Affirmative
Psychological Violence
Even if ICE raids have reduced, PEP has ushered in a new era of
immigration—local police tip off ICE officials who detain and even deport
immigrants—that sows distrust between communities and local law
enforcement
Foster 7/19/15 is a leading immigration law firm delivering the full spectrum of U.S. and
global immigration solutions (“L.A. County considers new immigration program for jails in light
of S.F. slaying”, http://www.lexology.com/library/document.ashx?g=2b5d4bd3-e954-4180a520-d35b3e0783d7)//AN
At a community meeting in Duarte hosted by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department last week, one name surfaced often. “I’m here because of Kate Steinle’s death and because I care about illegal aliens being
cut loose and let out on the streets,” Orange resident Mike McGetrick told a panel of sheriff’s officials who are pondering a shift in policy at the county’s jails. “When is the next American citizen going to be
murdered?” When a five-time deportee with a history of drug-related felonies was charged in the fatal shooting of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle on a San Francisco pier this month, a debate that had been simmering
for years again roared into the national spotlight: Just
how much should local law enforcement cooperate with federal
immigration authorities ? Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who has pleaded not guilty to murder, was released from a San Francisco County jail in April despite a request from U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement that he be detained so that agents from a nearby field office could pick him up. Before Steinle’s death, the debate over which inmates local
jails should hand over for deportation was largely the realm of policy wonks and activists. But the killing
has pushed the issue into the national spotlight — Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has seized on it to
call for stricter immigration enforcement — and has focused attention on a new ICE
program that officials had been struggling to win support for. In Los Angeles and across the country, local authorities are deciding to what
degree they should participate in ICE’s new P riority E nforcement P rogram. Under the program, ICE asks jails to notify federal
agents when inmates flagged for potential deportation are being released, and in some cases asks jails to
hold such inmates so federal agents can pick them up. Top Homeland Security officials had for months been promoting the new program, which
began July 2, but had gained little traction. Since Steinle’s death, however, the new program has won unexpected support. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who as mayor of San Francisco in the 1980s
new program
replaces ICE’s S ecure Comm unities initiative, which was scrapped in November by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who said that program’s “very name has become a
supported city policies protecting immigrants who were in the country illegally from discrimination by the city, has called on San Francisco to cooperate with the ICE requests. The
symbol for general hostility toward the enforcement of our immigration laws.” Under Secure Communities, federal agents routinely requested that jails hold inmates beyond their release dates so ICE could pick
the practice eroded community trust in police and said thousands of people with no or
only minor criminal convictions were deported as a result. Last year, after a federal court deemed such holds unconstitutional, hundreds of jurisdictions nationwide
them up. Immigrant advocates complained that
stopped complying with ICE requests, including most counties in California. Since the beginning of 2014, according to ICE, cities and counties nationwide ignored 17,000 requests that they detain inmates. The
new program does away with most requests that local jails hold people until federal agents can pick them up, opting more often for requests for notification, ICE officials say. Last week Johnson told a
three dozen of the nation’s largest counties “have indicated a willingness to
participate one way or another” in the PEP program. Five have said they won’t cooperate, and 11 are still deciding, Johnson said. In California, Los Angeles, Orange and
Alameda counties are among those cooperating on some level with the new ICE program, county officials said. San Francisco has refused.
congressional panel that nearly
Alameda County Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern said he would comply with ICE’s requests for notification but added that his department will “not hold anyone in our custody a minute past their release date or time”
without a judicial warrant or order. ICE officials say the legal system has no mechanism for issuing such orders in routine deportation cases. At the hearing, Johnson faced heavy criticism from Republicans, who
asked why ICE hasn’t required local agencies to comply with all aspects of the new program. “I do not believe that we should mandate the cooperation of state and local law enforcement officials,” Johnson said. “I
believe that the most effective way to work with jurisdictions, particularly the larger ones, is through a cooperative effort with a program that removes the legal and political controversy.” Somebody sitting in
Washington doesn’t know the details of how to do policing in San Jose or San Francisco or Chicago. - Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) welcomed Johnson’s approach, which she called
more “respectful to local communities” than previous ICE jails programs. While Secure Communities was at times presented as a mandatory program that local officials had to comply with, the new program
acknowledges that local jurisdictions may craft their own policies about what types of criminal convictions would warrant notification, she said. “Somebody sitting in Washington doesn’t know the details of how to
For some local officials, giving ICE agents so much as a heads up on
release — even for those previously convicted of violent felonies and facing new charges of
violence — is unacceptable without a warrant. “The idea of notifying undermines the interest
of limiting compliance with ICE,” said San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos. He is at odds with San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, who told the Board of Supervisors last week
that he believes the city should notify federal agents of pending releases “for serious, violent or repeat felons,
including those who have previously been deported on multiple occasions.” Many immigrant advocates oppose the new program, which they say
continues to blur the line between local police work and federal immigration enforcement
and sows mistrust among potential crime victims and witnesses . Chris Newman, legal director of the Los
Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said the “original sin” of both ICE programs “is they convert local criminal law
enforcement agencies into civil immigration authorities at the point of arrest .” “Local police and sheriffs have to
pick winners and losers in the application of unjust immigration law,” Newman said. In Los Angeles, county supervisors recently voted to instruct Sheriff Jim McDonnell to
do policing in San Jose or San Francisco or Chicago,” she said.
cooperate with the Priority Enforcement Program. But they also asked him to hold community meetings to map out exactly how to do so. Sheriff’s deputies almost outnumbered members of the public at the
meeting in Duarte on Wednesday, where officials solicited public comment about what circumstances would call for the county to honor ICE requests for notifications. The deputies were there to keep the peace
after a previous meeting devolved into a shouting match. About halfway through this forum, pro-immigrant protesters left to hold a demonstration outside, where they waved signs and chanted “no papers, no fear,
Hernandez, 25, an immigrant brought to the country illegally as a child, said
she believes the Sheriff’s Department should have no contact at all with federal officials. Her
uncle, she said, was deported after being jailed on minor drug charges. “He hasn’t seen his U.S.-citizen children for five years,” Hernandez said.
“ We should help people rehabilitate instead of deporting them .”
immigrants are standing here.” They then walked into a busy intersection nearby and refused to budge. Marcela
Independently, PEP facilitates racial profiling, separation of families, and
unnecessary deportation—status quo policies are too reminiscent of SComm
NILC 2015 National Immigration Law Enforcement (“PRIORITY ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Why ‘PEP’ Doesn’t Fix S-Comm’s Failings”, http://www.nilc.org/PEPnotafix.html)//AN
Obama announced executive actions to change some aspects of our immigration system. One of these announcements, outlined in a
discredited Secure Communities (S-Comm) program and replaced it with
the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). We continue to learn more details about PEP, but what we already know raises serious concerns that PEP suffers from the same
problems that led to S-Comm being terminated. Like S-Comm, PEP will result in the permanent separation of families
through deportation and will threaten public safety by eroding trust between
communities and the police. Concerns about PEP Among other concerns that PEP raises, the form used to request detention (I-247D), like its predecessor
detainer form, does not comply with the Fourth Amendment’s requirements, thus exposing local law enforcement agencies to
On November 20, 2014, President
memo whose subject is “Secure Communities,”1 eliminated the widely
legal liability. Moreover, PEP, like S-Comm before it, threatens to erode trust in local law enforcement, making all communities less safe. PEP Is Too Broad The “Secure
Communities” memo says that ICE may seek the transfer into its custody of a person “otherwise determined [to be a priority] under the November 20, 2014” enforcement
People deemed to be a priority under the memo
include those who have not been convicted of a crime, such as people who entered the U.S. after January 1, 2014, without
being inspected by an immigration officer. In addition, the memo does not define what it means to “cooperate” with the
transfer. This opens the door for anti-immigrant jurisdictions to enter into agreements to
transfer over to ICE anyone who might be an enforcement priority, regardless of whether that person has ever been
priorities memo, if the state or local agency agrees to “cooperate” with such a transfer. 8
convicted of a crime. Constitutional Deficiencies Federal court decisions have made it clear that detainer-based detentions by law enforcement agencies violate the Fourth
Amendment and that an independent judicial finding of probable cause is constitutionally required every time ICE seeks to detain someone based on a detainer.9 The November
memo states that in “special circumstances” ICE may issue detainers asking a
local law enforcement agency to hold a person. However, nothing in the new detainer form institutes this
limitation or requires ICE officers to justify the request for detention based on a “special circumstance.” The memo
does not define “special circumstances,” nor does the new detainer form require a judicial determination of probable cause, leaving
room for ICE to make subjective and overbroad determinations of what these circumstances
might be. “Special circumstances” should be a standard above and beyond probable cause and should be limited to very
rare exigent circumstances . Further Entanglement of Local Law Enforcement with ICE The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing
20, 2014, “Secure Communities”
recently recommended that federal immigration enforcement be “decoupled” from local policing based on the recognition that involving local law enforcement in immigration
Notifying ICE of a person’s
release date and home address facilitates the deportation of people who are integral to their
families and communities. Eroding Trust Widely acknowledged effective policing practices are based on building trust between local police and immigrant communities.
enforcement lessens public safety and community well-being.10 Entanglement also destabilizes homes and communities:
The increasing entanglement of local law enforcement with immigration enforcement has caused immigrant communities to perceive local police officers as
70 percent of undocumented
Latino immigrants and 28 percent of Latino U.S. citizens were less likely to contact the police if
they were victims of a crime for fear that the responding officers would inquire about their immigration
status or the immigration status of people they know.11 Incentivizing Racial Profiling Some local law enforcement officers could use the
knowledge that anyone booked would have their fingerprints checked to target immigrants .
This will incentivize racial profiling , as jurisdictions with a proven track record of engaging in racial profiling of immigrants feel
immigration/deportation agents. A 2013 University of Illinois report surveying Latinos from various counties found that
emboldened to continue funneling people into the deportation system.
We have become the terrorist—the violence the ICE commits against
Hispanic communities causes destruction of families, detrimental
conditions, and psychological violence
Hing 2009 - Professor of Law, University of California, Davis. (Bill Ong, “Institutional Racism,
ICE Raids, and Immigration Reform”, http://lawblog.usfca.edu/lawreview/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/5-SAN-44-2-Hing.pdf)//AN
D. Trauma to Children and Families Family separation and the
special damage to children have been particularly tragic consequences
of the ICE raids.57 Most of the children impacted by raids were U.S. citizens and most were very young— about two-thirds were under ten and about one-third were
under age five.58 In three sites studied by the National Council of La Raza, researchers found that “families and relatives scramble[d] to rearrange care, children
spent at least one night without a parent, often in the care of a relative or non-relative babysitter, in some
cases neighbors and in some cases even landlords; some children were cared for by extended families for weeks and months.”59 Families directly affected by the raid also
suffered economic hardship and financial instability that “creates conditions that are
detrimental to children’s development.”60 The National Council of La Raza study also analyzed the emotional and mental side effects upon
children. While the long-term effects of the raids are still unraveling, psychologists have already observed and are concerned about longterm depression and other mental illness in family members. The report found that younger children translated
the temporary parental absence as abandonment. One parent reported that her child feared that her father “love[s]
money more than he loves me.”61 According to Dr. Amaro Laria, Director of the Lucero Latino Mental Health Training Program at the Massachusetts
School of Professional Psychology and faculty of the psychiatry department at Harvard Medical School, “[o]ne of the most well established facts in mental health is that abrupt
separation of children from their parents, particularly their mothers, are among the most severely traumatic
experiences that a child can undergo.”62 He testified that in the case of the raid, the “traumatic separations [were] perpetrated and sanctioned by
our nation’s law enforcement agencies, ironically in thename of protecting citizens.”63 In his opinion, ICE had engaged in terrorism against
these families and children. Dr. Laria told the Commission about a young girl, Deanna, who said, “she wanted to kill
herself because her mother had abandoned her.”64 Dr. Laria also testified about a girl who called
911 looking for her mother and a young “desperate father, who, after his wife was imprisoned, had to rush their infant
daughter to the emergency room with severe dehydration because she hadn’t been breastfed for
days.”65
These policies have victimized children—this violence causes children to think
of police not as the savior, but as the enemy—that causes massive
psychological trauma
McLeigh 2010 Washington Fellow of the American Orthopsychiatric Association for 2009–
2010 (Jill, “How Do Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Practices Affect the Mental
Health of Children?”)//AN
The United States is often described as a nation of immigrants, and the Statue of Liberty stands as a reminder of the nation’s willingness to open its doors. As in some earlier periods, however, the immigration of
In political discourse today, immigration is often
framed as a threat to national security, community safety, full employment, and public human services. Even among those who are sympathetic to immigrants, there is
ethnic minorities to the United States has become a highly contentious topic—a political “third rail.”
much concern about the amount of unauthorized immigration and the number of people now living in the shadows in the United States. A few members of Congress have developed proposals that address
detention conditions for people who have entered the country without authorization, access of unauthorized immigrants to higher education, comprehensive immigration reform, or similar topics. Nonetheless,
federal legislation on immigration has been largely absent in recent years. Given the combination of federal inaction and public concern, states and municipalities have taken action on their own. In 2008, 1,305
immigration-related bills were introduced in state legislatures; 209 were enacted into law. The pace of state legislation in this area of principal federal jurisdiction has continued to increase. In the first quarter of
2009 alone, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 1,040 immigration-related bills were introduced in state capitols, and 36 became law during that period, which was early in the term of
many state legislatures. In recent years, the federal executive branch also increased its activity related to immigration. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration turned to increased
ICE ) initiated
a program of worksite and home enforcement raids to identify and ultimately deport unauthorized workers.
enforcement to address unauthorized immigration and national security concerns. In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (
The worksite raids typically involved closing off the perimeter of a facility, detaining workers, and then interviewing them individually to determine their citizenship, background, and employment status. Between
2003 and 2008, worksite raids led to a 10-fold increase in detention of people who were believed to have entered the country without authorization. The Obama administration quickly changed this practice. In
April 2009, the DHS issued new worksite guidelines that focus on employers instead of workers. However, DHS made clear that immigration agents would continue detaining unauthorized workers encountered
during any enforcement efforts. Home enforcement raids also increased dramatically during the Bush administration. Between 2003 and 2008, the annual number of home enforcement raids jumped from 1,900
to 34,000. According to Peter Markowitz and his colleagues at the Cordova School of Law, home raids typically involve teams of armed ICE agents making predawn tactical entries into homes where unauthorized
immigrants are believed to live. Such harsh enforcement has had severe consequences for unauthorized workers and their families. A Pew Hispanic Center survey in 2007 showed that the majority of Latinos living
in the United States feared that either they themselves or someone they knew would be deported. For many, the
constant fear of deportation exacerbates
physical and mental health problems. For those who actually are detained or who have a spouse or parent who is detained, the potential mental health consequences are
substantial. Harsh enforcement has had severe consequences for unauthorized workers and their families Background In the last quarter century, patterns of immigration to
the United States and other industrialized countries
have changed, in response to downward spiral of the economies in many sending countries and evolving needs for labor on this side of the
border. Prior to these developments, unauthorized workers primarily consisted of seasonal labor migrants whose families remained in their countries of origin. Today, however, immigrants to the United States
include many families with children. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, in 2008 there were 1.5 million immigrant children without documents in the United States and 4 million U.S.-born children with at
Enough is known
anecdotally, however, to raise the concern of faith-based organizations and immigrant advocacy groups about conflicts between child
welfare and the prevailing immigration policy. Accordingly, there is some pressure on President Obama to fulfill his campaign promises in regard to immigration
least one parent who is an unauthorized immigrant. Despite the substantial numbers, however, there is little systematic evidence about these children’s experience.
reform. Although the initial timetable for such change was not met, the administration has indicated that it intends to move forward with the issue sometime in 2010. In November 2009, Secretary of Homeland
Security Janet Napolitano made her first speech on the subject. She articulated three principles that the administration regards as critical to comprehensive immigration reform: lowered barriers to authorized
immigration, firm but fair resolution of the situation of unauthorized immigrants, and strict enforcement of the law. The contours of a new policy and the approach to its enforcement remain matters for
conjecture. Unfortunately, however, it is clear that the proposals already on the table do not address the complexity and diversity among unauthorized immigrants. In particular, the needs of children and families
Stories
abound of young adults brought to the country as children who cannot now work or study
legally, children themselves who are removed from their parents’ custody while the parents are
detained, and children who are awakened to arrest of a parent who is taken to an undisclosed
location. The Consequences of Current Enforcement Practices In 2007, Andy Capps and his colleagues at the Urban Institute and the National Council of La Raza undertook one of the few systematic
have largely been ignored. If undertaken by itself, enforcement is apt to create a deeper set of problems for children, most of whom did not decide for themselves to enter the country illegally.
efforts to describe the effects on children of prevailing strategies for enforcement of immigration law. Capps’ team examined the effects of ICE raids in 2006 and 2007 at work sites in Colorado, Nebraska, and
500 children (many aged 5 years or
younger) were separated from parents for some period of time. Following those raids, many single parents were given ankle monitors and released within hours. Other
parents agreed to departure and were deported within 48 hours. Some were released on bonds of up to $10,000, but they were not permitted to work while they awaited a hearing. Still others were
held in detention for up to 6 months, often in states other than those in which they were arrested. Some families went into hiding
for weeks at a time, during which they avoided burning lights in the evening or opening the door
to anyone, even church or community workers who brought food. It is difficult to estimate the number of children who have been in such situations, because ICE has not
recorded the number of children detained parents had or whether both parents were detained.
However, Secretary Napolitano recently stated that 380,000 individuals are in the custody of ICE during the course of a
year. The Pew Hispanic Center has reported that three fifths of households headed by unauthorized immigrants include children. Putting these numbers together, the number of children affected by parental
detention in immigration cases appears to be well into six figures each year. Three fifths of households headed by unauthorized immigrants include children Children should not
become collateral damage. Despite this large number, knowledge about what happens to children once a parent(s) is removed is largely limited to anecdotes. Information comes
Massachusetts. In those raids, federal agents arrested 900 adults because of unauthorized presence in the United States. As a result,
from testimony from congressional hearings, interviews conducted in communities where raids occurred, and reviews of lawsuits filed provide an overview of the types of issues that have arisen from raids.
Otherwise, the Capps et al. study is unique. Given the shortage of research into this topic, the best way to discern the effects of immigration enforcement is to consider knowledge about situations that are at least
loss of a parent in the context of a situation
that itself is traumatizing increases the likelihood of poor psychosocial functioning in children. The
partially analogous, such as parental imprisonment as punishment for a crime. It is widely accepted that the
adverse effects of loss of access to a parent are often magnified when the cause is parental incarceration, because instability is often a central feature of the family’s life both before and after the arrest. This type of
child separation is almost always involuntary, abrupt, and unexpected, and most families have not planned for the care of their children in these
Children are doubly or triply traumatized, because they witness the forcible removal of a
parent, lose a caregiver and protector, and often suddenly lose a familiar home. Parental arrest may have profound short-term
results, including traumatic stress reactions, and research suggests that there are long-term effects as well.
For example, children who have seen their parents arrested are more likely to distrust police and the courts and
are unlikely to rely on law enforcement for protection . Of course, children of workers who are detained because of violations of
parent–
circumstances.
immigration law usually face a multitude of stressors over the long term, including those associated with ethnic minority status, poverty, and life outside the law. In a review of data collected in the National Survey
Gleeson found that one in five children with recently arrested parents had clinically significant
depression, anxiety, withdrawal), and one in three had clinically significant externalizing problems
(aggression, attention problems, disruptive behavior ). Justice system practices after a parent is taken into custody often exacerbate these problems.
of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, Susan Phillips and James
internalizing problems (
Immigrant detainees, unlike criminal defendants, are not provided with a government-paid lawyer. Because access to counsel is not a right, detainees may be frequently and suddenly transferred to facilities
located far away from courts, advocates, and families. Prevailing law does not permit immigration judges to take the interests of minor children, including those who are U.S. citizens, into account when
determining whether a parent should be deported. If deported, unauthorized immigrant parents of children who are U.S. citizens cannot return to the United States, even to visit, for a period of 3–10 years,
choice for children who are U.S. citizens but whose
parents are unauthorized immigrants often is either “deportation” with the parents to their country of origin
or placement in a foster home or institutional care in the United States. Contrary to international norms, the best interests of the child are effectively irrelevant in this situation.
depending on how long they had resided illegally in the United States. Accordingly, the
The guidelines for PEP are too arbitrary—only 0.01% of immigrants were
deported for being a threat to national security, while the vast majority
were deported without any criminal offense
Sorto 7/16/15 Reporter for the Statesman and Now Yes (Marlon, “Latinos desconfían de
‘nuevo’ programa de seguridad”, http://www.statesman.com/news/news/latinos-desconfian-
de-nuevo-programa-deseguridad/nmzpq/?ecmp=statesman_social_facebook_2014_ahorasi_sfp)//AN
With placards in hand and to songs of protest, more than 70 people gathered outside the Travis County Jail to express their dissatisfaction with the Priority Program Law Enforcement (PEP) on Tuesday 7th. They
federal initiative does not focus on deporting dangerous criminals, but that is
used to capture without distinction to undocumented immigrants, most with no criminal record , and force his
deportation, which further undermines the trust of the communities immigrants in law enforcement. His detractors also say
the new program is only Secure Communities ( S-Comm ) in disguise , which helped deport at least 19
immigrants from Travis each week between 2009 and 2013, according to official records. Latinos are wary of 'new' security program photo Rodolfo Gonzalez More
said the
than fifty people demonstrated against the PEP program in front of the Travis County Jail on Tuesday 7. In this place people and record data to DHS and ICE are sent. Rodolfo Gonzalez / NOW YES! "It's the same
thing but with a new package," said Cristina Parker, program director of Grassroots Leadership immigration and one of the organizers of the protest outside the Travis County Jail. Since its inception in 2008 and
its adoption in Travis in 2009, S-Comm was pointed out by groups of local and national activists use the fear and ignorance that have immigrants about their rights and be used for separating families and not to
PEP program replaced the S-Comm November 20, 2014, when President
Barack Obama announced his executive order on immigration. PEP, as did S-Comm shares the
fingerprints of people who are arrested and police files for any crime or offense with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ( FBI ), to see if they have a criminal record. The information is also sent to the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) to compare it
with databases of immigration, where it is checked whether a person is in the country without documents. The protesters demanded again the Travis County Sheriff Greg
improve public safety, which was supposed purpose. Officially, the
Hamilton, who runs the prison compound, which does not participate in the ICE program, being an optional measure. Hamilton has remained firm in its position years of participating in federal initiatives and
we have no
choice to enter or leave the PEP program ," added the dcoumento. Nevertheless, the protesters also questioned the statements given by Hamilton
PEP is no exception. "We continue to work with ICE, as we do with all agencies of law enforcement," said Hamilton's office in a statement. "It is our understanding that
during a working session of the Commissioners Court of Travis County in February. When asked about the differences between S-Comm and PEP, the sheriff explained that "all they did was change the name." Are
different programs? The PEP program, contrary to what the protesters say, if it changes, DHS officials said. The measure is still based on sending information from processing centers, as the Travis County Jail, to
the FBI and DHS, to compare the records of detainees with their databases. PEP also, in theory, has limited the use of requests for arrest for 48 additional hours, which were previously the norm and assumed the
ICE now requests to be provided in advance the dates of release of
the undocumented. "Nothing has changed, the only difference is that instead of going to jail, ICE waits at the
door to people," said Parker. Although for ICE, the PEP program "has a balanced and common-sense approach, which puts the focus where it should be: on the criminals and individuals who
chief complaint that existed on the previous program. Instead,
threaten public safety," the agency said in a statement when asked for this story. "PEP supports the police locally while ensuring that ICE custody put dangerous criminals before they are released into the
community," he added the document. In theory, the PEP program focuses its efforts in deporting undocumented immigrants on the basis of the crimes for which they have been sentenced and classified into two
levels, according to a memo rotated by the Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson. The so-called "top priority" are those who pose threats to national public or border security. These include crimes related to
terrorism, espionage or gang involvement. Priority two looking deport those who are found guilty of sexual assault, domestic violence or sexual exploitation as well as those who commit minor offenses repeatedly,
between these minor traffic offenses, for example. Those who are against the new measure say that S-Comm claimed the same, but eventually was used to deport people without criminal records or for minor
offenses such as driving with a broken headlight, said Alejandro Caceres, coordinator of the campaign ICE Out of Austin which is against the implementation of PEP. From September 2014 to May 2015,
there have been 95.976 requests for deportation orders to the nation's immigration courts , according to
the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a research center at the University of Syracuse, New York . Of these requirements, only one was on charges
related to terrorism , 9 (0.01%) were related to threats to national security and 3,119 (3.25%)
aggravated offenses, ICE deportation priorities in the PEP program. In contrast, 38.270 (39.87%) of the orders sought the
deportation of people whose only crime was to have illegally entered the U nited S tates, known as Entry Without
Inspection (EWI), according to data from TRAC. Now Yes! ICE requested the most recent official figures on deportations and classifying these according to priority levels of the PEP program. The agency
refused to provide them. Ignorance and fear Among the protesters outside the Travis County Jail was Mizraim Belman, who was born in Mexico and was brought illegally by their
parents as a child. Young, 17, knows firsthand the damage that the programs promoted by ICE cause to families, after his father was on the verge of deportation four years ago when he was the victim of S-Comm,
Belman said. The release was confirmed in a later lecture by John Belman, Mizraim father, who is engaged in construction and said he still has fear of authority. "Yes, one is a bit traumatized," said Belman father.
In 2011, the Mexican immigrant was driving along with four of his colleagues after a long day at work installing roofs in a project Abiline, almost four hours northwest of Austin, when he was stopped by a police
Belman father who had stopped
because one of his companions was not wearing a seat belt, said the Mexican, now 49 years old. Later he
demanded identification who was not wearing Belt and, and seeing that not carrying US documentation, the
officer decided to take them all to jail, Belman father said. "I had never been in prison, it was my first time," he said the born in Guanajuato. After being signed and
discovered that he had no legal status in the country, crossing Belman’s father he lasted for several months, where he was detained
and suffered at the thought that he would return to Mexico deported, especially since he was the one
who provided the support his family, he said. After searching an immigration lawyer and pay a deposit of $ 5,000, Belman father was released and after fighting his case
officer, he said. The city is located in Taylor and Jones counties, who then actively involved in S-Comm. The officer told him
in court, now has a work permit, he said. Belman father's story resembles many of the cases that were contested in the courts of Austin and surrounding areas due to S-Comm, said Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch,
immigration attorney. The expert said that over seven years defended immigrants who were on the verge of deportation for minor offenses, thanks to Secure Communities, and hopes that the PEP program is
arbitrary use of these initiatives "creates a complete barrier
between immigrant communities and the police department," said Lincoln-Goldfinch, adding that these programs are also based on the fear
implemented correctly to reduce mistrust in the authorities. The
that undocumented workers have to demand their rights against authority . "In Austin, the police department should not be asking anyone their immigration status," said the lawyer. "If an immigrant (a
policeman) he comes to ask their immigration status, should say: 'I exercise my right based on the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and do not want to provide that information,'" said Lincoln-Goldfinch. The
expert said that immigrants should also ask if they are arrested or not and ask why. While acknowledging that in practice is not easy. "That's the hard part of making to all speak to a police officer that. Especially
for someone who is afraid to be deported because there is no one to take care of their children, "said the lawyer.
Race Contention
Eurocentrism governs our immigration policy—it begins with
dehumanization, then demonization, and then criminalization—the
migrant has become a commodity that is sustained by xenophobic discourse
Hing 2009 - Professor of Law, University of California, Davis. (Bill Ong, “Institutional Racism,
ICE Raids, and Immigration Reform”, http://lawblog.usfca.edu/lawreview/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/5-SAN-44-2-Hing.pdf)//AN
The institutionalized racism of U.S. immigration laws and enforcement policies reflects the evolution of immigration laws that grappled with constant tension over who is and
a western European perspective was constantly asserted in battles
over immigration laws. That perspective was apparent in the forced migration of African workers and in Asian exclusion laws, as well as in the anti-southern
and eastern European quota system of the 1920s, and is maintained to this very day in the controversy over our southwest border. The Euro-centrism of
the nation’s identity has enabled the institutionalization of an immigration regime that
commodifies those immigrants who are left out —namely, newcomers of color—into a faceless group that can more easily
be demonized and even criminalized. The process of criminalizing the immigrant and her dreams requires multiple steps. First the immigrant is
dehumanized, she is then demonized and labeled a problem, then further dehumanized until at last
her actions or conditions are criminalized.131 This parallels what Charles Lawrence terms “stigmatization . . . the process by which the
who is not acceptable as a true American. Early in U.S. history,
dominant group in society differentiates itself from others by setting them apart, treating them as less than fully human, denying them acceptance by the organized community,
immigration system began the
dehumanizing dynamics of racism with the forced migration of Black laborers called slaves.133
and excluding them from participating in that community as equals.”132 As Professor Magee has pointed out, the
Although early Chinese immigrants were welcomed with mixed greetings, eventually the anti-Chinese lobby that could not tolerate this “yellow peril” prevailed. Recruited then
The next
step, identifying immigrants as a problem through demonization involves familiar allegations:
they take jobs; they cost a lot; they commit crimes; they do not speak English; they damage the environment; they do not share our values; and they
simply are different. This problematization-demonization process is implemented by the likes of Patrick Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, Tom Tancredo, the Center for
rejected through efforts like Operation Wetback, Mexican migrants also felt the sting of racial animus. All these groups were dehumanized through racism.
Immigration Studies, and the Federation of American Immigration Reform. And their tactics are successful in many quarters despite questionable empirical support for their
positions. They attack with hysterical statements. They do not mention race in their attacks and find a ready audience in members of the public (some gullible, others who
themselves are malevolent) who look around, see immigrants with accents working, and facilely conclude that they must be taking jobs that Americans would otherwise be
This brand of xenophobia is recycled from the worst nativist periods of the nation’s
history. After hysteria is heightened, the demonization process continues by asking the public if immigration is a problem. Modern day polls and surveys claim to reveal
holding.
that if asked specifically about immigration, eighty percent of respondents think that current immigration is bad for the country. But when general polls ask respondents to
name serious societal problems, immigration is either ranked low or not mentioned. Or when the public is asked whether legalization should be granted to undocumented
surveys that suggest immigration is a problem are
reminiscent of what happened in California in 1879. A specific measure was placed on the state ballot to
determine public sentiment towards Chinese immigration: 900 favored the Chinese, while
150,000 were opposed. The demonization process continued as the California legislature declared a legal holiday to facilitate anti-Chinese public rallies that
workers and families who pay a fine, the resounding answer is yes. The
attracted thousands of demonstrators and was completed when antiChinese groups presented anti-Chinese petitions in Congress. Even in the midst of a robust economy, the
modern problematization-demonization process was wildly successful. Restrictionist strategies have worked, as their proponents define the issues largely in their own terms of
alleged economic and fiscal impact. Pro-immigrant sentiment and immigrant rights groups essentially are silenced in the media. The media offers seat-of-thepants economic
claims that blame immigrants for job loss and wage depression in place of the more complex reality. Nuanced findings are not good material for headlines. Similarly, politicians
point fingers at the disenfranchised, voiceless alien to grab the attention of voters. The media and these politicians serve as convenient and effective conduits for demonizing
effectiveness is striking, as little attention is paid to the pro-immigrant economic
position. As the level of demonization through anti-immigrant rhetoric reaches new heights, hot talk radio hosts, conservative columnists, and politicians, Democrats
aliens. Their
and Republicans alike, chime in. The notion of America as the land of immigrants is brushed aside. The neo-nativists claim that things are different today; times have changed
from even just a few years ago. Much of the rhetoric strikes a chord with well-meaning, but misguided, members of the public who have sensed a lack of control over a variety of
Scapegoating is in, and the blame can be dispensed in nonracial terms, using phrases like “porous” borders, “illegal” aliens, workers without “legal
papers,” or “criminal” aliens because the structures of the visa and enforcement systems do the
work of exclusion and deportation that quietly impact immigrants of color . Once demonized, immigrants
issues that affect their lives and who are looking for simple answers.
can be further dehumanized. Dehumanization at this stage commodifies immigrants, stripping them of race and ethnicity. The dominant group racializes the immigrant-ascommodity notion to ignore race and view the immigrant as a worker commodity. This facilitates the dehumanization that follows. Like the Black-migrant commodities
immigrant commodity is not treated as human
(enslaved African workers), the modern
. Rather, immigrant commodities are likened to
“hazardous waste dumps.”134 Although the Supreme Court has ruled that dangerous and hazardous materials are “commerce” subject to Commerce Clause scrutiny, the
immigrant-toxic-wastedump commodity has little constitutional protection in this dehumanized
state.135 Dehumanization thus silences the immigrants . Dehumanization allows the public to ignore their faces and their names.
Dehumanization further allows the powers that be to separate the immigrants into deportation categories, ignoring and never asking why particular migrants come here in the
first place. Employer sanctions—the statutory provision that justifies the arrest of undocumented workers—is a final step in the dehumanization-demonization-dehumanizationcriminalization process. As noted above, at the end of World War II, initial efforts to completely demonize the immigrant worker by imposing employer sanctions on a labor
displacement theory failed. In the mid-1970s, the Rodino proposal was constantly debated. Finally, the employer sanctions effort was accomplished as part of IRCA in 1986.
Mexican workers were largely the focal point, but they became dehumanized
and commodified simply as “unauthorized” workers once sanctions were enacted.
Throughout the debate,
However, racist immigration policies stem from a greater issue that
troubles the United States—it originates from our modern-day globalization
Hing 2009 - Professor of Law, University of California, Davis. (Bill Ong, “Institutional Racism,
ICE Raids, and Immigration Reform”, http://lawblog.usfca.edu/lawreview/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/5-SAN-44-2-Hing.pdf)//AN
It does not take long to realize that while immigration
laws and enforcement policies have evolved in a manner
that continues to prey on Mexicans, Asians, and other Latin migrants, the relationship of those laws
and policies with other racialized institutions underscores the structural challenges that
immigrants of color face. Consider the NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. NAFTA has placed Mexico at
such a competitive disadvantage with the United States in the production of corn that Mexico now imports most of
its corn from the United States, and Mexican corn farm workers have lost their jobs.139 The U.S.-embraced World
Trade Organization, which advocates global free trade, favors lowest-bid manufacturing nations like China and India, so that
manufacturers in a country like Mexico cannot compete and must lay off workers.140 Is
there little wonder that so
many Mexican workers look to the United States for jobs? Think also of refugee resettlement programs as an
institution. When Southeast Asian refugees are resettled in public housing or poor neighborhoods, their children find themselves in
an environment that can lead to bad behavior or crime.141 Consider U.S. involvement in wars and civil conflict abroad. Think
also of U.S. involvement in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq—places that have produced
involuntary migrants of color to our shores. Other racialized institutions that interact with
immigration laws and enforcement also come to mind: the criminal justice system, poor
neighborhoods, and inner city schools. Even coming back full circle to enslavement of people—
today’s human trafficking institutions— we begin to realize a sad interaction with immigration
laws that requires greater attention. All of these institutions can lead to situations that spell trouble within the
immigration enforcement framework. The immigration admission and enforcement regimes may appear neutral
on their face, but (1) they have evolved in a racialized manner and (2) when the immigration framework
interacts with other racialized institutions you realize that the structure generates racial group disparities as well. NAFTA and
globalization form a big part of why many migrants of color cannot remain in their
native countries. The criminal justice system and poverty prey heavily on poor communities of color, leading to
deportable offenses if defendants are not U.S. citizens.
Immigration policy is a function of slavery—racism began with
immigration—it is institutionalized racism that has created a system of
unconscious bias towards individuals
Hing 2009 - Professor of Law, University of California, Davis. (Bill Ong, “Institutional Racism,
ICE Raids, and Immigration Reform”, http://lawblog.usfca.edu/lawreview/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/5-SAN-44-2-Hing.pdf)//AN
evolution of immigration laws and the manner in which immigration laws operate have institutionalized
bias against Latino immigrants —Mexicans in particular— and Asian immigrants . This has occurred through laws that initially
manifested racist intent and/or impact, amendments that perpetuated that racism, and enforcement strategies and legal interpretations reinforcing the racism. Racism has been
institutionalized in our immigration laws and enforcement policies . Kwame Ture (a.k.a. Stokely
This Article contends that the
Carmichael) coined the phrase “institutional racism” in the 1960s. He recognized it was important to distinguish personal bias from institutional bias, which is generally longterm and grounded more in inertia
Institutional racism has come to describe societal patterns that impose oppressive or otherwise
negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity . In the United States, institutional racism resulted
than in intent.
from the social caste system of slavery and racial segregation. Much of its basic structure still stands to this day. By understanding the fundamental principles of institutionalized racism we begin to see the
application of the concept beyond the conventional black-white paradigm. Institutional racism embodies discriminating against certain groups of people through the use of biased laws or practices. Structures and
social arrangements become accepted, operate, and are manipulated in such a way as to support or acquiesce
in acts of racism. Institutional racism can be subtle and less visible, but is no less destructive than individual acts of racism. Charles Lawrence’s discussion of unconscious racism
also is relevant. Lawrence teaches us that the source of much racism lies in the unconscious mind. Individuals raised in a racist culture unknowingly absorb attitudes and stereotypes that influence
behavior in subtle, but pernicious ways. “Unconscious prejudice . . . is not subject to self-correction within the political process.”70 The forces of racism have become embodied in U.S. immigration laws.71 As these
laws are enforced, they are accepted as common practice, in spite of their racial effects. We may not like particular laws or enforcement policies because of their
harshness or their violations of human dignity or civil rights, but many of us do not sense the inherent racism because we are not cognizant of the dominant racial framework. Understanding the evolution of U.S.
immigration laws and enforcement provides us with a better awareness of the institutional racism that controls those policies. This Part focuses on the evolution of immigration laws and enforcement policies.
The history begins with slavery. Forced African labor migration set the stage for the Mexicans
and the Chinese. This Part reviews the history of Mexican migration, the enforcement of the southwest border, and the sea change to enforcement through employer sanctions enacted in 1986.
A. Enslavement of African Workers As Forced Immigration Policy In her contribution to this Symposium, Professor Rhonda Magee writes convincingly that the notion of immigrant
must include the forced immigration system of chattel slavery and that the law and policy of chattel slavery is a
relevant historical antecedent to today’s immigration law .72 She points out: [S]lavery was, in significant part (though hardly exclusively),
an immigration system of a particularly reprehensible sort: a system of statesponsored forced migration human trafficking, endorsed by Congress, important to the public fisc as a
source of tax revenue, and aimed at fulfilling the need for a controllable labor population in the colonies, and then in the states, at an artificially low economic cost.73 Professor Magee concludes: Viewing
immigration as a function of slavery helps us articulate an important irony: that with
respect to immigration, slavery —our racially based forced migration system— laid a foundation for both a racially
segmented labor-based immigration system , and a racially diverse (even if racially hierarchical) “nation of
immigrants.” These legacies which the founders may not have set out to leave, but which are among the United States’ most pernicious and most precious gifts to civilization.74 Scholars
generally trace the beginning of racially restrictive U.S. immigration policies to laws directed at
various immigrant groups. Prior to 1870, the subordination of people of African descent was further underscored by the fact that people from Africa could not become U.S. citizens
through naturalization. The Nationality Act of 1790 limited naturalization to “free white persons” and specifically excluded African Americans and Native Americans.75 However, in 1870, Congress extended
Throughout the immigration history of the United States, Africans have
been underrepresented as a voluntary immigrant group. Before 1965, Africans represented less than one percent of the total immigrant
naturalization rights to anyone of African descent.76
population.77 In 1990, Africans still constituted only 2.3% of all immigrants.78 By 2008, African immigrants made up 9.6% of all immigrants.79 The effect of forced immigration in the African American
population today is readily apparent. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that in 2007, African Americans make up 13.5% of the total U.S. population.80 The descendants of slavery make up the vast majority of
today’s African American population.
The ICE is the epitome of institutionalized racism—only solution is to end it
Hing 2009 - Professor of Law, University of California, Davis. (Bill Ong, “Institutional Racism,
ICE Raids, and Immigration Reform”, http://lawblog.usfca.edu/lawreview/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/5-SAN-44-2-Hing.pdf)//AN
U.S. immigration policy and enforcement regime has resulted in a framework that victimizes
Latin and Asian immigrants. These immigrants of color end up being the subject of ICE raids. They are the ones
who comprise the immigration visa backlogs. They are the ones that attempt to traverse the hostile southwest border. Their victimization has been
institutionalized . Any complaint about immigrants, fiscal or social, can be voiced in non-racial, rule-of-law terms because the institution has masked the
The construction of the
racialization with laws and operations that are couched in nonracial terms. Anti-immigrant pundits are shielded from charges of racism by labeling their targets “law breakers”
Deportation, detention, and exclusion at the border can be declared race-neutral by
the DHS because the system has already been molded by decades of racialized refinement. Officials
are simply “enforcing the laws.” Like white privilege, institutionalized racism generally goes unrecognized by
those who are not negatively impacted.146We should know better. The cards are stacked against immigrants of color. The immigration law and
or “unassimilable.”
enforcement traps are set through a militarized border and an anachronistic visa system. It is no surprise that Latin and Asian immigrants are the victims of those traps.
They have been set up by the vestiges of blatantly racist Asian exclusion laws, a border history of labor recruitment like the
Bracero Program, Supreme Court deference to enforcement, and border militarization that laid the groundwork for
current laws and enforcement policies. Many in the immigrant rights movement argue that the appalling effects of ICE raids, deaths at the border that
result from its militarization, horrible backlogs in family immigration categories, immigration detention conditions, and the lack of second chance
opportunities for longtime, lawful permanent residents convicted of aggravated felonies are sufficient bases for overhauling immigration laws and enforcement policies. If
we are indeed a nation of immigrants, fairness, and family values, then without a doubt, we need a fairer border policy
and more open immigration. Other critics of the Bush ICE raids focus on employers or process as the solution. One standard demand that has been made
by Beltway experts is to focus more on employers rather than on employees when it comes to enforcement. Another tactic is that advanced by Senator John Kerry who asked that
ICE raids be conducted in a more humane manner.
I am not sure that these positions will get us much satisfaction. Senator
Kerry’s proposal would essentially result in kinder, gentler raids, but raids
nonetheless . And the focus-on-employer enforcement position still results in the removal of undocumented
workers. For example, while Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has directed federal agents to focus more on
arresting and prosecuting employers than undocumented workers, she also made it clear that there will be no halt to
arrests of undocumented workers the investigations uncover.147 As long as we remain mired in the belief that we need to
prevent undocumented workers from working in the country through an employer sanctions system, workers will
continue to get deported, families will be separated, and communities will suffer damage. The
seemingly neutral logic that flows from an institutionally racist immigration system need not carry the day. We should not be left to object to ICE
raids, border enforcement, and even criminal alien enforcement solely on non-racial terms. Understanding these operations from an
institutionalized racial perspective provides another basis for arguing that our system of
immigration laws and enforcement policies must be overhauled in order to address the menacing vestiges of racism within that system.
Health Care Impact
Dominant narratives of the “migrant” have excluded undocumented
immigrants from health care access- the violence that people have
experienced is unspeakable—people can’t get help because of fear of
deportation
Clark 2008 - Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; (Brietta, “The Immigrant
Health Care Narrative and What It Tells Us about the U.S. Health Care System”,
http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=annals)//AN
a hospital used the private company Nextcare to "transfer" undocumented
immigrants to a clinic in Mexico after providing stabilizing emergency care.1 A Los Angeles Times ("L.A. Times") article recounted one
patient's experience: the patient was brought to the emergency room because he had been in a car
accident.2 He required a rod for his shattered right leg and his broken jaw had to be wired shut .3
Unfortunately, the patient was transferred to the Mexican clinic before the wires were taken off, and due to
poor communication and follow-up, his gums became infected and grew over the wires
in his mouth.4 He subsequently suffered severe pain and hunger.5 Physicians and immigrants' rights groups have criticized this as a "de facto
In San Diego, California,
deportation" but hospital and Nextcare officials have insisted the "transfers are voluntary, the result of an unpressured discussion between Nextcare officials and the patient." 6 According to the patient, however,
Nextcare
had contracted with five U.S. hospitals to remove at least fifty uninsured, allegedly unauthorized, immigrant
patients to Mexico for follow-up care. 8 The method of how hospital officials determined the patients' immigration status is not clear from the L.A. Times article, given that hospital policy prohibits the
he had agreed to move primarily because he was hungry and had been promised that he could get his braces removed in Tijuana so he could resume eating solid food.7 As of November 2003,
officials from asking an individual about his or her citizenship status when coming to the emergency room for treatment. 9 It is also unclear whether the hospital correctly identified each patient's status as illegal,
whether Mexico was in fact each patient's country of origin, why the patients agreed to the transfer, whether the transfer was truly voluntary, or how the transfer affected the patients' quality of care.10 A variety of
methods are being used by hospitals to discourage uninsured and undocumented
immigrant patients in the U nited S tates from seeking care, especially in states along the Mexican border. For example, one hospital
in Texas had its own security personnel wear uniforms that resembled border
patrol. " Another Texas hospital questioned suspected immigrants about their status and asked for their papers when they arrived at the hospital, sending a clear "message that illegal immigrants are
not welcome."' 2 Finally, a number of hospitals in the border states and in New York have been cited for failing to provide
appropriate care, including epidurals, for non-English speaking pregnant women.
13 Most recently, as immigration enforcement has increased and the number of detainees has risen, another healthcare problem has emerged overcrowding in detention
centers and denial of medically necessary care.' 4 In fact, this problem has drawn considerable attention, with sixty-two people
dying in custody since 2004 from lack of medical treatment, among them people with AIDS, high blood
pressure, and kidney disease, who died because they did not receive medication . 15
other less extreme, but still effective,
Denial of medically necessary care for undocumented immigrants is not simply due to the isolated acts of hospital or detention center officials. Restricting health care access for immigrants is a touchstone of
immigration-related and welfare reform initiatives enacted at the state and federal levels. Immigrant health care access is often part of a broader package of "immigration-related" initiatives designed either to
limit immigrants' access to public services generally or to use public service agencies as de facto immigration agents to collect and report data relating to status. Since 1996, federal law has severely circumscribed
public healthcare benefits for immigrants in the United States illegally, legally, and for those of uncertain status. 16 There has also been a resurgence of immigration-related initiatives at the state level over the last
attention is being paid to
the significant harmful effects on immigrants as well as the deleterious public health effects of
these immigration-related benefit restrictions. This article examines the political, legal, and popular discourse in favor of
and against healthcare benefit restrictions for immigrants in order to focus on a different aspect of this problem. Through this discourse, narratives are created of
immigrants' character and relationship to the rest of society. These narratives influence our perception of immigrants and
their effect on society, and this perception, in turn, seems to influence the policies enacted to
regulate immigrants and immigration. These narratives have been constructed predominantly by those advocating for increased immigration control and benefit restrictions designed to
make life in the United States for unauthorized immigrants less tolerable. Arguments favoring benefit restrictions reflect the narrative of
an "Us-Them" dichotomy in which immigrants are labeled as criminals and welfare-abusers
who jeopardize the health care of law-abiding citizens. Advocates for expanded health care access try to undermine this dominant narrative and
few years, with many states considering bills to further restrict immigrants' access to state and local public services, including health care. 17 Increasingly,
offer a different one that portrays a more positive and complex relationship between immigrants, the health care system, and society generally. For example, those challenging benefit restrictions paint a very
different picture of immigrants as self-sufficient, generally lawabiding, especially vulnerable to discrimination, and fearful of using public benefits. Immigrant rights groups and legal scholars also argue that many
It is important to examine this discourse
and determine the true impact of the immigrant health care narratives on policymaking.
immigrant benefit restrictions are unduly harsh, racist,' 8 and irrational because they undermine public health goals. 19
Narratives can influence popular opinion and grassroots coalitions that can either facilitate or hinder
public advocacy for expanded access. They also help create or undermine the political will exerted on policy makers. But can pro-access advocates reconstruct the immigrant health
narrative in a way that leads to greater health care access for immigrants? To the extent that pro-access groups hope to influence policy making through these reconstructed narratives, they should recognize two
they should be mindful of whether the narrative they create supports their
policy goals. If their discourse unintentionally reinforces parts of the dominant narrative used to
fuel anti-immigrant initiatives, then they are undermining their own goals . Unfortunately, to some extent
very important challenges they face. First,
the pro-access narrative unintentionally encourages a view of immigrants as potentially dangerous and as outsiders. Moreover, to the extent that the pro-access narrative labels supporters of benefit restrictions as
antiimmigrant or racist, this can facilitate public divisiveness among groups that might otherwise have common interests in reforming the health care system in ways that benefit both groups. Such
characterizations may have the perverse effect of strengthening demand for anti-immigrant measures, which some political officials will support (or at least not aggressively oppose), even if irrational or harmful to
citizens. Second, any attempt by pro-access advocates to use the immigrant narrative to influence policy will be constrained by the structural defects and linedrawing inherent in our existing healthcare framework.
our health care system is largely based on an "Us-Them" paradigm in
which access is not guaranteed for all, requests for coverage are automatically viewed with
suspicion, and decisions about which groups in society should have access to health care are
based on an amorphous analysis of who is most "deserving ." Moreover, immigrants suffer
discrimination along a number of axes, including race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and, in many cases, gender . Thus, discourse that
Apart from any consideration of immigration status,
successfully changes the immigrant narrative or increases public consciousness about their unique concerns will not necessarily garner public support for eliminating immigrant-specific barriers or ensure
immigrants' access to care. Immigrants will still be left to compete with others for access to a health care system that perpetually pits one group against another. Considering our health system from the perspective
of immigrants who are excluded because of immigration-specific barriers is still useful for a number of reasons. It shows how gaps in our current healthcare system have particularly harsh effects on those
marginalized in society due to immigration status. It highlights the inherent, structural defects in our health system and shows how fighting for more rights for immigrants within an inherently inequitable system
, it suggests that more creative approaches should be explored to
enhance coalition building and effect fundamental health care reform that will improve health care access for everyone,
will only produce a limited benefit for some. Finally
including immigrants.
Militarism Impact
Our domestic immigration policy influences foreign interventions abroad—
that results in militarism—empirics prove
Franzblau et al. 1997 Researcher for U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (Kenneth J.,
“Immigration's Impact on U.S. National Security and Foreign Policy”,
https://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/respapers/ii-oct97.pdf)//AN
Immigration concerns also have affected the use of the U.S. armed forces. In response to perceived
immigration crises, United States forces began interdicting Haitians at sea in 1981. By 1993, more than 60,000 Haitians
were interdicted and returned to Haiti or taken to camps at the U.S. military base
in Guantanamo. In 1994, the U.S. government, in a major policy reversal, began interdicting Cuban rafters attempting to reach South Florida by sea. In fear of
another Mariel type exodus, more than 35,000 people were picked up by the U.S. Coast Guard in the summer of 1994 (Newland 1995:197). Immigration fears
were used to justify military support to Nicaraguan contras and the government of El
Salvador throughout the Central American crises of the 1980s. Concerns over unauthorized
immigration have contributed to the militarization of the border between the U nited S tates and
Mexico, although this was motivated primarily by concerns with drug smuggling. Military rhetoric, tactics, strategy, technology, equipment, and
personnel are now part of the effort to staunch the flow of unauthorized immigration. Helicopters,
intrusion detection and surveillance hardware, advanced communications systems, and increases in border patrol agents and facilities have been used in the effort to decrease
U nited S tates also provided funding to Mexico for a land interdiction
program to prevent Central Americans from reaching the United States. As a result, Mexican
apprehensions and deportations of undocumented immigrants jumped from 14,000 in 1988 to an
estimated 160,000 in 1990 (Dunn 1996:95). The most prominent use of U.S. military force in response to a perceived immigration crisis was the intervention in
Haiti in September 1994. On May 19, 1994, President Clinton included among U.S. interests that would justify an
intervention in Haiti the likelihood of a “massive outflow” of refugees to U.S. shores . Four days before the
intervention the President said: Three hundred thousand more Haitians, 5 percent of their entire population, are in hiding in their own country. If we don’t
act, they could be the next wave of refugees at our door. We will continue to face the threat of a
mass exodus of refugees and its constant threat to stability in our region, and control of our borders (Newland
unauthorized immigration (Dunn 1996:44-5). The
1995:202). A number of arguments have been advanced to justify military intervention in refugee-producing situations. For example, human rights violations by a government
against its citizens violates the sovereignty of the people and the offending government cannot thereafter claim that intervention violates its sovereignty because the real
violation of sovereignty was the government’s mistreatment of its own citizens (Keely 1996:1060 quoting Reisman). Human rights violations carried out or tolerated by a
government or carried out when a government is incapable of stopping it almost invariably lead to internal displacement and eventual refugee flows across borders (Keely
The threat of refugees to the stability of receiving countries provides an argument
justifying self-defensive actions under the U.N. charter. “Provoking refugee flows can rise to the
equivalent of aggression” (Keely 1996:1060 quoting McCalmon). “A country may defend itself by forceful intervention in another state to end human rights
1996:1060).
violations and prevent imminent refugee flows that threaten its security (Keely 1996:1060). Such theories have been used to support interventions authorized by the United
Security Council invoked transborder refugee
flows to justify international action in Iraq and Haiti respectively. The Security Council authorization of U.S. intervention
Nations Security Council pursuant to Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. In 1991 and 1994, the
in Somalia in 1992 took note of the large numbers of refugees displaced by the conflict and called for repatriation of refugees as part of the U.N. operation (Dowty & Loescher
1996:63). U.N.-authorized interventions in Rwanda in 1994 and in Kurdish areas of northern Iraq in 1991 both explicitly took note of the large numbers of refugees and
displaced persons created by those crises (Dowty & Loescher 1996:65). Established foreign policy agencies of the United States could be used in preparation for such
immigration emergencies as those of the Vietnamese boat people and the large numbers fleeing periodically from Cuba, Haiti, and Central America. Most humanitarian
emergencies that generate large-scale movements of refugees and other displaced persons are predictable to some degree. United States intelligence services and the
. Preventive
actions after identification of a potential large-scale emigration of people can involve a wide
array of strategies ranging from diplomacy, to economic sanctions, to military intervention
Department of State are well placed to analyze events in potential migrant-sending countries and make recommendations to prevent massive emigrations
(U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform 1997:13). Emergency responses often involve the use of military forces for rescue operations and military bases for housing displaced
persons.
Framing
Scholarship is important in the debate space—discourse on immigration
has become a self-fulfilling prophecy—the ICE has justified violence for
nothing
Camayd-Freixas 2013 - Ph.D., Spanish Interpreter for Federal Courts, and Professor of
Spanish & Director of Translation & Interpretation Program at Florida International University
(Erik, “US Immigration Reform and Its Global Impact: Lessons from the Postville Raid”)//AN
Soon after inception, ICE
drafted a covert charter, Operation Endgame, a strategic master plan (2003-2012) to
remove all deportable aliens from the U nited S tates, numbering in the millions. The American Civil Liberties Union
uncovered and publicized the “smoking gun" document in 2007, charging that the draconian plan was
tantamount to an ethnic cleansing campaign .34 Its very name, Endgame: Detention and Removal
Strategy for a Secure Homeland, raised troubling parallels to the creation of the Gestapo. The embarrassing document and all
references to it were quickly removed from government websites, but its purpose remained: “100% removal as the basis for
operational and budgetary plans and their execution.”3’’ Within three years, ICE
honed strategies and operations, doubled
its bud¬get and personnel, and then, in 2006, launched a massive campaign of work¬site raids,
home invasions, and deportations (figure 7.2). Worksite arrests skyrocketed from 445 in 2003 to 5,184 in
2008. Criminal arrests increased 44-fold, as ICE prosecutors construed new ways to criminalize migrants
through the slanted use of identity theft charges disallowed later in 2009 by the US Supreme Court.36
Deportations soared from 165,000 in 2002 to 359,000 in 2008. In 2007, 91 percent of deportees had no
criminal record, even when frivolous charges inflated criminal deportation figures. No terrorist suspects were ever
arrested in worksite raids.3' The failure of these enforcement-only policies is most evident in the steady growth of the
undocumented population, from 8.5 to 11.8 million for 2000-2007, in tandem with US economic growth.38 As deportations
increased, voluntary departures decreased, resulting in a net drop of 35 per¬cent in total repatriations over the same period.39
Increased border security impeded circular migration, keeping more people in than out. More
migrants stayed, because it became riskier and costlier to reenter.40 Only with the economic downturn did the undocumented
population decrease to 11.9 million in 2008 and 10.8 million in 2009. On the other hand, from 2000 (8.5 million) to 2011 (11.5
million) the undocumented population grew at a yearly rate of only 3 percent and remained at well under 4 percent of the total US
population.41 This historical trend shows that
there really was no “immigration crisis” to justify the
crackdown . The undocumented population mirrors, and contributes to, the rate of economic growth and labor demand.
Ironically, the only effective way to reduce it is to undermine the national economy. In this regard, enforcement acts as
a self-fulfilling prophecy . Migrants typically occupy unfilled lower-level jobs that generate economic activity and
higher-level derivative jobs for Americans; they increase industry com¬petitiveness, reduce consumer prices, and keep American
companies from transferring jobs abroad. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan held that illegal immigration has made
a “significant contribution” to US economic growth by providing a flexible workforce and a “safety valve” as demand for workers
rises and tails. He warned that immigration reform is “badly needed” to create avenues for skilled and unskilled
workers to enter the country legally.42 Conversely, the immigration crackdown contributed to the economic downturn and the rise
in unemployment among US workers (figure 7.3). Yet, immigration
policy has less to do with economic
rationality than with veiled political interests vested in demographic control, with racial, labor, and
ideological underpinnings. Hence the discourse of immigration
Independently, the way we talk about this matters—using terms like “illegal
immigrants” are dehumanizing
McLeigh 2010 Washington Fellow of the American Orthopsychiatric Association for 2009–
2010 (Jill, “How Do Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Practices Affect the Mental
Health of Children?”)//AN
Conclusions There
was a time when only acts—not people—were illegal. Today, however, news headlines
and political speeches regularly refer to “illegal immigrants.” Such terminology is not only
incorrect; it is also dehumanizing . Whether authorized or not, immigration has a human face, and
the U nited S tates has a national and international obligation to respect the humanity and the
dignity of every individual. We all would do well to reflect upon the words of James Truslow Adams in his book The Epic of
America, in which the term American dream first appeared: The American Dream is . . . not a dream of motor cars and high wages
merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are
innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position. In
the ongoing policy debate about how to fix the country’s broken immigration system, efforts
should be undertaken to prevent children from becoming collateral damage. When
politicians take great pains—under pressure from the public, of course—to ensure that no government
benefits accrue to children who were brought to the United States, even as infants, there is something
fundamentally wrong.
Gang Dehumanization
Gangs are inherently dehumanizing and violate basic human rights, specifically
including preconditions of physical and sexual abuse of those who join
Acquaviva 2000 (Gary J. Acquaviva, “Values, Violence, and Our Future”,
https://books.google.com/books?id=qAtNAPteVk0C&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=%22gangs%22
+%22dehumanize%22&source=bl&ots=NuZlfKB3No&sig=MybqF5h4oezhGrETb42zEO7D_Is&
hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAmoVChMIwrbhwuXxxgIVRNYsCh0JVw7_#v=onepage&q=%
22gangs%22%20%22dehumanize%22&f=false, p. 69)
Control is power. Whether one individual controls another, or a group such as a gang controls its
members, or a nation controls its people, control ultimately valued as power. Laws were established in
our democracy to preserve the common good and defend human dignity and freedom. The United States
Constitution and The Bill of Rights were written to limit the power of government by the rights of
individuals. The signers of these historic documents knew they had to prevent government from having
control over individual freedoms. They understand that when individuals, groups, or governments
have control over the freedoms of other individuals, they will inevitably take away
their integrity and degrade, dehumanize, or violate them. Historical ways of acquiring
control over individuals have been similar, but the technological methods of conditioning have
changed. Today, some individuals consent to being dehumanized and violated. Methods of social control
that condition individuals to dehumanize themselves are discussed in the chapter above on “Pop-Culture:
marketing Violence Globally.” Methods requiring individuals to agree voluntarily to be
violent emerged late in the nineteen-nineties, along with the increase in violent
teenage gangs. The rites of passage into these criminal gangs require boys and
girls in their early teen years to consent to be physically violated. The boys consent
to be physically beaten by existing members of the gangs. Girls who become members
must willingly consent to have sex with several older members of the gangs—the
number being determined by the chance role of dice. Many primitive cultures had
sacrificial ceremonies as well as rites of initiation that were violent, but they were intended to enhance,
not degrade, the dignity of individuals or the group. The focus of this chapter is on the methods of control
individuals use to dehumanize, degrade, or violate others. Individuals make up groups, gangs, and
governments; so similarities will be found in these methods of control.
The dehumanization of both themselves and others has conditioned gang
members to accept killing as normalized and encouraged
Amp ’11 (“Dehumanization and the Psychology of killing”, North to the Future, 07/31/11,
https://northstarguide.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/dehumanization-and-the-psychology-ofkilling/)//cl
So far in this discussion of the process and function of dehumanization we haven’t really
touched on the focus of what dehumanization is aimed at, allowing a functioning normal human
being to kill easily and with minimal moral difficulty. Killing other humans is not something
that comes naturally to people. Even for men and women raised around firearms who have been
hunting for years the skill to successfully kill someone is there but the heart and intent are for
the most part not. Consider the average person who can take a human life in modern
American society, there are people who have dehumanized through conditioning to
be able to kill such as a gang member who grew up in that environment and
lifestyle where killing was normalized and even encouraged. A soldier or a police officer
who has been conditioned to be able to shoot and kill also falls in this category albeit through a very
different process. Removing that type of individual we have crimes of rage and passion, these are very
dissimilar from the soldier’s task or the conditioned criminal, with a crime of passion it’s all on chemicals,
many people don’t actually go forth with the thought of killing someone according to the interviews after
the fact. There is only one category of person who has the ability to kill others of their species with out
concern, we call these people sociopaths. They have a variety of critical mental illnesses that result in
them dehumanizing everything and everyone, there is no emotion to the act of killing, no more than a
normal human being does washing their hands. Thankfully these individuals are few and far between and
this level of dehumanization is the last thing one would want in a soldier. That’s the point where soldiers
lose their sense of who the enemy is and civilians go from people to be defended to just more targets.
The “gang mindset” destroys value to life
Harrington et. al 2000 (John Harrington and Kate Cavett, “G is for Gangsta: Introductory
Assessment of Gang Activity and Issues in Minnesota”, http://www.oralhistorian.org/part1.pdf,
p. 48-49)
The gang addiction starts out because of an emotional illusion. It is an illusion that
gang members admit intellectually is dysfunctional, but is so entrenched in their mind and
feelings that they cannot escape it. Rationally, a gang member will tell counselors that they
understand that there are clear dangers to being a gang member. As J Rock, a Minneapolis Vice
Lord stated he would either spend a long time in prison or be dead by 23. No other choices
existed. Intellectually, the gangster can see the long term picture, but emotionally the
Generation X slogan, “I want what I want and I want it now,” seems to be the operative value
system.99 Gavonti speaks to this when he says: “….when I was running with the gang, I
didn’t respect anybody but myself. I mean just because you were in the gang
doesn’t mean I have to respect you. I was really selfish. I was deeply involved with
drugs and alcohol, didn’t care for my life, ya know. When I was out there banging I
could have gotten shot and would feel the relief ‘cuz I didn’t wanna live. I didn’t
have nothing to live for. Before, I always told people, I don’t care if I die. I ain’t
scared to die.
Psychological Effects
Mental health issues are a result of racial profiling and discrimination—
traumatic discrimination stress has become an everyday part of the
immigrant’s life
Becerra et. al ’12 (David Becerra, David Androff, Andrea Cimino, M. Alex Wagaman, Kelly N.
Blanchard, “The Impact of Perceived Discrimination and Immigration Policies Upon
Perceptions of Quality of Life Among Latinos in the United States”, 12/28/12,
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrea_Cimino2/publication/257787966_The_Impact_o
f_Perceived_Discrimination_and_Immigration_Policies_Upon_Perceptions_of_Quality_of_L
ife_Among_Latinos_in_the_United_States/links/554b3f4b0cf21ed213591360.pdf, p. 66)//cl
Although Latino immigrants tend to be healthy when they arrive in the United States, previous
studies have found that the stress associated with acculturation to the United States as
well as with discrimination and fear of deportation can increase the risk for
negative physical and mental health issues (Franzini et al. 2001; Mitchell and Lassiter
2006; Pumariega et al. 2005). Pere´z et al. (2008) found that Latino immigrants who
arrived in the United States at younger ages were more likely to perceive
discrimination compared to immigrants who arrived at older ages which may indicate that as
Latino immigrants go through the acculturation process, they may have greater
interactions with non-Latinos and increase opportunities to experience
discrimination. It is clear that many Latinos, both documented and undocumented, perceive the
increased enforcement of immigration laws that have occurred since September 11, 2001, as
discriminatory and fear-producing (Hernandez 2005; Michelson and Pallares 2001). Recent enforcement
strategies are perceived as targeting groups based on national origin because they are more likely to be
undocumented (Adler 2006). Although policies are targeted at undocumented Latinos , all Latinos are
vulnerable to discrimination and racial profiling in this anti-immigration climate
which may have serious health consequences. The term discrimination stress has
been used to describe the impact of personal or vicarious experiences of
racerelated discrimination. Based on stress theory, this concept has been used to illustrate the
transaction between an individual and his/her environment and the resulting impact on the person’s wellbeing. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), a person makes an automatic and often
unconscious appraisal of an event or situation and cognitively assesses its impact on
him/herself or other loved ones. The resulting emotional response to the event or situation is
based in this appraisal of the source of stress. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) believe that the cognitively
driven emotional response is an important survival strategy. More specifically, experiences of
perceived discrimination can be both traumatic and part of the daily hassles of the
life of a person of color. Such experiences require emotional and cognitive energy well beyond the
incident or interaction itself (Harrell 2000). Previous studies have found that the negative health impacts
may be even greater when an individual is unsure whether or not he or she is the target of discrimination
(Chen and Matthews 2001; Crocker et al. 1991; Lazarus and Folkman 1984; Pachter et al. 2010).
‘‘Immigrants are punished by a racializing process that blurs the boundary between citizenship and noncitizenship and in turn justifies the maltreatment of noncitizens by the state’’ (Hernandez 2005, p. 11).
ICE immigration enforcement has led to the separation of families,
accompanied by a lasting psychological effect: fear and instability become
pervasive in the minds of affected children—this spills over to the rest of the
community
Becerra et. al ’12 (David Becerra, David Androff, Andrea Cimino, M. Alex Wagaman, Kelly N.
Blanchard, “The Impact of Perceived Discrimination and Immigration Policies Upon
Perceptions of Quality of Life Among Latinos in the United States”, 12/28/12,
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrea_Cimino2/publication/257787966_The_Impact_o
f_Perceived_Discrimination_and_Immigration_Policies_Upon_Perceptions_of_Quality_of_L
ife_Among_Latinos_in_the_United_States/links/554b3f4b0cf21ed213591360.pdf, p. 66)//cl
Within the past 10 years, there has been an increase in immigration
enforcement, including workplace raids by immigration and local
authorities (Thronson 2008). These raids have produced fear among undocumented
immigrants and their children. The impact of increased immigration enforcement on children is
of grave concern, particularly given that at least 5 million children, most of which are nativeborn US citizens, are living with at least one undocumented parent (Capps et al. 2007). Capps et
al. (2007) found that children and families experienced pervasive fear as a result of
workplace raids and this fear can have lasting effects on children’s psychological
well-being. The separation of families and the resulting destabilization creates
psychological trauma for the children involved. The fear and stigma associated with
the enforcement strategies has a ripple effect on other members of the community.
The effects found in children whose parents had been detained were also found in
other children within the community whose parents were not detained (Capps et al.
2007). Another study, which included sites of immigration home raids and local law
enforcement practices including worksite raids, confirmed that the children indeed
experienced behavior changes in the intermediate and long term including
aggression and anxiety (Chaudry et al. 2010). Constant or ongoing fear of deportation of a
parent or loved one can exacerbate the mental health impact of such experiences (McLeigh
2010). In addition, fear keeps most families from seeking help from agencies and in
some cases even from opening the door to their homes to accept assistance being
offered (Capps et al. 2007). This increases the social isolation of families and the
financial and emotional burden on extended family networks (Capps et al. 2007),
which has been compounded by policies limiting access to social services. Particularly at the
beginning of the ICE workplace raids, the best interest of the children was not at the forefront.
There is now protocol in place to consider the most efficient and least traumatizing way to
reunify children with their parents through collaboration with local child protection agencies
and other stakeholders (Cervantes and Lincroft 2010). However, there is no evidence that this
reduces the related trauma of the event. Not only is the research on the impact of enforcement
on Latino families and children significantly lacking, but neither the Department of Health
Services nor state or local child welfare agencies currently track the exact number of children of
undocumented immigrants who come into custody or are impacted by increased immigration
enforcement.
Enforcement strategies have created divisions within communities,
increasing fear while decreasing trust in the police. Those within the
community persistently struggle between the majority and the minority
cultures, experiencing less optimism and more depressive symptoms
Becerra et. al ’12 (David Becerra, David Androff, Andrea Cimino, M. Alex Wagaman, Kelly N.
Blanchard, “The Impact of Perceived Discrimination and Immigration Policies Upon
Perceptions of Quality of Life Among Latinos in the United States”, 12/28/12,
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrea_Cimino2/publication/257787966_The_Impact_o
f_Perceived_Discrimination_and_Immigration_Policies_Upon_Perceptions_of_Quality_of_L
ife_Among_Latinos_in_the_United_States/links/554b3f4b0cf21ed213591360.pdf, p. 67)//cl
Escalation of immigration policy enforcement has peaked over the last decade (Becerra 2012),
and studies have found that these enforcement strategies have increased fear and
perceived discrimination among Latinos in general (Hernandez 2005; Michelson and
Pallares 2001). Research has shown that immigration enforcement strategies have
created tension and distrust in communities and have led to increased fear and
perception of crime among both Latino and non-Latino community members
(Adler 2006). Latino subpopulations in multiethnic neighborhoods have experienced divisions
as those of nationalities that have been less targeted by enforcement strategies seek to distance
themselves from those who have experienced heightened enforcement (Adler 2006). In
addition, a study conducted in the Phoenix metropolitan area identified interactions
with border patrol and immigration enforcement officers as having a significant
impact on immigrants’ perceptions of crime, which in turn was related to
increased fear of being a target of crime and decreased trust in police (Menjivar and
Bejarano 2004). This is counter to many neighborhood wellbeing initiatives, which
often rely on residents’ willingness to report crime and interact with one another. It is clear that
changes in immigration laws since 2001, both at the policy level and at the enforcement level,
have resulted in discriminatory practices with broad-reaching, harmful effects. Latino
children and adolescents facing discrimination stress related to the strain of living
between a majority and minority culture have been found to have less optimism
and more depressive symptoms compared to non-Latino children and adolescents.
Romero et al. (2007) found that depressive symptoms increased with the level of stress
experienced. Immigrant youths of Mexican descent in particular have been found to have high
levels of discrimination stress, which has also been associated with lower self-esteem (Edwards
and Romero 2008). Previous studies have also found that adolescents experiencing mental
health symptoms experience higher levels of internalization in association with
perceived discrimination (Ayo´n et al. 2010).
Undocumented immigrants are scared to approach government based
services, which exacerbates the physical and mental health conditions
caused by enforcement authorities—this results in an overall decline in
value to life
Becerra et. al ’12 (David Becerra, David Androff, Andrea Cimino, M. Alex Wagaman, Kelly N.
Blanchard, “The Impact of Perceived Discrimination and Immigration Policies Upon
Perceptions of Quality of Life Among Latinos in the United States”, 12/28/12,
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrea_Cimino2/publication/257787966_The_Impact_o
f_Perceived_Discrimination_and_Immigration_Policies_Upon_Perceptions_of_Quality_of_L
ife_Among_Latinos_in_the_United_States/links/554b3f4b0cf21ed213591360.pdf, p. 67)//cl
Discrimination stress has been related to depressive symptoms in Mexican migrant farm workers.
Alderete et al. (1999) found that those with high levels of stress were at twice the risk of depression
compared with those with low levels. Similarly, poor mental health status was found to be associated with
perceived discrimination in Latino immigrants in general (Gee et al. 2006). Also, Ding and Hargraves
(2009) found stress-related mental health conditions, such as depression and anxiety, are associated with
poor health status. Depression, in particular, appears to be a link between experiences of discrimination
and poor health status. Finch et al. (2001) found that for adults of Mexican origin,
discrimination has a direct connection to overall poor health, particularly for
those experiencing job-related discrimination. While it is evident based on previous
studies that experienced and perceived discrimination is detrimental to the health, mental
health and self-esteem of Latinos, most of these studies do not take into consideration
the impact of policies that either directly limit access of undocumented Latino
immigrants to government-based health and social services, such as TANF or
Medicaid, or create enough fear to instill resistance to seek help, both of which
may exacerbate existing or minor health and mental health conditions (Androff et
al. 2011). For example, Arizona’s Proposition 200 attempted to limit undocumented immigrants
from accessing public benefits and voting by requiring proof of citizenship (National
Immigration Forum 2004). It also required public servants to deny services to undocumented
immigrants and to turn them over to immigration authorities, or face jail or fines. In 2011,
proposed cuts to the Arizona state Medicaid system included elimination of emergency medical
coverage for undocumented immigrants (Reinhart 2011). As a result of all of these factors, it is
important to examine how US immigration policies impact Latinos’ perceptions of
quality of life and discrimination in order for community mental health practitioners to
have the information to effectively meet the needs of Latinos in the United States.
Increased fear of deportation, lower use of government services, lower
optimism, and lower quality of life are all correlated with increased
immigration enforcement
Becerra et. al ’12 (David Becerra, David Androff, Andrea Cimino, M. Alex Wagaman, Kelly N.
Blanchard, “The Impact of Perceived Discrimination and Immigration Policies Upon
Perceptions of Quality of Life Among Latinos in the United States”, 12/28/12,
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrea_Cimino2/publication/257787966_The_Impact_o
f_Perceived_Discrimination_and_Immigration_Policies_Upon_Perceptions_of_Quality_of_L
ife_Among_Latinos_in_the_United_States/links/554b3f4b0cf21ed213591360.pdf, p. 68)//cl
Since undocumented immigrants, primarily Latinos, have been the targets of recent immigration policies,
it is important to examine whether or not perceived discrimination is a risk factor for lower perceptions of
quality of life among Latinos. The increased enforcement of immigration policies may have created
personal hardships for many Latinos and may also serve as an external stressor that contributes to risk
factors resulting in a lower sense of quality of life among Latinos in the United States. On the other hand,
previous studies have identified possible protective factors such as higher levels of education and income
(Bassuk et al. 1997; Resnik 2000), while other factors may be protective or risk factors depending on the
issue being examined such as being female (Becerra and Castillo 2011), being a US citizen (Shedlin et al.
2006), or having higher levels of acculturation (Berry 1997). Latino immigrants are considered an
‘‘underserved population,’’ and understanding the impact of perceived discrimination upon the use of
government services such as healthcare and social services is important to guide policymakers in
developing effective interventions (Furman et al. 2008). In order to guide future research and practice
toward reducing discrimination and promoting high quality of life among Latinos, this study seeks to
understand how certain factors may put Latinos at risk for or protect against a lower perceived quality of
life. Based upon the ecological risk and resiliency theoretical model and previous research, this study
examines whether potential risk factors, such as problems with immigration enforcement or perceived
discrimination, negatively affect Latinos’ perceived quality of life, or whether additional factors such as
being female, higher levels of income, education, and acculturation, as well as US citizenship status, may
be protective factors. The independent variables thought to be external stressors that may be risk factors
for a lower perceived quality of life among Latinos include problems with immigration enforcement and
perceived discrimination. The independent variables thought to be protective factors against a lower
perceived quality of life include being female, higher income, education, and acculturation, as well as US
citizenship status. Controlling for the possible protective factors, this study examines the relationship
between the risk factors of increased issues as a result of immigration enforcement and perceived
discrimination, with the various dependent variables of perceived quality of life, fear of deportation, and
use of government services. Specifically, this study examined the following hypotheses:
Participants who report greater issues as a result of immigration enforcement will report lower
optimism for Latino children and perceive a lower quality of life for themselves and other
Latinos in the United States. Participants who report greater issues as a result of
immigration enforcement will have a greater fear of deportation of themselves, a
family member, or a friend. Participants who report greater issues as a result of
immigration enforcement will report lower use of government services.
Participants who report higher levels of perceived discrimination will report
lower optimism for Latino children and perceive a lower quality of life for
themselves and other Latinos in the US. Participants who report higher levels of
perceived discrimination will have a greater fear of deportation of themselves, a family member,
or a friend. Participants who report higher levels of perceived discrimination will report lower
use of government services.
Domestic Abuse
Victims of domestic abuse refrain from reporting the
crime because of the fear of deportation, separation of a
family, or more violence
Yu-Hsi Lee 15- Immigration Reporter for ThinkProgress. She received her B.A. in Psychology and Middle East
and Islamic Studies and a M.A. in Psychology from New York University. (Esther Yu-His Lee “Why Latinos Believe
Domestic Violence Goes Under-Reported” http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/04/23/3649802/domesticviolence-immigrant-study/, TS)
Among the Latino community, the fear of getting
deported, having their children taken away, or facing more violence are the top barriers
perceived to prevent Latino immigrants from reporting
domestic violence and sexual assault, a new report
found. At least 41 percent of surveyed Latinos believe that the main reason that Latino immigrant
victims don’t seek help is because of deportation fears. Culling interviews from 800 Latino men and
women, the No Más report found that 56 percent of surveyed Latinos know a domestic violence victim,
while one in four people know a victim of sexual assault. Among the younger Latino generation, the
pattern of violence was about the same: half of all surveyed Latinos under the age of 30 reported that they
know a victim of domestic violence, while one in four reported that they know someone who was a victim
The top reason that Latinos indicated that
victims don’t come forward or seek help is because of the
fear of deportation, closely followed by having their
children taken away, and facing more violence. Juan Carlos
of sexual assault.
Areán, senior director of the National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities*, told
ThinkProgress, “the fear of deportation comes from anecdotal evidence … though it’s not prevalent,
when immigrants call the police, they might end up
getting arrested themselves because of the suspicion that
they’re undocumented. This.. builds enough fear for the community to be afraid.”
SB 1070 has impeded immigrants from reporting crimes
– causing the immigrants to live in a constant terror
Seyler 12- graduate of American University with a major in international communications and received her J.D.
from the University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law (Michelle Seyler “For immigrant
women in the U.S., reporting abuse rarely an option” http://www.womenundersiegeproject.org/blog/entry/forimmigrant-women-in-u.s.-reporting-abuse-rarely-an-option, TS)
Imagine living every day with the terror that, at any
moment, you might be ripped apart from your family,
your home, your job, your livelihood, your friends. Imagine
feeling as though you have no choice but to risk all of this to report a case
of rape or domestic violence. Such is the dilemma for
countless immigrant women in the United States: Either
suffer silently—often at the hands of husbands or family members—or go to
the police and risk deportation. For years, women who have
emigrated to the U.S. have been trapped in a “precarious and
vulnerable position, whether it’s domestic violence, taking their children to
school, access to health care, or the ability to report a case of rape,”
explained Mallika Dutt, president of an India- and U.S.-based human rights organization called
Breakthrough. Their reluctance to report rape or abuse often means that there is no end to the
violence, said Claudia Arévalo, an Arizona-based attorney who specializes in immigration issues.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision on Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070, only cements this
problem. While in Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court blocked three aspects of the law
on the basis that they overstepped the bounds of state governance—a decision that pleased the
Obama administration—intrinsic problems remain that affect immigrant women. Arizona’s
governor, Jan Brewer, asserted that the “heart” of SB 1070 was “vindicated.” The section to
which Brewer referred is what has come to be known as the “show me your papers” provision. It
directs local law enforcement to request the
immigration papers of anyone they stop or arrest if the
officers have “reasonable suspicion” to believe that the stopped person
may be in the country illegally. Although in theory, Arizona law
enforcement can’t ask to see immigration documents
without this “reasonable suspicion,” the requirement is
one over which lawyers and advocates remain skeptical. They believe the law will
pave the way for increased racial profiling and abuse of authority—both of which can affect how
readily women will come forward to report allegations of crimes like rape. “We just don’t know
what this will look like,” Arévalo said. “Yes, Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search
and seizure apply,” she explains. “But my clients are asking, ‘what
does
reasonable suspicion mean? Can they come into our
house at any time?’ The fear [of SB 1070] is increasing
and affecting every aspect of their lives. They were
scared before to report rape and domestic violence, but
now they never will.”
Living in a constant fear comes with many health risks
including premature death
CSH no date- the Center has played a pivotal role in improving the health and wellbeing of people, organizations
and communities at the local, national and international levels. Our remarkable faculty, experts drawn from the
University and the community, are committed to innovation, service and social change (Center for Spirituality &
Healing “Impact of Fear and Anxiety” http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/enhance-yourwellbeing/security/facing-fear/impact-fear, TS)
Living under constant threat weakens our immune
system and can cause cardiovascular damage,
gastrointestinal problems such as ulcers and irritable bowel syndrome, and
decreased fertility. Fear can impair formation of long-term memories and
cause damage to certain parts of the brain, such as the
hippocampus. This can make it even more difficult to regulate fear and can leave a person
anxious most of the time. To someone in chronic fear, the world looks scary and their memories
confirm that. Moreover, fear
can interrupt processes in our brains
that allow us to regulate emotions, read non-verbal cues
and other information presented to us, reflect before
acting, and act ethically. This impacts our thinking and
decision-making in negative ways, leaving us susceptible to intense
emotions and impulsive reactions. All of these effects can leave us unable to act appropriately.
Other consequences of long-term fear include fatigue,
clinical depression, accelerated ageing, and even
premature death. So whether threats to our security are real or perceived, they
impact our mental and physical wellbeing.
AT: Anti-Blackness
Latina/o subjectivity has been appropriated into Blackness—cultural norms
have categorized both identities as “non-White”—a combination of both
identities is crucial
Márquez 2011 Assistant Professor of African American Studies and Latina/o Studies at
Northwestern University (John, “The browning of Black politics: Foundational Blackness and
new Latino subjectivities”, Vol. 4, 1, pages 47-67)//AN
Latino
subjectivity is most commonly described as being shaped by discourses of cultural nationalism, vibrant
trans-nationalism, or by a unique proximity to whiteness. Latinos are also depicted as a group that , like many European
immigrants who initially experienced ethnic prejudice in the United States, will one day be absorbed into the white population.
However, as Davila (2008) has recently argued, most Latinos are of dark phenotype and are thus ‘not so easily
whitened’ (Davila, 2008, p. 8). Many Latinos are also (phenotypically) Black themselves due to
the prominence of the slave trade in Latin America. This is a fact that Scott-Heron seemed to be referencing in his description of a
‘common ancient bloodline’ between Blacks and Latinos in the United States. A proximity to whiteness, then, has at no point granted
Latinos immunity from necropolitics. Discourses of white supremacy were solidified as characteristics of
US nationalism in direct opposition to Latinos during the midnineteenth century (Horsman, 1983). In the late-nineteenth and
early-twentieth centuries Latinos were lynched in the southwest at a rate comparable to that experienced by
Blacks in the south (Gonzales-Day, 2006). Since the World War II era, whiteness has not spared Latinos from being
victimized by police terror in much same way that Blacks are routinely victimized. In more recent decades,
the stigma of being categorized as ‘illegal immigrants’ only exacerbates the vulnerability of Latinos to necropolitics and anti-Latino hate crimes
have increased by roughly 50 per cent in recent years largely as a result of
rampant xenophobia . The state of Arizona this year passed a bill that allows for, and encourages, police officers to profile Latinos racially as a method to
deter ‘illegal’ immigration. Reminiscent of Scott-Heron’s commentary in 1979, the Black rapper Talib Kweli recently referred to the growing
wave of anti-Latino racism in the United States as ‘Jim Crow en Español’ (Kweli, 2010). Latinos are also decisively different
from those white youths who have appropriated Blackness via hip-hop culture in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Latino youth helped to
invent hip-hop culture alongside Blacks and popularized much of the dance and visual art elements of that genre. The Black and
Latino foundations of hip-hop thus shed a light on the common struggles of these two
groups and highlight the ways in which expressive cultures often serve as a primary medium through which they engage in racial politics. As Tate (2003) suggests, nonBlacks who appropriate Black culture do so with ‘everything but the burden’. By comparison, a more critical analysis of Latino history suggests
that Latinos appropriate Blackness with the burden included. This complex interrelationship between Black and Latino
constructions of subjectivity is demonstrated in the example of the Houston area. The term ‘ Brown Panthers’ was coined by Minister
Quannel X, the leader of Houston’s chapter of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), as he led a rally to protest a fatal case of police brutality against a Mexican
The ‘Blackness’ of Latino identity in that region certainly puts an interesting twist on debates about Latino subjectivity, whether in Houston or beyond.
immigrant named Luis Torres in 2002. This case and rally transpired in Baytown, a blue-collar suburb of Houston that sits roughly 20 miles east of Houston’s downtown
Torres was beaten and choked to death as
he was being detained for suspicions of public intoxication and for being armed and dangerous .
The same report found no traces of alcohol or drugs in his body, and no weapon was
found on him . In addition, there was also video evidence of Torres’ violent mistreatment. Despite the evidence, a grand jury ruled that it would not press charges
against the officers involved. As with the case of Jose Campos Torres in 1977, the Torres case of 2002 galvanized protests by Blacks
and Latinos alike, and Houston’s chapter of the NBPP was central to this solidarity. After he was ousted from the Nation of Islam in 1994, Khalid Muhammad (a
district. An autopsy report released by the Harris County Medical Examiner’s office proved that
native of southeast Houston), helped to establish the NBPP as a self-described ‘Black supremacist’ organization that would fill the void for Black militancy in the United States
left by the decline of the original Black Panther Party for Self Defense formed in Oakland, California, in 1968. Muhammad died mysteriously soon thereafter, and his protégé
Quannel X (also a southeast Houston native) soon rose to prominence as a national NBPP spokesperson.
Negative
Neolib/Foucault Link
The affirmative misses the backdrop of bio-political neoliberalism that has
created racism—the State craves the migrant for economic growth, but yet
wants to render the migrant invisible when the migrant comes back for
help—this paradox makes racism inevitable without focus on the underlying
causes
Yeng 2014 – Assistant Professor for Philosophy (Sokthan, “The Biopolitics of Race: State
Racism and U.S. Immigration. - Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Rowman & Littlefield, pg. 6770)//AN
way in which
policies work to control immigration is only further indication that immigrant labor is useful and
desirable to the U.S. economy. While new governmental agencies have been developed to respond to immigration, the eradication of immigration and immigrant labor is not the
Although migrant workers are judged to be bad economic subjects and depicted as leeches to the system, they are actually indispensible to the welfare of the state. The
goal of these agencies. Discussion about immi¬gration enforcement agencies may employ forceful rhetoric but the elimi¬nation of immigrant labor is out of the question because it would under- mine the
economy. 11 Instead or using get-tough enforcement to reduce immigration flows,... immigration reform [agendas tend] to support the expansion of immigration enforcement as a precondition for expanding the
Efforts to patrol the border are not meant to stem the tide of immigration. The goal, as
Border controls work to expand —while regulating—the immigrant labor
force. The absence of immigrant labor is just as unacceptable as the unregulated mass of immigrant workers. In order to keep the economy function¬ing, migrant workers
must not only provide cheap labor but they must also be tracked and controlled . If
immigrants are not properly regulated, there would be no way of measuring how much more foreign labor will be needed to keep the economy afloat or to further propel it. Neoliberal
ideology does not, therefore, mandate border patrol for the sake of protecting the national economy
from immigrant workers. Borders must be controlled, instead, to track and regulate immigrants so as to
increase the influx of low-wage workers. The development of such agencies is a sig¬nal, ironically, of the growing acceptance of immigrants into the work¬force.
"Different sides of the same coin, these apparently contradictory directives have their operating logics in
security, the governing rationale of neoliberalism ." 17 These seemingly divergent goals—controlling the border and increasing migrant
labor—show the flexibility within neolib¬eral discourse. Placing an emphasis on national security can allow contradictory policies
to be pursued because the neoliberal emphasis on secur¬ity can also allow policies
to be framed in radically divergent ways. De¬pending on the audience, governmental regulations can be interpreted as pro- or anti-immigration. Critics might even
supply of noncitizen labor."16
Kretsedcmas ex¬plains, is quite the opposite.
argue that the focus on se¬curity within neoliberal rhetoric, especially concerning Mexican migrant workers, allows for one policy to be pursued while presented in an oppo site manner. All the bluster directed at
when migrant workers seek services—medical or otherwise —
this does cause a genuine problem for neoliberal governments. Although this problem is often cast in terms of the unworthy,
illegal immigrant who drains the economy of scarce resources, the cracks in the system that
these immigrants expose when they seek medical attention are the greater concern for
neoliberals . The illegal migrant worker is a convenient scapegoat for a flailing economy. They can be depicted as unwanted and unneeded people who do nothing but take advantage of the
keeping foreign workers out of the U.S. labor market may only be for show. However,
nation's valuable assets. This story does not, as Kretsedemas points out, hold up. Immigrants, for the most part, aid neoliberal governments by providing low-wage workers. Yet it is no coincidence that the debate
entrance of immigrants into the labor
market is not a problem, as long as their presence is contained within that sphere .
around immigrants be¬comes more heated when the discussion turns to medical treatment. The
Once immigrants enter into other areas of society, they become a problem. If migrant workers can simply provide their labor and ask for nothing in return, politicians and the public might be content to have them
serve as an invisible engine for the economy. When migrant workers seek health services, they not only become visible reminders of America's dependence on outsiders but they also call attention to the underbelly
Migrant
workers do, as representatives of those without any sup¬port system, make the stresses entailed with managing the national econ¬omy easier to see. They also bring into focus
how the needy and poor are treated. The state of the economy and the lack of public resources dictate that certain segments of society will be underserved or neglected
alto¬gether. 19 The case that migrant workers are and should exist outside society, and therefore not be
eligible for support services, is perhaps easy to sell. Modern societies are accustomed to thinking that support services should be provided by one's
of society. Even opponents of open immigration policies occasionally acknowledge that a direct con¬nection cannot be made between the immigrant and the strained econo¬my.18
nation of origin.20 They are, in legal terms, foreign¬ers who are not supposed to have the same rights and privileges as citi¬zens. Their exclusion from the support system would be easier to justify except that, as
migrant workers are not simply excluded: they are deliberately brought in, sought after,
and tolerated by the capi¬talist regime to play a crucial part as the disposable and compliant
labor of the state operation (thus inside), while their membership is deliberately left suspended as "undocumented" individuals who have no official re¬sort to participate politically
Lee notes, "[
in the state as citizens (thus outside)."21 It is difficult to declare that migrant workers exist or should exist outside the American support system because they are such a vital part of the economy. Migrant labor is
not only necessary but is welcomed in an attempt to fuel the capitalist way of life. While the narrative about their lack of economic production continues to be effective in certain circles, scholars and businessmen
alike also frequently challenge this myth.22 The exclu¬sion of migrant workers in society is not a natural and logical result of their unproductiveness. It is not the case that they provide nothing and, therefore,
Exclusion from society is a result of political efforts to ensure that their
voices do not carry any weight in the governance of the state. The barring of immigrant participation is that promise
made good. Their exclusion is a product of a concerted effort to deny rights and privileges that are supposedly given to those who contribute to a neolib¬eral society. That they have a
seemingly dual existence—both inside and outside society—is not inherently offensive to "true" Americans and citi¬zens of modern states.
deserve nothing.
Quite to the contrary, it seems that there would be much less resistance to migrant workers if they allowed themselves to be compliant laborers and asked for nothing in return.2' The inside/outside relationship
that cannot be tolerated is the one where individuals are given access to services, despite not falling within the political parame¬ters of society (not having citizenship or official papers that represent the gateway to
regulation and political participation). Migrant workers are .. an affront to conventional notions of citizenship, which equate politi¬cal, social, and civil rights with the criterion of legal residence."24
Because migrant workers are courted for their labor, those living in neoliberal society should
recognize their contribution to the capitalist system. The fight to block their inclusion into
modern, neoliberal society could be explained through the terms of conventional racism.
Indeed, if the marginalization of migrant workers were justified by their difference in skin color ,
nationality, or culture, it might work to conceal the workings of modern, biopolitical
racism . The denial of the most basic of health ser¬vices and care is a symbol of political exclusion. Migrant workers repre¬sent a population that is supposed to be different from Americans. The proof
is that they are disposable while real Americans are, allegedly, protected.