As soon as someone from a community gets deported, others start to notice. Deportation creates fear amongst a community, while more pressing matters concern the welfare of the child, both mentally and physically, whose parents have just been taken away. The topic of my research project was, how children perceive the impacts and experiences of deportation on the community. The goal, hopefully, is to get the public more engaged in the conversation. To encourage them to be a little more aware, not only of the initial impacts of deportation but of the longer lasting effects. Now you may be asking, what those effects specifically are and why is it even important for non academics to be aware if we aren’t the ones doing the research? It is an indisputable fact, the children of today will, tomorrow be it leaders. It should be a concern of every parent, whether they are citizens of a particular country or not, or for any fact of any matter, to understand the implication of the reality for their child.

For a moment, imagine you are living in a country in which you are not a citizen. Now imagine that at the same time, you are trying to raise two kids. To what would you want to understand for the betterment of your children? Are they safe now and will the be secured later? How are they feeling now and what will they end up doing later? Is there anything I could be doing to help more than I am now? It falls within logic to say that if you care about your kids and you care about the environment he/she is subject to grow up in, you should therefore care about others kids. Deportation without Representation, according to this article, immigrants facing deportation have been denied basic due process protection. Tens of thousands of immigrants have either been denied a lawyer, because “although poor defendants in criminal courts are entitled to court-appointed lawyers, people in immigration courts are not,” or even when they receive legal assistance, a study from Cardoza Law Review revealed, effort and capabilities of those attorneys were a little less than competent. The main points of this article revolved around the lack of available lawyers able to assist on issues of immigration. All in all, it was a fairly interesting article to read. Though I felt that it didn’t pay much attention to the other issues facing deportees. That this article breezed past, unintentionally of coarse, the sociological aspect of deportation. The advocate for more lawyers fall far from the patterns of social relationships, social interaction and culture. From a sociological standpoint, we aim to inform and contribute to popular discourse on all levels of communication, this includes a look into the lives of those whose parents have just been deported, the ultimate product of our decisions, our kids. The lawyers and criminals of tomorrow's society. They are the ones who will either grow to help or harm our society. So if we are study the sociology of deportation, then we must discuss how our young ones will perceive and experience the impacts. If we can engage the public into conversations like this one, then we may hope to have a real high chance of mitigating and severely reducing the impacts of deportation.

The scholarly research states that community-wide fear and social isolation accentuate the psychological impacts on children, the vulnerability of a child's parent affects them severely in regards to their emotional well-being, children with an incarcerated parent are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior and experience mental health problems. The research also states that because of these matters, many are actively involved with statewide advocacy groups seeking to reform national immigration laws. Others have conducted research using participatory methods, which helped identity gaps in health care. Research that was also conducted by others included a quantitative exploration of themes that arose across findings in a participatory action research.

My topic, should help you, if not advocate the need for public discussion about the impacts on children due to deportation. These same children experiencing such events are going to be members of our society tomorrow, so we should all try our best to reduce the impacts with things like improved health care, and trust within a community.

The piece of research that I've decided to choose deals with explaining immigrant naturalization or to put it more colloquially, obtaining citizenship. My research paper topic talks about programs and policies that have been or can be set up to help mitigate the effects, indirectly and directly, of deportation and the pressure immigrants feel while here in the United States. First off, it is important to state that not everyone who is capable of naturalization does so. There are still fears and consequences that lie in the journey itself. The questions guiding the analysis of this research are, what conditions influence immigrants' propensity to become naturalized U.S. citizens? How do immigrants' individual characteristics and larger social contexts affect their propensity to naturalize through the perceived costs , benefits and meaning of naturalization? The collection to test the proposed hypothesis' was obtained from the 5 percent Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) of the 1980 U.S. census data. It is also important to note that although naturalization has its perks e.g. the right to vote, to run for political offices (except president and vice president), the right to a passport (to travel and return to the U.S.), and a broader range of jobs, it also entails certain costs. These costs include increased obligations to the host country (for example in times of war, you must serve is needed), reduced political/social rights in your country of origin, voluntarily denouncing allegiance to their former country and providing allegiance to the host country with oath (which is more psychologically damaging then it sounds), lastly a long and complicated application process. To become a citizen one of the requirement you must fulfill is to have continuously resided in the U.S. for at least 5 years. The factors that come into play when an immigrant is pondering naturalization range through a variety of individual characteristics and larger social contexts. Individualistic variables deal with whether or not the immigrant has children or not so that the children can bypass the process and become citizens as well), if they are homeowners, if they are married or have been married, if they have served in the armed forces, if they are emigrating from a socialist country and if they have intentions of helping their family members emigrate (citizens may sponsor their married or unmarried adult children and their siblings). The age at which one naturalizes also comes into play because the young don't understand the complex' of citizenship so they may not feel the need to naturalize but as they mature into working ages, their propensities increases, yet as they mature even further into old age the propensity declines because of the work load and benefit they could enjoy for only a limited time. The study also reveals that woman have a higher propensity to want to become citizens than man because of the need to be free from repressive marriages and the drive for a better occupation. Social contexts that deal with whether an immigrant should naturalize or not include if they reside farther away from their country of origin, into what type of community the submerse themselves in (urban communities have been shown to assist tremendously due to the sizable support of other ethnic groups), and whether the host country provides dual citizenship to the applicant (they get to take advantage of the benefits of their host country without giving up privileges and identity in the country of origin). This research matters not only because do we get insight at the deterrents that might or might not hold an immigrant back from naturalization but we get to discover and formulate our own methods about how to help mitigate and/or help better the well being of an immigrant residing within fear within the states. 

 Donald Trump's decision to deport all illegal immigrants is the idea being represented. The perspective of child of an immigrant is being represented here and they are wary of the fact that their family member, the one who supports and provides for them is in danger of deportation. The underlying question here could be what is the future for those kids whose parents have already or are in danger or being sent back to their country. 

   Again the perspective of an immigrant child is being represented. This image shows the internal conflict that most children may be experiencing while here in the U.S. The underlying question here could be, how does a child begin to cope with the parallels of conflicting lives such as this one? Unfortunately this is the reality for many kids. And people wonder why their mental health is at stake. 
   The idea here is slightly different in terms of economical presence. The idea being represented here is the economical contribution that immigrants have to offer. The question, what would a day in America be like without immigrants in operation? The perspective could be of those who have been taken advantage of by the system and who are overlooked until it is time for work (the illegals), then they are the same one that are begged to go back to work so others (bosses) can make their legal money. 

DACA (deferred action for childhood arrivals) helped undocumented immigrants (dreamers) by giving them and their families some sense of hope for a better tomorrow. Most first wavers (the first generation of immigrants to enter the U.S.) have shown in study that they have a “better mental health outlooks than subsequent generations.” (Villavicencio, Sept 8th) This could mainly be because they cannot articulate emotional based language as well; “they have less familiarity with diagnostics and less access to treatment than their American-citizen children.” (Villavicencio, Sept 8th) From a perspective about the welfare of children, Trumps DACA decision has doubled the pressure that millions of young ones, already troubled, now feel. “Children seem to accept chronic exhaustion, low self esteem, fear and panic, low moods and fits of crying as normal for the melancholic migrants struggling to subsist without being arrested.” (Villavicencio, Sept 8th) What will happen to our kids? Who will they stay with? Where are we safe? It it better to leave now than to face the coming end to DACA. How will us kids continue to further our education if forced to leave. Those are questions being asked by every immigrant family, parent and child. “All of these developments have spread fear among immigrants.” (Balingit and Brown, March 19th) Recently Trump has proposed to rescind DACA and send more than 800,000 immigrants, who arrived here as children but were protected by Obama's program, back to the country from which they came. America, being built on immigration, is fighting back through. Schools across the country, from Virginia to Los Angeles, have agreed to maintain a haven, a place of security from ICE agents on the hunt. “A 2011 memo barred ICE agents from interviewing people at schools, churches, hospitals and other ‘sensitive locations.’ (Balingit and Brown, March 19th) Some DACA recipients are looking to continue their education at universities in other countries. Other questions, more along the lines of concern, deal with the psychic toll of Trump's decision. The stress of constantly living in shadows while knowing that our life here might come to an end at any time can cause depression and anxiety for any sane human. As a child of immigrant parents, I find some comfort in knowing there is help and answers to our precarious situation. “Churches, community health centers and nonprofit organizations can provide referrals + bilingual therapists and conduct workshops on self-care, explaining depression and anxiety from a culturally sensitive perspective. Clinics can hire more bilingual practitioners. Teachers can check in with students from mixed- status families. All of this would be smart from a public health perspective. But it is also a moral imperative.” (Villavicencio, Sept 8th) These articles take the perspectives of parents, school counselors, superintendents, communities and advocates for Trump’s decision. Even economical and statistical perspectives are being represented. “Immediately deporting approximately 750,000 DACA recipients would cost the federal government more than $60 billion, along with a $280 billion reduction in economic growth over the next decade, according to the The Cato institute.” (Molina, August 4th) On the other hand, advocates for the anxiety and fear of Trump’s decision say that if you entered this country illegally, you should be worried about getting deported. That Obama overstepped his authority by pardoning immigrants that criminally entered this country illegally. Terror Management Theory (TMT) propose a basic psychological conflict that results from having a self-preservation instinct, whilst realizing that death is inevitable and to some extent unpredictable. This conflict produces terror, and this terror is managed by embracing cultural values, or symbolic systems that act to provide life with enduring value and meaning. This theory, of social psychology, seems like analogy for those whose conflict come from, not death, but that their life in America, for them and their children, might soon end. Whose self preservation deals with staying within the country and surviving the terrors and mental strains of immigration agents and laws. To manage this terror, immigrants seek community health centers and nonprofit organizations to provide help from therapist, to help with depression, anxiety, and fear. Parents look to bilingual workshops on immigration laws to further understand and make sense of their past present and future predicaments.

So, your task is to read this collection of articles and try to make some sense of them. What do you make of this debate? 

I have summarized the main ideas of their work, but you should identify and synthesize their arguments. 

Where do they agree? Disagree? 
From the reading, the passages inter-lapped and contrast on various points. Where they found common ground was availability to public. They wanted to make scholarly articles and academic journals more attainable to the public/masses, instead of having to pay for subscriptions past paywalls. Academia, they found, is under great pressure to conform to things like conservative agendas. From these passages I found that people are willing to learn and grow but sometimes need guidance and an open mind. Few articles disagreed on extent of participation. Political issues were a deterrent for some. How some shied away from certain issues because of perceived repercussions and then again how others got further involved because of those same issues. 

From this collection of work, what are the roadblocks to social scientists seeking to engage with a public audience? Roadblocks for social scientist participation was the expectation of powerful groups and how they wanted the academics to place their fancy degrees in service to conservative agendas. The production of material that, they think, would not be accepted by scholarly audiences. Paywalls for academic journals and last, turning academic writings into something the public would be interested in reading and articulating the findings from something too difficult for a non-academic to comprehend to a passage that can clearly be read by masses of all sorts. 

Should social science influence public debate and public policy? How might it be done? To whom should the work be addressed? Yes I think social science should influence pubic debate and public policy, how is the question? Sociologist need to get more involved in policy design rather than policy dismantling. They need to study both sides of an issue e.i. poverty. When confronting this issue, sociologist should not only focus their study on the poor and their problems but on the rich as well and how their elitism and high social ranking advertently place pressure on issues of poverty. Sociologist need to also get involved in talking to the public and not just in conversation with other academics.  

In your response, recall C. Wright Mills' discussion about the role of the social scientist. What would he say to these questions? 

And finally, what do you think? What do you make of the fact that this is a debate being had by people with advanced degrees at universities? I certainly believe that topics of the nature are worth diving into, thus why academics are so involved. I find myself agreeing with the notion that although "people with advanced degrees at universities" need to talk to one another to hopefully solve or yet alleviate some of the troubles of this earth, but conversation about the public needs to be had with the public. Multiple perspectives is a true enough fact. If the president of the united states had a conversation about poverty with the poor and homelessness than he might be able to fully understand the extent of this issue, instead he talks about poverty with the rich and educated, doesn't make sense. 

 How might the conversation change if we were to think in terms of how people with social science training outside of the university setting (and outside of the PhD) might engage with the public?

• How would you define sociology? What is the sociological perspective? 
• What is useful about sociology? What are the benefits of the sociological perspective? 
• How can it be used outside of academic walls?

Sociology, to me, would be defined as the study and observation of the world within humans, the world outside of humans and how they relate/contrast. The sociological perspective is a birds eye view, a sort of step back from yourself to observe the workings of the world you are in and the connections made with people. One great thing sociology can be used for, not to say that is isn't useful in other way but this to me is a tremendous perk, is humanitarian goals. By looking at the world and the individuals residing in it, you can start to formulate your own notions about good and bad, right and wrong, pain and pleasure, what will bring about life and what will end in death. With knowledge comes power and what better knowledge to, slowly, attain than the fact of reality and what is and what will be. I believe sociology can change the world if used in the correct manner, that is to pursue and better the quality of living, not just for you and the people are you but for the ones that have yet to come into this world and have yet to form their own ideas through a sociological perspective. Outside these academic walls, the perspective can be used to bring people together. To help those who have a hard time staying in touch with reality because of the constant stress suffered by work, poverty, injustice, societal stress, the list goes on. Bringing that consciousness to surface will allow others to work and again, pursue a better quality of life together and with that being said, I'm out, pce !!!