Suchergebnisse

By shedding light on how Mexicans are racialized, scholars have brought racism to the forefront of migration research. Still, less is known about how "illegality" complicates racialized experiences, and even less is known about how gender and class further complicate this process. Drawing on 60 interviews with Mexican-origin women in Houston, Texas, this research explores how documented and Mexican American women are racialized, the institutional contexts in which this process occurs, and how women's racialized experiences relate to feelings of belonging and exclusion. Findings suggest a form of discrimination that is intersectional and imbued within an anti-immigrant climate. "Racializing illegality" unfolds within institutional contexts that include the workplace, criminal justice system, educational institutions, and health care settings. Both immigrant and Mexican American women experience feelings of belonging and exclusion but face more exclusion associated with an anti-immigrant sentiment. This article shows the gravity of "illegality" as it extends across legal status, nativity, race, and generation status. It also contributes to the race and migration literature by suggesting the need for an intersectional approach to studying "illegality."

AbstractCritical race scholars have shifted the sociological migration literature from addressing how immigrants incorporate into the host society to instead asking how immigrants, their children, and communities are racialized. They also shift the focus from "ethnic" descriptions of immigrants of color by bringing race and racism to the forefront. This article provides an overview of critical race theory to document the racialized lives of Mexican immigrants and their communities. I bring attention to one of the dominant approaches to the study of sociological migration, segmented assimilation theory. In doing so, I use critical race theory as a framework to bring race and other axes of stratification such as undocumented status to light.

The 2016 election of United States (U.S.) President Donald Trump was a political event that may have affected population-level mental health. A prominent theme in the Trump election was anti-immigrant policy that contributed to a racist and xenophobic sociopolitical climate. Applying a symbolic dis/empowerment framework, this study examines whether there was an effect of the Trump election on the mental health of the U.S. population that differed by race/ethnicity, language of interview, and state-level support for Trump or Clinton. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2011-2018 to examine trends in poor mental health days in the five months after the U.S Presidential election (November 2016 to March 2017) compared to all other survey months. We conducted difference-in-differences analyses using negative binomial regression models to examine the effect of the five post-election months on the rate of poor mental health days, comparing six population categories: 1) non-Latinx white populations in Trump states, 2) non-Latinx white populations in Clinton states, 3) English-speaking Latinx populations in Trump states, 4) English-speaking Latinx populations in Clinton states, 5) Spanish-speaking Latinx populations in Trump states, and 6) Spanish-speaking Latinx populations in Clinton states. White populations in Clinton states reported more poor mental health days in response to the five months post-election period compared to white populations in Trump states. English-speaking Latinx people living in Trump states experienced higher than expected poor mental health days in November 2016 and February 2017. Spanish-speaking Latinx people, by contrast, reported fewer poor mental health days in the post-election period. The 2016 U.S. presidential election preceded population-level changes in mental health that support a symbolic dis/empowerment framework. We discuss possible explanations and the mental health implications for future major political ...

The 2016 election of United States (U.S.) President Donald Trump was a political event that may have affected population-level mental health. A prominent theme in the Trump election was anti-immigrant policy that contributed to a racist and xenophobic sociopolitical climate. Applying a symbolic dis/empowerment framework, this study examines whether there was an effect of the Trump election on the mental health of the U.S. population that differed by race/ethnicity, language of interview, and state-level support for Trump or Clinton. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2011-2018 to examine trends in poor mental health days in the five months after the U.S Presidential election (November 2016 to March 2017) compared to all other survey months. We conducted difference-in-differences analyses using negative binomial regression models to examine the effect of the five post-election months on the rate of poor mental health days, comparing six population categories: 1) non-Latinx white populations in Trump states, 2) non-Latinx white populations in Clinton states, 3) English-speaking Latinx populations in Trump states, 4) English-speaking Latinx populations in Clinton states, 5) Spanish-speaking Latinx populations in Trump states, and 6) Spanish-speaking Latinx populations in Clinton states. White populations in Clinton states reported more poor mental health days in response to the five months post-election period compared to white populations in Trump states. English-speaking Latinx people living in Trump states experienced higher than expected poor mental health days in November 2016 and February 2017. Spanish-speaking Latinx people, by contrast, reported fewer poor mental health days in the post-election period. The 2016 U.S. presidential election preceded population-level changes in mental health that support a symbolic dis/empowerment framework. We discuss possible explanations and the mental health implications for future major political events.

Diversions occur when research disregards the inequality-generating actions of advantaged groups and instead focuses attention on the actions and behaviors of disadvantaged groups. We incorporate important insights from COVID-19 to illustrate historical and contemporary examples of diversions. This paper highlights US immigrant health inequities—a burgeoning subfield within the broader health inequalities canon—to explore: (1) if and how diversions appear in immigrant health studies; (2) how often white supremacy and intersectionality are explicitly named in grants, publicly available datasets, and published research. The data derive from: NIH R01 grants (17), publicly available datasets that focus on immigrant health (7), and research published in three health journals (14). Using a qualitative content analysis approach, we analyzed these data as evidence concerning the knowledge production cycle, and investigate whether: (a) the role of advantaged groups in generating inequalities is explicitly mentioned; (b) disadvantaged groups are asked about discriminatory actions perpetuated by advantaged groups; (c) health inequalities are placed on the conditions of disadvantaged groups; (d) if white supremacy and intersectionality are explicitly mentioned in grants, publicly available datasets, and research articles. The findings demonstrate the prevalence of diversions in immigrant health research, given an overemphasis on health behaviors and cultural explanations towards explaining immigrant health inequities. There was no mention of white supremacy across the knowledge production cycle. Intersectionality was mentioned once in a research article. We argue that understanding white supremacy's role in the knowledge production cycle illuminates how diversions occur and prevail. We provide suggestions on moving away from diversionary research, toward adopting an intersectional approach of the study of immigrant health inequities.

The Agenda for Social Justice: Solutions for 2016 provides accessible insights into some of the most pressing social problems in the United States and proposes public policy responses to those problems. Written by a highly respected team of authors brought together by the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP), it offers recommendations for action by elected officials, policy makers, and the public around key issues for social justice, including a discussion of the role of key issues of sustainability and technology in the development and timbre of future social problems. It will be of interest to scholars, practitioners, advocates, and students interested in public sociology and the study of social problems