Category: Immigrants

Recently I was accepted into one of my top colleges that I will attend next fall. This news filled my family with joy and crowded all my close ones with pride. As a first-year student in the United States coming from Mexico, this is even more fulfilling because I had to put much more effort into getting to know a system I wasn’t used to. However, the obstacles that I had to achieve this goal were nothing compared to what my best friend who’s been in the country for more than five years is currently going through only to get into community college. The only difference between us is that I was born in the United States and she is undocumented.

The United States is one of the top countries people immigrate to, in fact, it is the second on the list just behind Germany. According to statistics given by the American Immigration Council, one in seven US residents is an immigrant, while one in eight residents is a native-born US citizen with at least one immigrant parent. It is impossible not to acknowledge the contribution of immigrants to the development of the country as much as it is a fact that millions of them are undocumented. 10.3 million undocumented immigrants comprised 23 percent of the immigrant population and 3 percent of the total US population in 2019. Despite the thousands of efforts of the presidents to avoid this happening, it continues to happen every day as 1.1 million enter every year, and 15% of that rate corresponds to children. Wishing to pursue the American Dream, they study hard, they try to learn the language, manners, and culture. Anyway, they are at risk of not getting into college or even getting deported to a country that is not their home anymore. That is why the government should reform immigration laws in order to give every student the same opportunity for success, regardless of their immigration status.

The immigrant issue itself is a very delicate topic in the government, every time there is a big opportunity for immigration reform, an imaginary wall is put between that possibility and the chance of it being done. In 2014, President Obama delayed taking executive action on immigration because the Democratic Party thought it would obstruct the party’s opportunity of winning the midterm elections. Then in 2016, President-elect Donald Trump, literally based his whole campaign on xenophobic speeches, which was represented during his years in office as he debilitated almost every aspect of the government dedicated to immigrant affairs. But the topic that has remained unfairly unattended for years is the one regarding undocumented students pursuing higher education. One research by New American Economy in April of 2020 found that there are more than 450,000 undocumented students in higher education, this figure corresponds to 2% of the total student population. This percentage might not seem as big as one would expect, but this is also related to all the boundaries that are put between them and their dreams. Almost 30% of undocumented children live under the poverty line. Further education is a luxury for many of them. Only in nineteen states they will receive in-state tuition, but just in seven they’ll have the opportunity to apply for financial aid, and if they are from Alabama and South Carolina, they won’t even have the right to enroll in college because these states had banned enrollment entirely.

This problem has been addressed before, but it has never been addressed correctly. In 2001, the DREAM (Develop, Education, Relief for Alien Minors) Act was proposed in Congress for the first time, more than 20 years had passed, but it has never become law. During Obama’s office years, something similar did become a law, this is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA. This policy lets undocumented people who came into the country as children get a driver’s license, work permit, social security number, and, of course, pay taxes. It did help a great number of undocumented students because they now could work on better-paid jobs that help them pay for college, but it’s not for everyone and remains to be quite unjust. Less than half of the registered undocumented students have DACA because of the eligibility requirements, and even if they have it, this policy does not bring half of the opportunities their peers who were born in the country have. Furthermore, when Trump became president, he debilitated this program strongly. He stopped accepting new applications and extended the renewal period from two years to one year (boundless). The DREAM Act would have given these people the opportunity to own citizenship and legal residence in the United States, but that also meant that they would have unlimited visas for their qualifying family members, which is something the government doesn’t want, but what they do want them to contribute to the economy by paying taxes and working. These undocumented individuals were mostly brought by their parents, in the majority of the cases coming to the country was not their decision. Young and disoriented, they had to learn a language that they were not familiar with, get used to an education system they never experienced before, understand a culture that was not theirs, and even endure the xenophobia and racism in a country commanded by conservative nationalists bring upon them, still because they were not born on the soil that’s considered from the United States, they are not and will never be, as of today, legal citizens.

This is a problem that needs to be solved now, our representatives need to quit the cover they’ve been putting over immigration affairs, a change has to be done, and has to be done as soon as possible. The DREAM Act needs to be passed so it can benefit all the students that need it. These people were raised among Americans, most of them only know this type of living because they moved at very young ages, therefore, they should be legally Americans. This act itself is very strict, you have to go through three different processes in order to get naturalized, and during the first two you are at risk of being deported. If they are aware of this and still want to be naturalized, they are more than worthy of that benefit. This act will give them plenty of opportunities, they would be able to apply for financial aid just as any other citizen, and they’ll have the same opportunities that DACA brings them, but with the benefit of not being deported and the possibility of visiting their native country when they want to, but still stay in the United States, the country in which they grew and plan to stay the rest of their lives. DACA is not sustainable anymore, as lots of people were not able to apply during the Trump administration and the expiring date is too short. Also, this policy acts as a way of retaining possible workers in the country who will work for minimum wages as they can’t continue their further education because of their socioeconomic barriers. Passing the DREAM Act is the fairest and most effective way to give all undocumented students what they deserve, while also benefiting the country by increasing the economy, creating jobs, and giving people the chance to transform their dreams into reality.

Hopefully, soon the government will get full of people who belong to these backgrounds, as lots of them are currently working hard to make a living and pursue their dreams. When that happens, they will be the ones who will change the system from the inside. The future of the United States is going to be diverse and culturally rich, a country where not a single soul is left aside, and where there is space for everyone. A future in which my best friend’s kids will go to the college of their dreams and visit their mother country and family, one where democracy is applied to those who positively contribute to the economy and well-being of the United States. The one and only future where the dreamers will become the achievers.

For many Indians, internationalism and multiculturalism are not in the air without roots or anchorage. It can well be traced from their own multicultural composite tradition. It is that tradition of multiethnic understanding that the community and group leaders may seek to bring forth, not just as skilled immigrant professionals or entrepreneurs, but as an integral cultural vanguard of the multicultural American citizenry. There has been a remarkable growth in hate groups in the last six or seven years, and it seems anecdotally clear that the growth is driven by the immigration debate in this county. It seems like the hate increases when there is an immigration debate. This does not necessarily mean the debate has to stop; it means that immigrants have to take it upon themselves to be part of greater society so that they are viewed favorably. We Indian Americans must go beyond the intent of working and living in the United States.

We must become a part of the local fabric. If carefully done, I am optimistic that the future holds the key to equality and safety for all citizens. Immigrant Integration – A necessity we cannot afford to ignore Integration is the process by which immigrants become accepted into their host society, both as individuals and as groups. The definition of integration varies because the requirements for acceptance by a receiving society vary greatly from country to country. The responsibility for integration rests not only with the policies of the host government, but with many actors – immigrants themselves, institutions, and communities, to name a few. Most modern immigrants have deeply ingrained social and cultural attitudes; the relative ease of travel and communication enabled today’s immigrants to retain their ties to their countries of origin. This may reduce incentives to adapt to the American way of life.

As I see it, the second generation is quite different in their outlook compared to the pioneering first wave. While it is important for them to hold onto their roots, it is equally important for them to be American at the same time. This is quite different from their parents’ generation where it was clearly defined, as India and America. The United States has a racially and ethnically diverse population. Many argue that assimilation is a key factor in progression within the USA, meaning people have to become part of the American ‘melting pot’, in which nationalities and racial groups fuse into one. I, on the other hand, believe it is ‘Integration,’ not ‘Assimilation’ that is important for the success of immigrant communities and America. Because I see assimilation as the process by which immigrants become indistinguishable within the dominant host society, eventually conforming to the existing cultural norms of society.

In contrast, integration involves adding to the existing culture, which in turn, transforms and enhances society. Thus assimilation is considered tantamount to a loss of culture, religion, and identity, and involves the expectation of conformity to the norms of the majority. That is why I see the hesitation on the part of new immigrants to come forward to be part of the larger society and America as a ‘Melting Pot’ for their economic success and a ‘Mosaic’ for Integration. We would function better as stew than as a sauce. While the public debate tends to focus disproportionately on questions of who, how many, and what kind of noncitizens should be admitted to the United States, I see immigrant integration as the true test of a successful American immigration system. Immigrants face numerous challenges and criticisms. It is difficult to get into another nation and settle. When they do, they face additional struggles: some to naturally be expected, while others could be due to the fact their inability to acquire new skills or their inability to conduct themselves properly in their new environment.

The main concerns are –

• Due to cultural differences, immigrants try to maintain some semblance of their own culture in their newly adopted country.
• Due to fears of xenophobia, immigrant communities form enclaves to deal with and help each other.
• Immigrants who try to be part of the mainstream are not viewed favorably by their own community or by the mainstream.
• Criticism of not integrating from the receiving society.

Unlike other traditional immigration countries, such as Canada, Australia, or the UK which had to take people from their colonies, the United States does not have a federally-driven immigrant integration policy or an agency responsible for making sure immigrants effectively become part of the U.S. society. Instead, its integration policies are limited and largely ad hoc, and often geared toward refugees, persecuted or migrant workers. Rather, the USA has institutions to protect immigrants that focus on discrimination and equal opportunity. For instance, Pennsylvania has the Human Relations Commission to address similar issues. But a sound integration policy will bring in more harmonious results. Integration has never really been a federal responsibility.

How many people get in and out, which groups are favored (relatives or entrepreneurs, artists or scientists, farm workers or software programmers), and how border security and refugee and asylum policies are determined and enforced, these are all decisions made at the federal level. While the federal government ponders over immigration to decide whether the present level of immigration is more than the country can bear or whether the nation needs future immigrant workers, technocrats, entrepreneurs, and families, American cities struggle with immigrant integration. American cities have been the gateway to immigrant communities because cities with sizable immigrants register better growth. They find it an economic imperative to attract immigrants. Rather than playing to fears or rejecting newcomers, many mayors and municipal leaders are coming up with strategies to integrate immigrants and refugees. Some cities with long-established immigrant gateways like Allentown PA, have been trying to accelerate integration processes by helping immigrants learn English, find employment, and become homeowners. However, because of the lack of a nationally driven integration policy, the mayors and municipal leaders often are faced with defusing tensions that arise when immigrants are in the midst of people who are unaccustomed to their presence. Thus, these cities try to create bridges between new arrivals and long-term residents for harmony. Since integration entails uncomfortable adjustments between new immigrants and host societies, the USA maintained that integration was synonymous with assimilation because it was thought that cultural differences might divide. Just as previous immigrants incorporated into mainstream American life, America thought new immigrants integrate automatically. Full integration into U.S. society and the economy does not happen automatically; it generally takes more than one generation.

Donald Trump during his presidential campaign had plans on handling Immigration in America. His plan was to build a wall across the border of the United States and Mexico and deportation of over eleven million illegal immigrants. He had plans to reverse President Obama’s executive orders that provided temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants. Likewise, Hillary Clinton in her campaigns had a different view of having a comprehensive immigration reform that protected families and at the same time protected the borders and the country’s national security. President Donald Trump’s idea of immigration is not ideal for America’s foundation and principles nor is it good for the state’s economy. This paper will describe and argue the portrayal of President Donald Trump regarding his stand on immigration and alternative ways of handling immigration issues.

Robert Kennedy’s view on immigration was not about open borders but rather responsible and generous policies or laws that treated immigrants with respect, humanity, and dignity. He wrote that “there is, of course, a legitimate argument for some limitation upon immigration”. Kennedy argues that the immigration policy has to be flexible and fair for the world not to turn against America and that Americans can have clean hands and clear conscience when they turn to the world for assistance or other ideas.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, ending illegal access or immigration into the United States of America was one of President Donald Trump’s promises to the Americans if elected as president. He made a promise to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico and still stands with that promise today. He promised to deploy national guards to the border to truly keep the American people safe and end legal loopholes that allowed for illegal immigration. Another action was ensuring 100% prosecution of all illegal border crossers

Initially, President Bush and President Reagan had suspended and taken strong actions to stem the mass illegal migrations into the U.S. Similarly Trump is acting to stop the large numbers traveling through Mexico to the U.S unlawfully or without legal documents by building a wall between Mexico and U.S and setting up certain policies for immigration. This policy set up in November 2018 is termed as being necessary in managing and conducting America’s foreign affairs. The policy proclaimed has certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions and all the immigrants are subject to the laws.

The problem with Trump’s policy is, it does not only focus on illegal migration but regularly points out immigrants as criminals and wanted terrorists. This stereotype is not far from the truth, some have criminal motives whereas others have no negative impact on the United States as a country or on its economy. They are denied citizenship while trying to seek greener pastures and working hard to achieve their dreams of something better compared to where they came from. Some of them become great entrepreneurs and business owners, pay taxes, and help boost the economy rather than hurting it.

Looking at President Donald Trump’s brand as a nationalist, there isn’t really any truth about America. He doesn’t speak the ideas expressed by American founding fathers such as Abraham Lincoln who established the People’s Republic on equal standing grounds. The founding fathers of America had a vision for liberty, freedom, equality, democracy, and justice which is contrary to Trump’s policy. He bases his ideas on the power of winning and blames aliens for America’s problems thus he thinks preventing immigrants and foreigners is the solution for America.

A number of conflicting rather controversial policies have been put in place during Trump’s presidency. These policies have targeted to improve immigration processes from overturning asylum protection, separation of families at the border, H-1B visa restriction, building the border wall in Mexico, and above all revoking President Obama’s Dream Act. His focus, solutions, and policies are based on the protectionism of foreign imports and labor provided by immigrants, and in return, these policies have negatively impacted the country at large in the past. The majority of people think that he disregards the American principle of nationalism and only causes hatred and anger among different groups of people.

According to a speech given by Trump in 2009, he says “They say all men are created equal, but it is not true, some people are born very smart and some people are born not so smart”. Somehow he may be correct but he misses out on the big idea of the independence declaration outlines equality of people in terms of moral worth, natural rights, and equal citizenship under American law. His views are nativist in nature and believing that what is good for immigrants is bad for Americans greatly undermines American traditions and principles.

The president’s nationalist program and immigrant policies will not see the country achieve one of its national goals of ensuring long-term security. It undermines America’s ideas and principles of international relations on a world scale. Undermining foreigners, immigrants, and abroad trade partners will not solve the problem of security rather finding common ground, working together, and sharing broad ideas will. America is great for good reasons from its democratic processes, technological advances, freedom, opportunities, and cultural diversities. Without aliens in America, where will this greatness come from?

There are good ways in which America can employ to improve programs and the process of immigration to better protect the country from international criticism and negative economic impact. As much as there is a small positive impact of Trump’s policies in reducing the unemployment rate, the restriction of immigrants will mean a shortage of labor in America. This implies there is a need for alternative ways of solving immigration. Such processes include allowing for more visas, providing the lowest level of extended family visa restriction, and close monitoring of immigration into the country to avoid security bridging and improve the country’s economy.

In history, America was rated as a great nation in regard to its past mode of conduct. In 1776, America made a declaration of all people are equal and helped end the slave trade. It also spends billion dollars to save Europe from Soviet communism and many more. As a continuation of America’s great name, smart, realistic, diplomatic, and bold leaders are needed. Leaders who truly love the country and recognize the ideologies of the founding fathers who treated everyone equally regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, immigrant, or any other difference.

America is great and celebrates a world of pride and cultural diversity. Trump’s reforms on immigration may not be necessarily what reshapes the country to its initial state and neither could the policies bring a solution to ensuring national security and economic growth.

Most Americans have heard of the difficulties of life for White Americans during the great depression, but few know of the injustices towards Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans during that time. Using all peoples of Mexican heritage as a scapegoat for the economic depression, unprecedented hatred and discrimination were shown towards them. Then repatriations-the illegal process of moving immigrants back to their home country. Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans were encouraged or forced to return to Mexico, resulting in one of the biggest use of repatriation in America’s history. The illegal removal of up to 2 million American citizens of Mexican descent during the great depression resulted in a social gap between Mexican Americans and whites in America, a problem that carries into modern America.

Before the Great Depression, Mexican immigrants weren’t considered a threat to American culture or resources. Thought of as docile and hard-working, many Americans even considered them to be a more favorable kind of immigrant than some European immigrants. During the early 20th Century, this positive reputation made Mexican immigrants a popular hire for low-income jobs in the South, where cheap labor was needed. While many Mexican immigrants came to the U.S. for these mining and agricultural jobs, an increasing amount came to escape war and violence in Mexico. In fact, from the year 1910 to the year 1920, the total number of legal Mexican immigrants entering the United States grew by upwards of 30,000 migrants. This increase, due to job availability and acceptance into the U.S., lasted up until the Great Depression.

Then, during the Great Depression, attitudes changed for the worse against Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans in the U.S. In 1929 the economic boom ended when the Great Depression began, and there was no longer as great a need for cheap labor. As such, Mexican migrants became less essential, and American citizens ceased welcoming them in with open arms. When those job opportunities dried up, many Mexican immigrants moved back to Mexico, but many others chose to stay in the United States. With new lives, and oftentimes children who were U.S. citizens, the U.S. became the home country for many Mexican-Americans. Those Mexican immigrants who chose to stay in the United States faced more discrimination than in previous years. Up until this time, many Americans had considered the Mexican laborers to be temporary immigrants, coming in to help build America, without permanently living off the land. However, when the Great Depression started and resources became more valuable, the American people turned on the Mexican Immigrants who had made America their home.

It wasn’t just new Mexican Immigrants that were targeted for repatriation. At the time, both long-term Mexican-American citizens and new Mexican immigrants weren’t seen as citizens and non-cit. Both provided unwanted competition for jobs and therefore were seen as a threat to their European neighbors, who, according to their biases, grouped all people of Mexican heritage together. So, when repatriations picked up speed, they affected many United States citizens of Mexican descent as well as the new Mexican migrants. Even long-term citizens of the U.S. who had Mexican heritage were an easy target because they were a popular choice for cheap labor jobs, not well-paying ones. This left them financially insecure, left to the mercy of their employers while they lived paycheck to paycheck. With all these factors going against their public opinion, as well as their financial security, Mexican immigrants became an increasingly weaker target, easier for white Americans to force out of the U.S.

While it was starting in that turbulent year of 1929 that Mexican immigrants began to face worse discrimination in the United States, repatriations targeting Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans really gained popularity among white citizens in 1930 and 1931. It was realized that sending the immigrants to various cities in Mexico would be cheaper than the total cost of their room and board in America. So trains began shipping large amounts of Mexican immigrants out of the Southern U.S. and into cities such as Sonora, Sinaloa, Jalisco, and Nayar­t [Amador Letter]. Since these repatriations were illegal ways to get rid of the Mexican population in the United States, they weren’t documented, and therefore the exact number sent out is unknown. However, estimates range between 300,000 and 2 million possible repatriates. Of these repatriates, around 60 percent were thought to have been U.S. citizens by birth. Such a high number makes it clear that the majority of white citizens in America didn’t care whether the Mexicans being repatriated had a right to stay in the U.S. or not, they disliked anyone of Mexican heritage and wanted to be rid of them.

As a result of these repatriations and the growing hatred against Mexican immigrants, racial discrimination and violence grew like never before. The idea that even American citizens of Mexican descent weren’t as worthy of their jobs as white Americans became a very popular opinion. Accordingly, more and more people believed the unemployment problem could be greatly improved by forcing the Mexican immigrants out. So Mexican-Americans began to see a shocking increase in anti-Mexican sentiments. Mexican immigrants and Mexican-American citizens alike were fired from their jobs and faced open racism and harassment. Whereas before the Great Depression Mexicans were thought to be one of the best kinds of immigrants, they were now thought to be one of the worst. In some areas, they faced treatment and racism rivaling that of what was shown toward Blacks during the same time. In 1924 one social worker named Marie Prather summarized this sentiment when she said ‘Then, too, because of the very dark color of most Mexicans, Americans have the same racial feelings as they have for the colored.'(Betten and Mohl 374). Although this statement was made while discussing Gary, Indiana, the anti-Mexican sentiments it represents were widespread across the US. This rise in racism continued to have terrible ramifications for the Mexicans and Mexican-Americans living in America.

One such ramification was the worsened quality of life for the Mexican immigrants, and consequently more voluntary repatriations. For many years, even before the upswing in anti-Mexican sentiments during the Great Depression, Mexican immigrants had been living in terrible conditions, and they only worsened during the Great Depression. Mexicans were charged exorbitant fees to live in poorly constructed and overcrowded houses. In some cities, they were even charged more to live in those shabby houses than the white residents living in much better houses nearby. These houses often had little to no furniture and were difficult to keep warm. These poor living conditions, combined with mounting unemployment rates caused major upswings in disease and illnesses in Mexican immigrant communities. Without resources to manage these illnesses, the death rate of Mexicans living in these slums drastically rose. These were all factors that combined to force Mexican immigrants in the U.S. to return to Mexico and increase the amount of ‘voluntary’ repatriations. Mexican immigrants were forced to fear staying in America and saw no way to escape but to leave.

The anti-Mexican sentiments so popular in the Great Depression stemmed from the idea that those of Mexican heritage were stealing jobs, an idea that carries even to the modern day. Nativists-people who wished to exclude outsiders from immigrating into their country in the 1930s encouraged this notion, pinning the economic crash on Mexican-Americans. They said that ‘when employment slackens the Mexicans are the first ones off. They are not Americans.’ (Betten and Mohl 377). This racist idea that Mexican immigrants and American citizens of Mexican heritage are only in the United States to steal jobs is also something expressed by nativists today. For example, when recently discussing the Spanish language with an acquaintance of mine, they said ‘It’s probably good to learn [Spanish] since they’re stealing all our jobs’ referring to Spanish speakers. Whites in America still find Mexican immigrants to be a convenient place to pin the blame on for unemployment problems frequent in everyday life.

All of the increases in financial, employment, and social discrimination against Mexican immigrants created a social gap between Mexican Americans and whites in the United States. All of the unfair treatment and ill-will shown towards the Mexican-Americans living in the US created deep mistrust between the races, and rightfully so. The Great Depression caused all people of Mexican descent or heritage to be betrayed by the country that they helped to build and support. They were declared unwelcome in America and pushed out, creating deep mistrust that has ramifications that carry out to the modern day. The events and attitudes displaying racist attitudes toward Mexicans throughout American history are numerous. Despite that, many Americans have a very low awareness of these events, making it difficult to heal the damage these events have caused. In order to heal the social gap between Mexican Americans and whites in America, the events of the past that damaged the relationship to begin with must be faced, starting with the racially motivated repatriations from the Great Depression.

America is traditionally a country of immigrants of many parts of the world. Each year millions of people from different places around the world come to this country. But why do people immigrate to America? People have moved here looking for new and better opportunities and also to achieve the “American dream”.

Immigrants come to america because of crime, violence and insecurity, a brighter future , and a lack of resources.

First of all, immigrants come to America because of crime, violence and insecurity. For example El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Three countries located in North America, considered the most violent countries in the world. “The difficult realities of thousands of migrants fleeing violence and misery in the so-called Northern Triangle, the Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras plagued by corruption, gang crime and impunity” The Guardian.

The reality of people in these countries are miserable, people can not leave in peace. For example, El Salvador is tormented by an unappeasable force of gang warfare. Extraordinarily extreme and constant brutality between rival street gangs against one another and in resistance to the police. People from there do not feel secure walking in the streets at night and even at daylight, it is completely understandable that families decide to immigrate to a new and different country and try to find a better place to live even know that place is not their country of origin. People come to America to live in peace without thinking that someday they will die, it is not easy at all because migrating to another country is hard. Just imagine that many families leave everything they have and in some kind of way running away from his own country having the fear that they will not come back.

Secondly, immigrants come to America because of a brighter future. Every person in the world dreams to achieve some goals in life but what happen when those goals can not be achieve?. People from all over the world come to America to study and get a degree because is well known that studying in a different country is considered a good decision and a big goal a person can make and achieve during life. It is also not easy because the necessity to move, leave the country, family and also learn a new language is scary.

Another example is that people come to America to work and guarantee a brighter future for their family. In some families not all the members of the family come to America, is just the father who decides to go, it is a hard decision but sometimes you need to decide what is better, when the father is completely settled now all the family can move too.

In their book “Migration and culture,” Gang Ira and Gil Epstein asserts, “Existing empirical evidence on the labor market performance of immigrants shows that migrant workers suffer from an initial disadvantage compare to observationally equivalent native workers, but that their wages subsequently tend to rise faster.”(178)

It is hard when people just arrive, they need to start looking for a job sometimes even know that because they are immigrants they get paid less than white people, but that is not an inconvenience because they keep working and with the time start to achieving their goals and also helping the American economy. In their book “Migration and culture,” Gang Ira and Gil Epstein asserts, “Those who succeed enjoy a higher level of productivity and therefore good wages in the future” (170) Some people say that immigration takes jobs but it is also well known that creates jobs too. For instance and example of that, a man or a woman comes to America from Italy or Japan , this man or woman opens an small italian or japanese restaurant, these restaurants will prosper during the years. Years later this man or woman owns three or more restaurants and employs 20 americans helping the american economy and helping those immigrants who left their country to find the future they always have dreamed.

Thirdly, Immigrants come to America because of lack of resources. It is a frequently reason for why people immigrate. For example Honduras is the second poorest country in Central America, many people from there joined caravans risking their lives and also being deported just to cross the border and find a better quality of life and good opportunities. People in poorest countries die because they do not have resources, they do not have what to eat, there are no jobs, they do not have nothing more than a dream. Generally, it is deduce that people move from poor zones to richer zones where wages are higher and jobs are available and also from rural zones to more competitive zones in order to find more opportunities such as education and health care, those opportunities that they couldn’t find at home and makes them immigrate to America.

Conclusion

Immigration is what makes America extraordinary and special, this country is a mix of many cultures, traditions from different places and people who share and have one dream which is the “American dream”.

Migration is an aspect that not just had a great impact on Germany as a country but also on Germany as a society. In 2017, 23,6% of the population in Germany had a migrant background (Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung 2018). This number is expected to rise since 39,1% of all children younger than five years old had a migrant background in the same year (Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung 2018). Besides regular voluntary migration for work or better education, one needs to pay attention to the involuntary migration of refugees, which had increased significantly since 2015 (Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung 2019).

The flow of refugees that arrived in Germany since 2015 challenged the country just as much as it gave it an opportunity to grow. Even though Germany had already experienced the arrival of a great number of refugees in the 1990s following the Bosnian war, the influx of humans into the German society required a stopgap solution to supply them with shelter, clothes, medical care, and education. As it is not clear how many refugees will decide to stay in Germany permanently, and keeping in mind that the general number of people with a migrant background is expected to rise in the future, Germany must find a way to integrate the new-comers.

Since “education is one of the most important fields of structural integration” (Koehler and Schneider 2019:1), the educational system of Germany needs to find a way to accommodate the cultural and educational differences of students with a migratory background to further their integration into society. Not addressing cultural and educational differences in school can lead to alienating a big share of the population, and mono-cultural curriculums and teaching practices “may exclude some students and fail to support them in their learning” (Akkari and Loomis 2012:137). Even though “the education of migrants may have higher costs than for non-migrants in a short-term perspective, it is a social investment in the long term” (Koehler and Schneider 2019:1–2), since “[g]ood quality education fosters social inclusion, economic growth and innovation (Koehler and Schneider 2019:1).

This paper will attempt to answer the question of what strategies can be used in Germany in order to further the integration of refugee and migrant children regarding their objective and subjective participation as outlined by Bartelheimer (2005). Firstly, the paper will explain the theoretical background of objective and subjective participation as described by Bartelheimer (2005). Secondly, it will suggest strategies to increase the objective participation of migrant and refugee children. Thirdly, other educational strategies will be explored that can increase their subjective participation.

Methodology

This paper will use Bartelheimer’s distinction between objective and subjective participation to explore the integrational dimensions of different educational strategies that offer the opportunity for an increase in the integration of migrant and refugee children. The strategies chosen in this paper are intended to cover several aspects of how education can influence the integration opportunities for migrant and refugee children. They were chosen from studies on refugees in educational systems in multiple countries of Europe and from studies and handbooks provided by OECD that predominantly focus on migrant children. The duality of this paper, which refers to migrant children and refugee children, was intentional because while both groups might be challenged with a new country and a new culture, their experiences and opportunities in educational systems can differ.

Theoretical Background

The way a person is educated in childhood and early adulthood can have a great impact on their participation in society. Bartelheimer analyzed statistics on migrants and the general population and distinguished two different types of participation practiced by migrants. While objective participation refers to the possible and actual participation in the workforce (Bartelheimer 2005), subjective participation refers to migrant’s ability in the German language in written and spoken form, their intention of staying in Germany, and their identification with Germany and their country of origin (Bartelheimer 2005).

Prior to analyzing the participation of migrants, Bartelheimer stresses that even though social reports (Sozialberichterstattung) on migration are expected to report on the position of this fragment of the population in the social structure in a differentiated manner, the part of the population with a migration background is too big and diverse to be compiled into one homogenized group (2005).

Before one goes in-depth with Bartelheimer’s explanation of the participation of migrants, it is pivotal to stress that while Bartelheimer focuses on migrants, refugees do not belong to this category. While migrants are people searching for a better life, better work, or higher quality education, refugees were forced flee from war and conflict, and their application for asylum has been granted (Habitat for Humanity 2017). Refugees may have a history of migration since they left their country of origin and went to another country, but they are not migrants. This difference is crucial, especially in education, because while both migrant and refugee children can require special support in school due to language barriers or cultural differences, refugee children “often experienced trauma and times without schooling, and they are subject to legal restrictions that can also impact their access to education’ (Koehler and Schneider 2019:2), which in turn can affect their participation in the receiving society. While refugees might not be migrants, they are included in Bartelheimer’s statistics that address the aspect of citizenship of the population, since they do not have German citizenship (2005).

Objective Participation

Bartelheimer theorizes objective participation as the possible and actual participation in the workforce (2005). He describes that a person’s opportunities in the labor force can be at risk due to their history of migration, which is evident by statistical data showing both the possible and actual participation of migrants in the workforce being lower compared to the population without a migration history (Bartelheimer 2005). These statistics differ between the different groups within the population with a migration history depending on a person’s migration history, citizenship, and gender (Bartelheimer 2005). The possible participation in the workforce also depends on a country’s migration policy, since it affects who is and who is not regarded as part of the possible workforce (Bartelheimer 2005). This is observable in the statistics for resettlers that have returned to Germany. While they have a history of migration, they also have German citizenship, which leads Bartelheimer to the conclusion that non-German citizenship decreases a person’s chances for employment significantly more than any other migrational characteristic a person can embody (Bartelheimer 2005).

The difficulties migrants face in integrating into the workforce are connected to their qualifications (Bartelheimer 2005). This is evident in the comparison of statistics regarding the participation in the workforce and the professional qualifications of the population with a migration history. First-generation migrants in Germany in 2001 were nearly twice as likely to not have professional qualifications (31,2%) than the second generation (18,4%) (Bartelheimer 2005:374). This corresponds to the higher participation of the second generation in the workforce. Since the second generation was, by definition, born in Germany and therefore also participated in its educational system, it seems natural that German schools provide migrant children with knowledge and skills that increase their ability to gain a professional qualification and to participate in the labor market more than their parents.

While the second generation’s objective participation is already higher than that of the first generation, it still tends to be lower than that of the general population without a migration history (Bartelheimer 2005). This can, among other reasons, be caused by the concentration of disadvantage in schools that immigrant children go to. This concentration of disadvantage affects migrant children more than non-migrant children since “immigrant students tend to be concentrated in the same schools” (OECD 2015:8) and, at the same time, tend to be socio-economically disadvantaged (OECD 2015). OECD conducted research that analyzed the correlation of school performance, the concentration of migrant students, and their socio-economic background (2015).

The research showed that student in schools with a high concentration of immigrants do perform worse than students in schools with a smaller concentration, but OECD stresses that it is not the concentration of immigrant students but, “rather, the concentration of socio-economic disadvantage in a school that hinders student achievement” ( 2015:8).

While there is no separate research on refugee children regarding the concentration of disadvantage in schools, it is likely that they have a similar experience to migrant children. One difference between migrant and refugee children that stands out in this regard is that in Germany, refugee children “attend preparation or introduction classes for one or two years before being transferred to regular classes” (Crul et al. 2019:6). Even though refugee children are separated from the other students, they still are affected by the concentration of disadvantage. This is because OECD based their research on schools and not on classes (2015).

To work against the concentration of disadvantage in schools, it can help to increase assistance for migrant and refugee parents in order to provide them with enough information to choose a suitable school for their children (OECD 2015), and “help [them] to overcome financial and/or logistical barriers to access the school of their choice” (OECD 2015:8). Schools teaching migrants can change their curricula and include classes that are “more appealing to students from across the socio-economic spectrum” (OECD 2015:8).

Besides the concentration of disadvantage in schools, the early tracking in the German school system, and detours caused by this can also cause lower objective participation. School children in Germany are tracked into one of three models of secondary education at the age of 10 (Koehler and Schneider 2019). Two of these models are vocational tracks and the other one is meant to prepare students for possibly attending university. Koehler and Schneider argue that the German school system is designed to reproduce social class, meaning that it was intended that workers’ children get taught the necessary skills to become workers themselves (2019). They refer to studies that concluded that “social class continues to be the single most important determinant for school careers – stronger than migration background” (Koehler and Schneider 2019:4).

The reproduction of social class in the school system and language issues can cause migrant and refugee children from families with worker backgrounds to be sorted into lower vocational tracks (Crul et al. 2019; Koehler and Schneider 2019). Furthermore, they are at a higher risk to be sorted into lower tracks if they are latecomers, which means that they joined the German school system at a later point and are sorted into a track “disregarding their actual capabilities” (Koehler and Schneider 2019:9). This can lead to them being streamed into a track that requires lower qualifications than they actually have, which leads to “ ‘detours’ in educational trajectories [and can] contribute to the risk of early school leaving” (Koehler and Schneider 2019:9) and therefore lower their objective participation.

Comparing the German tracking system with that of Sweden, the difference of the ages at which tracking takes place is especially conspicuous. In Sweden, the first ability tracking occurs at the age of fifteen (Crul et al. 2019), which gives the students more time to develop themselves independently from their ability tracking for longer than in Germany. This provides a larger timeframe for latecomers to show their abilities and make progress in language learning. The value of Swedish as a second language (SSL) is higher in Swedish schools than German as a second language (GSL) in German schools (Crul et al. 2019). While in Germany, GSL can delay the students’ educational progress, SSL in Sweden has the same value as Swedish as a core subject and is “counted as a normal entrance mark for university” (Crul et al. 2019:10).

To provide more equal opportunities for migrant and refugee children, the German school tracking system should be suspended or even abolished to give all students more time to develop their abilities and interests, and to make it more meritocratic. GSL as a substitute for German as a core subject can keep migrant and refugee children’s educational progress from being delayed and can erase the disadvantage they face due to having to learn the language.

Subjective Participation

Bartelheimer describes subjective participation as determined by a migrant’s German language ability in written and spoken form, their intention of staying in Germany, and their identification with Germany and their country of origin (Bartelheimer 2005). According to him, more than half of the second generation said of themselves that their German skills are very good in written (56%) and spoken (51,5%) form (Bartelheimer 2005). Nearly half of them (47,7%) identified as ‘predominantly German’ (Bartelheimer 2005) and 73,2% intend to stay in Germany permanently (Bartelheimer 2005). Overall, the second generation participates subjectively higher than the first generation and the group of the population without German citizenship (Bartelheimer 2005). While migrant children can belong to any of these three categories, refugee children would only be represented in the non-citizen group because they cannot be regarded as migrants, as explained in the theoretical background of this paper, for as long as they still have refugee status.

There are several strategies that can be applied to increase migrant and refugee children’s subjective participation. While the age of arrival has a great impact on the language learning progress of migrant and refugee children (OECD 2015), the way they are introduced into the school system is pivotal. Preparatory classes for migrant and refugee children are very common in Germany, and the children can be placed in those classes for one or two years (Crul et al. 2019), even though integrating them “into mainstream classes from the beginning of their schooling is associated with better outcomes than enrolling them first in preparatory language classes” (OECD 2015:10). In Sweden, “students can no longer be placed full-time in preparatory classes and no longer than two years” (Crul et al. 2019:6) but “in most cases […] the students were either quickly transferred or directly integrated in regular class” (Crul et al. 2019:6). This model can help to avoid delays in the student’s educational progress since they take part in the regular curriculum as soon as possible. To ensure that this model does not do more harm than good if implemented in the German educational system, it is important to provide additional classes to support migrant and refugee children. Sweden, for example, provides second language teachers to support students throughout their school education (Crul et al. 2019).

The early transmission of migrant and refugee children into regular classes also increases their sense of belonging and therefore, also their intention to stay in Germany, since segregating them from native students “can lead to increased negative personal and social effects such as xenophobia, social exclusion, radicalization, and violence.” (Koehler and Schneider 2019:11).

Conclusion

This paper explored methods that, if implemented in the German school system, can help to increase the objective and subjective participation of migrant and refugee children in society. As already illustrated in the introduction, migration plays a major role today and will continue to do so in the future. Increasing migrant and refugee children’s objective participation is pivotal to give them an opportunity to build a good and self-sustained life in which they also participate in society on a social level. By decreasing the concentration of disadvantage in schools, not just they but also native students benefit. The postponement or even abolishment of tracking give latecomers a chance to develop and prove their abilities and not be judged by their late arrival, which is not even in their hands. Increased subjective participation of migrant and refugee children can knock down language barriers between them and the native population. This is essential to work against and prevent bias regarding people with different cultural backgrounds and to create a society that is not afraid of difference but embraces it. Helping migrant and refugee children to feel like they belong, creates a connection not just to Germany but also its population, and the whole country can benefit from the new ideas, new perspectives, and new customs that they can share.

There are many more strategies the German school system could adapt to increase the integration of migrant and refugee children, but many of these strategies can only work to their full extent if the main aim of the German school system changes from the reproduction of social class to a system that supports its students on their very individual paths. While not all systems and methods work everywhere, some underlying concepts can be applied in the German educational system and should be consciously implemented and monitored to observe their effect on all students.

I would like to analyze the experiences faced by different groups of immigrants, taking into account their race, gender, social class, language skills with a focus on the experience of immigrants before and after the current political climate and recent changes in law. I hope my research can provide a way for people to get educated and see the world from the perspective of an immigrant. I believe many of the people who are prejudice against immigrants aren’t exposed to immigrants on a daily basis and have no way of knowing what one goes through.

This topic is very near and dear to my heart. Many within my community find themselves within the realms of this very important issue. Within the last few years, immigrants have been the targets of attacks, not only by the current administration, but also by the people within our own communities. I am very curious as to see how things have changed after the last election. Lately it seems as though racism and discrimination are more prominent than ever. That’s not to say that people were not racist before, but rather racist people have been empowered to speak their mind, even if it’s socially unacceptable. This clearly shows just how the law affects our everyday lives and actions, and vice versa. The law is also a reflection of our social practices, constructed through daily practices and legal consciousness. Before the current presidency, people weren’t so quick to speak their mind on certain issues. Unfortunately after a person of a high rank in our legal system, some might say the ”most important man” within our legal system, expressed hate and anger, the American people found it acceptable to do the same. I don’t know if maybe I was too young to remember or just simply didn’t understand, but I had never heard “go back to your country”. Nowadays, this phrase is used so much, I cant believe there was ever a time where I didn’t hear this phrase.

My main objective through my research is to analyze the way in which the experience of an immigrant has changed by comparing the immigrant experience from five years ago to today. The question specifically being, How have current laws and the current political climate affected the lives and experiences of immigrants within the Unites States of America? I will do so by asking the people I interview different questions about how they may have felt five years ago, to how they feel today. I would like to ask them open-ended questions to make sure I don’t somehow change or influence their answer. I will do my best to make sure to interview immigrants of all different races, backgrounds and social classes. Although I’ve read about many horror stories and seen many videos, I’ve never truly come across, or experienced myself an act of blatant discrimination or prejudice. Typically, it does not go farther than the occasional “speak English”, or the accusation of stealing. I’m also curious as to see how the experiences may differ between different groups of immigrants; how the experiences of a Latina immigrant who doesn’t speak English differs from the experiences of a Latina immigrant who does speak English or even how the experience of a light skinned immigrant differs from the experience of a dark skinned immigrant.

Current laws set in place, have definitely affected the everyday experiences of immigrants within the United States. Through my research I hope to demonstrate just how much our legal system/ government has influenced the live of immigrants. Not just in terms of how they may have legally changed the laws, but focusing mainly on how others treat immigrants after the recent changes. Have immigrants experienced more blatant hate, and prejudice after the recent changes in our government? Have they noticed a considerable change in the way they are treated/ spoken to? How many times have they been told to “go back to their country”? It seems as though both the laws set in place, and the current president have negatively influenced the sentiment of the American people toward immigration, that in turn has increased the amount of hate crimes and injustices committed toward immigrants.

After recent changes within the government, I felt there was a significant rise in tension and anger towards immigrant populations. Hopefully through my research, I can change the views and misjudgments of people towards immigrants.

Methodology

For my research project, I decided to use the data captured through my interviews to examine the experience of immigrants and how they have changed throughout the years. These interviews will allow for me to analyze the experiences of Latino immigrants, both one legal immigrant and one undocumented immigrant. I asked both similar questions in terms of their experiences within the United States and their involvement with the legal system. The interviews were focused largely on their experiences as an immigrant throughout the recent years.

In order to perfectly transcribe these interviews I will record them on a device. These audio taping a will be deleted on Monday May 20th at precisely 1pm. The names used in my interview will also be pseudonyms in order to protect the identity of the interviewee. I did of course let them know they were being recorded, which they were completely at ease with after letting them know the audiotape would be destroyed. The safety of my interviewee is my number one priority and therefore I will be extremely cautious with these tapes. I will be interviewing two immigrants, one of them a legal resident, and one of them with a current illegal status. They were both asked the same questions, and the conversation with each of them developed fairly differently.

Unfortunately as with any research, I have a few limitations. For one, the immigrants I interviewed were both from the same, and therefore I didn’t have a wide spectrum of immigrants from different places to base my work on . Though I initially wanted to analyze the different experiences of immigrants of different backgrounds, I, unfortunately, ended up not being able to do so. While this may be a limitation, it also felt as though it was the right decision. Focusing solely on a specific type of immigrant, in my case Latino immigrants, I found I was able to compare the interviews more easily than I would any other.

Perhaps another limitation on my part was choosing a topic that I can identify strongly with. My bias towards this subject, I hope will have no effect on my research study and my findings. Being a Latina immigrant myself I found was also beneficial in that I was able to understand their experiences moreso than I would any other type of immigrant. This allows me to expand on different areas of Latino culture that perhaps play a role in the way Latino immigrants perceive and interact with the American legal system.

I found that the number of people I was able to interview was a huge disadvantage. Interviewing only two people limited my exposure to different types of experiences among immigrants. Both my interviewee’s were Latinos from the same country. This of course limits my data capture and how universal it may be. To fully understand the experiences of immigrants, I should have interviewed more people.

Literature review

Legal consciousness refers to the understandings and meanings of law that circulate in social relations. This theory analyzes the ways in which legal institutions intersect with everyday social relations. The study of legal consciousness emphasizes the way law is perceived, interpreted and experienced by individuals whether they decide to engage, avoid or resist the law.

The theory of legal consciousness will further my research by analyzing the ways in which our legal system today affects and influences our society and social relations. The theory will help focus on how the recent changes within our legal system has influenced the way in which we treat one another. How do people interpret and understand the law, and how do they engage, avoid or resist the law? I would, of course be focusing mainly on how people within our society treat immigrants, and in what way that was influenced by the recent changes within our legal system. I also intend to place a special focus on how immigrants themselves perceive the law. Do they frequently interact with the legal system? If so, in which ways?

Legal consciousness is a type of social practice that not only reflects social structures, but also creates them. This theory demonstrates how experiences of people within a particular society are influenced by law, while simultaneously contributing to law. In other words, people are both the authors and the victims of their own creation.

One common theme in legal consciousness throughout many distinct articles was legal interpretation and the way it influenced and played a role on legal consciousness. Often laws are interpreted in different ways and therefore many may disagree on what law actually entails. For example, the classic form of Islamic legal theory is vastly different from the beliefs that exist in contemporary Malaysia (Moustafo,2013). While the classic form Islamic legal theory is widely known for its use of pluralism, Muslims within Malaysia believe and understand Islamic law as the complete opposite. The common misconceptions of Islamic law that exist within Malaysia have led to failure to reform family law.

A major theme I found across different research studies was centralized around the role that class, race and gender play in legal consciousness. Often times a group of marginalized people will have a different understanding and perception

of the law than those who are not. For example, in China, although prostitution is illegal, opinions about prostitution policies varies (Boitton, 2013). As revealed in the research conducted, marginalized people do not view prostitution through the same lens as others. In this study, the disconnect of the lower working class with the law is clear, as many fail to abide by it.(Boitton, 2013) Through out the articles, a clear distinction is made between the experiences of different groups of people based on their class, gender and race. Throughout the research it was clearly evident that different variations of experiences and legal attitudes exist throughout the community based heavily on race, class and gender.

Another important common theme was that legality does not necessarily shape an individuals view on a certain matter. Legality also does not always reflect morality, and therefore different individuals choose whether or not they agree and want to follow the law. The author Fritsvold analyzes how a group of people knowingly engage in illegal tactics in order to fulfill their radical environmental activism (Fritsvold, 2009). This research study also suggests that individuals will often ignore the law when they perceive it to be fundamentally illegitimate. As mentioned before, Boitton also centralizes around this idea. In this research study, the author interviews many different sex workers whom suggest that legality is of little importance to them

Legal consciousness will play a major role in furthering and developing my research. Through the use of the theory of legal consciousness I intend to analyze the ways in which treatment of immigrants has changed. In my research study, I will conduct a series of interviews with different groups of immigrants from different backgrounds. I will ask them general questions about their lives and problems they face in their communities, schools and workplaces. This, I hope, will allow for the interviewees to expand on what role the law plays within these work places. I believe the most important is to make sure that I, in no way, suggest or mention anything about legal consciousness. I would prefer it that the subjects begin to talk about the law without any incentive from me.

Through my research, many different important factors of the legal consciousness theory will be tested. Legal interpretations and the role it plays in legal consciousness, is one of the key points that I am sure will arise during my research. The interpretation of law can change the meaning of law entirely. In fact, this tactic has been widely used by the United States legal system to adjust laws that may seem out of date. Therefore, the interpretation of law can differ depending on many different factors; or depending on how someone may want to manipulate the law to their advantage. Recent laws set in place, have set out different types of negative rhetoric, especially regarding immigrants. This in turn has negatively impacted their overall experience within the United States.

As many may assume, legality does not always reflect morality. In fact there have been many instances in which our legal system has taken part in what we now consider to be immoral. The important theme will definitely arise within my research as I hope to interview immigrants who may have come here illegally. I find this important because they represent a significant part of the population that is not heard enough. Legality does not always shape an individuals view on certain matters.

Legal topic/ background

The United States was once a land that not only yearned for immigrants, but also fully accepted and embraced them. Yet throughout the years, the narrative of immigrants within the United States has changed drastically. While they were once considered and perceived as to be hard working, and resilient people, immigrants are now perceived in a negative light. In todays society, criminals and rapists are among the few adjectives used to describe the current immigrant population. This narrative has only recently become popular, and has not always been the case.

The United States was built on immigration. From the early days of the discovery of the Americas in 1492, to the

Throughout the years, many laws set in place have served as a means to

Within the past few years, there have been an abundance of changes within our legal system regarding immigration. Perhaps one of the most controversial acts committed by the current administration was the removal of the DACA program, also commonly known as Deferred Action for childhood arrivals. DACA was an important resource among the immigrant population, that helped instill hope and desire within the undocumented part of the immigrant community. Although DACA is not a permanent solution, and does not provide a path for citizenship, it helps undocumented children by providing them with protection from deportation, allowing them to apply for a social security number and awarding them the work authorization they need. The removal of DACA, one of the only resources set in place to provide help for undocumented immigrants, has prompted fear and distress among the immigrant population of the United States. This has also fed into the hateful rhetoric and narrative that exists in todays society about undocumented immigrants.

Also quite recently uncovered was the cruel practice of family separation that has been seemingly occurring for many years. Thousands of children have been ripped apart from their families, in an unfamiliar land, with no one to look after them or care for the. Unfortunately, it could take upwards of two years, if not more to be able to identify and unify the thousands of families that have been separated. This wait could be devastating not only to the parents of these young children, but the young children themselves; causing a certain amount distress, emotional and psychological trauma.

Family based immigration is an important and essential part of our immigration system, yet has been demonized throughout the last couple of years. Family based immigration allows for the reunification of families within the United States. Through this process, a person is allowed to receive a green card if they have a family member, a spouse, sibling, parent or even child within the United States already. The current administration set in place has demonized this practice and threatened to abolish it altogether, instead opting to focus instead more on a merit based system for immigration.

Acceptance of refugee’s

The acceptance of refugees within the United States has been a quite controversial topic within the past few years. The term refugee refers to people forced to escape and leave their country because of the threat of war, persecution, or even natural disasters.

Through my research, I found many similarities between both my interviewee’s. For one, they both felt afraid to interact with the legal system of the US. All form of interaction with the law was out of the question for both my subjects. From calling the police, stepping foot in the courthouse, to even visiting the doctor, they did not partake in any forms of interaction. One thing I noticed was legality had little to no effect on their decision to avoid the law. Whether legal or not, they both didn’t trust the legal system of the United States. They both were equally as scared.

The idea of not going to the doctor surprised me when it was mentioned by one of my interviewee’s. The fact that he would avoid something as necessary as going to the doctor out of fear, not only endanger his well being, but is also unfounded. I found through this research that immigrants are afraid of things they shouldn’t be afraid of. Services that are set in place to protect them are actively avoided. This fear I believe must also extend to other immigrants as well. Like for example, calling the police. The police are supposed to protect and ensure ones safety, yet they instill fear in many immigrants.

The fear of going to the courthouse, I found was based on stories they have heard, and even seen on social media. They believed that “they”, didn’t specify who, would be waiting for them outside the courthouse to deport them. Again, in this scenario, legality did not matter. In other words, both my interviewee’s, one legal and the other undocumented, felt the same way. This also further demonstrated the effect that media portrayal has on their views. Media portrayal of deportation cases and family separations have grown to implant fear into immigrants, although possibly unintentional.

Media portrayal of deportation cases and family separation have grown to implant fear into immigrants, although possibly unintentional. The deportation stories shown on television, and the perceived criminalization of immigrants has only led immigrants to believe that they were unwanted and unprotected.

Both interviewee’s expressed an increase in discrimination and racism within recent years. They described themselves as feeling isolated and unwelcome. One of interviewee described a racist experience that had happened to her for the first time since moving to the United States more than twenty years ago. She claimed she had never had such an experience in all the years she has resided in the United States.

Another aspect of their interviews that I found similar was their experience with discrimination. Both immigrants had different yet also similar run ins with racism and discrimination. I found that in this aspect, legality also didn’t matter. In fact the legal immigrant that I interviewed had a particularly worse experience than that of the undocumented immigrant. This was a surprising find, as many people seem to claim that they have nothing against legal immigrants, but rather have a problem with immigrants who reside in the country illegally. Yet this just comes to show that whether undocumented or not, immigrants of all types face similar types of discrimination. Legality is clearly irrelevant to the way immigrants are treated in there everyday lives. Even so, one cannot physically determine whether or not someone is residing in this country legally. Thus the question rises of why these immigrant experience acts of discrimination where there legal status is being questioned? What trait do they possess that suggests illegality?

This thus brings me to my last and final point. Both immigrants described similar experiences with the language barrier that exists in their lives. The immigrants that I interviewed both spoke Spanish as their first language, and knew little to no English. They both expressed feeling alienated as a result of not knowing how to speak English. Not to mention the discrimination they had to endure for not being able to fluently speak English. They also both expressed an immense desire in learning the primary language of the United States, but found it really difficult. While they can certainly get their point across speaking English, they don’t feel comfortable speaking the language. This in turn has affected not only their social lives, but also their careers. Both immigrants found it decisively hard to find jobs without knowingly the English language.

The history of America is a key of exploring what means exactly being an American and how somebody can be identified. As it is said in EOD an American term is a complex of different nations from different regions. In my essay I will focus to explain how American literature helped people to understand the term of American identity Sheldon Hackney says that: [1: Originally: a native or inhabitant of America, esp. of the British colonies in North America, of European descent (now hist.). Now chiefly: a native or citizen of the United States. Cf. also Latin American n., North American n., South American n., etc.

The National Conversation on American Pluralism and Identity, a project of the National Endowment for the Humanities, does just that. It invites diverse groups of Americans to come together-by teleconference, on the internet, through the radio, in face-to-face discussion groups-to talk and to listen to each other about what holds us together as a country, about shared values in a heterogeneous society, about common commitments in a society that contains all the divisions of race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion that are the source of sectarian violence in almost every other quarter of the globe, about the unum in our national motto.

The problem of identity is very common for specific groups, especially for people of second-generation. It might be confusing and very hurtful for immigrant’s children. Also, is very often to feel different than a society tells them to. All labels still last, although people seem to be more opened and tolerant, America is still a place for all kind of people but each of them have a label. The multicultural country, not so united, is well pictured in a novel The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao written by Junot Diaz. First, I will show the phenomenon of the personality of Oscar, I will compare it to different novels and I will show differences and similarities.

Firstly, it is essential to focus on The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao. This novel shows all problems that the American society knows and struggles all the time. That is the reason why it has been chosen. Looking deep into it, it is well shown the history of American background, some chapters also talk about Dominican- Republic history and its situation which helps to understand the problem of young people who are in between two different cultures. Mónica Fernández Jiménez in her work titled The Struggle for Identity and the Need for Documenting History in Junot Díaz’s The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao is mentioning that aspect and she says that:

This need to provide young generations with critical historical information is reflected in the novel through the efforts that the narrator makes to recollect and retell the personal story of Oscar, the protagonist of the book, and his family.

From the beginning, the author presents Dominican society- immigrants who are neighbours, they spend time all together, children are raised in a specific neighbourhood, far away from the perfect American playground. Even if those children wanted to socialise, they were put immediately to the special category called ‘’immigrants’’ or ‘’children of immigrants’’. Oscar is a perfect example of bilingual person who knows probably more than average American kid. Because of his curiosity to the world, he does not seem to realise when he switches between two languages. Moreover, he assumes that others perfectly understand him. Apart from that, being second generation immigrant child is not so simple and young people cannot find by themselves who they really are:

Problems related to having an immigrant origin and living in segregated communities include being the victim of categorisation and labelling practices imposed on individuals and the subsequent creation of artificial and unstable identities.

The categorisation is one of the problem with American identity because it makes a person/ individual to choose. What with people who don’t want to choose? What if some of them are feeling well with the idea of being in between? Apart from categorisation, there is another problem with a national shame. It means that some protagonists (for example the mother of the main character) who continuously wanted to hide their original background to forget where are they come from. It is very interesting how important aspect plays a psychology in those kind of situations. There is a terminology called Escape theory, invented by C. Nathan Dewall. In that case perhaps Oscar’s mother was trying to escape from the past and cut herself off negative memories to start again as a new person. Her identity is broken but readers do not exactly know why because it is not mentioned in the novel. It can be only imagined how confusing it is for second generation when their own parents try to keep in secret their first identity while they (children) are living between two worlds, cannot be fully accepted by Americans. It is important to focus on a fact that those immigrant’s children are not connected to their roots because parents are keeping it silent. In the very the same moment they do not feel like Americans because of their parents. It is a circle that never ends. The adaptation problems are very common as it was shown above.

Who suffer here the most? Probably young people from Second generation who used to live between two different cultures and each of them identify them. America created as a blend of cultures but at some point stopped to blend. Now either you are an American or not. How can the identity of those children be stable without the acceptance? Sheldon Hackney found an answer for that:

After that discussion had been boiling along for a while, a young Latino activist was recognized, looked steadily around the big table, and said in a voice full of challenge, ‘I am not an American. There is nothing about me that is American. I don’t want to be American, and I have just as much right to be here as any of you.’ What an American thing to say– squarely in the great tradition of American dissent. He was affirming his American identity even as he was denying it.

Indeed, an American identity seems to be only a terminology, only a label that people want to stick to others. But human’s brain is so complicated that as individuals we do not need to decide who we are and which side are we picking up.

All those thoughts are getting closer to the conclusion that everything what we, as humans, took from home behaviour, has own explanation of how other sees us. For example, with Dominican Republic roots, boys can treat girls differently. That means, they can feel as superiors to girls and they will not treat them worse because of some world view but because of the home background and roots that stick to their parents and foreign culture they practiced. Oscar’s behaviour was part of upbringing and part of his foreign roots. On the other hand, when Oscar is going to university, kids are not seeing him as a Dominican and that means that barrier between typical American and immigrant might be broken. However, looking closer what those kids mean was the fact that the way he speaks and even moves is something they find very American.

In conclusion, it is very hard to say what American identity is. Oscar is a perfect example how, especially second generation children, feel when everyone wants to put a label like they were some product. Their history is impossible to change but looks like people do not like to change the future either. They cannot accept immigrant’s children as first originals who were raised bilingually but most of time they are and behave like Americans- they go to American schools, they have American friends. People should stop to categorise especially second generation who is lost between two worlds, who is trying to discover identity. Americans tried to figure out who they are as well, long time ago. It is very surprising to see that it (putting labels on people) still lasts, in a country so open and tolerant, that cannot accept such an important decision of individuals.

Bibliography

1. Common Threads: Stories from the Quilt [film], dir. Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman (USA,1989) Girl interrupted [film], dir. James Mangold, (Columbia Pictures, Syrena EG, 2000)
2. The Silence of the Lambs[film], dir Jonathan Demme, (Orion Pictures, 1991) Dan Wells, I Am Not a Serial Killer, (Tor Books, 2010)
3. Dan Wells, I Don’t Want to Kill You, (Tor Books; Reissue edition,2013).
4. Dan Wells, Mr. Monster, (Headline,2010)
5. Jeff Lindsay, Darkly Dreaming Dexter, (Orion, 2005)
6. Junot Diaz, The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, (Faber & Faber, 2009)
7. Hamilton, Lin-Manuel Miranda, dir. Thomas Kail, 2015.
8. Jiménez, Mónica Fernández, The Struggle for Identity and the Need for Documenting History in Junot Díaz’s The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, Literary And Political Reviews, Literature, 2018, pp. 1-14
9. Sheldon Hackney, The American Identity, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter, 1997), pp. 11-22 You [TV show], Netflix, 2018

In Sinclair’s book, The Jungle, we are given the sights and experiences that are faced by Jurgis and his family when they migrate to America. They move out from their homeland in Lithuania to pursue the America Dream for a better life after hearing how a man made a good fortune in America. With the struggles that the family face from her homeland they venture out to find a steady source of work and live comfortably. The family needed to support themselves, especially with the loss of the farm from Onas’ father, and also because the available money they had was limited. Moving to Packingtown in Chicago, they had faced the opposite of what they have heard and saw from other people and advertisement signs. Homes advertised would be run down yet expensive, which the condition was unknown. Swindles for house purchases were not as described and the working environment had various hazards. These hazards ranged from poor sanitary conditions to overworking the workers and not paying them properly. Business owners would gain advantage over the workers because of their status and power that was held. The neighborhoods were dangerous and filled with immigrants who were struggling to get by and make a proper living. Capitalists would gain wealth, while the lower classes remained stagnant with very little opportunities to advance forward and build up on living conditions and pay. The care for the immigrants was not taken well into many concerns. Even those who spoke against the mistreatment they experienced from her boss lost their jobs or knew that if they were to bring up a case, they were to lose because of connections wealthy capitalists had with other people of different systems, relating to when Jurgis was jailed. Their areas were less developed and made from cheap materials. The living environment was crowded and at the mercy of environmental factors that did not ensure safety, even if one owned their own home. Trash would litter the area and even farm animals, such as chickens can be seen picking at whatever is left from rubbish filled streets.

The goals and aspirations of Jurgis and his family was to have a good living which encouraged them to go to America for the land of equality and opportunity. With the passing of Onas’ father, they family had lost all rights to the farm and must get by, even though the work at meat shops and sewing that they faced had very low tolerance for even being a few minutes late. The family decided to take the trip because of the story of an individual who had made grand wealth in America with the high pay. The family faced troubles in both their homeland and in America from con artists and thieves. The lower classes would steal from each other just as those with more wealth would take advantage of these people. Just for work, to pay a part of one’s own pay to keep a job is unfair. These dreams of better success was changed by the challenges they have faced. Poor working conditions and trying to save enough to build up was not an easy feat. The homes of the Jurgis have lived in varied bit by bit, from the boarding home that they had first stayed at to the run down and unfinished rental home. The first place they lived was in a border home, then to a false ideal home which was run down and poorly kept previous before the purchase though was listed as something of the opposite.

The ways that the family had tried to get by was by working harder to climb the ladder to better successes and gave attempts to keep supporting each other, even while living in corrupt areas where crime rates were high. Continuing to go to work to earn enough to live off of was growing less and less as an option, especially when Jurgis had sprained his ankle and received no pay for the time he was off duty, which he was harmed at work because of the conditions.

The factors that caused these goals to change varied. Starting off with the wedding from the wedding feast, the couple must earn money quickly to be able to support themselves. The husband went off to work to earn income. During this event, many locals came in to partake but most did not truly celebrate with the couple. The providers also rang up larger costs that were not even consumed by the feast people. The new goal that came to mind after witnessing the cruelties of their new home was to call attention to the sells of rotten meat to the public, and to show the harsh life that immigrants faced in the bustled shops. The neighborhoods were poor and the sanitary conditions were awful. The false dream of opportunity and equality for all was portrayed, however the family did not experience the true American dream. The American Dream is battled ridden with muffled meanings of American morals and values. The very meaning of survival is not the righteous work hard and be paid for the work you have done, the scales seem to differ to the exact opposite, which would be to be as sneaky and sly as one can to be able to make it in such a capitalistic world. There were, however, chances of luck that gave aid to the wish of keeping the family away from being homeless and starving. From the book a young musician was able to bring the whole family to places where he performed, and there was also an attraction between him and Marija. Jurgis was determined, and especially in the winter season where things became more difficult as the work environment began to grow more dangerous. Many workers have passed away from illness and faced the harsh cold from winter. Jurgis explained how his shifts were dark and poorly lit, and while sacrificing his life going back to work, he knew that he had to continue while the rental home was on the line and losing his pay or being fired could result from being late.

Finally, Sinclairs final thought about life in Packingtown was how businesses should not be owned by those with too much power, because this leads to corrupt practices in the institutions. Sinclair believed that the worker should have the ability to own such businesses. They would be deemed more fair and would support a better environment for the employees which would ensure cleaner practices. Sinclair believed that when people convert into socialism, they too will own chicago and not be at the mercy of corrupt capitalists living off from their misery and this accurately portrays the change that was to improve with the Gilded Age and Progression era of human advancement. These eras were one of American busiest with developments, however corruption raised with more profits to be made and a greater demand that called to service. The fairness of the Gilded and Progressive era was challenged with advancements with the economy. Although this lead to a bigger marketplace and created more jobs. This was very limited and ruled over by a few capitalists who made their own rules and consequences for the workers. They could get away quite easily with crimes against their own employees if they had the right connection or were feared. The justice system could be swayed with money and have the charges dropped.

In conclusion, I do believe that Sinclair achieved his goal when he had published The Jungle. Though he advocated for the fix of mistreatment, this part of thought did not gain enough recognition from Sinclair personally, the greatest concern rotated around the food condition. From Sinclairs following quote. “I aimed at the Public’s Heart, and By Accident I hit it in the Stomach…” (Upton Sinclair.“The Jungle”.Penguin,1906.)

Sinclair was putting emphasis into the living conditions and struggles that were being faced by the working immigrants of lower classes. Sinclair, however, gained more recognition from the ill practices that were containmneting the food quality and then being sold to the public for consumption. His published work was a great success, and with this success, the public was now well informed of what was happening in meat shops, along with the mistreatment of the employees making more people aware. Referencing to the quote, Enclair had a lasting effect on the stomach of the American people. Acts had been put into place to stop the malpractices that were occuring. The Pure Food and Drug Act was passed and the Meat Inspection Act, which had procedures put into place to ensure the meat and food source was fit for consumption. Sinclairs way to share his experience was indeed very effective. He showed and told the life that was faced from being a lower class worker who lost most of his family due to overworking or mistreatment, which he struggled to get back up and find the motivation to keep striding for a path to a brighter future. He explained the conditions that were faced and the harsh treatments received from business owners. Sinclair was able to advance social aspects from his efforts and sharing his voice. He reached out to the public to shine light on the dark side of capitalism and the threats it comes with.

Reference

1. Sinclair, Upton. The Jungle. New York: Penguin Books, 1985.

 Ashima, the Indian mother of the story, is born and raised in Calcutta, West Bengali which she calls home; that is until her arranged marriage with Ashoke Ganguli causes her to travel across the globe to North America and settle in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In the early stages of this transition, Ashima struggles with leaving her entire family behind to now live with a man whom she does not know, in a place that she is unfamiliar with. As she assimilates into the American culture, she experiences an internal conflict of leaving her Indian heritage behind while adapting to the American way of life. In addition, with the birth of her two children in America, she finds it hard to maintain a close-knit relationship among them, as she had with her family in Calcutta. As a family-oriented and rooted woman in her culture, Ashima attempts to influence her children to appreciate the customs of their culture, although the American culture seems to remain supreme to the children. However, it was not until an unfortunate event that truly caused Ashima to accept pieces of America, eventually making it another home in her heart. In the novel “The Namesake” by Jhumpa Lahiri, Lahiri provides an informative perspective of cultural assimilation by giving insight into similarities and differences between the Indian and American way of life through the lens of Ashima Ganguli to depict Bengali observations of American culture, the struggle of assimilating to American culture, and the final acceptance of a cultural identity that blends the two.

In the beginning, the novel opens up with Ashima stepping into motherhood, a life-changing event, in an uncomfortable American hospital which to her is “strange [considering] that…most people enter to either suffer or to die” (Lahiri 4). As a Bengali tradition, “women go home to their parents to give birth, away from their husbands and in-laws and household cares” (Lahiri 4). In between contractions, Ashima pinpoints everything that contrasts her Bengali culture, starting from the lack of her parent’s company, hearing a couple in the same predicament exchange “I love you’s,” a phrase unheard between the Gangulis, all the way to the foreign medical terminology. As she embarks on motherhood and waits for the baby, she realizes “for being a foreigner…is a sort of lifelong pregnancy- a perpetual wait, a constant burden, a continuous feeling out of sorts ( Lahiri 49). So far Ashima is not fond of America because she still feels left out and finds it hard for anyone in America to understand her Bengali way of life.

Furthermore, Ashima’s first momentous occasion in America continues downhill when the time comes to name the Ganguli’s firstborn. In Bengali, deciding on a name for a baby does not happen right after birth; matter of fact, it could take 10 days until the baby receives a name (https://www.indianhindubaby.com/indian-naming-ceremony/). Unfortunately, America does not run this way and Ashima discovers that “[releasing] a baby from the hospital [can not happen] without a birth certificate…[which] needs a name” (Lahiri 27). In America, “the symbol of heritage and lineage” portrays respect; whereas, in India, this is a disgrace, for an “individual name is scared [and] inviolable” (Lahiri 28). Ashima patiently waits for a handwritten letter from her mother holding the unique name of her child; however, since the doctors press Ashima and Ashoke to decide, they have no choice, and Ashoke stumbles upon the name “Gogol” (Lahiri 28). This experience is very impactful in Ashima’s life because this is her first time breaking Indian custom and it does not settle evenly with her.

During the stages of assimilation, there is often a feeling of solidarity and a compelling motive to return home. Ashima finds it hard to assimilate into this new world, raising a child, alone while her husband, comfortable, attending his job as a professor. “Her life, in Cambridge… already [takes] a toll [on her], evident from her “[lean] face, and [more noticeable] features [after] the wedding” (Lahiri 33). Often, Ashoke finds [Ashima] in bed, rereading her parents’ letters…quietly crying (Lahiri 33). To make matters worse, “bad news… always manages [to reach the phone]” and by now “Ashoke and Ashima are both [orphans]” (Lahiri 63). Memories of their parents and relatives are all they have and “even those family members who continue to live to seem dead somehow, always invisible, impossible to touch” (Lahiri 63). With days of being alone, “again in the gloomy three-room apartment” (Lahiri 32) Ashima reaches a point of American acceptance that “there is no one to sweep the floor or to do the dishes, or wash clothes, or shop for groceries, or prepare a meal on the days she is [in exhaust] or homesick or cross (Lahiri 32). Slowly but surely, Ashima realizes one must persevere and be able to be independent in America.

Years pass, and Ashima brings a baby girl, Sonia, into the world. The Ganguli are finally understanding, accepting, and adapting to American culture quite well. They meet other American Bengalis “who know Ashima and Ashoke,[whereas] members of that other former life [know them ] as Monu and Mithu, slowly dwindle” (Lahiri 63). Advancing over the hump in this transition takes place during the holidays when they stray away from Indian culture food. For instance, on Thanksgiving, the Ganguli “learn to roast turkeys, albeit rubbed with garlic and cumin and cayenne” (Lahiri 64). For Christmas, they “nail a wreath to their door…to wrap woolen scarves around snowmen” and “color boil eggs violet and pink for Easter and hide them around the house’ (Lahiri 64). In addition, Ashima “makes sandwiches with bologna or roast beef” and even prepares “an American dinner once a week as a treat,” consisting of “Shake’n Bake chicken or Hamburger with ground lamb” (Lahiri 65). Ashima witnesses the American change right in front of her eyes within her children who “sound just like Americans, expertly conversing in a language that still at times confounds [Ashoke and Ashima]” (Lahiri 65). With the help of Ashima’s children, she, herself, becomes more open to American traditions and begins to blend them into her life.

Unfortunately, life takes a turn of events for Ashima when she is struck by the news of her husband’s abrupt calamity. While Ashoka lives away in Cleveland for his job, his minor stomach pain causes him to visit the hospital but he extends his stay as a heart attack takes his last breath. Nothing could prepare Ashima for this devastating event. She must learn to provide for her family and truly be a strong, independent, widow. With her children and American friends’ comfort, she makes it through the mourning process. Reflecting on life with her husband, Ashima “[knows] why [Ashoke] travels to Cleveland….to teach [her] how to live alone” (Lahiri 183). Ashoke knows Ashima needs more time to assimilate, so his going away trips are teaching her to adapt to this new way of life alone, just like he once did.

For the most part, Ashima handles being thrown into a new world just like anyone else would. Cultural assimilation, particularly Indian, initiates with the migration into the “most remote and unpredictable places in America (Editorial Native). Lahiri provides readers with insight into cultural assimilation through the lens of Ashima Ganguli. Leaving a home that takes up the majority of Ashima’s life for a new country she is oblivious to is difficult. Ashima encounters various challenges dealing with “the survival of Native traditional culture” (Editorial Natives) that, at times, push her to the edge of doubt and give up; however, those experiences offer self-evaluation and tests, shaping her into the woman she is now. With time comes patience and patience, acceptance. Ashima, slowly but surely, fades away from the judgmental and observant Bengali woman in the American world to “the American Indian walking today” (Editorial Natives) who accepts and blends the two traditions into her everyday life. Furthermore, Ashima adopts America as her home away from home, carrying a new set of memories that will never be forgotten. The ongoing journey of Cultural assimilation creates a valuable result of “Indigenousness [as] the reality of an identity that has many dimensions” (Editorial Natives) which shapes America into the melting pot it is known for.