IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Beyond status: Seeing the whole child

Listed author(s):
  • Morrison, Angela D.
  • Thronson, David B.
Registered author(s):

    Competing values underlie U.S. immigration law and child welfare law. Immigration law often operates in ways that intentionally hinder family unity, which in the child welfare context enjoys tremendous constitutional protection. First, the operation of immigration law undermines family unity by failing to recognize the variety of family structures that exist, which has profound implications for millions of mixed status families, that is, families in which all family members do not hold the same immigration status. Second, immigration law hinders family unity because it does not recognize children's interests as a valid factor in immigration decisions, thereby failing to take into account the best interests of the child, a concept that otherwise is universally recognized in child welfare law. Despite the U.S. immigration system's exceptional disregard for family unity and the best interests of the child, immigration status can become an issue in many contexts outside of immigration proceedings, from state intervention through child protection agencies to state court decisions in parent custody disputes. Therefore, systems and policies that affect immigrant children and their families must recognize the competing values underlying immigration law and child welfare law or risk importing improperly the immigration systems' values into other contexts in ways that discourage family unity and negatively impact children.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Evaluation and Program Planning.

    Volume (Year): 33 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 3 (August)
    Pages: 281-287

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:3:p:281-287
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:3:p:281-287. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.