Citizen Children Research Articles

Effect of Immigration Status on Outcomes in Pediatric Kidney Transplant Recipients.

Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for children with end-stage renal disease. For children with undocumented immigration status, access to kidney transplantation is limited, and data on transplant outcomes in this population are scarce. The goal of the present retrospective single-center study was to compare outcomes after kidney transplantation in undocumented children with those of US citizen children. Undocumented residency status was identified in 48 (17%) of 289 children who received a kidney transplant between 1998 and 2010. In undocumented recipients, graft survival at 1 and 5 years posttransplantation was similar, and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year was higher than that in recipients who were citizens. The risk of allograft failure was lower in undocumented recipients relative to that in citizens at 5 years posttransplantation, after adjustment for patient age, donor age, donor type, and HLA mismatch (p < 0.04). In contrast, nearly one in five undocumented recipients who reached 21 years of age lost their graft, primarily because they were unable to pay for immunosuppressive medications once their state-funded insurance had ended. These findings support the ongoing need for immigration policies for the undocumented that facilitate access to work-permits and employment-related insurance for this disadvantaged group.

Moving Beyond Immigration Reform: A Call for Social Inclusion and to Change U.S. Foreign Policy

Moving Beyond Immigration Reform:A Call for Social Inclusion and to Change U.S. Foreign Policy Esther Portillo-Gonzales1 (bio) During the Summer of 2014 we witnessed the dramatic and heartbreaking images of unaccompanied children and entire families from Central America turning themselves in to the U.S. Border Patrol. Most did so citing persecution by criminal organizations, which are a product of the U.S. Drug War in Mexico and Central America, as well as inhumane immigration policies, and decades of U.S. intervention in those countries. These migrants are pleading for asylum from the U.S. government and rightly so. Violence has rapidly spread in Mexico since 2008: over 100,000 people have been murdered and 25,000 disappeared.2 In Honduras between 2008 and 2012, the homicide rate went from 58 to 85 murders per 100,000 residents, making it the country with the highest murder rate in the world. And since the 2009 coup, femicides, the targeted killing of women, have increased by 62%.3 In Guatemala, femicides went from 213 reported in 2000 to 707 in 2012.4 The highest rate of femicide in the world is in El Salvador, where 12 women out of 100,000 are murdered.5 The increase in femicides in Central America explains why migrant women are making the journey to the U.S. alone or with their children. Despite mounting evidence that its policies fuel migration, the U.S. denies over 90% of asylum claims from Mexicans and Central Americans.6 Violence in Mexico and Central America is directly linked to the U.S.-led war on drugs and the logic of neoliberalism.7 The U.S. is directly implicated in this violence. Since 2008, it has spent $800 million on the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) and $2.4 billion on the security cooperation agreement, Plan Mérida.8 As a result of this aid, violence has only escalated and criminal organizations have become more powerful, better organized, and linked to corrupt government forces. Recently at a Central American regional forum, U.S. Vice President Joe (Joseph) Biden announced more support for military and public security forces and called for the consolidation of trade pacts such as the trade agreement DR-CAFTA to address development.9 While experts contend that corrupt security forces have eroded the human rights of its citizens, the U.S. continues to support military and security forces. The recent disappearance of 43 students in Ayotzinapa, Mexico and the bodies of many others discovered in mass graves are further evidence of indiscriminate repression against civilians at the hands of criminal organizations that collaborate with U.S. funded state forces. Despite the vast evidence of state violence in Mexico and Central America, the U.S. government has continued to systematically deport noncitizens to countries plagued by such organized violence. Under President Obama’s tenure, over two million people have been deported, including many parents of U.S. citizen children, throwing more than 5,000 children into the foster care system.10 The U.S. government incarcerates 34,000 people in privately managed immigration detention on any given day. Green card holders are mandatorily detained for past criminal convictions, deported, and barred from reentering the U.S. for at least ten years and often for life. In 2014, the practice of family detention returned to the U.S. immigration detention system, after being eliminated in 2007, and has grown by over 1,200% in the last six months.11 After hundreds of marches, sit-ins, and demands from grassroots groups, President Obama announced executive action on immigration in November 2014. The President’s executive action will not provide any form of permanent status for migrants, just temporary relief from being deported and only after taxes and fees are paid, and background checks come back clean. Executive action also calls for 20,000 more border patrol agents. There are still over six million undocumented residents who will be completely left out from any form of relief, and most of the migrants coming to the border seeking asylum will likely face mandatory detention. But most importantly, the immigration detention and deportation system will remain intact; there are...

Immigrant Women in Athens: Gender, Ethnicity, and Citizenship in the Classical City by Rebecca Futo Kennedy (review)

Reviewed by: Immigrant Women in Athens: Gender, Ethnicity, and Citizenship in the Classical City by Rebecca Futo Kennedy David Kawalko Roselli Rebecca Futo Kennedy. Immigrant Women in Athens: Gender, Ethnicity, and Citizenship in the Classical City. Routledge Studies in Ancient History, 6. New York and London: Routledge, 2014. Pp. 177. $147.50. ISBN 978–0-415–73786–9. Immigrant (“metic”) women in Athens occupied a difficult position. Female metics were required to register with city officials and had to pay a special tax (metoikion); they were also vulnerable when it came to legal protection, easy targets of invective, and readily assimilated to sexual objects in ancient and modern sources. With clear and punchy prose, Kennedy provides a helpful overview of the experiences of immigrant women and the structures that emerged to classify them. Her key concerns are to demystify the idea that they were all prostitutes, and to unpack Athenian social prejudices affecting female metics and our (mis) perceptions of these women. After a brief introduction outlining what it meant legally and discursively to be a metic in Athens, chapter 1 covers familiar ground: the origin of the metoikia, the legal institution overseeing metics, and changes in laws concerning metics. Kennedy dates the “formal status” (14) of the metoikia to the 460s (rather than to the Kleisthenic period). Pericles’ citizenship law of 451 bce restricting citizenship to those born of two Athenian parents rendered the status of female metics more vulnerable; but between 430 and 403 bce, war and plague necessitated exceptions, allowing metic women to bear citizen children. Following the reinstatement of the citizenship law in 403 bce, citizen–metic marriages were banned (between 390 and 371 bce; [Dem.] 59.16); but marriage “alternatives” were still possible (for example, domestic partnerships with male citizens). Chapter 2 tackles “mythic representations” of metic women in tragedy and uncovers an “ideology of the female metic” (27) that shifts after Pericles’ citizenship law. Aeschylus’ Suppliants and Eumenides stage foreign women as external threats requiring incorporation into the city. In plays produced after 450 bce, female metics are represented as threatening the citizenry (Euripides’ Hippolytus), much like Amazons (44–49), or as benefiting the city as long as they are contained within a separate (noncitizen) sphere (Sophocles’ Antigone; Euripides’ Medea, Heraklidae). As also suggested by funerary iconography, the proper management of immigrant women is essential. Chapter 3 addresses the “real-life effects” (59) of these representations. Arguing that in the fifth century hetaira could refer to an independent (perhaps foreign) woman who participates in sympotic/luxury culture (74, 114) rather than a prostitute, Kennedy critiques the traditional narrative of elite women of public renown. As a foreign woman perceived to be influencing public policy, Aspasia was targeted as Pericles’ concubine for transgressing the boundaries between citizen and metic spheres. [End Page 137] Chapter 4 focuses on the daily prejudices faced by metic women in the fourth century. Kennedy draws on examples from oratory (more evidence from Middle and New Comedy should be included) to sketch the precarious lives of immigrant women. Lacking family connections and support, female metics were subjected to abuses without recourse in law (Dem. 25, 47). A brief analysis of Apollodorus’ attacks on Neaira, a former slave turned independent female metic, exemplifies how prejudices shaped public perceptions (Dem. 59). Kennedy suggests that living as hetairai, as “party girls” (86), or “independent women without families” (114), or as pallakai, domestic partners (117) or maids (139), served as possible but unenviable survival strategies for metic women. Many poor and/or independent female metics worked outside of the home, and in chapter 5 Kennedy discusses the ideological framing of female metics at work. She suggests that prejudices against wage-labor contributed to the notion that immigrant women worked as prostitutes: “working with one’s body” slid easily between denoting metic labor (for example, as musicians, wool-workers, or vendors) and connoting prostitution. The contributions of immigrant women to the economy far exceeded their stereotypical assessment as prostitutes. This book is a welcome contribution to the study of foreign women in Athens—a truly subaltern group. However, some of its arguments would benefit from additional engagement with the available evidence and secondary sources. For example...

Trends in Disparities in Low-Income Children's Health Insurance Coverage and Access to Care by Family Immigration Status

ObjectiveTo examine time trends in disparities in low-income children's health insurance coverage and access to care by family immigration status. MethodsWe used data from the National Survey of Children's Health in 2003 to 2011–2012, including 83,612 children aged 0 to 17 years with family incomes <200% of the federal poverty level. We examined 3 immigration status categories: citizen children with nonimmigrant parents; citizen children with immigrant parents; and immigrant children. We used multivariable regression analyses to obtain adjusted trends in health insurance coverage and access to care. ResultsAll low-income children experienced gains in health insurance coverage and access to care from 2003 to 2011–2012, regardless of family immigration status. Relative to citizen children with nonimmigrant parents, citizen children with immigrant parents had a 5 percentage point greater increase in health insurance coverage (P = .06), a 9 percentage point greater increase in having a personal doctor or nurse (P < .01), and an 11 percentage point greater increase in having no unmet medical need (P < .01). Immigrant children had significantly lower health insurance coverage than other groups. However, the group had a 14 percentage point greater increase in having a personal doctor or nurse (P < .01) and a 26 percentage point greater increase in having no unmet medical need (P < .01) relative to citizen children with nonimmigrant parents. ConclusionsSome disparities in access to care related to family immigration status have lessened over time among children in low-income families, although large disparities still exist. Policy efforts are needed to ensure that children of immigrant parents and immigrant children are able to access health insurance and health care.

Multigenerational Punishment: Shared Experiences of Undocumented Immigration Status Within Mixed‐Status Families

Estimates suggest that approximately 16.6 million people in the United States are members of mixed‐status families composed of undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens or documented immigrants. Drawing on interviews with 32 undocumented 1.5‐generation parents, the author explores how immigration laws affect undocumented parents and their citizen children. She finds that U.S. citizen children and their undocumented parents often share in the risks and limitations associated with undocumented immigration status. She conceptualizes this phenomenon as multigenerational punishment, a distinct form of legal violence wherein the sanctions intended for a specific population spill over to negatively affect individuals who are not targeted by laws. Though not restricted to familial relationships, multigenerational punishment tends to occur within families because of the strong social ties, sustained day‐to‐day interactions, and dependent relationships found among family members. This sheds light on how laws can further the reproduction of inequality within families and over generations.

'Immigrants Are Not Criminals': Respectability, Immigration Reform, and Hyperincarceration

Mainstream pro-immigrant law reformers advocate for better treatment of immigrants by invoking a contrast with people convicted of a crime. This Article details the harms and limitations of a conceptual framework for immigration reform that draws its narrative force from a contrast with people — citizens and noncitizens — who have been convicted of a criminal offense and proposes an alternate approach that better aligns with racial and class critiques of the U.S. criminal justice system. Noncitizens with a criminal record are overwhelmingly low-income people of color. While some have been in the United States for a short period of time, many have resided in the United States for much longer. Many are lawful permanent residents with strong family ties, including U.S. citizen children. Convicted noncitizens who have served significant time in our penal system have experienced the well-documented harms associated with both criminal and civil incarceration. Despite the significant size of this population and its location at the convergence of two heavily criticized law enforcement regimes, these individuals rarely serve as an example for what is wrong with our immigration system. To the contrary, convicted noncitizens are typically regarded as foils for more deserving immigrants. Immigration reformers are not the first to employ a deserving/undeserving narrative as a means of obtaining political gains for some at the expense of others. Across all areas of law reform, policy makers and advocates have sought to generate empathy for groups of people by invoking a contrast with others. In drawing a contrast between a favored group and others who are degenerate, deviant, or less deserving, the “politics of respectability” depends on a contrast with an “out” or deviant group. Racial justice proponents, much more than immigration reformers, have made significant headway in moving beyond respectability politics, especially when critiquing hyperincarceration. This Article describes a different conceptualization of immigrants and crime as well as examples of how certain immigration reform groups have sought to implement aspects of this alternate frame.

Undocumented Families in Times of Deportation at the San Diego–Tijuana Border

Immigration policy in recent years has led to the deportation of thousands of undocumented parents of US citizen children. In the first six months of FY 2011, almost 47,000 undocumented parents were deported from the country. This article examines how US policy came to allow, if not prescribe, the separation of undocumented parents from their sons and daughters. Drawing on evidence from the San Diego–Tijuana border, it reviews critical moments in the history of deportation and reflects on how that history laid the groundwork for the complex and dysfunctional connections between the immigration and child welfare systems that have led to forced family separation.

Health Care Access for Latino Mixed-Status Families

There are approximately 2.3 million mixed-status families in the United States, containing varied combinations of citizens, permanent legal residents, undocumented immigrants, and individuals in legal limbo. These families offer an opportunity to examine the functioning of the contemporary state and its penetration at the household level. For many Latino youth, experiences are framed not only by their own but other family members’ legal status. This article reports on health care seeking experiences of mixed-status families in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas and the impact of the recent health care reform (Affordable Care Act). We utilized qualitative ethnographic methods including 55 semistructured interviews with mixed-status families and 43 interviews with health care providers, caseworkers, and public health officials. Results indicate that changes accompanying the reform directly and indirectly affect mixed-status households’ ability to access care. We describe strategies in times of illness, including those unique to border communities. We conclude that, for successful implementation of policies associated with health care reform, broader issues related to immigration status must be addressed, especially anxieties regarding future chances of regularization. These uniquely affect mixed-status families, create a ripple effect on all household members, and result in unintended consequences for U.S. citizen children. Implications point to the need for a pathway to citizenship for parents as a basic step in improving well-being of children.

U.S. immigration policy and family separation: The consequences for children's well-being

At the start of the twenty-first century, two arms of U.S. immigration policy shape the lives of families and children. The first, enforcement practices, lead to the involuntary separation of parents and children—or the fears of this outcome—when the United States government detains and forcibly removes the parents of U.S. citizen children. The second, the policies which restrict migration to the United States, cause children to experience both long and short term separations when their parents migrate without them. In this paper I use interviews collected between the years of 2003–2006 and 2009–2012 with children and their parents or guardians in both the United States and in Mexico to assess the meanings these two types of separations have for families and the potential impacts for children's well-being. I find that enforcement practices create economic and emotional hardship due to feelings of uncertainty, while restrictive immigration policies lead to resentment among children even post-reunification.

To dream or not to dream: The effects of immigration status, discrimination, and parental influence on Latino children's access to education

The study focused on the experiences and everyday lives of migrant children who, through a range of different routes and circumstances, happen to reside in the United States without legal residence status as well as citizen children who live with at least one unauthorized parent. It aimed to show the multiple ways in which lack of legal status affects the lives of young migrants both directly and through their parents, shaping their social worlds and, more importantly, their chances for the future. Through exploration of services and resources available to these youngsters the study aimed at shedding light on migrant children’s encounter with public services and the complexities and idiosyncrasies of the immigration system at a time of economic downturn and radical reform of public services. Regarding education, the research centered primarily on access to and experiences with formal schooling.

The psychosocial impact of detention and deportation on U.S. migrant children and families.

Approximately 4.5 million U.S. citizen children live in mixed-status families, in which at least 1 family member is an unauthorized migrant and therefore vulnerable to detention and deportation from the United States (Passel & Cohn, 2011). This article critically examines the current state of the literature on the psychosocial consequences of detention and deportation for unauthorized migrants, mixed-status families, and their U.S.-born children. In particular, drawing on social and psychological theory and research, we (a) review the impact of parents' unauthorized status on children; (b) summarize the literature on the impact of detention processes on psychosocial well-being; (c) describe the dilemma faced by a mixed-status family when a parent faces deportation; (d) examine the current social scientific literature on how parental deportation impacts children and their families; and (e) summarize several policy recommendations for protecting children and families.

The Loss of Birthright Citizenship in New Zealand

The Citizenship Amendment Act 2005 removed the traditional common law rule that a person born in New Zealand was, just for that reason, a New Zealand citizen. It required that the person have a parent who was a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident at that time. The change is often said to have been made to prevent transient immigrants having New Zealand citizen children in order to remain in the country, after the Supreme Court's decision in the Ding and Ye line of cases reputedly confirmed that foreign parents did thus obtain that right. This article discusses the misconceptions surrounding the loss of full birthright citizenship, the background of contemporary citizenship law in the common law world and the potential effects of the recent change on migrant communities and on New Zealand's existing population.

Outlook: Immigration reform and California agriculture

Over half of the workers employed on U.S. and California farms are unauthorized. Congress is debating reforms that would increase enforcement against illegal migration, allow unauthorized immigrants in the United States to become legal immigrants and create new guest worker programs. The status quo means uncertainty for farmers worried about labor shortages, uncertainty for workers fearful of removal from the United States and uncertainty for communities with large numbers of mixed families (unauthorized parents with U.S. citizen children). This article summarizes the data and assesses the implications of the major reform proposals for California agriculture.

Victims or Criminals? Discretion, Sorting, and Bureaucratic Culture in the US Immigration System

This article examines the Obama Administration’s effort to encourage the use of prosecutorial discretion by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the executive agency in charge of the enforcement of immigration laws. Since 2010, the Obama Administration has repeatedly stated that agency officials are to focus enforcement efforts on those who pose a threat or danger, rather than pursuing deportation of all undocumented immigrants with equal fervor. Yet despite repeated directives by the administration, the implementation of prosecutorial discretion is widely considered a failure. Data and anecdotes from the field suggest that ICE has yet to embrace this more nuanced approach to the enforcement of immigration laws. In this article, I argue that one key reason that prosecutorial discretion has not taken hold within ICE is the failure of the President and his administration to adequately account for agency culture. In particular, the prosecutorial discretion initiative directly conflicts with the central role that criminal convictions play in ICE culture. To support my argument, I present an in-depth case study of the agency’s refusal to exercise discretion in a highly compelling case. For over two years, ICE aggressively prosecuted a client of University of Arizona’s immigration clinic who appeared to be the quintessential recipient of prosecutorial discretion, as the victim of domestic violence, sex trafficking, and the primary caregiver for three young U.S citizen children. Despite these equities, ICE’s decision to prosecute was based wholly on the single conviction on her record, which was directly related to her victimization and for which she received a sentence of probation only.I situate this case study in a theoretical framework regarding bureaucratic culture. Applying this analysis to ICE brings into focus key elements of the agency’s culture, particularly its tendency to view all immigrants as criminal threats. This culture makes the sole fact of a conviction – without regard to its seriousness or context – a nearly irreversible determinant of the agency’s approach to any given case. My analysis of the nature and intensity of ICE’s bureaucratic culture has troubling implications for the capacity of the President and his administration to implement reforms that counter the lack of nuance in the immigration system’s current legal framework. It suggests that locating discretion primarily in the enforcement arm of the immigration bureaucracy has inherent limitations that lead to a system poorly designed to address humanitarian concerns raised in individual cases.

Gendered Borders: Forensic Evaluations of Immigrant Women

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (2012), nearly 40 million people living in the United States are foreign born; one fourth of these immigrants are unauthorized adults, including 4.1 million women. Over 60% have lived in this country over ten years, and half are parents of minor children. Nearly three fourths of children born to unauthorized immigrants are U.S. citizens by birth and four million of them live in mixed-status families. From January to June 2011, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported 46,486 undocumented immigrant parents who had at least one U.S. citizen child. ICE also oversees immigration detention facilities which daily house some 31,000 people awaiting adjudication. Children are placed into foster care and parental rights are terminated because mothers held in immigration detention centers are penalized for being unable to attend hearings in family court and for not meeting court-ordered requirements for regaining custody of their children. Forcibly separating unauthorized immigrant parents from their U.S. citizen children can have devastating and long-lasting effects on those children, posing serious risks to their safety, economic, psychological and physical wellness, and long-term development. Researchers studying the effects of deportation on mothers separated from their children have found that they suffer psychologically as a result of separations, disrupted lives, dislocation, leaving the familiar, not belonging, sadness, and grief. Following years or decades spent away from their cultures of origin, they additionally frequently lack the verbal, nonverbal, and culturally nuanced communication and relational skills needed to effectively maneuver in their new communities. It is with these populations in mind that we write this article, for these women and their families need culturally competent forensic evaluators who are well aware of the value and boundaries of their role as scientists working within the branch of the legal system of immigration law. In this article we (a) provide an ethical and professional context for the forensic evaluator, (b) review contemporary literature regarding immigration evaluations, (c) explore dilemmas facing the evaluator, and (d) propose an ethical and competent best-practice model for forensic evaluation procedures with immigrant women and their families.

The Immigration State of Emergency: Racializing and Gendering National Vulnerability in Twenty-First-Century Citizenship and Deportation Regimes

Twenty-first-century efforts to address an "immigration state of emergency" are anchored by timeworn racialized and gendered discourses of national precariousness and belonging. Through an assessment of recent policies governing mixed-citizenship-status families, this article studies how rhetorics of protecting the security of a vulnerable national citizenry justify the disparate legal treatment of undocumented migrants and their US citizen children. Part 1 of the article explores how recent attempts to repeal birthright citizenship for US-born children of undocumented parents merely reflect in exaggerated form how procedures for determining foreign-born children's citizenship have long relied upon racialized and feminized discourses of national vulnerability. Part 2 examines how family-deportation regimes forcing undocumented parents to choose between deporting their citizen children with them or leaving them in state custodial institutions like foster care communicate that nationalist cultural assimilation should trump the constitutional right to family and national residency. Children's unique developmental needs combine with national security fears to authorize sociolegal states of emergency. By evaluating 2010-13 immigration enforcement legislation, the channeling of children from mixed-legal-status families into foster care, and new policies like prosecutorial discretion and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the article contributes to the feminist, ethnic, and migration studies literatures.

Very low food security in young citizen children correlates with mothers’ foreign birth; associations vary by mothers’ length of stay in the US

This study's objective was to test whether very low food security (VLFS) in children, the most severe food insecurity measured in the US, is related to mothers’ foreign birth, &amp; whether mothers’ length of stay (LOS) in the US affects that relationship. Data are from ongoing Children's HealthWatch research on 40,460 children ages &lt;48 months whose mothers were interviewed at pediatric clinics &amp; hospital emergency departments in Baltimore, Boston, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Philadelphia &amp; Washington, DC June 1998‐December 2011. IRB approval was obtained at each site, &amp; renewed annually. In multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for site &amp; mothers’ characteristics, children of foreign‐born mothers had adjusted odds of having VLFS in children 194% greater than children of US‐born mothers. In models using data stratified by mothers’ LOS in the US, children of mothers in the US &gt;;10 yrs had adjusted odds of VLFS in children 44% lower than children of mothers in the US &lt;5 yrs. The goal of ending child hunger (VLFS in children) in the US by 2015 is unlikely to be achieved without targeted support for families with recent immigrant mothers. This project was supported with a grant from the University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research through funding by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food &amp; Nutrition Service, contract number AG‐3198‐B‐10–0028.

Which States Enroll Their Medicaid‐ Eligible, Citizen Children with Immigrant Parents?

To identify which states achieve comparable enrollment rates for Medicaid-eligible, citizen children with immigrant and nonimmigrant parents. A total of 810,345 Medicaid-eligible, citizen children drawn from the 2008-2010 American Community Survey. This study estimates a state fixed-effects probit model of uninsured status for Medicaid-eligible, citizen children. State and immigrant family interaction variables test whether citizen children in immigrant families have a higher probability of remaining uninsured compared to children in nonimmigrant families. Simulations predict the uninsured rates for Medicaid eligible children in immigrant and nonimmigrant families and rank states by the differences between the two groups. While some states have insignificant and near zero differences in predicted uninsured rates, many states have enrollment disparities reaching 20 percent points between citizen children with immigrant and nonimmigrant parents. Many states have large differences in enrollment rates between their Medicaid-eligible, citizen children with immigrant and nonimmigrant parents. Addressing these enrollment disparities could improve the health status of citizen children in immigrant families and earn Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act bonus payments for many states.

Immigrants raising citizens: undocumented parents and their young children

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.

The Removability of Non-Citizen Parents and the Best Interests of Citizen Children: How to Balance Competing Imperatives in the Context of Removal Proceedings?

The massive influx of illegal immigrants over the preceding decades has combined with the United States’ jus soli citizenship regime to produce a growing class of removable aliens: non-citizen parents of United States citizen children. The removability of parents obviously places the citizen children in the unfortunate position of having to leave their country of citizenship behind to accompany the parents, or arrange for living situations within the United States, perhaps with a relative, but be separated from their parents. The compelling interests raised by the removability of parents in such circumstances have given rise to distinct forms of relief under domestic legal systems. The United Kingdom, in a recent decision by its Supreme Court, has held that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in determining whether the removal of the parent would be proportionate. Likewise, the United States provides for certain types of relief from removal for the parents of United States citizen children. Yet neither regime is entirely satisfactory. The United Kingdom’s approach is unduly biased towards non-removability, whereas the standards for establishing relief from removal in the United States are onerous and will be rarely met in practice. The purpose of this article is to propose a balancing of the interests that takes a realistic look both at the compelling interest citizen children have to remain in their country as part of a family unit and the competing interests of the state in a fully and fairly functioning immigration system. Such balancing is liable to make all parties unhappy - not every non-citizen parent should be permitted to remain simply on the fact of that parentage, and, conversely, not every removable parent should be removed simply because they are present illegally - yet it is the only feasible option to a problem that is only likely to grow in the coming decades.