# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There’s an elephant in the room that I’ve been thinking about a lot over these last few weeks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I've lived in the United States with documented status since I was four months old, but I may soon have to leave this country because of our broken immigration system. This situation has impacted every aspect of my life that you can imagine: education, career, social life - even my relationship with myself. And I'm just one of over 200,000 children who have to deal with this. We were brought here as little kids, but still have no clear path to a permanent stay. We're called Documented Dreamers, the children of long-term visa holders trapped in immigration limbo.

My parents came to the U.S. as international students from India, and they were both hired by the University of Iowa shortly after graduating. The school immediately petitioned to sponsor them for their green cards, but we have yet to receive them. We've done everything by the book, but we still have sleepless nights wondering whether our applications to extend our stay, even temporarily, will get approved. I'm frustrated that I have lived here longer than my green card-holding and naturalized citizen friends, yet I lack the opportunities and sense of certainty they have.

I felt like any other American kid growing up. I remember learning how to ride my bike in our apartment complex, catching fireflies in the summer with my friends, going trick-or-treating on Halloween, and building snowmen in our neighborhood with my dad. I remember my childhood vividly and with gratitude.

But as I entered high school and my peers started getting summer jobs, I realized that I could not due to my immigration status. Preparing for college applications, I was again reminded that I was different. I was ineligible for most scholarships and savings plans to finance my education. Before my senior year at the University of Iowa, I had to enroll as a foreign student - on the very campus where I grew up.

I'm now working to complete my biomedical engineering degree, and I hope to design cardiovascular medical devices after completing my education. But because I'm considered a foreign student, I couldn't apply for internships until a couple of months ago. I felt alone as my peers got internships and planned life after college, which was a privilege to me. I was drained by the perpetual question, "Why don't you just apply for citizenship?" I began blaming myself for the legal barriers that prevented me from living my life, convincing myself that I wasn't enough.

The truth is, I can't "just apply for citizenship." When my parents brought me here more than 20 years ago, they had no idea how long they'd be waiting. Congress didn't either. In 2000, when waiting times ballooned, Congress passed a law that allowed certain people like my parents to keep renewing their employment-based visas until they, hopefully and eventually, received their green cards.

But my family has waited nearly a decade, and likely won't be able to receive their green cards for decades longer. They are among more than a million immigrants waiting in the endless green card line - all due to a 30-year-old law that prevents applicants from any one country from receiving more than 7% of available employment-based and family-sponsored green cards each year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
I Might Have to Self-Deport As Soon As I Finish College

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I've lived in the United States with documented status since I was four months old, but I may soon have to leave this country because of our broken immigration system. This situation has impacted every aspect of my life that you can imagine: education, career, social life - even my relationship with myself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Christine Emba edits The Post's In Theory blog.

Taking for granted that when you're shopping, you probably aren't going to be followed or harassed.

Knowing that you can curse, dress sloppily or misspell a word in a memo without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, poverty or substandard education of your race.

Assuming that if you buy a house in a nice neighborhood, your neighbors will be pleasant and welcoming.

Understanding that if you ask to speak to the person in charge, you'll almost certainly end up facing someone of your own race.

Feeling comfortable and "normal" in all the usual walks of public life.

What is white privilege? It's the social advantage that comes from being seen as the norm in the United States, automatically conferred irrespective of wealth, gender or other factors. It smooths out life, but in a way that's barely noticeable - unless it doesn't apply to you. In her 1988 paper "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack," Wellesley College professor Peggy McIntosh described it as a set of unearned assets that white people can count on cashing in each day even as they remain largely oblivious to their advantage.

The concept has been percolating in academic circles ever since and is approaching broad usage among young people on the political left. Yet as Post reporter Janell Ross noted this month, it's a term that many Americans "instinctively don't trust or believe to be real," despite reams of evidence to the contrary. Black children - 4-year-olds! - compose 18 percent of preschool enrollment but are given nearly half of all out-of-school suspensions. Job applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called in for an interview. Black defendants are at least 30 percent more likely to be imprisoned than white defendants for the same crime.

Why does such a fraught piece of academic lingo matter now? Because people are beginning to talk about what it means in their own lives. At a time when minorities are growing more vocal about the ways in which their experiences in the United States differ from those of their white counterparts, the idea might finally be entering the mainstream. Two weeks ago, at a forum in Iowa, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was asked by an audience member to explain what white privilege meant to her and how it had affected her life. Her response? " Look, where do I start? "

Yet every time white privilege is acknowledged, there is a backlash.

When a version of this column ran online over the Martin Luther King Jr. weekend, the comments posted in response were disappointing, to say the least. An overwhelming number of readers wrote to remind me that not all white people are privileged, a clear misreading of the term. Others denounced the very idea of white privilege, arguing that it was a falsehood invented to justify discrimination against white people at a time when we should all be moving past race. And many others suggested that perhaps black people deserved any disadvantage they faced, trotting out old canards about black-on-white crime, black violence and how if black people for once just pulled up their pants, got off welfare and worked as hard as these commenters had, everything would be fine.

Obviously not all white people are wealthy, and obviously many minorities are rich and powerful. Lots of white people are disadvantaged. But white privilege is something specific and different from the ordinary rising and falling of a free society. It's the fact that simply by virtue of being a white person, of whatever socioeconomic status, you get the benefit of the doubt. That simply isn't the case for those of other races in the United States, no matter how wealthy, smart or hard-working they are. Even when black people work as hard as or harder than their white counterparts, they have this additional barrier to surmount.

This shouldn't be controversial. Agreeing that yes, there is some advantage to being white in the United States, doesn't then mean stripping white people of their jobs and possessions. A request to acknowledge one's privilege is just a reminder to be aware - aware that you might not be able to fully understand someone else's experiences, that the assumptions you were brought up with may be blinding you, that some people may have to struggle for reasons foreign to you.

Pointing out that white privilege exists isn't the same as accusing every white person of being a racist. And acknowledging that you might benefit from such privilege doesn't mean that you're "apologizing for being white" or joining the ranks of those dreaded "social justice warriors." The most heartening comments I received last week were those from readers who understood that. Rather than reacting defensively, they asked: What's next?

Here's what's next.

Generally, we expect those with advantages to help out those who are disadvantaged. The leg up provided by white privilege offers a chance to do just that. Understanding that you benefit from white privilege offers the freedom to amplify important issues in ways that those without it cannot. It represents an opportunity to speak out more loudly against injustice, knowing you're better-protected from negative outcomes. It's the ability to use the access you're given to create opportunity and space for others.

The use of white privilege tends to be unintentional. White privilege isn't asked for, but it's also not earned. The advantages it brings are uncomfortable to acknowledge and easy to take for granted. But they shouldn't remain invisible. There's no way to level the playing field unless we first can all see how uneven it is.

Read more:

Christine Emba: What is white privilege?

Alyssa Rosenberg: Whiteness History Month is a great idea. Here are seven ways to observe it.

Terrell Jermaine Starr: There's a good reason protesters at the University of Missouri didn't want the media around

Eugene Volokh: Anti-white racial insults allegedly fly at library protest by Dartmouth NAACP chapter

Kathleen Parker: Donald Trump is the white guys' white knight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Christine Emba edits The Post's In Theory blog. Taking for granted that when you're shopping, you probably aren't going to be followed or harassed. Knowing that you can curse, dress sloppily or misspell a word in a memo without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, poverty or substandard education of your race.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U.S. immigration law is based on the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity. This fact sheet provides basic information about how the U.S. legal immigration system is designed and functions.

The body of law governing U.S. immigration policy is called the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA allows the United States to grant up to 675,000 permanent immigrant visas each year across various visa categories. On top of those 675,000 visas, the INA sets no limit on the annual admission of U.S. citizens' spouses, parents, and children under the age of 21. In addition, each year the president is required to consult with Congress and set an annual number of refugees to be admitted to the United States through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Once a person obtains an immigrant visa and comes to the United States, they become a lawful permanent resident (LPR). In some circumstances, noncitizens already inside the United States can obtain LPR status through a process known as "adjustment of status."

LPRs are eligible to apply for nearly all jobs (i.e., jobs not legitimately restricted to U.S. citizens) and can remain in the country permanently, even if they are unemployed. After residing in the United States for five years (or three years in some circumstances), LPRs are eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship. It is impossible to apply for citizenship through the normal process without first becoming an LPR.

Each year the United States also admits a variety of noncitizens on a temporary basis. Such "non-immigrant" visas are granted to everyone from tourists to foreign students to temporary workers permitted to remain in the country for years. While certain employment-based visas are subject to annual caps, other non-immigrant visas (including tourist and student visas) have no numerical limits.

I. Family-Based Immigration

Family unification is an important principle governing U.S. immigration policy. The family-based immigration system allows U.S. citizens and LPRs to bring certain family members to the United States. Family-based immigrants are admitted either as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or through the family preference system.

An unlimited number of visas are available every year for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Prospective immigrants in this category must meet standard eligibility criteria, and petitioners must meet certain age and financial requirements. Immediate relatives are:

spouses of U.S. citizens;

unmarried minor children of U.S. citizens (under 21 years old); and

parents of U.S. citizens (petitioner must be at least 21 years old to petition for a parent).

A limited number of visas are available every year under the family preference system. Prospective immigrants in the family preference system must meet standard eligibility criteria, and petitioners must meet certain age and financial requirements. The family preference system includes:

adult children (married and unmarried) and brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens (petitioner must be at least 21 years old to petition for a sibling); and

spouses and unmarried children (minor and adult) of LPRs.

In order to balance the overall number of immigrants arriving based on family relationships, Congress established a complicated system for calculating the available number of family preference visas for any given year. The number is determined by starting with 480,000 (the maximum number in principle allocated for all family-based immigrants) and then subtracting the number of immediate relative visas issued during the previous year and the number of aliens "paroled" into the United States during the previous year. Any unused employment preference immigrant numbers from the preceding year are then added to this total to establish the number of visas that are available for allocation through the family preference system. However, by law, the number of family-based visas allocated through the preference system may not be lower than 226,000. The number of immediate relatives often exceeds 250,000 in a given year and triggers the 226,000 minimum for preference visas. As a result, the total number of family-based visas often exceeds 480,000. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, family-based immigrants comprised 68.8 percent of all new LPRs in the United States.

The family-based immigration system is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Family-Based Immigration System

Immediate Relatives

U.S. Citizen adults

Spouses, unmarried minor children, and parents

* Plus any unused visas from the 4th preference.

** Plus any unused visas from 1st and 2nd preference.

***Plus any unused visas from the all other family-based preferences.

Worldwide level of family preference allocation: 480,000 minus visas issued to immediate relatives and parolees, plus unused employment-visas from previous fiscal year. Floor for preference categories: 226,000.

Source: William A. Kandel, Permanent Legal Migration to the United States, (CRS Report No. R42866) (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014), https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42866.pdf.

In order to be admitted through the family-based immigration system, a U.S. citizen or LPR sponsor must petition for an individual relative, establish the legitimacy of the relationship, meet minimum income requirements, and sign an affidavit of support stating that the sponsor will be financially responsible for the family member(s) upon arrival in the United States or adjustment to LPR status within the United States. The individual relative also must meet certain eligibility requirements that include submitting to a medical exam and obtaining required vaccinations (including a COVID-19 vaccination), an analysis of any immigration or criminal history, as well as demonstrating that they will not become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.

The spouses and children who accompany or follow the principal immigrant (the one sponsored by the U.S. citizen or LPR under the family-preference category) are referred to as derivative immigrants. Derivative immigrants also count toward the numerical caps for the categories in Table 1. That means that many of the visa slots allotted for members of these categories are often actually used by the spouses and children of the members. For example, in FY 2019, 61,031 people were admitted in the category "brothers and sisters" of U.S. citizens, but only 22,179 of them were actual brothers or sisters of U.S. citizens. The rest were spouses (14,956) and children (23,896) of the siblings of U.S. citizens.

II. Employment-Based Immigration

The United States provides various ways for immigrants with valuable skills to come to the country on either a permanent or a temporary basis.

Temporary Visa Classifications

Temporary employment-based visa classifications permit employers to hire and petition for foreign nationals for specific jobs for limited periods. Most temporary workers must work for the employer that petitioned for them and have limited ability to change jobs. There are more than 20 types of visas for temporary nonimmigrant workers. These include L-1 visas for intracompany transfers; various P visas for athletes, entertainers, and skilled performers; R-1 visas for religious workers; various A visas for diplomatic employees; O-1 visas for workers of extraordinary ability; and various H visas for both highly skilled and lesser-skilled workers. The visa classifications vary in terms of their eligibility requirements, duration, whether they permit workers to bring dependents, and other factors. In most cases, these workers must leave the United States if their status expires or if their employment is terminated. It may be possible, depending on the type of job and the foreign national's qualifications, for an employer to sponsor the worker for permanent employment. A foreign national does not have to be working for the employer in order to be sponsored. However, depending on the permanent immigration category sought and the foreign national's current nonimmigrant category, he or she may be able to complete the steps to become an LPR while continuing to live and work in the United States.

Permanent Immigration

The overall numerical limit for permanent employment-based immigrants is 140,000 per year. This number includes the immigrants plus their eligible spouses and minor unmarried children, meaning the actual number of employment-based immigrants is less than 140,000 each year. Any unused family preference immigrant numbers from the preceding year are added to this cap to establish the number of visas that are available for allocation through the employment-based system. The total number of available visas is then divided into five preference categories. For some categories, the sponsor must first test the U.S. labor market under terms and conditions established by the Department of Labor, and the Secretary of Labor must certify that the petitioner's application meets certain requirements before the sponsor may file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). For some categories, the sponsor's first step is to file a petition with USCIS or the foreign national may self-petition. The final step is the foreign national's application for an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad or an application to adjust status to LPR if in lawful status in the United States. For consular processing, the immigrant visa application cannot be filed until after USCIS approves the immigrant petition. For adjustment of status, the time to file the application depends on whether a visa number is considered to be immediately available.

The employment-based immigration system is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Permanent Employment-Based Preference System

Skilled workers with at least two years of training or experience, professionals with college degrees, or "other" workers for unskilled labor that is not temporary or seasonal.

40,040***

"Other" unskilled laborers restricted to 5,000

*Plus any unused visas from the 4th and 5th preferences.

**Plus any unused visas from the 1st preference.

***Plus any unused visas from the 1st and 2nd preference.

Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants: 140,000 for principal applicants and their dependents.

Source: Ruth Ellen Wasem, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, March 13, 2012), 4, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32235.pdf.

In FY 2019, immigrants admitted through the employment preferences made up 13.5 percent of all new LPRs in the United States.

III. Per-Country Ceilings

In addition to the numerical limits placed on the various immigration preference categories, the INA also places a limit on how many immigrants can come to the United States from any one country. Currently, no group of permanent immigrants (family-based and employment-based combined) from a single country can exceed seven percent of the total number of people immigrating to the United States in a single fiscal year. This is not a quota to ensure that certain nationalities make up seven percent of immigrants, but rather a limit that is set to prevent any immigrant group from dominating immigration flows to the United States.

IV. Refugees and Asylees

Refugees are admitted to the United States based upon an inability to return to their home countries because of a "well-founded fear of persecution" due to their race, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, religion, or national origin. Refugees apply for admission from outside of the United States, generally from a "transition country" that is outside their home country. The admission of refugees turns on numerous factors, such as the degree of risk they face, membership in a group that is of special concern to the United States (designated yearly by the president and Congress), and whether or not they have family members in the United States.

Each year, the president, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions. The overall cap is broken down into limits for each region of the world. After September 11, 2001, the number of refugees admitted into the United States fell drastically. After the Bush administration put new security checks in place, annual refugee admissions returned to their previous levels and rose during the Obama administration. During the Trump administration, the refugee ceiling fell sharply, from 110,000 in FY 2017 to 45,000 in FY 2018 and 30,000 in FY 2019. For FY 2020, the ceiling was set at an all-time low of 18,000-although only 11,814 were actually admitted (the lowest number of admitted refugees since the system was created in 1980.) The FY 2021 ceiling was set at 15,000 by the Trump administration, but was subsequently raised to 62,500 by the Biden administration. However, as of August 31, 2021, only 7,637 refugees had been admitted with just one month remaining in the current fiscal year.

Of the 62,500 admissions determined by the president for FY 2021, the regional allocations are shown in Table 3 below. Given the slow pace of admissions, it is unlikely that any of these allocations will be met.
Table 3: Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions, FY 2021
Asylum is available to persons already in the United States who are seeking protection based on the same five protected grounds upon which refugees rely. They may apply at a port of entry at the time they seek admission or within one year of arriving in the United States. There is no limit on the number of individuals who may be granted asylum each year, nor are there specific categories for determining who may seek asylum. In FY 2019, 46,508 individuals were granted asylum.

Refugees and asylees are eligible to become LPRs one year after admission to the United States as a refugee or one year after receiving asylum.

V. The Diversity Visa Program

The Diversity Visa Program was created by the Immigration Act of 1990 as a dedicated channel for immigrants from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. Each year, 55,000 visas are allocated randomly through a computer-generated lottery to nationals from countries that have sent fewer than 50,000 immigrants to the United States in the previous five years. Of the 55,000, up to 5,000 are made available for use under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act program, created in 1997 to provide relief to certain asylum seekers who applied for asylum before a specific date. This results in a reduction of the actual annual diversity visa limit to 50,000. The program was originally intended to favor immigration from Ireland (during the first three years of the program at least 40 percent of the visas were exclusively allocated to Irish immigrants). Diversity visas are now distributed on a regional basis and benefit Africans and Eastern Europeans in particular.

To be eligible for a diversity visa, potential applicants from qualifying countries must have a high-school education (or its equivalent) or have, within the past five years, a minimum of two years working in a profession requiring at least two years of training or experience. Spouses and minor unmarried children of the principal applicant may also enter as derivatives.

Immigration bans implemented by the Trump administration effectively shut down the Diversity Visa Program in 2020 and left roughly 43,000 of that year's lottery winners without their visas. Those 2020 lottery winners who did not receive visas by the end of the fiscal year lost their chance to immigrate to the United States, prompting some of them to file lawsuits against the federal government in an effort to obtain their visas. Although the Biden administration subsequently lifted the immigration bans, the Diversity Visa Program has resumed at a very slow pace. By the end of June 2021, the State Department had issued only 3,094 diversity visas for FY 2021. Some FY 2021 lottery winners have filed lawsuits demanding that the State Department issue their visas before the end of the fiscal year.

VI. Other Forms of Humanitarian Relief

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is is granted to people who are in the United States but cannot return to their home country because of "natural disaster," "extraordinary temporary conditions," or "ongoing armed conflict." TPS is granted to a country for six, twelve, or eighteen months and can be extended beyond that if unsafe conditions in the country persist. TPS does not necessarily lead to LPR status or confer any other immigration status.

Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) provides protection from deportation for individuals whose home countries are unstable, therefore making return dangerous. Unlike TPS, which is authorized by statute, DED is at the discretion of the executive branch. DED does not necessarily lead to LPR status or confer any other immigration status.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a program established in 2012 which permits certain individuals who were brought to the United States while under the age of 16 and who have resided continuously in the United States since June 15, 2007, to remain in the United States and work lawfully for at least two years, so long as they have no significant criminal record and have graduated high school or college or received a degree equivalent. It does not confer any path to permanent legal status and requires renewal every two years. In 2017, the Trump administration attempted to end DACA, but this action was challenged in court. In June 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration's attempt to terminate the program was unlawful. The Trump administration subsequently tried to impose new limits on DACA, but this action was also challenged in court and a federal judge in New York ordered the administration to set aside the newly imposed limits. Separately, a federal judge in Texas ruled that DACA was unlawful and that no new, first-time applications should be accepted. In January 2021, President Biden issued a memorandum reaffirming the federal government's commitment to DACA and pledging to appeal the Texas ruling.

Humanitarian parole allows certain individuals to enter the United States, even though they may not meet the definition of a refugee and may not be eligible to immigrate through other channels. Parolees may be admitted temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.

VII. U.S. Citizenship

In order to qualify for U.S. citizenship through naturalization, an individual must have had LPR status (a green card) for at least five years (or three years if he or she obtained the green card through a U.S.-citizen spouse or through the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA). There are other exceptions including, but not limited to, members of the U.S. military who serve in a time of war or declared hostilities. Applicants for U.S. citizenship must be at least 18 years old, demonstrate continuous residency, demonstrate "good moral character," pass English and U.S. history and civics exams (with certain exceptions), and pay an application fee, among other requirements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the United States Immigration System Works

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. immigration law is very complex, and there is much confusion as to how it works. This fact sheet provides basic information about how the U.S. legal immigration system is designed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Heartbreaking Moment When Kids Learn About White Privilege | The School That Tried to End Racism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Adriana had long looked forward to her 16th birthday - but when the date finally arrived, she celebrated not at home with her family and friends, but in a Texas center for immigrants that felt more like a prison.

"That day I didn't do anything. I just sat there and I cried and cried all day," Adriana recalls to Teen Vogue. Weeks earlier, she had fled El Salvador with her mother and sister, Allison, then 13, crossing the Rio Grande in order to escape violence. When they entered the United States, they didn't have any authorization, and when they were picked up by border patrol officials, they said they were seeking asylum.

The three have found themselves stuck in a system of family detention, where other women and children like themselves are kept under lock and key.

Until 2014, under the Obama administration, children and children traveling with families seeking asylum in the U.S., like Adriana (now 17) and Allison (now 15), were required to be held in the least restrictive setting appropriate for their age while they awaited their court dates. In 2014, however, following a summer of Central American violence that saw tens of thousands of families and children (more than 68,000 families and 68,000 unaccompanied children were apprehended by agents between fall 2013 and 2014) stopped by border patrol, those hoping for asylum began increasingly finding themselves sent to detention centers, often privately run, for stays that extended indefinitely. Then Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson explained at the time that detaining asylum seekers was seen as a method of deterring others from crossing the border. The new policy has led to a dramatically different experience for families seeking to immigrate. As of August 2016, more than 2,000 women and children were being held at facilities in Texas and Pennsylvania maintained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE).

The facilities, two in Texas and a smaller one in Pennsylvania, are restrictive, dorm-like settings, often compared to cozier-looking prisons, where mothers and children as young as two weeks old are policed by guards. Meals, school, and recreation all take place within the center, and families share rooms with strangers. Some of the centers have features like playgrounds and salons. However, the inability to leave and the monotony of life take a toll on the mental health of some residents, with reports of depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts amongst residents.

Adriana, Allison, and their mother were picked up by border patrol after entering Texas in August 2015. Shortly thereafter, they were sent to the South Texas Family Residential Center, a 2,400-bed center in the city of Dilley, a community that's become an immigrant detention capital. The girls expected to be released after a short stay to join their father, who had left El Salvador several years prior and was living and working in Dallas. But while Johnson has said that the average detainee is held for only 20 days, their family is one of a number whose stays have stretched past the one-year mark.

After more than a month at Dilley, a center staff member told Allison to begin packing their things to prepare to leave. "We got very excited. We thought that that was where we were going, that we were going to go home. But then when we got all our stuff ready and they took us to our room, we saw a bunch of other women that were leaving as well," Adriana tells Teen Vogue. Aware that her mother had not signed any release documents, she began to fear they were about to be deported. After several hours in that room, the group was taken to an airport and put on a plane to Pennsylvania.

"When we got on the plane, it was several of us families, including kids as young as five years old. On the plane we saw a lot of men, a lot of people in shackles and cuffs, and we were wondering how they could allow a kid as young as five to see this?" says Adriana.

ICE officials tell Teen Vogue that protocols have shifted and families are now, for the most part, transported on commercial flights. But when Adriana's family traveled, it was on ICE Air, one of the routine flights mainly comprised of people facing deportation, including those being returned to their home countries, some of whom had been convicted of crimes. Arriving at yet another facility, the much smaller Berks County Residential Center, a public center in the borough of Leesport, she worked to maintain hope while spending each day in a sparse room shared with another family, eating cafeteria food and spending a lot of time indoors.

"When we got there, we were all trying to stay very positive, thinking, 'OK, now we're going to leave this place really soon,'" Adriana recalls. "Why would it be so difficult for them to just get us a ticket home and let us go back to our family [in Dallas]?" Administrators offered them no timeline for when they might be able to leave.

Adriana was not the only Berks resident feeling in limbo and receiving little information about her case. U.S. family detention is a system that doesn't seem to operate under any easily understandable rhyme or reason, with women and their children given little information about the progress of their cases, when they might expect to be released, or who is making that decision. This was acknowledged even by a Department of Homeland Security Advisory Committee, which said in a report that "At the individual immigration officer level, it remains unclear what factors are used for custody determinations, and how they are applied." This summer and fall, a group of mothers in the facility even joined together for hunger strikes meant to protest and draw attention to their prolonged detainment. Adriana said she and her sister, Allison, were eager to take part but said the strikers had been told that any minors involved could potentially be transferred and separated from their mothers.

As the weeks at Berks stretched on, the sisters grew tired of the restrictions and monotony. "Everything was the same," says Allison. "We would have breakfast in the morning, and we would have school, and then we would go to the computers or take a nap, or later at night we would watch some TV, and we were so tired of it all." Even school offered little in the way of stimulation. She says that children between the ages of 12 and 18 were in the same class with no distinctions made between grade levels. As an 11th grader, Adriana felt hopelessly unchallenged, learning alongside 7th- and 8th-graders.

ICE officials tell Teen Vogue that children are given an educational assessment within three days of arriving, and an individual educational plan is developed for each child.

After nearly a year at Berks, in the fall of 2016, Adriana and Allison's mother, Carmen, who had frequently been ill, began to feel dizzy. Adriana went to get her something to drink and returned to see her condition rapidly worsening. "Her hands started getting really cold. She said that everything was going numb. Her face was really pale. Mom started to say that she was feeling so bad that she thought that she was dying. I kept saying to her, 'Mom, please don't say that,'" says Adriana.

Carmen was eventually taken to the hospital, where she had her gall bladder removed. One day after her operation, she was discharged and returned to Berks. Her daughters were appalled at what they saw as a total lack of regard for her needs during her recuperation. No provisions were made for her to have food appropriate for her recovery, they say, and they received no assistance from staff in helping her to the bathroom or visits with outside family members. ICE officials said they could not comment on residents' individual health records due to strict HIPAA provisions.

While the surgery may have been the lowest point in a grueling 13-month period, it presented a ray of hope. Adriana says Carmen's attorneys filed paperwork contesting her having to return to the facility after undergoing such a serious surgery. Shortly thereafter, the family was notified that they were being released to go live with their father in Dallas. "We just cried and we screamed and laughed, and we couldn't believe it. We hugged each other. It was just unbelievable. That day was October 5. It was the day before my birthday, so I couldn't believe it," Adriana recalls.

Today, Adriana and Allison are in the 11th and 9th grades and living in Texas with their mom and dad. "We are at home; we go to school; we are learning things we are supposed to be learning. We meet a bunch of different people. We're going to a bunch of different places like normal teenagers. We have phones," Adriana explains. "Most importantly, we are with our family. We are with our dad after 11 years of not seeing each other."

But their fears remain. Their case is still not settled, and while it was the Obama administration under which they were held, they know that President Donald Trump's policies on immigration may threaten them and millions of others. A judicial order currently keeps them from being deported; they are required to report to ICE for regular appointments. "We are very scared for all the promises that he [Trump] has made of deporting so many people because we're very scared to go back to our country. Things in our country are not OK," Adriana says.

Thoughts of the families remaining in custody weigh heavily on the girls' minds as well. "There are people that we arrived with at Berks when we first arrived there who are still detained there, and we always wonder, How is it possible?" Adriana says. For many, it seems, fear in their own nation has been replaced by fear in a new one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What It's Like to Be a Teen Living in an Immigration Detention Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"When we got there, we were all trying to stay very positive, thinking, 'OK, now we're going to leave this place really soon.'"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Through the eyes of a child immigrant | Erik Gomez | TEDxPSU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video: Between Borders: American Migrant Crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From Central America, thousands of children fleeing poverty and danger make multiple attempts to reach the United States despite increased efforts by Mexico to turn them back.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does the Marvel Cinematic Universe Have a Diversity Problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Panther Is Not the Movie We Deserve

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coco, Moana see Disney get diversity right

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction and summary

Survey findings

More than 1 in 3 LGBTQ Americans faced discrimination in the past year

At a basic level, this study finds many LGBTQ individuals reporting mistreatment in their public, work, and personal lives. Asked, "In the past year, have you experienced discrimination of any kind based on your race or ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, economic status, immigration status, or age?" more than one-third of LGBTQ people-36 percent of respondents-said they had. Among transgender individuals, this number increases dramatically, with 62 percent reporting discrimination in the past year.

As seen in Figure 1, reported discrimination is higher than average among transgender and nonbinary people, those with a disability, and individuals of color, particularly Hispanic individuals. Forty-three percent of respondents of color reported experiencing discrimination in some form in the past year, compared with 31 percent of white LGBTQ respondents. Among individuals specifically identifying as nonbinary, genderqueer, agender, or gender nonconforming, nearly 7 in 10 (69 percent) reported discrimination in the past year. Similarly, 45 percent of disabled respondents reported discrimination in the year prior. Generational differences within the LGBTQ community are also prominent: 57 percent of Generation Z adults and 42 percent of Millennials reported discrimination of some kind in the past year, compared with 30 percent of Generation Xers and about one-fifth of Baby Boomers.

In terms of where or how these incidents of discrimination occurred, more than half (51 percent) of LGBTQ respondents overall said they experienced harassment or discrimination in a public place such as a store, public transportation, or a restroom; 36 percent in the workplace; 21 percent at school; 20 percent in an apartment community; 15 percent through interactions with law enforcement; and 14 percent somewhere else. (Multiple responses were allowed.)

Among Gen Z adults in the community, school was the likeliest place to encounter discrimination, at 46 percent, compared with 41 percent in public places.

Respondents were asked to rate the degree to which discrimination affected their life, with the options "not at all," "slightly," "moderately," and "to a significant degree." Transgender respondents were among those facing particularly high levels of discrimination in everyday life. More than half (56 percent) reported that discrimination had a moderate or significant negative impact on their school environment. More than one-third (37 percent) said that discrimination had a moderate or significant impact on their ability to rent or buy a home; 28 percent of LGBTQ respondents overall reported the same. More than half (51 percent) experienced moderate or significant impacts of discrimination in trying to obtain accurate ID documents, an issue especially prominent among transgender individuals seeking documents that accurately reflect their name and gender identity.

Discrimination harms LGBTQ Americans' psychological and economic well-being

The experience of discrimination clearly takes its toll on the psychological and physical well-being of many LGBTQ people as well as on their income and job opportunities.

The study presented respondents with a series of areas and asked them to assess to what degree discrimination has negatively affected them in each area. At the top of the list of negative consequences, 52 percent of LGBTQ people said that their "psychological well-being" has been negatively affected to a moderate or significant degree in the past year. Another 36 percent of respondents reported moderate to significant negative impacts from discrimination on their "spiritual well-being," and 32 percent reported similarly for their "physical well-being." The definitions of these categories were open to the personal interpretation of the respondents.

Transgender individuals experienced noticeably high rates of physical, psychological, and spiritual harm due to discrimination. Two-thirds (66 percent) reported that discrimination moderately or significantly affected their psychological well-being, with nearly half (46 percent) reporting moderate or significant physical impacts and 47 percent reporting moderate or significant impacts on spiritual well-being.

The effect of discrimination on multiple dimensions had significant impacts on Black respondents. Nearly 4 in 5 Black individuals (77 percent) reported moderate or significant impacts to their psychological well-being, while nearly two-thirds (65 percent) reported moderate or significant impacts to their physical well-being.

More than half of Gen Z and Millennial respondents reported moderate or significant negative impacts on their psychological well-being from discrimination, compared with less than half of Gen Xers and about 4 in 10 Baby Boomers.

Discrimination also appears to affect the economic security of LGBTQ individuals. Nearly one-third of respondents (29 percent) reported that discrimination moderately or significantly affected their financial well-being-including 37 percent of Black respondents and more than half (54 percent) of transgender respondents.

Respondents also reported troubles at work. More than one-third of LGBTQ Americans (35 percent) said their ability "to be hired" has been negatively affected to a moderate or significant degree in the past year due to discrimination, along with about 3 in 10 people (31 percent) who have faced negative impacts on their "salary or ability to be promoted" or their "ability to retain employment."

Transgender individuals expressed the greatest difficulty in employment discrimination. More than half (53 percent) of transgender individuals expressed that discrimination moderately or significantly affected their capacity to be hired, with 4 in 10 saying that their ability to be hired was negatively affected to a significant degree. Nearly half (47 percent) of transgender respondents reported that discrimination had a moderate or significant impact on their ability to retain employment. Fifty-one percent of Black respondents reported that discrimination moderately or significantly affected their ability to be hired, compared with 33 percent of white respondents, and 41 percent reported that it had a moderate or significant impact on their ability to retain employment, compared with 31 percent of white respondents. While Baby Boomers reported lower rates of negative impacts from discrimination on their psychological or physical well-being, they were the most likely generation to report that discrimination negatively affected their ability to be hired, their ability to retain employment, and their financial well-being to a significant degree.

These effects appear larger among lower-income LGBTQ Americans than among higher-income ones: Nearly half (47 percent) of those earning less than $25,000 per year reported negative impacts from discrimination on their ability to be hired, compared with around one-quarter (26 percent) of those making more than $100,000 annually.

Many LGBTQ Americans hide their relationships or alter their personal or work lives to avoid discrimination

The survey asked respondents, "Which of the following things have you done in order to avoid experiencing discrimination because of your sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or some other characteristic?" As seen in Table 1, a full 54 percent of LGBTQ Americans say that they have "hid a personal relationship"-by far the most widespread action taken to avoid experiencing discrimination.

College-educated and younger LGBTQ individuals are more likely than noncollege-educated and older ones to report hiding a personal relationship from others. Sixty-two percent of college-educated LGBTQ Americans and two-thirds of Gen Zers say they have hidden a relationship, compared with less than half of noncollege-educated ones and about half of Gen Xers or Baby Boomers.

The next tier of actions taken by about one-third of LGBTQ people to avoid discrimination includes a range of steps, from avoiding public places or houses of worship, to moving away from family, to deciding where to work, to changing individual dress or mannerisms. For example, 35 percent of LGBTQ people say they have "made specific decisions about where to work" in order to avoid discrimination, with one-third also reporting having "avoided public places like stores or restaurants." Transgender and college-educated individuals are more likely than others to have avoided potentially discriminatory workplaces. Three in 10 respondents also reported avoiding law enforcement to prevent discrimination, including 50 percent of transgender respondents and 40 percent of Black respondents.

Likewise, approximately one-third of LGBTQ people say they have "moved away from family," and just more than one-fifth have "moved away from a rural area" to avoid discrimination. In terms of demographic differences, Black and transgender respondents were more likely than others to have moved away from family to avoid discrimination, while those living in nonmetro areas were more likely than those living in metro areas to have changed their dress or mannerisms to avoid discrimination.

About one-fifth of LGBTQ people have taken a third tier of steps to avoid discrimination, including "avoiding travel" (18 percent); "avoiding getting services" (19 percent); "avoiding doctor's offices" (20 percent); and making "specific decisions about where to go to school" (21 percent). These avoidance behaviors were even more common among respondents who experienced discrimination in the past year.

As seen in Figure 8, in terms of the personal characteristics that may have caused people to alter their behaviors, nearly two-thirds of respondents say their "sexual orientation" has led to changed behavior. Thirty-seven percent of respondents selected "sex" as well, including 55 percent of transgender respondents and 38 percent of women versus 24 percent of men. "Race" was chosen by 31 percent of respondents overall, nearly 6 in 10 Black respondents, and more than 4 in 10 Hispanic respondents. Sixty-eight percent of transgender respondents listed "gender identity." "Age" was selected by about one-quarter of respondents, with about one-fifth listing "religion" or "economic status" as personal characteristics that have led LGBTQ people to change their behaviors.

The study also asked respondents to gauge how difficult it would be for them to find a different location if they were denied service in a range of areas. As shown in Figure 9, more than 4 in 10 LGBTQ Americans overall said that finding a different homeless shelter or adoption agency would be very difficult if not impossible if they faced a denial of service. Reported difficulties in finding alternative services in these two areas are even higher for transgender people.

Additionally, approximately one-third of respondents said that it would be very difficult or impossible to find different places to rent an apartment or to get daycare, with around one-fifth of LGBTQ people saying it would be very difficult or impossible to find alternative hospitals, therapists, or wedding vendors if they were denied service.

Due to cost, many LGBTQ Americans found it hard to get necessary medical care in the past year

The study also assessed whether LGBTQ people have experienced any difficulties when trying to access medical care or preventive screenings in the past year. As seen in Figure 10, cost issues affect the largest percentage of LGBTQ individuals. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said that in the past year, "I have postponed or not tried to get medical care when I was sick or injured because I could not afford it," with another one-quarter saying they have postponed preventive screenings due to costs. Among transgender respondents, 51 percent have postponed or avoided care due to cost, and 40 percent have avoided or postponed preventive screenings due to cost.

Although 88 percent of LGBTQ Americans overall say they have health insurance, mostly through an employer or government sponsored exchange or Medicaid, cost pressures pose a particular challenge for younger generations in the community. For example, Gen Z LGBTQ adults are three times more likely than Baby Boomers to have postponed necessary medical care in the past year due to costs (37 percent versus 14 percent, respectively).

Even though costs are a primary challenge, there is a strong desire for equal treatment and good training among health care professionals. Sixty-eight percent of LGBTQ respondents said that it is very important to them that health care providers they see have nondiscrimination policies and specific training in working with LGBTQ people.

Many LGBTQ Americans did not pursue medical treatment due to discrimination

Although costs appear to be a more widespread barrier, discriminatory experiences have also prevented LGBTQ Americans from seeking medical assistance: 15 percent of respondents overall, including 28 percent of transgender respondents, reported postponing or avoiding needed medical care when they were sick or injured due to disrespect or discrimination. Sixteen percent of respondents overall, including 40 percent of transgender respondents, reported postponing or avoiding preventive screenings due to discrimination. Among LGBTQ people who specifically reported experiencing some form of discrimination in the year prior, 36 percent reported avoiding doctor's offices to avoid discrimination compared with 20 percent of respondents overall-a sign that facing discrimination makes one less likely to seek out necessary services.

Exploring the issue in more depth, the study asked respondents whether they have experienced a series of specific challenges with doctors or other health care providers. Twelve percent of respondents overall say they have had to teach their doctors or other providers about their community in order to get adequate treatment. And as seen in Figure 12, anywhere from 7 percent to 14 percent of LGBTQ people have had other negative experiences, including a doctor or provider being visibly uncomfortable due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation (14 percent); harsh or abusive language (8 percent); doctors or providers intentionally refusing to recognize their family members (8 percent); or unwanted physical contact (7 percent).

In general, younger generations across the LGBTQ community are more likely to report specific negative experiences with doctors or health care providers than are those of older generations.

Transgender individuals face unique obstacles when accessing health care

Transgender people, in particular, express more problems in health care than any other segment of the community. Thirty-three percent of respondents reported having to teach their doctor or provider about transgender people in order to get appropriate care. Thirty-eight percent of transgender Americans said that their doctors or other providers have been visibly uncomfortable with them because of their gender identity, and 25 percent said that health care professionals refused to give them medical treatment related to their gender transition. Thirty-two percent of respondents noted that a doctor or provider had intentionally misgendered them or used the wrong name. Nineteen percent reported that their doctor or provider used harsh or abusive language while treating them; 20 percent reported doctors or providers had been physically rough or abusive; and 18 percent reported that their doctor or provider refused to see them at all because of their actual or perceived gender identity.

These concerns are even more prominent among transgender respondents of color. Twenty-eight percent reported that a doctor or provider refused to see them because of actual or perceived gender identity. Twenty-nine percent reported a doctor or other provider used harsh or abusive language when treating them. Thirty-four percent reported doctors or providers refused to provide health care related to gender transition. Thirty-eight percent reported a doctor or provider was physically rough or abusive when treating them. Nearly half (49 percent) reported that their doctor or provider was visibly uncomfortable while treating them, with a similar share (46 percent) reporting that they were intentionally misgendered.

Likewise, 43 percent of transgender people said their health insurance company denied them surgery for their transition, and another 38 percent-including 52 percent of transgender respondents of color-said that their insurance company denied them hormone therapy for their transition. Thirty-four percent reported that an insurance company would not change their records to reflect their current name or gender.

LGBTQ Americans have experienced significant mental health issues related to COVID-19

Overall, two-thirds of LGBTQ Americans say they are anxious about the possibility that they or one of their loved ones will get the coronavirus. Retired individuals, disabled individuals, and Hispanic individuals express more anxiety than others about contracting COVID-19, but concern crosses the entire community.

More specifically, as seen in Table 2, 69 percent of LGBTQ people reported problems in the past two weeks with feeling nervous or anxious when thinking about the coronavirus. Thirty-five percent of these respondents said they felt nervous or anxious for several days, and another 34 percent felt this way for more than half of the days or nearly every day over a two-week period.

Slightly smaller proportions of respondents reported mental health challenges on other measures. For example, roughly 6 in 10 felt down, depressed, or hopeless or reported having trouble falling or staying asleep due to thinking about the coronavirus. Fifty-four percent of LGBTQ people experienced not being able to stop or control their worrying, and 58 percent felt little interest or pleasure in doing things for at least several days over a two-week period. As on other measures, transgender people reported higher levels of mental health issues than most other groups when thinking about the coronavirus.

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The State of the LGBTQ Community in 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A comprehensive new study from the Center for American Progress finds that many LGBTQ people continue to face discrimination in their personal lives, in the workplace and the public sphere, and in their access to critical health care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 TikTok Statistics That You Need to Know In 2021 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teen girls are showing up to the doctor with tics, and experts think anxiety, depression, and TikTok could be playing a role

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many of the teen girls who developed tics were watching TikTokers who say they have Tourette Syndrome, The Wall Street Journal reported.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to be a TikTok Activist: A Guide for the Privileged

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marketers Are Underpaying Black Influencers While Pushing Black Lives Matter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unless you speak English, the Internet doesn’t care about you

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you are an English speaker surfing Wikipedia, there are more than 5 million articles for your perusal. English Wikipedia is a labyrinth of links that could have you clicking for years, but if you speak a different language, you might click through everything in just a couple of minutes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When schools closed last March, roughly 16 million U.S. K-12 students lacked access to a working device, reliable high-speed internet or both. In the months that followed, many states and school districts mobilized, using federal CARES Act funding, broadband discounts and partnerships with private companies to connect their students and enable online learning.

Those efforts have made a dent, according to an analysis from Common Sense, Boston Consulting Group and the Southern Education Foundation. As of December 2020, the number of students impacted by the digital divide has narrowed to 12 million.

This progress is "significant," write the authors of a report that details the groups' findings. But that's still far too many students who remain unconnected or under-connected, especially as virtual learning continues in almost half of schools. What's more, they write, is that the solutions devised in 2020 are "largely nonpermanent."

"The majority of efforts since March 2020 are temporary, stop-gap measures," according to the report. "In total, more than 75 percent of efforts will expire in the next one to three years based on current funding sources."

Affecting nearly one-third of K-12 students in the U.S. today, "the digital divide predated the coronavirus pandemic and will persist beyond it if stakeholders do not seize the moment," they write. Closing the gap for good will make learning more equitable, more flexible and more accessible, and will help break the cycle of poverty, the authors argue.

What follows is a summary of the report's findings.

Why the Digital Divide Matters

Research shows that students who lack access to devices and broadband services have, on average, GPAs that are 0.4 points lower than their peers with reliable access. That seemingly small gap can grow into thousands of dollars of lost annual income over the course of a person's lifetime and billions of dollars in yearly losses in gross domestic product, leading to unrealized economic potential for both the individuals and the nation.

Given how much schools have relied-and continue to rely-on the internet to enable distance learning in the last 10 months, students who have not been able to get online with the same consistency and quality as their peers are projected to have more severe learning loss and become more likely to drop out of school, according to studies referenced in the report.

Who It Affects

Southern states with large rural populations, such as Mississippi, Alabama and Oklahoma, have the highest percentage of students affected by the digital divide.

Students of color, including Black, Latino and Native American students, are disproportionately disconnected: While they make up 40 percent of the student population, they account for 54 of all disconnected students.

And students from low-income families, defined as those whose households earn less than $50,000 per year, make up just 30 percent of all students but 50 percent of those who experience connectivity issues.

Why It Persists

Three often-overlapping issues-affordability, availability and adoption-explain the persistence of the digital divide.

Money is an issue. Up to 60 percent of disconnected students cannot pay for internet access or devices. This affects Black students and students living in urban areas the greatest, the report finds.

About 25 percent of students live in areas that lack access to high-speed internet, an issue that impacts Native American students and students in rural communities the most.

And about 40 percent of students face other hurdles in getting online, such as language barriers. This especially impacts students who are English language learners.

What Progress Has Been Made

Several million more students have access to the internet today than in March 2020, thanks to a number of piecemeal approaches at the state and local levels.

"State and district efforts were significant and executed rapidly under very uncertain circumstances. Solutions were most successful when they were able to take advantage of existing infrastructure investments," the report reads.

Among the successful examples cited are Texas' " Operation Connectivity," which led to the purchase of one million laptops and half a million hotspots for students; a program in Oklahoma that provided 50,000 devices and data plans to at least 175 districts; and Alabama's Broadband Connectivity (ABC) program, which provided $100 million in vouchers to help 200,000 students access the internet from their homes.

On top of these state-wide efforts, many broadband service providers have offered free or heavily discounted internet plans and devices to students and families during the crisis. This includes T-Mobile's Project 10Million, which is providing free data to 10 million households for five years, and Verizon's Distance Learning Program, which is offering low-cost service plans to 38 million students.

Still, the authors write, these efforts are neither enough to connect all students, nor to keep newly online students connected long-term.

"Ultimately ... funding support for these efforts has been insufficient to close the full distance learning digital divide. Progress is hindered by funding that is time bound and limited in amount, inadequate data on student needs, lack of universal infrastructure investment, and supply chain bottlenecks."

What It Will Take to Close the Divide

It will take significant investment to close the digital divide for all students, for good. The report estimates the bill to be between $6 billion and $11 billion for the first year, and between $4 billion and $8 billion every year after that.

This can be achieved through policy solutions at the federal, state and local levels, but it will be aided by "leadership, coordination and capacity building across stakeholders to ensure buy-in and support execution."

"Policy should enable bulk purchasing with transparent, affordable pricing and digital inclusion support," the authors argue. "It should encourage tech-agnostic investment and encourage shared deployment to establish access where none exists and expand access where connectivity is insufficient (e.g., low bandwidth, low speeds). Success will require stakeholders to break down silos; partnering across public, private, and social sectors is needed to assess student-level needs and inform responses, develop and execute a broadband strategy, run effective procurement of affordable solutions, and offer IT support and digital inclusion support."

More details on how this can be achieved are available in the report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Digital Divide Has Narrowed, But 12 Million Students Are Still Disconnected - EdSurge News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When schools closed last March, roughly 16 million U.S. K-12 students lacked access to a working device, reliable high-speed internet or both. In the months that followed, many states and school districts mobilized, using federal CARES Act funding, broadband discounts and partnerships with private companies to connect their students and enable online learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unequally disconnected: Access to online learning in the US

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many education researchers have raised the concern that 2020 school closures have created a situation where the most disadvantaged children are most likely to lose out on the opportunity to keep le...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Equal access to tech can reduce poverty and increase diversity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The path out of poverty — increasingly — is access to technology. I am a product of what that access can bring.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The big idea

Since 2014, the Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research, located at the University of Southern California, has been tracking trends in health economic well-being, attitudes and behaviors through a nationwide survey for its Understanding America Study, asking the same individuals questions over time.

The nationally representative survey is now assessing how COVID-19 is affecting U.S. families. This includes their health, economic status and, for the first time, educational experiences. With two other education researchers Amie Rapaport and Marshall Garland, we analyzed the educational experience data that have recently been added to the study.

What we did

We worked with the broader Understanding America Study team to ask Americans about the effects the pandemic is having on students and their families.

About 1,450 families with children answered these questions between April 1 and April 15.

We found that nearly all - about 85% - of families with at least one child between kindergarten and their senior year of high school have internet access and a computer they can use for distance learning while school buildings are shuttered.

However, we found large disparities in technology access based on family income. Among the 20% of American households who make US$25,000 or less a year, just 63% of schoolchildren have access to a computer and the internet. In comparison, essentially all students from the most affluent families - those whose parents make $150,000 annually or more - do.

To be sure, that doesn't mean a third of poor kids are being locked out of getting an online education. Many of those students are also using tablets and smartphones to participate in educational activities. However, the types of educational activities a student can easily engage in with a computer and wireless internet -such as writing long essays - are broader than the types possible on a tablet or an even smaller screen and with just a cellular connection.

These inequities can leave low-income families scrambling for wireless access. Some of the limited options available can include include working from a car parked outside a local library or a McDonald's parking lot.

Why it matters

There's a big gap between how much access rich and poor children have to technology. This is known as the " digital divide."

This disparity contributes to the achievement gaps between students based largely on their economic status.

These findings show that the digital divide is playing out in real time during this pandemic in ways that are sure to lead to unequal negative effects on already disadvantaged students.

What's next?

Most schools in the country are likely to remain closed for months - long after we collected this initial data. We believe that it's possible that this divide will narrow once more districts distribute computers, tablets and other hardware, more communities take steps to expand broadband access to those who can't afford it and teachers get better at educating kids online.

There's a chance that federal help could arrive, should Congress pass the Emergency Educational Connections Act of 2020, a measure authored and backed by House Democrats aimed at narrowing the digital divide. It would normally be states - which provide the largest share of funding for public schools - that would address issues like technology in schools, but with states facing mounting budget constraints that's going to be a big challenge. A similar bill is pending in the Senate.

In our view, without federal intervention, these gaps will not meaningfully narrow.

[ Insight, in your inbox each day. You can get it with The Conversation's email newsletter.]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Not all kids have computers - and they're being left behind with schools closed by the coronavirus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since 2014, the Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research, located at the University of Southern California, has been tracking trends in health economic well-being, attitudes and behaviors through a nationwide survey for its Understanding America Study, asking the same individuals questions over time. The nationally representative survey is now assessing how COVID-19 is affecting U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Marvel's The Eternals releases in November 2021, South Asian fans such as myself will finally have the opportunity to see themselves represented in the on-screen MCU after almost thirteen years. This is significant because, despite tackling subjects such as PTSD and familial bonds, the MCU has had a less than stellar track record when it comes to racial diversity.

Having been an MCU fan for almost a decade, I find it easy to admit that one of the franchise's greatest flaws is its limited and inconsistent focus on non-white actors and characters.

In most of its movies from Phase 1 and Phase 2, the MCU seemingly sees its characters of color as plot devices or support staff to white protagonists. This sends the message to fans of color that they are not viewed as equally important as their white counterparts.

Iron Man both kickstarted the franchise and introduced Tony Stark's best friend Colonel James "Rhodey" Rhodes, who would later go on to don the War Machine armor.

Rhodey, one of three prominent(ish) characters of color introduced in Phase 1, would continue to recur throughout several MCU movies, but despite being introduced early, it would take years until there was anything close to a distinctive focus on him in the MCU, despite movie after movie centered on white protagonists.

A few years later, Captain America: The Winter Soldier introduced Sam Wilson. The former pararescue airman takes up the mantle of Falcon along with a pair of propulsion wings when Steve Rogers, aka Captain America, comes calling for his help.

In most movies from Phase 1 and Phase 2, the MCU seemingly sees its characters of color as plot devices or support staff to white protagonists.

Sam was seemingly slotted in as the right-hand man to Captain America just as Rhodey appears to be Iron Man's. For several long years Sam and Rhodey were played up as the supportive Black best friends, an increasingly tiring trope to the MCU's most prominent heroes which became the franchise's baseline treatment of some of its characters of color.

The MCU also has a history of using the victimization and pain of characters of color, specifically Black men, to further its plot, such as in Captain America: Civil War. T'Chaka, the father of T'Challa and the king of the technologically-advanced African nation of Wakanda, is killed in the United Nations bomb blast. His death kickstarts major plot points that lead towards the climax of the movie. Ultimately, his loss of life only adds to the movie's high body count, which is composed primarily of people of color after a similar bomb blast in Lagos at the movie's opening.

Later in the movie, a battle between the divided Avengers comes to a staggering halt when Rhodey is wounded, leaving the character paralyzed from the waist down. He is the only character majorly injured in the fight and his pain is used primarily to resolve a conflict.

Both the high body count of characters of color and Rhodey's paralysis serves to make the point that people of color in the MCU are expendable, which is both horrifying and inhuman.

Perhaps the MCU has done the most right with their release of Black Panther, the first MCU movie to center on a Black superhero and to star a primarily Black cast. Black Panther had many breakout characters, such as Shuri, T'Challa's technological genius sister and the princess of Wakanda. Others include Erik Killmonger, T'Challa's cousin and a challenger for the Wakandan throne, and Okoye, the leader of the elite warriors of the Dora Milaje.

Notably, Black Panther was well-received by fans and critics alike and even received a Best Picture Oscar nomination.

What made Black Panther so remarkable was its focus on a three-dimensional cast of characters. It created characters of color who were more than the support to their white counterparts, characters who broke tropes. It was a movie where the characters of color had the focus on them for once.

Although it is several years late, the MCU has been attempting to make amends when it comes to how Black men are portrayed in the franchise.

Although it is several years late, the MCU has been attempting to make amends when it comes to how Black men are portrayed in the franchise.

Marvel Studios has announced the Disney+ series Armor Wars, which will center around Rhodey, finally giving the character the spotlight he deserves. However, fans will still have to wait another year at the very least for the show, making it thirteen long years and counting since the character's first appearance. This is long overdue.

Recently, the release of the Disney + series Falcon and the Winter Soldier groundbreakingly showed Sam Wilson becoming Captain America. The show explores what it means for a Black man to take up the iconic mantle by introducing the character Isaiah Bradley, a Black supersoldier who is manipulated, mistreated, and eventually wrongfully imprisoned by the United States government.

By giving prominence to a Black man and addressing the injustice of Bradley's treatment, the MCU has finally begun to validate its Black fans and their experiences and histories on a level as never before. Now, young Black children and other children of color are given the chance to idolize a Black Captain America.

Of course, these are only recent changes. Representation of people of color as a whole begins to become a bit more confusing when placed next to the MCU's more cosmic storylines. Movies like Guardians of the Galaxy blur the line of who counts as a character of color by introducing alien characters who are less human-like in comparison to the white Thor. Assassin Gamora, criminal Drax the Destroyer, and tree alien Groot are all played or voiced by actors of color-Groot actor Vin Diesel, whose birth parents are biologically white, identifies as a person of color because of his adoptive Black father-but both Zoe Saldana who plays Gamora and Dave Bautista who plays Drax sit in makeup chairs for hours to be painted green or blue or have to have prosthetics molded onto them for their characters.

(Later in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, even the appearance of Mantis, played by Pom Klementieff, is created by a combination of prothesthics and CGI. The character, who is human, half-Vietnamese and half-German in the comics, is completely alien in the MCU.)

Why is the MCU, at least for the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, so preoccupied with having actors of color play aliens? Why does the MCU use actors of color, who already face discrimination, racism, and limited roles in the mainstream film industry, to "other" its alien characters?

Why is the MCU, at least for the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, so preoccupied with having actors of color play aliens?

By not allowing the actors to be characters of color, the MCU is quite literally alienating people of color and is "othering" them as history has before. It is the same trope used to perpetuate racism, violence, and destruction.

Thankfully, the MCU appears to be acknowledging some of these controversial choices by allowing aliens to appear as people of color within its future projects. Gemma Chan, the British Asian actress who was painted unrecognizably blue to play Kree Minn-Erva in Captain Marvel, will be playing powerful immortal Sersi in The Eternals. Her ethnicity will not be hidden by makeup, showing that Marvel may recognize that it is important to have diversity in all its storylines, even those that are alien.

Similar to how characters of color may have been hidden behind makeup, Marvel also has a history with white washing its characters. Phase 2 of the MCU introduced the superpowered twins Wanda and Pietro Maximoff, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver respectively, in Avengers: Age of Ultron, but erased their Romani Jewish heritage. This was likely a choice on Disney's part to distance the characters they introduced from their comic counterparts who are mutants and Magneto's children; the rights for Magneto, mutants, and the X-Men previously belonged to Fox, and Magneto's Jewish faith is a major part of his on-screen storyline.

Still, this choice to whitewash an already marginalized and stereotyped group was not a good move on Disney's part because it removed an essential part of Wanda's comic origins while simultaneously being anti-semitic and racist. When WandaVision was released earlier this year, fans were dismayed to see the acknowledgement of Wanda's comic heritage that actress Elizabeth Olsen had promised to be nothing more than a racist Halloween costume, playing on stereotypes of the Romani as fortune tellers.

When Tilda Swinton was cast in the role of the Ancient One for Doctor Strange, many noted that the comic counterpart of the Ancient One was an Asian man, and despite director Scott Derrickson's casting choice to avoid playing into racist stereotypes, the Ancient One was still a character that was whitewashed. When there are so few characters of color in a franchise, even the erasure of minor ones doesn't go unnoticed.

Despite Derrickson's good intentions, what he called " the lesser of two evils," public outcry was still enough that in May 2021 Marvel Studios producer Kevin Feige acknowledged the criticism as a wake-up call and said that they could have cast an Asian actor without falling into stereotyping.

When there are so few characters of color in a franchise, even the erasure of minor ones doesn't go unnoticed.

It is worthy to note, however, that Derrickson also cast Chiwetel Ejiofor, a Black actor, as Karl Mordo, a character who is white in the comics. He also altered the role of Wong, played by Benedict Wong, to avoid perpetuating racist, anti-Asian stereotypes.

Besides Karl Mordo, Marvel Studios also cast Black actresses Tessa Thompson and Zendaya in the roles of Valkyrie in Thor: Ragnarok and Michelle in Spider-Man: Homecoming respectively. Both characters are white in the comics. Valkyrie notably becomes the Queen of Asgard at the end of Avengers: Endgame.

Furthermore, WandaVision did successfully re-introduce Monica Rambeau, first introduced in Captain Marvel as a child and notably the daughter of Captain Maria Rambeau, as well as feature the recurring character of Jimmy Wong, the FBI agent first introduced in Ant-Man and the Wasp and who also won the heart of fans on Twitter.

Sam, Monica, and Valkyrie will be some of the characters of color leading the MCU into Phase 4, which is set to introduce several new characters of color, many of whom will star in their own movies or television shows.

Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Ringswill be the first MCU movie to center around an Asian superhero as well as feature a predominantly Asian cast. Similarly, The Eternals is set to have a diverse cast, introducing Kumail Nanjiani as the first South Asian character in the MCU movies. Next, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever will see the return of Wakanda while The Marvels will focus on Carol Danvers, Monica, and fan-favorite and Pakistani-American teen Kamala Khan (following her introduction in her titular show Ms. Marvel).

While these titles are only some of the new movies and shows Marvel Studios has planned for the coming years, the future of the MCU certainly looks bright-and diverse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marvel in Color: The Evolution of Racial Diversity within the MCU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Marvel's The Eternals releases in November 2021, South Asian fans such as myself will finally have the opportunity to see themselves represented in the on-screen MCU after almost thirteen years. This is significant because, despite tackling subjects such as PTSD and familial bonds, the MCU has had a less than stellar track record when it comes to racial diversity.