racial inequality in the United States leads some to postulate that Black immigrants may come to join the American underclass with  US-born African Americans. The underclass is seen as class of peoples whose socioeconomic or racial background leads them to downward socioeconomic mobility, which their potential for growth capped by structural inequality (Alba and Nee 2003:loc.3562). While the validity of an American “underclass” is debatable, the concept reminds us that racial perceptions can severely limit opportunity for non-whites in the US.

The Center for American Progress claims that despite the Black Africans’ high educational attainment, they earn lower wages than immigrants with similar credentials. While Black Caribbean immigrants are valued for their strong English fluency, African immigrants often are devalued for their poor English capabilities and strong accents (Faris 2012). Both negative perceptions of Africans and American blackness can contribute to the psychological and socioeconomic strife that Black immigrants will face as they navigate American society.

The Future of Black immigration

How will current events shape the future of Black immigration?

Following the recent American acquisition of Ebola, there has been a surge of anti-African xenophobia in the media. There are reports of African students being bullied barred from attending classes stemming from these fears. Simultaneously, there is an increasing stigma concerning travel to and from Africa, especially in areas with current Ebola victims. How will anti-African xenophobia shape US-African relation outside and within borders?

The rising Black Lives Matter movement, following the shooting of unarmed black teen Michael Brown by white officer Darren Wilson, is creating ripples of dialogue about race relations in America. Black Americans, both US and foreign-born, are joining the masses of individuals who are working to resist structural racism and reaffirm blackness in this country. Will the discourse of Black Lives Matter extend beyond American borders and mobilize Black communities across the globe? How will this discourse shape future tras-national/pan-African identities?

These are some of the questions that we, as Americans, will have to ask ourselves as Black immigration and blackness continue to enter the public eye and the public psyche.

References

Alba, Richard and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Capps, Randy. 2012. Diverse Streams: African Migration to the United States. Migration Policy Institute (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/CBI-african-migration-united-states).

Faris, Helina. Center for American Progress. 2012. “5 Fast Facts About Black Immigrants in the United States.” Retrieved November 10, 2014 (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/12/20/48571/5-fast-facts-about-black-immigrants-in-the-united-states/).

Kao, Melissa. 2013. Education and Immigration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kent, Mary Mederios. 2002. Immigration and America’s Black Population. Population Reference Bureau. Vol. 62, No.4. Washington, DC. Retrieved November 10, 2014 (http://www.prb.org/pdf07/62.4immigration.pdf).

Rumbaut, Ruben and Alejandro Portes. 2001. Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in America. New York: University of California Press.

Despite being one of the most important socialization institutions for youth in America, schools seem to fail at fostering appreciation and acceptance of differences present in students. Within the last decade, minority groups have surpassed the American mainstream, which has classically been considered to be American-born, White middle class, in the K-12 age bracket of the population. Currently, minority students make up more than half of the school-aged population (Calderón, Slavin and Sánchez 2011) and approximately twenty percent of that youth population is immigrants or children of immigrants (Pumariega and Rothe 2010.) Out of the immigrant and children of immigrant, a majority of these students are Hispanic, specifically of Mexican decent, and of Asian decent (Peguero 2009).

Generational Differences in ethnicity proportions in United States (Keene and Handrich 2012)

With this influx of diversity in schools, institutional change has been slow to provide the appropriate care and support for these students to feel safe as they learn and socialize, which manifests itself in the typically lower performance of immigrant youth (Crosnoe and López 2011.) As a result, peer-peer bullying in schools persists as a major problem for immigrant and children of immigrant youth. Bullying that occurs to this particular group students differs from other types of bullying as these students are targeted based on their perceived ethnicity and their lack of power in comparison to their peers caused by differing appearances, language and cultural norms in compared to what is considered the American mainstream (Scherr and Larson 2010.) It is important to keep in mind, however, that ethnicity and race are two separate factors that could cause bullying of students. Ethnicity tends to be “chosen or assigned,” while race is defined as the categories created by the “racial categories or hierarchies [that are] reinforced through micro-level interactions” (Kao, Vaquera and Goyette 2013: 108).

Diversity breakdown of American Schools (National Center for Educational Statistics 2014).

Though bullying does not seem to connect to school in an academic sense, bullying in schools causes a host of negative physiological effects that alter how a student will perform in school and the opinions they will form about schools and other American institutions. Many existing school policies, like the structure of English Language Learning (ELL) classes as being subtractive in regards to viewing foreign languages as a hindrance for immigrant students (Calderón, Slavin and Sánchez 2011), and societal norms and stereotypes make schools unsafe for immigrant and children of immigrant youth. This problem is rooted in general society, as opposed to being a direct result of schooling, which makes finding appropriate ways to reduce bullying in schools or handling an immigrant or child of immigrant bullying situation complex.

In order to better understand the bullying of immigrant youth, it is important to ask the following questions to grasp a more complete understanding of the problem.

• Who is being victimized?
• Who are executing these acts?
• What acts are being committed toward immigrant and children of immigrant students?
• Why are these victims being bullied?
• What can be done to help alleviate this problem?

Who is being victimized?

The students that are targeted for this type of bullying differ from the American mainstream in cultural practices, ethnicity and occasionally, race (Scherr and Larson 2010:225). Many times, these characteristics are perceived by the perpetrators based on factors like spoken language or English-speaking abilities and race, which make it difficult to clearly define the precise group that is being bullied. In order to account for this, we will focus on the bullying of students who themselves are immigrants and students who are children of immigrants. These students are most likely to have perceivable differences from the American mainstream that their peers can pick up and ostracize them for.

Who are executing these acts?

White students, minority students and fellow immigrant students themselves perpetrate bullying of immigrant students (Scherr and Larson 2010: 227). These acts of bullying usually appear in the form of micro-aggressions and preference for their own ethnic or racial group in elementary school and progress into more outwardly pointed types of teasing and occasionally, violence (Scherr and Larson 2010: 231).

What acts are being committed toward immigrant and children of immigrant students?

            Bullying takes shape in classrooms in the form of micro-aggressions or physically violent acts that solidify racial and ethnic hierarchical structure and the racial and ethnic stereotypes. Friend choice, the formations of friend groups or cliques and their physical locations within schools and taunting are common forms that micro-aggressions that students use to point out differences in students and their or their family’s immigrant status. Blunter forms of bullying include causing physical harm towards someone through hitting, kicking, fighting or other actions target at the student’s body (Peguero 2009). These incidents can many times be classified as bias incidents as they attack a student for their backgrounds, which are not variable to change, but are not treated as such by school administration (Bridging Refugee Youth& Children’s Services 2014).

Why are these victims being bullied?

            As previously mentioned, immigrant and children of immigrant students that are being bullied are targeted because of their ethnic and racial differences in comparison to the mainstream. These ideals, however, stem from society itself and how schools choose to perpetuate these ideals to their staff and students. Two major classes of immigrant populations in schools currently are Hispanic youth and students of Asian descent. These two groups are treated very differently, however, due to the prevalent stereotypes that exist about them in society.

Despite the fact that students who are within the first generation, meaning they were born in their home country and moved to America, are high achieving no matter the country of origin, students of Hispanic origin are perceived as being less capable and intelligent than their peers (Kao, Grace and Goyette 2013). This stereotype is perpetuated through the school structure via teacher opinions and expectations of students and the negative association students and teachers have with students who must participate in ELL programs. These programs tend to physically isolate students from their peers as well as instill the idea that knowing a language other than English is not an asset, despite the fact that foreign languages are usually a requirement to attend college (Calderón, Slavin and Sánchez 2011.) This also occurs to immigrant students who fall into an existing group in America that is mistreated and stereotyped, like Black students. When Black immigrants come to the United States, they grouped together with native-born Black Americans and are attributed as being lower achieving and classroom instigators, as that is the common narrative perpetuated in society (Kao, Grace and Goyette 2013).

Contrary to the stock stories about Hispanic immigrant students, students of Asian descent are stereotyped to be high achieving. This creates a perceived competition between these immigrant students and others and a higher pressure to for students of Asian decent to either fulfill stereotypes or actively disassociate with them (Kao, Grace and Goyette 2013). ). The added stress for both of these ethnic groups to fit in with their peers in order to feel safe and respected at school in addition to trying to break out of the stereotypes put on an exorbitant amount of stress of immigrant and children of immigrant students before even being bullied. The act of bullying students employs the multiple risk model, where many negative factors compact and create a larger, detrimental effect on these students. Outcomes of these types of bullying can be lower school performance, mental health issues and additionally bullying or aggression (Yu et al 2003).

What can be done about to help alleviate this problem?

The bullying of immigrant and children of immigrant children in schools is generated by a lack of understanding and acceptance for differences and can be combated in multiple ways. On a societal level, the removal these harmful stigmas and stereotypes will alleviate some of the pressure felt by immigrant students to fit into a particular mold. Within schools, however, strong relationships teacher or other staff members and immigrant students has been shown to have positive effects on breaking these stereotypes of students held by teachers and other students as more individualized understanding of the students needs and strengths are uncovered (Peguero and Bondy 2011).

Treating these bullying incidents as bias incidents is another way in which schools can work to decrease bullying. This puts more importance and stress on the reasoning behind the bullying by recognizing that the student is being attacked for their ethnicity and race- something they cannot change about themselves. Restorative justice approaches to dealing with bullying are frequently successful. This method stresses that an understanding of why the act was harmful and holding the perpetrator accountable for their actions. (BRYCS 2014).

Restorative justice model (Wachtel and McCold 2003)

Engaging students in more culturally diverse lessons will also help broaden the opinions of students and help them understand their peers (Warikoo and Carter 2009). Along the lines of looking at these students for their individual assets specific to their cultures and backgrounds, counseling and advice given to these students should promote these characteristics, like utilizing strong family connections, bilingualism and code switching abilities when helping students adjust in schools. By promoting these different cultural assets, bullied students feel increased levels of confidence and their peers are able to see that these characteristics, while they are different, are positive (Villalba 2007).

References Cited

Bridging Refugee Youth & Children’s Services. 2014. Refugee Children in U.S. Schools: A Toolkit for Teachers and School Personnel (Grant No. 90 RB 0022). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health Services.

Calderón, Margarita, Robert Slavin, and Marta Sánchez. 2011. “Effective Instruction for English Learners.” The Future of Children 21(1): 103-127.

Crosnoe, Robert and Ruth N. López Turley. 2011. “K-12 Educational Outcomes of Immigrant Youth.” The Future of Children 21(1):129-152.

Kao, Grace, Elizabeth Vaquera and Kimberly Goyette. 2013. Education and Immigration. Malden, MA: Policy Press.

Keene, Douglas L. and Rita R. Handrich. 2012. “Talkin’ ‘bout our Generation: Are We Who We Wanted to Be?” The Jury Expert. 24(1): 1-18.

National Center for Education Statistics 2014. Racial/Ethnic Enrollment in Public Schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Peguero, Anthony A. and Jennifer M. Bondy. 2011. “Immigration and Students’ Relationship with Teachers.” Education and Urban Society 43(2): 165-183.

Peguero, Anthony A. 2009. “Victimizing the Children of Immigrants: Latino and Asian American Student Victimization/” Youth & Society 41(2): 186-208.

Pumariega, Andres J. and Eugenio Rothe. 2010. “Leaving No Children or Families Outside: The Challenges of Immigration.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 80(4): 505- 515.

Scherr, Tracey, G. and Jim Larson. 2010 “Bullying Dynamics Associated with Race, Ethnicity, and Immigration Status.” Pp. 223-234 in Handbook of Bullying in Schools, edited by S.R. Jimerson, S.M. Swearer and D.L. Espelage. New York: Routledge.

Wachtel, Ted and Paul McCold. 2003. “In Pursuit of Paradigm: A Theory of Restorative Justice” International Insititute for Restorative Practices. 1-3.

Warikoo, Natasha and Prudence Carter. 2009. Cultural Explanations for Racial Ethnic Stratification in Academic Achievement: A Call for a New and Improved Theory. Review of Educational Research. 79(1): 366-394.

Villalba, Jose A. Jr. 2007. “Culture-specific Assets to consider when counseling Latina/o Children and Adolescents.” Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. 35(1): 15-25.

Yu, Stella M., Zhihian J. Huang, Renee H. Schwalberg, Mary Overpeck and Michael D. Kogan. 2003. “Acculturation and the health and well-being of U.S. Immigrant Adolescents.” Journal of Adolescent Health 33(9): 479-488.

With over ten million immigrants, California has the largest population of immigrants in the U.S. according the U.S. Census Bureau. This provides the state with a large multinational culture. The culture of immigrants interacts with that of the American mainstream. Within that framework there is a unique subgroup of dual Mexican-American citizens who actually reside in Mexico and have a 35 minute commute across the border from Tijuana to the San Diego area by way of the San Ysidro Port of Entry to participate in the advantages that U.S. society offers. These people are known as transfronterizos, which means cross-border in Spanish. Transfronterizos have the unique perspective of traversing two completely different cultures almost daily. This juxtaposition of two separate cultures gives exposure to conflicting ideologies and identities, and as a result, transfronterizos build their identity on something in the middle: for them that is the border (Relano Pastor 2007).

Transfronterizos may choose to reside in Mexico because of the cheaper cost of living, or for familial purpose among other reasons.  They may regularly cross the border for health care benefits, business, school, to visit family, and to see friends. They make up a significant portion of over 50,000 cars and 25,000 pedestrians that cross the border going northbound every day. The experiences of transfronterizos are not atypical in our day and age, as more and more immigrants are choosing to live and raise their children in a more transnational lifestyle; “Once a migration is firmly established, child-rearing is a transnational process. This means that in research on the second generation, we cannot assume that adults who have immigrated and settled in the United State will have children born and reared in the United States only.” (Fouron and Glick-Schiller 2002:177). People with such a lifestyle may be known as transmigrants (Fouron and Glick-Schiller 2002). The narrative of transfronterizos, however is an extreme case of this, as they are usually citizens of both countries, by virtue of having at least one parent having citizenship in each country, and they cross international borders almost daily.

The U.S.-Mexico border cuts across part of the ocean near Tijuana and San Diego as well.

There is no accurate recent study on the number of transfronterizo students who cross from Tijuana to San Diego because many students claim to live in the U.S. with relatives in order to be eligible to attend U.S. schools. Students offer the most interesting perspective within the transfronterizo group, because they are still in the process of creating their own identity in relation to two completely different countries and cultures. They may live in Mexico, and interact with American teenage youth as they socialize and attend school, but they don’t identify wholly with American or Mexican culture.

Tranfronterizos are citizens of both the U.S. and Mexico and must form their identity with that in mind.

With many second generation Mexican-Americans it is often the case that their Spanish is not as advanced as that of Mexican natives, and they may not have a vast knowledge of their Mexican heritage. Instead, what many Mexican-Americans choose to ascribe to is something uniquely Mexican-American; “…[S]ome third-generation Mexican students are attracted to an oppositional subculture because they perceive a limited horizon of opportunity for themselves; they take on what has been described as a “Cholo” or “Chicano” identity and derogate the children from immigrant families for their diligence and ambition,” (Alba and Nee 2003:243). This is a form of contention for transfronterizos, who may share similarities with second generation Mexican-Americans, however they do not identify in similar ways; “Transfronterizos refuse to be ascribed a cholo identity because, in their opinion, cholos are born in the U.S. They are not true Mexicans.” (Relano Pastor 2007:270). Essentially, because transfronterizos live in Mexico and “cholos” don’t, they don’t identify as “cholos”.

During their time in U.S. schools, transfronterizos begin to build their identities relative to how they see themselves compared to others, as is seen in comparison with Mexican-Americans; “But as young people mature they develop multiple, overlapping, and simultaneous identities and deploy them in relation to events they experience at home, at school, at work, in the country of their birth, and in the country of their ancestry.” (Fouron and Glick-Schiller 2002:176). There are a host of experiences that are unique to transfronterizos, which provide them the background to build their view of themselves and their identity. Language is an integral part of identity formation, and this is no different for transfronterizos; “Just as language and identity are interwoven, so are culture and identity.” (Calderón, Slavin, and Sánchez 2011:111). Bilingualism and the ways in which transfronterizos speak and interact with others is an important and influential part of their experience. They may speak Spanish differently because of their time in the U.S., and as a result they are teased by Mexicans back home.  They may also feel closer to their Mexican heritage, but feel disconnected because of their time in U.S. schools. At the same time, their English may be accented, and they may feel embarrassed of this with their peers in California. This creates another disconnect with mainstream American culture, which must be difficult due to the significant amount of time they spend in the U.S.

Due to their significant time in both the U.S. and Mexico, transfronterizos must build their identity with both countries and cultures in mind.

Transfronterizos identify within a specific subgroup of Mexican and American life, and therefore do not fully identify with either, yet they have access to both cultures; “Data from the interviews suggest that transfronterizo students craft their identity across two worlds that are fluid and interchangeable due to the continuous border-crossing experiences.” (Relano Pastor 2007:274). The lives that transfronterizos in San Diego/Tijuana live serve as an important example of study; as the world becomes more connected, this may become increasingly more commonplace. “Even though some of the connections we now call transnational were present in earlier time, the ability of today’s migrants to sustain transnational connections is unprecedented.” (Kasinitz et al, :99). The example of transfronterizos, and their ability to  experience life in two different cultures serves to give insight into how today’s migrants have the ability to form their identities from transnational experiences; “We found some evidence that young people’s opinions were linked to their relationships within transnational social fields.” (Fouron and Glick-Schiller 2011:192).

The border looms in the mind of many immigrants as a reminder of the divide that exists between their native country and their current home. This barrier can be a reminder of their family left behind, and the hardships that are associated with leaving one’s own country and adjusting to life in a new country. For transfronterizos this barrier is a part of daily life. They may cross it in order to visit family, seek health care, go to school, go to work, or hang out with friends. Crossing is a way of life for them. It is part of how they identify; that is one of the things that makes them unique.

The San Ysidro Port of Entry allows crossing from US to Mexico near Tijuana.

Works Cited

Alba, Richard and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Calderón, Margarita, Robert Slavin, and Marta Sánchez. 2011. “Effective Instruction for English Learners.” The Future of Children 21(1): 103-127.

Fouron, Georges E. and Nina Glick-Schiller. 2002. “The Generation of Identity: Redefining the Second Generation within a Transnational Social Field.” Pp. 168-210 in The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation, edited by P. Levitt and M.C. Waters. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Isacson, Adam. 2013.  “A Big Shift in Migration, and the Importance of Search and Rescue”.  Washington Office on Latin America. Washington DC.  Retrieved 28 October 2014 (http://www.wola.org/commentary/a_big_shift_in_migration_and_the_importance_of_search_and_rescue)

Kasinitz, Philip, John Mollenkopf, Mary C Waters, and Merih Anih. 2002. “Transnationalism and the Children of Immigrants in Contemporary New York.” Pp. 96-122 in The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation, edited by P. Levitt and M.C. Waters. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Relano Pastor, Ana Maria. 2007. “On Border Identities: Transfronterizo Students in San Diego”. Diskurs Kindheits- und Jugendforschung 2 (3): 263-277.

From the outrage at the Sochi Olympics over Putin’s “propaganda” law to Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act, it’s clear that strong anti-LGBTQ climates exist globally. But few Americans realize how many countries still oppress gay rights: the BBC estimates there are about 77 countries that currently have anti-LGBTQ laws in place (BBC 2014).

Figure 1. Where is it illegal to be gay? Source: BBC (2014)

As a result of hostile climates in home nations, many LGBTQ adult and child immigrants seek political asylum in the United States. LGBTQ children may not just be fleeing oppressive laws, but also escaping families or communities that shun them for their sexual orientation. They are disproportionately represented among the unaccompanied minor population, making up 19% of immigrant children in foster care and 12-15% in the juvenile justice system (Gruberg and Hussey 2014:2). But flaws within the U.S. immigration system have major effects on LGBTQ child immigrants, who often fall between the cracks of immigration services and systems. The major issues they encounter include: higher levels of abuse in detention centers; increased harassment in shelters by authorities and peers; and greater problems proving eligibility for asylum.

Figure 2. The LGBT Undocumented by the Numbers. (Click for full resolution.) Source: Center for American Progress and the Williams Institute (2013)

267,000 adult LGBTQ undocumented immigrants live in United States today; that number likely skyrockets when youth are included (Gates 2013: 1). Because they were considered “sexually deviant” under older laws, openly LGBTQ immigrants were excluded from coming to the US until the 1990s, when the Immigration Act of 1990 opened the path for a larger immigrant flow to the United States.

If LGBTQ immigrants apply for political asylum as a defense against deportation, they are almost always placed into detention centers until their cases are settled. Both children and adults can be placed in detention, though children are more often placed in foster or shelter care. Detention centers have notorious history of “housing immigrant minors in disgraceful conditions without access to education, health care, legal services, or other basic necessities” (Navarro 1998: 590). Conditions for LGBTQ child immigrants are even worse, since they suffer greater verbal and sexual abuse: LGBTQ adult detainees are about fifteen times as likely to be sexually abused as heterosexual detainees (Gruberg 2013:1). Though there is little data on LGBTQ children in detention, they likely face similarly high abuse, and detained children have reported incidents of sexual assault by other detainees and guards (Navarro 1998:600). LGBTQ youth have also reported being “punished for behaviors that their heterosexual counterparts engage in without repercussion…are encouraged to “change” their sexual orientation or gender identity; and are prevented from or disciplined for expressing their gender identity” (Gruberg and Hussey 2014: 2-3). Transgender child immigrants may face authorities who ignore their gender identities and detain them with their non-identifying sex (Gruberg 2013:4).

Detention centers have also historically “restricted immigrants’ access to healthcare” (Androff et. al 2011:89). These restrictions especially affect LGBTQ child immigrants since they may have specific medical needs, foremost among them mental health care. Because they are refugees fleeing violence, many of the children suffer psychological damage such as PTSD – but still, “access to psychiatric care is a frequently cited problem at INS detention facilities” (Navarro 2011:602). LGBTQ children may also need access to medicine such as HIV/AIDS medication or hormone therapy. If basic medical needs are hard to access in detention centers, obtaining specialized medical care will be difficult.

LGBTQ unaccompanied minors who do not go to detention centers often go to shelters (80%) or foster care (11%) (Byrne and Miller 2012:15). While conditions there are less restrictive than detention, 70% of LGBTQ youth in shelters report violence against them and 100% report verbal harassment based on their sexual orientation (Gruberg and Hussey 2014: 2). Institutional policies towards LGBTQ youth are inconsistent, especially because Christian-affiliated institutions – whose agendas range from all-inclusive policies to conservative views – run just over a third of homes for unaccompanied minors (Gruberg and Hussey 2014:5). Many crimes in shelters go unreported because “undocumented immigrants are significantly less likely to report being victimized” (Androff et al. 2011:89). Additionally, shelters have no standard grievance reporting process, making it difficult for LGBTQ youth to file complaints (Gruberg and Hussey 2014:5).

Figure 3. Protections for LGBT youth in the juvenile justice system. Source: Center for American Progress (2014)

Figure 4. Protections for LGBT youth in the foster care system. Source: Center for American Progress (2014)

Figure 5. Unaccompanied minor program providers’ religious affiliations. Source: Center for American Progress (2014)

LGBTQ youth encounter more difficulties when applying for political asylum, a legal process that allows refugee immigrants to stay in the United States. Minors may also apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status if they “are found to be dependent upon a state juvenile court and…return to their home country is contrary to their best interests” (Lloyd 2005:238).

For any unaccompanied minor, the process of applying for asylum or SIJ status is difficult: immigration law falls under federal-level rule, but juvenile law falls under state-level jurisdiction, leading to friction between the federal and state courts. As a result, federal courts often have to handle children’s issues, for which they are untrained (Lloyd 2005).An initial obstacle lies in access to legal counsel: in detention centers, children have been “afforded little access to legal assistance, telephones, or other means to prepare their legal cases” (Navarro 1998:600). For example, detention authorities have limited children’s contact with lawyers, or have monitored calls (Navarro 1998:600). Immigration officers are also ill-equipped to handle children’s psychological needs, and so “many child victims of abuse and abandonment were retraumatized in immigration interviews in which untrained immigration officers asked child victims for details of their abuse and abandonment” (Lloyd 2005:246). Finally, children’s cases can bring up special difficulties. Generational issues may lead to miscommunication; children may view “fear of persecution” on a different basis than adults; they may forget specific details due to age; they may be intimidated by the court setting; or they may suffer from such trauma that they have trouble reliving their experiences in a public setting (Bhabha and Schmidt 2006:121-122). Therefore, cases become dependent on the presiding judge’s policies, and the asylum decision becomes a nearly arbitrary process because it lacks regulation.

LGBTQ youth face more challenges because to prove asylum, they must not just prove persecution, but also prove that they identify as LGBTQ. Because their identification is not marked by a physical trait as with age or race, proving non-heterosexuality becomes a messy process. Judges may be further skeptical about the ability of LGBTQ minors to identify as LGBTQ, given their age. Again, a lack of guidelines for LGBTQ youth complicates the asylum process.

Finding asylum in the United States is a trying experience for all immigrants, especially for refugees fleeing dangerous home environments. LGBTQ unaccompanied minors fall at an especially high risk for abuse and neglect but are often overlooked, which is why they need specific guidelines and services that cater to their needs. Many of the crucial changes will not occur until the US fixes some overarching problems in its immigration system: providing detention center and shelter accountability, sufficient resources for detainees, and legal guidelines on a federal and state level for child immigrants, with a clear policy establishing that “children are children first and potential immigrants second” (Lloyd 2005:261). The United States needs to follow more just and humane policies, not the broken, underequipped system it currently operates (Androff 2011:93). And until this country shows that it cares about all its immigrant populations, including LGBTQ children, it cannot call itself a nation with any justice.

References

Androff, David K, Cecilia Ayón, David Becerra, Maria Gurrola, Lorraine Salas, Judy Krysik, Karen Gerdes, and Elizabeth Segal. 2011. “U.S. Immigration Policy and Immigrant Children’s Well-being: The Impact of Policy Shifts.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 38(1): 77-98.

BBC News. 2014. “Where is it illegal to be gay?” Published February 10. Retrieved October 22, 2014. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-25927595)

Bhabha, Jacqueline and Susan Schmidt. 2006. “Seeking Asylum Alone: Unaccompanied and Separated Children and Refugee Protection in the U.S.” Cambridge, MA: University Committee on Human Rights Studies, Harvard University. Retrieved November 14, 2014. (http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Clinics/Seeking_Asylum_Alone_US_Report.pdf)

Byrne, Olga and Elise Miller. 2012. “The Flow of Unaccompanied Children Through the Immigration System: A Resource for Practitioners, Policy Makers, and Researchers.” New York: Vera Institute of Justice. Retrieved November 14, 2014 (http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/the-flow-of-unaccompanied-children-through-the-immigration-system.pdf)

Gates, Gary J. 2013. “LGBT Adult Immigrants in the United States”. The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. Retrieved October 22, 2014. (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBTImmigrants-Gates-Mar-2013.pdf)

Gruberg, Sharita. 2013.“Dignity Denied: LGBT Immigrants in U.S. Immigration Detention”. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. Retrieved October 21, 2014. (http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ImmigrationEnforcement-1.pdf)

Gruberg, Sharita and Hannah Hussey. 2014. “Fostering Safety: How the U.S. Government Can Protect LGBT Immigrant Children”. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. Retrieved October 21, 2014. (http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/GrubergLGBTUACBrief.pdf)

Lloyd, Angela. 2005. “Regulating Consent: Protecting Undocumented Immigrant Children From Their (Evil) Step-Uncle Sam, or How to Ameliorate the Impact of the 1997 Amendments to the SIJ Law”. Public Interest Law Journal. 15: 237-261.

Navarro, Lisa Rodriquez. 1998. “An Analysis of Treatment of Unaccompanied Immigrant and Refugee Children in INS Detention and other forms of Institutionalized Custody.” Chicano-Latino Law Review. 19:589-612.

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.