Heidbrink_Marcus

Two issues in Heibrink’s article struck me as particularly important for our discussions of kinship, household, and vulnerability. The first is the legal state of aconsanguinity imposed by the Special Immigrant Juvenile visa, by which migrant children, to become sole wards of the state, must sever all kinship ties with parents and siblings, and cannot petition for relatives to immigrate to the US. This stipulation is based on the purported abuse and abandonment of the child by his family, which as Heidbrink says of the migrant she interviewed, “was not only emotionally inaccurate but also undermined his personal and financial commitment to his mother and siblings.” The emotional self-compromise of such a law is deeply reprehensible, and what is more, negates what for most people is the whole purpose of migration—to remit funds to families and communities back home. In this sense, I would be very interested to learn more about the impact of SIJ on the financial commitment of migrants to their families- are there any restrictions on remittances, contact, or visits to home communities? To what extent does SIJ impose a practical, if also symbolic, “cutting of the network?”

A second point to draw from the reading is the important role children can play in household support, management, and decision-making. Heidbrink urges greater attention to and recognition of the agency of children in shaping their life-worlds and everyday interactions. In light of the very phenomenon by which migrant children can become the primary sources of financial support for their families, we must consider 1) how children in any context can play crucial and active roles in household dynamics, and 2) how household dynamics, such as powers of decision making and relative autonomy, may change when children become primary earners. Overall, we must question the assumption of children as merely receivers of care, and consider how they may both provide care as well as shape what that care consists of.