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

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.

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

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)

When discussing the deportation and detention of undocumented immigrants, the conversation rarely includes the impact that the actions of the U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have on the children of undocumented parents.   From the immediate emotional trauma of being separated from one or both parents, to the physical trauma of leaving their homes, children of undocumented parents suffer to an alarming extent.  The ICE tactic of removal is usually a forceful and violent one in which parents are dragged off in one direction while children are hauled off in another. Goodbyes are rarely afforded to detainees and immediate removal does not allow for time to secure the welfare of the children. If no relative is able to advocate for the children, the ICE’s course of action is to place the children in the care of Child Protective Services until the state can decide their fate. As legal U.S. citizens, these children are entitled to remain in the country without their parents and are placed in the foster care program. In 2011, the Applied Research Center, which publishes the Color Lines website, reported that “at least 5,100 children whose parents are detained or deported are currently in foster care around the United States” (Wessler 2011). The foster care program aims to place these children with available foster families, without regard for linguistic and cultural similarities. Children are forced to grow up in different environments from their own, without knowledge of their culture or ancestry. Siblings are sometimes separated and placed in different homes, creating a second level of separation. The emotional turmoil that these events have on children often go unmentioned as these children are shuffled around in the foster care system.

Parents in detention centers, or those who have been deported, are disconnected from the real world and have no access to their children, family, lawyers or child welfare caseworkers. The immediate detention of undocumented parents severs all forms of communication, which usually lasts for months and sometimes years. The Applied Research Center reported that “ 85 percent of detainees lack legal representation and can be held for months, sometimes years, in squalid conditions” (Wessler 2011). Lacking the means to defend their parental rights over their children only adds to the frustration already felt in detention centers.  The ICE does not aid in providing legal services for detainees, often resulting in many parents missing court dates and foregoing the opportunity to plead their case. Without the parents’ presence at court hearings, the judge, lawyers and caseworkers decide the faith of the children without any contribution from the parents.  “Ultimately, child welfare departments and juvenile courts too often move to terminate the parental rights of deportees and put children up for adoption, rather than attempt to unify the family as they would in other circumstances” (Wessler 2011). The U.S. legal system advocates for children to remain in the U.S. in foster care rather than being deported with their parents because of the parents’ inability to provide for the children after being deported. Once deportation has occurred, reunification seems impossible and very few are able to reconnect shortly after. The emotional and physical welfare of the children of undocumented parents should be taken into consideration and changes to the ICE’s procedures changed to address their needs.

References

Rabin, Nina. 2011. “Disappearing Parents: A Report on Immigration Enforcement and the Child  Welfare System.” The University of Arizona. Retrieved May 5, 2012. (http://www.law.arizona.edu/depts/bacon_program/disappearing_parents_report.cfm)

Wessler, Seth Freed. 2011. “Thousand of Kids Lost From Parents in U.S. Deportation System.” Color Lines, November 2. Retrieved May 5, 2012 (http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/11/thousands_of_kids_lost_in_foster_homes_after_parents_deportation.html).

A number of metrics are employed by sociologists to gauge the level of assimilation immigrants have achieved in their adoptive country. Some combination of education, income, language preference, and national/ethnic self-identification is generally accepted as an appropriate measure. Geographic dispersal, or the rate at which immigrants venture outside of their ethnic circles into the country-at-large, is also revealing. A group’s settlement patterns can be a sign of integration among the broader American populace. Indeed, diasporas reflect ethnic groups’ reduced reliance on compatriots for survival and their increased comfort among people of different backgrounds – two excellent barometers of assimilation. Presently, the current wave of immigrants from Latin America is displaying a surprising willingness to explore different regions of the country.

Like previous generations of immigrants, Latinos initially concentrated near their points of entry (e.g. the U.S.-Mexico border, New York City, Southern Florida). However, they are beginning to constitute a noticeable presence in interior regions as well. Indeed, while 65% of first and 61% second generation immigrants continue to reside in the West or Northeast, only 36% of the third generation call these areas home, which constitutes a remarkable drop off (Jensen 2001: 25 – 28). This affirms the theory that prolonged exposure to a nation’s customs correlates with geographic dispersal. The South (and, in particular, the Southeast) has become a popular destination for immigrants. According to the most recent Census data, North Carolina’s Latino population more than doubled (111%) over the course of the last decade and, if no Latinos had relocated to Louisiana during that same period, the state of Louisiana would have earned the rare distinction of having actually shed population. In Georgia, the non-Latino population grew 14% between 2000 and 2010, while the number of those identifying as “Hispanic or Latino” jumped an incredible 96%. Their presence surely contributed to the state’s addition of a new congressional district this year. Despite the region’s reputation as unwelcoming of foreigners (Alabama and Georgia recently passed a pair of anti-immigrant laws that are as scornful as they are draconian), Latinos continue to flock to the South. Although a handful of states still represent a disproportionate amount of the Latino population, within thirty or forty years of arriving in force, Hispanic immigrants are already colonizing regions that much older ethnic groups have failed to penetrate.

Ignoring state-by-state analysis for a moment, Latino’s local settlement patterns also display increased dispersion over time. Regardless of the era or ethnic group, cities have always been important destinations for immigrants. Population centers provide greater access to jobs and support, contain preexisting immigrant networks, and are often more affordable. It is understandable, then, that 94% of the nation’s newest arrivals, foreign-born citizens, reside there. Mirroring dispersion rates at the statewide level, far fewer of their descendents live in cities. While 75% of the third generation still live in cities, they are far more likely than their parents or grandparents to reside in a greater metro area rather than a city center (Jensen 2001: 28 – 29). While the difference in terms of miles may be modest, city centers and outer cities are often worlds apart socioeconomically and culturally. Whether it be at the macro or micro level, Latinos are displaying an astounding proclivity toward geographic dispersion. This movement of people represents a hallmark in their assimilation: the so-called borderland evaporates as Latinos begin to feel at home even when ethnic allies do not surround them.

Work Cited

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, “The 2010 United States Census.” Retrieved 5/5/12.               (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/).

Jensen, Leif. 2001. “The Demographic Diversity of Immigrants and Their Children.” Pp. 21 – 56 in Ethnicities edited by Rubén Rumbaut and Alejandro Portes. New York City: Russell Sage Foundation.

Immigrants are often portrayed as free loaders who exploit and overuse American health services. Although immigrants are net contributors to the U.S. economy, the misconception remains that they are a burden to native-born taxpayers. However, a report by the University of California and the Mexican government found that recent immigrants from Mexico are half as likely to use emergency rooms as native-born whites and Mexican Americans (2005). Also, when controlled for minority groups, Latino immigrants accounted for $962 in per capita health care expenditures in 1998, compared to $1,870 for native-born Latinos. Black immigrants averaged $1,030 in health care expenditures, compared to $2,524 for native-born blacks (Mohanty et al. 2005). As many politicians call for the securing of our borders and the elimination of “magnets” for undocumented migrants, a 1996 study concludes, “there is no reputable evidence that prospective immigrants are drawn to the U.S. because of its public assistance programs” (International Migration Policy Program 1996:3).

Poverty, jobs that fail to offer health insurance, immigration status, and federal and state policies that limit access to publically funded insurance all reduce health insurance coverage rates for immigrants. On average, immigrants received about $1,139 in health care, compared with $2,546 for native-born residents. Although immigrants comprised 10 percent of the U.S. population in 1998, they accounted for only 8 percent of U.S. health care costs (Mohanty et al. 2005). A significant proportion of immigrants work in low-paying jobs with small firms that do not offer health insurance. Ultimately, these immigrants do not receive quality health care and lack timely preventive services. These delays result in some immigrants attaining medical care only when they become very ill. Additionally, legislative initiatives such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) eliminated equal access to public benefits for all legal permanent residents. The PRWORA prevented states from using federal funds to provide Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) coverage for most legal immigrants who have resided in the United States for less than 5 years (International Migration Policy Program 1996). By not allowing all legal permanent residents the same public benefits, the government is directly compromising the health of immigrants until they have resided in the America for 5 years or attain health insurance through employment.

Even among immigrants who meet the qualification for publicly funded health insurance, fear and confusion often create barriers to enrollment. What could be reflections of a harmful immigration process or general distrust of the American government could cause concern about becoming a “public charge,” which would make them ineligible for U.S. citizenship and could result in deportation (Berk and Schur 2001).

Interestingly, despite the legislative and social issues complicating immigrant health care, male and female immigrants had, respectively, 3.4 and 2.5 years longer life expectancy than the US-born (Singh and Miller 2004). There are many possible reasons for this statistic. First, people immigrating may be healthier than those who remain in their countries of origin, for the process is generally difficult. This form of immigrant selectivity could skew the general health of their countries of origin, but underscores the point that America is not a welfare magnet. Also, it is possible that immigrants possess more favorable health habits, such as lower rates of smoke, drinking, and better diet. Regardless of the reasons, it is crucial to realize immigrants use less public assistance than native-born citizens, but may very well be suffering at the hands of harsh legislation and lack of health insurance.

Works Cited

Berk, Marc L. and Claudia L. Schur.2001. “The Effect of Fear on Access to Care Among

Undocumented Latino Immigrants.” Journal of Immigrant Health 3(3):151-6.

International Migration Policy Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International

Peace & the Urban Institute. 1996. “Immigrants and Welfare,” Research     Perspectives on Migration 1(1):1-15

Mohanty, Sarita A., Steffie Woolhandler, David U. Himmelstein, Susmita Pati, Olveen

Carrasquillo and David H. Bor. 2005. “Health Care Expenditures of Immigrants     in the United States: A Nationally Representative Analysis.” American Journal of   Public Health 95(8):1431-1438.

Singh, Gopal K. and Barry A. Miller. 2004. “Health Life Expectancy, and Mortality Patterns Among Immigrant Populations in the United States.” Canadian Journal of Public Health 95(3):14-21

University of California, Los Angeles Center for Health Policy Research and the National Population Council of the Government of Mexico. 2005. Mexico-United States Migration: Health Issues.

Over the past few years, Arizona has implemented harsh anti-immigration laws, such as Senate Bill 1070 and House Bill 2281. The SB 1070 law, signed on April 2010 by governor Jan Brewer, would essentially legalize racial profiling since it would allow authorities to stop and detain an individual they believe is undocumented. Arizona’s ban on ethnic studies, which was implemented by John Huppenthal, the superintendent of public instruction in 2011, is officially known as HB 2281. This state law prohibits public and charter schools from incorporating Mexican or Chicano studies into curriculums. In doing so schools must remove books that convey Mexican solidarity and ‘bashing’ of the United States. Law makers are specially targeting classes and courses they believe cultivates an anti-American attitude, fosters unity among ethnic groups which could potentially lead them to advocate for the overthrow of the United States government; in short, “HB 2281 bans schools from teaching classes that are designed for students of a particular ethnic group, promote resentment or advocate ethnic solidarity over treating pupils as individuals. The bill also bans classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government” (Santa Cruz 2010).

Though policy makers are only viewing Mexican ethnic studies as potentially harmful to the United States, in reality the program has proven to help Latino students stay in school. Dropout rates among Latinos are incredibly high, but statistics have shown that Chicano based curriculums in Arizona have dramatically decreased drop-out rates among this group; “Tucson’s ethnic studies program, created in 1998 and initially called ‘Mexican American/Raza Studies,’ has been effective in reducing dropout rates among Latino students, as well as discipline problems, poor attendance and failure rates, teachers said” (Martinez 2011). In Tucson, “about 3% of the district’s 55,000 students are enrolled in such classes;” the number of students in these classes is so few, there does not seem to be much of a threat. Yet policy makers are placing their efforts in banning these programs that so few students actually are part of. Though law makers might argue that ethnic studies are detrimental to America, high-drop out rates are more harmful to the future generations.

Similar anti-immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama, which target Latino immigrants are shown to negatively impact children of immigrants; policies are targeting their parents placement in the United States and now they are targeting these children’s education; “U.S. immigration policy has become more restrictive and punitive as government policies have expanded intervention at the federal and local levels. These changes have both contributed to a hostile anti-immigrant climate, and have placed undocumented immigrant children in an even more precarious economic situation” (Androff 2011: 80). In short, anti-immigration laws have only create a hostile environments for immigrants who clearly have made the United States their home. The law is now being proposed to be extended to public states colleges. Some state officials who supported the ban have admitted to have never entered a classroom with a Mexican studies curriculum, but they based their decisions on banning Mexican studies because “they simply didn’t like the idea of teachers telling students the apparently subversive facts that nonwhite people have at times suffered at the hands of white people, or that people of every color have at times acted with color-conscious solidarity” (Liu 2012). This brings into question, why and how are these policy makers basing their decisions on anti-immigrants laws?

Androff, David K. et al. (2011). “U.S. Immigration Policy and Immigrant Children’s   Wellbeing: The Impact of Policy Shifts.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-2-2012/tucson-s-mexican-american-studies-ban

Informed by xenophobia, in 2010 Arizona’s governor Jan Brewer signed into law a ban on ethnic studies in school districts. But this ban on ethnic studies is not on all ethnic studies, it is interesting and telling to note that the ban only encompasses Mexican studies. Some of the reasons policy makers gave for the ban of Mexican studies was that it promoted anti-American sentiments. Yet under this logic, African-American studies, Native-Americans studies and all the other studies which are under the umbrella of ‘ethnic’ studies would potentially foster the same anti-American sentiments. Yet none of these other ethnic studies were banned. The ban on Mexican ethnic studies in the Tucson district reflects the anti-Latino immigrant stance of Americans society.

I am a child of Latino immigrants and only until I got to college did I have chance to read about my Latino culture and history. Additionally, only until I came to college was I able to read articles and books written by Latino scholars. This was completely empowering to me and for the first time in my school career I saw people like myself in scholarly work. This gave me a chance to imagine the possibility that I too, could become one of these Latino scholars. In schools, euro-centric mentalities are fostered by emphasizing an importance on dominant-white history or history which only views events through the perspective of the colonizers. The banning of ethnic studies in Arizona is completely detrimental to students of Mexican decent. The ban itself can potentially continue to generate and create anti-American sentiments that I have experienced are commonly held among young Latinos. Banning Mexican ethnic studies sends the message that Latinos do not have a history worth learning. Moreover, in my experience going to high school with a majority of Latino population, students cannot connect with the books they are required to read. It was only until we read a book with a Latino protagonist, did my peers actually become engaged and read a book. It is easy for students to stop caring and trying when they are unable to connect with the material. When we have no Latino role models who have gone on to higher education, it becomes difficult to believe that we ourselves can go on to higher education. Banning ethnic studies is only further marginalizing a group of students who are overrepresented in prisons and underrepresented in higher education.

Yet I come back to this point, why only target Mexican studies? African-American and Native-American studies are no different that Mexican studies. All these ethnic studies have a different take on history that does not comply with the dominant white history. This ban on Mexican studies in a border state is directly tied to the xenophobia which is currently present towards Latino immigrants. The number of people coming from Latino American boomed in the last couple of decades. This boom created fear that they were taking over the United States and culture. This ban, along with SB 1070, which would allow officials to stop people they believe are without documents, is not surprising with the current political and economic climate in the United States. In times of trouble, a scapegoat is necessary. With the economy taking a turn for the worse, Latino immigrants have been blamed for taking away jobs, increasing drug related crimes and overall being a burden to the economy. Targeting the education of Latino youth is just another way of sending the message that we have to assimilate into American culture. Full incorporation seems to be what is required of immigrants. Learning about ones culture is empowering and gives agency, but by banning ethnic studies Latino youth are in schools which pressure them to remove any marker of ethnic and cultural difference.