Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"Two teens--Daniel, the son of Korean shopkeepers, and Natasha, whose family is here illegally from Jamaica--cross paths in New York City on an eventful day in their lives--Daniel is on his way to an interview with a Yale alum, Natasha is meeting with a lawyer to try and prevent her family's deportation to Jamaica--and fall in love\"-- Provided by publisher.

In 2014, the arrest and detention of thousands of desperate young migrants at the southwest border of the United States exposed the U.S. government's shadowy juvenile detention system, which had escaped public scrutiny for years. This book tells the story of six Central American and Mexican children who are driven from their homes by violence and deprivation, and who embark alone, risking their lives, on the perilous journey north. They suffer coercive arrests at the U.S. border, then land in detention, only to be caught up in the battle to obtain legal status. Whose Child Am I? looks inside a vast, labyrinthine system by documenting in detail the experiences of these youths, beginning with their arrest by immigration authorities, their subsequent placement in federal detention, followed by their appearance in deportation proceedings and release from custody, and, finally, ending with their struggle to build new lives in the United States. This book shows how the U.S. government got into the business of detaining children and what we can learn from this troubled history.

An in-depth look at the challenges undocumented immigrants face as they raise children in the U.S. There are now nearly four million children born in the United States who have undocumented immigrant parents. In the current debates around immigration reform, policymakers often view immigrants as an economic or labor market problem to be solved, but the issue has a very real human dimension. Immigrant parents without legal status are raising their citizen children under stressful work and financial conditions, with the constant threat of discovery and deportation that may narrow social contacts and limit participation in public programs that might benefit their children. Immigrants Raising Citizens offers a compelling description of the everyday experiences of these parents, their very young children, and the consequences these experiences have on their children’s development. Immigrants Raising Citizens challenges conventional wisdom about undocumented immigrants, viewing them not as lawbreakers or victims, but as the parents of citizens whose adult productivity will be essential to the nation’s future. The book’s findings are based on data from a three-year study of 380 infants from Dominican, Mexican, Chinese, and African American families, which included in-depth interviews, in-home child assessments, and parent surveys. The book shows that undocumented parents share three sets of experiences that distinguish them from legal-status parents and may adversely influence their children’s development: avoidance of programs and authorities, isolated social networks, and poor work conditions. Fearing deportation, undocumented parents often avoid accessing valuable resources that could help their children’s development — such as access to public programs and agencies providing child care and food subsidies. At the same time, many of these parents are forced to interact with illegal entities such as smugglers or loan sharks out of financial necessity. Undocumented immigrants also tend to have fewer reliable social ties to assist with child care or share information on child-rearing. Compared to legal-status parents, undocumented parents experience significantly more exploitive work conditions, including long hours, inadequate pay and raises, few job benefits, and limited autonomy in job duties. These conditions can result in ongoing parental stress, economic hardship, and avoidance of center-based child care — which is directly correlated with early skill development in children. The result is poorly developed cognitive skills, recognizable in children as young as two years old, which can negatively impact their future school performance and, eventually, their job prospects. Immigrants Raising Citizens has important implications for immigration policy, labor law enforcement, and the structure of community services for immigrant families. In addition to low income and educational levels, undocumented parents experience hardships due to their status that have potentially lifelong consequences for their children. With nothing less than the future contributions of these children at stake, the book presents a rigorous and sobering argument that the price for ignoring this reality may be too high to pay. HIROKAZU YOSHIKAWA is professor of education in Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education.

This study examines how parental legal status operates as a fundamental social determinant of health and educational equity, focusing on long-term outcomes among U.S.-born and foreign-born children of immigrants. We hypothesized that intergenerational stress and institutional exclusion associated with undocumented status would lead to lower educational attainment and poorer health. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), a nationally representative cohort, participants were classified by inferred parental legal status: native-born, documented immigrant, and undocumented immigrant. Outcomes included high school graduation, college enrollment, depression scores, and chronic health conditions. Children of undocumented parents exhibited the most adverse outcomes—lower graduation (63.8%) and college enrollment rates (39.9%), higher depression, and greater chronic illness. In models controlling for socioeconomic factors, parental undocumented status independently predicted reduced odds of college enrollment (OR = 0.61, p < 0.001) and increased odds of reporting fair/poor health (OR = 2.10, p < 0.001). Findings highlight legal precarity as a potent driver of intergenerational disadvantage and underscore the need for policies addressing the barriers faced by children in undocumented families to promote health and educational equity.

This article examines the transition to adulthood among 1.5-generation undocumented Latino young adults. For them, the transition to adulthood involves exiting the legally protected status of K to 12 students and entering into adult roles that require legal status as the basis for participation. This collision among contexts makes for a turbulent transition and has profound implications for identity formation, friendship patterns, aspirations and expectations, and social and economic mobility. Undocumented children move from protected to unprotected, from inclusion to exclusion, from de facto legal to illegal. In the process, they must learn to be illegal, a transformation that involves the almost complete retooling of daily routines, survival skills, aspirations, and social patterns. These findings have important implications for studies of the 1.5- and second-generations and the specific and complex ways in which legal status intervenes in their coming of age. The article draws on 150 interviews with undocumented 1.5-generation young adult Latinos in Southern California.

The objective of this study is to identify differences in healthcare access and utilization among Mexican immigrants by documentation status. Cross-sectional survey data are analyzed to identify differences in healthcare access and utilization across Mexican immigrant categories. Multivariable logistic regression and the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition are used to parse out differences into observed and unobserved components. Mexican immigrants ages 18 and above who are immigrants of California households and responded to the 2007 California Health Interview Survey (2,600 documented and 1,038 undocumented immigrants). Undocumented immigrants from Mexico are 27% less likely to have a doctor visit in the previous year and 35% less likely to have a usual source of care compared to documented Mexican immigrants after controlling for confounding variables. Approximately 88% of these disparities can be attributed to predisposing, enabling and need determinants in our model. The remaining disparities are attributed to unobserved heterogeneity. This study shows that undocumented immigrants from Mexico are much less likely to have a physician visit in the previous year and a usual source of care compared to documented immigrants from Mexico. The recently approved Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will not reduce these disparities unless undocumented immigrants are granted some form of legal status.

Does the undocumented status of 1.5-generation Latinos (those who migrated at a young age) in the United States affect their political, civic, and public selves? Our approach to this question begins with a theoretical framework based on the concept of abjectivity, which draws together abject status and subjectivity. We argue that the practices of the biopolitics of citizenship and governmentality—surveillance, immigration documents, employment forms, birth certificates, tax forms, drivers’ licenses, credit card applications, bank accounts, medical insurance, car insurance, random detentions, and deportations—enclose, penetrate, define, limit, and frustrate the lives of undocumented 1.5-generation Latino immigrants. We examine data from a random-sample telephone survey of 805 Latinos and 396 whites in Orange County, California, to provide general patterns that distinguish 1.5-generation Latino immigrants from their first-generation counterparts and to suggest the contours of their lives as undocumented immigrants. We then examine in-depth interviews with 80 respondents also in Orange County who provide extensive qualitative information and personal narratives. The analysis shows how abjectivity and illegality constrain daily life, create internalized fears, in some ways immobilize their victims, and in other ways motivate them to engage politically to resist the dire conditions of their lives.

This research compares several national-origin groups in terms of how parents' entry, legalization and naturalization (i.e., membership) statuses relate to their children's educational attainment. In the case of Asian groups, the members of which predominantly come to the United States as permanent legal migrants, we hypothesize (1) that father's and mother's statuses will be relatively homogenous and few in number and (2) that these will exert minimal net effects on second-generation attainment. For Mexicans, many of whom initially come as temporary unauthorized migrants, we hypothesize (1) that parental status combinations will be heterogeneous and greater in number and (2) that marginal membership statuses will exert negative net effects on education in the second generation. To assess these ideas, we analyze unique intergenerational data from Los Angeles on the young adult members of second-generation national-origin groups and their parents. The findings show that Asian immigrant groups almost universally exhibit similar father—mother migration statuses and high educational attainment among children. By contrast, Mexicans manifest more numerous discrepant father—mother combinations, with those in which the mother remains unauthorized carrying negative implications for children's schooling. The paper discusses the theoretical and policy implications of the delays in incorporation that result from Mexican Americans needing extra time and resources compared to the members of other groups to overcome their handicap of marginal membership status (i.e., being more likely to enter and remain unauthorized).

Background Undocumented immigrants are expected to face increased risks related to COVID-19 due to marginalizing restrictive immigration policies. However, few studies have assessed the prevalence of direct encounters with the immigration enforcement system among the undocumented and its impacts on their COVID-related health behaviors and outcomes. In this study, we quantify undocumented immigrants' lifetime exposure to various immigration enforcement tactics and their association with delays in COVID-19 testing and healthcare behaviors. Methods This cross-sectional study included a non-random sample of 326 Asian and Latinx undocumented immigrants in California from September 2020 to February 2021. The primary exposure was immigration enforcement encounter scores ranging from 0–9, assessed through self-reports of direct experiences with the immigration system, immigration officials, and law enforcement. The main outcomes were positive test for COVID-19, had or suspected having COVID-19, and delayed or avoided testing and/or treatment for COVID-19 due to immigration status. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the association between the primary exposure and outcomes of interest. Results Among 326 participants, 7% had received a positive COVID-19 test result, while 43% reported having or suspected having COVID-19. Almost 13% delayed or avoided COVID-19 testing and/or treatment because of their immigration status. Overall, an increase in immigration enforcement encounters was associated with higher odds of suspecting having had COVID-19 (aOR = 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01,1.26). Reporting an additional enforcement encounter was associated with higher odds of delaying or avoiding testing and/or treatment because of immigration status (aOR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.26,1.86). Compared to their Latino counterparts, Asian respondents were more likely to report higher odds of delaying or avoiding testing and/or treatment (aOR = 3.13, 95% CI: 1.17,8.42). There were no significant associations between the enforcement score and testing positive for COVID-19. Additionally, while Latinxs were more likely to report immigration enforcement encounters than Asians, there were no differences in the effects of race on COVID-19 testing and healthcare behaviors in models with race as an interaction term ( p  < 0.05). Conclusions Immigration enforcement encounters compound barriers to COVID-19 testing and treatment for undocumented immigrants.

Background Undocumented migrants often face significant socio-economic and health vulnerabilities, which are further intensified during global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Among these challenges, food insecurity emerges as a critical concern, particularly for migrants lacking legal status, social protection, and access to basic services. This study examines the prevalence of food insecurity and food-seeking behaviour-related coping mechanisms among Bangladeshi undocumented migrants living in Malaysia, Iraq, and Libya during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Twenty-seven undocumented Bangladeshi migrants were interviewed using a qualitative Interpretative Phenomenological Approach (IPA). The author combined an integrated data-driven inductive technique to code and analyse the data. The data analysis followed the six-step process of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Results The study reveals that COVID-19 has significantly impacted their food security, including food unavailability and inaccessibility, decreasing consumption, increasing reliance on cheaper and malnutrition food, as well as hunger and starvation. To cope, they adopted various food-seeking behaviors, such as receiving support from friends and relatives, taking loans, seeking food assistance from different sources, and selling personal belongings. Conclusion The findings highlight the vulnerability of undocumented migrants during crises and suggest the need for targeted policy interventions to enhance food security for this marginalized group. The study offers critical insights for policymakers, aid organizations, and stakeholders to develop effective strategies and policies that mitigate food insecurity among undocumented migrants, thereby contributing to achieving sustainable development goals by 2030.