TIME publishes instructions for ‘how to talk to your kids about immigration’
TIME to the rescue
Have you been struggling to talk to your kids about immigration? Worried they might not understand our immigration policy? Have you been pacing back and forth at night wondering how to explain that America is a nation of immigrants; and oh god, what about this whole “melting pot” thing or is it a “salad bowl” these days?
Worry no more. TIME has you covered.
News stories about the debate over the DREAM act, the tens of thousands of children who arrive unaccompanied in the U.S. each year and even the backlash against immigrants in Europe after the Charlie Hedbo killings can raise all kinds of questions and stir up all kinds of emotions for kids. This is especially true when they involve children being separated from their parents.
I distinctly remember laying in bed after an arduous day at German kindergarten, wondering how the President’s immigration policy, and Euro-Arab relations would affect me. Not really, but if I had, this article would’ve undoubtedly improved my entire childhood.
To bring clarification to the matter of immigration, children, and communication, TIME chatted with what appears to be a completely and totally unbiased, objective, and nonpartisan source, Professor of Education at Claremont Graduate University and author of Americans By Heart: Undocumented Latino Students and the Promise of Higher Education, William Perez who made the following suggestions:
Elementary Age: “A good start would be discussing their family’s history of migration to the U.S.,” he says. “Why did they first come? What were the conditions in the country of origin?” From there, the discussion can widen “to conversations about contemporary migration, and the reasons families decide to live in a new country.”
Harmless enough.
Middle School“reading narratives from families of different backgrounds about their immigration experiences.” And all the stories don’t have to come from the pages of a book. Middle school is also a great time, says Perez, for students to start “asking friends, classmates, or extended family members about their migration experiences.” How did their friends’ families come to this country? What was the experience of their grandmother, grandfather, aunts and uncles?
“Where did you come from and why is your family here?” is bound to go over fabulously in our train wreck of a public school system. Cries of racism in 3, 2, 1…
And finally, High School:
High School students “should begin to understand how immigration policies affect immigrants and their families,” says Perez. Families can discuss questions like why do some states have pro-immigrant laws while others have anti-immigrant laws? Perez also suggests that high school students read news stories about immigration from different sources, regions, and countries. Parents can encourage them to absorb what they read by asking questions like “Do these sources talk about immigration in different ways? If so, how? And why?” (One place to start might be this story in New York about an immigrant family who works fast food jobs in Texas.)
I would agree that a comparative immigration study would shed light on how generous our own immigration policies really are, although I doubt that’s the intended affect. Perez seems to perpetuate the misconception that low wage earners personify America’s immigrants, when it’s simply not the case. But he did write a book, so I’m sure he knows what he’s talking about.
Lastly, Perez wants to ensure, “that kids understand that immigration didn’t stop at Ellis Island.”
(Gratuitous clip of immigrants arriving and departing from Ellis Island in 1906, because why not?)
Thanks, TIME Magazine, for showing us how to chat with the future leaders of our once great nation about immigration. Whatever would we have done without you?
Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This makes me want to vomit. Time magazine is an utterly clueless rag.
I’m sure Time also wants that discussion to include the fact that none of the Ellis Island immigrants could look forward to receiving any type of taxpayer-funded welfare once they stepped off the boats, while today’s immigrants (both legal and illegal) receive a wide array of welfare benefits, from food stamps to “free” public education to Medicaid and “tax credits” and more, all at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars a year to U.S. taxpayers.
I’m sure Time also wants to point out how recent immigrants account for a disproportionately high percentage of total U.S. welfare recipients, when compared to the rest of the population.
And no doubt Time also wants the kiddies to discuss how the U.S. can continue to afford to import so many of the world’s poor, at such enormous expense to U.S. taxpayers in terms of the benefits and services we’re providing the immigrants, when we already have trillions of dollars in debt, and many trillions more in unfunded liabilities.
Dems will miss the rule of law when it’s gone.
There is a difference between immigration and invasion. However, it takes several years being classically trained as a highly professional journalist to forget that.
Ezzzzacly…!!!
It’s kinda like the difference between marriage and rape.
And those who are looking to legalize the invaders are essentially trying to force victims to marry their rapists in the belief that will put things right.
Next month: Time magazine publishes article on “How to talk to your kids about breaking the law”
They always skip over the part about legal immigration being OK. And the part about lib homeowners wanting their lawns cut and houses cleaned without paying for benefits or retirement for their “employees”.
TIME should cover other topics like the 2nd amendment, invasion, a well-regulated militia, and maybe some history like ‘Operation Wetback’.
Yes, dear children, your citizenship isn’t worth spit now that the politicians can use tax money they confiscate to pander to foreign invaders so as to increase the chance that those politicians will remain in office.
All laws are “pro-immigration”, in that they define the terms under which immigration is legal, hence acceptable. If citizens of another country don’t meet those terms, they are not immigrants, they are illegals/invaders. We have let the leftists define the terms.
Framing laws or states as “anti-immigrant” starts with the premise that only open borders is fair, so any law that doesn’t let the applicant set the terms is wrongly called “anti”. Immigration laws allow for productive and healthy people to move here and become Americanized. Pro standards, not anti-immigrant.
We are pro immigrant, but against criminals, which starts with illegal entry, continues with illegal employment, not to mention all the underworld/terrorist invaders. How many more “God damn America” citizens do we need?
No invader should ever be allowed to vote, even after they get their ID or driver’s license. Democrats want a hostile takeover of our voting system, by people that never bought stock in the company/country. Illegals are not being made “second class citizens”, made to hide in the shadows. They are first class citizens of another country, to which they have allegiance.
Pro-immigrant … I should have said.
Like our ancestors, once one goes through Ellis Island, we say, “Welcome to Team America”. All good teams have tryouts. We’re always looking for a few good men … and women.
Leave it to Time to only tell a small part of the story.
They must spend their nights wondering why their fearless journalism doesn’t have sales going through the roof.
Here are some more question they should ask:
“Why is the Mexican government so determined to offload millions of Mexican citizens onto the United States — particularly those who have darker skin than the Mexican ruling class?”
“Why have Mexican officials declared that Mexican nationals who have chosen to live (illegally) in the United States are still fully a part of Mexico — i.e. that they bring Mexico along with them?”
“Why did the governor of California say that his state is essentially a part of Mexico? Do you believe that being more and more like Mexico makes California a better place?”
To reinforce the Progressive brainwashing our kids get all day in school, Perez and TIME think their agenda is now sufficiently entrenched that it is safe to bring the topic into the home. Normalizing illegals is the goal.
Regardless of the intended “affect”, our immigration policies, at least as codified, are significantly less generous than those of the vast majority of First World countries. There are a lot of things that, all together, make the US the best country in the world in my opinion, but immigration rights aren’t one of them. In fact, no group has an actual right to immigrate, permanent residency status is always discretionary under our laws. There are some rights to temporary entry and work permits, but permanent residency is always discretionary.
When I marry my Bulgarian fiance in a few months, she and I will probably both submit our applications for her to become a permanent resident. This will cost me several hundred dollars, and her a few thousand, and while it’s unlikely she’d be denied, that decision is ultimately discretionary. The Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General all have unreviewable, independent power to say no. Contrast this with every single country within the European Union. There, as a citizen of Bulgaria, she has the right to permanent residency in any member country. In addition, as her husband, I will have the right to permanent residency in any of those countries. No fees, no “application” that can be denied for any reason or no reason, no waiting to be allowed entry or to be allowed to work, only a form if we are planning to stay more than three months (which is free to file). A member country can only deny an EU citizen or their direct family members permanent residency for specific reasons, and such decisions are subject to review by the courts.
We have much to be proud of in this country, our immigration system isn’t one of them.
Yeah … for those that try going through our new “Ellis Island”, the process seems painfully difficult. I’m not sure why that is, except perhaps those that have illegals or H1b’s working for them, prefer to have leverage over them.
California cries about keeping their cheap illegal labor, or threaten $5 heads of lettuce. The illegals have their own off books economy, and with all the government subsidies, probably cost us more than $5 lettuce anyway, though I doubt their numbers are right.
Those workers are used as the poster child for amnesty and open borders, but making the legal process difficult has kept that a campaign issue for decades. A smooth legal process would remove a lot of economic distortions.
Um, what you’re describing about EU immigration law
is essentially open borders with a little paperwork. I’m guessing there are some differences in the number of people trying to enter Bulgaria and trying to enter the United States, as well as which country faces a larger threat from terrorism. Being ‘The Great Satan’, America’s immigration policies need to be tight. The EU cities appear wide open to terrorist attacks, far more so than cities in the US. Looser immigration laws contribute to that.
The idea that the EU possesses anything Americans ought to aspire to is dubious, but certainly not their immigration laws. We have laws on the books not enforced and laws not on the books being enforced, which is not the intended processes. We need to reset immigration law and tweak some of it. But essential open borders? Nope.
Signed,
Third person in my family born in America.
You can’t defend the claim of the author that our laws are more generous by saying “well, we need to be less generous, therefore it’s ok.” You’re free to argue that independently, but it doesn’t do anything to defend the claim of the author.
Beyond that, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I’ve stated. Her being a citizen of Bulgaria, a member-state of the EU, means she has the right of permanent residency anywhere in the EU, and that when we get married, I will have that right as well. This isn’t open borders by any means, and arguing that fewer people hate EU member countries or want to immigrate there is just ignorant.
As grandson, husband, and father-in-law of legal immigrants, I resent the push to make “illegal immigrant” and “immigrant” synonymous. People with papers who played by the rules are immigrants. Maybe we should introduce the term “squatters” back into parlance?