New MPI Report on Nefarious Effects of Children Being Undocumented

From a MPI e-mail: "the Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Hirokazu Yoshikawa, and colleague Jenya Kholoptseva, examine the emerging research and discuss policies and programs that reduce or mitigate the developmental risks for children with parents who are unauthorized.

As Yoshikawa and Kholoptseva explain, research suggests that having an unauthorized immigrant parent is associated with lower cognitive skills in early childhood, lower levels of general positive development in middle childhood, higher levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms during adolescence, and fewer years of schooling.

Among the factors proposed to explain how parents’ unauthorized status might lower children’s learning and subsequent schooling outcomes: Parental detention and removal, lower access to public programs that benefit children’s development, economic hardship, and psychological distress.

The report suggests a number of policies and programs to address these factors, including public prekindergarten programs, which have been shown to narrow gaps in child development and academic readiness between children with unauthorized parents and other children. Other steps to improve the well-being of these children, Yoshikawa and Kholoptseva argue, would be to create a pathway to citizenship for their parents." See the full report here.

Others, including University at Albany Professor Joanna Dreby and Arizona State University Professor Cecilia Menjivar, have examined the direct and indirect effects of various legal statuses on children.

Limbo and Purgatory : the Struggle for Citizen Bodies and Souls

In Catholic theology, limbo is the place non-Christians and unbaptized babies go after death to wait until the second coming of Christ. Purgatory, on the other hand, is where sinners go to expiate their sins before being allowed in to paradise. Limbo is being stuck in jail before trial, and purgatory is like doing your time.

Purgatory

How long undocumented youth spend suspended in limbo or purgatory is a matter of how governments allow youth to convert to a legal status. I’ve spent the past five years researching how undocumented youth come of age, in New York and Paris. The legal and bureaucratic systems in France and other European countries build in flexibility that recognizes years of residence as a condition of regularizing status, giving youth a release date from the struggles of coming of age into exclusion. In the US, we do not provide any transition to a legal status, punishing youth interminably in a limbo. 

Until 18 years of age, undocumented youth are more or less included in most ways other kids are. For the the Mexican-origin youth that I followed in New York, they came here at or before 12 years of age, their parents found low-paying jobs, and they made their way through English as a Second Language classes and high school.

Then they enter an ice bath of exclusion. When their documented friends go on to college, even the most academically prepared students face obstacles that filter them out of the educational system. Though the City University of New York has been receptive to undocumented students, nonetheless tuition and fees are over $5,500 for a four-year college. With no access to federal or state financial aid and no guarantee of a return on their degree, $22,000 in tuition is a very risky investment. It would also mean less short-term family income. The political system, imbued with  the ideal of equality, excludes these youth from the means that nearly all students use to attend college.

The contradictions do not end there. In contrast to the stereotype of young part-time workers using wages for party money or vacations, the youth in my sample share rent, pay for younger siblings’ educational endeavors, and save for family security. In order to do these noble undertakings, however, they must work under the table or assume a false identity. With both the virtuous paths to college and to a responsible job blocked, the system nearly forces undocumented youth into low-wage, highly exploitable work in factories, restaurant kitchens, and delis.

As Professor Roberto Gonzales at the University of Chicago has written, the American system teaches these youth how to be “illegal”, distancing them from the American Dream, everyone’s heaven. Because the goal of limbo or purgatory is to inflict bodily harm until it affects the soul, some brave undocumented youth have reaffirmed their bodily presence as deserving residents, to show with their bodies that their souls are actually pure.

Over the past decade, undocumented youth have challenged these unfair contradictions, knowing every day without reform is another day of a less bright future. This past Thursday afternoon in one of the busiest spaces in in Manhattan, Union Square, a group of Dreamers gathered and publicly testified with their stories of promise and dreams deferred. They recounted their dreams, described how it feels to be marginalized, cried, and received hugs and support from others. With this action, they faced the danger of deportation square in the face, they showed with their bodies they are people with dignity, and with their words, that they are souls worthy of acceptance. With this consummate act of participatory democracy, they lay bare the contradiction between our broken immigration system and our democratic ideals. It makes me shrink from what I was doing at age 18. 

Limbo

Just as limbo and purgatory were man-made concepts, so are the obstacles these two million youth face. For all their support, the universities and governments of our cities, immigrant communities, caring teachers, and documented family members have not been able to bridge the gaps between this ruinous limbo and spaces of ordinary struggles we all undergo as youth. When they return from their Easter vacation, Congress has the ability to do so. A Congressional bill for comprehensive immigration reform, one without a series of clauses that exclude whole classes of immigrants, will bring these youth America’s promise, and it will bring America the potential of these motivated youth.

What do you do about the present traces of past racism?

Django Unchained among other Tarantino films was criticized by many, notably by Spike Lee, for its pervasive and facile use of the N word. How do we assess the use of the racist term in historical works? One book in the American canon uses the n-word over 200 times: Huckleberry Finn.  In 2011, we saw a media storm around a publisher's decision to replace the word with 'slave', at least partly in an effort to expand its use in schools.  Some people argued for keeping it in as a sign of America's racist past; others emphasize the lessons children take from such racist language.

German newspaper Die Zeit recently publicized a similar issue when it ran a large spread with criticism of a German publisher's decision to change (colonial) racist language in children's books there. Below is the front page with the headline, "Children, these are no N.'s": our favourite children books are rewritten political correctly- is this progress?"

Cover of Die Zeit

The German publisher was accused of being excessively politically correct. Jan Fleischhauer, a journalist with Speigel Online, wrote an attack on revising such racist children's books (note: translated into English using Google Translation). A Spiegel colleague, Georg Diez , responded by pointing to the effect such racist language has on children (and all of us): "What's the word n----- going to tell us?"  A lot.  Let us only once the simplest arguments: the term is out of place, ugly and dead, and Germany will be freer, more beautiful, more enlightened, if not only dispense children's books to the N-word - but all of us.

I would normally miss this debate on multiculturalism, history, and racism but two of my fellow Fellows at the Die Zeit Stiftung (Foundation) drafted a smart response to the goings-on, as well as the newspaper's role in representing multiple perspectives on such an issue. Below is the letter (co-signed by me) we sent to various media outlets:

Open Letter to DIE ZEIT

22.02.2013

After the storm. Migration scholars offer another perspective on DIE ZEIT’s N-word debate.

As fellows of the ZEIT Foundation’s PhD programme in Migration Studies, we have been following the current media controversy regarding the removal of racist language in children’s books with great concern. We are migration scholars from a range of countries and academic disciplines. We all live in countries characterised by migration. Our biographies are interwoven with various forms of migration, often spanning several generations and countries. Some of us are from Germany or have lived there for some time. In solidarity, and with one voice, we speak here. All of us have an interest in this controversy, because it involves the question of how issues of race and diversity should be presented and how racialised and marginalised individuals and groups should be given a voice within public debates. Given that we experience, research and discuss these things on a daily basis, we thought we might offer another perspective that could be of interest to you and your readers. 

Germany has recognised that it is a country of immigration given its post-war migration history and the fact that it is the largest racially and ethnically diverse country in Europe. Highly diverse societies such as Germany require negotiation in the public sphere, which involves how public institutions and members of a society address and engage with racial and ethnic diversity and equality. As we all know, media institutions, including newspapers and publishing houses, are an important part of the social fabric of a society as they shape public opinion. It is in this context that we celebrate the success of a progressive initiative launched by Mekonnen Mesghena, Department Head Migration and Diversity at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, children’s book author Otfried Preussler and the decision of German publishing house Thienemann to remove racist language from the children’s book classic “The Little Witch”. 

Our welcome for this development, however, has been overshadowed by the news that Mekonnen Mesghena receives routine letters and calls containing racist hate speech and threats after news of his agreement with the Thienemann publishing house reached the mainstream media. We believe that it is not only the responsibility of a publishing house, but also of a leading newspaper such as DIE ZEIT, to mediate debate around race and ethnic relations in a sensitive and well-informed way. The editorial staff of DIE ZEIT, however, failed in this specific responsibility in January 2013. The publication of a cover story (17.01.2013) with racist images and patronising language as in “Children, these are no Neger!” (a term which translates into English as both versions of the N-word) followed by a subheading stating “Our most favourite children’s books will be rewritten political correctly – is that progress?” alone testifies to a populist conservatism, which we consider to be obstructive and inappropriate given Germany’s actual multiracial and multiethnic present and future. Two (out of three) articles in DIE ZEIT’s dossier published on the 17.01.2013 are particularly problematic contributions to the debate about the removal of racist language: Namely, Axel Hacke’s “Wumbaba’s Legacy” and Ulrich Greiner’s“The Little Witch Hunt”. 

Axel Hacke’s choice to use a mocking tone to write about his experiences of being criticized by the anti-racist media watch organisation “Der braune Mob” and the black and migrant lesbian organisation“LesMigras,” displays nothing else than his self-image as a “rational white man”. He makes use of a racial narrative that places a positive judgement on white male behaviour (rational, relaxed, non-judgmental, surprised by another white man’s critique) and a negative judgment on migrant and anti-racist activists and their behaviour (irrational, violent, judgmental). Hacke’s lack of historical knowledge and critical reflexivity towards his imaginary white Wumbaba’s colonial legacy are more disturbing than illuminating. The words“Neger”, “negro” or “nigger” were and are not innocent terms, they are signifiers of colonialism and its eugenic policies that sought to oppress, exploit, exterminate or enslave those addressed as such. If one denies an engagement with Germany’s colonial and fascist history and multiracial present, how can one understand the complexities of Wumbaba’s legacy? One cannot. One flees. One controls. One tries to protect his self-image and, alas, DIE ZEIT promotes it.

Ulrich Greiner’s contribution to the debate consists of twisted arguments reaching from accusations of censorship albeit Preussler’s and Thienemann’s voluntary decision to amend the future editions of“The Little Witch” to linking the term “political correctness” and Orwell’s critique of totalitarianism in his novel “1984” clearly to the wrong historical and contemporary figures: the anti-racist political left. Furthermore, we would like to recommend Ulrich Greiner and also Hartmut Kasten, professor of psychology at the University Hamburg (interview with Tanja Stelzer, DIE ZEIT, 24.01.2013) to read the studies of internationally renowned development and social psychologists published in the “Handbook of Race, Racism, and the Developing Child” (Wiley & Sons, 2008) to understand the processes and effects of racial socialisation. The consultation of scientific research, which clearly shows that racial socialisation takes place at a young age and affects not only the racial and ethnic identity formation of an individual child but also inter-group relations in multiracial societies would have been beneficial in this debate. We also recommend that instead of publishing opinion pieces, DIE ZEIT could invite scientific experts, such as Maisha Eggers, professor of diversity studies at the University Magdeburg-Stendal or Grada Kilomba, professor of gender studies at the Humboldt University Berlin, to name only two academics based in Germany to contribute to the debate in a much more well-informed way. 

None of the countries we reside in are free of racism. Racism and tensions between racial groups exist throughout the world. The question is not whether racism exists. The question is rather how it is dealt with by those in positions of power that matters. We ask one thing of the media and cultural institutions in Germany and of the editors of DIE ZEIT in particular. Please bear in mind that unbalanced debates around these issues –discussions which deny Germans with a migration background an equal, respectful voice – perpetuate inequalities, alienate large parts of your readership, burden relationships among producers and audiences, and negatively affect racial and ethnic minorities’ belief in the progress that this society as a whole is making as a country of immigration. 

Authors: Onur Suzan Kömürcü Nobrega and Anna Boucher

Signatories:

Anna Boucher – Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney (Australia)

Ahmed Dailami – Faculty of Oriental Studies, St Antony’s College, Oxford (United Kingdom)

Onur Suzan Kömürcü Nobrega –Department of Media and Communications, Goldsmiths College, University of London (Germany/United Kingdom)

Maike Koschorreck – Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences, Universität Bremen (Germany)

Noora Lori – Department of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University (United States of America)

Muhammad Arafat Bin Mohamad –Department of Anthropology, Harvard University (United States of America)

Sanjeev Routray – Department of Sociology, University of British Columbia (Canada)

Stephen Ruszczyk – Graduate Center, City University of New York (United States of America)

Nazgül Tajibaeva – Bielefeld Graduate School in History and Sociology, Universität Bielefeld (Germany)

Emrah Yildiz – Department of Anthropology, Harvard University (United States of America)

How should publishers, media, and schools handle this issue? The New York Times has recently debuted a few different formats to present multiple viewpoints. One, called 'Room for Debate,' presents four to ten different takes on an issue. Another has other experts respond in a dialogue to an editorial column, and of course letters to the editor and reader comments add popular voice. Schools, however, are dealing with children that (in general) cannot critically judge the historical aspects of the racist terms. Should we create Explicit/Edited versions the way we do for music and movies on tv? Have other ideas?