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 !!!