Student advocacy for Senate Bill 2065 to protect undocumented immigrant children's educations in Illinois

 Dear Senator Turner,

I write to you today to share my support for and encouragement of the proposed Senate Bill: SB-2065, which was created to protect and support students in primary and secondary education who are immigrants themselves or are closely affiliated with someone who is an immigrant. Specifically, it is my understanding that this bill would provide important protections for the rights of undocumented immigrants who are students in the state of Illinois. 

The current GOP has been forthright and thorough in declaring their anti-immigrant agenda. In myriad public statements, both the president and the Republican Party have laid out their intentions to pursue immigrants with every tool of legislative and authoritarian intervention possible. Further, their vitriol and affiliated actions do not appear to be intended to target solely undocumented immigrants, as reports continue to surface of even those with government-issued, legal status are being threatened and pursued. Though there are already federal protections for students in these circumstances, recent events have led me to lose faith in the strength and integrity of the federal government.

Undocumented, school-age children in the United States have the same rights to education as United States citizens. This was determined in the United States Supreme Court decision in Plyler V. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), which established that American public schools are prohibited from denying enrollment to undocumented students, engaging in practices that might discourage undocumented students and their families from accessing educational services, requiring disclosure of the immigration status of a parent or child, making inquiries of children or parents that might reveal their immigration status, or requiring social security numbers (or documents that can only be obtained by those with social security numbers) as a prerequisite to school enrollment. It was determined by the court that to support the actions taken by the state of Texas would be a decision to deprive innocent children of a fundamental right to education. The court also determined that the children in question were not to be held accountable for the actions of others that led to their residing in the United States as undocumented immigrants. The court even found that discriminatory and exclusionary tactics proposed by Texas against these children did nothing to solve the problems that the state claimed these children were causing.

Despite this decades-established decision proclaiming the responsibility of the United States to provide and protect the rights of these children to education, the GOP has made their priorities to group all immigrants into a single, one-dimensional scapegoat and exclude them from any and all resources to which they’ve been deemed entitled, and they do not appear to care much whether or not their actions would negatively impact innocent children. Bill 2065 has, sadly, become an important preventive measure to ensure that children in the state of Illinois are not deprived of an education should the GOP decide to reverse decisions such as that of Plyler v. Doe. As we saw with the reversal of Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, we can no longer rely solely on federal protections for students, as we now know even well-established Supreme Court decisions are vulnerable to being re-visited and undone and with destructive outcomes to those most in need of legislative protections of their rights.

Should the long-standing federal protections established for the betterment of all be overturned, children in Illinois and their families will rely on State protections to bolster their efforts to receive an education and invest in their futures. We must prevent any circumstances or practices within our public schools which might discourage or endanger children seeking education. Such practices as requiring the adult attempting to register a child for public education to provide documentation that could only be acquired by a person residing here with a legal status must be banned and bound by legislation at the state level.

Even as Mr. Trump and his constituents threaten to punish sanctuary states by withholding federal funding, I urge you and your fellow supporters of Bill 2065 to continue a vital mission – one that makes me truly proud to call myself an American despite my grief and shame in the same sentiment – to provide fundamental rights to all who come here seeking what we claim to stand for as a nation. To fear immigrants is to fear the very foundation of our great country’s success and ingenuity. I personally am far more fearful of a future United States that does not enjoy the innovation, security, health and success that result in welcoming those who have deemed America worthy of their investments and support. Please continue your hard work in protecting not just the rights of all who reside in these United States, but also in protecting a bright and thriving future for our country; one that can only come about if we protect and provide for a well-educated populous. 

Sincerely,

[Student Name]

Yes, it is longer than an actual advocacy letter ought to be, but this is an assignment to see how you show of your advocacy letter-writing skills, so it is the right length.

You open with your request, and your concluding paragraph repeats your top message: you want Illinois to pass a law to protect the rights to education for immigrant children in Illinois, no matter their immigration status.  

Your letter presents the problem.  Although a Supreme Court decision (based on the 14th Amendment, I think, but also possibly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) has already decided that immigrant children (even those who did not enter the United States with permission to reside here) must be provided an education, there are good grounds for fearing that this will be overturned by the MAGA GOP. So, the state needs a law to protect these immigrant children.  

In this case, your State Senator is already a supporter of the bill, so your letter is more of an affirmation, and you are pleading with the Senator to make this a priority and help get this bill passed. That is a good thing to do; many good bills are introduced, but if they are not a priority, they may not get through committee or get a floor vote to become law. Telling someone in the legislature that you like a bill they are co-sponsoring and you think it is important that this particular bill become a law is helpful political practice.

Your letter is respectful, and it has your voice in it.  I think the letter is of such a high quality that staff would pass this on to Senator Turner, and she would respond.  The way we write these letters, when we convey passion, personal feelings, and we are respectful, I think this can move the good legislators. 

Protecting the Human Rights of Undocumented Immigrant Children in SB 2065, a policy brief.

 The conversation surrounding public education and its future is ever present. With the federal executive branch signing an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education, there are many programs and laws within that can now be challenged at the state level. The Department of Education is aiming to shut down almost all operations besides funding for low-income schools, funding for children with disabilities, and Pell grants and federal student loans. As stated by Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, a large portion of why the Department of Education was created was to “guarantee the enforcement of students' civil rights.” Students were guaranteed the right to a public education regardless of their background. It is worrisome that legislators may push to remove this right to education from the hands of undocumented immigrant children. 

Senate Bill 2065 in Illinois is looking to protect this right for all children, regardless of immigration or documentation status. With SB2065, a student cannot be denied free education, participation in school activities, or benefits from school. These rights can also not be denied to any person(s) associated with the child. This bill also prohibits schools from disclosing any personal information regarding a student or an associated person’s immigration status. A school cannot let an immigration officer onto the school site for any reason unless they have proper identification, a judicial warrant, a statement of purpose, and approval from the superintendent and their legal counsel. These protections are going to allow the most vulnerable students to continue their education. The attack on immigration and education go hand in hand, and this bill would help add protections for this population. 

A simple reason to favor this policy is the Supreme Court Case Plyler v. Doe. This case ruled in 1982 that it would be prohibited to deny a child education based on the immigration status of their family. The court voted this way with their reasoning being the 14th amendment. Concerning this case, the 14th Amendment is used to explain that states cannot deny “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” A reason to be against this policy is that it could be viewed as overly tailored to the immigrant population, when these rights should be extended to all new students. While the bill was written for this population, many other demographics could also benefit from this type of legislation. 

Opposing this bill could be deemed as morally wrong. It is a belief among many that opposing this would greatly single out the children of immigrants. It is an American principle that all are equal before the law, and the law applies to all. Excluding these children from the right to education is harmful. The move to disregard these children from the education system would be against the very principles our democracy is founded upon.  A common argument opposing bills such as this one is that education is not a right. It is believed instead that the children of these immigrants have not earned the right to enjoy the public benefits of the United States. Their parents being undocumented means that they do not deserve the privileges that society has to offer. It is also a common misconception that paying for these children to be educated is too costly. 

As noted earlier, opposition to this bill may come from the fact that it is too narrowly focused. Adding more demographics or making the bill more general could help it get passed if there were a majority against it. With immigration being such a hot topic at the moment, it could be fairly polarizing, depending on the party. Making it more general could help appeal to the more conservative minded who are not open to working with undocumented immigrants. Opposing this bill could look bad politically. Since the topic of the bill is guaranteed education to children, opposition could come off as simply not being in favor of equal education with hints of racism and xenophobia. This could then lead people in the general public to make assumptions based on the stance chosen and severely oppose any future political action. There are no real downsides to supporting this bill besides losing potential supporters who most likely would not agree with your politics in the first place. 

To conclude, Senate Bill 2065 is a bill in which you should strongly support. With the current political environment, people want to feel as if their politicians are going to protect them and their children. Giving the children of immigrants a fair chance in the education system is only right. I suggest that you strongly support and consider becoming a co-sponsor to get this bill passed immediately. 

For the first policy paper, students may write either an advocacy letter or a policy brief that contains a recommendation.  This is a policy brief with a recommendation to support a bill to reaffirm the educational human rights of all children in Illinois, regardless of their immigration or documentation status. 

The Constitution of Illinois says that education is free and universal.  Although most school districts illegally and unconstitutionally ask parents to pay fees (which can be waived in cases of economic hardship), education is generally nearly free, and nearly universal, at least up to high school graduation. 

I think your brief does well to cite the Plyler v. Doe case.  This, along with the 14th Amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Illinois Constitution all point in the same direction as this bill, that education must be universal, and no children can be excluded from public education or alternatives to public education if certain behavioral problems prevent mainstream public education. 

I think you also have done well to point out that attacks on public education are “hand in hand” with attacks on immigrants. Xenophobia has significant overlap with the tendency to complain about public education and argue for abolishing public education and replacing it with private schools and a system of vouchers that would give households money to pay for education at any of the private schools. 

In most Illinois senate and house districts it would look bad to oppose this bill.  However, we do have several extremely MAGA districts in rural downstate Illinois where I would expect opposition to this bill. 

Considering immigration policies proposed by two candidates, a student's reaction

  In light of the upcoming elections, I have tried to keep myself as informed as possible about both candidates’ policy plans for their potential time in office. As much as I would like to argue that morality is salient in terms of who we choose to run our country, I am actively trying to remove myself from the mindset of “moral righteousness” and concentrate on policies that would ultimately better the lives of all Americans while increasing the health of our economy. One policy area that is completely divided—and I cannot seem to understand why—is the issue of immigration. This is one aspect of the divide I do believe we need to not only look at in terms of policy, but also in terms of understanding the value of human beings.  

I recommend that we approach many questions with open-minded attitudes. If you could cleanse your heart so that no remnant of either love or hate could linger there, so that love would not blindly incline you toward error, or hate repel you from truth, you would be in a better mental state-of-mind to dispassionately consider the arguments of various sides. Of course, you must not abandon your moral compass, so that you can apply your ethics and values to the contrasting opinions, but that needs to come after you have open-mindedly considered each position with sympathy and trust in the side that presents its position. 

Before I get into a more neutral view of the candidates differing views on immigration, I feel it would be insincere not to explain my own thoughts on the issue. I understand that immigration policies are put in place to protect our country and that all countries have their own set of immigration laws in place. Some countries are made up of mostly foreign-born citizens while others have strict regulations so much so that it is almost impossible to gain citizenship. Those who know the history of what this country was built on understand that the earliest “American” citizens were literally immigrants themselves. My irritation lies in that fact; Christopher Columbus didn’t discover this land. There were successful, thriving tribes of indigenous people living here first who had their land forcefully taken over, were reduced to slaves, and were essentially given a death sentence in doing so. These “great Americans” were immigrants themselves, and we gloss over that undeniable fact with ease when we are talking about how strict and sometimes brutal, we feel the need to be with immigration laws today. I can agree to a certain extent that immigration laws are imperative to keep this country safe, fruitful, and flourishing. Though it is deplorable to me that some of us justify those laws simply because this is our country, and we should keep everyone else out. Due to our history, the logic—or lack thereof—of many individuals entitlement to gatekeeping this country simply infuriates me. But I digress.

I think the nations with many immigrants, such as the United Arab Emirates, do not give citizenship to the guest workers and foreign residents, but I could be wrong.  Western European nations and the USA tend to have a percentage of the population between the high single digits and low double digits that are foreign-born. I think the United States these days has about 15% of the population foreign-born (including my wife and my brother-in-law, and two of my four grandparents when they were alive). Germany has 18% of its population as immigrants, and 28.7% of its population has a migration background. In the UK, it’s 16% who are foreign-born. In France, it’s a little over 10%. In Canada, it’s about 23% of the population. In United Mexican States about 1% of the population is foreign-born, including about 800,000 who were born in the United States of America.  Taiwan has about 3.4% of it’s population foreign-born, mostly from Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

The role of immigration in protecting a country has two sides.  Many people are concerned that with declining birth-rates, a country will be weakened as its population declines unless it allows some immigrants to help stabilize the population.  Thus, immigration boosts a nation’s population and makes it stronger.  On the other hand, many citizens do not want to have so many immigrants enter their country that they feel their national culture is threatened or diluted, and sometimes people feel their nation may face a security threat if immigrants actively try to change their countries in ways that weaken the cultural strength of the nation. 

The United States and other nations of the Americas are societies made of mixtures of indigenous people/ideas and immigrants or persons enslaved and brought to the land. As Samuel Sewall put it in his hymn for peace written on January 1, 1701: “…So Asia and Africa, Europa with America, All four in concert join'd, shall sing…” We’re all brought together here because of the decisions of our ancestors (or ourselves, if we are immigrants). The countries of Europe may claim to have cultures based on tribes or ethnicities or cultures that have existed on their land for many centuries, and those cultures may be favored as the “national” cultures, although in most cases, there are many minority ethnicities and historical colonies of other ethnic groups even in the nations of Europe and Asia, not to mention the vast diversity of tribal peoples in most African lands. 

All governments have a duty to protect their citizens.  In democratic societies, the government should also generally enforce policies that are favored by the electorate, with the limit that the Constitution or values enshrined in the Constitution should be held as more important than any temporary whim of the electorate (if the electorate feels strongly enough about an issue, they must have means of changing the constitution, but that approach should be a more difficult process than passing mere laws). Most Americans like immigrants, and want to keep the nation open to a certain number of people who come here as part of family unification efforts, and bring in a smaller group of people who have skills or abilities that American citizens lack, and bring in an even smaller group of people who are fleeing oppression or danger in their homelands. The minority who are actively xenophobic and only want to allow in immigrants who are like them (English-speaking western Europeans or Canadians, I suppose) are especially vocal and vehement in their opposition to immigration, but they are certainly not a majority of the population. Perhaps most Americans prefer that only 5% or 10% of the population ought to be foreign-born, and they feel uneasy when 15% of us are foreign-born.  

When we are talking about the policy proposals of both candidates, we need to fully understand both sides. Donald Trump’s emphasis on fixing what he feels is a broken immigration system is to continue building the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, which ideally would be fully funded by Mexico. He aims to restrict both legal and illegal immigration, which focused on a travel ban on Muslim-majority countries. He introduced a “zero-tolerance” policy that separated children from their parents who were entering the country illegally. He has proposed merit-based immigration laws that gave preference to skilled workers over family-based immigration to bring focus to the job market and increase economic health.

I must address a few concerns with his proposals. First, I literally cannot comprehend the effectiveness or efficiency of this idea to prohibit illegal immigrants from entering the U.S. Throughout history, walls have been somewhat successful in keeping invaders out during war. However, walls deteriorate. People find ways to breach them, build tunnels under them, or find ways around them. There is not one wall in history that has been completely invulnerable. I also genuinely do not understand how or why Mexico would agree to pay for such securities—I mean, how would that country benefit from such an expensive endeavor? That is a huge promise with no factual backing as to how he would get Mexico to agree to such terms. 

I think every humane government official in almost any country would prefer that 100% of immigrants and visitors entered their country following legal processes, and no one came in illegally, without permission or documents. Persons who enter a nation without authorization are vulnerable to many cruel and dishonest practices.  Employers and landlords may cheat them and exploit them, and they would have little recourse to seek legal help. Their exploitation would lower wages in the sectors of the economy where they found employment (e.g., agriculture, food processing, landscaping, construction, informal day labor), and that would harm citizens and legal immigrants, whose wages in those sectors would be depressed by competition with the undocumented or illegal workers. Yes, some economists (Milton Freedman comes to mind) have said that the phenomenon of illegal immigration and an illegal workforce is beneficial to everyone (he claimed exploitation as an illegal worker in the American labor force still gave illegal immigrants a better life than they could hope for working in their countries-of-origin). 

So, this is to say that Democratic and Republican candidates should generally agree that they would like to stop illegal immigration, but they differ in the methods they proposed to use, and how far they would like to prioritize this policy goal. Trump claims it is one of his highest goals. He would dramatically increase resources devoted toward the issue. His behavior suggests his words may be false, since when the Democratic and Republican legislators had a bipartisan bill to increase and reform resources used for immigration and the fight against illegal immigration, Trump told Republican legislators not to pass that law. Many people who become undocumented or illegal residents come here legally (arriving at airports or legal border crossings), and just overstay their allowed time here. A wall wouldn’t stop that type of illegal immigration. Illegal crossing into the United States is very dangerous, and many people die crossing in remote areas.  Perhaps walls that are staffed with border guards all along the border would save lives, but the walls could be electronic at possibly a lower cost than creating a massive metal wall the whole length of the border.

Now, I want to touch on Kamala Harris’s immigration proposals. Harris wants to build a pathway for citizenship while still increasing immigration restrictions (i.e. improved asylum rules and partial border shutdowns if illegal crossings reach a certain number). She focuses on family reunification policies, keep DACA in place, and emphasizes immigration rights that she believes are important to increase the economy. From what I have researched, she believes in equality for immigrants while trying to address the root cause of the migration from South and Central America. 

I have gone past my hour time limit for this assignment, and although I have more, I wish I could say about this issue, I want to say this; there is a humane, respectful, and responsible way to go about immigration policy. We may never figure out the perfect way to deal with immigration, we must remember that these individuals are human beings. I can say undoubtedly that Trump’s immigration policy proposals are not only ineffective but also lack the understanding that these people are human beings who deserve quality of life, no matter where they came from or where they may end up. Immigration is an issue that I believe in the depths of my soul should be treated with humanity. 

Sources:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2024-presidential-candidates-stand-immigration/story?id=103313097

https://www.docketwise.com/blog/where-the-2024-presidential-election-candidates-stand-on-immigration

Trump also seems to lack any understanding of the USA’s obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol (which the USA accepted on 1 November 1968—The Senate consented to accession, and President Nixon signed it). Our obligations are to accept any person who presents herself or himself on our territory and requests protection and asylum from persecution, and allow them to remain in our nation while we investigate the veracity of their claims of persecution. We cannot send them back to the place where they say they will be persecuted unless we find that their claims of persecution are false or without merit. 

As President Nixon said: “United States accession to the Protocol would thus constitute a significant and symbolic element in our ceaseless effort to promote everywhere the freedom and dignity of the individual and of nations; and to secure and preserve peace in the world.”

A student writes about bias in child protective services

 I have always been quite passionate about this field as my future career, but as of the past two years, I have found an even greater interest in policy practice and advocacy in social work. My interests were sparked by my research into the child welfare system and the need for reform, and they have only grown with the courses I've taken here. While looking online for articles on the topic, one stuck out to me that shared many of my concerns and connected to more ideas I’ve been focusing on in my child advocacy courses. In the news article, "The Child Welfare System Needs an Overhaul," by the ACLU, they point out the extreme economic hardships and systemic racism at the root of many issues in child welfare cases at the federal, state, and local levels. The author points out the correlation between child welfare and poverty, as well as trends in cases relating to race. For families experiencing extreme poverty, statistics show they are more likely to be charged with neglect. Children of color are more likely to be reported, despite making up a smaller percentage of children overall.

Disproportionality can be caused by factors other than racial bias, although we ought to suspect racial bias is a factor.  For example, their are 4.1 million African-Americans (9.3% of all African-Americans) living under 50% of the poverty rate, and 7.6 million non-Hispanic European-Americans in the same condition of desperate deprivation (3.9% of all non-Hispanic European-Americans).  Using the supplemental poverty index, about 4.5% of “white alone” children were in poverty in 2021, whereas for “Black alone” the childhood poverty rate was 8.1%.  If living in desperate poverty is a strong predictor of childhood maltreatment (either because of poverty or because the conditions that lead to poverty also lead to heightened risks of child maltreatment) we might expect child maltreatment to be about double the rate among African-Americans than it is among European-Americans.  One of the key sources used by the ACLU report was the excellent work of Maguire-Jack, Font, and Dillard (2020), which somewhat controls for bias in actual incidence of maltreatment due to poverty by using only a sample of investigated cases. In their multivariate model (see pages 54-55), where they controlled for other possible causes (child and county and reporter characteristics), they found that substantiated maltreatment was 3% higher for Black children, 20% higher for American Indian, 15% higher for multiracial, and nearly 8% higher for Hispanic children.  For the decision to make out-of-home placements among children with substantiated abuse, again in the multivariate model that controls for other things, Black children were 15% more likely to be removed, American Indian children were 23% more likely, and multiracial were 43% more likely, but Hispanic children were nearly 3% less likely to get an out-of-home placement.

The county context in which CPS workers investigate child maltreatment reports also influences whether they substantiate or decide on out-of-home placements.  Again, this is the study by Maguire-Jack, et al. (2020) in which only investigated cases are used, so the bias in reporting should mostly be controlled for aside from the possible biases in having lower or higher thresholds for deciding to report and deciding to investigate. Counties with higher rates of single-parent headed households had higher rates of substantiated maltreatment. Counties with higher poverty rates generate lower findings of substantiated maltreatment for African-American children (a 15% drop) whereas rural counties raise rates of substantiation for Black children by 7% (but also raise substantiation rates for white children by 10%).  Having a high percentage of single-parent households increases out-of-home placement. Having high poverty rates in a county lowers rates of out-of-home placements (for Black children by 15%; for White children by 7%).  

There are probably several things going on with the high association between poverty of a household and neglect.  Persons with mental or physical health problems that would make them more likely to remain poor may also have impaired parenting abilities. Single parents who are forced to earn a livelihood to support their children while also trying to live normal lives of dignity may not have adequate time or resources to meet social expectations of good parenting, and having a single parent (one income-earner in the household) makes a family far more likely to be poor than having two parents. Poverty may impose difficulties and stresses on parents that diminish their ability to be adequate parents, either directly by limiting their resources or indirectly by stressing them out so much that their brains are damaged by the stress. The association between poverty and unemployment and substance addiction runs both ways as well, and substance abuse is a leading contributing factor in child maltreatment.  And, yes, social workers and family court judges may have a bias against persons who are poor. Americans tend to dislike poor people, so I expect some bias there.  Hopefully in our classes at UIS we are diminishing the biases our students may have. 

Some of the disparities are probably caused by bias, other disparities are caused by a system that prioritizes “personal responsibility of the parents” over the well-being of children in a way that violates my ethical principles about the inherent dignity and equal value of all persons. Other aspects of the disparities are probably attributable to conditions that are not caused by cruel systems or bias, but are rooted in individual characteristics that contribute to poverty and to a risk of maltreating one’s children. 

Maguire-Jack, K. (2014). Multilevel investigation into the community context of child maltreatment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 23, 229 –248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2014 .881950

Maguire-Jack, K., Dillard, R., & Font, S. A. (2020) Child protective services decision-making: the role of children’s race and county factors. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 90 (1), 48-62. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000388 

The ACLU report has this:

Neglect, as defined by the child welfare system, is often a proxy for poverty-related circumstances and is the primary reason for child welfare involvement in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Neglect is far more common than abuse.  People more often fail to meet social standards for parenting by failing to do what is expected rather than doing something that is considered horrible (e.g., physical, psychological, or sexual abuse).  Yes, neglect is often caused by a parent’s poverty, but it is often caused by other factors that are indirectly related to poverty or are not related at all to poverty.  Persons should not lose custody of their children because they are poor, and we should not create systems in which poor parents are unable to reasonably provide for the basic and essential needs of their children.  

The main case made in the ACLU and Human Rights Watch report is that children can be removed from parents or guardians who fail to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, hygiene, nutrition, and supervision. Low income parents may not have the financial means to supply adequate levels of these things, and they may be so busy trying to earn the money required to supply these things that they are unable to find the time or mental attention to give adequate supervision or ensure that hygiene and nutritional standards are met. Considering that the United States has no laws to enforce Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we put the burden of supplying an “adequate standard of living” for children on their parents.  Parents who cannot do this can lose custody of their children as a result.  It would be more in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights if the state (society in general) ensured that children (and their parents) received an adequate standard of living, or the means of attaining such a standard, and then neglect would mean that a parent had actively failed to distribute the materials essential to an adequate standard of living that they had received from the state.  But, as things stand, we have a system in which parents really can lose their children because they have not been able to find adequate and affordable housing or cannot afford adequate and nutritious food. 

Should a poor family that refuses to seek medical treatment for their children and also refuse to register for Medicaid be considered perpetrators of maltreatment through medical neglect, or does this undermine parental autonomy?  How about a family that qualifies for SSI, or SNAP benefits, and yet the parents are too proud to apply for those supports, and so their children go hungry and are malnourished? 

There is a great disproportionality among children of color in the foster care system, and a racial bias perpetuates even further harm. This is seen within the child welfare system as well as society as a whole. Our history has caused disparities in income, education, employment, and more for POC communities. This racism has been embedded in the policies of our system, and institutional bias contributes to this inequality. The article states that indigenous and black families have a higher percentage of investigations than white families. This, among other statistics, confirms the trends of disproportionality within the system, thus harming more children than helping. The article also mentioned that despite an already high rate of investigations for families in poverty, numbers still show black families are more likely to be investigated even in communities with low poverty. Poverty plays a significant role in these trends: poor families have a higher rate of investigations and welfare interventions. However, there is often a misinterpretation of poverty vs. neglect:

"The overwhelming majority of cases, nearly 75 percent in 2019, include allegations of state-defined neglect, which is inextricably linked to poverty. Parents struggling with limited resources, unable to pay rent or secure stable housing, or working long hours to make ends meet, are judged unfit and neglectful" (Naveed, 2022).

The child welfare system needs to support parents struggling rather than being judged and punished. Families in poverty are often lacking the resources they need; it isn’t that they can’t take care of their children or that they are purposefully neglectful; it’s that they need more assistance and can thrive much better with a system that lifts rather than punishes. This is a system that pushes families into the impossible situation of "having to overcome poverty to stop being monitored and to reunite with their children, without providing them the resources necessary to do so" (Naveed, 2022). Although the evidence for the link between poverty and maltreatment is overwhelming, poverty is the result of long-term racism and structural adversity that have fostered risk factors that contribute to mistreatment in POC families. There is much work needed to undo the systemic biases within these services; policies must be created to better serve these communities. Reform is needed. The information in these articles and documents from my classes about the child welfare system reinforces the idea that change is desperately needed. I have always felt this way, and learning more about it in class makes me feel more strongly about it. These inequalities were what intrigued me most about the child welfare system and further encouraged me to look into policy practice within this discipline. As I reflect on the curriculum, I hope to learn more about what actions can be taken and how I can incorporate that into my future career goals.

“Reform is needed”.  Yes, we want to extinguish the biased determination of maltreatment and the biased tendency to remove children.  But what about this—what if the objective situation is that instead of a negative bias against Native American and Black families, those families are being treated exactly as they ought to be, and instead what we have is a positive bias, where European-American families are too often getting away with maltreatment by having cases as “not determined” or “unsubstantiated” and the real problem is that we ought to be removing more European-American children out of their households?  What is the logical basis for thinking the bias is mainly a negative one against certain groups, and not so much a positive bias favoring European-American parents?  The research cited in the article you read is convincing that there is bias, and the bias is influenced by county characteristics as well as household characteristics, but should we be “more lenient” with Native American and Black households or “more stringent” with European-American households? 

I conceive of the determination to remove a child or substantiate an allegation of maltreatment as being in many cases quite easy to make, and bias wouldn’t enter into the picture.  Probably we have the tail end of a normal curve of parenting quality.  Given that the National Incidence Surveys tend to show maltreatment is experienced by about 2% to 3% of children each year, that fits fairly well with the idea that parents who are behaving two standard deviation lower than normal in “parenting quality” are generally maltreating their children.  So, probably parents who are 2.2 standard deviations or more below median parenting are easily substantiated, and parents who are more than 2.8 standard deviations below normal are also cases where it’s easy to see the the child should be removed—no bias need enter the picture. The problem arises with parents who parent at a quality level that is 1.9 to 2.2 standard deviations below median: it’s a closer call there, so bias could cause systematic error in determinations or substantiations of maltreatment allegations.  And likewise with the decision to remove: that’s going to be an issue in the cases that are around 2.6 to 3.0 below median in parenting quality. Given the expected slope at the tail end of a normal distribution, we’re looking at a situation where bias can enter the picture at a narrow band along the continuum of parenting behavior quality, but this narrow band is at the level where the greatest number of cases will occur.  (A lot more parents are parenting at 1.9 or 2.0 standard deviations below median quality than are parenting at 2.4 or 2.6 standard deviations below median quality).  

The tricky thing about these reforms that are going to reduce the bias is that they are going to address how the child protection workers deal with the cases that are close calls or in an area where the decisions are tough.  The cases that are clear-cut and easy to determine are not the cases where bias gets a chance to enter the decision-making, at least normally (no doubt there are occasional cases of egregious bias, but child protection workers are generally well-enough trained that these should be exceptional cases).  

A student is horrified by treatment of undocumented immigrant children

The treatment of immigrants coming to the US from South America has been vile and disturbing for a very long time in America. However, with this most recent presidency, I feel it has reached a peak with how terrible it has been. 

While I was attending Lincoln Land Community College, in one of my classes there was a debate occurring and the topic was illegal immigration. This discussion/ debate began because this was right around the time that two children died within ICE custody, and it was a big news topic. One of the students in my class stated that it was not “our” (I’m assuming he meant the country’s or maybe ICE’s) job to keep these children alive, and that if their parents really wanted a better life for their children, they wouldn’t have crossed the border illegally. To know that this individual thought this way, and believed in this logic so strongly that he was willing to say it aloud, absolutely astonished me. He was discussing human life, a child’s life, that was taken because of our country’s negligence, and truly believed that the child’s death was within reason. 

To further this astonishment, I watched on TV as a Justice Department Lawyer argued that the children in ICE detention centers should not be entitled to soap, toothbrushes, or blankets while in their custody. The federal government was arguing to not give these human beings such important necessities including soap. This presidential administration has completely dehumanized these immigrants and this thought process obviously has spread to some of the American people, such as the boy in my LLCC class. 

In 2019, the US held a record number of migrant children in its custody. Nearly 70,000 children of immigrants were kept within US custody in 2019, which is more than any other country in the world. (AP News). It is an embarrassment to this country that we are so wealthy yet refuse to treat immigrants like human beings, because we disapprove of how they got here. To further the embarrassment, the president continues to go on live TV spewing hateful rhetoric towards those in South America, most famously claiming that Mexicans are rapists and criminals. 

We have to do better for our Latinx brothers and sisters, which includes making a lot of policy change. I believe one of the most important policy changes that needs to happen is making the process of becoming a US citizen more accessible, faster, and easier to navigate. I also believe enabling an easier process of renewing visas would help with those who become undocumented because of expired visas. These processes would allow immigrants who would like to come to America to easily become documented, lessening the need for ICE presence and detaining/ separating families. 

Link for Undocumented Children Statistics: https://apnews.com/article/015702afdb4d4fbf85cf5070cd2c6824

  I hoped the professor at Lincoln Land informed your class that the state does have a responsibility to keep persons who are in custody alive. In fact, the government does not have a duty to save the lives of citizens, unless the government has taken custody of citizens or foreigners (e.g., into state custody as children removed from parents or prisoners or detained undocumented immigrants). See the cases decided by the Supreme Court such as DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, for the opinions.  Children apprehended and put in custody because they are undocumented foreigners absolutely are the responsibility of our government and ICE. 

  We should always be concerned when we see dehumanization.  When people dehumanize others, that is a step toward genocide.  All humans are born equal in dignity and rights. Dehumanization undermines our recognition of this fact.  When people start to describe others as vermin or cockroaches or rats, they are moving toward a call for the extermination of those others.  When people say that persons in detention do not deserve soap or blankets while is custody, they are moving toward the rejection of the humanity of those persons. 

  

American Dirt

America is the land of freedom, opportunity, safety, acceptance. People from all over the world dream of coming here and I am aware of the turmoil their arrival causes. I have my own feelings about immigration and how our country should be handling it. Their arrival isn’t something that I think about often, if at all, and I’ve never considered what they experience in the course of running towards their dreams. Yet, in the last four months, I have been moved greatly by two very different stories about becoming an American. In the first, which I wrote about in my first reaction essay, the journey wasn’t planned and it was about a man who suddenly wasn’t anymore – wasn’t a citizen, wasn’t a border patrol officer, wasn’t trusted, wasn’t valuable.

Shortly after I turned that essay in, someone sent me a book suggestion. The book, “American Dirt” by Jeanine Cummins, was the most recent pick by Oprah for her book club and the person who sent it to me, did so knowing that I would check it out simply because Oprah picked it. I downloaded it on Audible and it sat there for a couple of months while I was busy doing other things. I am an avid reader and love using the Audible app so that I am often reading/listening to multiple books at a time. Before I started the book, I didn’t read a review, didn’t read a synopsis or anyone’s write up on the book so I wasn’t sure what the story was or what to expect. I assumed that it had something to do with migration and the border – I honestly wasn’t sure I would even be interested in it – and so I started it while I was cleaning one afternoon. It took a total of 2 ½ minutes to be completely sucked in and I have continued to listen with full focus and reverence. I admit that I have not finished this book yet simply because there are moments in the story that I have to walk away from and process. It’s not a quick read and it’s not simple.

The story is about a mother and her young son who are on the run from a cartel boss in Acapulco de Juárez. Knowing that there is no place safe and no safe way, the mother takes nothing beyond the items they can fit in a backpack and fades into the migratory community beginning the trip to El Norte. The goal for all of the characters that you meet is to get to the US, get over the border and build a new life. As I initially listened, I thought that this was going to be a story about cartels and power and corruption. There is some of that…but “American Dirt” is a love letter and a horror story about the journey that men and women in Central and South America make every day, over and over again while facing danger and uncertainty.

This story has been so eye opening for me and has, quite frankly, made me feel ashamed. I’ve always known about the people trying to get to America. I’ve educated myself on the legal methods of becoming an American, have read about and heard about the illegal ways that people attempt to cross our borders but have never thought about or considered or even cared about what those journeys looked like. As I have read the book, more than once I have googled the situations that the author writes about and in each case, the stories that she tells are true. Young women being taken by a man in their neighborhood or city who decides that she should belong to him.  Their families fighting back and being killed or, worse, not fighting back and allowing it to happen because they have no other choice. In the story, there are two sisters who are running because the older sister had been taken. She kept quiet about it and complied to keep her family safe – then they instructed her to bring her sister in. Understanding that wasn’t something she could do, she took her sister and ran. There were consequences for that decision for both the family and the girls but you’ll have to read it to know. ☺

I think more importantly to me, are the stories about the migrants and the journey they make. To say that it is dangerous is a true understatement. It is disturbing, terrifying, disheartening and something I don’t think I would ever be able to do knowing what could happen. At one point in the story, the mom and son are at a shelter specifically for migrants and are preparing to leave when one of the employees calls everyone together to talk to them about the trip they are about to take. He tells them that of the 25 – 30 people standing in front of him, 27 will never make it the border. They will be killed getting on and off the trains, they will be kidnapped, raped, murdered or arrested by the migration officers and returned to where they came from. The lucky two or three who make it to the border will have nothing left. They will have been robbed or will have to pay off someone to keep from being kidnapped or raped. He then tells them that those 2 or 3 people who arrive in America with nothing will then live in a country that doesn’t want them there and will do nothing to help support them. In the story, none of the migrants change their minds, no one decides to go back or find another way. They all just agree and get ready to move on. 

The migrants attempt to make their trips easier by jumping the freight trains that travel north to the border. They must get on and off of these trains as they are moving and ride sitting on top of the moving cars. Every part of this is dangerous. There are people who don’t make it on or off and reading those passages were really tough for me. There were people who fell off the moving train, were knocked off unexpectedly and some who jumped to just be done with it…but the migrants kept going.

I haven’t finished the book. I will…I have to see how it ends but I am afraid of what is going to happen to these two characters that I have come to worry about. I tell myself that they aren’t real but I think they are. I think that there are human beings out there right now experiencing these same things and taking these same risks all with hoping that there is something better here. But is there? Really? After all of that they come into a country that thinks they are less than and treats them with such disregard. We don’t acknowledge what these people have gone through, what they have left behind, the impossible choices they have had to make or the number of times they risked their lives. This country sees them as a nuisance, as villains, as free labor or as an argument to make or a brick in a wall that needs to be built. But they continue to come and risk it all to live in this country and have what I have right now – something that I didn’t fight for, didn’t risk my life for, didn’t even earn but was gifted by being born into the right place. Reading this book has opened my eyes to this life being lived – survived - by this entire community of people and the question now is, how do I live with that?

Similar works that I have seen/read or been told are good include:

Across a Hundred Mountains by Reyna Grande

The 1983 film by Gregory Nava & Anna Thomas: El Norte.

Signs preceding the End of the World by Yuri Herrera

The 2009 film by Cherien Dabis: Amreeka.

Tell Me How It Ends by Valeria Luiselli

Shari Robertson and Michael Camerini's 2000 film: Well-Founded Fear.

Everyone Knows You Go Home by Natalia Sylvester

Student is appalled by South Carolina's treatment of prisoners giving birth

The article I read was from the The State newspaper, which is in South Carolina. This particular article was about women prisoners being shackled while giving birth, which violates laws in ten states, but not South Carolina [ACLU Briefing Paper]. A bill was being discussed that would ban prisoners from being shackled during birth, but opponents said (incorrectly) that such a law was already in place. A doctor testifed that he witnessed a prisoner being subdued while birthing and said that the bill needs to be more specific and actually acted on. A spokesperson for the police department said that the proposed policy was in place and a spokesperson for the correctional center stated that the policy was being followed there but the hospital is not acting on it. The article reported:

The bill also requires that pregnant women only be handcuffed in front of their bodies. Cook said this would allow pregnant women to brace themselves in case of a fall. Preventing shackling could also help reduce other risk factors faced by pregnant women, such as deep vein thrombosis. 

 “What we have learned from seeing patients that have high risk for bad outcomes is that if we can support them, we can decrease the risk of bad outcomes,” Cook said. The bill also extends protections to inmates who have just given birth, prohibiting shackling during the first skin-to-skin contact and nursing of the mother and the child unless there is reason to believe that she is a threat to herself or others. The use of waist restraints before and after the birth also would be prohibited. Thirteen states restricted the use of restraints on pregnant and postpartum women as of June 2019, according to data from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Twenty-one states allow medical personnel to request that the restraints are removed immediately. In all, 32 states have passed some legislation limiting the use of restraints in some way.

When I read this article, I was just baffled by the fact that policy or bill was even being discussed. Why is this issue being argued? Even though some of the informants interviewed for the article claims that such restrictions on shackling are enacted already and being enforced, the statements of these doctors and healthcare workers is proving it is not. Once again the police officers are not following through on their oath to protect the communities they serve. The article highlighted the role of shift changes in shaping women’s experiences, and how some police officers enforce the policy and others do not. Why is that? What do the officers get out of dehumanizing someone going through one of the most earth shattering events like giving birth? 

Senators in South Carolina were also requesting the bill go even more intensive, saying body cavity searches need to be prohibited for pregnant inmates and also dietary observations as well. Why were these not already in place? 

I believe there need to be more policies protecting our nation’s incarcerated population and helping them to become rehabilitated. Also, this policy and others like it should be in place to simply protect their humanity and to prevent harm and injustice happening to them. Let’s actually help the people that need it most and deserve grace. I hope this policy gets put in place.