Author: phamm

With the growing immigrations to the United States, the number of children of immigrants in the country have also been increasing². Such population may face numerous mental health issues associated with the process of acculturation (changes in cultural practice and values)² and threats such as deportation¹. How should psychological consequences of immigrants under these conditions be addressed?

Family separation is a common fear especially among families of mixed-status in which at least one member is unauthorized, as they are under constant threat of deportation¹. Deportation has numerous negative impacts especially for children, such as the vulnerability of unauthorized status and anxiety under deportation threat, and the detrimental psychological short- and long-term effects when deportation occurs¹. Children constantly worry and fear that their parents could be taken away from them any day, displaying the ongoing anxiety and trauma. Under these kinds of conditions, immigrants affected may need considerable mental health support. While mental health institutions may be of great help, immigrants often fail to receive such vital mental resources². They face barriers to mental health services due to cultural differences, limited access to suitable resources, and culturally insensitive clinicians². Impacts of deportation on children are made worse by the limited availability of mental health services. How then, should immigrants having mental health issues due to threats such as deportation be helped?

Deportations are usually sudden, as families are not informed before a member is suddenly taken away¹. This is a major source of the psychological effects of deportation, as the abruptness leads to families unable to see each other and be prepared prior to the event¹. The sudden disappearance of parents can be traumatic and leave children in confusion¹. Children are left unknown of and question what happened, and may have thoughts such as thinking the parent is hiding from them. A possible way to mitigate the effects of deportation then is to address its abruptness. If an immigrant is about to be deported, it may be better for the family to be informed timely, so they could be prepared and know what to expect. This is crucial especially since children would be losing a parent. In addition, if detention is involved, detained individuals should also be treated with better care, as detained immigrants have been found to be treated unfairly with no proper mental health resources¹. Mental health services could also provide support by understanding the severity in the processes of deportation and detention. Awareness of immigrants’ backgrounds may be crucial in delivering proper mental health support for immigrants. It has been suggested that the best way to provide proper treatment is to gain understanding of cultural differences and be more culturally sensitive and responsive². Understanding immigrants’ experiences and having good communication with them is crucial for clinicians to help immigrants².

Due to the issues of deportation and poor mental health resources, immigrants struggle as they are unable to receive support for their mental health. However, this conflict may be alleviated by adjusting deportation procedures and have culturally sensitive services. Overall, the best way to help immigrants is to be properly informed and educated about their backgrounds, especially regarding deportation and cultural differences. By understanding their experiences, optimal accommodations can be made to provide the best mental health support. Especially for children, who face outcomes such as separation from parent, knowing their conflicts is important.

1. Brabeck, K. M., Lykes, M. B., & Hunter, C. (2014). The psychosocial impact of detention and deportation on U.S. migrant children and families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(5), 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000011
2. APA Presidential Taskforce on Immigration (2013). Working with immigrant-origin clients: An update for mental health professionals.

As immigration grows in the US, the many immigrants would experience the process of acculturation, the changes during adaptation to the new culture¹. However, it may not be an easy process, especially with the issue of the immigrant paradox, where immigrants may face worse health outcomes the more they acculturate¹. Compared to the first generation, later generation immigrants have more mental health issues, showing the worsening effects of acculturation. If acculturation is bad for immigrants, is it better to not go through the process?

Studies have examined the immigrant paradox and suggested how worse outcomes are more associated with later generation immigrants who are more acculturated^2,3,4. Children of immigrants often lose positive attributes such as optimism and determination that their parents had when they came to the US^2,3. Furthermore, immigrant parents had more protective processes while their children are more exposed to risks². Thus, immigrant children may be more likely to have worse outcomes than their parents. Compared to their parents, they also have more negative educational attitudes and are more influenced by negative peer culture³. These explain the children’s worse educational outcomes. In addition, children may face hardships during their transitional period into adults as they try to be integrated into society⁴. This process, called liminality, is incredibly lengthy and difficult for immigrant youths due to their immigration status⁴. It has negative developmental implications and causes these children to have poor senses of belonging and identity⁴. It is not getting any better for immigrant children, as stricter regulations further threaten their chances of attaining proper citizenship. Overall, evidence suggests that immigrant children, who are more acculturated than their parents, face worse outcomes as they acculturate.

With the consequences of acculturating in the US, is it better for immigrants to refrain from acculturation? The long and harsh process of acculturation may not even be worthwhile. For example, learning English as part of acculturation, though is important, is challenging and take a very long time to be proficient in⁵. On the other hand, retaining one’s own language and becoming bilingual may be the better option, since scores on a bilingual test have been found to be better than an English-only test⁵. Being bilingual can also give intellectual and mental benefits. Thus, it may be better for immigrants then to learn enough English to be bilingual. Would refraining from acculturation also apply in other aspects? Previous studies have shown immigrant parents, who are less acculturated, to have more positive health and educational outcomes compared to their children^2,3. If the children decide to acculturate less, they may have more protective processes and less risk factors like their parents. Immigrant youths overall also have more positive outcomes than native students³, giving less incentive to become more like natives.

The consequences of the immigrant paradox limit immigrants’ abilities to acculturate. This may discourage immigrants from acculturating at all. However, it is still necessary for immigrants to adapt into the US culture. For instance, despite the hardships of liminality, immigrants still need to go through the process to attain proper status in the country. Learning English is also still vital for success in the US⁵. It may be important to understand the methods in acculturating to take the proper course of action. An acculturation model has suggested how one could selectively retain aspects of the heritage culture and receive aspects of the receiving culture¹. With this, an immigrant could determine what practices, values, and identifications to keep and what not to keep from both cultures, based on what benefits them the most. The model has suggested biculturalism, the endorsement of both heritage and receiving cultures, to be the best method of acculturation, as it has been found to be the most facilitative of health outcomes¹. Biculturalism also provides advantages for social connections, intellect, and career. This may be the recommended approach to resolve the immigrant paradox.

1. Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik, J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019330
2. Marks, A. K., Ejesi, K., & García Coll, C. (2014). Understanding the U.S. immigrant paradox in childhood and adolescence. Child Development Perspectives, 8(2), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12071
3. Greenman, E. (2013). Educational attitudes, school peer context, and the “immigrant paradox” in education. Social Science Research, 42(3), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.12.014
4. Suárez-Orozco, C., Yoshikawa, H., Teranishi, R. T., & Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (2011). Growing up in the shadows: The developmental implications of unauthorized status. Harvard Educational Review, 81(3), 438–472.
5. Suárez-Orozco, C., Suárez-Orozco, M. M., & Todorova, I. (2008). Learning a new land: Immigrant students in American society. Cambridge, MA, US: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press. (The Challenge of Language Acquisition)

With the growing number of immigrants to the United States, immigration is gaining attention as it becomes a controversial issue. It is necessary to provide information on the backgrounds and issues of immigration to properly address struggles immigrants face in many contexts¹. Furthermore, immigrant children’s developmental process should be examined, as current conditions may impact how they grow up. A theory-supported integrative developmental model is constructed to inform of factors influencing the growth of minority children². Among the factors, environment is a large component in the model, where the surrounding environment in which the child interacts with may promote or inhibit development. Constant interactions with the environment, or proximal processes, are crucial in determining how a child develops, as maintaining healthy proximal processes can tremendously help with development³.

As the environment is considered a major factor in immigrant children’s development, the characteristics of the environments children live in should be assessed. The common issue posing as an obstacle for a good environment is prejudice and discrimination. These negative attitudes play a large part in the integrative developmental model and have roles in forming promoting or inhibiting environments for minority children². Such attitudes against immigrants are prevalent as they are frequently communicated, like how United States President Donald Trump constantly denounces Mexicans, inciting negative views toward them. This leads to disadvantages, stress and worry, and poor physical and mental health for immigrants¹. For example, daily life events and unfair conditions are told to create stress and impact health in rural immigrant communities. Studies discovering the roots of these attitudes are imperative. For this purpose, some studies have found intergroup friendships, personality, and parents to have the largest influences on attitudes toward immigrants^4,5. Parents may pass down negative attitudes to their children during adolescence, but children having friends with an outgroup member may reduce such attitudes.

Knowing how negative attitudes against immigrants in children form, authorities can devise interventions to reduce such attitudes, and in turn provide better growing environments for immigrant children. Studies implied that prejudice is mostly influenced in early adolescence^4,5. Therefore, interventions should be aimed to influence attitudes during this time. Furthermore, since parents transmit negative attitudes to their children⁵, they should be targeted as part of the interventions. In addition, to further reduce prejudice, interventions could provide opportunities promoting intergroup friendships, as it tremendously helps in facilitating attitudes⁴. Family and peers are part of the microsystem, the direct surrounding environment, of Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model, a model depicting influences of different environmental systems on a person’s development⁶. This may explain the large impacts of parents and friendships on attitudes. Based on this, interventions can target parts of the system to effectively eliminate negative attitudes against immigrants. Since schools and neighborhoods are parts of the microsystem and of the promoting or inhibiting environments in the integrative model, they should also be closely assessed and shaped into suitable environments for immigrant children. Using the above suggestions, interventions need to soon be developed to combat negative attitudes against immigrants, as the current anti-immigrant trend in the US could likely be long lasting. If interventions can effectively reduce negative attitudes in children, the trend could be cut short by the growing generation of youth with more positive attitudes. So far, good progress is being made. There are programs such as workshops supporting immigrant students, which provide opportunities to build inclusive environments and promote knowledge and empathy regarding immigrants. Such efforts would help improving attitudes and create promoting environments that immigrant children need. Looking forward, if the country continues to put effort into tackling negative attitudes and their causes, it would help providing quality environments for immigrants.

References

1. APA Presidential Taskforce on Immigration (2013). Crossroads: The psychology of immigration in the new century. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 1(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/lat0000001
2. García Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., & Garcia, H. V. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67(5), 1891–1914. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131600
3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2000). Ecological systems theory. Encyclopedia of Psychology, 3, 129–133.
4. Zalk, M. H. W., & Kerr, M. (2014). Developmental trajectories of prejudice and tolerance toward immigrants from early to late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(10), 1658–1671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0164-1
5. Gniewosz, B., & Noack, P. (2015). Parental influences on adolescents’ negative attitudes toward immigrants. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(9), 1787-1802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-05-0291-3
6. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development, 1, 993-1028.