Search results

The purpose of this article is to critically examine two possible solutions to the lack of citizenship rights of children who lack documentation. Many industrialized countries must deal with undocumented children who have resided in the country most of their lives. In the USA, immigrants brought as children by their parents illegally are not eligible to receive financial help in most states for higher education, receive federal health care, or obtain driver's licenses. Even if they are qualified, they cannot legally work.

The article provides an in-depth analysis of the Dream Act and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The benefit of this study is to critically examine two possible solutions to the problem of undocumented children who have lived most of their lives in the USA.

The two solutions are analyzed in terms of broader conceptions of citizenship and human rights. Citizen rights are contested rights in the USA for undocumented immigrants and their children. It is found that theories of immigration and citizenship do not adequately explain the situation of undocumented childhood arrivals. After compulsory public education, undocumented students’ lives are at the mercy of state and federal administration policies. Citizenship theory is analyzed as it applies to undocumented immigrants brought as children to the USA.

This paper is limited to undocumented children in the USA.

The results point to the need for universal policies that will ensure young adults will have the critical resources and associated rights.

As Latinos become a large proportion of the US population, barriers to their continued education will impose significant economic and personal costs for individuals who have “identity without citizenship”.

This is among the first academic paper to link undocumented childhood arrivals in the USA, citizenship theory and public policy.

Coming of age in the United States as an undocumented immigrant alters traditional rites of passage such as “completing school, moving out of the parental home, establishing employment, getting married, and becoming a parent” (Gonzales, 2011, p. 604). Yet, the implementation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012 began to reconcile some aspects in the life, educational, and occupational trajectories of nearly 800,000 youths. It is in the context of moving out the parental home or relocating that this chapter explores the decisions or processes that DACA beneficiaries encounter. Considering how “illegality,” place, and family impact the individual, this chapter demonstrates how different immigration statuses, attitudes, behaviours, and structures disparately, yet unequivocally, continue to frame coming of age processes. Drawing from seven interviews with undocumented Mexican youth benefiting from DACA along the Texas–Mexico border, this chapter introduces the term mixed-status familism. Mixed-status familism provides a nuanced approach to understand the ways in which the mixed-status nature of a family, their attitudes, behaviours, structures, and the place in which they reside continue to frame newly obtained individual opportunities in general and transitions to adulthood like relocating in specific. While most literature points to the benefits that DACA has provided for individuals and a few explore how these have transferred to the family, this chapter captures how family buffers both the impact of an undocumented status and the benefits of a temporary legal protection.

Grounded in ethnic identity theory, critical race theory (CRT) and critical discourse analysis (CDA), this chapter’s objective is to demonstrate the role of news media in the (mis)construction of the identity formation of undocumented youth and the resulting implications of this (mis)construction within the field of education. This study uses mixed methods that include a CDA of Spanish and English language evening television news reports about the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2010, and qualitative analysis of interviews with undocumented youth. The implications for undocumented youth traverse from greater society and into schools, and we argue that education leaders must actively challenge and disrupt the (mis)constructions in direct and intentional ways. We provide a theoretical argument and practical steps for how education leaders can support undocumented youth in their communities.

Education is both a human right and an indispensable means of achieving other rights. Provision of education for irregular status migrant children tests the commitment of nation states to this basic right even as states curb irregular immigration. In the US, the right to go to school was guaranteed to irregular migrant children, by the case of Plyler v. Doe in 1982. This article argues that the right enshrined in that decision faces considerable risk of being eroded in the current political context. The article presents a detailed critical analysis of the rationale in the case, with a full consideration of the shaky constitutional framework on which the decision was based. It also examines the direct legal challenges to the right to education since Plyler, and the potential impact of new political and legal changes in contemporary times.

The purpose of this paper is to look specifically at the intersection between behavioral health and immigration stigma.

In April of 2017, 256 US participants answered an online solicitation on MTurk to answer questions regarding perceptions of others. Participants were randomized to one of four vignettes which had conditions representing diagnosis (drug abuse vs brain cancer) and immigration status (naturalized citizen vs undocumented immigrant).

Drug abuse was significantly disdained and blamed more than brain cancer. A main effect was also found for immigration status for disdain. Interaction between diagnosis and immigration status was significant for blame, but undocumented status increased the blame of students with brain cancer, the opposite condition the authors expected.

The study validated previously tested hypotheses, namely, people with behavioral health challenges are highly stigmatized being disdained and blamed for their conditions more than people with brain cancer. The study tested intersectionality by examining the hypothesis that undocumented immigration status worsens stigmatizing views of people with behavioral health conditions.

Federal immigration policy embodies national ideas about membership. Nevertheless, attitudes toward immigration within a nation are not invariable. Regional policies vary dramatically in their support or antagonism toward immigrants. In addition, immigration policy profoundly affects other areas of governmental authority. This chapter explores the relationship between state-level immigration policy and family reunification for Hispanic/Latino children in the United States. The quantitative analysis utilizes data from the National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL) (2008–2014) as well as data gathered from the Child Welfare Outcomes Report published by the Department of Health and Human Services. The results show that while Hispanic/Latino children are not overrepresented in the child welfare systems of the states with the most antagonistic legislation, they are returned to the custody of their parent(s) in smaller percentages compared to whites in the states with the most antagonistic bills compared with the states with the most supportive bills.

Like popularized stories amplifying the dangers associated with stranger-predator street crime, immigrant-as-criminal narratives are as widespread as they are inconsistent with the best available data. A growing body of research suggests that immigration not only does not increase crime, it may reduce it. Building on what Scheingold referred to as political criminology, our analysis suggests that the continued salience of immigrant-as-criminal narratives tells us more about politics and power, the symbolic life of the law, and the multifaceted importance of proximity to understanding debates about crime and punishment, than it tells us about how to construct more effective immigration or crime control policies.

Immigration has been a subject of intense historical and contemporary debate in US political life. Proponents of immigration cite the important contributions immigrants have made and continue to make to the USA’s national development and evolution. Advocates of more restrictive immigration policies stress concerns over the USA’s ability to support immigrant residents and whether newer immigrants threaten the US national identity and social cohesion. Proponents and opponents of current US immigration policy will use figures from the 2000 census to justify their respective arguments in upcoming debates on this subject. This article examines a variety of immigration literature resources such as scholarly books, government documents, and Websites and seeks to emphasize the subject’s complexities and contradictions along with US and transnational perspectives.

Purpose – Extant studies have shown immigration does not lead to higher crime rates, yet this fallacy persists. The aim of this chapter is to explore the relationship between crime and the presence and growth of the Latino and the foreign-born populations in Washington DC's City Council Wards.

Methodology/approach – This chapter draws on Uniform Crime Reports data and Census information to compare and contrast crimes rates, the presence and growth of the Latino and foreign-born populations, and socioeconomic indicators across Washington DC.

Findings – Violent and property crimes rates have decreased consistently since the mid-1990s despite the growth of the Latino and the foreign-born populations. While there are significant differences between crimes rates at the Council Ward level, they appear to be associated with persistent structural inequality – not the presence or growth of either group.

Research limitations – This work is largely exploratory and descriptive. Results should be interpreted with caution. Future research should employ multivariate methods to systematically identify factors that most significantly and strongly explicate crime rates within and across DC Wards.

Social implications – Preliminary findings suggest policy makers should shift attention away from scapegoating immigrants for social ills and focus on improving social and economic opportunities and the life outcomes of racialized subordinate group members throughout the United States.

Originality – Little empirical research exists focusing on the relationship between immigration and crime in the nation's capital. This is a significant gap in the literature considering the recent rapid growth of the foreign-born and Latino populations in Washington DC.

United States immigration policy is one of the most dynamic and fiercely argued public policy issues today – often including questions of how many and from where. Poor economic conditions overseas, perceptions of a relative abundance of opportunity in the United States, flight from persecution and upheaval, and revolutions in communication and transportation are often cited as the major factors explaining historic and current waves of immigrants (legal and illegal) to U.S. shores (Batchelor, 2004; Borjas, 2004; Porter, 2006). U.S. immigration legislation is also a key factor in determining the numbers and composition of America's new residents. The focus of this chapter therefore consists of the costs associated with providing illegal immigrants with the benefit of free, public schooling within the context of globalization. More specifically, given the broader social, political, and economic parameters of the immigration debate and its meaning, the chapter discusses the legal and educational issues faced in the United States by those undocumented students who desire to attend public schooling, as well as the ways current state and federal laws both empower and discourage them.