Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Preface -- CHILDREN AND THE POLITICS OF CULTURE -- Introduction Children and the Politics of Culture in "Late Capitalism" -- PART ONE: CHILDREN AND CHILDHOODS AT RISK IN THE "NEW WORLD ORDER" -- Chapter One The Child as Laborer and Consumer: The Disappearance of Childhood in Contemporary Japan -- Chapter Two Have You Seen Me? Recovering the Inner Child in Late Twentieth-Century America -- Chapter Three Children's Rights in a Free-Market Culture -- PART TWO: CHILDREN, CULTURAL IDENTITY, AND THE STATE -- Chapter Four Children in the Examination War in South Korea: A Cultural Analysis -- Chapter Five Children's Stories and the State in New Order Indonesia -- Chapter Six Children, Population Policy, and the State in Singapore -- Chapter Seven Youth and the Politics of Culture in South Africa -- PART THREE: CHILDREN AND THE POLITICS OF MINORITY CULTURAL IDENTITY -- Chapter Eight "There's a Time to Act English and a Time to Act Indian": The Politics of Identity among British-Sikh Teenagers -- Chapter Nine Second-Generation Noncitizens: Children of the Turkish Migrant Diaspora in Germany -- Chapter Ten Children, Politics, and Culture: The Case of Brazilian Indians -- Chapter Eleven The "Cultural Fallout" of Chernobyl Radiation in Norwegian Sami Regions: Implications for Children -- PART FOUR: THE RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION OF CHILDHOOD? -- Chapter Twelve Recovering Childhood: Children in South African National Reconstruction -- Appendix The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child -- About the Contributors -- Index

AbstractHow can Jordan's experiences hosting Palestinian refugees inform policymaking toward Syrian refugees? As the 10‐year anniversary of the Syrian uprisings approaches, Syrian refugees remain displaced with limited opportunities for repatriation, resettlement, or naturalization. Although there are many important differences between Syrian and Palestinian refugees—particularly Syrians' right to a sovereign state's nationality—there are increasing similarities between these two protracted refugee groups. One of the most critical among these similarities is holding ambiguous membership statuses in Jordan, where groups hold more rights than other non‐Jordanians but fewer rights than Jordanian citizens. The experiences of noncitizen Palestinian refugees, such as those who fled to Jordan from the Gaza Strip after the 1967 war, highlight the destructive precarities that accompany an absence of legal rights, including insecure access to work, education, and healthcare. These experiences suggest that securing some Syrian rights in law can help mitigate the precarity of sustained refugee status. Further, Jordan has expressed a willingness to provide legal rights to some noncitizen groups, including investors and the children of Jordanian women and non‐Jordanian men. Overall, formalizing critical, less politicized rights in law is one tangible way to improve the daily lives of Syrian, as well as other, protracted refugees.

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

AbstractThis article explores how child welfare policy and contemporary US immigration enforcement come together to transform the immigrant parent into an absence that operates as a legal presence. International legal standards and US child welfare policy protect the right of a parent, regardless of citizenship status or country of residence, to participate fully in child welfare case proceedings and to maintain, or regain, custody of their children. However, restrictive immigration policy, intensified border enforcement, and a contemporary deportation regime have made the separation of immigrant parents and their children a prevalent problem within the US child welfare system, separating children from parents who would otherwise be considered fit. The production of legally absent parents is central to this process. Detention and deportation practices can make immigrant parents difficult to locate. This makes it more likely that an immigrant parent will be deemed absent, and thus declared to have legally abandoned their child, a determination that is necessary for child welfare officials to terminate parental rights. Drawing on ethnographic research in the San Diego–Tijuana region, this article examines the force of legal absence in these cases and the profound consequences this has for families.

This article examines the impact of the 2018 announcement of changes to the public charge rules on the benefits use of noncitizen immigrant households. Using data from the American Community Survey and difference-in-difference models, as well as an event-study approach, we document a decrease in Medicaid use in 2019 by members of low-income households with noncitizens compared to low-income households with only citizens, with larger effects for children. We find a similar decline in SNAP use but are unable to rule out differential pretrends before the announcement. Our findings suggest that the fear of being considered a public charge susceptible to deportation under the new rules likely explains the decrease in noncitizens' public benefits in the postannouncement period.

How can Jordan's experiences hosting Palestinian refugees inform policymaking toward Syrian refugees? As the 10-year anniversary of the Syrian uprisings approaches, Syrian refugees remain displaced with limited opportunities for repatriation, resettlement, or naturalization. Although there are many important differences between Syrian and Palestinian refugeesparticularly Syrians' right to a sovereign state's nationalitythere are increasing similarities between these two protracted refugee groups. One of the most critical among these similarities is holding ambiguous membership statuses in Jordan, where groups hold more rights than other non-Jordanians but fewer rights than Jordanian citizens. The experiences of noncitizen Palestinian refugees, such as those who fled to Jordan from the Gaza Strip after the 1967 war, highlight the destructive precarities that accompany an absence of legal rights, including insecure access to work, education, and healthcare. These experiences suggest that securing some Syrian rights in law can help mitigate the precarity of sustained refugee status. Further, Jordan has expressed a willingness to provide legal rights to some noncitizen groups, including investors and the children of Jordanian women and non-Jordanian men. Overall, formalizing critical, less politicized rights in law is one tangible way to improve the daily lives of Syrian, as well as other, protracted refugees. ; Accepted version

This article examines the evolution of the criminal justice system to focus on rehabilitation, deterrence, and punishment through the creation of therapeutic courts and diversion programs that benefit society and decrease recidivism rates. However, unknown to many, these programs are unavailable to an overwhelming majority of noncitizens due to pretrial detention solely as a result of an immigration detainer, resulting in an inequity with a high personal cost to the individual, his or her family and community, and society as a whole. This article will discuss the harsh immigration penalties associated with criminal convictions or other lesser contacts with the criminal justice system as well as provide recommendations for diversion programs and therapeutic courts so that participation does not create severe collateral consequences, as it often does with noncitizen defendants. By allowing all eligible defendants equal access to therapeutic courts and diversion programs, our system will also have a positive impact on children and families. Not only will defendants receive treatment and skills necessary for reentry to the community, but they will remain in the United States with their families.
Key Points for the Family Court Community:
The immigration penalties of criminal convictions (or even arrests) have become so severe that deportation has become the norm, rather than the exception
Diversion programs and therapeutic courts provide rehabilitation and treatment and often do not result in immigration penalties, yet are frequently unavailable to noncitizens solely due to immigration issues
Family ties no longer provide relief in a majority of cases where an alien has criminal issues, thus creating a system where immigration interferes with issues of custody, child support, and marriage

Practitioner's Key Points:
Provide attorneys with a background in the issues facing noncitizens in the criminal justice system, including the harsh immigration penalties that result from a conviction
Explain the importance and benefits of therapeutic courts and diversion programs
Discuss the inequities in access to justice that result when noncitizens are facing criminal charges but have an immigration detainer, preventing admission into therapeutic courts or diversion programs

U.S.-born children of immigrants may be less likely to receive some social services than are children of native-born parents if foreign-born parents who are themselves ineligible are less likely to apply on their children's behalf. We use retrospective data from a sample of about 2,400 low-income households in three U.S. cities to determine whether children with foreign-born caregivers are less likely than children with native-born caregivers to receive benefits from any of five programs over a two-year period: TANF, SSI, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and WIC. The most significant disparities between children of citizen and noncitizen caregivers are in TANF and food stamp use.

The DREAM Act, bipartisan legislation first introduced in Congress in 2001, would provide conditional residency for undocumented youth brought to the United States as children. It recognizes that undocumented youth have done nothing wrong and that they should be allowed to work, to go to school, and to travel. The bill makes college more affordable through in-state tuition and gives the undocumented a path to citizenship if they graduate from college or serve in the military. Congress has failed to pass the DREAM Act, and fourteen states have filled the gap by implementing their own laws and policies that provide educational benefits to undocumented students. This book makes a compelling argument for the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform. The author explores the key issues surrounding this legislation: What are the issues that divide? What do the proponents and opponents of the DREAM Act argue? Is there a middle ground? Is compromise possible? Answering these questions, the author explains the legal issues surrounding the education of immigrant children, who immigrates and why, how four waves of immigration have shaped the nation, the effects of immigrants on the U.S. economy and culture, and the process of becoming an American. The author also analyzes the DREAM Act, deferred action, and immigration policy. He weaves personal stories of undocumented youth throughout the book and advocates for the economic, political, and social benefits of the DREAM Act that would bring undocumented youth out of the shadows and into the mainstream of society. -- Publisher's website.

The absence of government‐appointed legal counsel in immigration proceedings adversely affects large numbers of children in the United States. Children born in the United States to parents without citizenship status (U.S.‐born children of noncitizen parents or UCNP) are harmed by a parent's detention and removal. Unaccompanied alien children (UAC) who have entered the country without legal status are adversely affected by their own detention and removal. The possibility of obtaining relief from removal is drastically diminished by the lack of legal representation. Currently UAC and immigrant parents are not entitled to court‐appointed attorneys. Any meaningful change in immigration law, such as a federal statutory amendment to provide UAC and immigrant parents with government‐appointed counsel is unlikely due to the present political dissension in Congress regarding this issue. Because UAC and immigrant parents are not entitled to government‐funded legal representation, a pro bono legal service system has developed, but is unable to meet the present need adequately. For immigrant parents, this Note proposes the adoption of a statute to allow the appointment of court liaisons in family court proceedings. The court liaison is a nonattorney who is familiar with the processes of the family court and ensures that immigrant parents are fully informed regarding all pertinent family court proceedings. For UAC, this Note proposes an amendment to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to mandate the appointment of a child advocate to all UAC. The child advocate is not a lawyer, but works with the UAC's attorney to provide the child with legal representation and advocacy.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
UCNP confront the loss of parents to detention and removal. Children are condemned to limbo, torn between absent biological parents and placement in foster care.
The recent surge in the number of UAC who enter the United States by crossing the border from Mexico has been described as a humanitarian crisis. These children often remain alone without legal protection, vulnerable to detention and removal.
Ideally, UAC and the immigrant parents would be provided with government‐funded legal representation in immigration proceedings. In the absence of the federal statutory reform necessary to make that a reality, state statutory reform to allow for the provision of court liaison programs for immigrant parents and federal statutory reform to allow the appointment of child advocates for UAC can begin to offer children and families needed legal support and advocacy.

The lore of the immigrant who comes to the United States to take advantage of our welfare system has a long history in America's collective mythology, but it has little basis in fact. The so-called problem of immigrants on the dole was nonetheless a major concern of the 1996 welfare reform law, the impact of which is still playing out today. While legal immigrants continue to pay taxes and are eligible for the draft, welfare reform has severely limited their access to government supports in times of crisis. Edited by Michael Fix, Immigrants and Welfare rigorously assesses the welfare reform law, questions whether its immigrant provisions were ever really necessary, and examines its impact on legal immigrants' ability to integrate into American society. Immigrants and Welfare draws on fields from demography and law to developmental psychology. The first part of the volume probes the politics behind the welfare reform law, its legal underpinnings, and what it may mean for integration policy. Contributor Ron Haskins makes a case for welfare reform's ultimate success but cautions that excluding noncitizen children (future workers) from benefits today will inevitably have serious repercussions for the American economy down the road. Michael Wishnie describes the implications of the law for equal protection of immigrants under the U.S. Constitution. The second part of the book focuses on empirical research regarding immigrants' propensity to use benefits before the law passed, and immigrants' use and hardship levels afterwards. Jennifer Van Hook and Frank Bean analyze immigrants' benefit use before the law was passed in order to address the contested sociological theories that immigrants are inclined to welfare use and that it slows their assimilation. Randy Capps, Michael Fix, and Everett Henderson track trends before and after welfare reform in legal immigrants' use of the major federal benefit programs affected by the law. Leighton Ku looks specifically at trends in food stamps and Medicaid use among noncitizen children and adults and documents the declining health insurance coverage of noncitizen parents and children. Finally, Ariel Kalil and Danielle Crosby use longitudinal data from Chicago to examine the health of children in immigrant families that left welfare. Even though few states took the federal government's invitation with the 1996 welfare reform law to completely freeze legal immigrants out of the social safety net, many of the law's most far-reaching provisions remain in place and have significant implications for immigrants. Immigrants and Welfare takes a balanced look at the politics and history of immigrant access to safety-net supports and the ongoing impacts of welfare. MICHAEL E. FIX is senior vice president and director of studies at the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) and co-director of MPI's National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy. CONTRIBUTORS: Michael E. Fix, Frank D. Bean, Randy Capps, Danielle A. Crosby, Ron Haskins, Everett Henderson, Ariel Kalil, Neeraj Kaushal, Leighton Ku, Jennifer Van Hook, and Michael J. Wishnie. Copublished with the Migration Policy Institute.

In the United States, there is concern that recent state laws restricting undocumented immigrants' rights could threaten access to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for citizen children of immigrant parents. Of particular concern are omnibus immigration laws, state laws that include multiple provisions increasing immigration enforcement and restricting rights for undocumented immigrants. These laws could limit Medicaid/CHIP access for citizen children in immigrant families by creating misinformation about their eligibility and fostering fear and mistrust of government among immigrant parents. This study uses nationally-representative data from the National Health Interview Survey (2005–2014; n=70,187) and comparative interrupted time series methods to assess whether passage of state omnibus immigration laws reduced access to Medicaid/CHIP for US citizen Latino children. We found that law passage did not reduce enrollment for children with noncitizen parents and actually resulted in temporary increases in coverage among Latino children with at least one citizen parent. These findings are surprising in light of prior research. We offer potential explanations for this finding and conclude with a call for future research to be expanded in three ways: 1) examine whether policy effects vary for children of undocumented parents, compared to children whose noncitizen parents are legally present; 2) examine the joint effects of immigration-related policies at different levels, from the city or county to the state to the federal; and 3) draw on the large social movements and political mobilization literatures that describe when and how Latinos and immigrants push back against restrictive immigration laws.

Greece is a key EU entry country for unaccompanied migrant minors seeking safety but such children are frequently criminalised through detention processes. Giving voice to migrant children throughout, Papadopoulos promotes child-friendly practices and the safeguarding of fundamental rights

This article examines the intersections of the child protection, immigration and criminal systems, and the carceral logics that undergird all three systems. Taking seriously Patricia Hill Collins' (2017) call to analyze "intensified points of convergence" (p. 1464), we analyze the role of social work in perpetuating carceral systems and the tools that feminist social work provides for disrupting them. Using a case analysis of a foster child in Halifax, Canada, who in 2018 was faced with deportation after social workers failed to secure his citizenship status, we argue that a pipeline exists between child protection and a growing "crimmigration" system. The carceral logics of this pipeline not only draw from anti-Black, Islamophobic, and settler colonial histories of oppression, but they also position certain noncitizen families as unassimilable and requiring of state intervention rather than social supports. With this carceral pipeline in mind, we then draw from feminist anticarceral and intersectional approaches to consider a range of resistance strategies. Ultimately, we argue for a transformative justice approach that goes beyond reforming the pipeline and instead takes seriously the insights of abolitionist movements as an alternative to purely reformist approaches.