La niñera

BASIC INFO	LANGUAGE LEVEL	COMPREHENSION-AIDING FEATURES
Book Title La niñera (The Nanny) Author(s) Jennifer Degenhardt Illustrator(s) Liam Morrill Other Contributors N/A Published by Self-Published Genre Realistic Fiction Publication date September 2018 #Ownvoices No	From the author/publisher’s website Level 2 Total Word Count Not available	Illustrations NO Glossary YES Guiding Questions NO Context NO Other

IDENTITIES PRESENT IN THE TEXT		SYNOPSIS
Races, Ethnicities, and Nationalities Mexican U.S. American Latinx White Languages spoken Spanish English Sex and Genders Female Male Ages Teenager: 13-18 Mid-life Adult: 35-65 Social classes Working class Upper class	Sexual Orientation None mentioned in text (Dis)Abilities and Neurotypes None mentioned in text Religions, Syncretism, and Spirituality None mentioned in text Relationship and Family Structures Single parent Heteroparental Body Descriptions Yamila describes herself: “Mi pelo es negro y mis ojos cafés. No soy alta, pero no soy baja. Soy mediana. Soy mediana de peso también. No soy gorda pero no soy flaca. Mi piel es morena de color de café con leche. Es muy bonita” / My hair is black and my eyes are brown. I am not tall, but I am not short. I am mid-sized. I am also mid-sized in weight. I am not fat but I am not thin. My skin is brown, the color of coffee with milk. It is very pretty (p. 1). Ashley describes herself: “Soy alta, delgada y atlética. Mis dientes son perfectos también. Tengo pelo largo, soy rubia y mis ojos son azules” / I am tall, thin, and athletic. My teeth are perfect too. I have long hair, I am blonde and my eyes are blue (p. 3).	From the author/publisher’s website If being in the minority in a particular demographic isn’t demanding enough, Yamila discovers a family secret that threatens to derail the success she has encountered thus far at her competitive high school, even given the economic challenges confronted by her and her family. Experience the trials that Yamila faces in contrast to the seemingly carefree life of her best friend, Ashley, as the two characters illustrate their differences all while maintaining their relationship. La niñera is a common story, but one rarely told in accessible Spanish. Students of Spanish have access to rich vocabulary, a review of the present tense and an introduction to the past tenses in context through a story whose cultural content also presents topics worthy of discussion.

ILLUSTRATIONS	STORY	SOCIAL JUSTICE
To what extent do the illustrations present positive and thoughtful representations of identities? The cover shows a young person with long hair, makeup, and a flower in their hair. This person is holding a U.S. passport in front of a map showing footprints crossing from Mexico into the United States. Because this person accompanies the title “La niñera” / The nanny, it is presumably the nanny, Luz. However, in the story, Luz does not hold a U.S. passport, so the identity of the person is unclear.	We understand identities are complex and no single story represents the spectrum of identity-based experiences. Also, a text may address a stereotype, misrepresentation, or generalization without relying on it. *Does any stereotype, misrepresentation, or generalization affect any positive and thoughtful representations of identities in the text?* Problems faced by characters with an identity belonging to a marginalized group are resolved through the benevolent intervention of a white person, a male, a straight person, a body-abled person, etc. (saviorism) The White character Ashley generally takes the lead in the story. Her Latina friend Yamila is portrayed as a more passive sidekick. Characters of color are assumed to have low family wealth, low educational attainment and/or low income. All the Latinx characters, with the possible exception of two teachers, are portrayed as working class and low income people. This is true for the main characters (Luz, Yamila) and supporting characters (restaurant cooks, cleaners, gardeners). The last names of two teachers, Sra. Sálazar and Sr. Fuentes, suggest possible Latinx identities, although their identities are not specified in the text. Female characters are not in a variety of roles that could also be filled by a male character. The female characters are represented with stereotypically female roles such as homemakers, caretakers, etc. Social situations and problems are seen as individual problems, not situated within a societal context. Situations are shown as collective, but no political context is presented for collective issues (e.g. U.S. imperialism as a “push factor” for immigration). Characters of diverse backgrounds are represented stereotypically, or presented as foreign or exotic or are tokenized. (microaggressions) Stereotypes of immigrants pervade the text and many go unchallenged by the protagonists. Many are shown to be perpetuated by the Spanish teacher, Señora Sálazar. Active risk of harm: The teacher is presented with a Latinx last name and as giving a “model lesson,” one which causes actual risk of deportation and other harms to immigrant communities. The text does not show the teacher ever acknowledging the harm of her actions. Thus there is a real risk for teachers to see this fictional teacher’s lesson as one to emulate. It also risks being seen as the vetting of a presumably Latina leader, albeit a fictional leader, for an unethical educational practice.	This section is for teachers who are working towards sourcing more texts within the four domains of anti-bias education. We are excited about reading all books and we understand that not all books are written for this specific purpose. *Does this text work toward goals within any of the* four domains of anti-bias education as defined by Learning for Justice? Diversity: Foster intergroup understanding Justice: Raise awareness of prejudice and injustice Action: Motivate students to act by highlighting individual and collective struggles against injustice The text seems to attempt to work toward diversity, justice and action, but its impact — both in the story itself and in the negative example it sets for the reader — impairs the achievement of these goals.

LLLAB’s REVIEW
The story is told in two voices: that of Mexican-American high school student Yamila Sánchez Rivera, and her peer, White student Ashley “Ash” Collins. Yamila’s mother, Luz, immigrated to the United States twenty years ago and has been the nanny for Ash’s family for many years. Yamila and Ash are in a Spanish class in which the teacher, Señora (Sra.) Sálazar, assigns the class a project to interview a local Spanish-speaking immigrant and find out how and why they came to the United States. The students report back to their class with names, places of employment, and immigration statuses of community members they have interviewed. During this project, Yamila discovers the undocumented immigration status of her mother, and a classmate reveals this status to Yamila’s entire Spanish class. As a result, multiple students bully Yamila, and Luz’s employer, Mr. Collins, considers terminating her employment. Yamila and Ash respond by organizing a community event in which local immigrant community members share their immigration stories and field questions from the audience. Throughout the project, Señora Sálazar does not acknowledge or make reparations for the harms inflicted by her assignment. The lack of accountability for Sra. Sálazar’s actions presents a risk that readers may attempt to replicate the unethical practices presented in the book, with very real consequences for actual immigrant lives. Leaving this book for students to read independently may reinforce biases that students and/or others hold, and create active risks of harm toward real immigrant and/or Spanish-speaking communities. LLLAB strongly recommends that if this book is used in an instructional setting, it be actively supported with critical analysis of the harms committed by well-meaning people in social positions of power, such as the teachers and some of the students in the story. *___________________________________________* The text offers an opportunity to explore ideas of normalcy as seen through two different perspectives: that of Ashley and of Yamila (Chapters 1-2). In the story, Ashley says she has a “normal house” (p. 4) and a “normal life” (p. 5) in Duckston as she describes her multiple homes and expensive vehicles. The text juxtaposes this assessment of “normal” with Yamila’s description of her life in Duckston, which includes living in government-subsidized housing (p. 8). This section showcases Ash’s lack of awareness of her own class privilege. It may also reinforce stereotypes about Mexican-American families living in low-income settings in contrast with wealthy White families like that of Ashley (pp. 4-5). The text consistently refers to members of Latinx communities as ‘hispanos’/’hispanas’ (e.g. p. 43) instead of Latino/a/e/xs or more specific identities, e.g. Chicano, Boricua. Currently, there are differing perspectives on which terms to use, as evidenced by youth perspectives and survey data. When a Canadian student living in the United States, Mark LeFleur, reveals his undocumented immigration status to his class, the text challenges stereotypes that associate undocumented immigration with Latin America (p. 40). The story names the discomfort experienced by the daughter of an undocumented immigrant when she sees a map of North America in her geography class which emphasizes the border between the United States and Mexico (p. 58). By showing North America as including Mexico, this map disrupts a misperception of North America as only the U.S. and Canada (p. 58). When Ash’s father uses the term “americanos” to refer to the people of the United States, his daughter, Ash, helpfully reframes his use of ‘americanos’ as ‘estadounidenses,’ reflecting the reality that, for many people, “America” refers to an entire continent: South, Central and North America. For more discussion, see “America” at the LLLAB glossary. In the text, characters refer to people as ‘mexicana’ and ‘estadounidense,’ terms which generalize and oversimplify national identities. Although this is a common linguistic practice, national identities cannot be essentialized. For instance, since U.S.-American identities are geographically, culturally, and linguistically diverse, the descriptor ‘estadounidense’ provides little information. The same principle applies to ‘mexicana’ and other national identities. The story helpfully provides for readers a model of allyship: when the students Quinn and Jack make a documentary film, they center Latinx voices via interviews instead of centering themselves talking about Latinx community (p. 69). This practice aligns with principles of “learning ‘from’ not ‘about’” other cultures, and of amplifying voices closest to the situation. Later in the story, a local fictional politician addresses the school community at an event organized by the students: “Necesitamos reconocer que todas las personas, ya sean legales o ilegales, son muy importantes a la cultura de este país que es una mezcla de todas las culturas del mundo, y necesitamos tratarla igual” / We need to recognize that all people, whether legal or illegal, are very important to the culture of this country which is a mix of all the cultures of the world, and we need to treat them equally (p. 70). Although his statement reifies a problematic legal/illegal binary (see further discussion below), the message of respect and importance is a positive contrast to the prejudiced attitudes present in the community of Duckston. This illustrates the differences between treating people with equality vs. equity. Additionally, the text shows a student advocating for human rights by standing up to power. Ash’s father, Mr. Collins, who employs Yamila’s mother, says, “los inmigrantes indocumentados rompen las leyes. No pagan impuestos. Toman trabajos de americanos legales” / undocumented immigrants break the law. They don’t pay taxes. They take the jobs of legal Americans (p. 44). Ash counters, “Papá, aprendimos en clase que los inmigrantes sí pagan impuestos y sólo toman los trabajos que los estadounidenses no quieren hacer,” Dad, in class we learned that immigrants do pay taxes and that they only take jobs that Americans do not want to do (p. 44), to which the father responds “Ser ilegal es romper la ley. Punto” / To be illegal is to break the law. Period (p. 44). Ash stands up to her father by pointing out that U.S. dominant culture / White culture also breaks laws, e.g. banks breaking laws. She tells him, “¿Crees que es diferente cuando los bancos rompen las leyes que cuando los inmigrantes los rompen?” / Do you think it’s different when banks break the law than when immigrants break the law? (p. 45). The story shows student learning curves as Yamila takes leadership in collective advocacy (e.g. writing a letter to a legislator, pp. 64-65) and Ash learns from the experiences of others. It also shows the growth curve of a parent, as Ash’s father (Mr. Collins) is shown apologizing for previously prejudiced ideas, securing financial support for a student-led community education event about immigration, and assisting Luz, his employee, with obtaining legal residency (pp. 67-68). However, in real life, the path to obtaining legal residency in the United States can be very complex and not as simple as having the assistance of someone in the position of Mr. Collins. A supporting character, the teacher Señor (Sr.) Fuentes, asks his Geography class, “¿Algunos de ustedes conocen México?” / Do some of you know Mexico? (p. 59). Students name various vacation spots. Sr. Fuentes responds, “Es evidente que ustedes no saben mucho del tema de la inmigración ilegal” / It’s clear you don’t know much about the topic of illegal immigration (p. 59), and assigns them to Google it to prepare for a class debate next week (p. 59). Sr. Fuentes apparently expects students to talk about undocumented immigration in response to a question about Mexico, as if this were the essence of Mexico. It is surprising for a Latinx teacher to center undocumented immigration instead of cultural elements like art and history as the heart of Mexico. Both the students and the teacher display a “single view” of Mexico: the students with their vision of Mexico as “a vacation spot,” and the teacher with his view of immigration to the U.S. as essential to Mexico as a country. This may not reflect the actual depth of knowledge held by many high school students and teachers. Later, Sr. Fuentes refers to the U.S. and Mexico, respectively, as “un país con economía desarrollada y un país que está desarrollándose económicamente” / a country with developed economy and a country that is developing economically (p. 59). This language of “desarrollo” (development) reflects a colonial and neoliberal notion of “progress,” a contested perspective to which the text offers no counterpoints. Characters in the text regularly use the binary social constructs of “legal” / “illegal” to refer to the identities of human beings (e.g. pp. 34, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 70). This language is used in the text both by those inside and outside of immigrant families. In contrast, many immigrant rights groups point out that “no human being is illegal.” While some characters do also use language of “undocumented” (e.g., pp. 25, 34, 39) and “without papers” (e.g., p. 35, 48, 49), none directly confront the use of the terms “legal”/”illegal” for humans. Many passages in the text conflate the distinct identities of Latino/a/e/x, immigrant, and Spanish-language user and underscore stereotypes about these groups, such as the notion that Spanish-speaking people are all immigrants: “Necesitamos salir al pueblo para encontrar a una persona hispanohablante para entrevistarla. Aprender su historia de cómo llegó en los Estados Unidos y por qué” / We need to go to town to find a Spanish speaker to interview them. Learn about their story and how they arrived in the United States (p. 26). The statement that immigrants “only take the jobs that U.S. Americans don’t want to do” (p. 44) reinforces a false belief that immigrants are not also filling jobs requiring professional preparation. Descriptions of the characters and setting The story follows the experience of a mixed-status, Mexican-American, immigrant family. The introductory notes (p. vii) provide no information about any cultural collaboration, research sources, or sensitivity readings by Mexican-American community members. The introduction to the book refers to “the” language and culture, and “the” immigrant journey to the U.S., suggesting immigration as a “single story.” The text later states that “los inmigrantes centroamericanos viajan…” / the Central American immigrants travel (p. 26), continuing this single story about “the” immigrants. Both Yamila and Ash seem to believe that physical traits such as hair, eyes, height, weight, teeth and skin are very important things to tell about themselves and others (pp. 1, 3). The text, which is told in Yamila’s and Ash’s alternating voices, portrays a stereotyped image of “herencia mexicana” / Mexican heritage (p. 1). It does not challenge notions of “perfect teeth” (p. 3). It reinforces an association of power with people who are thin, tall and blond (p. 3). Ash later depreciates her intellectual abilities: “Soy buena estudiante, pero no soy muy inteligente. A veces necesito ayuda extra con mis clases…” / I am a good student, but I am not very intelligent. Sometimes I need extra help with my classes (p. 16). This reflects a negative self-concept as well as the connotation that receiving academic support implies a lack of intelligence. Regarding gender and class tropes, the text states that Ashley’s mother does not work “like many women of the city” but plays tennis, volunteers, and goes to lunch with friends (p. 4). Later, Ash explains why the family mostly eats at restaurants–“Mi mamá no cocina” / My mom doesn’t cook (p. 10)–but nothing is mentioned about a male parent not cooking or the kids not cooking. Furthermore, the text shows a working female, Luz, as a heroine for sacrificing herself for her family (p. 58). The text does not challenge these gender and class tropes. In the story, a classmate describes a community member: “No habla mucho inglés pero es muy simpático” / He doesn’t speak much English but he is very nice (p. 39). The use of ‘pero’ (but) instead of ‘y’ (and) stands out. The text does not directly challenge the student’s positing of “nice” and “novice English speaker” as opposites. The town of Duckston is described as very wealthy (pp. 7-8, 10-11), and as 98% White, in contrast with neighboring cities which have more racial diversity (p. 7). Ashley notes: “Los muchachos aquí en Duckston no saben la suerte que tienen de nacer en Estados Unidos y vivir en un pueblo como Duckston / Kids here in Duckston don’t know how lucky they are to have been born in the United States and to live in a town like Duckston” (p. 55). Sra. Sálazar agrees that Duckston residents are lucky to live in a wealthy city (p. 55). The inherent value that Ashley and Sra. Sálazar place on monetary wealth is not interrogated in the text, nor are the reasons for Duckston’s lack of racial diversity, nor the attitudes of supremacy seeming to underlie Ashley’s implicit belief that being born in the United States and living in Duckston is more “lucky” than being born in or living in another country or city. The Class Project Sra. Sálazar tells the class that, as part of a long-term unit of study on immigration, they have a project: to go find an immigrant to interview (pp. 22, 26). In this task, there is a risk of treating the experience of immigration as essential to someone’s personhood and life story, instead of focusing on the many other aspects of identity and life experience, such as stories of joy and resilience, that the interviewees may consider central to their lives. Sra. Sálazar perpetuates stereotypes when, in assigning this project, she asks a student, “¿tu familia tiene una empleada para limpiar la casa? ¿Tiene jardineros que cortan la grama de tu casa?”/ Does your family have a cleaner to clean your house? Does your family have gardeners to cut the lawn? (p. 23). Her question assumes the immigrant status of household employees, and promotes a stereotype associating manual labor with Spanish-speaking immigrants. While she does comment that immigrants “trabajan en todas partes” / they work everywhere (p. 23), the only examples she provides are of manual labor or entry-level jobs. She again reinforces a stereotype about types of jobs as linked to immigration status when she tells the students, “No pueden entrevistar a su niñera ni a la empleada que limpia la casa” / You can’t interview your own nannies or house cleaners (p. 26). While introducing the project, Sra. Sálazar says, “Hay muchas personas hispanas e inmigrantes que trabajan allí. Son personas fenomenales y les encanta hablar en español con la gente” / There are many hispanic people and immigrants that work there. They are phenomenal people and they love to speak Spanish with other people (p. 24). Yet just because someone speaks Spanish doesn’t mean others are entitled to a conversation in Spanish with them; many Spanish speakers prefer to speak in English for various reasons. In this project, the White students in the story are never shown exploring their family’s own historic immigration stories, with the exception of the previously-mentioned Canadian immigrant student (pp. 40-41). Instead, the story treats White students as entitled to live on the lands known as Duckston, whereas the Latinx immigrants are treated as needing to explain their presence. There is an irony of White U.S.-American students questioning immigrants “sobre su experiencia y por qué está en los Estados Unidos” / about their experience and why they are in the United States (p. 30), since the same inquiry could be directed toward the White U.S. students about why they are residing on Indigenous lands in what is colonially known as the United States. When students go to a local restaurant to seek interviews for their project, the business owner, Bill, says, “Chicas, necesitan saber que las personas hispanas que trabajan aquí son muy buena gente. Trabajan duro, son muy amables y ahora son parte de mi familia” / Girls, you need to know that the hispanic people that work here are very good people. They work hard, they are very kind, and they are now part of my family (p. 32). Bill’s statement may reflect notions of meritocracy and a “good immigrant” paradigm which can hurt immigrant communities. Saviorism, paternalism and protectionism may manifest in Bill’s actions. In those interviews, Raúl, a worker, says, “estoy aquí [en Estados Unidos] porque quiero hacerme profesional” / I am here [in the United States] because I want to become a professional (p. 31). This fortifies a stereotype that professional training is not available in the immigrants’ countries of origin. As part of the project, Ashley, Yamila and their classmates recruit community members to discuss their immigration stories (e.g., p. 31) without providing informed consent about how this information would be used, and Latinx immigrant workers are shown enthusiastically complying with students’ invasive demands for access to their information (pp. 31-32) and “answering all questions” (p. 37), e.g. Quinn and Jack’s interview with Luz: “How long have you been in the United States?”, “How long have you had your citizenship?” (p. 37), etc. The text provides no discussion about the racialized and economic power dynamics involved when rich White students (pp. 7-8, 20) request sensitive information from their immigrant neighbors (pp. 22, 26). The racialized and economic power differentials can function as coercion and nullify consent to these interviews. Throughout this project, invasive interrogations are portrayed as acceptable and welcomed by the interviewees, whose stories are exploited to serve the students’ interests–in this case, a grade on a project. The effects of the project As a result of this project, multiple characters are shown divulging confidential information about the immigration statuses of others (pp. 39-40). Yamila divulges her mother’s immigration status to her friend Ash, who just happens to also be the daughter of her mom’s employer: “mi mamá es ilegal… no tiene papeles” / my mom is illegal… she does not have documents (p. 35). Ash then divulges Luz’s status, including the fact that Luz has been using false employment documents, to Ash’s family, who are Luz’s employers. This choice not only violates principles of consent but risks subjecting Luz to the loss of her job and to deportation proceedings if her employer were to act on his biases by calling Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (pp. 44-45). Additionally, when students later report back to the class about their interviews, they openly disclose to the whole class the confidential information they have gained from their interviews, divulging interviewees’ names, immigration statuses, and places of employment (p. 39). This is a class conversation invited by Sra. Sálazar, without regard for interviewee confidentiality (pp. 39-40). Sra. Sálazar’s actions gravely violate privacy ethics (see further resources at the educational materials linked below). These ethics are not discussed in the text, and students are given no instruction about protecting the confidentiality and privacy of what is disclosed to them. This violation of privacy ethics is profoundly dangerous to the human lives involved. The text never discusses that this practice can lead to the interviewees being deported, with the interviewees and their families facing severe risks to security, wellbeing and livelihood as a result. Yamila also experiences harm, for when a classmate discloses Luz’s immigration status to Yamila’s Spanish class by a classmate, Yamila receives bullying and multiple insults from classmates (e.g. pp. 40, 42, 46, 51), e.g., “eres ilegal, tu mamá es ilegal, vete a tu país” / you are illegal, your mom is illegal, go to your country (p. 46) and “si tu mamá es ilegal, tú tmb eres ilegal” / if your mom is illegal, then you are illegal too (p. 46). This harassment occurs in-school, on social media and via text messages (pp. 42, 46), and is directed to Ashley as well (p. 51). Notably, when students start to harass Yamila in class, the classmate Mark LeFleur steps in to defend her, but Sra. Sálazar does not. The bullying that Yamila receives, “Vete a tu país” / Go to your country (p. 46), points to a widespread need in classrooms to hear various voices about what it means to belong to a country. While the text presents the identity of “estadounidense” (U.S.-American) as distinct from being an undocumented immigrant (pp. 35, 47, 64), other lines of inquiry exist about land and identity: Is it where you are born? Where you live? The land with which you have a relationship? Where your ancestors are from? The New York Times’ Learning Network’s Nicole Daniels and Vanessa Hua provide resources for further consideration. In addition to the violations of privacy ethics, Señora Sálazar provides no discussion about legal considerations for the interviews assigned to the students. For instance, a student is shown using a smartphone to record Luz’s responses (p. 37), an act which carries serious legal considerations. Additionally, there is no discussion about the risks of racial profiling as students choose whom to ask if they are an immigrant willing to tell their story; about trauma-informed interviewing; and about “need to know” principles. Furthermore, Sra. Sálazar gives students no instruction about safety measures during the interviews. Such measures could include not having a conversation within “plain view” (ability to be overheard) by members of ICE or by others who may contact ICE. Additionally, students are given no instruction about informed consent. In the story, all of this falls on the one disclosing. Instead, students are empowered to act entitled to the disclosure of personal, potentially traumatic, sensitive information that can lead to very real harm for immigrants’ bodies and psyches and that of their families. The text does not show Sra. Sálazar apologizing or acknowledging the harms to bodies and psyches that occur or could occur as a result of her actions. No one in the text calls out her actions, either. Instead, she is shown as a helpful resource when a student thanks her: “Usted es la mejor” / You’re the best (p. 56). When faced with the chaos her project has created, Sra. Sálazar asks the students, “What can we do?” (p. 55), thus putting on students, including a student from an immigrant family, the burden of repairing the harms generated by her assignment, instead of taking responsibility herself. Sra. Sálazar’s contributions toward the repair are indirect and minimal, such as wishing the students good luck as they create a community information night (p. 56) and suggesting to the students that they ask a particular politician to speak at the event (p. 62). Furthermore, since Sra. Sálazar’s surname is connected to Spanish, readers may conclude that a Latina teacher has sanctioned this harmful practice and, by extension, infer that these invasions of privacy are sanctioned by Latinx communities in general. Students’ response to the effects of the project In response to the problems created by this class project, the students in the story prepare a community education night in which the local immigrant community is invited to share their experiences with non-immigrant community members. Yamila, the Mexican-American student, reports, “Pusimos la canción El emigrante de los Celtas Cortos, una banda de México, para entretener a las personas mientras entraban en el auditorio” / We played the song The Immigrant by Los Celtas Cortos, a Mexican band, to entertain the people as they entered the auditorium (p. 69). It is unclear why this song is referenced as “entertainment,” given that the chorus of this song is “un dios maldijo la vida del emigrante / Serás mal visto por la gente en todas partes / Serás odiado por racistas maleantes” / a god cursed the life of immigrants / you will be frowned upon by people everywhere / you will be hated by racists. While intended to serve as a “welcome,” these lyrics may instead be received as microaggressive and demeaning by the immigrants coming to the event. This insensitivity on the part of the student organizers is not addressed in the text, and no further context is provided in the book about the song. Ashley manifests a sense of community entitlement as she believes that members of her overwhelmingly White community “need” to know the backstories of the immigrants that she and her classmates have interviewed: “Ellos necesitan conocer a la gente para saber sus historias” / They need to know people to know their stories (p. 56). Furthermore, the event is planned with a “panel de preguntas y respuestas” / question and answer panel (p. 65) in which non-immigrant community members may subject immigrant community members to various questions, presumably with varying degrees of invasiveness. The text does not interrogate why individual traumas should need to be disclosed to the Duckston public in order for its non-immigrant community members to believe immigrant voices, demonstrate empathy, and act for justice. White self-centering and dominating behaviors appear throughout the post-project section of the story. Ashley is shown as a White savior for the community and for her friend Yamila. Ash simultaneously acts dominating as she centers her own pain instead of caring for Yamila (p. 52), who is most harmed, and Ash repeatedly interrupts Yamila (p. 61). The White father with previously bigoted ideas becomes a hero (p. 68); the moral of the story is told by a presumably White, non-immigrant, local politician (p. 70); and the White mother gets the last word (p. 71). Immigrant voices are rarely centered in the text. Additional Resources 1. Immigration: Know Your Rights related to telling immigration status and immigration story a. Immigrants Rising, “Storytellers Bill of Rights” b. American Civil Liberties Union, “Know Your Rights When Asked About Immigration Status” 2. Policies and best professional practices re: disclosure of immigration status in schools a. Los Angeles Unified School District policy (2017): “District personnel shall not inquire about or record a student or a family member’s immigration status, and, pursuant to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), shall not disclose, without parental consent, the immigration status of any student or other personally identifiable information concerning immigration related matters.” b. National Immigration Law Center: “As of May 2016, school boards and municipalities in the following cities and counties have taken similar actions [to Los Angeles Unified School District (see above)]: San Francisco; Prince George’s County and Montgomery County, MD; Durham, NC; and Arlington, VA.” c. Immigrant Legal Resource Center: “Schools and school administrators should not ask parents, family members or students about their immigration status or citizenship. If this happens, contact an attorney for help.” d. American Civil Liberties Union: “Requiring students or students’ parents to provide schools with information regarding their immigration status, or taking other actions that significantly interfere with the right to a basic public education, violates the constitutional principles set out in Plyler [vs. Doe].” e. Kansas State University, “Understanding the disclosure management process”: This study explores the question, “In what ways do college students and graduates who self identify as ‘undocumented and unafraid’ manage the disclosure process of their legal status?” LLLAB underscores that while the decision to “come out” about one’s immigration status can be empowering, it may involve the consideration of multiple factors, and the agency for this decision rests with the person who holds the status. 3. Resources for teaching about immigration: Center for Racial Justice in Education, “RESOURCES FOR EDUCATORS AND FAMILIES ABOUT IMMIGRATION AND DACA” 4. Youth Perspectives on Identity and Belonging: NBC Latino, “Defining Latino: Young People Talk Identity, Belonging” , 14 September 2018.

LLLAB’s REVIEW

The story is told in two voices: that of Mexican-American high school student Yamila Sánchez Rivera, and her peer, White student Ashley “Ash” Collins. Yamila’s mother, Luz, immigrated to the United States twenty years ago and has been the nanny for Ash’s family for many years. Yamila and Ash are in a Spanish class in which the teacher, Señora (Sra.) Sálazar, assigns the class a project to interview a local Spanish-speaking immigrant and find out how and why they came to the United States. The students report back to their class with names, places of employment, and immigration statuses of community members they have interviewed. During this project, Yamila discovers the undocumented immigration status of her mother, and a classmate reveals this status to Yamila’s entire Spanish class. As a result, multiple students bully Yamila, and Luz’s employer, Mr. Collins, considers terminating her employment. Yamila and Ash respond by organizing a community event in which local immigrant community members share their immigration stories and field questions from the audience. Throughout the project, Señora Sálazar does not acknowledge or make reparations for the harms inflicted by her assignment. The lack of accountability for Sra. Sálazar’s actions presents a risk that readers may attempt to replicate the unethical practices presented in the book, with very real consequences for actual immigrant lives.

Leaving this book for students to read independently may reinforce biases that students and/or others hold, and create active risks of harm toward real immigrant and/or Spanish-speaking communities. LLLAB strongly recommends that if this book is used in an instructional setting, it be actively supported with critical analysis of the harms committed by well-meaning people in social positions of power, such as the teachers and some of the students in the story.
___________________________________________

The text offers an opportunity to explore ideas of normalcy as seen through two different perspectives: that of Ashley and of Yamila (Chapters 1-2). In the story, Ashley says she has a “normal house” (p. 4) and a “normal life” (p. 5) in Duckston as she describes her multiple homes and expensive vehicles. The text juxtaposes this assessment of “normal” with Yamila’s description of her life in Duckston, which includes living in government-subsidized housing (p. 8). This section showcases Ash’s lack of awareness of her own class privilege. It may also reinforce stereotypes about Mexican-American families living in low-income settings in contrast with wealthy White families like that of Ashley (pp. 4-5).

The text consistently refers to members of Latinx communities as ‘hispanos’/’hispanas’ (e.g. p. 43) instead of Latino/a/e/xs or more specific identities, e.g. Chicano, Boricua. Currently, there are differing perspectives on which terms to use, as evidenced by youth perspectives and survey data.

When a Canadian student living in the United States, Mark LeFleur, reveals his undocumented immigration status to his class, the text challenges stereotypes that associate undocumented immigration with Latin America (p. 40).

The story names the discomfort experienced by the daughter of an undocumented immigrant when she sees a map of North America in her geography class which emphasizes the border between the United States and Mexico (p. 58). By showing North America as including Mexico, this map disrupts a misperception of North America as only the U.S. and Canada (p. 58).

When Ash’s father uses the term “americanos” to refer to the people of the United States, his daughter, Ash, helpfully reframes his use of ‘americanos’ as ‘estadounidenses,’ reflecting the reality that, for many people, “America” refers to an entire continent: South, Central and North America. For more discussion, see “America” at the LLLAB glossary.

In the text, characters refer to people as ‘mexicana’ and ‘estadounidense,’ terms which generalize and oversimplify national identities. Although this is a common linguistic practice, national identities cannot be essentialized. For instance, since U.S.-American identities are geographically, culturally, and linguistically diverse, the descriptor ‘estadounidense’ provides little information. The same principle applies to ‘mexicana’ and other national identities.

The story helpfully provides for readers a model of allyship: when the students Quinn and Jack make a documentary film, they center Latinx voices via interviews instead of centering themselves talking about Latinx community (p. 69). This practice aligns with principles of “learning ‘from’ not ‘about’” other cultures, and of amplifying voices closest to the situation.

Later in the story, a local fictional politician addresses the school community at an event organized by the students: “Necesitamos reconocer que todas las personas, ya sean legales o ilegales, son muy importantes a la cultura de este país que es una mezcla de todas las culturas del mundo, y necesitamos tratarla igual” / We need to recognize that all people, whether legal or illegal, are very important to the culture of this country which is a mix of all the cultures of the world, and we need to treat them equally (p. 70). Although his statement reifies a problematic legal/illegal binary (see further discussion below), the message of respect and importance is a positive contrast to the prejudiced attitudes present in the community of Duckston. This illustrates the differences between treating people with equality vs. equity.

Additionally, the text shows a student advocating for human rights by standing up to power. Ash’s father, Mr. Collins, who employs Yamila’s mother, says, “los inmigrantes indocumentados rompen las leyes. No pagan impuestos. Toman trabajos de americanos legales” / undocumented immigrants break the law. They don’t pay taxes. They take the jobs of legal Americans (p. 44). Ash counters, “Papá, aprendimos en clase que los inmigrantes sí pagan impuestos y sólo toman los trabajos que los estadounidenses no quieren hacer,” Dad, in class we learned that immigrants do pay taxes and that they only take jobs that Americans do not want to do (p. 44), to which the father responds “Ser ilegal es romper la ley. Punto” / To be illegal is to break the law. Period (p. 44). Ash stands up to her father by pointing out that U.S. dominant culture / White culture also breaks laws, e.g. banks breaking laws. She tells him, “¿Crees que es diferente cuando los bancos rompen las leyes que cuando los inmigrantes los rompen?” / Do you think it’s different when banks break the law than when immigrants break the law? (p. 45).

The story shows student learning curves as Yamila takes leadership in collective advocacy (e.g. writing a letter to a legislator, pp. 64-65) and Ash learns from the experiences of others. It also shows the growth curve of a parent, as Ash’s father (Mr. Collins) is shown apologizing for previously prejudiced ideas, securing financial support for a student-led community education event about immigration, and assisting Luz, his employee, with obtaining legal residency (pp. 67-68). However, in real life, the path to obtaining legal residency in the United States can be very complex and not as simple as having the assistance of someone in the position of Mr. Collins.

A supporting character, the teacher Señor (Sr.) Fuentes, asks his Geography class, “¿Algunos de ustedes conocen México?” / Do some of you know Mexico? (p. 59). Students name various vacation spots. Sr. Fuentes responds, “Es evidente que ustedes no saben mucho del tema de la inmigración ilegal” / It’s clear you don’t know much about the topic of illegal immigration (p. 59), and assigns them to Google it to prepare for a class debate next week (p. 59). Sr. Fuentes apparently expects students to talk about undocumented immigration in response to a question about Mexico, as if this were the essence of Mexico. It is surprising for a Latinx teacher to center undocumented immigration instead of cultural elements like art and history as the heart of Mexico. Both the students and the teacher display a “single view” of Mexico: the students with their vision of Mexico as “a vacation spot,” and the teacher with his view of immigration to the U.S. as essential to Mexico as a country. This may not reflect the actual depth of knowledge held by many high school students and teachers.

Later, Sr. Fuentes refers to the U.S. and Mexico, respectively, as “un país con economía desarrollada y un país que está desarrollándose económicamente” / a country with developed economy and a country that is developing economically (p. 59). This language of “desarrollo” (development) reflects a colonial and neoliberal notion of “progress,” a contested perspective to which the text offers no counterpoints.

Characters in the text regularly use the binary social constructs of “legal” / “illegal” to refer to the identities of human beings (e.g. pp. 34, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 70). This language is used in the text both by those inside and outside of immigrant families. In contrast, many immigrant rights groups point out that “no human being is illegal.” While some characters do also use language of “undocumented” (e.g., pp. 25, 34, 39) and “without papers” (e.g., p. 35, 48, 49), none directly confront the use of the terms “legal”/”illegal” for humans.

Many passages in the text conflate the distinct identities of Latino/a/e/x, immigrant, and Spanish-language user and underscore stereotypes about these groups, such as the notion that Spanish-speaking people are all immigrants: “Necesitamos salir al pueblo para encontrar a una persona hispanohablante para entrevistarla. Aprender su historia de cómo llegó en los Estados Unidos y por qué” / We need to go to town to find a Spanish speaker to interview them. Learn about their story and how they arrived in the United States (p. 26).

The statement that immigrants “only take the jobs that U.S. Americans don’t want to do” (p. 44) reinforces a false belief that immigrants are not also filling jobs requiring professional preparation.

Descriptions of the characters and setting

The story follows the experience of a mixed-status, Mexican-American, immigrant family. The introductory notes (p. vii) provide no information about any cultural collaboration, research sources, or sensitivity readings by Mexican-American community members.

The introduction to the book refers to “the” language and culture, and “the” immigrant journey to the U.S., suggesting immigration as a “single story.” The text later states that “los inmigrantes centroamericanos viajan…” / the Central American immigrants travel (p. 26), continuing this single story about “the” immigrants.

Both Yamila and Ash seem to believe that physical traits such as hair, eyes, height, weight, teeth and skin are very important things to tell about themselves and others (pp. 1, 3). The text, which is told in Yamila’s and Ash’s alternating voices, portrays a stereotyped image of “herencia mexicana” / Mexican heritage (p. 1). It does not challenge notions of “perfect teeth” (p. 3). It reinforces an association of power with people who are thin, tall and blond (p. 3).

Ash later depreciates her intellectual abilities: “Soy buena estudiante, pero no soy muy inteligente. A veces necesito ayuda extra con mis clases…” / I am a good student, but I am not very intelligent. Sometimes I need extra help with my classes (p. 16). This reflects a negative self-concept as well as the connotation that receiving academic support implies a lack of intelligence.

Regarding gender and class tropes, the text states that Ashley’s mother does not work “like many women of the city” but plays tennis, volunteers, and goes to lunch with friends (p. 4). Later, Ash explains why the family mostly eats at restaurants–“Mi mamá no cocina” / My mom doesn’t cook (p. 10)–but nothing is mentioned about a male parent not cooking or the kids not cooking. Furthermore, the text shows a working female, Luz, as a heroine for sacrificing herself for her family (p. 58). The text does not challenge these gender and class tropes.

In the story, a classmate describes a community member: “No habla mucho inglés pero es muy simpático” / He doesn’t speak much English but he is very nice (p. 39). The use of ‘pero’ (but) instead of ‘y’ (and) stands out. The text does not directly challenge the student’s positing of “nice” and “novice English speaker” as opposites.

The town of Duckston is described as very wealthy (pp. 7-8, 10-11), and as 98% White, in contrast with neighboring cities which have more racial diversity (p. 7). Ashley notes: “Los muchachos aquí en Duckston no saben la suerte que tienen de nacer en Estados Unidos y vivir en un pueblo como Duckston / Kids here in Duckston don’t know how lucky they are to have been born in the United States and to live in a town like Duckston” (p. 55). Sra. Sálazar agrees that Duckston residents are lucky to live in a wealthy city (p. 55). The inherent value that Ashley and Sra. Sálazar place on monetary wealth is not interrogated in the text, nor are the reasons for Duckston’s lack of racial diversity, nor the attitudes of supremacy seeming to underlie Ashley’s implicit belief that being born in the United States and living in Duckston is more “lucky” than being born in or living in another country or city.

The Class Project

Sra. Sálazar tells the class that, as part of a long-term unit of study on immigration, they have a project: to go find an immigrant to interview (pp. 22, 26). In this task, there is a risk of treating the experience of immigration as essential to someone’s personhood and life story, instead of focusing on the many other aspects of identity and life experience, such as stories of joy and resilience, that the interviewees may consider central to their lives.

Sra. Sálazar perpetuates stereotypes when, in assigning this project, she asks a student, “¿tu familia tiene una empleada para limpiar la casa? ¿Tiene jardineros que cortan la grama de tu casa?”/ Does your family have a cleaner to clean your house? Does your family have gardeners to cut the lawn? (p. 23). Her question assumes the immigrant status of household employees, and promotes a stereotype associating manual labor with Spanish-speaking immigrants. While she does comment that immigrants “trabajan en todas partes” / they work everywhere (p. 23), the only examples she provides are of manual labor or entry-level jobs. She again reinforces a stereotype about types of jobs as linked to immigration status when she tells the students, “No pueden entrevistar a su niñera ni a la empleada que limpia la casa” / You can’t interview your own nannies or house cleaners (p. 26).

While introducing the project, Sra. Sálazar says, “Hay muchas personas hispanas e inmigrantes que trabajan allí. Son personas fenomenales y les encanta hablar en español con la gente” / There are many hispanic people and immigrants that work there. They are phenomenal people and they love to speak Spanish with other people (p. 24). Yet just because someone speaks Spanish doesn’t mean others are entitled to a conversation in Spanish with them; many Spanish speakers prefer to speak in English for various reasons.

In this project, the White students in the story are never shown exploring their family’s own historic immigration stories, with the exception of the previously-mentioned Canadian immigrant student (pp. 40-41). Instead, the story treats White students as entitled to live on the lands known as Duckston, whereas the Latinx immigrants are treated as needing to explain their presence. There is an irony of White U.S.-American students questioning immigrants “sobre su experiencia y por qué está en los Estados Unidos” / about their experience and why they are in the United States (p. 30), since the same inquiry could be directed toward the White U.S. students about why they are residing on Indigenous lands in what is colonially known as the United States.

When students go to a local restaurant to seek interviews for their project, the business owner, Bill, says, “Chicas, necesitan saber que las personas hispanas que trabajan aquí son muy buena gente. Trabajan duro, son muy amables y ahora son parte de mi familia” / Girls, you need to know that the hispanic people that work here are very good people. They work hard, they are very kind, and they are now part of my family (p. 32). Bill’s statement may reflect notions of meritocracy and a “good immigrant” paradigm which can hurt immigrant communities. Saviorism, paternalism and protectionism may manifest in Bill’s actions.

In those interviews, Raúl, a worker, says, “estoy aquí [en Estados Unidos] porque quiero hacerme profesional” / I am here [in the United States] because I want to become a professional (p. 31). This fortifies a stereotype that professional training is not available in the immigrants’ countries of origin.

As part of the project, Ashley, Yamila and their classmates recruit community members to discuss their immigration stories (e.g., p. 31) without providing informed consent about how this information would be used, and Latinx immigrant workers are shown enthusiastically complying with students’ invasive demands for access to their information (pp. 31-32) and “answering all questions” (p. 37), e.g. Quinn and Jack’s interview with Luz: “How long have you been in the United States?”, “How long have you had your citizenship?” (p. 37), etc. The text provides no discussion about the racialized and economic power dynamics involved when rich White students (pp. 7-8, 20) request sensitive information from their immigrant neighbors (pp. 22, 26). The racialized and economic power differentials can function as coercion and nullify consent to these interviews. Throughout this project, invasive interrogations are portrayed as acceptable and welcomed by the interviewees, whose stories are exploited to serve the students’ interests–in this case, a grade on a project.

The effects of the project

As a result of this project, multiple characters are shown divulging confidential information about the immigration statuses of others (pp. 39-40). Yamila divulges her mother’s immigration status to her friend Ash, who just happens to also be the daughter of her mom’s employer: “mi mamá es ilegal… no tiene papeles” / my mom is illegal… she does not have documents (p. 35). Ash then divulges Luz’s status, including the fact that Luz has been using false employment documents, to Ash’s family, who are Luz’s employers. This choice not only violates principles of consent but risks subjecting Luz to the loss of her job and to deportation proceedings if her employer were to act on his biases by calling Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (pp. 44-45). Additionally, when students later report back to the class about their interviews, they openly disclose to the whole class the confidential information they have gained from their interviews, divulging interviewees’ names, immigration statuses, and places of employment (p. 39). This is a class conversation invited by Sra. Sálazar, without regard for interviewee confidentiality (pp. 39-40). Sra. Sálazar’s actions gravely violate privacy ethics (see further resources at the educational materials linked below). These ethics are not discussed in the text, and students are given no instruction about protecting the confidentiality and privacy of what is disclosed to them. This violation of privacy ethics is profoundly dangerous to the human lives involved. The text never discusses that this practice can lead to the interviewees being deported, with the interviewees and their families facing severe risks to security, wellbeing and livelihood as a result.

Yamila also experiences harm, for when a classmate discloses Luz’s immigration status to Yamila’s Spanish class by a classmate, Yamila receives bullying and multiple insults from classmates (e.g. pp. 40, 42, 46, 51), e.g., “eres ilegal, tu mamá es ilegal, vete a tu país” / you are illegal, your mom is illegal, go to your country (p. 46) and “si tu mamá es ilegal, tú tmb eres ilegal” / if your mom is illegal, then you are illegal too (p. 46). This harassment occurs in-school, on social media and via text messages (pp. 42, 46), and is directed to Ashley as well (p. 51). Notably, when students start to harass Yamila in class, the classmate Mark LeFleur steps in to defend her, but Sra. Sálazar does not.

The bullying that Yamila receives, “Vete a tu país” / Go to your country (p. 46), points to a widespread need in classrooms to hear various voices about what it means to belong to a country. While the text presents the identity of “estadounidense” (U.S.-American) as distinct from being an undocumented immigrant (pp. 35, 47, 64), other lines of inquiry exist about land and identity: Is it where you are born? Where you live? The land with which you have a relationship? Where your ancestors are from? The New York Times’ Learning Network’s Nicole Daniels and Vanessa Hua provide resources for further consideration.

In addition to the violations of privacy ethics, Señora Sálazar provides no discussion about legal considerations for the interviews assigned to the students. For instance, a student is shown using a smartphone to record Luz’s responses (p. 37), an act which carries serious legal considerations. Additionally, there is no discussion about the risks of racial profiling as students choose whom to ask if they are an immigrant willing to tell their story; about trauma-informed interviewing; and about “need to know” principles. Furthermore, Sra. Sálazar gives students no instruction about safety measures during the interviews. Such measures could include not having a conversation within “plain view” (ability to be overheard) by members of ICE or by others who may contact ICE. Additionally, students are given no instruction about informed consent. In the story, all of this falls on the one disclosing. Instead, students are empowered to act entitled to the disclosure of personal, potentially traumatic, sensitive information that can lead to very real harm for immigrants’ bodies and psyches and that of their families.

The text does not show Sra. Sálazar apologizing or acknowledging the harms to bodies and psyches that occur or could occur as a result of her actions. No one in the text calls out her actions, either. Instead, she is shown as a helpful resource when a student thanks her: “Usted es la mejor” / You’re the best (p. 56). When faced with the chaos her project has created, Sra. Sálazar asks the students, “What can we do?” (p. 55), thus putting on students, including a student from an immigrant family, the burden of repairing the harms generated by her assignment, instead of taking responsibility herself. Sra. Sálazar’s contributions toward the repair are indirect and minimal, such as wishing the students good luck as they create a community information night (p. 56) and suggesting to the students that they ask a particular politician to speak at the event (p. 62). Furthermore, since Sra. Sálazar’s surname is connected to Spanish, readers may conclude that a Latina teacher has sanctioned this harmful practice and, by extension, infer that these invasions of privacy are sanctioned by Latinx communities in general.

Students’ response to the effects of the project

In response to the problems created by this class project, the students in the story prepare a community education night in which the local immigrant community is invited to share their experiences with non-immigrant community members. Yamila, the Mexican-American student, reports, “Pusimos la canción El emigrante de los Celtas Cortos, una banda de México, para entretener a las personas mientras entraban en el auditorio” / We played the song The Immigrant by Los Celtas Cortos, a Mexican band, to entertain the people as they entered the auditorium (p. 69). It is unclear why this song is referenced as “entertainment,” given that the chorus of this song is “un dios maldijo la vida del emigrante / Serás mal visto por la gente en todas partes / Serás odiado por racistas maleantes” / a god cursed the life of immigrants / you will be frowned upon by people everywhere / you will be hated by racists. While intended to serve as a “welcome,” these lyrics may instead be received as microaggressive and demeaning by the immigrants coming to the event. This insensitivity on the part of the student organizers is not addressed in the text, and no further context is provided in the book about the song.

Ashley manifests a sense of community entitlement as she believes that members of her overwhelmingly White community “need” to know the backstories of the immigrants that she and her classmates have interviewed: “Ellos necesitan conocer a la gente para saber sus historias” / They need to know people to know their stories (p. 56). Furthermore, the event is planned with a “panel de preguntas y respuestas” / question and answer panel (p. 65) in which non-immigrant community members may subject immigrant community members to various questions, presumably with varying degrees of invasiveness. The text does not interrogate why individual traumas should need to be disclosed to the Duckston public in order for its non-immigrant community members to believe immigrant voices, demonstrate empathy, and act for justice.

White self-centering and dominating behaviors appear throughout the post-project section of the story. Ashley is shown as a White savior for the community and for her friend Yamila. Ash simultaneously acts dominating as she centers her own pain instead of caring for Yamila (p. 52), who is most harmed, and Ash repeatedly interrupts Yamila (p. 61). The White father with previously bigoted ideas becomes a hero (p. 68); the moral of the story is told by a presumably White, non-immigrant, local politician (p. 70); and the White mother gets the last word (p. 71). Immigrant voices are rarely centered in the text.

Additional Resources

1. Immigration: Know Your Rights related to telling immigration status and immigration story
a. Immigrants Rising, “Storytellers Bill of Rights”
b. American Civil Liberties Union, “Know Your Rights When Asked About Immigration Status”

2. Policies and best professional practices re: disclosure of immigration status in schools

a. Los Angeles Unified School District policy (2017): “District personnel shall not inquire about or record a student or a family member’s immigration status, and, pursuant to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), shall not disclose, without parental consent, the immigration status of any student or other personally identifiable information concerning immigration related matters.”
b. National Immigration Law Center: “As of May 2016, school boards and municipalities in the following cities and counties have taken similar actions [to Los Angeles Unified School District (see above)]: San Francisco; Prince George’s County and Montgomery County, MD; Durham, NC; and Arlington, VA.”
c. Immigrant Legal Resource Center: “Schools and school administrators should not ask parents, family members or students about their immigration status or citizenship. If this happens, contact an attorney for help.”
d. American Civil Liberties Union: “Requiring students or students’ parents to provide schools with information regarding their immigration status, or taking other actions that significantly interfere with the right to a basic public education, violates the constitutional principles set out in Plyler [vs. Doe].”
e. Kansas State University, “Understanding the disclosure management process”: This study explores the question, “In what ways do college students and graduates who self identify as ‘undocumented and unafraid’ manage the disclosure process of their legal status?” LLLAB underscores that while the decision to “come out” about one’s immigration status can be empowering, it may involve the consideration of multiple factors, and the agency for this decision rests with the person who holds the status.

3. Resources for teaching about immigration: Center for Racial Justice in Education, “RESOURCES FOR EDUCATORS AND FAMILIES ABOUT IMMIGRATION AND DACA”

4. Youth Perspectives on Identity and Belonging: NBC Latino, “Defining Latino: Young People Talk Identity, Belonging” , 14 September 2018.

Share this:

Related

Leave a comment Cancel reply