National Identity and Integration Challenges of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Recipients
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an essay about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program (DACA), an Obama-era policy that acknowledges the so-called “Dreamers,” kids who are legally undocumented but who have been given a potential path to formal citizenship by DACA, acknowledging the fact that they already identify as, and are largely accepted as, US citizens.
I like the presence of the first author’s personal voice which coexists with a very thoroughgoing social science matrix. The personal angle does not detract from the analytical message, but rather fortifies it by providing evidence that aligns with the testimony of the other survey subjects. At times, there seems some inconsistency in temporal perspective; line 25 mentions 2019 as the present, and then at lines 614 and 623 there is a reference to the Biden administration. I understand that the research was conducted in summer and fall 2019 but that does not mean that 2019 should be referred to as ‘the present.’
The essay, though, does need more engagement with sources. I don’t know if any of the authors were involved in the Rosenberg et al article in Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Studies, June 2020, but if not that piece should be cited as it examines similar terrain. Rodríguez et al in The Journal of Youth Development is a similarly relevant study, though perhaps less urged in terms of citation. In general, I felt the amount of citations was rather sparse for a social science paper and there is a lot of literature out there both in counseling and in more humanistic fields such as cultural studies that would speak to this material. The work of Ramón Antonio Martínez on the schooling experiences of Latinx people might well be relevant. Gloria Anzaldúa’s theorization of the borderlands, or Ian Haney-López’s discussion of Latinx hybrid identity in light of critical race theory, might be relevant, although both are coming from a Chicanx perspective, and the first author as mentioned in the text was born in Argentina. One point that might be taken: the subject interviewees, Alejandro, Nick, Hady, and Carl, are all DACA kids, but they are all presented as abled, heteronormative, cisgender, and no other issues of identity come up; a slightly more intersectional perspective or an acknowledgement that some of these DACA individuals have other identities or face other challenges in US society might broaden the perspective a bit. But none of this is mandatory; the essay, though, does need a bit more engagement with sources.
It strikes me that the discussion of DACA cultural identity opens up an interesting fold in American social identification. The United states encourages its communities to assimilate, to ‘be like the other kids,’ to speak English, listen to the music and wear the clothes that are popular, and ‘fit in.' This is a powerful magnet. so that a child born in Argentina but raised in the US might identify as American the way it would both be less possible and less culturally necessary to do so in Denmark. The DACA kids have identified as American in the same way that most American kids identify as American. In other words, they are included, but then they are, in ways analyzed by sociologists from Tocqueville to Riesman to, most recently, Cass Sunstein, restrained by the society and its demands for conformity, normativity, and fitting in. DACA recognizes that these kids are,--for better or for worse for reasons that are uniquely American—American. But the pressure against DACA tries to roll back the identities these kids have both voluntarily and involuntarily acquired. That DACA identities are so quintessentially American is revealed by how the political opponents of DACA are also in essence the political (and anti-constitutional) opponents of birthright citizenship for kids of Latinx immigrants. They are objecting to the very possibility of America in both its benign role as melting pot and its more dubious avatar as instanced in the norteño ballad “La Jaula de Oro.” The US is, in this configuration, both a promised land and, as the song days, a gilded cage.
This issue becomes key to the essay at line 585, where the author states that they identify as American because they “feel more American.” America (and I take the authors’ point about the problematic aspects of referring to the US as “America”) has developed what Werner Sollors calls a consent-based identity, where if you feel American and do American things, where you seem to fit in with the culture, you are American. Why the DACA program is actually popular among them majority of the American public, crossing partisan lines to a degree, is that DACA recognizes this core affective element of American identity. The opponents of DACA not only want to exclude Latinx immigrants, but they also want to roll American identity ‘back’ into a more descent-based and ethnic identity historically seen more in the Europe of the nineteenth century. In a European country back then, it was hard to be an outsider of any sort and fit in’, as the definition of identity in that society was belonging in a genetic, not affective, way. But in this society, there would be no pressure to fit in, because it would be clear from the beginning who you are and are not, and where or not the nation you live in accepts you as one of them. The issue Carl mentions at line 508, that all Americans, except the First Nations people, come from somewhere else and can ultimately discern that immigrant identity. This paper eloquently testifies to both how American the DACA lids are and the unresolved ambiguities about American identity and to underscore the key word the authors use, belonging, that the whole DACA controversy reveals.
So, I would say, with the amendments and suggestions outlined above, especially a greater number of sources and more engagement with them, this paper is eminently publishable.
Author Response
At times, there seems some inconsistency in temporal perspective; line 25 mentions 2019 as the present, and then at lines 614 and 623 there is a reference to the Biden administration. I understand that the research was conducted in summer and fall 2019 but that does not mean that 2019 should be referred to as ‘the present.’
I think these have been corrected. (please let me know if they have not (I used “search” for 2019).
The essay, though, does need more engagement with sources.
Thank you for these suggestions. As a result, we returned to a literature search, as the initial research was conducted over a year ago. We added considerably to the literature review. We agree with you that our participants are abled and cisgendered. We will note this as a limitation of the research and an important point in future research.
Reviewer 2 Report
This research aims to understand how being immigrants before and after the passage of DACA affected participants' sense of belonging in the United States. This research falls under the community-based participatory research framework. This framework used semi-structured interviews to obtain data that identified obstacles to the participants" sense of belonging in the United States.
This research can be improved in several ways.
First, the literature review summarizes several articles but lacks a thematic presentation. At present, this literature review reads more like an annotated bibliography.
Second, even though there is no required number of participants for a qualitative study, having only four transcripts to code is limited. In addition, the DACA recipients come from only two countries, and both are in Latin America. A larger sample with DACA recipients who were from Asia or Africa would enrich the data. In addition, having the perspective of a DACA recipient who had a border crossing without inspection would probably diversify the perspective presented in this research.
Third, the connection between the research question and the obstacles is not clear. This confusion is highlighted in lines 42-47. An understanding of DACA recipients' experience does not necessarily entail obstacles. This distinction presumes there is a perceived identity, and this is contradictory to much of the literature. DACA recipients experience obstacles, but their belonging should not be questioned.
Finally, this research needs to be placed in the framework of community-based participatory research.
Author Response
This research falls under the community-based participatory research framework. This framework used semi-structured interviews to obtain data that identified obstacles to the participants" sense of belonging in the United States.
Based on our understanding of community-based research (Leavy, 2017), our study does not fit this paradigm. Although we are working with participants impacted by the problems of national policies, our primary intention is to expose the challenges and not to promote community change or action.
Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Press.
The literature review summarizes several articles but lacks a thematic presentation. At present, this literature review reads more like an annotated bibliography.
We have substantially expanded the literature review. As such, we also believe that we have better categorized specific approaches with respect to DACA: psychosocial wellbeing, political action, institutional ignorance, and hostility.
A larger sample with DACA recipients who were from Asia or Africa would enrich the data. In addition, having the perspective of a DACA recipient who had a border crossing without inspection would probably diversify the perspective presented in this research.
The research indicates that 85% of DACA recipients are from Latin America. We have added in our manuscript that a limitation in our research is that, given time limitations for this study, we were unable to interview recipients from other countries or a greater number. We agree that this would be an important addition to future research.
Their belonging should not be questioned.
We are unclear about this criticism. The majority of our sources (see References) indicate obstacles encountered by DACA recipients. DACA recipients themselves question their sense of belonging. One of the authors is a DACA recipient who has this lived experience and notes this experience of other DACA recipients.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper “National Identity and Integration Challenges of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Recipients” deals with an important subject and offers some new insights into the field of immigrant integration specifically elaborating on the experiences of immigrants in the DACA status.
The structure of an article corresponds to the main propositions of academic writing, the text is clear and unambiguous, conclusions are sound and derived from the obtained results and interpreted within the theoretical framework.
There are several minor remarks the author(s) could consider making the manuscript clearer:
The last sentence of the abstract is a bit unclear: one can integrate into society. It is not so common to say that you could integrate into identity.
In the European context, undocumented minors often refer to foreign unaccompanied minors who were most of the times separated from their families during their movement to the country of destination. The authors refer to DACA students as children living with their family (at least some of them). It would be valuable to see the family structure of interviewed respondents – who are they living with, and what is the status of their family members - are the asylum seekers, undocumented or something else which also could contribute to coping with the situation or could work as distressing factors as in some situations described in the paper.
The second point refers to the methodology description – Data Analysis section. I recommend the authors to describe the coding procedure in more detail. How was the coding plan developed, how many codes and categories were created and used? Which type of coding procedure was employed and which method of qualitative data analysis.
I would suggest also to refer to the 1st author while presenting results in the third person.
Finally, some minor spelling errors may not have been detected by the spell-checker: e.g., “Duel” instead of “Dual” (p. 14).
Author Response
The last sentence of the abstract is a bit unclear: one can integrate into society. It is not so common to say that you could integrate into identity.
Changed.
It would be valuable to see the family structure of interviewed respondents – who are they living with, and what is the status of their family members - are the asylum seekers, undocumented or something else which also could contribute to coping with the situation or could work as distressing factors as in some situations described in the paper.
Hady’s father is clearly identified as undocumented. However, given a right to privacy, most of the participants did not choose to provide information about their parents. We suspect that most are undocumented. Even though the participants’ identities are not given, people with undocumented status in the US are highly concerned about the potential for being deported.
Describe the coding procedure in more detail. How was the coding plan developed, how many codes and categories were created and used? Which type of coding procedure was employed and which method of qualitative data analysis.
We added to this, though I worry that it may not be to your complete satisfaction. The deadline of 10 days for revision was a challenge for us, especially given that the first author was not available to do revisions.
I would suggest also to refer to the 1st author while presenting results in the third person.
Another reviewer very much liked the first person. APA suggests using first person as appropriate. We felt that it helped us to separate work between the authors. On p. 2, we note why we choose to use first person for this author.
Finally, some minor spelling errors may not have been detected by the spell-checker: e.g., “Duel” instead of “Dual” (p. 14).
Found and corrected! I don’t use spell-checker as my writing is typically very good,, but I’ m happy to make any corrections like this.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The limitations section improves this manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. Although you did not ask for additional specific changes, we made some based on the editor's comments. They are as follows:
On p. 3 of the literature review, we took out references to our study ((lines 139-168). We revisit this literature in the light of our research in Conclusions (p. 17, lines 787-796)
The quote you mention is still a part of the information from reference 14; we add that on p. 3, line 150.
We added information about our small sample size with a reference on p. 5, lines 290-296. Additionally, upon more consideration of our research, we chose to ground it within phenomenology, as it is about understanding how our participants understand their common experience of DACA. We added information and references to strengthen our methods section on p. 4, lines 256-265.
Thank you,
Jody McBrien & Sofia Paschero
