Tag Archives: immigration

You got your immigrant in my interbreeding!

Immigration is in the news. What will American become this time?

I’m shocked at David Brooks’ gross mischaracterization of history. He writes America is becoming a “nation of mutts”:

…up until now, America was primarily an outpost of European civilization. Between 1830 and 1880, 80 percent of the immigrants came from Northern and Western Europe. Over the following decades, the bulk came from Southern and Central Europe. In 1960, 75 percent of the foreign-born population came from Europe, with European ideas and European heritage.

But were all those European immigrants considered to be part of “European civilization” a century ago? In fact, even excluding American Indians, Blacks, Mexicans, Chinese and others, “we” were already being described as a nation of mutts in the 19th century. To choose one of many examples, here is Timothy Wilfred Coakley speaking at Faneuil Hall in Boston on Independence Day 1906:

We have evolved the race of races, the American race. We are sprung from all the peoples of Europe. … It was not alone that one nation was to be framed from thirteen colonies, it was that Frenchmen and Englishmen, Irishmen, Welshmen, Spaniards, Swedes, Dutchmen, Jew and Gentile, had been welded into one. It was this blend, now of mind, now of body, now of both, which made possible the type of intelligence able to grasp the opportunity and to brave the test of revolution.

American was not a product of a unitary “European civilization,” but of a “racial fraternity” of these “various European races,” which made the “American race.” Here it is in verse:

To the making of heroes like these, perforce,
Humanity’s federate blood-strains have gone;
But, Keltic or Saxon, Teuton or Norse,
Latin or Slav, they are Yankees of course,
For Freedom has fused them in one.

It’s a particular tradition of American racism to believe, as Brooks suggests, that Europeans are all one “race,” that so that only with the latest waves of immigration are “we” becoming a “nation of mutts.”


“Becoming a nation of…”

Brooks’s entry joins the “becoming a nation of…” historical parade I have described before, the roster of which comprises American nations of (in chronological order): free men, drunkards, castes, bull-dogs, music lovers, dreamers, lawyers, neurotics, coffee drinkers, the elderly, readers, illiterates, burger flippers, joiners and orthorexics.

He’s seems a little late to the parade with this term, though. I was sure I’d heard it before, not just from PETA complaining about the Obamas’ dog, but from some guy on the Op-Ed page of the Washington Times in 1997 (“America is rapidly becoming a nation of mutts. Our country’s traditional character is being systematically destroyed by nihilistic “liberals”); Jonathan Turley in 2004 (“If you want a pure breed, buy a dog”); Stanley Crouch; Joe Feuerherd; various college guides, and many more.


Filed under In the news

How many people should die waiting for citizenship? 319,462?

Just the facts. Or, a very crude estimate of the facts. You tell me if this is too many deaths.

Here I combine sources of information to produce a guess of how many undocumented immigrants will die waiting 13 years to become citizens under the proposed immigration reform bill. The information includes the number and ages of the current undocumented population, and the 2008 Hispanic life table estimates from the National Center for Health Statistics (which tell you the death rate for people in that group for every age by sex).

Here is my guess. If the 11.5 million undocumented immigrants waited 13 years to become citizens, 319,462 — or 2.8% of them — will die in the process. If that were true, do you think it would be too many, or too few?

Some details

The Congressional Research Service in 2012 estimated that there were 11.5 million undocumented immigrants in the country in 2011. This is their age distribution by sex:

undocumented age sexMy estimate makes the following unreasonable assumptions:

  1. The undocumented population is evenly distributed within each of these age groups, with the 55+ group evenly distributed between the ages 55-64 only. This is undoubtedly not true, but probably doesn’t make much difference unless the 55+ group is much older than I’m guessing.
  2. The death rates for undocumented immigrants are equal to those of the U.S. Hispanic population. Why? 81% of the undocumented population is from Latin America, so that’s where I start (which seems to be what these serious demographers did, too). This would be off because immigrants have lower mortality rates than US-born Hispanics. On the other hand, undocumented immigrants might have higher mortality than immigrants in general, especially because of health-care access problems, which the proposed bill promises not to address. I don’t know how these or other factors balance out.
  3. Nobody leaves the country alive, and no more undocumented immigrants arrive.

If you’d like to see how I did it, here is my spreadsheet. (If you don’t like the way Excel does the maths, by all means, fix it in R.)


Filed under In the news

Let a hundred churches bloom

For Independence Day, I pause to consider religious freedom and immigration.

I recently made some trips out New Hampshire Ave., in Montgomery County, MD. In a 9-mile stretch of road (including a turn off onto the road where my kids’ summer camp was), here is some of what I saw:

Muslim Community Center

St. Andrew Ukranian Orthodox Cathedral

Iglesia de Dios / Church of God

First Alliance Church

Transfiguration Church Episcopal Anglican

Eun Sam Evangelical Church of Washington

Colesville Baptist Church

Colesville Presbyterian Church

New Hampshire Avenue Gospel Chapel

Our Lady of Vietnam Parish

Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Good Shepherd United Methodist Church

Lutheran Church of St. Andrew

Lord’s Prayer Presbyterian Church

St. Thomas Indian Orthodox Church

Unitarian Universalist Church of Silver Spring

New Life Baptist Church

Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church

Heritage Christian Church

Iglesia Adventista

I counted about 30 houses of worship along what some people call the Highway to Heaven. Through some combination of immigration and residential settlement patterns, real estate and zoning conditions, and county tax exemptions, this neighborhood has become an extreme hotbed of religious centers.

I imagine that this kind of eclectic, diverse, religious cacophony is uniquely American, but maybe that’s not true. Anyway, there is something about all this post-modern pre-modernity that I get a kick out of.

Montgomery County, which abuts Washington, D.C., is a major urban suburb, with a million people. Not all those churches are filled with immigrants, but many of them are. In the county, 32% of the population is foreign-born, according to the 2010 American Community Survey (table B05006). Talk about diversity, here are the top 50 – out of 122 – countries of origin for residents of the county, color-coded by region (click to enlarge):

Montgomery County, Maryland, immigrants, by country of origin (top 50 countries, 88% of all immigrants shown).

Immigrants tip the county’s numbers toward the “traditional” side of the ledger in terms of marriage and family structure: 60% of immigrants here are married, compared with 49% of the U.S.-born adults (B06008); and 51% of immigrant kids live with both parents, compared with 46% of the natives (B05009). But their religious and cultural diversity push the county toward the less-traditional future, ethnicity-wise.

Good site for some research, I reckon.

1 Comment

Filed under Me @ work

Work product: Women’s ethnic immigration education work patterns

Five years ago Jen’nan Read and I published an article about women’s employment for 12 different ethnic groups in the U.S. In my Gender, Work, and Family seminar the other day we read it, and because of the timing in the course we were talking about developing and framing research questions. We looked at a couple of the images Jen’nan and I used to work through the many patterns we were trying to sort out in the data, and I thought the sequence might be interesting for blog readers, too. (These use data from the 2000 Census, with “employed” meaning any employment in the year 1999.)

The overall employment rates ranged widely, from 65% (Mexican, Asian Indian) to 84% (Filipina). First thing, break the groups out by education:

That helps a little. At the low end of education, employment rates are low. But at the high end, the spread is great — the line isn’t helpful — with high- and low-employment groups all found above 14 years of average education.

Next step was nativity (where they were born) and year of immigration for those born elsewhere. Looking at the high and low groups, there were distinct patterns:

Mexican women are on a diagonal line, showing a temporal progression from recent immigrants having low education and employment rates, back in time to those born in the U.S. (mostly children of earlier immigrants) with higher levels of both. The Asian Indian women are on a vertical line, with high education but low employment rates for recent immigrants, who may have come as spouses of men who had (or were getting) jobs here. The Filipinas, who are mostly labor migrants — that is, they came for their own jobs — are bunched up at high levels of both employment and education regardless of immigration timing.

This must have been the time Jen’nan hit on the title of “One Size Fits All?”, since the stories clearly diverged, and we decided to fit models of employment predictors for each group separately (details are in the paper).

One other image, a nice idea but hard to read, is also sitting in the old folder (click to enlarge):

Here there’s a dot for each ethnic group for each year of immigration. That is, the dot down in the bottom left is Mexican women who immigrated in 2000 (“M0″). The line is a weighted regression line, so it’s the overall relationship between education and employment rates. You see the Mexican women crowded around the lower left; the Filipinas in the top right; and recent Arab, Japanese, Korean and Asian Indian immigrants along the bottom. (The other initials you see are for Vietnamese, Puerto Rican, White, Chinese, Cuban, and Iranian).

When possible, I like to do this kind of descriptive exploration — making progressive slices in the data and looking at the patterns — before building complicated statistical models with a lot of factors at once. If the descriptive image survives the statistical analysis, there’s a chance of not only getting the story right, but being able to explain it.


This is cross-sectional data — that is, what each group is doing in 2000, based on the year they arrived. But it is suggestive of different immigration pathways. I’m not expert on the immigration side, but since I brought it up I should give a few pointers to recent literature on “segmented assimilation,” which focuses on such differences. The idea dates to the early 1990s, maybe this article:

These are more recent, and include reviews of the major research:

Feel free to add suggestions for additional resources in the comments.

1 Comment

Filed under Me @ work, Research reports

News from No Family For You

Inequality comes in many forms in modern societies. On this blog I’ve written about poverty as a lack of income or wealth; people also lack for jobs, health care, or food, among other things. But the more human care and well-being depend on family-based support and labor, the more we need to think about “having” a family — or the family of one’s choice — as a matter of inequality as well.

I’ve gone through some old posts and added a “no family” tag to a series that focus on absence, loss or denial of family relationships as problems of inequality — for example, the deportation of legally married spouses in homogamous couples, state eugenics programs, and the drug war’s father-removal consequences.

Once you start reading the news with this problem in mind, the stream seems endless. (For example, what about the future marriage consequences of unbalanced sex ratios resulting from sex selective abortions?) To keep up, I need to do a digest post.

No Family Update

Deportation: The first time I wrote about “Who Gets a Family?” was back in my Huffington Post days, in a story about the parents of U.S.-citizen children being deported. At the time I was shocked that, “Over the 10 years up to 2007, the U.S. deported 108,434 adults whose children were U.S. citizens.” Now we learn from the Applied Research Center’s government document investigation that 46,000 such deportations took place in just the first half of this year.

This is a family loss for both the allegedly illegal immigrant parents and their U.S.-citizen children, many of whom end up in foster care. Some people aren’t sorry for the parents, since coming to the U.S. was their risk. Others aren’t sorry for the children, because it’s their parents’ fault rather than the government’s. (Feeling justified in punishing children for the actions of their parents is one perspective on human rights I can’t get behind.) In any event it clearly shows that the birthright citizenship of these children does not include the right to keep their parents here.

Abduction: Two horrific stories of state-sponsored child abduction made the news for this roundup.

Manoli Pagador's first-born son was taken from her at birth -- the doctor said he died.

In Spain, we are gradually learning that thousands — maybe hundreds of thousands — of children were stolen from their mothers at birth by Catholic nuns and priests in cahoots with the Franco dictatorship, and sold to other families. The BBC has run a series of reports, describing how a program that started out something like American eugenics — except taking away children from socially marginal women rather than sterilizing them — developed into a profit-driven criminal enterprise under the protection of the dictatorship and the cover of Church authority.

This boy spent a year and a half in foster care before being returned to his family.

In South Dakota, hundreds of American Indian children are removed from their family homes every year and placed in White homes or group homes, in violation of the federal law requiring every effort to place them with native families. A heart-rending NPR series revealed that American Indians are 13% of the state’s children but 53% of the children in foster care. Further, the South Dakota system is using their child removals to gain federal funds and funnel money to home operators with deep connections at the highest levels of state government.

James Taylor drowned in a bathtub when he was left unattended at his group home in Schenectady, NY.

Aberration? Finally, the New York Times has a long story on deaths from neglect (my layperson’s term) in privately operated group homes, where adults with disabilities are cared for at state (and federal) expense. The Times looked into the inexcusable or unexplained deaths of hundreds of residents from choking, drowning, fire and other causes. How does this fit? The group homes in New York, as in other states, are the post-deinstitutionalization system of non-family care for people whose developmental or psychiatric disabilities prevent them from living on their own or with their families — given their economic resources. When the family can’t care, who cares? As this story shows, it’s the state that cares — sort of.

(This one struck close to home for me, since I was once a 19-year-old high school graduate working as a counselor in a group home in New York for adults with developmental disabilities. I dispensed medication, supervised household chores and relationships, cooked and cleaned with the residents, and counseled a little. Sometimes I was the only staffer with eight residents or so, even overnight, and now I’m thinking how glad I am nothing awful happened. I had a few days training, and I was very conscientious, and everyone was fine, but it might not have been.)


Filed under Uncategorized

No family-caregiver-citizenship for you

Add to the No Family For You mantra of the Defense of Marriage Act — which includes denial of immigration (or citizenship) to legal spouses of U.S. citizens — denial of a primary caregiver.

As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Citing the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama administration denied immigration benefits to a married gay couple from San Francisco and ordered the expulsion of a man who is the primary caregiver to his AIDS-afflicted spouse.

Bradford Wells, a U.S. citizen, and Anthony John Makk, a citizen of Australia, were married seven years ago in Massachusetts. They have lived together 19 years, mostly in an apartment in the Castro district. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Makk’s application to be considered for permanent residency as a spouse of an American citizen, citing the 1996 law that denies all federal benefits to same-sex couples.

Further on:

The agency’s decision cited the Defense of Marriage Act as the reason for the denial of an I-130 visa, or spousal petition that could allow Makk to apply for permanent U.S. residency. “The claimed relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary is not a petitionable relationship,” the decision said. “For a relationship to qualify as a marriage for purposes of federal law, one partner must be a man and the other a woman.”

Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder decided earlier this year that the law, commonly known as DOMA, is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds and that the administration would no longer defend it in court.

And so it goes.

1 Comment

Filed under In the news, Politics

Health paradox, illustrated

A nice illustration of immigrant advantages in infant mortality.

In almost every race/ethnic group, immigrants are healthier. Here’s the pattern for infant mortality.

Infant Mortality Rates, by Mother's Place of Birth and Race/Ethnicity: U.S., 2007

Immigrants are often healthier than the average people in the countries they came from, which explains some of this. Among Latinos in particular, researchers refer to the “epidemiological paradox,” by which Latinos’ health is surprisingly good given their economic conditions. Robert Hummer and colleagues, in a 2007 article, offered a succinct description:

…the relatively low levels of education, income, and health insurance coverage among Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic whites is thought to place the former at higher risk for negative health outcomes. However, it is well documented that some Hispanic groups exhibit similar observed death rates compared with the non-Hispanic white population and much lower death rates than the non-Hispanic black population, whom they closely resemble with respect to socioeconomic characteristics. The greatest enigma is exhibited by the Mexican-origin population of the United States. This Hispanic subgroup is characterized by low educational attainment; low health insurance coverage rates; mortality rates similar to non-Hispanic whites; and much more favorable mortality rates than those of non-Hispanic blacks across most of the life course.

The article has a lot of references to fill in the background and previous research on this paradox, which goes back at least to the 1980s. This is a fascinating and important research area, dealing with such questions as health behavior, intergenerational change, thorny puzzles about different immigrant groups, child development and lots more.


Filed under Research reports

No family for you

Images from a week in the world of family denial.

It’s been a big week for stories of families denied by state authority. Family denial came up in the form of bodily intervention (as in North Carolina’s eugenics program), border control (as when Jose Antonio Vargas‘s mother put him on a one-way plane for the U.S.), parents’ incarceration, or legal denial of family rights (the refusal to recognize homogamy).

* * *

North Carolina’s eugenics program was the subject of hearings this week, dragging on with no compensation for the living victims. A collection of literature at the State Library of North Carolina includes this 1950 propaganda pamphlet:

* * *

Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, recounted his life as an undocumented immigrant, including this photo of his mother, who put him on a plane for the U.S. with false papers, maybe never to see him again.

* * *

While a judge declared the federal anti-homogamy law unconstitutional, the New York legislature maybe moved toward legal recognition, and President Obama’s “evolution” apparently stalled.

* * *

The 40th anniversary of the drug war was a bleak reminder of the millions of U.S. families separated by incarceration during that time.

The text says, “more women and mothers are behind bars than at any time in U.S. history,” from (www.usprisonculture.com).

My graph from data in an article by Christopher Wildeman and Bruce Western in The Future of Children.


Filed under In the news, Politics

Citizenship: Because I said so

Birthrights, “anchor babies,” and shameless politics.

For a parent, “because I said so” is the ipse dixit‘s justification. For a patriot, there are substantive explanations for the moral chasm between them and us, but they all seem to be variations on the OED‘s definition of “selfish”: Devoted to or concerned with one’s own advantage or welfare to the exclusion of regard for others. The modern state’s reasons for granting or denying citizenship are a mix of “because I said so” and “because we matter and you don’t.”


Democracy is a living monument to individual rights. Except not in real life, where nationalism protects the patriot’s political shenanigans from the shame of selfishness. Today’s example: citizenship. For a newborn baby, yet to commit its first sin, what is the moral principle that lets the citizenship of it parents determine its rights?

“Birthright citizenship” — by which a baby born in the US is as American as POTUS himself — is a welcome case of legally treating children as individuals with their own rights. The rarely-mentioned fact that an “anchor baby” can’t sponsor its parents’ immigration until it turns 21 confirms that it is not the parents who have benefited from a “loophole.” Rather,  the child is itself a citizen — who may act on that privilege (or not) upon reaching the age of majority. (Aside: but shouldn’t that age be 18?)

By one conservative estimate, there are about 4 million U.S.-born children with at least one parent who is an unauthorized immigrant.

But if all those pregnant women without immigration papers think their babies will be anchors — helping them stay in the country after they “swim across the river” and give birth on U.S. soil — they’re wrong. I knew that suburban legend rang a bell, and then I remembered my own post from last year:

Over the 10 years up to 2007, the U.S. deported 108,434 adults whose children were U.S. citizens, according to a Department of Homeland Security report. The exact number of citizen children left behind in these deportations is unknown, because no one in the government cared to count them. … Either keeping your parents from being dumped over the border isn’t a right Americans enjoy, or someone in power doesn’t really think these kids are American. Or both.

Litigating exclusion

The principle of “settled law,” or stare decisis, is mutable. And when it comes to anti-immigration-election-year politics, ignorance of the law is the only excuse some people need. In the case of birthright citizenship, which some Republicans say they want to eliminate by amending or reinterpreting the 14th Amendment, the principle may be worth refreshing.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco around 1870 — after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, which reads in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

In 1894, having previously traveled to China and back as a U.S. citizen, he attempted to return from another visit there. This time, however, the authorities blocked his return on the logic that, under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, he could not be a citizen because his parents were Chinese. In an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court declared that citizenship by birth was guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

It is fashionable among anti-immigrant groups to claim that the 14th Amendment is not clear, or that the courts haven’t spoken directly to this issue. (Practically, this isn’t likely to change right away. But in the meantime, some suggest, maybe the U.S. should deny pregnant women visas.) I am especially incensed by those who pretend that undocumented immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. Tell that the undocumented immigrants executed here.

What is “jurisdiction,” anyway? Change “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to “or subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and you’d have to let at least the people of Afghanistan and Iraq vote here as well.

On the other hand

While some people are trying to gain citizenship — or at least access — others become U.S. citizens involuntarily after being declared orphans and getting adopted by American parents. A recent NY Times report highlights the scrambling confusion — followed by limbo-citizen status — for some children adopted from Haiti and granted “humanitarian parole.” (Aside from the Haiti situation, intercountry adoption has become less common, but it’s too early to tell if it’s era has ended.)

And then there are the citizens who aren’t. Being a U.S. citizen doesn’t mean the CIA can’t wage an undeclared war on you and blow you to smithereens with a drone — while your lawyer sits in jail for attempting to represent you. Such political de-Americanization was immortalized in the Phil Ochs song “The Ballad of William Worthy,” about the Black journalist convicted of traveling without a passport on his return from Cuba — having had his passport seized after a trip to China: “You are living in the free world and in the free world you must stay.”

(Aside: In the category of arbitrary citizenship rules, maybe for comparison, consider Israel. Because its national identity is religiously-defined, “Essentially, all Jews everywhere are Israeli citizens by right.” Unlike in some religions, children of Jewish parents [mothers] are assumed to be Jews, too. But, like in other religions, people can also convert to Judaism, and after ironing out a few details, those who have converted may also claim their right to Israeli citizenship. If fact, Jewish American parents who adopt children may convert them to Judaism, and then, I suppose, move them to Israel as citizens — giving them two new citizenships and one birthright religion before they’re old enough to speak for themselves. [So, what if the whole world converted to Judaism?] This automatic citizenship for some comes at the expense of those denied access to what is now Israel, including of course some people who were born there.)


There is no way — and no reason — to avoid the underlying tension of citizenship politics, which is the mind-bending level of global economic inequality, largely expressed as between-country disparities. This creates the unbearable pressure that builds along the borders between rich and poor, and fuels the politics around them. That background reality urges me toward an ends-justifies-the-means attitude regarding citizenship, in which I simply root for the policies that favor more open borders in order to increase access by the poor to a better life.

I read somewhere that, “Height variations within a population are largely genetic, but height variations between populations are mostly environmental.” Metaphorically, opportunity and the myth of meritocracy work similarly. Within some populations (say, countries), those who work hard or have better raw material may out-compete their peers and rise to the top (call that genetic). But the inequality between countries is essentially insurmountable by individual effort or ability (call that environmental).

Such are the accidents of birth — and the selfishness of the politics that covets citizenship.

Addendum: The Pew Hispanic Center has updated their report on Unauthorized Immigrants and Their U.S.-Born Children.

Leave a comment

Filed under In the news, Politics

Your family, immediately

Welcome to the United States. Where we know what a family is, and is not.

“Whether you are a visitor to the United States or U.S. citizen,” we are told, “each individual arriving into the United States must complete one or more of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) entry forms.” In particular, if you are a U.S. citizen you will be asked to complete form 6059B. (And no, if you’re wondering, there is no form 6059A in existence, as far as we know.)

Actually, not everyone has to complete one, but rather “one responsible family member,” since “ONE written declaration per family is required.” Instructions available online clarify that CBP means “immediate family.”

Which brings us to the “interesting family sociology experience” one of this blog’s informants had at the border recently.

My cohabiting girlfriend and I were returning from… Since we packed all of our stuff mixed together in our two bags (clothes, stuff we bought, etc.) we thought it was a good idea to only fill out one customs form. The form said that if you are a “family traveling together” [more or less verbatim -pnc] you only need to fill out one form, and so we thought, “Hey let’s be a family.”

Why not? In the U.S. cohabiting-but-not-married couples often think of themselves as “common law” couples and describe themselves as married — which authorities often implicitly allow. And couples may also be “domestic partners” or in “civil unions” in some states and countries, regardless of marital status.

But is that a family? It’s not according to official economics, which assumes people share expenses — and thus poverty status — only if married (according to unverified self-report) or related by birth or adoption. On the other hand, a divorced parent traveling with his kids would naturally report them as a “family” even if they don’t live together.

And the federal government will soon allow people in homogamous couples to take Family and Medical Leave Act time off work to care for their children, even if not biologically related or adopted.

Federal law does not recognize same-sex relationships. But Labor Department lawyers have concluded that people in such relationships may nevertheless qualify for family and medical leave when they act as parents, sharing the care and support of a child.

So the unmarried couple arriving at the airport has a point…

So we get up to the agent to process us and hand him our forms. He said, “I see here it says you’re a family traveling together”. We replied, “yes, we live together and have been traveling for 3 weeks; we packed all of our stuff in the same bags”. His next question: “are you married” – response “no, we live together”. Then he yelled at us extremely loudly: “what about being a family do you not understand; you know I can haul you in for lying to a border agent and saying you’re a family when you’re not.” I think I was wise to not point out that family was not defined on the form (or anywhere) and that I would love the official customs and border patrol definition of a family. We just said sorry, reiterated that we were traveling together, fumbled a bit and were eventually let through.

What if they together cared for a child who was not traveling with them? Would that make them a family? And anyway, what difference does any of this make for customs, when the purpose of the form is to

provid[e] basic information about who you are [also on your passport -pnc] and what you are bringing into the country, such as agricultural products and whether or not you have visited a farm prior to traveling to the United States.

The recognition of dominant family norms requires countless small acts of deference, much more frequent than formal declarations and proof. But when the center is not holding — as it  isn’t — then our beleaguered authorities will instead find themselves encountering countless small acts of defiance. All they had to do was say they were married.

The (not-married) secretary of Homeland Security shakes down some border agents.

1 Comment

Filed under In the news