The Historical Perspective of Immigrant Families: How They Are Currently Politicized and Its Impact

The Historical Perspective Of Immigrant Families: How They Are Currently Politicized And Its Impact

Item Type text; Electronic Thesis

Authors Larsen, Lauren Elisabeth

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 26/09/2021 16:50:45

Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/632727 THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES:

HOW THEY ARE CURRENTLY POLITICIZED AND ITS IMPACT

LAUREN ELISABETH LARSEN

______

A Thesis Submitted to The Honors College

In Partial Fulfillment of the Bachelors degree With Honors in

Family Studies & Human Development

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

M A Y 2 0 1 9

Approved by:

______

Dr. Richard N. Wood Department of Family & Consumer Science THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 2

Abstract

This thesis discusses the United States’ immigration policy in relation to family. Family reunification has been the backbone of U.S. immigration for centuries, however this doesn’t mean that policy makers have been concerned about the well-being of immigrant families.

Immigrant families have become a pawn in politics, leaving this vulnerable population dehumanized while seeking out a better life. The first section explains family-based immigration in the U.S. The second section contains a historical timeline from 1790-2018, focusing on twelve acts that impacted family and children historically. The third section explains three interrelated components that constitute the negative politicizing of immigrant families: demonization, objectification, and fear. The fourth section contains a description of how immigrant families are negatively impacted by current, inhumane policies. The closing section contains the author’s conclusions. Connected to these findings, future research may be able to advocate for an improved immigration and naturalization system in the U.S. so immigrant families are not politicized as they currently are.

Keywords: family, historical timeline, immigration, politicization

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 3

The Historical Perspective of Immigrant Families:

How they are Currently Politicized and its Impact

In the United States, immigrants account for 14% of the population (U.S. Census Bureau, as cited in Conner & Budiman, 2019). Due to the sheer number of immigrants present, U.S. immigration policy has had a profound impact on immigrant families. At times, policies were racist, with the intention of restricting undesirable races that many people in power believed would negatively impact America. Eventually, immense activism efforts would result in policy that prioritized family reunification. However, the reason behind prioritizing families was not because the government had a moral commitment or desire to reunify them. “Though family unity may be a professed goal and central value in American immigration policy, these pronouncements have not meant that immigrant families themselves are valued” (Lee, 2013, p.

111). Families were often used as a pawn, and once they arrived in America they faced many problems (Kandel, 2018). The Trump administration has done the unthinkable by separating families at the United States-Mexico border (Kandel, 2019), unconcerned by the negative long- lasting effects this may have. The following thesis is focusing on family-based immigration, its history, the politicization of immigrant families, and the impact on children and families.

I: Understanding Family-based Immigration

Policy allowing lawful permanent immigration focuses on: family reunification, immigration of persons with needed skills, refugee protection, and country-of-origin diversity

(Kandel, 2018, p.1). “Family-based immigration currently makes up two-thirds of all legal permanent immigration” (Kandel, 2018, p. 1). A common way families immigrate to the U.S. is through “chain migration” which defines the process a citizen or foreign-born immigrant who obtained lawful permanent residence (LPR) (another term for obtaining a green card) can

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 4 sponsor spouses and children (Kandel, 2018, p. 1). The terms “chain migration” and “family reunification” are synonymously used, especially in the media. Chain migration largely contributes to the growth of the immigrant population (Kandel, 2018). This has caused debate on how many LPRs should be awarded annually (Kandel, 2018, p. 1).

The Immigration and Nationality Act establishes an annual limit of 675,000 immigrants

(Kandel, 2018, p.3). 480,000 are family-sponsored immigrants, 140,000 employment-based preference immigrants, 50,000 diversity visa lottery immigrants (this number has been temporarily reduced 5,000 a year to adjust for numbers allowed through the Nicaraguan

Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997), and an unlimited number of refugees and asylees (Kandel, 2018, p. 3). Though U.S. immigration policy grants unlimited admission to U.S. citizen’s immediate relatives, the annual level of family preference immigrants must be a minimum of 226,000 (Kandel, 2018, p. 4). “If the number immediate relatives of the U.S. citizens admitted in the previous year falls below 254,000… then family preference immigrants may exceed 226,000 by that amount” (Kandel, 2018, p. 4). In 2016, 86% of foreign-born admission were due to family ties (Department of Homeland Security, as cited in Kandel, 2018, p. 5).

The above statistics, it is assumed, were the result of the 2002 Homeland Security Act that established two requirements of the Office of Immigration and Statistics. The first is to

“collect and disseminate to Congress and the public data and information useful in evaluating the social, economic, environmental, and demographic impact of immigrations laws” (Homeland

Security, 2019, para. 1). The second is “to establish standards of reliability and validity for immigration statistics collected by the Department’s operational Components” (Homeland

Security, 2019, para. 1).

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 5

Through the INA, lawful permanent residents from any country are to make up 7% of the annual limit of both family preference and employment-based preference immigration (Kandel,

2018, p. 5). There is a maximum number of visas available to immigrants based on their country of origin, however this does not guarantee all will be dispersed (Kandel, 2018, p. 5). Ultimately, the main issue is the number of immigrants eligible for a visa is much greater than the annual visa limit. What follows describes the problems immigrants face such as; supply-demand imbalance, impetus to violate immigration laws, and aging out of legal status categories.

First, there is a supply-demand imbalance for U.S. lawful permanent residence, with the number petitioning for LPR status surpassing the number that can be admitted by law. A “visa queue” occurs where those who have been approved for a visa, wait for availability due to the admission limits (Kandel, 2018, p. 13). In November 2017, the U.S. Department of State determined there were 3.95 million family-preference immigrant applications (as cited in

Kandel, 2018, p. 13). “Countries with relatively large LPR such as Mexico and China, increase visa waiting times substantially” (Kandel, 2018, p. 13). In February 2018, “LPR petitions filed under 1st family preference category (unmarried children of U.S. citizens) on or before March 15,

2011, were being processed close to seven years later for most countries” (Kandel, 2018, p. 15).

This process receives criticism due to its lack of family reunification in a timely-manner and can cause immigrants to break the law (Kandel, 2018).

Because obtaining a visa can take years, current U.S. immigration policy makes promises it cannot deliver. When temporary visas expire, immigrants are faced the difficult decision to

“over-stay their welcome” or to enter the U.S. illegally (Kandel, 2018, p. 17). An additional problem is that individuals may age out of legal status categories.

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 6

Aging-out denotes that the individual is no longer eligible for a benefit due to their age.

This most commonly impacts children. In family-based immigration, children of U.S. citizens versus children of LPRs do not receive the same privileges. Children of citizens are protected due to the Child Status Protection Act of 2002. This means that their age will be “frozen” as what it was when they filed an immigration petition (Kandel, 2018, p. 18). If a family preference

LPR ages-out, they would need to be sponsored by a family member (Kandel, 2018, p. 18). This is discussed further in the historical section of this paper.

In both the 1981 Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy and the 1995

U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, family unification was regarded as the primary goal of U.S. immigration policy. Interestingly, due to the policy creating false hope for immigration for millions, both considered reconfiguring family-based categories (Kandel, 2018). At the 1995

U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, a suggested limitation was that family-based preference should only include spouses and minor unmarried children (Kandel, 2018, p. 21). It has been argued that it is not the obligation of the United States to reconnect families beyond immediate members (Kandel, 2018, p. 22). There are also concerns due to the lack of consideration of economic and labor market conditions.

Family-based immigration does not have education or skill requirements, ultimately not benefiting the labor market of the U.S. (Borjas, 1999). Yet, “demographically, the foreign-born population in recent decades has contributed to almost all the growth in the working age population (Passel & Cohn, 2017). Previously, the Baby Boomer Generation was “the main driver of the nation’s expanding workforce” (Passel & Cohn, 2017). But as retirement begins for this generation, “immigrants will play the primary role in future growth of the working-age population… (while they will remain the minority of it)” (Passel & Cohn, 2017).

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 7

II: Historical Timeline

Since inception, the United States policy put into action reflected those who were in power and the times they faced. Historically, immigration policy has defined and redefines

“family,” what that means, and should mean in America (Lee, 2013). The following timeline contains a discussion of 38 acts from 1790 to 2018 of prominent immigration and refugee policy.

Twelve of these impacted families and children. On the timeline, asterisks denote a policy where family and or children are directly prioritized or concerned. Parenthesis denote an alternate name for the policy. Then, there is a detailed summary of policies that it is hoped, clarifies how these policies have impacted families.

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 8

A Timeline of Prominent Immigration and Refugee Policy in the United States

Naturalization Act* 1790 1798 Alien and Sedition Act Page Act 1875 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act Immigration Act 1891 1907 Immigration Act Immigration Act* 1917 (Literacy Act/Asiatic Barred Zone Act) Emergency Quota Act 1921 (Emergency Immigration Act) Immigration Act* (Johnson-Reed Act) 1924 (National Origins Act) Truman Directive 1945 & Bracero Agreement & War Brides Act* Displaced Persons Act 1948 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)* 1952 (McCarren-Walter Act) Refugee Relief Act 1953 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)* 1962 Migration and Refugee Assistance Act (Hart-Cellar Act) 1965 Indochina Migration and 1975 Immigration and Nationality Refugee Assistance Act Act Amendments 1976 1980 Refugee Act Immigration Reform and Control Act 1986 (IRCA) 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act (ADAA) Immigration Act* 1990 Violent Crime Control and 1994 Illegal Immigration Reform and Law Enforcement Act (VCCLEA) 1996 Immigrant Responsibilities Act (IIRIRA) Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central 1997 Haitian Refugee Immigration American Relief Act (NACARA) 1998 Fairness Act (HRIFA) Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE)* 2000 USA Patriot Act 2001 Enhanced Security and Vista Entry Reform Act 2002 & Homeland Security Act & Child Status Protection Act (CSPA)* 2005 Real ID Act 2006 Secure Fence Act Deferred Action for Childhood 2012 Arrivals (DACA)* Deferred Action for Parents of 2014 Americans (DAPA) * Executive Order 13769 2017 2018 Executive Order 13841*

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 9

The first instance comes in 1790, when naturalization in the United States was reserved for those who were male, free, and white. However, due to the Naturalization Act, if a child’s father had resided there at some point, they could become citizens regardless of where they were born (Cornell, 2016, p. 93). In 1875, the Page Act targeted Chinese women because most were either prostitutes or second wives (Abrams, 2005, p. 643). The government believed Chinese women would introduce these practices to America (Abrams, 2005, p. 643). But, America was instead about marriage and family, a driving force of U.S. immigration throughout history

(Abrams, 2005, p. 643). By 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first federal attempt at limiting immigration, and based on race.

Thus the 1917 Immigration Act, often known as the Literacy Act, implemented a literacy test to create more ways to exclude undesired immigrants (Daniels & Graham, 2001, p.17). But, children 16 and under were not given the test. President Woodrow Wilson tried to veto this act, but congress passed it (Lee, 2013, p. 65). This act also created the Asiatic Barred Zone, expanding criteria for exclusion to include mental health issues, and allow for deportation

(Daniels & Graham, 2001, p. 17). This was because at the time, “a majority of Americans felt that their country was letting [in] too many of the ‘wrong’ kinds of people” (Daniels & Graham,

2001, p. 17).

Next, the 1924 Immigration Act replaced the 1921 Emergency Quota Act and further implemented a national origins quota system, that would reduce numerical limits of immigration set in 1921. Quotas were based on country of origin and 1890 U.S. census records to determine how many of each race were already present in America (Office of the Historian, n.d.). Quota preference was established for citizen’s spouses, young children, and those with skills in agriculture and their family (Daniels & Graham, 2001, p.77). In the U.S. labor needs were

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 10 predominantly agriculture and this resulted in the 1924 Bracero Agreement that would allow immigrants that were Mexican laborers to work in America temporarily (Daniels & Graham,

2001, p. 32).

Continued, in 1945, congress passed the War Brides Act that would benefit WWII spouses, fiancées, and children who were related to American soldiers. Previously, these women and children were barred from the country due to their race and nationality (Wolgin, 2018,

February 12). Senator Richard Russell Jr. stated, “this was the least we can do for the men who fought our wars overseas… and who now wish to have their wives join them in this country” (as cited in Wolgin, 2018, February 12, para. 5). This act allowed for future appeals to keep families together and to tackle the racism caused by exclusive acts.

It wasn’t until the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) when the origination of family unification in immigration policy occurred (Kandel, 2019, p. 2). This act maintained the

1924 quota system, and “established a hierarchy of family-based preference that continues to govern contemporary U.S. immigration policy” (Kandel, 2019, p. 2). This includes preference to spouses and children over extended family, and relatives of U.S. citizens over LPRs (green card)

(Kandel, 2019, p. 2). By 1965, the quota system was widely regarded as discriminatory and it was time for even more change.

In 1965, the INA Amendments personified family reunification. The INA “specifies numerical limits for five family-based immigration categories, as well as per-country limits on total family-based immigration” (Kandel, 2018, p. 2). The categories include “immediate relatives (spouses, minor unmarried children, and parents) of U.S. citizens and four other family- based categories that vary according to individual characteristics such as legal status of the

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 11 petitioning U.S.-based relative, and their age, family relationship, and marital status of the prospective immigrant” (Kandel, 2018, p. summary).

Further, the Immigration Act of 1990 sought to create a selection system that would benefit the American economy by steering away from family-based immigration and accepting immigrants with needed skills and education (Chishti & Yale-Loehr, 2016, p.1). Despite its efforts, immigration has still been dominated by family reunification. It did however update legal immigration categories to minimize illegal immigration and redesigned immigration by creating three categories: family-sponsored, employment-based, and diversity-based (Chishti & Yale-

Loehr, 2016, p.2). It set a cap on family-based immigration visas, and four family preference categories. Last, caps on visas permitted per country were created because before 1990, limits were 20,000 due to the INA and created a backlog (Chishti & Yale-Loehr, 2016, p. 3).

Because of the backlog, the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act enacted in 2000, attempted to acknowledge the processing backlog created due to the number of spouses waiting to obtain a visa (Spanier, 2002, p. 363). According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

(USCIS), immigrants already present could obtain a green card no matter how they entered the

U.S., if they worked without proper authorization, or had not maintained legal status while being in the U.S. (2011). There were various qualifications required and many had to pay a $1,000 fee

(USCIS, 2011, para. 2). The act only applied to individuals who had an approved petition that had been applied for prior to April 30, 2001 (USCIS, 2011, para. 2). Overall, it was an effort to help citizens and LPRs reunify their families by creating new kinds of visas, along with categories within a visa.

By 2002, the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) was implemented for children, under

21 years of age and unmarried, who were “aging-out” of their application for a green card

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 12

(Kandel, 2018, p. 18). Because they turned 21 while their applications were still pending, they could “no longer be considered a child for immigration purposes” (USCIS, 2018, para. 1).

Congress aimed to protect children because they were aging-out solely due to the backlog of

USCIS processing applications (USCIS, 2018, para. 2). It calculates a CSPA age that allows individuals to “freeze” their age, and remain classified as a child (USCIS, 2018, para. 3).

In addition, President Barack Obama passed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

(DACA) in 2012, though congress rejected the program numerous times (Homeland Security, n/a, para. 2). It was designed for minors who came to America illegally, prior to their 16th birthday and resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007 (Homeland Security, n/a, para. 3). They had to have been in school, graduated high school, obtained a GED, or honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the U.S (Homeland Security, n/a, para. 3). Applicants aged out if on June 15, 2012, they were 31 years or older (Taurel, 2013, October 24, para. 1). By

2014, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) was announced, with the intent to reunite illegal immigrants with their children that were either American citizens or LPRs. Both acts were debated as unconstitutional. In 2017, the Trump administration had revoked DAPA but federal appeals had blocked the administration from ending DACA.

The last event impacting families of this historical timeline is Executive Order 13841.

This order addressed the Trump administration’s separation of immigrant children from their families at the border. President Trump argues that he is not impinging on congress because the president was given broad immigration powers due to the 1965 INA (Korte, 2018, June 21). The blame for family separation at the border is largely placed onto congress instead. The order states who it applies to, noting that smugglers, or parents who pose as parents, do not apply (Korte,

2018, June 21). Its main premise is the continuation of holding families across the border.

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 13

Therefore, historically it is clear that family reunification has always been a central theme in United States immigration policy. But “implicitly, immigration stakeholders have relied on family to achieve cultural, social, and political goals invoking it as a way to say as much about the larger social or political context as about the family itself" (Lee, 2013, p. 20). Because of the above it is concluded that the governments perception and treatment of immigrant families once they arrive in America is far from what was seemingly promised. Immigrant families have become politicized and treated inhumanely. Evidence for this claim are outlined in the following section.

III: Current Politicization of Immigrant Families

Review of this history reveals that immigrant families in the United States have a long history of being politicized in negative ways. There are three interrelated components that constitute the current negative politicizing of immigrant families: demonization, objectification, and fear.

Demonization

The first component of politicizing immigrant families is demonization. To demonize is to portray vulnerable populations through the media as inherently wicked and therefore threatening (Demonize, n.d.).

Our current administration has a strong opposition against those of color and in particular those who are “brown.” When President Donald Trump announced his 2016 presidential campaign, his speech included “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.

They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume are good people” (as cited in Lee, 2015, July 8). He continually

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 14 reiterated in his presidential campaign that he would build a massive wall on the United States-

Mexico border to protect America. During a presidential debate, he stated “we have some bad hombres here, and we’re going to get them out” (Trump, as cited in Reysen & Brown, 2016,

November 10). Furthermore, the New York Times has created “Trump’s Lies,” an aptly named, encompassing list of every lie President Trump told from January 21st to November 11th, 2016

(Leonhardt & Thompson, 2017, December 14). On July 25th, Trump stated “since I took office we have cut illegal immigration on our southern border by record numbers. 78 percent” (as cited in Leonhardt & Thompson, 2017, December 14). But, this statistic was determined by comparing months with the most and least amount of border apprehensions (Qui & Parlapiano, 2017,

October 12). Like many of his statistics, they are embellished to have it appear he is “making

America great again.” His intent to ensure his interpretation of events is the only “truth” even to the point of lying and fabricating statistics, is not the only technique he uses to control the media.

In Robert Reich’s opinion, the Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and once a Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration, states that

Trump has seven techniques to control the media. (2016, November 27). This includes berating the media, blacklisting critical media, turning the public against the media, condemning satirical or critical comments, threaten the media, limit media access, and bypass the media and communicate with the public directly (Reich, 2016, November 27). Trump is not the first person in power to restrict the press’ freedom of speech, nor speak critically on immigrant families.

There are many political commentators who also participated in portraying immigrant families negatively. On Fox News Ann Coulter, a far-right political commentator, has referenced immigrant children as “child actors” and further old the President to “not fall for it” (as cited in

Wilstein, 2019, June 18). She also stated that “we’re living in America, which was created by

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 15 settlers, not immigrants” (as cited in Haas, 2018, December 6). Next, Laura Ingraham, a conservative Fox News host, said both illegal and legal immigration has caused “massive demographic changes [that were] foisted on American people, and they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don’t like,” believing that “the America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore” (as cited in Timmons, 2018, August 9). This is ironic because Ingraham’s own daughter was adopted from Guatemala in 2008 (Timmons, 2018, August 9, para. 5).

Another host of Fox News, Tucker Carlson, has also stated “we have a moral obligation to admit the world’s poor, they tell us, even if it makes our country poorer, dirtier, and more divided” (as cited in Goldstein, 2018, December 15). And last, Tomi Lahren, “pro-Trump pundit” found that seeing border patrol protect the U.S. border by using tear gas on children, women, and asylees was the “’highlight’ of her Thanksgiving” (as cited in Staples, 2018, November 27). Thus,

Trump and various news outlets, primarily Fox News, have blasted immigrants, both legal and illegal, to become demonized to the point of objectification.

Objectification

The second negative component of the politicization of immigrant families is objectification. This is defined as “the action of degrading someone to the status of mere object”

(Objectification, n.d.). Immigrant families have been objectified through political policies by being stripped of their humanity in that they are portrayed as a “problem” and not as human beings fleeing oppression. In the following section, the Trump administration’s zero tolerance policy lead to objectification that resulted in family separation and deportation.

On May 7, 2018, the Trump administration and the Department of Justice launched a

“zero tolerance” policy towards anyone illegally entering the United States (Kandel, 2019, p. 1).

This was due to the large number of Central American’s attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 16 border and seek asylum, often reported as the migrant caravan. Asylees, or those seeking asylum are defined as an individual “seeking international protection from dangers in his or her home country but whose claim for refugee status hasn’t been determined legally” (International Rescue

Committee, 2018). Seeking asylum at U.S. ports of entry is not illegal in the United States

(Kandel, 2019, p.1). However, it is illegal to first attempt to enter the U.S. and then seek asylum

(Kandel, 2019, p.1).

Due to the policy, 100% of adults illegally entering the U.S. are intended to be prosecuted. To prosecute adults, detainment occurs at a federal facility where children are not permitted (Kandel, 2019, p. 2). Children are detained elsewhere, where they can be for a maximum of 20 days due to a ruling in 2015 (Kandel, 2019, p. 6). The Department of Health and

Human Services Secretary (HHS), "Alex Azar reported under 3,000 minor children have been separated from their parents” (Diamond, as cited in Kandel, 2019, p. 9) … and “as of July 13,

2018, HHS reported that 2,551 children ages five to 17 remained separated” (Diamond, as cited in Kandel, 2019, p. 9). U.S. Customs and Border Protection determined that 6,022 families had been separated in total (Amnesty International, 2018). The separation of families was a direct cause of the zero tolerance policy (Kandel, 2019).

Families were objectified by being used as a “weapon” to deter immigration to the U.S.

Due to public outrage, on June 20, 2018, Trump signed the Executive Order 13841, that would allow families to remain together through detention and prioritize legal proceedings involving families, but he did not drop the zero tolerance policy.

Another objectification of immigrant families is through deportation. When families from

Central America arrived through the migrant caravan, there were attempting to escape the violence present in their home. When they are unable to obtain asylum status, “they are sent back

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 17 to countries where their lives are put in immediate danger” (Sieff, 2018, December 26, para. 6).

“Others who are deported after failed asylum bids go into hiding, moving to unfamiliar parts of the country where they hope gangs won’t find them” (Sieff, 2018, December 26, para. 9).

Because obtaining refugee status can take decades, seeking asylum was their next best option for a safer future. Regardless of this human condition they were and are referred to as a “caravan” without human qualities. When Obama was in office, he stressed that those with criminal records should be the one’s deported (Lee, 2013, p. 114). But even in 2012, 409,849 immigrants were deported, many without any criminal record (Lee, 2013, p. 114). Deportation has always been an unfortunate necessity because there is not a large enough infrastructure to help everyone impacted by this humanitarian crisis. Unfortunately, this also means undocumented parents are often deported, leaving citizen children behind. This will be discussed further in the impact section.

Fear

The third, and final component of the politicization of immigrant families is fear, explaining why immigrants are portrayed as a threat to American society. Immigrant families are a target, rooted in fear. In other words, they are to be feared as opposed to be accepted or embraced.

After September 11th, 2001, the government created new agencies to tackle terrorist threats and attacks, enforce immigration laws, and border patrol (Lee, 2013, p. 113). Because

9/11 created such widespread fear of foreign terrorism, “immigration restrictions warn that illegal immigration is a symbol of vulnerable borders and represents a nation at risk for another terrorist attack” (Lee, 2013, p. 113). To alter the public’s perception, the administration released a report in January 2018 that claimed many that were foreign born committed terrorism, while

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 18 the report did not actually define how many of these individuals did not come through the immigration system (Davis & Nixon, 2018, January 16, para. 10). Eventually, the administration and the Department of Justice did admit that the report was rather flawed (Lau, 2019, January 7, para. 1). According to the Government Accountability Office, far right extremists accounted for

73% of deadly attacks in the U.S as of September 12, 2001 (2017).

Another example of the administration’s fear of a racial group is the Muslim travel ban.

On January 27, 2017, Trump signed the Executive Order 13769 (and later, its superseded version

13780), titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. Trump stated that this was an effort to reduce terrorism, by lowering the maximum number of refugees to enter the U.S. to 50,000, the lowest it has ever been (Exec. Order No. 13,769, 2017). There were also travel limits placed on Muslim countries including Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and

Somalia. In a modern way, the Muslim ban is much like the Chinese Exclusion Act. They are both efforts to exclude an entire race or religion, based on perceptions that they will hurt

America but not based in fact.

Further, the current administration claims that immigrants pose an economic threat and therefor are to be feared (Lee, 2013, p. 115). For example, families who “gain unauthorized entry, access welfare benefits, [and] sponsor family reunification that is not based on real familial ties are committing fraud” (Lee, 2013, p. 114). But, this suggests that the problem is far more complex than fearing fraudulent people wishing to enter the U.S.

IV: The Impact on Children & Families

This final section details how the United States immigration policy is negatively impacting children and families. Specifically, the effects of the United States’ zero tolerance immigration policy will be explained.

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 19

First, child welfare professionals believe family separation can have psychological harm on both the children and parents (Kandel, 2019). Trauma is a consistent and harsh reality as a result of the zero tolerance policy. With trauma, a child’s responses are reliant on the event itself, their resilience, and the environment after the trauma occurs (De Thierry, as cited in Wood,

2018, p. 2). The severity, recurrence, and amount of trauma can impact the development of a child’s brain (Wood, 2018, p. 3). When children feel unsafe, their primal ‘fight, flight or freeze’ is ignited, with stress hormones being released so the body can physically react (Wood, 2018, p.

3). If trauma continues for long periods of time, their body becomes equip to adapt and function in the present moment resulting in complex patterns of responses (Wood, 2018, p.3).

Additionally, parent-child attachment begins as early as in infancy (Wood, 2018, p. 3).

When children are separated from their parents, this bond is tested because they do not feel safe

(Wood, 2018, p. 3). As families are separated for lengths of time, children can begin to act as if they are comfortable with their new “normal,” however this can be a sign of complete detachment from their attachment figure (Wood, 2018, p. 3). After reunification, children may be hostile and that attachment bond will have to be rebuilt (Wood, 2018). At worst case, children may feel abandoned, having issues with relationships for the rest of their lives (Wood, 2018, p.

3). But, separation impacts parents negatively too by hurting their mental health and their ability to parent (Wood, 2018, p. 3). This is because their authority is compromised to where they are unable to care for the needs of their children, especially when they need it the most (Linton,

Griffin, & Shapiro, 2017, p. 6).

Moreover, U.S. citizen children are also hurt by immigration enforcement. In the United

States, the Migration Policy Institute reported an “estimated 11 million undocumented people living in the United States, and more than 5 million children in the United States living with at

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 20 least one undocumented parent” (as cited in Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 2012, July 17, para. 2). Due to the zero tolerance policy, those illegal or undocumented are at risk to be deported. When a child is a U.S. citizen and one or both of their parents are deported, an impossible choice must be made. “Children may remain in the United States and be permanently separated from their parents—or they can leave their home and all they know to move to an unfamiliar country to remain with their family” (Dettlaff, 2012, p. 26). For some, their grandparents or extended families assume the role of their caregiver. But others are not as fortunate, with many ending up in the child welfare system. In a 2011 national study, “there were at least 5,100 children in foster care as a result of their parent’s detention or deportation:”

(Applied Research Center, as cited in Lee, 2013, p. 114).

Physically, when a child fears a family member will be deported, they can exhibit toxic stress leaving them at higher risk for various health problems (Wood, 2018). Toxic stress is associated with unhealthy coping habits, which can surpass generations (Wood, 2018, p. 4).

Additionally, in a study by Pérez-Escamilla, Garcia, & Song, deportation and fear of stigmatization explains why Hispanic immigrant children are not having their health needs met

(2010). As a result, there is an estimated 11 million Hispanic children face poorer conditions of family life, with “significant physical and mental health disparities have been detected compared to their white peers” (Wood, 2018, p. 4). Further, “increased fear of deportation and potential changes in the immigration consequences of receiving benefits such as food and medical assistance have led to some immigrant families—including families with citizen children—to forgo needed assistance which they or their children are eligible for” (Trisi & Herrera, 2018,

May 15, p. 2). When hostile policies are enacted, someone always suffers.

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 21

On a good note, despite the Trump administration using the zero tolerance policy to deter immigrant families from entering the United States, it has not been a successful effort. Recent data has shown that both family separation and detention has not deterred families, and it is unlikely to any time soon (Wong, 2018, July 24, p. 1). After implementing the zero tolerance policy, the Customs and Border Protection released its monthly statistic for August 2018 and found “the total who were family members was the fifth highest monthly figure ever recorded”

(Isacson & Hite, 2018, September 13, para. 1). It can only be concluded that President Trump lacks the understanding that the population coming from Central America is fleeing violence, and has no other options.

V: Author’s Conclusions

In Veep, the American political satire comedy television series, Julia Louis-Dreyfus leads a cast that highlights the absurdity of many politicians in today’s climate. Her character Selina

Meyer, the titular Vice President or Veep, eventually begins running for her own presidency and while editing a speech she says, “oh, and take out that stuff about immigration. I feel like it’s a little too issuey” (Morton & Mandel, 2019, March 31). In politics, immigration has become such a hot-button topic that there is little concern for those directly impacted by the broken process.

America is arguably a system of privilege, that looks down upon those of minority races seeking a better life.

I implore others to understand that most our ancestors were immigrants themselves. My grandfather, Joseph Rossi, traveled on boat from Bardi, Italy to Ellis Island in 1935 when he was a young child. His father Arturo Rossi, first came from Bardi when he was 16-years-old in 1907 and traveled back and forth. He became a naturalized American citizen in 1932 so when my grandfather arrived, he obtained dual citizenship. My grandfather said that his father had

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 22 complete disdain for Mussolini, who become a dictator and founded Italian Fascism, and his father knew it was time for his family to go. If my family hadn’t immigrated, I wouldn’t have the life I do today.

Ultimately, I believe the immigration and naturalization system has put us in the position we are today. It is hard to navigate, and it doesn’t work. There is a massive backlog in visa allocations and asylum applications, with far too many immigrants given temporary status. The

United States does not have the infrastructure in place to handle the number of immigrants we allow and families are not being reunified in a timely manner. However, this is not to say that many immigrant families have not had a wonderful experience. It’s just that from the current policy perspective, immigrant populations are treated as inferior and systematically treated as such.

I do not think President Trump is to blame for all our immigration problems, however his lack of a moral compass has demonized and objectified Central American families to be feared and dehumanized. At its core, human beings are involved and are being negatively impacted by our policies. I wish we could pause time and push through all the applications currently in process and make room for all the deserving people currently. But I realize life is just not that simple. I believe that if more funds are put into improving and expanding the immigration system, the economy will benefit in return. But, I also understand working-class Americans protecting their hard-earned money and questioning immigration costs. Like America’s trillion- dollar debt, I’m not quite sure how to get out of this immigration hole, but I do know families fleeing injustice and violence are going to continue to seek safe asylum in America so we might as well improve our immigration system. After all, are we not “our brother’s keeper?”

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 23

References

Abrams, K. (2005). Polygamy, prostitution, and the federalization of immigration law. Columbia

Law Review, 105(3), 641-716. Retrieved from https://maggiemcneill.files.wordpress.com

/2012/04/polygamy-prostitution-and-the-federalization-of-immigration-law-by-kerry-

abrams.pdf

Amnesty International. (2018). USA: ‘You don’t have any rights here’: Illegal pushbacks,

arbitrary detention & ill-treatment of asylum-seekers in the United States. London,

England: Amnesty International Publications.

Borjas, G. J. (1999). Heaven’s door: Immigration policy and the American economy. New

Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Chishti, M. & Yale-Loehr, S. (2016). The immigration act of 1990: Unfinished business a

quarter-century late. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Conner, P. & Budiman, A. (2019, January 30). Immigrant share in U.S. nears record high but

remains below that of many other countries. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch

.org/fact-tank/2019/01/30/immigrant-share-in-u-s-nears-record-high-but-remains-below-

that-of-many-other-countries/

Cornell, S. (2016). The 1790 naturalization act and the original meaning of the natural born

citizen clause: A short primer on historical method and the limits of originalism.

Wisconsin Law Review Forward, 92, 92-99. Retrieved from http://repository.law.

wisc.edu/s/uwlaw/media/80509

Daniels, R. & Graham, O. L. (2001). Debating American immigration, 1882-present. USA:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Davis, J. H. & Nixon, R. (2018, January 16). White house fuels immigration debate with

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 24

terrorism statistics. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/

us/politics/trump-immigration-terror-convictions.html

Demonize. (n.d.). In English Oxford Living Dictionaries. Retrieved from

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/demonize

Dettlaff, A. J. (2012). Immigrant children and families and the public child welfare system:

Considerations for legal systems. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 63(1), 19-29.

Retrieved from http://cssr.berkeley.edu/cwscmsreports/LatinoPracticeAdvisory/

Considerations%20for%20Legal%20Systems.pdf

Exec. Order No. 13769, 3 C. F. R. 8977 (2017).

Goldstein, J. M. (2018, December 15). Tucker Carlson says immigrants make America ‘dirtier,’

loses an advertiser. Retrieved from https://thinkprogress.org/tucker-carlson-says-

immigrants-make-america-dirtier-loses-an-advertiser-7517849fcd09/

Government Accountability Office. (2017). Countering violent extremism: Actions needed to

define strategy and assess progress of federal efforts (GAO Publication No. 17-300).

Retrieved from: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf

Haas, K. (2018, December 6). Yes, Anne Coulter said she descended from ‘settlers,’ not

‘immigrants.’ Retrieved from https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-

checks/statements/2018/dec/06/blog-posting/yes-ann-coulter-said-she-descended-settlers-

not-im/

Homeland Security. (2018). Deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA). Washington D.C.:

United States Government Publishing Office.

Homeland Security. (2019). Immigration data and statistics. Washington D.C.: United States

Government Publishing Office.

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 25

Immigrant Legal Resource Center. (2012, July 17). Immigrant enforcement & the child welfare

system. Retrieved from https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/immigration-

childwelfare-report.pdf

International Rescue Committee. (2018). Migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants:

What’s the difference? Retrieved from https://www.rescue.org/article/migrants-asylum-

seekers-refugees-and-immigrants-whats-difference

Isacson, A. & Hite, A. (2018, September 13). August border statistics show that Trump’s policies

are not deterring migration. Retrieved from https://www.wola.org/analysis/august-border-

statistics-show-trumps-policies-not-deterring-migration/

Kandel, W. A. (2018). U.S. family-based immigration policy (CRS Report No. R43145).

Retrieved from the Congressional Research Service website: https://fas.org/sgp/crs

/homesec/R43145.pdf

Kandel, W. A. (2019). The Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration enforcement

policy (CRS Report No. R45266). Retrieved Congressional Research Service website:

from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45266.pdf

Korte, G. (2018, June 21). Anatomy of an executive order: What President Trump’s order on

family separation does. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics

/2018/06/21/trump-executive-order-family-separations-border-explained/721466002/

Lau, T. (2019, January 7). Flawed terrorism report shows administration’s skewed priorities.

Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/flawed-terrorism-report-shows-

administrations-skewed-priorities

Lee, C. (2013). Fictive kinship: Family reunification and the meaning of race and nation in

American immigration. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 26

Lee, M. Y. H. (2015, July 8). Donald Trump’s false comments connecting Mexican immigrants

and crime. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-

checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-

and-crime/?utm_term=.f63b984c05aa

Linton, J. M., Griffin, M., & Shapiro, A. J. (2017). Detention of immigrant children. Pediatrics,

139(4), 1-13. Retrieved from https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/

139/5/e20170483.full.pdf

Morton, L. (Writer), & Mandel, D. (Director). (2019, March 31). Iowa [Television series

episode] In A. Iannucci (Producer), Veep. United States: HBO.

Objectification. (n.d.). In English Oxford Living Dictionaries. Retrieved from

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/objectification

Office of the Historian (n.d). The immigration act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed act). Washington

D.C.: United States Government Publishing Office.

Passel, J. S. & Cohn, D. (2017, March 8). Immigration projected to drive growth in the U.S.

working-age population through at least 2035. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch

.org/fact-tank/2017/03/08/immigration-projected-to-drive-growth-in-u-s-working-age-

population-through-at-least-2035/

Pérez-Escamilla, R., Garcia, J., & Song, D. (2010). Health care access among Hispanic

immigrants: ¿Alguien está escuchando? [Is anybody listening?]. NAPA Bull, 34(1), 47-

67. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4797.2010.01051.x

Qui, L. & Parlapiano, A. (2017, October 12. Illegal border crossings are down, but Trump still

exaggerates the numbers. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/

2017/10/12/us/politics/trump-border-claim-factcheck.html

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 27

Reich, R. (2016, November 27). Trump’s seven techniques to control the media [Blog post].

Retrieved from http://robertreich.org/post/153748549760

Reysen, J. & Brown, N. (2016, November 10). Donald Trump’s memorable, controversial

quotes. Retrieved from https://www.amny.com/news/elections/donald-trump-s-

memorable-controversial-quotes-1.11177219

Sieff, K. (2018, December 26). When death awaits deported asylum seekers. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/when-death-awaits-deported-

asylum-seekers/?utm_term=.b5d6e28f56e9

Spanier, J. (2002). The legal immigration family equity act and immigration and naturalization

service implementation. Journal of Law & Family Studies, 4(2), 363-376. Retrieved from

https://heinonline-org.ezproxy1.library.arizona.edu/HOL/Page?collection=journals&

handle=hein.journals/jlfst4&id=390&men_tab=srchresults

Staples, L. (2018, November 27). Fox news’ Tomi Lahren says seeing migrants fleeing from tear

gas was the ‘highlight’ of Thanksgiving. Retrieved from https://www.indy

100.com/article/tomi-lahren-twitter-tear-gas-migrant-caravan-mexico-border-

thanksgiving-trump-8653751

Taurel, P. (2013, October 24). Are you really too old for DACA? Retrieved from

http://immigrationimpact.com/2013/10/24/are-you-really-too-old-for-daca/#sthash

.nzppX8w1.dpuf

Timmons, H. (2018, August 9). Laura Ingraham’s new racist rant is aimed at legal immigrants—

like her own daughter. Retrieved from https://qz.com/1352412/laura-ingrahams-fox-

news-anti-immigrant-rant-overlooks-her-adopted-daughter/

Trisi, D. & Herrera, G. (2018, May 15). Administration actions against immigrant families

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES 28

harming children through increased fear, loss of needed assistance. Retrieved from

https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/administration-actions-against-

immigrant-families-harming-children

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (2011). Green card through LIFE act (245(i)

adjustment). Washington D.C.: United States Government Publishing Office.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (2018). Child status protection act (CSPA).

Washington D.C.: United States Government Publishing Office.

Wilstein, M. (2018, June 18). Ann Coutler smears immigrant children as ‘child actors.’ Retrieved

from https://www.thedailybeast.com/ann-coulter-smears-immigrant-children-as-child-

actors

Wolgin, P. E. (2018, February 12). Family reunification is the bedrock of U.S. immigration

policy. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/

2018/02/12/446402/family-reunification-bedrock-u-s-immigration-policy/

Wong, T. K. (2018, July 24). Do family separation and detention deter immigration? Retrieved

from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports

/2018/07/24/453660/family-separation-detention-deter-immigration/

Wood, L. C. N. (2018). Impact of punitive immigration policies, parent-child separation and

child detention on the mental health and development of children. BMJ Pediatrics Open,

(2), 1-6. doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2018-000338