Human Rights Violations Against Legal Immigrants in Minnesota

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Introduction

Human rights violations against immigrants are conjoined with policies and edicts

that strip immigrants of their rights and exclude them from the wider human community.

For most migrants, the thought of migrating to a developed country is usually pleasant,

with the hope for security, social and economic advantages. This hope, however, tends to

dissipate as most migrants become the subject of human rights violations in host

countries. The principles established in the International Bill of Human Rights (IBHR)

oblige states to protect human rights against all forms of abuse and to fulfill the rights

necessary for all persons to live a dignified and secure life (Lougarre, 2020). However,

the journey to find safety and social and economic emancipation often throws migrants

out of the spectrum of humanity, with their human dignity stripped away, without human

rights, without protection, and without worth (Chambers, 2017).

While the IBHR reaffirms the fundamental significance of respecting, protecting,

and fulfilling the human rights of immigrants in policy and practice, the policies are not

uniformly ratified or implemented across countries. This is partly because the

international community fails to provide uniform standards and a clear guidance on how

to implement human rights (Alberto & Klaus, 2019). Article 2(1) of the ICESCR gives

states a wide range of discretion in selecting the steps considered most appropriate for the

full realization of economic social and cultural rights (Manisuli, 2011). As a result, for

most states, including the United States, the responsibility to implement universal human

rights principles rests on the state, which in most cases, must choose between national

interest and upholding immigrants’ rights.

In Minnesota, Mexican, Somali, and Hmong immigrants are often faced with a

plethora of challenges originating from sociostructural factors that curtail their safety and

limit their opportunities to integrate into the United States (Bourgois et al., 2017).

According to Libal et al. (2021), apart from hindering the entry of legal immigrants into

the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, legal immigrants in the United States

experienced overt and covert forms of exclusions from the labor market due to high

unemployment rates and economic hardship, with new exclusionary policies targeting

legal immigrants who are eligible to work. When migration policies and procedures

support and add to a logic of marginalization and criminalization of migrants, xenophobic

perceptions and behaviors might become more prevalent ( Libal et al., 2021).

To address immigrants’ human rights violations in the United States, scholars and

human rights organizations have focused their attention on highlighting the

vulnerabilities of undocumented immigrants, urging for adherence to international human

rights standards for humane treatments (Schmidt, 2019). The violations of human rights

against legal immigrants in Minnesota were not demonstrated in the reviewed literature.

This study aimed to add to the body of literature on human rights violations for legal

immigrants. The findings of this study have potential implications for positive social

change by providing information that could contribute to policy reform considerations to

improve the treatment of legal immigrants in Minnesota. In this chapter, a background is

provided to contextualize the study. The problem statement, the purpose of the study, and

the research question are also described. The theoretical framework and the nature of the

study are briefly explained. Key terms used throughout the study are clarified, and some

assumptions in conducting the study are noted. The scope, delimitations, and limitations

of the study are defined. Lastly, the significance of the study as it relates to social change,

welfare, and well-being is explained, followed by a chapter summary to conclude Chapter

Background to the Study

Despite the adoption and approval of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

in 1948, which outlined universal, fundamental human rights, by the UN General

Assembly and a majority of its members, it remains eminently aspirational and not

enforceable. States have always asserted their sovereign rights and the responsibility to

protect the rights of their citizens over the acknowledgement of universal human rights.

This has rendered stateless persons and many migrants who are seeking refuge in

different countries almost “rightless.” Once in a state of rightlessness, immigrants

become susceptible to verbal dehumanization and exclusion from perceived human

society, setting them up for segregation, detention, undue legal process, and eventually

deportation (Schmidt, 2019). Migrants in most cases are easily deprived of the right to

life and human dignity. The United States Border Patrol recorded approximately 70,505

deaths of migrants attempting to enter the United States from Mexico between 1998-2018

with no one being held accountable (Tsuchiya et al., 2021).

According to Quintavalla and Heine (2019), the full enjoyment of human dignity

requires the respect and protection of all human rights, as any violation of human rights

would lead to a fundamental denial of inherent human dignity. From the ashes of the

Second World War, the indivisible and universal nature of human rights was irrefutable

in the expansion of international human rights law (Donnelly, 2013), and are essential

attributes that form the legal context for human rights:

All human rights are universal, indivisible, and interdependent, and interrelated.

The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal

manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance

of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural, and

religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of

their political, economic, and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human

rights and fundamental freedoms. (United Nations, 1993, para. 5)

The atrocities committed during the Second World War called for international

cooperation to foster and respect fundamental human rights. In 1948 the United Nations

General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),

marking a formal codification of human rights (Easley et al., 2001). This was followed by

the adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the

International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1966.

These three documents (UDHR, the ICCPR, and the ICESCR) form what is currently

known as the IBHR (Dion, 2001).

Kabasakal Arat (2006) opined that the political system initiated by the UN

Charter was one that redefined interstate relationships, as well as the relationship between

states and individuals. Human rights obligation was later expanded by the ICCPR and the

ICESCR, which created a human rights regime for the entire humanity. Since the

adoption of the UDHR and subsequent treatise and covenants by the United Nations, the

concept of human rights has witnessed various advancements, with little progress in

universal applicability for the improvement of human rights conditions for immigrants

(Kabasakal Arat, 2006). For several decades, the United States has experienced

unprecedented increase in immigration enforcement including arrest, detention, undue

process, and deportation. The detention of immigrants has a direct impact on their lives

and the lives of their family members, limiting their choices, options for security,

decision-making, and integration in the United States (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). These

horizontal inequalities are a result of the hierarchical social echelons and power relations

harnessed by practices and policies that govern the legal status of an individual (Bourgois

et al., 2017).

According to Patler Golash-Boza (2017), immigrants under detention experience

different forms of vulnerability that affect different aspects of their lives and the lives of

their family members. The arrest and detention of legal immigrants in Minnesota for

reasons such as being noisy in a hotel room and for snow blocking a number plate

demonstrate how racial profiling contributes to unfair treatment of immigrants by state

troopers and other service providers (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). Most legal immigrants plead

their cases in Minnesota immigration courts on grounds of financial responsibilities

including support for their parents and children with severe health conditions, unborn or

young children, and pregnant partners (Cartwright, 2011). This indicates that holding

immigrants in detention for an extended period can have severe health and financial

consequences on the detainee and their family. This study highlights the factors that

initiate and escalate human rights violations on legal immigrants in Minnesota. The study

provides an understanding of the nature and impact of human rights violation on legal

immigrants in Minnesota, and how such violations can be curbed by the State of

Minnesota using international and domestic principles of human rights.

Problem Statement

The implementation of United States Customs and Border Protection policy, the

invocation of 1944 Public Health Service Act -Title 42, unprecedented increase in federal

immigration enforcement policies, detention, and deportation of immigrants without due

process, has increased racial profiling, border killings, and denial of due process rights,

for many legal immigrants in Minnesota (Boyle, 2018; Chambers, 2017; Schmidt, 2019;

Tsuchiya et al., 2021). Despite being legally entitled to certain human rights protections,

legal immigrants in Minnesota continue to face various human rights violations. These

violations range from discrimination and harassment to denial of basic services such as

healthcare and education (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). Such violations not only impact the

well-being and dignity of legal immigrants and their families but also pose serious

challenges to their social and economic integration, exacerbating existing disparities and

inequalities. (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). Human rights violations also impact legal

immigrants by limiting their ability to access and afford adequate health care, raise bond

fees, and obtain appropriate legal representation (Schmidt, 2019).

Although researchers have investigated human rights violations in relation to

undocumented immigrants, none of the studies reviewed literature examined how legal

immigrants of Hispanic, African, and Asian descents experience human rights violations

in Minnesota. Therefore, there was a pressing need to investigate the nature, scope, and

underlying causes of these human rights violations against legal immigrants in Minnesota

and to identify effective strategies to prevent and address them. The continued human

rights violations against legal immigrants in Minnesota, and the apathy of the State and

federal government to address the situation was the dominant problem statement for this

study. This study contributes to existing literature by advancing an understanding of how

legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali, and Hmong descent experience human rights

violations in Minnesota and promoting positive social change in the treatment of legal

immigrants.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study was to use the knowledge gained from participants’

responses through individual interviews and focus group discussions to provide

information that may contribute to policy reforms considerations to improve the

treatment of legal immigrants, by exploring how legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali,

and Hmong descents experiences human rights violations in Minnesota. While

recognizing the right to leave one’s country of origin, international human rights law

does not guarantee the right to enter another country, without that state’s authorization.

Hence, a state’s determination that a migrant entered the country without authorization,

does not intrinsically conflict with human rights principles. However, the fact that a

migrant entered or remained in a state without authorization does not nullify the state’s

duty under international law to protect his or her basic rights against torture, degrading

treatment, rights to due process, forced labor and discrimination.

For many legal immigrants, the everyday reality is a struggle to earn a living in

dire working conditions, to find housing in which they can live in minimal comfort, to

stay healthy or risk deportation if they visit a health clinic, to find some way of educating

their children when schools are barred to them (Guchteneire et al., 2009). These

challenges impact the wellbeing and welfare of immigrants as they strive to adapt in their

host communities.

Research Question

The research question for this study was as follows: How do legal immigrants of

Mexican, Somali, and Hmong descent experience human rights violations in Minnesota

as a vulnerable population?

This research question was highly pertinent for this study as it delves into the

experiences of three significant immigrant groups representing the main racial

demographics of Minnesota's immigrant population. By concentrating on legal

immigrants of Mexican, Somali, and Hmong descent, the study addressed the unique

challenges faced by the predominant immigrant communities in Minnesota: Latinos,

Asians, and Africans, respectively. These groups are not only numerically significant but

also culturally and socio-politically distinct, offering a diverse spectrum of experiences

and perspectives on human rights issues. This diversity was crucial for understanding the

broader context of human rights violations against immigrants in Minnesota, as it allowed

for in-depth analysis across different communities, shedding light on the systemic nature

of these violations. Furthermore, focusing on legal immigrants added a unique dimension

to the discourse, often overshadowed by the emphasis on undocumented immigrants. It

challenged the assumption that legality assures protection from human rights abuses,

thereby enriching the understanding of the complexities and nuances in the field of

human rights within immigrant communities.

Theoretical Framework of the Study

Fineman’s vulnerability theory served as the theoretical framework of this study.

Fineman focused on societal institutions and how they respond to the challenges of

vulnerability (as cited in Baumgärtel, 2020). Fineman’s concept of vulnerability lays

emphasis on the constant, particular, complex, and universal nature of vulnerability in

human conditions. The dominant thesis of Fineman's vulnerability theory is that all

human beings are vulnerable and predisposed to dependency, and the state has a

corresponding obligation to reduce, improve, and compensate for that vulnerability (as

cited in Kohn, 2014). Fineman maintained that faced with neoliberal pressure, resilient

subjects can only be produced in a responsive state (as cited in Davis & Aldieri, 2021).

The hallmark of Fineman’s concept of vulnerability is arguably the establishment

of a responsive state (Baumgärtel, 2020); a state that meets its obligation to respond to

human vulnerability by providing equal access to the societal institutions, that distribute

social goods such as healthcare, employment, and security (Kohn, 2014). In Fineman’s

perspective, formal equality approach is deficient for its inadequacy to address gross and

growing economic and material injustice (as cited in Baumgärtel, 2020). Formal equality

concentrates on eliminating discrimination against historically disadvantaged groups

rather than eliminating the disparities to which those groups were subjected (Kohn,

2014). Focusing on the experiences of human rights violations against legal immigrants

of Mexican, Somali, and Hmong descent in Minnesota, Fineman’s vulnerability theory

served as an appropriate theoretical framework to guide this study.

Nature of the Study

This study was a qualitative phenomenological study that explored the

experiences of human rights violations against legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali, and

Hmong descent in Minnesota. The purpose of this study was to use the knowledge gained

from participants’ responses through individual interviews and focus group discussions to

provide information that may contribute to policy reforms considerations to improve the

treatment of legal immigrants, by exploring how legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali,

and Hmong descents experiences human rights violations in Minnesota.

The study was conducted using individual interviews and focus group

discussions. Purposive sampling was used to select twenty participants for the study. The

study participants consisted of 15 legal immigrants, selected with the use of gatekeepers.

The 15 participants participated in three focus group discussions: five from each of the

three immigrant populations in Minnesota; the Somali, Mexican, and Hmong. Other

study participants included two immigration advocates and three human rights experts

who participated in individual interviews. Individual interviews were all conducted in-

person to collect primary data. These participants were identified by codes to protect their

personal data from being exposed to the public (see O’Sullivan et al., 2017).

The two immigration advocates and three human rights experts served as key

informants, participating only in individual interviews and not in the focus group

discussions. These five individuals were not members of the three communities under

study, and were purposefully selected based on their profession, expertise, experience as

immigration advocates, and their ability to provide data relating to immigration and

human rights principles. The focus group participants were specifically selected from the

three communities under study. Each group met separately with me to provide data

relating to their experience of human rights violations as legal immigrants.

Inductive thematic analysis was used to record patterns among the three groups

(Mexicans, Somalis, and Hmong) of legal immigrants involved in the study. Inductive

thematic analysis is a widely used method in qualitative research, where the researcher

seeks to understand participants' subjective experiences and perspectives. This approach

involves systematically identifying, analyzing, and interpreting patterns or themes within

the data, without preconceived categories or themes from the research question or

theoretical frameworks. Themes emerge directly from the data through an iterative

process of data familiarization, coding, categorization, theming, and analysis (Braun et

al., 2019; Campbell et al., 2021).

Definitions

Asylum seeker: A person who seeks safety from persecution or serious harm in a

country other than their own and awaits a decision on the application for refugee status

under relevant international and national instruments. In case of a negative decision, the

person must leave the country and may be expelled, unless permission to stay is provided

on humanitarian grounds (Castelli, 2018, p. 2).

Human rights: According to the United Nations (n.d.), human rights are rights

inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language,

religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom

from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and

education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination

(United Nations, n.d).

Human rights violations: In this study, human rights violations constitute any

action or inaction, which deprives a person of any of his or her legal rights as

contemplated in both IBHR, and domestic laws. Such violations include but are not

limited to torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; slavery and forced labor;

arbitrary arrest or detention; arbitrary interference with privacy; war propaganda;

discrimination; and advocacy of racial or religious hatred (United Nations, n.d.).

Legal immigrants: Legal immigrants in this study referred to noncitizen

immigrants in the United States with permanent status, temporary statuses, and

discretionary statuses (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). According to National Academies of

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2015), permanent status is the strongest anchor the

law provides because it allows labor mobility, confers significant constitutional rights and

access to some public benefits, and can lead to naturalization provided that the LPR

meets a set of additional requirements. Temporary statuses include a variety of

employment-based and humanitarian-based admissions that confer lawful presence for

limited periods of time, which are subject to review by Congress (National Academies of

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015). Discretionary statuses grant temporary

lawful status via executive discretion and as such can be terminated at any time.

Although discretionary statuses provide temporary protection from removal, provided

that holders meet certain requirements related to behavior and practices, these statuses

grant the least degree of formal security (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,

and Medicine, 2015).

Refugee: A person who, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons

of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political

opinions, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is

unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country (Geneva

Convention, 1951, Art. 1A).

Assumptions

In conducting this study, I assumed that human rights violations were a

phenomenon experienced by some legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali, and Hmong

descent in Minnesota. I also assumed that all the research participants would voluntarily

participate and would not be coerced in any way to participate. I further assumed that all

participants would be sufficiently familiar with the concept of human rights violations

against legal immigrants in Minnesota so that they could reliably provide rich data from

their experiences on the subject matter. I equally assumed that all the research

participants had personal experiences, or had witnessed, or had been involved in activities

that advocated for the protection of human rights. I assumed that all participants would be

truthful and unbiased in their responses during the interviews and focus group

discussions.

Scope and Delimitations

The sample selection included immigration advocates, human rights experts, and

legal immigrants from the Mexican, Somali, and Hmong populations in Minnesota. The

legal immigrants were selected based on their number of years living in Minnesota and

their age. All participants from the Mexican, Somali, and Hmong immigrant populations

were at least 25 years old and had lived in Minnesota for at least 5 years. All immigration

advocates participating in the study were residents of Minnesota with at least 3 years of

experience working with immigrants on various cases of human rights violations. Human

rights experts participating in the study were not required to be residents of Minnesota.

The three groups of research participants provided their perspectives on the phenomenon

under study. Transcripts of individual interviews and focus group discussions were made

available to participants upon request to minimize my personal biases. The results of the

study were also made available to participants, upon request, for review before they were

reported in the study. The findings and recommendations of this study aimed to influence

further research in the study area that addresses human rights violations against legal

immigrants and inform policy changes regarding the treatment of legal immigrants.

Limitations

Several limitations were noted in this research. Using a phenomenological

approach, the sample size of the study was small, including five participants each from

the Mexican, Somali, and Hmong population for focus groups, three human rights

experts, and two immigration advocates. The generalizability of the results from this

qualitative phenomenological research was limited due to the use of purposive and

snowball sampling methods. These methods resulted in a small sample size that is

typically not representative enough for broad generalizations. Language barriers were

considered as limitations that could negatively impact the richness of the data as English

is not a first language for Mexican, Somali, and Hmong immigrant populations. All my

participants spoke sufficient English to participate fully in the study. Also, participants

could provide incomplete responses of their experiences due to difficulties in expressing

themselves in the English language. Gaining access to the research participants was

challenging as I did not have any personal relationships with any one from the identified

immigrant populations, the advocates, and the policy analysts. To overcome this

limitation, key contacts in my network were used to gain access to the research

participants suitable to provide rich in-depth data for the study.

Another worry was whether participants would offer responses shaped to simply

comply with the process of the focus group discussion or align with prevailing news or

peer narratives, rather than sharing their genuine personal experiences. This issue was

mitigated by selectively choosing members for focus group discussions who

demonstrated critical and independent thinking. I screened potential participants during

my initial interactions, evaluating their capacity for independent thought and their

readiness to share distinct perspectives. Being an immigrant myself, my positionality and

personal experiences could also influence the interpretation of collected data, so I

consciously remained objective throughout the study to provide unbiased interpretation of

collected data and research findings.

Significance of the Study

Minnesota has attracted large numbers of immigrants, particularly Mexican,

Somali, and Hmong populations, as well as economic immigrants and asylum seekers

from across the world, making Minnesota’s immigrant population more culturally diverse

than the national immigrant population (Wasem, 2020). This cultural diversity is

accompanied by incidents of human rights violations on legal immigrants which makes

Minnesota an ideal location for this study. This research was crucial because migration

trends are evolving and impacting the connection between immigrant populations and

human rights principles, yet there was little or no substantial research to back up these

changes especially as it related to legal immigrants (de Haas et al., 2019). This study

explored the experiences of human rights violations as faced by legal immigrants in

Minnesota, hoping to contribute to policy reforms that would improve the treatment of

immigrants in host countries.

Summary

In Chapter 1, I provided a description of the topic under investigation, the

importance of conducting the study, and the potential benefits to society. I introduced

contemporary challenges faced by legal immigrants in host countries, with a specific

focus on Minnesota. In the background of the study, I articulated key human rights

developments by the international community were highlighted, and the problem

statement, purpose statement, and research question guiding the study. A brief

explanation of Fineman’s vulnerability theory was presented to serve as the theoretical

framework grounding the study. The nature of the study was briefly described,

highlighting an outline of the methodology, research design, and the sample selection for

the study, which is expounded upon in Chapter 3. Definitions of some key terms, which

were consistently used throughout the study, were also provided. Assumptions, scope and

delimitations, limitations, and the significance of the study were highlighted. In Chapter

2, a review of existing literature in the study area and the theoretical framework of the

study are provided.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

While most immigrants look forward to entering into the United States to live the

“American Dream,” the American Dream could also mean a living nightmare for many

migrants, who even after acquiring a legal status to live in the United States, continue to

experience human rights violations (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). This literature review will

develop a better picture of the lived experiences of human rights violations against legal

immigrants in Minnesota. The purpose of this study was to use the knowledge gained

from participants’ responses through individual interviews and focus group discussions to

provide information that may contribute to policy reforms considerations to improve the

treatment of immigrants in host countries, by exploring how legal immigrants of

Mexican, Somali, and Hmong descents experiences human rights violations in

Minnesota.

The implementation of U.S. immigration policies like the Customs and Border

Protection policy, the unprecedented increase in federal immigration enforcement

policies, detention, and deportation of immigrants without due process increased racial

profiling and denial of due process rights for many legal immigrants in Minnesota

(Tsuchiya et al., 2021). This situation continues to impact legal immigrants by limiting

their ability to access adequate health care, and their ability to provide for their families,

raise bond fees, and obtain appropriate legal representation (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). In this

chapter, I review information regarding the lived experiences of human rights violations

against Mexican, Somali, and Hmong legal immigrants living in Minnesota. I also review

possible reasons why legal immigrants continued to experience human rights violations

in Minnesota.

Literature Search Strategy

This study’s literature was reviewed through the search of public policy and

administration databases using certain keywords and phrases. The databases used

included ProQuest Central, Political Science Complete, SocINDEX, Taylor and Francis

Criminal Justice, Academic Search Complete, as well as ERIC, EBSCO, Google Scholar,

and Thoreau. Other databases searched were Dissertations & Theses at Walden

University, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Key phrases like human

rights violations, international bill of human rights, legal immigrants, immigration,

United States immigration policies and practices, and resources for legal immigrants in

Minnesota were employed in regularly crafted text-based inquiries and search assertions

as part of the search strategy. These terms and phrases were chosen and used in each

literary project focusing upon indexing, vocabulary keywords, or similar index and

categorization phrases. The literature gathered was derived from scholarly journals and

articles published mainly between 2018 to 2023. However, some selected articles were

published earlier but were used because they provided foundational and historical

information to the study.

Theoretical Framework

Racial profiling, border deaths, and deprivation of procedural safeguards have all

increased against immigrants in the last decade due to federal immigration enforcement

tactics, particularly border enforcement operations by Customs and Border Patrol

officials (CBP; Menjívar et al., 2018). This study was be guided by Fineman’s

perspectives of vulnerability theory (as cited in Baumgärtel, 2020).

Fineman’s Vulnerability Theory

According to Fineman (2019), the discourse on human vulnerability must be

focused on what we share as humans, our expectations of the law and the fundamental

social structure, and the relationships that shape society and affect the lives of everyone.

Fineman’s vulnerability lays emphasis on the universal nature of vulnerability in human

conditions (Baumgärtel, 2020). The dominant thesis of Fineman's vulnerability theory is

that all human beings are vulnerable and predisposed to dependency, and the state has a

corresponding obligation to reduce, improve, and compensate for that vulnerability

(Kohn, 2014). Without prescribing a specific form of state organization, vulnerability

theory urges that states should be responsive to universal human needs and the

reorganization of many existing structures, which are currently based on a conception of

legal order that unduly value individual liberty and choice without paying attention to the

realities of human vulnerability and dependency (Fineman, 2019). Faced with neoliberal

pressure, Fineman maintained that resilient subjects can only be produced in a responsive

state (as cited in Davis & Aldieri, 2021).

Fineman (2010) identified four key elements of vulnerability: constancy,

particularity, universality, and complexity. On the constancy of dependency on others,

vulnerability is understood as a state of constant possibility of harm that is eminent. And

because vulnerability is constant, humans inevitably depend on each other and on the

state to respond to their social needs (Fineman, 2010). While dependent on their

immigrant population to integrate in their new environment, immigrants are particularly

vulnerable and depend on the state respond to their social, economic, and cultural needs.

On the particularity of the human condition, vulnerability theory holds that humans differ

in their embodiment and social location within webs of economic and institutional

relationships. Thus, having a different phenotype or social status can change how people

are treated (Fineman, 2010). This is widely experienced by immigrant populations in host

countries where their physical, mental, and intellectual variations often lead to

discrimination, racial and gender disparities, and the subsequent creation of hierarchies

and violation of human rights. On the other hand, access to resources for addressing

human vulnerability, such as childcare, food, insurance, employment opportunities, and

more, is largely dependent on one’s social location. These variations cause each human

being to experience vulnerability in a particular way, with immigrants being more

vulnerable as they struggle with the challenges of integration in their host countries.

The universality aspect of Fineman's vulnerability theory is based upon her

envisioning all humans as having the shared condition of being vulnerable irrespective of

their social status (Fineman, 2019). She contended that in defining the term human,

vulnerability is an unavoidable concept. The complexity of vulnerability lies in the ability

of its manifestation in a multiplicity of forms. Suffering a physical harm or injury may

have multiple effects on personal and institutional relationships (Fineman, 2010). The

second-level harm to relationships with others and institutions can take many forms;

economic or social and can have intergenerational repercussions (Kohn, 2014). The lack

of access to basic social and economic needs like healthcare, housing, education,

meaningful employment, and the rights to due process, makes it difficult for legal

immigrants in Minnesota to integrate and provide for their family. This can have adverse

effects on their children in the long run, especially if they lack access to education.

The core argument of Fineman's vulnerability theory is that humans are unstable

and susceptible to reliance on the state, so the sovereign has a responsibility to mitigate,

alleviate, and compensate for this vulnerability. The seal of Fineman’s vulnerability is

arguably the establishment of a responsive state (Baumgärtel, 2020); a state that meets its

obligation to respond to human vulnerability by providing equal access to the societal

institutions, that distribute social goods such as healthcare, employment, and security

(Kohn, 2014). In either society, nobody can prove preventing injuries, disease, and all

negative personal experiences, Fineman's thesis implicitly asserts that it is neither right

nor reasonable to anticipate that simply equal treatment can meet individuals' needs

(Kohn, 2014). Resilience shift is based on access to resilience-building institutions, upon

which individuals are reliant. In Fineman’s perspective, formal equality approach is

deficient for its failure to address gross and growing economic and material injustice

(Baumgärtel, 2020). Formal equality concentrates on eliminating discrimination against

historically disadvantaged groups rather than eliminating the disparities to which those

groups were subjected (Kohn, 2014).

While vulnerability theory certainly addresses many of the inequities experienced

by disenfranchised individuals, it lays emphasis on the disproportionate impact of social

institutions like, education, housing, health care, and employment, that shape people’s

ability to cope and succeed with vulnerability (Fineman & Fineman, 2018). Fineman

opined that the government should give accessibility to social organizations that

redistribute expected benefits like healthcare, education, housing, and protection to fulfill

their commitment to adapt to compassion (Baumgärtel, 2020). This commitment,

according to Fineman, seems compatible with the nation's primary purpose to deal with

human vulnerability.

Review of Literature

The Philosophical Tradition of Phenomenology

Phenomenology, as developed by Husserl and later expanded by Heidegger, is a

philosophical tradition that focuses on the structures of experience and consciousness.

Husserl, often regarded as the father of phenomenology, emphasized the importance of

intentionality, the notion that consciousness is always about something, and introduced

the method of epoché to suspend judgments about the external world and focus on pure

experience (Husserl, 1931). Heidegger, a student of Husserl, diverged from his mentor's

approach by delving into the concept of being (Dasein), arguing that understanding

existence requires examining the fundamental way humans relate to the world

(Heidegger, 1927). This tradition seeks to uncover the essential truths of human

experience by setting aside preconceived notions and biases, focusing instead on the

phenomena as they present themselves in consciousness.

The philosophical tradition of phenomenology, as established by Husserl and

Heidegger, aligned with this qualitative phenomenological study as it emphasizes the

understanding of human experiences from the first-person perspective, focusing on the

essence of experiences as they are lived (see Heidegger, 1927; Husserl, 1931). In

qualitative research, phenomenological methods aim to deeply explore and describe the

lived experiences of individuals, capturing their perceptions, feelings, and responses to

their situations. In studying human rights violations against legal immigrants in

Minnesota, this phenomenological approach involved collecting detailed narratives from

the immigrants themselves. This approach aligns with Husserl's emphasis on the

lifeworld (Lebenswelt) - the world as experienced in the immediacy of our lived

experiences, prior to reflection or conceptualization (Husserl, 1936). It also resonates

with Heidegger's focus on Dasein or being-in-the-world, and his exploration of how

individuals make sense of their existence and experiences.

By using this approach, I gained insights into how legal immigrants perceive and

are affected by human rights violations, understanding their experiences in a rich,

contextualized manner. The findings from this study could provide valuable, nuanced

information for policymakers, legal authorities, and support services aiming to address

and mitigate these human rights issues.

In reviewing existing literature on this study area, I focused on six main areas: (a)

the concept of vulnerability and the legal protection of immigrants, (b) an overview of the

selected immigrant population in Minnesota, (c) perceived structural vulnerabilities of

legal immigrants in Minnesota, (d) initiating and escalating factors of human rights

violations against legal immigrants in Minnesota, (e) the nature of human rights

violations on legal immigrants in Minnesota, (f) socioeconomic and cultural impacts of

human rights violations against legal immigrants in Minnesota.

A Synopsis of Human Rights Violation on Legal Immigrants in Minnesota

For several decades now, there has been a record increase in immigration

enforcement against noncitizen immigrants, including detainment and deportation by the

US government (Patler & Golash-Boza, 2017). Despite established principles in the

IBHR, many legal immigrants in Minnesota still experience human rights violations in

Minnesota and across the United States (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). The Customs and Border

Protection policy, and the unprecedented increase in federal immigration enforcement

policies, detention, and deportation of immigrants without due process, have increased

racial outlining, and denial of due process rights, for many legal immigrants in Minnesota

(Schmidt, 2019). This adversely impacts their wellbeing and welfare by limiting their

ability to provide for their families, raise bond fees, and obtain legal representation, hence

poor health care and living conditions (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). Earlier research held that

immigrants who undergo detention experience vulnerabilities that spread across various

systems permeating different aspects of their lives and the lives of their families by

extension (Patler & Golash-Boza, 2017).

Existing literature has suggested that phenotypically, European immigrants face

far less discrimination than their counterparts from Asia, Latin America, and Africa

(Portes & Rumbaut, 2016). In comparing the adaptation of African, Latin American,

Asian, and European immigrants in the United States, Portes and Rumbaut (2016) opined

that non-European immigrants are faced with greater obstacles than those from Europe.

In another study, Danso and Lum (2013) maintained that in Minnesota, East African,

Hispanic, and Asian immigrants experienced higher rates of hostilities by citizens than

immigrants from European countries. The above empirical findings lend support to this

study’s assumption that human rights violations affect legal immigrants in Minnesota in

one way or the other, and at varying levels with Hispanics, Africans, and Asians being

more vulnerable and facing the brunt. The above findings also support the theoretical

framework guiding this study.

The Legal Protection of Immigrants and Their Vulnerabilities in Host Countries

Although human rights are inalienable and should not be granted on the basis of

citizenship, the authority to protect national borders and determine domestic laws lies

extensively in the hands of the state. The principles of the IBHR underscore that the

protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms should not be dependent on one’s

geographical location in the world (Easley et al., 2001). Every state is responsible for

upholding and protecting human rights through its domestic laws and enforcement

(Timmer et al., 2021). Unlike other issues of a cross-cutting nature, such as environmental

protection, the international system has not mandated any organization or institution to

provide overall normative oversight and leadership in the protection of migrants’ rights

(Kysel, 2016). Normatively, the rights of all migrants only receive comprehensive elaboration

and protection indirectly by applying general human rights treaties which recognize that all

human beings have equal rights. This is what Fineman referred to as formal equality approach,

which she considered deficient for failing to address gross and growing socioeconomic and

material disparities (as cited in Baumgärtel, 2020).

States have the autonomy to admit non-nationals into their territory, as well as the

autonomy to detain or expulse non-nationals from their borders. However, despite this

autonomy to manage migration flows states are obligated by international law to do so in

such a way that upholds the rights of individuals within their territory and under their

jurisdiction (Kysel, 2016). Existing international law does not impose upon states how to

govern their migration flows, nor does it dictate how to formulate migration policies. In

fact, the existing international legal framework creates a sustainable basis for having

long-term migration governance with respect for the individual, as well as recognizing

the states’ competence to govern access and the stay of non-nationals.

While expanding the rights of domestic workers in international law, including

through the adoption of the International Labor Organization (ILO) Domestic Workers

Convention in 2011, migrant workers continue to remain vulnerable to employment-related

abuse, discrimination, and exploitation (Murphy, 2013). Legal and political restrictions on the

status and rights of migrants limit their freedom of movement, reducing their individual social

capital and resources at all stages of migration, particularly in countries of destination.

According to Hagar et al. (2022), most migrant workers in the UAE, Qatar, and other Middle

East countries are often charged fees to apply for, get hired, and travel to jobs, before their

departure. In most cases, these migrant workers or their family members borrow the money

and become indebted in the process. This traps them into being unable to refuse a job before

their departure, ask for higher pay, demand their rights, and to continue working even if there

is abuse or contract violation when they reach the destination country (Paoletti et al., 2014).

This has led many migrants into a vicious circle of indebtedness before they start to earn

money for themselves and their families.

In Europe and the United States, most migrants typically face linguistic and

institutional barriers to access jobs for which they qualify. This makes them generally more

likely to have shorter job tenure, non-standard or informal contracts, and low-skilled

occupations than their counterparts who are citizens of the United States (Wilson & Stimpson,

2020). All these factors make their employment status sensitive to business cycle fluctuations,

which increases their vulnerability during economic downturns (Sarrett, 2021). With a high

concentration of migrants in low-pay jobs than natives and having to transfer a large portion of

their income abroad through remittance, most migrants typically have limited savings in host

countries and are therefore poorly equipped to afford an average living standard (Hagar et al.,

2022). Further, the residence status of migrants typically determines their entitlement to

welfare state provisions and public health care. This significantly limits their access to social

amenities compared to their native counterparts.

Immigrants in the United States face substantial economic and legal barriers to

accessing healthcare and other social amenities. Most recent authorized immigrants are

ineligible for federally funded public insurance programs and other state-funded programs,

even for children of immigrants; for instance, most states do not provide any Medicaid

benefits to pregnant immigrants and recently immigrated legal permanent resident (LPR)

children (Wilson & Stimpson, 2020). In some cases, immigration policies such as the public

charge rule may further disincentivize even authorized immigrants to seek care when they

need one (Tsuchiya et al., 2021).

The United States has not offered large-scale, congressionally supported amnesty to

most immigrants since the 1990s. Since the 2016 presidential election, most United States

policies toward immigrants have been hostile (Wasem, 2020). The Trump Administration

suggested an end to birthright citizenship, characterized Mexican and Somali immigrants as

criminals, and attempted to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

protections, which offers transitory protections to undocumented immigrants brought to the

country as minors (Mapp et al., 2019). These actions and statements have generated

considerable anxiety in immigrant communities across the United States and Minnesota where

the three major immigrant populations presented in this study.

The Selected Immigrant Populations Under Study in Minnesota

Previous studies have shown that nearly 10% of Minnesota residents are

immigrants, with 7% being native-born United States citizens with an origin from at least

one immigrant parent (Flood et al., 2020). In 2018, 484,192 immigrants comprised 9% of

Minnesota population (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). According to Flood et al. (2020), the top

countries of origin for immigrants in Minnesota are Mexico (12%), Somalia (8%), India

(6%Laos - Hmong (5%), and Ethiopia (5%). This study focused on three main immigrant

populations in Minnesota: Mexicans, Somalis, and Hmong.

Mexican Immigrants

The history of Mexicans and Mexican Americans in Minnesota is a history of a

working class. Like every immigrant group, Latinos came to Minnesota in search of

opportunities to better their lives. Being one of the first immigrant population to arrive in

Minnesota, the historical heart of the Mexican immigrant community is the West Side of

St. Paul, but they have their roots in the sugar beet fields of greater Minnesota, where

migrants from Mexico labored as early as the 1910s (Roethke, 2007). Mexicans found

themselves engaged in work both in the urban and the rural communities. Many families

settled in the cities of Minneapolis and St Paul, while others were recruited to work in

agriculture as migrant workers in the fields of outstate Minnesota (Roethke, 2007).

Mexican migrant families often moved from community to community following

the fieldwork, as they worked under a contract between the farmer and the migrant

family. Roethke (2007) stated that as Mexicans were recruited to work in the sugar beet

fields, food processing, and meat packing industry, communities grew with Mexican

residents in the metro and rural areas from the Twin Cities to Glencoe, Owatonna,

Willmar, Worthington, and the Red River Valley. Reports from MNopedia (2016)

connotes that

Since the early 1900s, Latinos have been a productive and essential part of

Minnesota. Most of the earliest arrivals to Minnesota were migrant farm workers

from Mexico or Texas; they faced obstacles to achieving citizenship; this

continues to be an obstacle and is an issue still under discussion today. (p. 1)

Bourgois et al. (2017) noted that most Mexicans acquire legal permanent resident

status in the United States through family reunification, either as immediate relatives of

United States citizens or through other family-sponsored networks. Mexican immigrants

in Minnesota have also been beneficiaries of the DACA program, which provides

temporary deportation relief and work authorization to unauthorized migrants who

arrived as children and meet the program’s education and other eligibility criteria.

Tsuchiya et al. (2021) noted that Mexicans and other immigrant populations in Minnesota

experience several challenges and risks stemming from upstream social-structural factors

which constrain and limit their options for security and integration in the United States.

These inequities are a byproduct of the hierarchical social structures and power relations

enforced through policies, practices, and laws concerning an individual’s legal status and

other attributes (Bourgois et al., 2017).

Somali Immigrants

Following reports by the United Nations of over 1.5 million Somalis internally

displaced and over 1 million fleeing Somalia as refugees and asylees due to instability,

the United States began issuing visas to Somali refugees in 1992 (Darboe, 2003). For

Somalis who received a visa, the decision to leave families and homes in East Africa was

painful, but many did leave and resettled in the United States (Chambers, 2017). Somalis

started arriving in Minnesota in 1992 as refugees while others arrived as immigrants

through the sponsorship of family members or relocated to Minnesota from other parts of

the United States (Chambers, 2017). The resettlement of Somali refugees in Minnesota

was largely facilitated by refugee resettlement agencies like the International Institute of

Minnesota, World Relief Minnesota (today know as Arrive Ministry), nonprofit faith-

based service organizations like Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Charities, Somali-

led organizations like Somali Family Services and the Confederation of Somali

Community in Minnesota, and Somali individuals and families (Darboe, 2003).

In 2018, Minnesota was home to one of the largest Somali communities in the

Somali diaspora. Census data from 2015 offered an estimate of 57,000 while other data

estimates the number ranging from 81,000 to 100,000 (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). The

majority of Somalis in Minnesota live in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, while others

have settled in smaller towns throughout the state. Many Somalis have chosen Minnesota

because of their social networks, for educational and employment opportunities, and to

access an array of services (Chambers, 2017). Like many immigrants, language and

cultural barriers have been a major challenge for Somalis seeking to integrate into

Minnesota. Many arrived with proficiency in multiple languages: Somali, Arabic, and

sometimes Swahili, French, or Italian. Gaining English proficiency has been challenging

making their transition to America difficult (Chambers, 2017). Upon arrival in the 1990s,

most Minnesotans were unfamiliar with the Muslim religious practices and beliefs, hence

posing a barrier to practice their faith in Minnesota. For many Somalis, finding space for

daily prayers and ablution —the ritual of cleansing one’s hands and feet before daily

prayers—while at school or at work is a recurring challenge. Despite significant

strategies to accommodate these practices in Minnesota, it issues surrounding religious

practices from the immigrants’ countries of origin remain difficult in a society that is not

used to accommodating prayer in schools or workplaces. For many Somali women who

choose to wear the hijab, religious discrimination at school, at work, and in public places

is prevalent, while other Somali women have decided not to wear the hijab at all

(Chambers, 2017).

The events of September 11, 2001, impacted people around the world, including

Somalis in Minnesota. Fear of terrorism led the U.S. government to scrutinize anything

that it believed had connections to the terrorist network Al-Qaeda (Darboe, 2003). This

left Somalis very vulnerable to discrimination and hostilities in Minnesota. Men from

Arab and Muslim countries were required to register with the federal government and

agree to be interviewed annually by the government through a new federal program, the

National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS; Ali, 2011). Since then, the

U.S. government has continued investigations on possible links that Somalis living in

Minnesota may have with Al-Shabaab and Islamic State (ISIS). From 2007 to 2008,

approximately 20 young Somali men left Minnesota and returned to Somalia and

recruited to join Al-Shabaab (Ali, 2011). Nine Somali American men pleaded guilty in

2016 and were convicted of collusion to fight for the terrorist group ISIS in Syria. The

uniqueness of the trial in the United States left the Somali community deeply troubled by

the radicalization of Somali youth in Minnesota (Tsuchiya et al. 2021).

Prior to his election in November 2016 President Donald Trump used anti-

immigrant rhetoric and scapegoating as some of his most dangerous weapons on his

campaign trail. This anti-immigrant rhetoric and scapegoating resonated with many

Minnesotans, entrenching even deeper anti-immigrant tendencies after President Trump’s

speech on August 5th, 2016. In his speech, he called out on Somali refugees in Minnesota

of being “a pool of potential recruiting targets for Islamic terror groups,” criticizing them

for being allegedly reliant on public assistance due to high unemployment rates

(Koumpilova, 2016).

The experience of Somali immigrants in Minnesota provides one important

example of the multifaceted interplay between immigration, experiences of

discrimination, acculturation, neighborhood characteristics, and well-being in the United

States. Being Black Muslim immigrants, Somalis are faced with a triple challenge of

race, religion, and immigration status in the United States (Ellis et al., 2010). By

identifying with these three marginalized identities, Somalis are vulnerable to

discrimination related to all three intersecting identities. Dion (2001) opined that in the

early 2000s, Somali Americans reported higher levels of perceived housing

discrimination compared to other immigrants in the United States. Somali Americans

have also been noted for recording the highest rates of unemployment and lowest rates of

college graduation among East African immigrants (Diamant, 2017). The kind of

reception experienced by Somalis in Minnesota and other parts of North America is

complicated by societal hostility toward Muslims. Since after 9/11 and the ushering in of

the Trump administration, experiences of exclusion and prejudice have become

characteristic of the Somali immigrant experience in Minnesota, and within the United

States, anti-Muslim hate crimes have been on a steady increase since 2016 (Kishi, 2017).

All these challenges faced by Somalis in Minnesota and elsewhere in the United States

have adversely impacted their integration in the United States, leaving them very

vulnerable to discrimination and hostilities.

Hmong Immigrants

At the Geneva Conference in July 1962, Laos expressed its intent of remaining

neutral throughout the Cold War. While the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to

honor the neutrality of Laos, this agreement only lasted until the United States decided to

fight a clandestine war targeting Communist Vietnamese residing in northern Laos and

the Ho Chi Minh Trail of Laos. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) recruited many

Hmong people to secretly carry out high-risk attacks in both locations in Laos. The

Hmong became allies to the United States military since the United States provided

humanitarian aid to Hmong communities during the 1960s and 70s. When the war ended

with the Fall of Saigon in 1975 and as Communists took over Laos, many Hmong,

especially those who fought on behalf of the United States, fled to Thailand. These

Hmong population lived in Thailand until the Indochina Migration and Refugee

Assistance Act (IMRAA) was extended to include Laotians, which comprised the ethnic

groups of Laos, Hmong, that refugees began coming into the United States.

With the passing of IMRAA, mass movement of Hmong refugees began moving

into the United States between the 1970s and the 1990s. These decades contributed to the

total 130,000 Hmong who came to the United States as political refugees (Swartz et al.,

2021). In the 1980s the United States government acknowledged the Hmong people’s

role in the Laotian war and shed light on it to the public (Swartz et al., 2021). When Bill

Clinton signed the Hmong Veterans’ Naturalization Act (HVNA) into law in 2000, many

Hmong were able to gain citizenship in the United States. With the signing of the HVNA,

St. Paul was home to a Hmong population of approximately 66,000 by 2010.

Minnesota has over 73,000 Hmong Americans living within the state borders, and

94% of them live in the Twin Cities area (Muramatsu et al., 2022). Large parts of St.

Paul, like nearly all of University Avenue for example, is lined with Hmong owned

markets, restaurants, shops, and services such as the Hmong Cultural Center, Hmong

American Partners, and law offices with Hmong American attorneys. Additionally, the

local university, Concordia University, has a Center for Hmong Studies. Hmongs also

have a stronghold in Minnesota economy especially in the agricultural sector. Politically,

the Hmong people have held electoral positions and served at the state level in

Minnesota. The strong presence in the community is a special phenomenon for Hmong

Americans living in Minnesota compared to Hmong Americans living elsewhere (Swartz

et al., 2021).

Muramatsu et al. (2022) opined that the Model Minority Myth, that all Asians are

educated, successful, and prosperous, disguises the varied characteristics that exist within

the different nationalities of Asians, and has been used by the dominant White racial

group to divide Asians from African American, LatinX, and American Indian

racial/ethnic groups. This assertion is true for Hmong populations in Minnesota, where

policies and prioritization criteria ignore vulnerable Asian subgroups connoting that

Asians do not require resources and attention in public health programs, academic

literature, or workforce development (Jones, 2000). These biased perceptions, beliefs and

values, and unjust distribution of resources in public health, educational support, and

employment has led to personally mediated racism such as microaggressions experienced

by Hmong with specific health, educational and employment needs. Institutionalized

racism and personally mediated racism has led to internalized racism where a large

number of Hmong believe their health needs are unworthy of attention, which has made

most Hmong in Minnesota so oblivious to recognizing racism against the Hmong

population (Muramatsu et al., 2022).

Perceived Structural Vulnerabilities of Legal Immigrants in Minnesota

According to Willen et al. (2017), vulnerability is a multidimensional construct

that can be experienced in many different forms. The concept of structural vulnerability

has its roots in medical anthropology, recognizing and highlighting how upstream macro

social structures contribute to suffering, distress, and health (Holmes, 2011).

Contemporary social structures have placed many migrants outside legal protection

categories today, necessitating the need for specific human rights protection interventions

to address their vulnerabilities both in transit and at their destination. The vulnerable

situations faced by migrants emanate from a range of situational and personal factors that

may intersect or coexist simultaneously, influencing and exacerbating each other over

time (Bourgois et al., 2017). Migrants are not inherently vulnerable, nor do they lack

resilience. The vulnerability of migrants to human rights violations is caused by various

forms of discrimination, inequality, and structural and societal dynamics that lead to

diminished and unequal entitlement to human rights (Szaflarski et al., 2019; Patler,

2017). Also, migrants may find themselves vulnerable based on the situations that compel

them to leave their country of origin, their travel circumstances, the conditions they face

in their destination, and personal characteristics such as their gender identity, their age,

race, or health status (Tsuchiya et al., 2021).

The perpetration of racial disparities in healthcare, employment, socioeconomic

access, and the unprecedented increase in immigration enforcement against legal

immigrants, including detainment and deportation by the U.S. government, exposes them

to multiple levels of vulnerabilities that affect different aspects of their lives (Patler,

2017). According to Tsuchiya et al. (2021), legal immigrants in Minnesota are

susceptible to challenges and risks orchestrated by social-structural factors that limit their

security options and make their integration in the United States more difficult.

Discrimination

Over the past few decades, large numbers of immigrants have entered the United

States seeking refuge, economic opportunity, and family reunification. This has led to

unprecedented levels of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity in the United States (Karger

& Stoesz, 2014). While immigrants from every corner of the globe come into the United

States for different reasons, the immigration experience is not uniform for every

immigrant. Discrimination is considered a key stressor for minority populations in

Minnesota, which contributes to persistent disparities across other important aspects in

their daily life (Berkel et al., 2010). Immigrants are often known as the invisible minority

(IM) group in the United States. Although, for the most part, legal immigrants fulfill their

civic obligations like every other citizen, they remain victims of discrimination in

Minnesota. Further, research has indicated that many immigrants in Minnesota who are

eligible to work in the United States often encounter some level of discrimination in their

workplaces, which prevents them from economic advancement and job advancement

opportunities. (Akomolafe, 2013).

According to Bonikowski et al. (2005), White noncollege job seekers have better

advantages over their African American, Asian, and Latino counterparts in the job

market. This indicates that Whites are systematically preferred to minorities. As a result,

minorities with identical skills as white applicants are denied job opportunities. Also,

most White employers in Minnesota tend to see more potential qualifications of White

applicants and more commonly view White applicants as a better fit for more desirable

jobs (Pager et al., 2009). Most legal immigrants in Minnesota are often disadvantaged in

gaining access to jobs for which they are educationally qualified and earn less than their

White counterparts because they are more likely to be subject to work discrimination (De

Jong & Madamba, 2002). Racial discrimination remains a persistent source of labor

market disadvantages for racial and ethnic minorities in Minnesota. As this status quo

persists, Mexicans, Somalis, and Hmong immigrants in Minnesota do not have equal

opportunities to advance their career to supervisory positions or any other higher position

since employers are influenced by negative stereotypes, which limits their levels of

perceived job security (Hirsh & Lyons, 2010).

Following the events of September 11, 2001, Somalis and Muslims in Minnesota

and other states have been discriminated against, targeted by hate groups, and surveilled

by the FBI because of their Islamic faith. The executive orders signed by President

Donald Trump in February of 2017 even banned new immigrants from Somalia, among

other countries (Berkel et al., 2010). With President Trump’s ascension to power, the

political climate of the United States became very unfavorable to immigrants. Prior to his

election in November 2016, Trump used anti-immigration rhetoric and scapegoating as

his weapons on the campaign trail. He labeled Somali refugees in Minnesota as a pool of

potential recruits for Islamic terror groups, and immigrants from Mexico as the main

source of crime in the United States (Koumpilova, 2016). This sparked off anti-

immigrant tendencies and hostilities from Minnesotans.

Financial Insecurity

Documented Latino immigrants in the labor markets have fewer opportunities for

improving wages or their working conditions compared to their Caucasians counterparts,

especially in the context of a deeper recession. Documented individuals who have legal

rights to work continue to encounter injustices, which prevents them from advancing to a

better economic situation (Gentsch & Massev, 2011). African American, Hispanic and

women with lower ascriptive status increases the risk of experiencing racial employment

discrimination (Hursh & Lyons, 2010). In addition, employers capitalize on migrant

workers’ vulnerabilities to maintain cheap and reliable laborers. Clark et al. (2020)

opined that most legal immigrant primarily work in a labor force division that does not

provide living wages, benefits, or job security. Financial difficulties expose immigrant

families to risks of poor health and relationship violence (van Gelder et al., 2020;

Yoshikawa et al., 2020). Jobs typically held by legal immigrants in Minnesota do not

have the flexibility of working from home. Prepandemic data showed that only 16.2% of

Hispanic workers’ jobs allowed them to work remotely compared to 31.4% of non-

Hispanic workers (Gil et al., 2020; United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018b).

Access to Healthcare

The growing trend of migration has been mirrored by a demand for a reorientation

of health policies to better protect migrants’ health in host countries (Clark et al., 2020).

Numerous federal policies enacted over the past 2 decades have had a significant impact

on immigrants’ access to health care, and the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable

Care Act (ACA) is no exception. Prior to 1996, legal immigrants and their children were

eligible for health coverage under the Medicaid program if they met state-specific

income- and asset eligibility criteria (Pandey et al., 2014). With the signing of the Illegal

Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996 by President Clinton, the United

States welfare system was restricted, with a significant impact on legal immigrants’

access to healthcare and other federally funded programs. Under this legislation, legal

immigrants lost eligibility for all means-tested federally funded programs for their first

five years in the United States, including Medicaid (Pandey et al., 2014). After 1996, few

states opted to proactively enact their own legislation to cover legal immigrants subject to

the five-year ban. In 2002, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Urban

Child Amendment provided states with the option of federal matching funds to cover care

for pregnant women despite their immigration status. While this legislation seemed

lenient to pregnant immigrant women, it only justified care for the unborn child whose

immigration status remained unknown (Wilson & Stimpson, 2020).

In 2009 the Immigrant Children’s Health Improvement Act was passed, which

gave states the option to cover “legal” immigrant pregnant women and children who were

subject to the 5-year ban and to receive federal financial matching payments to assist with

the cost of coverage (Yasenov et al, 2020). As of 2016, 31 states, including Minnesota,

had extended coverage to lawful permanent resident immigrant children and 32 states to

pregnant immigrant women who were lawful permanent residents within the 5 years of

residency. Under the ACA, legal immigrants are, in most circumstances, still subject to

the 5-year ban, which limits their ability to access affordable healthcare (Wilson &

Stimpson, 2020). Since 1996, significant restrictions on access to public health benefits

have been placed on undocumented and legal immigrants alike. The 5-year ban on access

to public health insurance coverage for all immigrants results in a significant barrier to

access to needed care for legal immigrants in Minnesota (Bromley et al., 2012). The

ACA has not adequately addressed the healthcare needs of legal immigrants under health

reform.

Persistent disparities in access to healthcare between immigrants and United

States citizens are well documented. In 2016, it was reported that lawful immigrants

experienced more barriers when attempting to seek health care than United States

citizens, despite access to care being recognized as a policy concern (Agency for

Healthcare Research and Quality, 2017). In Minnesota, disparities in access to healthcare

services such as preventive care contribute to numerous health disadvantages among

immigrants (Ellis et al., 2022). The widely recognized social disadvantages many

immigrants in Minnesota face are associated with observed racial/ethnic disparities in

primary care access. These disadvantages include language barriers, limited educational

attainment, inadequate insurance coverage, financial difficulties, citizenship, and

immigration status (Tsuchiya et al., 2021).

For Mexicans, Somalis, and Hmong immigrants in Minnesota, a significant

barrier to healthcare access is proficiency in English. Limited English proficiency (LEP)

compromises legal immigrants’ access to healthcare by limiting the quality of

interactions between patients and healthcare providers (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). Research

has shown that compared to English-speaking immigrants, non-English-speaking

immigrants in Minnesota are 3.58 times more likely to be uninsured, 1.40 times less

likely to visit a primary care provider due to cost, 3.26 times more likely to not have a

primary care provider, and 1.27 times less likely to have a yearly checkup (DuBard &

Gizlice, 2008). In 2010, the United States Census Bureau indicated that across the United

States and within Minnesota, lawful immigrants are four times more likely to be

uninsured than their citizen counterparts (United States Census Bureau, 2010).

English Language Proficiency

In the last 3 decades, there has been an increase in immigration to the United

States from non-English-speaking countries. This has drawn attention to the significance

of English proficiency in the integration of immigrants in the United States. According to

Bleakley and Chin (2010), English proficiency helps immigrants integrate economically

into their new home by narrowing the wage gap between immigrants and United States

citizens. Limited English language proficiency is a major barrier to effective integration

to American society. It impedes access to health care services, schools, and government

agencies; relegates workers to low-wage jobs with reduced likelihood of upward

mobility; and leads to early school dropout and associated risk behaviors on the part of

young people. It is also a key factor in what has been called acculturative stress, as

children and their families negotiate a new system in which their native languages may

not be understood, and in which they may not know the language of the host country

(Hernandez & Charney, 1998).

In the early 2000s, California was first while Minnesota ranked second

nationwide, in the percentage of refugees living in the state. As of 2020, the second

largest Hmong community and the largest Somali community in the United States reside

in Minnesota. The number of African immigrants in the state grew by 620% in the 1990s,

and the number of immigrants from Latin America grew by 577%. From 2000-2010,

Latinx accounted for 60.7% of the population growth in the Midwest and 27.8% of

growth in Minnesota (Hernandez & Charney, 1998). Apart from hosting these three large

communities of immigrants, Minnesota hosts particularly robust economic sectors that

have historically depended upon immigrant labor, such as agriculture, meatpacking, and

healthcare, some of which were deemed “essential” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coming from non-English-speaking countries, Minnesota’s immigrants and refugees

represent a remarkable diversity, with more than 230 languages spoken in their homes.

The top languages spoken at home by immigrants are Spanish, Somali, other East African

languages, and Hmong.

Over 28% of Minnesota immigrant population have limited English language

proficiency. Proficiency in English has critical implications for Mexican, Somali, and

Hmong families in Minnesota to have equitable access to education, housing, healthcare,

better employment opportunities, social services, as well as to improve their well-being

and integration in the state. Numerous studies have examined the influences of limited

English language proficiency on access to health care and identified that patients with

LEP often have trouble communicating with medical providers and rate their health care

experiences more negatively (Web et al., 2020). They also experience worse access to

care, including obtaining health insurance, medical care, physician visits, and preventive

services. This in part, explains why during the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare

disparities increased among immigrant populations in Minnesota (Barwise et al., 2021).

According to Lang (2022), proficiency in the host country’s language is very

crucial for the successful labor market integration of immigrants. While economic

opportunity differs from economic mobility, more economic opportunity will likely lead

to an increase in social and economic intergenerational mobility (Timothy, 2016). In

Minnesota, English language proficiency is a barrier that directly inhibits increases in

opportunity and intergenerational mobility for Mexicans, Somalis, and Hmong who are

already fraught with multiple disadvantages (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). Proficiency in

English is necessary to obtain information about jobs and to be able to apply for a job.

Most jobs—especially skilled jobs—in Minnesota require English language skills to

communicate with supervisors, peers, customers, and business partners. Immigrants who

proficient in English are more likely to find a job and more productive on the job (Lang,

2022). Research has shown that there is a positive impact in the effects of language

proficiency on earnings (Bleakley & Chin 2004; Chiswick & Miller 1995; Miranda &

Zhu 2013). The lack of proficiency in English puts Mexicans, Somalis, and Hmong

immigrant populations in Minnesota at a disadvantaged position in terms of their ability

to earn descent pay to cater for their wellbeing and their families.

Housing Affordability

Finding a haven from their countries of origin has been a driving force for

millions of immigrants who arrive in the United States. Like any other immigrant

population, Mexicans, Somalis, and Hmong immigrants come into the United States

seeking the opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their children. Finding a

stable, affordable home is inextricably tied to these dreams. However, for many

immigrants living in Minnesota, securing a safe, healthy, and affordable home is almost

impossible due to systemic barriers that have created disparities in home ownership

(Tsuchiya et al., 2021). After many years since their arrival in Minnesota, many

immigrants face significant and urgent challenges finding and maintaining adequate and

affordable housing. A growing number of legal immigrants pay more than they can afford

for housing, forcing them to live in substandard conditions or sacrifice other necessities

like food, medicine, or transportation. These challenges disproportionately impact

immigrants in Minnesota, especially Hmong, Somalis, Mexicans who are already

affected by multiple barriers to earn a descent income. Almost 40% of immigrant

households in the Twin Cities metropolitan area pay more than 30% of their income on

housing (Barwise et al., 2021).

According to Xiong et al. (n.d), between 2000 and 2015, the Hmong foreign-born

population in the Twin Cities region grew by only 25%. However, compared to other

immigrant groups, foreign-born Hmong households in Minnesota have higher incomes

and homeownership rates, with a median yearly household income of $50,000 and 46

percent of foreign-born Hmong-led households owning their home. Despite a significant

percentage in home ownership, the Hmong immigrant population still trail behind their

White counterparts who boast of over 76% of homeownership (Xiong et al., n.d). While

the Mexican foreign-born population increased by 56% in the Twin Cities region,

accounting for 30% of the growth in the immigrant population between 2000 and 2015,

their median yearly household income is only about $36,000 and a homeownership rate

of 39% (MartinRogers et al., 2016). Despite an increase in population of over 160%

between 2000 and 2015, Somali immigrants have extremely low yearly household

incomes of about $20,000 and only about 10% home ownership (Xiong, et al., n.d). Apart

from the income disadvantage due to factors such as language proficiency, Somali,

Hmong, and Mexican immigrants also experience issues of discriminatory practices from

landlords, high unaffordable rents, substandard living conditions, and long waiting lists

for subsidized housing, which affect their ability to afford a decent lifestyle in Minnesota

(Tsuchiya et al., 2021).

Immigration Detention

According to Cartwright (2011), the U.S. immigration system creates

vulnerabilities for immigrants via challenges, delays, and denials. This observation is also

supported Tsuchiya et al. (2021) for immigrants undergoing detention in Minnesota.

Some of the challenges these detained immigrants face include securing representation,

navigating immigration court proceedings, obtaining necessary information for their case

while in detention, and lengthy administrative processing times (Tsuchiya et al., 2021).

In Minnesota, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contracts with local

county jails such as Sherburne County Jail, Freeborn Adult Detention Center, Kandiyohi

County Jail, and Carver County Jail to house immigration detainees. Since these are

federal contracts, these jails are limited in their ability to enforce local Minnesota

standards for detainee health, sanitation, or isolation, which is problematic when

considering ICE’s record of medical neglect and abuse (McGuire, n.d.). These facilities

are not equipped to treat persons with serious health needs, especially those needing long-

term treatment. Persons with serious mental health issues have, in some cases, been

placed in segregation or isolation because the staff lack appropriate means to manage a

mental health crisis. This means inmates spend 22 to 23 hours each day in their cell

where they are not permitted access to books or any type of activity (McGuire, n.d.).

In 2020 and early 2021, while the COVID-19 pandemic created opportunities for early

release from state and federal prisons, this provided little relief to immigrants in detention

as judges in Minnesota cited flight risks and lack of permanent address for immigrants in

detention (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). Although civil offenders, such as immigrants, should

legally be treated with fewer restrictions compared to criminal offenders, immigrant

detainees are frequently sent to solitary confinement, which is one of the most restrictive

policies. While in solitary confinement, these immigrant detainees have limited access to

educational opportunities, visiting hours and technology to research their case.

Technology access is particularly crucial as detainees in the federal immigration system

are not entitled to legal representation (McGuire, n.d.). Most of the legal immigrants

undergoing immigration detention in Minnesota experience multiple, intersecting

vulnerabilities which also impact their families, especially since many detainees are

supporting family members including children, pregnant spouses, or partners, and those

with chronic health conditions (Tsuchiya et al., 2021).

Initiating and Escalating Factors of Human Rights Violations on Legal Immigrants

in Minnesota

Estimates in 2021 suggested that 23% of United States citizens consider

immigration as the most important problem facing the country, while 35% feel that

immigration to the United States should be decreased (Abascal et al., 2021).

Approximately 34% of United States citizens think immigrants are a burden on the

country, a view that is also prevalent in other destination countries. These views of

immigration and immigrants are racialized, in the United States with stereotypes of

Latinos, Mexicans, Asians, and Africans, conforming to negative stereotypes of

immigrants in general. Heightened anti-immigrant sentiments are politically

consequential and have recently been linked to the voting for Donald Trump as president

of the United States (Abascal et al., 2021). During President Trump’s administration,

there were several anti-immigration policy enactments that were deemed inconsistent

with the rule of law, and that promoted human rights violations on immigrants in the

United States. Though it predates Trump’s administration, the opposition to migrant

resettlement among some Minnesotans was invigorated by Trump’s anti-immigration

rhetoric and scapegoating, which was used as a dangerous weapon during his campaigns

in November 2016 (Rawlins, 2017). Trump labeled Somali refugees in Minnesota as a

recruiting target for Islamist terror groups, and blamed Mexican immigrants for all forms

of crime in the United States. As COVID-19 burgeoned across the United States, Asian

Americans experienced a surge in racially motivated hate crimes involving physical

violence and harassment. This spiked disdain for Mexicans, Somalis, and Hmong

immigrants in Minnesota, setting a solid base for human rights violations on legal

immigrants in the state (Gover, 2020).

President Trump’s Administrative Inconsistencies With the Rule of Law

One of the basic evaluative criteria of a constitutional democracy such as the

United States is the rule of law. At a bare minimum, the rule of law requires that the use

of the executive power remains consistent with preexisting law, including the

Constitution (Strauss, 2019). Without satisfying this minimum criterion, a country cannot

boast of being a democracy, because a democratic people is a corporate entity that can

only express its will through the laws: if the executive deploys the state’s force outside

those legal constraints, the people lose their ability to control the state’s monopoly over

human rights violations. The Trump administration has been subject to condemnation

from child health and human rights experts for the pursuit of several immigration policies

and practices that promote human rights violation on immigrants across the United States

(Wood, 2018). During the first 3 years, the Trump administration propagated three

categories of policy actions on refugees and asylees, which framed the way legal

immigrants were perceived and treated by some immigration enforcement officers in

Minnesota. These categories included those that abandon longstanding U.S. legal

principles and policies, most notably nonrefoulement and due process, those that block

the entry of refugees and asylees, and those that criminalize foreign nationals who

attempt to seek asylum in the United States (Wasem, 2020).

Separating Families

In April 2018, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the Zero

Tolerance Policy, which significantly increased criminal prosecution of immigrants

entering the United States. As a result of increased adult prosecution, parents were sent to

federal jails while their children went to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which

directly led to family separation (Frye, 2020). Neither institution communicated with the

other, and the United States government lost track of parents and children.

At the end of May 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

reported 10,773 unaccompanied immigrant children in its custody, including the 20%

swell in numbers since April 2018 due to enforced separation of children from parents at

the U.S.-Mexico border (Wood, 2018). Many of these separated families were seeking

asylum in the United States, and their children were held in inhuman conditions such as

in makeshift shelters, warehouses, and abandoned shopping centers (Frye, 2020). They

were grouped in cages and slept on the floor without appropriate access to sanitary

facilities and medical care, and the documentation of their physical and mental health was

poor (Goetze, 2022). The Zero Tolerance Policy was implemented with cruelty by

refusing families protection and care who by U.S. law and international conventions on

human rights, on refugees, and on the prevention of genocide and protection of children

specifically deserved such care.

Gutting Asylum Laws

The United States law hallows the protections of the 1951 Refugee Convention,

drafted during the horrors of the Second World War, and the 1967 Refugee Protocol,

which created the framework for Asylum regulations at the global level. Central to this

framework is the principle of nonrefoulement, which prevents countries from returning

asylum seekers to places where they may face persecution (Schmidt, 2019). The United

States ratified these treaties, incorporating the core principle of nonrefoulement into

domestic laws, which provides that any person physically present in the United States or

who arrives in the United States may apply for asylum irrespective of their status.

In the last 6 years, most immigrants and especially asylum seekers have faced a

new odyssey of navigating intricate United States immigration laws and a restrictive

environment that bars them from winning the promised protection (Rubio-Hernandez &

Ayon, 2016). Immigration played a key role in the contentious United States national

election in 2016 and the winner, President Trump championed far more negative and

hostile views of immigration contrary to what the United States had witnessed in the last

decades (Koumpilova, 2016). The Trump administration worked towards abhorrent

conditions to deter asylum seekers from gaining protection in the United States. Trump’s

anti-immigrant tendencies subjected asylum seekers to punitive policies and executive

orders that left asylees stranded, isolated, and vulnerable to various forms of human

rights violations. The Trump administration challenged both the U.S. tradition as a safe

place for immigrants and its traditional role in the international community as a beacon of

freedom, liberty, and justice (Schmidt, 2019).

The U.S. immigration process affects not just immigrants living in Texas,

Arizona, California, New York, Florida, and states along the US–Mexico border. It also

affects immigrants in states like Minnesota with rich histories that continue to be shaped

by immigrants. The Trump narrative plays on the perception that United States asylum

and refugee policy lacks effective national security and public safety components (Rubio-

Hernandez & Ayon, 2016). Without consideration of the biometric background checks

and extensive national security screenings conducted on all potential refugees and

asylees, Trump asserted that terrorists are coming to the United States as asylees and

refugees. He labeled youth arriving from Central America as gang members who murder

United States citizens, despite research that shows most Central American youth are

fleeing gang violence when they seek asylum in the United States (Koumpilova, 2016).

Trump weaponized refugees and asylees as if the United States is at war with

humanitarian migrants (Wasem, 2020). Trump issued an executive order on January 25,

2017, to secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate

construction of a physical wall on the southern border. The Trump administration

abandoned refugee admissions, blocking Syrian nationals from refugee resettlement, and

expanded expedited removal and detention of immigrants in the United States. The

administration’s efforts to criminalize asylum seekers and refugees reached a crescendo

in 2018 with the zero-tolerance policy, which saw many immigrants prosecuted for minor

immigration offenses in Minnesota, such as snow blocking the number plate of their car

or for being loud in a hotel (Tsuchiya et al., 2021).

Terminating DACA

In 2012 President Barack Obama announced the establishment of the DACA

program, which granted a subset of undocumented youth temporary relief from

deportation, access to work authorization, and other benefits that were renewable every 2

years (Wasem, 2020). As of September 2018, over 908,000 (approximately 70%) of the

1.3 million young adults eligible for DACA had participated in the program. Several

studies have examined DACA’s short-term impacts and found overwhelmingly positive

effects in the 2 to 3 years following its announcement. These studies have linked DACA

to improved high school graduation rates and employment outcomes, decreased rates of

poverty, lower teen birth rates, improvements to mental health, and stronger feelings of

inclusion and belonging (Patler et al., 2019).

During the presidential campaign in summer 2015, then-candidate Donald Trump

stated that he would end DACA if elected. After his election as President of the United

States, President Trump announced plans to terminate DACA in September 2017. With

the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate DACA, the futures of nearly 1 million

program participants remained uncertain (Patler et al., 2019). In one study, a DACA

recipient recounted,

I tend to worry a lot now. I don’t know what’s going to happen next. It does affect

my emotional state to be constantly worried. My work authorization expires in

October of next year, and I know that I can work until October, but I don’t know

what is going to happen after that. (as cited in Alulema, 2019, p. 128)

The announcement by the Trump administration to terminate DACA was

challenged by several lawsuits leading to a nationwide preliminary injunction to freeze

efforts to terminate the program. While this injunction kept the program and its recipient

hopeful, there were uncertainties as to whether the Supreme Court would terminate or

uphold DACA. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of DACA,

maintaining that the rescission of the program was arbitrary and capricious in violation of

the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and that it violated the United States

Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause (Rodriguez, 2021).

Attacks on Sanctuary Cities

In recognition of the efforts by the churches to offer safe haven to refugees from

Central America, the Madison city council in Wisconsin passed Resolution 39,105 on

June 7, 1983 and subsequently Resolution 41075 on March 5, 1985 (O’Brien et al.,

2019). These resolutions officially declaring the entire Madison city a sanctuary for

Central Americans fleeing violence in El Salvador and Guatemala. Since then, more than

100 cities nationwide including numerous cities in Minnesota have passed similar laws

limiting the participation of local officials in the enforcement of federal immigration law,

formally becoming “sanctuary cities” (O’Brien et al., 2019).

In Minnesota, several churches joined the Sanctuary movement, including St.

Luke’s Presbyterian of Wayzata, Minnesota, which declared itself a sanctuary in 1982

(Alulema, 2019). Since then, Churches in Minnesota have been a strong support to

sanctuary congregations in other parts of the United States, most notably in Arizona,

which faced infiltration by federal agents seeking to investigate and prosecute individuals

within churches who had sheltered refugees within their congregations. Minneapolis and

St. Paul, through their city councils, had each passed separation ordinances in 2003 and

2004 respectively. These ordinances fall into the broad category of “Don’t Ask”

ordinances, as opposed to “Don’t Tell” ordinances, in that both ordinances placed limits

on collecting immigration data during the conduct of municipal business (Patler et al.,

2019). The November 2016 election of Donald Trump and the fact that the Republicans

in Minnesota narrowly took full control of the state legislature, 94 potentially set the

stage for further confrontations, as sanctuary cities had taken center stage in political

campaigns. In the wake of the presidential election, Minneapolis mayor Betsy Hodges

joined a number of big-city mayors to make clear her commitment to separating local law

enforcement from federal immigration enforcement.

With the killing of Kathryne Steinle in San Francisco in July 2015 by Juan

Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant who had been convicted of seven

felonies and deported several times to Mexico (O’Brien et al., 2019), the San Francisco

sanctuary policy was heavily attacked by Trump the then Republican presidential

candidate, who had labeled Mexicans as drug dealers, rapists, and criminals (Wasem,

2020). Unlike the earlier movement, which focused more on political refugees,

Minnesota’s current effort has focused on keeping families together (Rodriguez, 2021).

The November 2016 election of Donald Trump reinvigorated the Sanctuary Movement in

Minnesota. On December 6, 2016, the non-profit group ISAIAH held a public meeting at

which thirteen Minnesota congregations declared themselves to be sanctuary churches,

meaning that churches “would have individuals residing in their place of worship for an

undetermined amount of time, while the community of Sanctuary works on the stay of

removal orders for each person residing in the space or until those individuals can safely

arrive to another place of sanctuary (Wiebe, 2017).

In terms of preventive action, the Minneapolis ordinance denies the use of city

resources or personnel solely for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons for

immigration purposes but does not explicitly prohibit information sharing. Public safety

officials may not undertake any law enforcement action for the sole purpose of detecting

the presence of undocumented persons, or to verify immigration status. This language is

more ambiguous, but again does not explicitly limit information sharing or maintenance

(Wiebe, 2017).

Trump’s narrative on sanctuary cities garnered much attention, often outplaying

the discourse of other politicians as well as law enforcement statements regarding the

benefits of sanctuary cities. Within the first week of his inauguration, President Trump

signed an executive order titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United

States (Rodriguez, 2021). The order stated that any jurisdiction that did not comply with

federal immigration policy would be ineligible to receive federal grants and left the

designation of a “sanctuary” jurisdiction to the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland

Security (O’Brien et al., 2019, p. 5). This executive order was a follow-through of

Trump’s campaign promise to strip federal funds from sanctuary cities. Although efforts

to roll back Sanctuary Cities in Minnesota have been faced with steep resistance, such

efforts have kept anti-immigrant sentiments alive in some parts of the state (Wasem,

2020).

The Invocation of Title 42 – 1944 Public Health Services Act

Four months into the outbreak of COVID-19, the Trump administration directed

the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in March 2020 to issue an order

overriding the national and international legal protections for asylum seekers at the U.S

border. Under the pretext of the COVID-19 pandemic, the order halted the rights of many

immigrants to a fair hearing and facilitated their expulsion from the United States

(Beckett et al., 2022). The CDC order emanated from a public health law (Title 42,

United States Code Section 265), enacted in 1944. Title 42 gave the United States

government the mandate to prohibit in whole or in part the introduction of persons and

property from foreign countries where communicable diseases exist, for fear of

introducing such disease(s) into the United States (Beckett, 2022). By invoking Title 42,

the Trump administration and the CDC asserted that asylum seekers might increase the

spread of COVID-19 in the United States if allowed to enter into the country.

Despite the lack of scientific evidence that expelling asylum seekers and other

migrants is effective in curtailing the spread of COVID-19 at a time when the virus was

at its peak in the United States, Title 42 was implemented mainly to target the entry of

asylum seekers and other immigrants into the United States. By summarily expelling

asylum seekers and other migrants from the United States, Title 42 violates the

nonrefoulement obligations (not to send migrants back to unsafe places) of states, which

is grounded the Convention against Torture and the 1951 Refugee Convention to which

the United States is a party (Cheng, 2008; Easley et al., 2001; Patler et al., 2019). Title 42

also violates United States laws that allow migrants to seek asylum on arrival in the

United States. Since the enactment of Title 42, over 1.6 million migrants entering the

United States from Canada and Mexico have been summarily expelled with no

opportunity to seek asylum in the United States (Beckett, 2022). During such expulsion,

most migrants have reportedly faced verbal and physical abuse by government border

officials, separated from their families, and detained in often inhumane conditions

(Tsuchiya et al., 2021).

While criticizing the Trump administration for issuing the Title 42 order during

his campaign, Biden and his administration continued to implement the order and even

made extensions to it in August 2021 and February 2022, citing concerns over the

emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants respectively (Beckett, 2022). The

continuous implementation of Title 42 has increased the mistreatment of legal

immigrants in most parts of the United States, including Minnesota, leaving them

vulnerable to discrimination, hate, bullying at schools, and access to healthcare.

Congressional Failure to Modify Long-standing Immigration Pathways to the

United States

Built on a framework first established in 1952 and bolstered in 1965, Congress

passed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which substantially

increased resources for border enforcement, offered amnesty to migrants already residing

in the United States, authorized a special legalization program for agricultural workers,

and set employer sanctions against those who knowingly hire undocumented migrants for

work (Hirschman, 2014). Since 1986, the United States legal immigration system had its

last major updates in 1990. Three decades after the passage of the 1990 Immigration Act,

the ways in which immigrants legally enter the United States is still defined by the same

Act. Massey and Malone (2002) maintained that opportunities for legal entry and the

human rights of immigrants have become more restricted today due to a lack of

comprehensive immigration policy reform grounded in deep understanding about the

drivers of migration. Policymakers have failed to modify the legal pathways available to

immigrate to the United States (Massey & Malone, 2002). Although the United States

has relied on immigrants to fill labor shortages, particularly in the agriculture and health

industries, Congress has failed to create legal pathways for such immigrants to enter the

United States and the opportunity to remain in the country. While Congress used the

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to promote equality and to put an end to

discrimination brough about by the quota system, it also established new forms of

inequities through the per-country caps (Hirschman, 2014). The per-country cap, which

was included in the law, made it possible for the United States to only allocate a certain

number of visas to nationals from a given country each year. This extended the wait

period for United States citizens and permanent residents to reunite with their families

because of their place of birth (Gentsch & Massev, 2011).

Congress has been criticized by scholars for overfunding immigration

enforcement apparatus (O’Brien et al., 2019). In the 2018 fiscal year, Congress

appropriated $24 billion, for immigration enforcement bureaucracy, which was 34%

more than what was allocated for all other federal criminal law enforcement agencies

combined, including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secret Service,

the United States Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives (O’Brien et al., 2019). Due to Congressional failure to deal with immigration

presidents have increasingly relied on executive actions to manage immigration issues,

strategically targeting certain groups for relief from deportation (Donato & Amuedo-

Dorantes, 2020). President Ronald Reagan protected minor children of parents legalized

by IRCA from deportation, and President George H. W. Bush later extended this

protection to all spouses and unmarried children of IRCA amnesty recipients. The Obama

administration stepped up in 2012 with the DACA program, which was later expanded in

2014 to create the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) initiative (Patler et

al., 2019). This was to allow nonenforcement-priority individuals to request temporary

protection in the United States. Although executive orders or actions remain lawful and

part of any enforcement regime that address important immigration issues, discretionary

acts are, by their very nature, ephemeral, and subject to the quirks of politicians and

public opinion.

The IBHR

Migration can be a safe, positive, and empowering experience for many migrants

and can generate economic, social, and cultural benefits for societies in countries of

origin, transit, and destination (Patler et al., 2019). However, many migrants currently

face severe human rights violations in countries of origin, transit, and destination without

recourse to international human rights principles established in the IBHR. The

international legal framework represents the foundation upon which a global compact on

safe, orderly, and regular migration should be built. Following the atrocities of the

Second World War the United Nations proclaimed international cooperation to promote

and respect human rights as one of its objectives (Lougarre, 2020). To advance this

objective, the United Nations adopted the UDHR in 1948, the ICCPR, and the ICESCR

in 1966. These three documents collectively constitute the IBHR (Lougarre, 2020).

The Preamble of the UDHR affirms the inherent dignity and the equal and

inalienable rights of all members of the human family as the foundation of freedom,

justice, and peace in the world and Article 2 of the UDHR goes on to assert that

“everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration” (United

Nations, n.d. p. 2)

The UDHR, however, ultimately falls short of the goals that it set to achieve, and

that human rights advocates have set for it. In its Preamble, the UDHR claims to be a

common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations (United Nations, n.d.).

The negotiating documents, however, reveal a prioritization of the human rights concerns

of some people in some nations over those of other people in other nations (Cheng,

2008). At the time the UDHR was established in 1948 only 56 states were present, six of

which abstained, while 48 states voted in favor of the Declaration.

As of 2021 the UN constitutes 193 members, implying that approximately 145

states did not have an opportunity to contribute to the drafting and establishment of the

Declaration. Therefore, to the extent that human rights advocates and scholars regard the

UDHR as a “beacon of the rights movement,” there is a risk that this beacon will guide

the development of an international human rights program that inadequately prioritizes

the human rights concerns that drafters of the Declaration failed to include. Cheng (2008)

opined that the states that were not yet in existence when the Declaration was adopted in

1948 may hold some of these concerns, as they never had an opportunity to shape, accept,

or object to the Declaration's provisions. The above analysis could explain why the

applicability of the UDHR remains a challenge in recent decades to address human rights

violations on legal immigrants in host countries including the United States. It would be

illogical to consider a document that did not equally account for the human rights

concerns of all peoples and nations to be a common standard of achievement for all.

The Declaration also clarifies in its preamble that law is one of the key modalities

for universal and effective observance of human rights, explicitly stating that human

rights should be protected by the rule of law (United Nations, n.d.). However, the

Declaration fails to provide a hermeneutic scheme to identify when progressive measures

have transformed a particular provision from an aspiration into law. Additionally, the

UDHR does not clarify what its provisions mean in concrete terms. Consequently, some

legislators have accepted its provisions, while others have rejected them, some

government officials and court judges have applied the provisions inconsistently in

addressing human rights violations on legal immigrants (Cheng, 2008). While earlier

drafts of the Declaration acknowledged that states could grant asylum but did not create

an absolute duty for them to do so, the Commission's first and second drafts came much

closer to creating a positive duty on states to grant asylum by declaring, in Articles 11

and 12 that everyone shall have the right to seek and be granted asylum from persecution.

Critics of the UDHR have held that national interest rather than universal interest

was at the center of the Declaration. Recent events confirm this suspicion that the United

States uses the Declaration as a foreign policy tool in its national interests (Cheng, 2008;

Patler et al., 2019). The Clinton administration invoked the Declaration to gain

diplomatic advantage in negotiations with China over its most favored nationstatus in

United States trade. The George W. Bush administration also used it as a foreign policy

tool to attack unfriendly foreign governments. It cited the Declaration to criticize

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and to express displeasure over Russian laws that

controlled nongovernmental organizations sympathetic to United States foreign policy

goals. The Bush administration also used the Declaration to support Christian interests in

other countries but did not invoke the Declaration to draw any attention to religious rights

of Muslims to practice their faith (Cheng, 2008). These records undermine Article 2 of

the Declaration, which stated, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set

forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race . . . or religion”

(para. 1).

From the foregoing analysis, while the formation of the UDHR indicates good

faith efforts at creating a universal bill of human rights, the Cold War politics and groups

advocating national or religious interests blurred the prioritization and selection of rights.

Accordingly, while the rights the Declaration enshrines are universal to accommodate all

individuals everywhere, the Declaration as a whole may not reflect a truly global

consensus on the prioritization and selection of rights for inclusion.

The two human rights Covenants (ICCPR and ICESCR) similarly grant to “all”

and to “everyone” all the rights contained within those instruments, with very narrow

exceptions. Article 25 of the ICCPR reserves to citizens the right to vote and take part in

public affairs and Article 12 grants the right of freedom of movement to foreigners

provided they are lawfully present in a country (Easley et al., 2001). It is also important

to note that the ICCPR guarantees to everyone without discrimination the right to leave

and enter any country, including their own country. Article 2(3) of the ICESCR also

identifies an exception to the general rule of equal and universal access stating that

“feveloping countries, with due regard to human rights and their national economy, may

determine to what extent they would guarantee the economic rights recognized in the

present Covenant to non-nationals” (Easley et al., 2001). It is important to note that

article 2(3) must be narrowly interpreted, only by developing countries, and refers only to

economic rights. However, economic discrimination is evident in the United States and

most developed countries with regards to immigrants (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). Under the

ICESCR, states may not discriminate between nationals and non-nationals with respect to

social and cultural rights, yet the contrary is prevalent in almost all host countries today.

On the other hand, if Article 2(3) is understood as allowing what would now be called

middle-income countries the discretion to determine the extent to which they would

guarantee economic rights such as the right to work to nonnationals, Article 2(3) of

the ICESCR may clash with the universal scope of this treaty (Lougarre, 2020). Such

ambiguities in the ICESCR makes it challenging for states to practically implement the

Covenant in domestic legislation.

The IBHR provides that every person, without discrimination, must have access

to their human rights, obliging states to ensure that any differences of treatment between

national and nonnationals or between different groups of nonnationals are enshrined in

national legislation (Hamidi, 2020). Such national legislation must serve a legitimate

objective, and that any course of action taken to achieve such an objective must itself be

proportionate and reasonable. As such, states, committed by legal obligations, have the

duty to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all migrants (Patler et al., 2019).

U.S. Commitment to the ICESCR

Six decades after its enactment, the rights enshrined in the UDHR were reinforced

by a legally binding international treaty, the ICESCR in 1966, and by its Optional

Protocol adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 2008 that was opened

for signature on 24 September 2009 (Manisuli, 2011). The Optional Protocol to the

ICESCR provides the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) with

three roles: (a) to receive and consider individual and group communications claiming a

violation of any of the economic, social, and cultural rights set forth in the Covenant; (b)

inter-state communications to the effect that a state party claims that another state party is

not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant; and (c) to conduct an inquiry in cases

where the Committee receives reliable information indicating grave or systematic

violations by a state party of any economic, social, and rights set forth in the ICESCR

(Manisuli, 2011).

Despite these positive developments, there are still pertinent questions regarding

the status of economic, social, and cultural rights of immigrants in international law. As

of July 2022, there were 171 states parties to the ICESCR, 71 states were signatories, and

167 states had ratified the Covenant excluding the United States (UN Treaty Collection,

n.d). The ICESCR and the ICCPR along with the UDHR, constitute the core of

international human rights law. Article 2(1) of the ICESCR provides that each State Party

to the Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international

assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its

available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the

rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly

the adoption of legislative measures (Manisuli, 2011).

States have a wide range of discretion in selecting the steps considered most

appropriate for the full realization of economic social and cultural rights. States are

required to use legislative and nonlegislative steps to respect, protect, and fulfil economic

social and cultural rights. Legislative measures provide a firm basis to protect economic,

social, and cultural rights, as well as enforcing them in case of violations. According to

Article 2(1), whichever steps states choose should be examined by referring to the

standard of progressive realization (Manisuli, 2011). This calls for a continuous

improvement in the conditions of economic, social, and cultural rights.

Although the United States has played a dynamic role in drafting the international

human rights treaties that shaped the framing and enforcement of human rights, the

United States faces a discord between its commitment to drafting these treaties and its

commitment to implementing such international law in domestic practice. Despite its key

role in drafting the ICESCR, the U.S. Senate’s failure to ratify the Covenant poses a

struggle to fully embrace the IBHR (Hamidi, 2020). Though the United States played a

leading role in drafting both foundational human rights treaties (ICCPR and ICESCR),

and signed both in 1977 under the Carter administration, the ICESCR has been shelved in

the Foreign Affairs committee with no hopes of ratification. During the Reagan

administration, the advocacy for a trickledown economics internationally devalued the

notion of economic rights, associating such rights with the Eastern Bloc and thus

branding them inconsistent with the free market capitalism (Hamidi, 2020). This

heightened political opposition to all efforts at ratifying the ICESCR. The Bush

administrations ascribed no value to the ICESCR on the domestic level. This lack of

advocacy from the executive power to prioritize or give prominence to the Covenant

perpetually sidelined it from political priorities.

The separation of powers between the three arms of government (executive,

legislative, and judiciary) as per the United States Constitution makes the process of

treaty ratification very complex. The executive’s role as the negotiator and signer of

international treaty requires a supermajority (2/3rd) vote of approval by the United States

Senate (Manisuli, 2011). This makes it a Senate’s constitutional duty to determine the

ratification of treaties in the United States, a duty which cannot be overrun by the

executive irrespective of the political views of the president. As such, the legislative and

executive branch may have competing views on the appropriateness to ratify the ICESCR

with respect to domestic law. The executive and legislative arms of government are

divided on the extent of implementation of the ICESCR and the political aftermath of

such actions (Hamidi, 2020). The ICESCR clearly protects immigrant’s economic, social,

and cultural rights in its preamble by explicitly recognizing that economic, social, and

cultural rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person (Lougarre, 2020).

The failure to ratify the ICESCR indicates that the United States is reluctant to wholly

endorse the interdependence of human rights and the domestic enforcement of the

ICESCR (Hamidi, 2020). This directly affects the degree of protection offered by the

United States to the economic, social, and cultural rights of legal immigrants.

The Nature of Human Rights Violations Against Legal Immigrants in Minnesota

Discrimination in Employment

With the swearing in of Donald Trump as the President of the United States, anti-

immigrant sentiment among Trump supporters grew stronger and became more

prominent across the United States. As of January 2017, over 700 incidents of “racist

harassment and intimidation” had been counted by the Southern Poverty Law Center

across the United States. (Wasem, 2020). These incidents have occurred at schools,

college campuses, businesses, places of worship and private homes. In Minnesota, Latino

students have been taunted with “build a wall” and “go back to Mexico” chants, while

Asians have been harassed for spreading the Corona virus (Wasem, 2020). Islamophobia

has been on the rise as well across Minnesota with Somalis facing the brunt of it at

schools, workplaces, and shopping centers.

Danso and Lum (2013) compared immigrant groups according to ethnicity in

Minnesota and found that Hispanic, Asian, and East African immigrants experienced

hostile treatment by citizens at much higher rates than immigrants from other parts of the

world. Among Hispanic, Asian, and East African immigrants, Hispanics reported the

most hostile treatment and East Africans reported the least hostile treatment. This

discrepancy may be due to the fact that in the Twin Cities, Hispanic immigrants are more

likely to be undocumented than are Asian and East African immigrants, who are

primarily refugees (Danso & Lum, 2013). Racial profiling has contributed greatly to

various forms of discrimination in Minnesota. Nearly one-third of immigrants in

Minnesota believe that discrimination is a regular experience for members of their race or

ethnicity (Wasem, 2020).

Although the purpose of Minnesota Human Rights Act is to protect workers in

Minnesota from unlawful discrimination in employment, the credentials and training

attained by workers from other countries are often considered not align with United

States standards (Danso & Lum, 2013). This forces immigrants in Minnesota to take

aptitude tests or repeat trainings and courses at their own expense even if they completed

such requirements in their nations of origin. This has made several immigrants in

Minnesota take up jobs for which they are overqualified or unskilled jobs just to meet up

with their bills and other expenses. Language barriers cause conflicts between job duties

and English lessons as immigrants sometimes face a paradox in which they need to attain

greater levels of English fluency but would have to miss work that provides vital income

to attend these language classes (Wasem, 2020). This limits their economic ability to take

care of their needs and those of other family members. Unequal labor market outcomes

are not a consequence of the labor market alone but also reflect the institutionalization of

systemic racism through less opportunity in education, housing, location, and the criminal

justice system.

Disparities in Access to High Quality Education

Rolnick and Grunewald (2003) showed that investments in young children have

high social returns. In Minnesota, Mexican, Somali, and Hmong children face barriers to

accessing high-quality early childhood education. Inequitable access to high-quality K-12

education in Minnesota has resulted in some of the state’s largest gaps in educational

outcomes by race, ethnicity, and immigration status. White students in Minnesota have

higher average standardized-test scores and graduation rates than children of color and

Black children, with those from immigrant families scoring even lower. An analysis of

postsecondary enrollment and graduation records found that students of color, Blacks,

and immigrant children who attended higher-poverty high schools are more likely to need

remedial work, take longer to complete college, and drop out of college (Leibert, 2018).

This limits the ability of children from immigrant families to compete at equal levels on

available socioeconomic opportunities.

Housing Affordability

Despite the resilience of immigrants, many systemic barriers have been created to

determine what populations have the most access to housing and where in Minnesota. For

many immigrants even today, the dream of securing a safe, healthy, and affordable home

is out of reach. Years after they arrive in Minnesota, many immigrants face significant

and urgent challenges finding and maintaining adequate and affordable housing

(MartinRogers et al., 2016). A growing number of immigrants in Minnesota pay more

than they can afford for housing, forcing them to live in substandard conditions or forgo

other necessities like food, healthcare, or transportation. These challenges

disproportionately impact communities of color, including immigrants. While the number

of foreign-born residents in the Twin Cities is on the rise, the vacancy rate for apartments

in the Twin Cities remains low, creating a difficult, crowded market for affordable

housing options. These challenges persist in home ownership, as well, with immigrant

and people of color far less likely to own their homes than White households.

Among Hmong immigrants, overcrowding is the single most important and

commonly reported housing issue. The challenges of finding housing that will

accommodate their large households abound. On average, many of these families have a

household size of between six and eight people. Finding a unit with an appropriate

number of bedrooms is a challenge (Chang, 2000). Additionally, as many Hmong

immigrants are jobless or working in low-paying occupations, being able to afford rent is

a huge challenge. Hmong immigrants also face barriers when they are ready to buy a

home, which translates to very low rates of homeownership. Credit history is a challenge

because most Hmong families tend to use cash when making transactions, hence they

cannot build up a qualifying history of credit when they want to buy a home.

One of the biggest housing challenges in the Mexican immigrant community is

the lack of affordable housing. Many Mexican immigrants often reside in housing units

with many health and quality hazards, including lead paint and roach infestations. Like

Hmong and Somali immigrant families, Latino immigrant families also have large

household sizes. When they are able to find housing, as many as 12 to 20 people can be

found sharing a single-family housing unit, which exposes them to poor or unhealthy

living conditions (MartinRogers et al., 2016). Mexican immigrants in Minnesota also

experience low rate of homeownership, induced by a lack of credit history and predatory

practices. For many Mexican immigrants, due to lack of credit history, finding a co-

signer is almost impossible when trying to buy a home. Some Mexican immigrants have

reported that some banks take advantage of their lack of knowledge and over charge them

on closing fees (MartinRogers et al., 2016).

Among Somali immigrants, overcrowding is the single most important and

commonly reported housing issue in Minnesota. Like the Hmong and Mexican

immigrants, many Somali families have large household sizes. One of the biggest

challenges that Somali immigrants face is finding a home that fits all their family

members. Somali immigrants also experience issues of discriminatory practices from

landlords, high rents, substandard living conditions, and long waiting lists for subsidized

housing. Some Somali homeowners in Brooklyn Park experienced significant

foreclosures in recent years (MartinRogers et al., 2016). As a result, many Somali

families have been displaced and forced to relocate to small and unsafe apartment units,

which further compounds the issues of overcrowding and substandard housing.

Disparities in Health and Wellbeing

Exposure to racial discrimination and its associated socioeconomic disadvantage

is a potentially important aspect of life for immigrants in the United States. Such stressors

may combine with others related to the migration process, including adjustment to new

places, a new language, and different social expectations. This combination of stressors

may lead to detrimental health behaviors adopted as coping mechanisms, poor access to

quality healthcare, and, ultimately, worse physical and mental health outcomes among

immigrants (Engelman & Ye, 2019). While pandemics such as the COVID-19 does not

discriminate based on immigration status, the social and political systems in which

immigrants work and live do discriminate (Horner et al., 2022). The COVID-19

pandemic exposed the harsh realities of inequities within the U.S. immigration system

that have long existed and denied immigrant, refugee, and asylum seeker populations of

their rights to adequate health and wellbeing (Okonkwo et al., 2020). After accounting

for age and gender differences across groups, Horner et al. (2022) found that foreign-born

Minnesotans died at twice the rate of U.S.-born Minnesotans due to COVID-19. They

also found that the peaks in COVID-19 mortality at the end of 2020 within long-term

care facilities overshadow the experience of immigrant communities, which faced high

early mortality rates and significant losses among those living outside long term care

(Horner et al., 2022).

Mmany disparities exist in cancer diagnosis, treatment, and mortality confronting

Mexican, Hmong, and Somali immigrants in Minnesota. These immigrant groups are also

dying at a much higher rate compared to their U.S.-born White counterpart, due in part to

lack of access to primary care services (Okonkwo et al., 2020). There are significant

barriers to the above three migrant group’s ability to access education about cancer and

cancer care. Some of these barriers include communication barriers, cultural factors,

limited or lack of health insurance, challenges in obtaining adequate education and work,

lack of affordable care, decreased self-care knowledge, personal or family values, and the

healthcare belief system (Gany et al., 2013). These barriers play a role in the declining

health status and poorer health outcomes for immigrants in Minnesota. The lack of

insurance and poor finances limit immigrant communities’ ability to access and obtain

healthcare in Minnesota.

The Trump administration’s anti-immigration policies, which targeted, Mexican,

Somali, and, to an extent, Asian immigrants, in Minnesota engendered mental and

emotional discord among healthcare providers and ancillary staff who care for

immigrants frequently (Kabwe, 2021). These health personnel were repeatedly exposed

to trauma they were untrained or prepared for such as fear, anxiety, and family separation

caused by Trump’s hardline policies. Health personnel experienced increased challenges

as they attempted to provide health care services to these immigrant communities. Also,

financial limitation and gaps in employment are of significant influence on the health

care decision-making for immigrants in Minnesota and use of regular professional

healthcare providers (Gany et al., 2013).

Disparities in Arrest, Detention, Access to Legal Representation, and Deportation

Legal immigrants face specific and unique challenges in the United States. Their

wellbeing is constantly under threat due to increasingly restrictive and xenophobic

policies that diminish their human rights. Human rights provide a framework for the

protection of people’s human dignity, freedom, health, and quality of life (Mapp et al.,

2019). The cornerstone for the rights of people forcibly displaced is the 1951 Convention

Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol (UN, 1951, 1967). The most

significant is the right to nonrefoulement (Article 33), which guarantees against being

forcibly returned to the country from which someone has fled. This shields the asylum

seeker from further persecution in their country of origin.

The United States immigration policy has developed over 100 years of

converging criminal law and immigration (Crenshaw, 2017). This trend toward punitive

and restrictive immigration policy, known as crimmigration, has accelerated in the last 2

decades whereby detention is used to deter, and immigrants are perceived as threats to

socioeconomic stability and security in the United States (Androff & Mathis, 2022). After

9/11, President Bush directed militarization and securitization of the United States –

Mexican border to prevent immigrants from entering the United States. Under the Obama

administration, the deportation rates skyrocketed despite providing rights and security to

children of immigrants through DACA. The Trump administration’s zero-tolerance

policy escalated immigrant family detention and implemented child separation policies

with an intention to overturn DACA (Mapp et al., 2019). With massive refoulment under

the Trump administration and early into the Biden administration, the right to due process

(Fifth Amendment) is abrogated by expedited removal and streamlining procedures, and

the right to legal counsel (Sixth Amendment) is avoided by the civil nature of

immigration charges. Almost 70% of the 59,747 asylum cases decided in fiscal year 2020

lost their petitions (Androff & Mathis, 2022). The consequences of losing asylum cases

range from detention, deportation, and the risk of death when returned to their country of

origin.

In Minnesota, immigrants detained by ICE are held in one of five facilities that

are operated or subcontracted by the Department of Homeland Security (Tsuchiya et al.,

2021). ICE maintains subcontracts with county jails in Carver, Freeborn, Nobles,

Ramsey, and Sherburne counties to house long-term immigration detainees. Each facility

is responsible for the treatment of detainees in its custody, which further complicates

compliance with ICE detention standards (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). Lawful permanent

residents, refugees, and asylees in Minnesota end up in civil immigration detention

through various channels including arrests at worksite raids or in homes, random stops

for civil violations, and arrests or convictions for crimes (Wasem, 2020). Despite their

rights to due process (Fifth Amendment), Minnesota courts do not appoint immigration

attorneys to represent indigent immigrants detained for civil immigration law violations.

As such, immigrants must find a pro bono attorney or private lawyer willing to take their

cases or forego representation all together (Danso & Lum, 2013).

Impacts of Human Rights Violations on Legal Immigrants in Minnesota

Health and Well-Being

In the United States, heightened immigration enforcement in recent years,

including historic levels of deportation, has resulted in negative impacts on health and

well-being. Numerous studies have demonstrated the detrimental impact of detention,

deportation, and the mere fear of these on immigrants’ mental health and family

relationships. In a study conducted by Brabeck and Xu (2010) with 132 Latino immigrant

parents, 48.5% reported that deportation affected their children’s emotional wellbeing,

and 45.5% reported that deportation negatively impacted their children’s academic

performance. Nearly 10% of families in the United States are of mixed immigration

status, so antiimmigration policy directly affects a substantial segment of the population,

harming citizens as well as immigrants (Brabeck & Xu, 2010). It has been estimated that

for every two deported immigrants, one citizen child is directly impacted. When parents

with citizen children are deported, they are forced to choose between tearing their

children away from their homeland in the interest of family unity and leaving them in

someone else’s care with the hope that they will be one day reunited (Danso & Lum,

2013). In cases where child protection is involved, a parent’s deportation can result in

loss of parental rights if ICE and child protection do not communicate with each other,

and the child protection agency assumes that the parent is willfully neglecting to

communicate with the child protection agency (Brabeck & Xu, 2010).

In Minnesota, the deportation of a parent or both parents leave children with

challenges including economic hardship, housing instability, food insecurity, and

separation from parents. Children also experience behavioral changes in sleeping habits,

eating, and emotional changes such as increased anxiety, aggression, crying, anger, a

heightened sense of fear, and withdrawal (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). Research has shown

that being and staying healthy is a fundamental right of every human being and a

prerequisite for all people to work, be productive, contribute to economic and social

development in both countries of origin and destination, and improve livelihoods (Gany

et al., 2013). During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, disparities in health outcomes

among social groups in the United States and in Minnesota became increasingly evident

(Webb et al., 2020). While experiencing the stress of adapting to a new environment with

limited access to healthcare, support of family members, social connections, and other

resources, immigrants and refugees are frequently faced with horizontal inequalities,

which restrict their rights to health and those resources needed to support their health in

Minnesota (Castaneda, 2015).

In low-income working families in Minnesota, most children are covered by

either employer-provided or public health insurance. However, many children lack health

insurance altogether, especially children in low-income working immigrant families who

are more than twice as likely as those in comparable U.S.-born families to lack health

insurance coverage, which exposes them to myriads of health risks (Brabeck & Xu,

2010). This does not only affect children as the share of immigrant adults in low-income

working families without health insurance is double the share of uninsured children in

these families. While adults are more likely than children to be covered under an

employer-provided health plan, they are far less likely to be covered through Medicaid or

another public program as do children who received public health insurance coverage

through Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Castaneda, 2015).

Limited Access to Meaningful Employment

The two most significant barriers to sustained economic growth in Minnesota are

the increasingly tight labor markets and a growing shortage of workers. This has made it

more evident now than ever, that immigration remains a pivotal source of workforce that

cannot be ignored by employers in the state (Castaneda, 2015). Discrimination based on

people’s origin remains a major challenge for legal immigrants to gain access to

meaningful employment in Minnesota. Because their foreign earned educational degrees,

licenses and credentials are not usually recognized by professional organizations and

employers in the United States, some high skilled legal immigrants who received their

training abroad are underemployed in Minnesota due to lack of options for meaningful

employment (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). This leaves them with less income to meet the needs

of their often-large families not only in the United States but also back home. As a result,

despite similar levels of work effort among their parents, children of immigrants are

substantially more likely than children with United States-born parents to be poor, have

food-related problems, live in crowded housing, lack health insurance, and be in fair or

poor health (Gany et al., 2013).

Racial discrimination by Minnesota employers plays an important role in

generating the racial disparities seen in the labor market, especially among immigrants.

The existence of “at will” employment in Minnesota leaves the discretion to hire using

both economically relevant considerations such as the applicant’s skills, and irrelevant or

illegal considerations like applicant’s race or ethnicity, is entirely the employer’s choice

(Chambers, 2017). This has entrenched hiring discrimination in Minnesota, despite legal

prohibitions. While the 2019 unemployment rate for U.S.-born workers with a high

school degree or less was 4.9%, Black and Latino/a workers in Minnesota with the same

education had unemployment rates of 8.2% (Burr et al., 2010).

Poor Housing Conditions

Some of the key housing barriers for the Mexican, Somali, and Hmong immigrant

communities include a shortage of affordable housing, discriminatory practices by

property owners, lack of quality of housing, and overcrowding (Tsuchiya et al., 2021).

Overcrowding is a problem among the many large immigrant families who reside in

small single-family units in the Twin Cities (Chambers, 2017). Most immigrant

households in the Twin Cities metropolitan area pay more than 30% of their income on

housing, which constraints them financially medical expenses, food, other bills, and a

decent lifestyle. This has left many immigrants in Minnesota with limited housing

options, which often expose them to unsafe housing conditions such as high lead levels,

poor insulation in extreme weather, and pest infestations (Lincoln et al., 2021). Many

communities lack alternative, accessible housing options, causing immigrants to remain

in unsafe housing.

It is characteristic of immigrant families to be larger than the average United

States-born families, and immigrant households are often a mixture of nuclear and

extended family members (Brabeck & Xu, 2010). Attaining homes that can accommodate

such large households becomes difficult for immigrant families due to limited income or

lack of resources. As a result, immigrants in Minnesota are likely to live in situations of

overcrowding, foregoing neighborhood safety and quality of the house (Burr et al., 2010).

Also, discriminatory practices by landlords affect immigrants’ ability to afford quality

housing in Minnesota. Discrimination against immigrant tenants remain a common

practice among landlords in Minnesota who discriminate based on family size or

maximum occupancy, preferring native-born individuals over immigrants with large

families (Lincoln et al., 2021).

Educational Success

Low levels of formal education and LEP poses barriers to the integration of

immigrant parents making it challenging for them to support their children’s educational

success (Chambers, 2017). English proficiency is an important marker of immigrants’

integration and a significant component of their capacity to access higher-wage jobs and

support their children’s education (Hofstetter & McHugh, 2021). With the expansion of

online learning due to COVID-19, LEP parents, in linguistically isolated households,

faced new challenges to provide support and participate in their children’s education due

to language barriers. Apart from hindering the integration and well-being of immigrant

parents, low-income levels also negatively affect the healthy development, school

readiness, and educational success of children from immigrant homes in Minnesota (Burr

et al., 2010).

Research has shown that immigrant parents in Minnesota are significantly more

likely to be low-income than United States -born parents (Hernandez & Charney, 1998).

These disproportionate levels of poverty experienced by immigrant parents of young and

elementary-school-age children in Minnesota, and the strong relationship between

poverty and low levels of formal education that exists among these parents is detrimental

to the educational success of children from immigrant families (Castaneda, 2015).

Poverty compounds two-generation challenges that low levels of parental education can

pose, while the financial constraints it brings make overcoming these challenges even

more difficult.

Summary and Transition

According to the literature reviewed, human rights violations on legal immigrants

in Minnesota remains an immanent reality. Although immigrants escape persecution,

financial instability, and other inhumane conditions from their countries of origin in

search of security, greener pastures, and safety in the United States, living as an

immigrant in the United States can be a nightmare. Despite their pivotal role in the

socioeconomic fabric of Minnesota, immigrants continue to experience human rights

violations as they struggle with integration challenges in the state. While human rights

violations on immigrants dates back over four decades ago, Tsuchiya et al. (2021) opined

that federal immigration enforcement policies like the Customs and Border Protection

policy under the Trump Administration intensified arbitrary arrest, detention,

discrimination, and deportation of many legal immigrants without due process in

Minnesota. This has left a negative impact on immigrant populations in Minnesota,

limiting their ability to afford, healthcare, decent housing, quality education, raise bond

fees, and obtain legal representation.

Immigrants in Minnesota experience human rights violation at the place of work,

in accessing healthcare or health insurance, decent housing, quality education, and in the

court systems. Legal immigrants in Minnesota remain vulnerable to challenges brought

about by social-structural factors that limit their security options and make their

integration in the United States very difficult. The ambiguities in the IBHR also poses a

huge challenge for adoption into the United States domestic legal systems as a tool to

curb human rights violations on legal immigrants. The susceptibilities of legal

immigrants in Minnesota can be attributed to tiered social structures and power relations

enforced through policies, practices, and laws concerning immigrants’ legal status and

other attributes. While factors like LEP compromise immigrants’ access to

socioeconomic amenities, several federal policies enacted over the past decades have had

consequential impact on immigrants’ access to health care, including the 2010 Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Trump’s zero-tolerance policies and anti-

immigration rhetoric.

By gaining an understanding of the initiating factors, the nature and impact of

human rights violations on legal immigrants in Minnesota, this study adds to the literature

on immigrants’ human rights violations, the flaws in the IBHR, and the apathy of the

United States to curb this menace using the IBHR. The proceeding chapter provides

details on how this study was implemented, including the participants, data collection

methods, and data analysis procedures.

Chapter 3: Research Method

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to use the knowledge gained from participants’

responses through individual interviews and focus group discussions to provide

information that may contribute to policy reforms considerations to improve the

treatment of legal immigrants, by exploring how legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali,

and Hmong descents experiences human rights violations in Minnesota. Interviews were

conducted with human rights experts and immigration advocates, while focus group

discussions were held among Mexican, Somali, and Hmong legal immigrants to delve

into their lived experiences of human rights violations in Minnesota. Purposive sampling

was used to select research participants. The findings and recommendations of the study

may contribute to reforms in U.S. domestic immigration policies and practices,

specifically enhancing the treatment of legal immigrants in Minnesota.

This chapter presents detailed information on the selected methodology, the

design, and the rationale used to answer the research question of this qualitative

phenomenological study. The research question for the study is presented, along with

details on the logic and strategy in selecting participants, collection of data, and data

analysis strategies. In this chapter, I also expound on instrumentation, my role as the

researcher, and issues of trustworthiness including credibility, dependability,

confirmability, and ethical procedures of this research. Finally, a summary of the main

points of this chapter is presented.

Research Design and Rationale

This study was conducted using a qualitative phenomenological approach.

Tomaszewski et al. (2020) noted that a phenomenological approach to qualitative

research focuses on the essence of a lived experience that is observable or felt by

individuals with different views. Capturing as closely as possible the way a phenomenon

was lived by the people who participated in the phenomenon is the main objective of

phenomenology (Neubauer et al., 2019). As a philosophical tradition, phenomenology

emphasizes the understanding of human experiences from the first-person perspective,

focusing on the essence of experiences as they are lived (Heidegger, 1927; Husserl,

1931). According to Sundler et al. (2019), a qualitative study is one in which the

researcher collects data in the natural setting or environment. This study was conducted

using both individual interviews and focus group discussions.

The integration of focus groups and individual interviews contributed to the study

in three ways: it converged the central characteristics of human rights violations on legal

immigrants across focus groups and individual interviews to enhance the trustworthiness

of the findings; it led to a productive iterative process where an initial model of the

phenomenon guided the exploration of individual accounts and successive individual data

to enrich the conceptualization of the phenomenon; and it helped in the identification of

individual and contextual circumstances surrounding human rights violations against

legal immigrants in Minnesota (Lambert & Loiselle, 2008). Knowing the lived

experiences of human rights violations against legal immigrants in Minnesota helped in

expanding existing literature on immigration from the current focus on the treatment of

undocumented immigrants to the treatment of documented or legal immigrants, and how

this impacts their social wellbeing and that of their families. This aligned with Husserl's

emphasis on the lifeworld; the world as experienced in the immediacy of the lived

experiences, prior to reflection or conceptualization (Husserl, 1936). By exploring the

lived experiences of legal immigrants, this research focused on their being-in-the-world

and how they make sense of their experiences. It also resonates with Heidegger's focus on

Dasein or being-in-the-world, and his exploration of how individuals make sense of their

existence and experiences (Heidegger,1927). This research addressed the misconception

that legal immigrants do not face violations of their human rights as their undocumented

counterparts do. I developed the interview questions and focus group discussion guides

used to conduct both individual interviews and focus group discussions.

The participants in the study were Mexican, Somali, and Hmong legal immigrants

with direct and personal experience of the study phenomenon. Through elucidating how

the participants made sense of the phenomenon, this study provides valuable information

for policy reforms aimed at improving the treatment of immigrants in the state, as well as

addressing the specific research topics in this study.

Rooted in understanding lived experiences and perceptions, phenomenology

provided a methodological framework that allowed me to delve deeply into the subjective

realities of individuals, emphasizing the importance of examining conscious experiences

to uncover the impact of human rights violations against legal immigrants (see Giorgi,

2009). As a particularly vulnerable population, the lack of access to basic necessities like

proper healthcare, education, housing, legal representation, and due process had a

significant impact on the choices immigrants made for themselves and their families. By

adopting this approach, I gained access to rich, context-specific narratives that might

inform policy considerations for improving the human rights situation of legal

immigrants in Minnesota (see Smith et al., 2009). In this study, human experience

symbolized the lived experiences that are separate from the things that are presented or

intended (see Husserl, 2001). The narratives obtained through individual interviews and

focus group discussions served as symbolic representations, revealing layers of subjective

realities and challenges faced by legal immigrants that extend beyond the surface-level

presentation or intended policies, providing a nuanced understanding that may help to

inform targeted and effective policy reforms. Through phenomenology, the study

elevated the voices of the research participants and their communities, contributing

nuanced insights that might be essential for shaping more equitable and just policies.

Research Question

The research question for this study was as follows: How do legal immigrants of

Mexican, Somali, and Hmong descent experience human rights violations in Minnesota

as a vulnerable population?

Role of the Researcher

A significant concern with this study was my potential bias as the researcher as I

am also an immigrant. As the primary data collector and sole data collecting tool, it

became crucial to address the potential bias that might have surfaced in the research.

Although being a legal immigrant living in Minnesota, I did not have any personal or

direct experience of human rights violations, and I had no professional or personal

relationships with the participants. Thus, as the interviewer and researcher, I was open-

minded during the interviewing and focus group discussion process. While researching

the lived experiences, I remained open to the lifeworld of the participant as I emphasized

the phenomenon. I allowed the participants to share their experiences according to how

they lived it. Also, I may have understood the phenomenon in a new light and seen things

previously unseen by other studies. This was accomplished by setting aside previous

experiences, assumptions, and continuous questioning. I refrained from postulating my

sense of reality onto the participant's experiences (Sundler et al., 2019). I focused on

obtaining responses only from the interviewing guide questions to the participants. I

ensured that the interview guide questions were objective with the aim of capturing the

lived experiences of participants with their own voices. I framed the interviewing

questions in a manner that did not reflect my positionality.

Methodology

Participant Selection Logic

The target population for the study was legal immigrants from Mexico, Somalia,

and Hmong populations. Purposive sampling was used to select participants. According

to Patton (2002), purposive sampling is generally used in qualitative research to identify

and select information-rich participants to maximize the use of limited resources. I

identified and selected individuals and groups of individuals that were especially

knowledgeable about or experienced with human rights violations against legal

immigrants in Minnesota (see Palinkas et al., 2015). In addition to knowledge and

experience, the importance of availability and willingness to participate, and the ability to

communicate experiences and opinions in an articulate, expressive, and reflective manner

made purposive sampling very suitable for this qualitative phenomenological research

(see Bernard, 2002; Spradley, 1979).

For individual interviews, five human rights experts and four immigration

advocates were identified through referrals from my network of friends and colleagues.

After connecting me with the potential participants, I made initial contact with each

participant to determine their ability and willingness to provide valuable data for the

research. Once I established that a participant was proficient in English, had lived in

Minnesota for at least 5 years, and was willing to participate in the study, I proceeded to

recruit three human rights experts and two immigration advocates. The two immigration

advocates and three human rights experts who were selected based on their expertise,

knowledge, and experiences in relation to the phenomenon under study only participated

in individual interviews and not in the focus group discussions. These five individual

interviews aided in gaining insight into the perceptions, understandings, and experiences

of human rights violations against legal immigrants in Minnesota. These interviewees

were not required to be members of the Somali, Hmong, and Mexican communities under

study. They were purposefully selected based on their profession, expertise, experience as

advocates for immigrants, and their ability to provide data relating to key immigration

and human rights principles.

For the focus group discussions eight potential Mexicans, seven potential

Somalis, and four potential Hmong were identified. Through snowballing, I found three

more potential Hmong participants. After initial contact to determine English proficiency,

duration in Minnesota, availability, and willingness to participate in the research, I

recruited five Mexicans, five Somalis, and five Hmong legal immigrants living in

Minnesota. The focus group discussions were conducted in three groups comprising five

Mexicans, five Somalis, and five Hmong legal immigrants each; all focus group

participants had personal or direct experience with human rights violations in Minnesota.

These discussions provided data on the participants’ descriptions, perceptions, and lived

experiences of human rights violations against legal immigrants in the state. The

individual perceptions of the participants helped in understanding the meaning of their

experiences both as individuals and as social groups. In these focus groups, participants

voiced their perceptions through storytelling, narratives, behaviors, and reactions to

individuals or groups (see Bernard, 2013; Stake, 2006; Yin, 2017). Data from the focus

group discussions were used to construct codes for analysis.

The focus group participants were specifically selected from the three immigrant

communities under study as they represented the diverse and dominant demographics of

Hispanic, African, and Asian immigrant populations in Minnesota. Each group met

separately with me to provide data relating to their experience of human rights violations

as legal immigrants living in Minnesota. The use of individual interviews and focus

group discussions provided in-depth data from legal immigrants, human rights, and

immigration experts to assess the responsiveness of the State of Minnesota to the

vulnerabilities of legal immigrants as envisioned in Fineman’s vulnerability theory (see

Kohn, 2014).

In line with Alhazmi and Kaufmann (2022), the main objective of a purposive

sample was to produce a sample that could be logically assumed to be representative of

the population under study. The choice of purposive sampling aligned with this study

because by selecting individuals and groups with specific knowledge and or experience

with human rights violations against legal immigrants, I was able to discover, understand,

gain insight, and describe the lived experiences of human rights violations against legal

immigrants in Minnesota. The purposive sampling technique was effective as a limited

number of participants served as a primary source of data due to the nature of the

research design, time, and objectives (see Vehovar et al., 2016).

The research design for this study was informed by descriptive phenomenological

method with thematic-based analysis, a method often used for analyzing qualitative data,

typically applied to texts such as interview and focus group transcripts. The process for

this study included collecting primary data through one-on-one interviews with three

human rights experts and two immigration advocates who had experience and were

knowledgeable on immigration and human rights issues in the United States. Combining

the expert interviews not only provided data to construct codes but also facilitated linking

the macro and micro levels of analysis of the study.

I conducted the study using phenomenological inquiry, an open-ended, emergent

design, documenting details and events that chronicled the personal experiences of

Mexican, Somali, and Hmong legal immigrants in Minnesota (see Roulston, 2011). I

focused on participants’ experiences of human rights violations against legal immigrants

to obtain comprehensive details that provided a basis for reflective structural analysis,

potentially revealing the essence of their experience. I also analyzed recordings of both

interviews and focus group discussions to discover new data that might be useful for the

research.

Data were collected through semistructured interviews and focus group

discussions. Both individual interviews and focus group discussions were audio and

video digitally recorded and transcribed, documenting the exact words for contextual

perspective later in the analysis (see Al-Yateem, 2012). I met with participants in neutral

locations such as public libraries or community meeting rooms, and other public

locations. I conducted one-on-one interviews in-person. Using a descriptive

phenomenological approach, I analyzed the descriptions given by participants and

divided them into meaning-laden statements and themes guided by Fineman’s

vulnerability categories, I then gathered the meanings that were essential to human rights

violations against legal immigrants and documented them to provide firsthand depictions

of the lived experiences of the research participants who were directly affected by human

rights violations in Minnesota. This level of detail and exposure might help policy makers

to comprehend how this phenomenon affected the wellbeing and welfare of immigrants,

and hopefully helped to engender some policy changes to improve the treatment of

immigrants in Minnesota.

The interviews were audio recorded, and I took notes while asking questions and

actively listening to the participant’s experiences to avoid losing or degrading the

answers through translation from the audio recorder. Note-taking also allowed me to

think deeply about what the participant was saying, which led to follow-up questions.

Other instruments for this study included transcriptions, and a journal for record-keeping

of my own unwanted biases, feelings, and reactions about the study.

Instrumentation

In this study, I was the research instrument (see Rudestam, 2015). I conducted

individual interviews with two immigration advocates and three human rights experts,

using semistructured interview questions. I facilitated three focus group discussions with

at least five legal immigrants each from the Mexican, Somali, and Hmong immigrant

populations. For the five in-depth interviews, I was open to either in-person face-to-face

interviews or using an electronic application such as Zoom or Skype, depending on the

convenience and preferred interview method of each participant. I ended up conducting

all the interviews in person due to the comfort level of the participants.

From the reviewed literature and research question, I developed interview guides

for both individual interviews and focus groups to ensure the same questions were asked

to individual interviewees and focus groups. Each of the participants was asked the exact

open-ended questions that were provided to them before the scheduled interview via

email. The focus groups generated data related to the lived experiences of the participants

on human rights violations. Group interaction facilitated an exchange of ideas and

information, thereby stimulating individual group members' thinking and allowing group

members to build on each other’s responses. During individual interviews, I repeated the

same set of questions and maintained the same personal demeanor with each interviewee

(see Yin, 2016, p. 135). In line with Yin (2016), when interviewees provided insufficient

information on a given topic, I initiated probes, and follow-up questions to stimulate the

participant to expand upon the original topic. Combining individual interviews and focus

groups provided in-depth data for a more comprehensive understanding of the

phenomenon under study.

I used ATLAS.ti for coding and data analysis. ATLAS.ti is a computer-assisted

qualitative data analysis software that analyzes, stores, manages, and shapes qualitative

data. The software allowed me to make decisions about assigning codes, categories,

concepts, and patterns of the data (see Moser & Korstjens, 2018). I also used a codebook,

to describe the content, structure, and layout of collected data. The codebook was well

documented to contain information intended to be complete and self-explanatory (see

Appendix A). The codebook helped me to stay organized in qualitative coding and

served as a reference throughout the study (see Ritchie et al., 2022).

Data Collection Procedure

As sole data collector, I was responsible for collecting and maintaining the

collected data throughout the research. I ensured the identity of the participants was

protected at all times. I used P1 to P5 to identify individual interview participants, M1 to

M5 to identify Mexican focus group participants, S1 to S5 to identify Somali focus group

participants, and H1 to H5 to identify Hmong focus group participants. No participant

was contacted before Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. I did not ask

participants to state their name, age, or any identifying characteristics during the recorded

interviews and focus groups.

Before data collection, all interview and focus group discussion participants

received an email with a consent form and confirmation of the date, time, and location. I

reminded them that their participation was voluntary, and that they could terminate the

interview at any time. All participants completed the consent form before the interview,

and before the focus group discussions, and I discussed any questions or concerns related

to the interview or focus group discussion process with the participants. Before any

recording, I obtained verbal permission from each participant to ensure they were aware

and comfortable with using any recording devices for the purpose of collecting data (see

Hancock & Algozzine, 2017). I used an iPad and a smart phone to record individual

interviews and focus group discussions. The data were collected through semistructured

individual interviews and focus group discussions. This approach assisted in addressing

the research question, with each interview and focus group discussion being

electronically recorded and transcribed in preparation for data analysis.

Data Analysis Plan

In preparing the data for analysis, I ensured that each semistructured interview

question aligned with the research question. This alignment enabled me to adhere to the

interview protocol, supporting the data collection and analysis process.

After transcribing the semistructured interviews and focus group discussions, I

began open coding using a constant comparative method. The constant comparative

method involves the systematic deconstruction of data into discrete components,

followed by coding these components and comparing the resultant codes to uncover

similarities and differences. This iterative process enables researchers to discern patterns

and establish categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This method proved most suitable for

the study as it allowed for the breakdown, examination, comparison, conceptualization,

and categorization of the data (see Lin, 2017). The constant comparative method was

particularly appropriate for this study because it facilitated the sorting and organizing of

excerpts of raw data into groups based on attributes. By systematically deconstructing the

data into discrete components, coding these components and comparing the resultant

codes to uncover similarities and differences, constant comparative aided in grouping the

data in a structured way to formulate and better understand the participants’ lived

experiences of human rights violations against legal immigrants (see Creswell & Poth,

2018). As I completed the data analysis, I also finished the coding process by labeling

concepts, defining, and developing categories to identify emerging themes from the data.

An inductive coding approach was used, which aligned with the

phenomenological research design by allowing for the conversion of raw, qualitative data

into more manageable data, which could be studied within the theoretical framework of

this study (see Liu, 2016). Following these procedures ensured that the interview

protocol, the theoretical framework, and research question were interconnected.

I used inductive thematic analysis to analyze the collected data. A codebook was

created, listing the codes used in the data analysis (see Appendix A). This codebook

described the contents, structure, and layout of the collected data and was thoroughly

documented to contain complete and self-explanatory information in a data file (see

Ritchie et al., 2022). It also provided context for anyone examining the data after

analysis, offering a clearer understanding of the coding decisions. Codes were generated

from the interviews and focus group discussions and were updated as necessary during

analysis to keep the codebook current. Seven major themes and several subthemes

emerged from the collected data, as well as categories and codes, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Themes, Subthemes, Categories, and Codes

No.

Themes

Subthemes

Categories

Codes

Culture and language

barriers make immigrants

vulnerable to human rights

violations

Language barriers

make immigrants

vulnerable to human

rights violations

Language and

cultural integration

Isolation due to language

barriers,

misunderstandings due to

cultural differences, lack

of fluency in English,

difficulty accessing

services

Cultural differences

between immigrants

and residents promote

human rights

violations

Cultural awareness

and integration

Lack of cultural

awareness, barriers to

help-seeking,

misunderstandings

Need for improved

access to English

language learning

programs

Language education

accessibility

Importance of English

proficiency, lack of

affordable language

classes

The need for cultural

sensitivity training to

combat negative

stereotypes against

immigrants

Cultural sensitivity

training

Importance of cultural

sensitivity training for

police, landlords, and

service providers,

reduction of stereotypes

through education

Legal system complexity and

legal immigrants’ lack of

awareness on how to

navigate the complex legal

environment

Lack of knowledge

and awareness on how

to navigate the

complex legal

environment

Legal system

navigation

Complex legal system,

systemic challenges,

confusion over

immigration paperwork,

policy changes creating

uncertainty

Fear of reporting abuses &

violations

Immigrants experience

fear of being deported

if they report human

rights violations

Fear of deportation

Fear of deportation,

impact on reporting

abuses, silence due to fear

of status scrutiny

Fear of retaliation

from human rights

violation perpetrators

Fear of retaliation

Fear of retaliation,

hesitation to report

violations, concerns about

being believed

The collected data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis (see Braun

and Clarke, 2006). The analysis was conducted in six phases: (a) familiarization with the

data, (b) generating initial codes, (c) searching for themes, (d) reviewing themes, (e)

defining and naming themes, and (f) writing or producing the report (Nowell et al., 2017).

Inductive thematic analysis was suitable for the study because it allowed for an

examination of the different participants' perspectives, highlighting similarities and

differences in their experiences of human rights violations, and generating unanticipated

100

insights (see Braun & Clarke, 2006; King, 2004). It was instrumental in summarizing key

features of the collected data, providing a structured approach to handling data, and

producing a clear and organized final report on the vulnerabilities of legal immigrants

and the violation of their human rights in Minnesota (see Nowell et al., 2017). The

software used in analyzing the collected data was ATLAS.ti, a computer-assisted

qualitative analysis software. ATLAS.ti aided in tracking search terms and keywords and

assisted in finding quotations related to specific codes, which were used in writing up the

report of the collected data (see Smit & Scherman, 2021). Furthermore, ATLAS.ti's

capability for hyperlinking quotations was beneficial for building possible arguments

across the data.

Issues of Trustworthiness

Credibility

Upon completion of my proposal, I sought approval from my committee chair and

IRB to ensure I could proceed to the data collection phase prior to engaging any

participants for individual interviews or focus group discussions. As a purposive sample,

each participant in the focus groups and individual interviews met the criteria to

participate in the research. Individual interviews were conducted with carefully selected

human rights experts and immigration advocates, who were familiar with the treatment of

legal immigrants in Minnesota, and the human rights challenges they faced. Focus group

discussions were conducted among five individuals selected from each of the study

samples (Mexicans, Somalis, and Hmongs) to explore their lived experiences of human

rights violations as legal immigrants in Minnesota.

101

Data saturation was applied to determine the sufficiency of data from the research

to foster a robust and valid understanding of the phenomenon under study. Hennick and

Kaiser (2020) noted that saturation is usually incorporated into criteria to analyze the

quality of qualitative research. Saturation had been applied outside the realm of the

grounded theory method to rationalize sample sizes for qualitative research (see Hennick

& Kaiser, 2020). To build credibility, I maintained contact with each participant and

completed member checks to ensure their portion was believable and accurate. Member

checks allowed the participants to review a summary of their interview, granting them the

opportunity to make comments or corrections (see Sundler et al., 2019).

Transferability

According to Moon et al. (2016), transferability relates to the extent to which the

results and recommendations of a particular research could be applied, with confidence,

to a different location with a similar phenomenon or a wider population. Although this

research was conducted in Minnesota, human rights violations against legal immigrants

were phenomena that were eminent across the United States and in other countries. The

findings described in this study could be used in advancing further studies in the field of

human rights and the treatment of immigrants. The purpose of this study was to use the

knowledge gained from participants’ responses through individual interviews and focus

group discussions to provide information that might contribute to policy reform

considerations to improve the treatment of immigrants in host countries, by exploring

how legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali, and Hmong descent experienced human rights

violations in Minnesota.

102

Dependability (Reliability)

Dependability entails the consistency and reliability of the research findings and

the extent to which research procedures are documented, such that someone outside the

research is able to follow, critique, and audit the research process (Polit et al., 2006).

After coding the data, the process of how each theme was created using the grouped

codes was demonstrated. By recording individual interviews and the focus group

discussions, presenting a concept cloud with different codes, and a demonstration of how

themes were derived from grouped codes, the study demonstrated dependability. With

coding from the responses of the study participants, the dissertation committee reviewed

the results and provided guidance on any issues that might have reduced dependability.

Confirmability

Ravitch and Carl (2016) opined that confirmability focuses on whether the

findings of a qualitative research can be confirmed. Confirmability accentuates that the

interpretations of an investigation should be rooted in the data and articulated in

approaches consistent with accessible data (Schwandt & Halpern, 1988). In qualitative

research, confirmability is likened to objectivity and reliability, which is the methods and

assessment of the precision of the truthfulness and the significance being conveyed in the

study. Confirmability helps to comprehend a phenomenon from the perspective of the

participant, and to understand the significance that research participants give to their

experiences (Given, 2008).

Moon et al. (2016) underscored that reporting on researcher predisposition,

beliefs, and assumptions is a major criterion of confirmability. To determine

103

confirmability in the qualitative study, reflexivity was the instrument I used to meet such

a goal. I kept a record of a reflexivity journal, which contained a self-assessment of

subjectivity, positionality, preconceptions, personal values, and beliefs to reduce bias

when necessary and increase the transparency of the research process (see Moon et al.,

2016).

Ethical Procedures

To ensure ethical procedures were followed accordingly, I sought IRB approval

for the research including terms of participants' recruitment and data collection. All

Walden IRB guidelines for informed consent and confidentiality were followed. The IRB

application included participants' recruitment process and participant treatment, the study

start and end dates, the study, interview details, the study goal and rationale, a description

of the process to recruit participants in terms of the strategies I used to contact them and

recruitment contact material, the overall method and research plan in terms of data

collection and timeline, the benefits of the study, research data security and storage in

terms of confidentiality and agreement protocol, the timeframe for data storage (a

minimum of 3 years), research data storage procedures and consent procedures, the

coding strategy, participants screening or recruiting strategy, the interviewing process in

terms of the length of time for the interviews, compensation to the participants, the study

population in terms of participant demographics, the number of participants, and any

possible conflict of interest which was nonexistent in this study.

Participants were assured that all information collected in the study would be held

with utmost confidentiality. All the debriefing forms and questionnaires were included in

104

the IRB application. I did not foresee any recruitment material concerns. I made certain

that all data materials and participant contact procedures were kept private and

confidential. Any printed document relative to participants and data collection was locked

in a file cabinet within my desk or saved in an encrypted folder online, and I was the only

one with access to the file cabinet or folder.

Summary and Transition

The purpose of this study was to use the knowledge gained from participants’

responses through individual interviews and focus group discussions to provide

information that might contribute to policy reform considerations aimed at improving the

treatment of legal immigrants. This exploration focused on how legal immigrants of

Mexican, Somali, and Hmong descent experienced human rights violations in Minnesota.

The methodology and methods for this qualitative phenomenological study were

highlighted in this chapter. I presented detailed strategies for implementing the study,

including my roles as the instrument for gathering, analyzing, and interpreting the

collected data. In this chapter, I also emphasized the importance of implementing a

qualitative phenomenological study that demonstrated ethical principles.

Substantial attention was given to participants to ensure they were respected and

treated fairly as I carefully and methodologically gathered data with rigor and validity to

maintain transparency. Issues of trustworthiness, credibility, transferability,

dependability, and confirmability of the study were addressed.

Finally, I touched upon the IRB process, outlining how a request had been made

and how I followed the IRB guidelines to implement the study. Chapter 4 presents the

105

study findings, including characteristics of the participants, analysis of the collected data,

and the results of the study.

106

Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to use the knowledge gained from participants’

responses through individual interviews and focus group discussions to provide

information that may contribute to policy reforms considerations to improve the

treatment of legal immigrants, by exploring how legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali,

and Hmong descents experiences human rights violations in Minnesota. The research

question for this study was as follows: How do legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali, and

Hmong descent experience human rights violations in Minnesota as a vulnerable

population? By engaging in individual interviews and focus group discussions, this

research was driven by the aspiration to capture the depth and nuance of these

experiences. Through these rich interactions, participants shared their personal stories,

recounting the hardships and injustices they have faced, as well as their strategies for

resilience and adaptation as a vulnerable population in Minnesota.

In this chapter, I lay out my research setting and present the demographics and

characteristics of the participants relevant to this study. I further describe how data were

collected and any challenges encountered during data collection. An overview of data

analysis is also discussed, and lastly, the study results are conveyed, including

participants’ excerpts.

Setting

Data for this study were collected using semistructured interviews with five

individual interview participants and 15 focus group discussion participants. The

107

described methodology for conducting interviews and focus group discussions in

different settings, such as public libraries, community meeting rooms, and participants'

offices, outlined in Chapter 3 had several implications for the research findings. The use

of neutral locations like public libraries and community meeting rooms for the focus

group discussions created an environment conducive to open and honest discussions. This

neutrality helped minimize biases that could arise from affiliations with specific

organizations or institutions. As such, the findings obtained from these discussions had a

high chance to reflect genuine perspectives and experiences of the participants regarding

human rights violations against legal immigrants in Minnesota.

The choice of interview and focus group locations were based on the preferences

of the participants. By accommodating the preferences of participants for individual

interview and focus group discussions’ locations, I aimed to reduce withdrawal rates and

increase participant engagement. Participants' comfort and familiarity with their chosen

interview settings facilitated a more candid and detailed responses, thereby enriching the

quality of the data collected. While some individual interview participants' offices were

not neutral locations due to their affiliation with their respective organizations, the

decision to conduct interviews in these settings was made to honor participants'

preferences and enhance their comfort. While this constituted the potential risk of biased

responses, as participants may feel inhibited or hesitant to discuss sensitive topics related

to human rights violations within their workplace environments, one of the two

participants who preferred their office space for interview were top executives in their

108

respective entities. Their comfort and familiarity were instrumental for reducing

participants' anxiety, which could adversely affect the quality of data obtained.

The efforts to minimize external noise and distractions in the selected venues,

such as study booths in public libraries and private rooms, contributed to creating a

conducive atmosphere for a more focused discussion. This enhanced the depth and clarity

of the data collected during focus group discussions and individual interviews. The

absence of influences from any organizations or institutions on the participants during the

study was crucial for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the research findings. It

ensures that the data collected remains free from external biases or pressures that could

compromise the interpretation of the study results.

Overall, the described data collection procedure in Chapter 3 demonstrated a

thoughtful approach to data collection aimed at fostering participant comfort, minimizing

biases, and creating an environment conducive to open and honest discussions.

Throughout the data collection and analysis process, I remained self-aware and reflective

about potential biases that could arise from conducting interviews in participants' offices.

I considered how these biases could influence the interpretation of the research findings

and took steps to address them in the collection, analysis and reporting of the data. I

assured participants that their responses would be kept confidential and anonymized in

reporting the research findings. This helped alleviate concerns about potential

repercussions for sharing sensitive information within their organization.

109

Demographics

Twenty participants met the inclusion criteria for this study and consisted of eight

females and 12 males. For the individual interviews, the three human rights experts

consisted of two males and one female while the two immigration advocates consisted of

one male and one female. Of the five individual interview participants, there were two

Whites, one Hispanic, one Asian, and one African. The human rights experts had

between 12 to 20 years of experience working as human rights activists in Minnesota.

The immigration advocates had between 10 to 16 years of experience working with

immigrants from different backgrounds including Mexicans, Somalis, and Hmong. For

the focus group discussions, the Mexicans consisted of one female and four males; the

Somalis consisted of two females and three males; and the Hmong consisted of three

females and two males. The focus group participants have lived in Minnesota between 5

to 20 years. Table 2 presents the participants’ demographic data.

110

Table 2

Participants’ Demographic Data

Interviews

Gender

Profession

Yrs. of

experience

Age

Female

Human Rights Expert

Male

Human Rights Expert

Male

Human Rights Expert

Male

Immigration Advocate

Female

Immigration Advocate

Focus

group

Race/ethnicity

Yrs. in MN

Education

Marital

status

Family

size

Female

Mexican

Associate degree

Female

Somali

Licensed Practical

Nurse

Married

Male

Mexican

Associate degree

Married

Male

Hmong

High School

diploma

Married

10.

Male

Mexican

Bachelor’s degree

11.

Male

Somali

Associate degree

Married

12.

Male

Hmong

Master’s degree

Married

13.

Female

Hmong

Bachelor’s degree

14.

Male

Somali

Associate degree

Married

15.

Female

Somali

Registered Nurse

Married

16.

Male

Somali

High School

Diploma

Married

17.

Female

Hmong

Associate degree

Married

18.

Male

Mexican

High School

diploma

Married

19.

Male

Mexican

High School

diploma

Married

20.

Female

Hmong

Associate degree

Married

Data Collection

I commenced the data collection process for this study after obtaining approval

from Walden’s IRB (# 08-04-23-1025435). After making personal contact with each

participant, I sent out a recruitment email with the consent document to each participant.

After receiving the signed consent forms from participants, I scheduled 45 to 60-minute

interviews with three human rights experts and two immigration advocates for a total of

five individual interviews. The two individual interview participants who opted for their

offices as interview locations made necessary arrangements for a quiet and private space

111

for the interview. All other individual interviews were held in quiet rooms in different

public libraries which were convenient locations for the participants and free from any

interruptions. I scheduled 60 to 90 minutes for the focus group discussions with five

Mexicans, five Hmong, and five Somali legal immigrants as each group became ready,

making a total of 15 focus group discussion participants. All the participants met the

inclusion criteria as spelled out in Chapter 3.

All the focus group discussions were held in quiet rooms in different public

libraries that were convenient for each group. These rooms were free from interruptions. I

conducted individual interviews and focus group discussions in-person at different times,

which enabled me to capture nonverbal cues from participants, offering a deeper

understanding of their experiences and expressions. Due to technological faults, I

recorded all the interviews and focus group discussions using my Samsung phone instead

of an audio recording device I had bought for recording. There were no variations during

data collection. I transcribed all interviews and focus group discussions using Otter.ai, a

software that is used to convert audio to text and corrected various sections of the

transcript by listening to the audio recordings and writing out the exact words of the

participants. To conceal the identity of participants, I removed all identifying information

from the transcripts prior to member checking. I shared the transcripts of individual

interviews with each interviewee and shared a summary of the focus group discussions

with the focus group participants. All participants confirmed that the transcripts were

accurate. The interviews, participant information, and all data were stored in a password-

protected folder on a password-protected computer, which only I have access to, where it

112

will remain for 5 years and then will be destroyed. I then proceeded with data analysis

using ATLAS.ti.

Data Analysis

The data analysis method was qualitative thematic analysis, which was conducted

using Atlas.ti software. I chose Atlas.ti because of the ease with identifying codes and

analyzing the data in a visually more organized manner. I reviewed each transcript

several times before coding. I analyzed each sentence from the interviews and focus

group discussions and highlighted key words with line-by-line coding, as described by

Charmaz (2006). As I coded the data, rather than using predeveloped codes, I selected

different colors to associate with the individual code categories (see Figures 1 and 2). The

seven main themes that emerged from the code categories were experiences of

educational discrimination, experiences of workplace discrimination, experiences of

racial profiling and negative stereotyping, experiences of housing discrimination, cultural

and language barriers make immigrants vulnerable to human rights violations, legal

system complexity and lack of awareness on how to navigate the legal environment on

the part of legal immigrants, and the fear of reporting abuse and violations.

113

Overview of Findings From Individual Interviews

Figure 1

An Overview of Findings From the Individual Interviews

Individual interviews were guided by 10 semistructured questions examining the

experiences of Mexican, Somali, and Hmong immigrants in Minnesota. Several common

human rights violations and challenges emerged. In this section, only a summary of the

key results obtained is shown. A more detailed presentation of the results obtained is

reserved for the results section. Firstly, language barriers posed a significant obstacle for

these communities, limiting their access to vital services, employment opportunities, and

social integration. Discrimination and prejudice based on ethnicity or nationality were

also prevalent, leading to unequal treatment and hindrances in areas like housing,

education, and healthcare. Additionally, economic disparities and restricted job prospects

often left these communities vulnerable to labor rights abuses and exploitation. These

common challenges encapsulated the broader human rights violations experienced by

Mexican, Somali, and Hmong immigrants in Minnesota. Legal immigrants of Mexican,

Somali, and Hmong descent in Minnesota faced challenges such as discrimination in

114

employment, housing, and education, language barriers, and sometimes mistreatment by

law enforcement.

Collaboration between different stakeholders was crucial to address the specific

needs and concerns of these immigrant groups effectively. Initiatives that helped address

these issues included cultural sensitivity training programs, community advocacy

networks, community-based programs providing legal support and resources, and the

Minnesota Welcoming Cities initiative promoting inclusivity and protecting the rights of

immigrants.

Overview of Findings From Focus Group Discussions

Figure 2

An Overview of Perceptions From Focus Group Discussions

The focus group discussions were guided by eight semistructured questions,

which revealed that legal immigrants in Minnesota faced challenges in accessing

resources and reporting human rights violations. This section only provides a summary of

115

the key results obtained in the focus group discussions. A more detailed presentation of

the results is provided in the results section. Focus group participants reported concerns

about the response from authorities and the potential retaliation they would face if they

reported these human rights violations. Participants noted that improved support systems,

resources, and policy changes were needed to address these challenges.

Legal immigrants reported facing discrimination, wage theft, housing

discrimination, harassment, workplace discrimination, profiling, and lack of support from

law enforcement. They believed that English language programs, access to legal rights

information, family reunification, policies that prioritized keeping families together, and

media campaigns promoting inclusivity could help improve the situation.

They believed that changes in policies made it harder for legal immigrants to

access benefits and services. They faced challenges with visa wait times, family

reunification, and cultural differences in medical practices and social services.

Discrimination, exploitation, and fear of reporting violations due to possible retaliation or

deportation were common.

Participants also believed that legal immigrants need equal treatment, access to

healthcare, affordable housing, education, and protection from discrimination. They

emphasized community support, education, transparency, and resources to navigate

systems effectively. The emotional and psychological impact of these challenges were

reported to be significant.

Participants highlighted that legal immigrants in Minnesota had contrasting

experiences when it came to feeling respected and valued. Language barriers and a lack

116

of cultural sensitivity could create difficulties. Participants believed that education,

community outreach, cultural sensitivity training, and better access to interpreters and

information in multiple languages could help improve the treatment of legal immigrants.

According to participant responses, reporting human rights violations was challenging

due to fear, concerns about authorities, and uncertainty about effectiveness. They opined

that support, education, and resources were important to empower immigrants and

address these barriers. Participants expressed their desires for understanding,

engagement, and support from policymakers and elected officials.

During the data analysis process, seven main themes emerged among participants,

with numerous subthemes, categories, and codes, as shown in Table 1. These themes,

subthemes, categories, and codes are discussed in detail in the results section of this

chapter.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

Cohen and Morrison (2017) opined that it is essential to verify the research design

from the start to ensure credibility. My role as the researcher in this study entailed

designing the interview protocol, recruiting participants, collecting data, analyzing and

presenting the data, as well as interpreting participants’ responses correctly to make

factual findings. To ensure that the study’s conclusions and findings are reliable and

valid, I described my steps to ensure credibility, transferability, dependability, and

confirmability of this study in Chapter 3. The elements identified above were addressed

to ensure trustworthiness of the study.

117

Credibility

According to Mirriam and Tisdell (2016), credibility refers to how well the

research findings match reality. To ensure credibility, I made sure that all research

participants met the criteria for the study. I made contact with all participants via email to

confirm their willingness, consent and the freewill to participate in the study. After

obtaining confirmation from participants, I proceeded to scheduled individual interviews

and focus group discussions according to the availability and convenience of participants.

All five interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted in person in

different quiet and safe location and were recorded using my phone. I also recorded body

languages in my personal journal to capture nonverbal cues. I transcribed the interviews

and focus group discussions and included the nonverbal expressions. I then conducted

member checking whereby individual interview participants received transcripts of the

raw data, while focus group discussion participants received a summary of the

discussions to review for accuracy. I started analyzing the data after I received approval

of the transcripts and summaries from all participants.

Transferability

Research is said to meet transferability criteria when the same study can be

applied to other individuals and settings (Rudestam & Newton, 2007). I described how

the participants were recruited in line with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, up to the

scheduling of the interviews and focus group discussions. I also provided individual

interview questions, as well as focus group discussions guides, which were all aligned to

the research question. After completing the interviews and focus group discussions, I

118

purchased and used ATLAS.ti 23 data analysis software to code and categorize the

transcribed data using quotes from participants to support the themes that emerged from

the individual interviews and focus group discussions. I employed thick descriptions to

describe the setting, participants, data collection, and analysis procedures.

Thick description in qualitative analysis refers to the detailed account of field

experiences in which the researcher makes explicit the patterns of cultural and social

relationships and puts them in context (Geertz, 1973). This method allowed detailed

themes to emerge from the data, which supports the element of transferability in the

study. According to Houghton et al. (2012), thick description allows the reader to

determine a degree of transferability based on details obtained by the researcher.

However, due to the small and deliberately chosen sample size, this research is not

transferrable. Participants in this study were selected based on their unique experiences

(focus group participants) and expertise (individual interview participants) regarding

human rights violations against legal immigrants in Minnesota. The unique

characteristics and experiences of participants regarding human rights violations against

legal immigrants imply the conclusions drawn from this study may only be applicable

within the specific context in which the study was conducted.

Dependability

The methodology I used to conduct this study ensured that the study's findings are

accurate, consistent, and can be replicated (see Johnson et al., 2020). Triangulation was

used to corroborate the findings, which helped in validating the interpretation of

participants' lived experiences by cross-verifying data collected through individual

119

interviews and focus group discussions (see Denzin & Lincoln, 2013). Using

methodological triangulation, this study met the dependability criteria. I recorded

individual interviews and focus group discussions and demonstrated how themes were

derived from grouped codes. The data were also verified by the participants through

member checking. I described in detail how the data were collected, and how the codes,

categories, and themes were formed, using ATLAS.ti. data analysis software. I made

constant reference to the collected data throughout the data analysis process, which

helped me to reduce my biases and assumptions as an immigrant living in Minnesota.

During the interview process, I strictly adhered to the semistructured interview protocol

developed based on the research questions and literature. Adhering to this guide ensured

consistency across interviews and focus group discussions was maintained. This

approach reduced the likelihood of interview questions being influenced by my own

personal biases as the researcher.

Confirmability

According to Ravitch and Carl (2016), confirmability focuses on whether the

findings of qualitative research can be confirmed. Given (2008) opined that

confirmability helps to comprehend a phenomenon from the perspective of the participant

and to understand the significance that research participants give to their experiences. I

used reflexivity, which helped me reflect on my personal beliefs about the topic and the

influence that I have on the study. I reflected on how the process of research affects me as

a researcher. I analyzed my personal assumptions and biases that I may have towards the

topic as I examined how legal immigrants experience human rights violations in

120

Minnesota. Confirmability was strengthened with member checking of the individual

interviews and focus group discussions.

Results

In this qualitative phenomenological study, I purposed to provide information that

may contribute to policy reform considerations to improve the treatment of legal

immigrants by using the knowledge gained from participants’ responses through

individual interviews and focus group discussions, exploring how legal immigrants of

Mexican, Somali, and Hmong descents experience human rights violations in Minnesota.

The conducted data analysis generated seven core themes and numerous subthemes based

on the research question: How do legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali, and Hmong

descent experience human rights violations in Minnesota as a vulnerable population?

Theme 1: Experiences of Educational Discrimination

Following the analysis of interviews and focus group discussions data, one

recurrent theme emerged: the experiences of educational discrimination among legal

immigrants of the Hmong, Mexican, and Somali descent. This theme captured the unique

experiences that legal immigrants and their children face when attempting to pursue their

educational and career goals in Minnesota. According to Berkel et al. (2010),

discrimination is considered a key stressor for minority populations in Minnesota, which

contributes to persistent disparities across other important aspects of their daily life. This

theme emerged prominently from the collected data, highlighting critical challenges

faced by legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali, and Hmong descent in Minnesota.

Supported by insights from both individual interviews and focus group discussions, the

121

theme provided a comprehensive understanding of the barriers to education and the

consequent impacts on the affected individuals. This first theme was supported by

participants from both the individual interviews and the focused group discussions. All

five participants from the individual interviews and one participant from the focus group

contributed to this theme. As per the findings of this first theme, educational

discrimination experienced by legal immigrants of Hmong, Somali, and Mexican descent

had two major dimensions: (a) difficulty accessing quality education and (b) harassment

and bullying of legal immigrants’ children in school. Each of these dimensions has been

discussed in greater detail below.

Difficulty Accessing Quality Education

Grunewald and Nath (2019) indicated that inequitable access to high-quality K-12

education in Minnesota has resulted in some of the state’s largest gaps in educational

outcomes by race, ethnicity, and immigration status. White students in Minnesota have

higher average standardized test scores and graduation rates than children of color and

Black children, with those from immigrant families facing the brunt. The unanimous

view among the five individual interview participants and one focus group member of

this study underscored a systemic issue in the Minnesota educational landscape. Legal

immigrants and their children, particularly from Somali, Hmong, and Mexican

backgrounds, confront substantial hurdles in accessing quality education, a right that is

universally recognized as fundamental. Low levels of formal education and LEP poses

barriers to the integration of immigrant parents making it challenging for them to support

their children’s educational success (Chambers, 2017). English proficiency is an

122

important marker of immigrants’ integration and a significant component of their

capacity to access higher-wage jobs and support their children’s education (Hofstetter &

McHugh, 2021).

The findings indicated that a predominant barrier for these communities,

particularly the Hmong, is the language barrier. From the individual interviews, P3 stated,

“Hmong immigrants often experience barriers to accessing education and healthcare due

to language and cultural differences.” English, being the primary language of instruction

in Minnesota schools, poses a significant hurdle for nonnative speakers. The lack of

proficiency in English, coupled with cultural differences, creates an education access gap.

This gap not only limits the academic achievements of Mexican, Somali, and Hmong

legal immigrants but also hinders their integration into the broader society. According to

Bleakley and Chin (2010), limited English language proficiency is a major barrier to

effective integration into American society. It impedes access to health care services,

schools, and government agencies; relegates workers to low-wage jobs with reduced

likelihood of upward mobility; and leads to early school dropout and associated risk

behaviors on the part of young people. This finding aligns with broader research

indicating that language barriers are a significant impediment to educational attainment

for immigrant communities in Minnesota.

P4 also mentioned that legal immigrants encounter challenges accessing

education but did not clarify the nature of those hurdles: “Legal immigrants often

encounter hurdles in accessing healthcare, education, and legal representation.” P2 also

held similar views but did not clarify the nature of difficulties that the legal immigrants

123

face in accessing quality education in Minnesota. P2 noted that immigrants may lack

access to affordable healthcare and quality education for their children, which further

adds to their vulnerabilities. P2 also stated,

Access to education is another major concern. Many of the children of these

immigrants are US citizens, and they face daily challenges due to deportation

threats or the fear of being separated from their parents. This affects their

academic performance, and I’ve seen some children struggle with school as a

result.

Harassment and Bullying in School

The second dimension of the theme, concerning harassment and bullying, sheds

light on the social challenges faced by the children of legal immigrants in educational

settings. H4's account of her daughter's experience with discrimination and its adverse

effects on her mental health and academic performance is poignant. H4 stated, “My

daughter faced discrimination at school. She was teased for being different, and the

school didn't take it seriously. It took a toll on her self-esteem, and she struggled

academically.” This narrative illustrates the real and often overlooked consequence of

bullying based on ethnic differences – a decline in self-esteem and academic

achievement.

In Minnesota, Latino students have been taunted with “build a wall” and “go back

to Mexico” chants, while Asians have been harassed for spreading the Corona virus

(Wasem, 2020). Islamophobia has been on the rise as well across Minnesota with

Somalis facing the brunt of it at schools, workplaces, and shopping centers. P5 stated,

124

“As for Hmong immigrants, there have been cases of educational discrimination. Their

children sometimes face bullying and discrimination in schools, which can have long-

lasting effects on their academic and emotional well-being.” P5's remarks further

corroborate the existence of bullying and discrimination, particularly against children

from the Hmong community. The emphasis on the long-lasting impact of such

experiences on academic and emotional well-being is critical, pointing to the need for

systemic changes in school environments.

Theme 2: Experiences of Workplace Discrimination

The findings from this study, comprising interviews and focus group discussions

with immigrants in Minnesota, revealed significant insights into the experiences of

workplace discrimination. My interpretation of these findings is focused on three

identified subthemes: denial of employment or promotion opportunities based on ethnic

background, general experiences of workplace discrimination, discrimination relating to

wage disparities, and experiences of being denied employment or promotion

opportunities on the basis of ethnic background.

The study vividly illustrates how ethnic background plays a crucial role in

employment and promotion opportunities for immigrants in Minnesota. Participants

across different ethnic groups—Hmong, Mexican, and Somali—consistently reported

experiences where their qualifications were overshadowed by their ethnic identities.

Discrimination based on people’s origin remains a major challenge for legal immigrants

to gain access to meaningful employment in Minnesota. Because their foreign earned

educational degrees, licenses and credentials are not usually recognized by professional

125

organizations and employers in the United States, some high skilled legal immigrants

who received their training abroad are underemployed in Minnesota due to lack of

options for meaningful employment (Tsuchiya et al., 2021).

Particularly to Mexican immigrants, participant M3 explain how frustrating it is

being an immigrant: “I feel like some employers prefer not to hire immigrants,” hence the

difficulties securing meaningful employment. Representing the Somalis, participants S1,

S2, and S4 agreed that being denied employment and promotion opportunities was tied to

them being Somalis. For instance, S1 reported that although her friend was qualified for a

particular job, being of a Somali descent cost him the job. S1 stated,

One incident that stands out is when my friend was denied a job opportunity

solely because of his Somali background. He was qualified and had a great

resume, but the employer flat-out told him they didn't want any Somalis working

there. It affected his self-esteem and made him feel unwelcome in this

community.

S2 concurred with the responses of S1, noting that although the state of Minnesota

was agreeable and accepting to immigrants, there were instances of discrimination. While

narrating her experiences, S4 reported experiences of discrimination when searching for

employment. S4 shared, “Personally, I've faced discrimination while job hunting. My

qualifications were often dismissed because of my name, and I received fewer callbacks

than my non-Somali counterparts”. S4 further stated, “I've encountered workplace

discrimination too, where I feel like I'm not given the same opportunities as my

American-born colleagues”.

126

The responses in the focus group discussions were reiterated by the responses of

individual interviews. P1 explained that compared to other ethnic minorities in

Minnesota, the Somali immigrants experienced numerous forms of discrimination as a

result of their names or religious clothes. P1 stated, “The Somali immigrants, they often

experience discrimination in various forms. Some face barriers in employment

opportunities due to their names or religious attire.” Similar responses were given by P4

who stated, “Somali immigrants may face discrimination due to their religion, language,

and culture, and they've also experienced challenges related to counterterrorism policies.”

P3, while agreeing to instances of discrimination in employment and promotion

opportunities, explained that it was important to ensure the rights of legal immigrants

were upheld through increased awareness and community education. P3 stated that “it's

essential for us to raise awareness about these violations and work towards policy

changes and community education to ensure that legal immigrants from these

backgrounds are treated fairly and afforded the human rights and dignity they deserve.”

Overall, participants included in this study both in the focus group and interviews agreed

that although legal immigrants enjoyed similar rights to other Americans, instances of

discrimination during job hunting and being bypassed when it was time for promotion

were a common phenomenon.

The existence of “at will” employment in Minnesota leaves the discretion to hire

using both economically relevant considerations such as the applicant’s skills, and

irrelevant or illegal considerations like applicant’s race or ethnicity, is entirely the

employer’s choice (Chambers, 2017). This has entrenched hiring discrimination in

127

Minnesota, despite legal prohibitions. While the 2019 unemployment rate for U.S.-born

workers with a high school degree or less was 4.9%, Black and Latino/a workers in

Minnesota with the same education had unemployment rates of 8.2% (Burr et al., 2010).

The recurrence of such experiences suggests a systemic issue where ethnic background is

a determinant in professional advancement, regardless of an individual's qualifications or

legal status.

Experiences of Discrimination Related With Wage Disparities

Clark et al. (2020) opined that most legal immigrants primarily work in a labor

force division that does not provide living wages, benefits, or job security. This leads to

financial difficulties, which exposes immigrant families to risks of poor health and

relationship violence (van Gelder et al., 2020; Yoshikawa et al., 2020). Wage disparities

based on ethnicity was another significant concern raised by the participants. As

illustrated by H1’s account, “My husband, who works in construction, was once denied

fair wages by his employer because he knew they thought he couldn't complain due to

our immigrant status,” there is an exploitative dimension to this discrimination. It not

only affects the economic well-being of individuals but also reflects a broader societal

issue where immigrant status is used as leverage for unfair labor practices. Gentsch and

Massev (2011) noted that documented individuals who have legal rights to work continue

to encounter injustices, which prevents them from advancing to a better economic

situation.

P3 from the individual interviews contended that for being immigrants, “They

may face wage theft or workplace exploitation due to their immigration status.” In the

128

focus group with the Mexicans, M4 reiterated the responses provided by the H1 stating,

“Even when you get the job, you're paid less than others doing the same work.” M2

agreed with H1 and M4 stating that

Yes, wage theft is a big problem. Some employers pay us less than what we're

owed, but we often don't know how to address it within the legal system…And

there have been instances where employers take advantage of our immigration

status, paying us less than minimum wage, and not providing safe working

conditions.

Corroborating the responses from the focus groups, individual interview

participants also reported that legal immigrants experience wage disparities because of

their ethnic orientations. For instance, P2 stated that

For legal immigrants, economic factors were crucial as economic disparities

contributed to their vulnerability and restrict their access to resources necessary

for defending their rights…Many legal immigrants, especially those from these

communities, have faced employment discrimination, wage disparities, and

limited access to educational opportunities.

P3 contended that for being immigrants, “they may face wage theft or workplace

exploitation due to their immigration status.” Reiterating the responses of other

participants, P5 explained that the economic wellbeing of Somalis was compromised by

wage discrimination which also influenced their ability to access necessities. Verbatim,

P5 stated, “In the case of Somali immigrants, there have been instances of employment

129

discrimination, where they are often paid significantly less than their non-immigrant

counterparts for similar work.”

P 5 shared that Mexican immigrants also reported experiencing wage disparities.

P5 stated,

For Mexican immigrants, one common issue is labor rights violations, especially

in industries like agriculture and construction. These individuals often face

substandard working conditions, wage theft, and even discrimination due to their

immigration status. On top of that, there can be instances of racial profiling and

harassment by law enforcement agencies, which intersect with immigration status

issues.

The economic disparities affecting legal immigrants in Minnesota have broader

implications for their integration and participation in society. Unfair wages not only

affect immigrants’ ability to defend their legal rights but also limits their access to

education, healthcare, and housing, which are critical for successful integration (National

Immigration Law Center, 2022). Additionally, there is a social impact: when legal

immigrants are unable to effectively defend their rights, it can lead to a sense of

disenfranchisement and diminish their trust in the legal system, potentially affecting their

willingness to engage with law enforcement and other governmental institutions.

General Experiences of Workplace Discrimination

Existing literature has suggested that phenotypically, European immigrants face

far less discrimination in workplaces than their counterparts from Asia, Latin America,

and Africa (Portes & Rumbaut, 2016). General workplace discrimination, encompassing

130

various forms of unfair treatment, is a pervasive issue. H2 stated, “I faced discrimination

at work too. My boss used to make fun of my accent and assign me more difficult tasks,

saying I needed to prove myself. It made me feel small and powerless.” H2’s experience

of being assigned more difficult tasks and mocked for their accent is a telling example of

the subtler forms of discrimination that contribute to a hostile work environment. The

experiences shared by S1 and others highlight the psychological impact of discrimination,

where individuals feel the need to report incidents but are often held back by fear of

repercussions. P4 stated, “Legal immigrants are sometimes subjected to unfair labor

practices, including wage theft, dangerous working conditions, or even harassment. Their

fear of retaliation or deportation often prevents them from reporting these abuses.” This

underreporting, as noted by P4, is a significant barrier to addressing workplace

discrimination, especially for legal immigrants who may fear retaliation or deportation.

Like the Hmong, the Somalis also reported instances of workplace discrimination.

S1 stated, “Well, I haven't faced any major violations, but there are instances of

discrimination, especially in the workplace. It's subtle, but it's there.” Agreeing with the

Hmong regarding the need to stand up for one’s right, S1, although afraid, had to report

incidences of discrimination against a coworker, sharing, “Yes, I reported an incident

involving a coworker. They were constantly making derogatory remarks about my

background. It was tough, but I had to speak up.”

Experiences of workplace discrimination were also reported by individual

interviews participants. P1 shared that “many Mexican immigrants in Minnesota faced

employment discrimination, exploitation, and racial profiling…Many of them are into

131

low-wage jobs with little job security, which can lead to wage theft, unsafe working

conditions, and limited access to healthcare.” Like P1, P2 also shared, “Many Mexican

immigrants work in low-paying jobs, often facing wage theft, unsafe working conditions,

and unjust firings.” Similar to the Mexicans, P3 shared that “members of the Somali

community also reported workplace discrimination where individuals with valid work

permits and qualifications have been denied job opportunities solely due to their ethnic

background or the way they express their religious beliefs.”

Without mentioning any specific immigrant groups, P4 explained that

discrimination at the workplace was concerning as it was often directed towards legal

immigrants. In her submissions, P4 stated, “Legal immigrants are sometimes subjected to

unfair labor practices, including wage theft, dangerous working conditions, or even

harassment. Their fear of retaliation or deportation often prevents them from reporting

these abuses.” P4 further stated that “members of legal immigrant communities face

systemic biases in employment, housing, and education.” Furthermore, P4 reported, “I

have seen cases where legal immigrants are denied job opportunities because of their

ethnicity or have difficulties renting homes due to discriminatory practices. Workplace

discriminations, not only affect their economic well-being but also their psychological

and emotional state.” Therefore, while reporting cases of discrimination has helped legal

immigrants, fears of retaliation or deportation have discouraged many from reporting and

as a result, perpetrating instances of discrimination in the workplace.

The findings offer a profound understanding of the multifaceted nature of

workplace discrimination faced by legal immigrants in Minnesota. The experiences

132

shared by participants reflect a troubling reality where ethnic background, immigration

status, and cultural differences play a significant role in determining employment

opportunities, wage equity, and overall treatment in the workplace. These findings call for

a critical examination of existing workplace policies, laws, and cultural attitudes towards

immigrants. P3 stated that “it's essential for us to raise awareness about these violations

and work towards policy changes and community education to ensure that legal

immigrants from these backgrounds are treated fairly and afforded the human rights and

dignity they deserve.” The findings suggest the need for interventions at both policy and

community levels to address these systemic biases and to ensure that the rights and

dignity of all legal immigrants are upheld, as advocated by P3. This research underscores

the importance of awareness, legal protection, and community support in combating

workplace discrimination and fostering a more inclusive and equitable work

environment.

Theme 3: Experiences of Racial Profiling and Negative Stereotyping

The data, drawn from both focus group discussions and individual interviews,

reveal a pervasive pattern of discrimination and bias faced by legal immigrant

communities, predominantly stemming from their racial, ethnic, or religious identities.

The study findings highlight the significant impact of racial profiling and negative

stereotyping on immigrant communities. Tsuchiya et al. (2021) noted that the

implementation of U.S. immigration policies like the Customs and Border Protection

policy, the unprecedented increase in federal immigration enforcement policies,

detention, and deportation of immigrants without due process increased racial profiling

133

and denial of due process rights for many legal immigrants in Minnesota. They further

explained that this situation continues to impact legal immigrants by limiting their ability

to access adequate health care, provide for their families, raise bond fees, and obtain

appropriate legal representation (Tsuchiya et al., 2021).

S3 shared, “Yes, and it's not just about individuals. Sometimes, I think the media

plays a role in shaping perceptions. We see stories that focus on the negative aspects of

our community, which can reinforce stereotypes.” S3 emphasized the role of media in

shaping perceptions, indicating that negative portrayals can reinforce stereotypes. This

can lead to feelings of alienation and mistrust within these communities. Racial profiling

and harassment have a ripple effect on immigrant families, particularly on children. S3

stated, “It's also important for the media to show a more balanced view of our

community. Highlight our successes and contributions, not just the negatives.” Although

the United States has made progress to alleviate the impacts of bias and negative

stereotyping, participant S5 shared the experiences of Somalis: “I remember the

aftermath of the police shooting of a Somali man in our community a few years ago. It

was heartbreaking to see the injustices play out.”

The study findings also underscored the challenges faced by legal immigrants,

including discrimination, harassment, and violations of their rights. From the individual

interviews, P1 pointed out incidents of discrimination and harassment faced by Somali

immigrants, especially related to religion, such as wearing a hijab. P1 stated,

Legal immigrants who practice Islam often face discrimination and

harassment…There have been incidents in which they've been verbally abused or

134

even physically attacked due to their religious attire, like wearing a hijab. It's a

clear violation of their right to practice their religion without fear

I represented a family who had their car vandalized with hateful slurs and their

children were bullied at school because of their religion. It was heartbreaking to

see the children's fear and the family's struggle to feel safe in their own

community

P2 reiterated that

Many Somali legal immigrants have faced discrimination in employment and

housing, often due to their religion or ethnicity. They may encounter xenophobia,

Islamophobia, or be subjected to racial profiling. These human rights violations

affect their ability to live, work, and integrate into society as full and equal

members.

These experiences are not only emotionally distressing but also impede their

ability to live, work, and integrate into society.

Racial Profiling and Harassment Especially Within the Policing Context

The study findings revealed strained police-community relations due to racial

profiling. Participants from both the Somali and Mexican communities reported instances

of being racially profiled by the police, which eroded their trust in law enforcement.

Discrimination and racial profiling not only affect daily routines but also erode trust in

public institutions and can hinder effective community policing efforts. The experiences

of racial profiling, discrimination, and negative stereotyping impact the overall well-

being of immigrant communities. S3 mentioned that profiling and excessive use of force

135

against Somali youth create a sense of injustice and mistrust towards law enforcement,

affecting their well-being and future prospects.

For instance, within the Mexican focus group, M2 remembered some encounters

with the police that were frustrating, stating, “Yes, I've had a few encounters with the

police that left me feeling targeted. Once, I was pulled over for a minor traffic violation,

and they asked about my immigration status instead of just giving me a ticket.” M5 also

reported instances of being racially profiled by the police, stating: “I faced racial profiling

by the police, even though I'm a legal resident. They pulled me over without reason and

questioned my status, making me feel like a criminal.” M5 stressed that “being racially

profiled by the police was a humiliating experience. It made me question my place in this

society.”

Although M1 had no personal experiences of racial profiling and harassment, he

reported the stories of some of his friends who had been harassed by the police; in his

submission, M1 stated, “Well, I've heard stories of racial profiling by law enforcement.

Some of my friends have been pulled over just because they look Hispanic, even though

they're here legally.” Corroborative responses were reported by M3, who reported

experiences with the police, stating, “Yes, I reported a case of racial profiling. The police

just brushed it off like it wasn't a big deal. They didn't take me seriously.”

Similar to the Mexicans, the Somalis in their focus group also reported being

harassed and racially profiled by the police. For instance, participant S2 recounted that

law enforcement officers had intimidated and racially profiled him on several occasions,

136

something that made him feel alienated from the community. Similar responses were

reported by S3 who stated,

I've seen cases of police profiling and excessive use of force against Somali youth

in our neighborhood. Young people here often feel targeted, which creates a sense

of injustice and mistrust towards law enforcement. This affects their overall well-

being and future prospects.

The participant further stated that racial profiling did not only apply to individual

harassment but also the failure of law enforcement officers to take action against people

who discriminate against immigrants. As per P3, police officers failed to take action when

cases of harassment were reported: “I did once, but it didn't go well. I reported an

incident of racial profiling, and the police officer brushed it off.”

Besides the responses from the Mexican and Somali focus groups, I also noted

that individuals interview participants also reported witnessing immigrants being

harassed. P1 stated that “Mexican immigrants have reported experiences of, employment

discrimination, racial profiling, and sometimes, inhumane treatment by law

enforcement.” In addition to discriminations, P1 stated,

And there was a case where a Mexican immigrant was unjustly detained by law

enforcement due to racial profiling, causing him to be separated from his family

for weeks, even though he had legal status. These experiences leave lasting

emotional scars and erode trust in the system.

Similarly, the Somali focus group reported that some of their legal rights were,

sometimes violated during security checks at airports, adding to their discomfort. The

137

outcome of discrimination and racial profiling were associated with immense stress and

fear within their families, which can manifest in various ways, including children

performing poorly in school as well as affects their access to healthcare, as many are

reluctant to seek medical attention due to their immigration status.

Incidences of racial profiling, discrimination, and harassment from and by the

police instilled fear among immigrants. P2 from the individual interview stated, “Legal

immigrants in these communities are often afraid to step out of their homes, fearing racial

profiling, harassment, or unjust deportation.” Consistent responses were reported by P3

who stated that members of the legal immigrants reported, cases of racial profiling and

harassment by law enforcement, which infringe on their rights to security and freedom

from discrimination. Reporting on the experiences of members of the Mexican

community, P3 observed, incidents of racial profiling and unwarranted stops by law

enforcement, even when individuals have the appropriate documentation which often

resulted in emotional distress and, in some cases, unjust deportation proceedings.

Among the Somali immigrants, S3 stated, “We often face profiling,

discrimination, and invasive surveillance, particularly after the rise in anti-Muslim

sentiment.” According to S3, discriminatory practices and racial profiling, “result in a

loss of privacy, restrictions on their freedom of movement, and a general feeling of

alienation.” From the individual interviews, P5 acknowledged the issue of discrimination

and racial profiling experienced by immigrants in Minnesota. P5 stated, “Legal

immigrants from these communities often face racial profiling, which affects their

interactions with law enforcement and the community… they are often subjected to

138

unwarranted stops, searches, and questioning, leading to feelings of insecurity and

marginalization.” Agreeing with other participants, P5 reported that “discrimination and

racial profiling, not only impacts their daily routines but also their trust in public

institutions.” As per the provided responses, there is a general agreement among the study

participants that racial profiling, harassment, and bias is common among legal

immigrants of Somali, Mexican and Hmong communities.

Theme 4 - Experiences of Housing Discrimination

According to Dion (2001), in the early 2000s, Somali Americans reported higher

levels of perceived housing discrimination compared to other immigrants in the United

States. Responses from participants highlighted that legal immigrants of Hmong,

Mexican, and Somali communities, commonly face discrimination when seeking housing

due to their ethnicity and immigrant status. This discrimination manifests in various

ways, including being denied housing or facing excessive questioning about legal status

when applying for rental housing. All five Somali participants reported having general

experiences of housing discrimination such as being denied housing once because of their

ethnicity. This shows higher levels of perceived housing discrimination compared to

other immigrants in the United States as some landlords did not want to rent to Somali

immigrants. The findings indicate that Somali participants experienced housing

discrimination as a result of their immigration status.

As reported by the individual interview participants, one of the major housing

challenges in the Mexican immigrant community is the lack of affordable housing, as

many Mexican immigrants often reside in housing units with many health and quality

139

hazards, including lead paint and roach infestations. Individual interview participants

perceived that for many Mexican immigrants, because they lack credit history, finding a

co-signer is almost impossible when trying to buy a home. Some individual interview

participants also reported that Mexican immigrants have reported being taken advantage

of by the banks due to their lack of knowledge and overcharging those closing fees. Three

subthemes emerged during the thematic analysis of experiences of housing discrimination

as discussed below.

General Experiences of Housing Discrimination

Four participants contributed to this theme by demonstrating facing general

experiences of housing discrimination as immigrants. Participants reported that they

experienced difficulties related to housing, access to healthcare, and social services due to

their immigrant status in the community where landlords and other officials denied their

housing and social service access rights. From the Hmong focus group, H2 highlighted

being denied housing because of ethnicity as Hmong, “I remember being denied housing

once because of my ethnicity. That hurt a lot.’’ Similar to H2, M3 from the Mexican focus

group indicated having experienced housing discrimination in the form of being asked

questions about legal status, to find a reason not to rent to a Mexican. According to M3,

multiple questions upon the application for rental housing were meant to deny immigrant

houses, thus contributing to housing discrimination. M3 stated, “I once applied for a

housing rental, and they asked me so many questions about my legal status that I felt like

they were trying to find a reason not to rent to me.’’ These findings underscored the need

for increased awareness and training among landlords and property management

140

professionals about fair housing practices. The findings also demonstrate the emotional

toll such discrimination takes on legal immigrants.

From the Somali focus group, S3 faced some housing discrimination issues upon

moving to the United States including difficulty finding a place to rent because some

landlords denied to rent to Somali immigrants due to these landlord’s negative attitudes

towards immigrants. Housing discrimination led to a lack of good housing among

immigrants such as Somalis, Mexicans, and Hmong. Despite increased housing

discrimination, S4 reported the landlord who denied renting the house to a Somali

immigrant. Although it took a long time to get help, eventually the housing rights

organization helped in accessing the house, S4 recounted, “Yes, I reported a landlord who

refused to fix a leaky roof in winter. It took a while, but eventually, a housing rights

organization helped me.’’ Regarding difficulties faced in accessing housing and

healthcare services, individual interview P1 revealed that the majority of Somali

immigrants faced challenges and difficulties related to housing, access to healthcare, and

accessing social services: “This (Somali) group also grapples with difficulties related to

housing, access to healthcare, and social services.’’

The study also revealed that some landlords exploit immigrants by charging

higher rental fees or neglecting maintenance in their housing units. M1 stated, "Landlords

do not care about the welfare of the immigrants thus they expose them to many dangers

including insecure houses without maintenance as well as charging them higher rental

fees." This confirms Tsuchiya et al. (2021), who reported that apart from the income

disadvantage due to factors such as language proficiency, Somali, Hmong, and Mexican

141

immigrants also experience issues of discriminatory practices from landlords, high

unaffordable rents, substandard living conditions, and long waiting lists for subsidized

housing, which affect their ability to afford a decent lifestyle in Minnesota. This

economic exploitation, coupled with the fear of retaliation, creates a challenging living

environment for immigrants. This calls for stricter enforcement of housing regulations

and protections for immigrants. Legislative action and oversight may be necessary to

ensure fair treatment and affordable housing options for legal immigrants.

Landlords Charging Immigrants Disproportionately Higher Rent Charges or

Neglecting Maintenance

Five participants contributed to this subtheme. The participant posited that

housing discrimination was exhibited through landlord charging immigrants

disproportionately higher rent charges or neglecting the maintenance of houses.

Participants highlighted that due to racial discrimination attitudes among landlords, they

charge higher rental charges for immigrants making it difficult to afford houses despite

standard and affordable house rent charges being charged to other tenants. Some of the

housing discrimination as reported by participants includes higher rental charges, and

neglect in the maintenance of the house despite complaints. From the Mexican focus

group, M4 reported that some landlords discriminate against immigrants by charging

higher rental fees and refusing to maintain once notified of defects in the house, making it

hard for the immigrant to live in such houses. M4 stated, “I've seen how some landlords

discriminate against immigrants. They charge higher rent or neglect maintenance, and

they don't care because they think we won't complain.’’

142

Landlords take advantage of immigrants to overcharge them with high rent and

neglect to fix their apartment with blackmail of reporting them to the authorities making

it difficult for the immigrants to confront them or report them to housing rights

organizations, as reported by M1from the Mexican focus group discussion. According to

M1, landlords do not care about the welfare of the immigrants thus they expose them to

many dangers including insecure houses without maintenance as well as charging them

higher rental fees, which makes their lives unbearable. It is difficult for immigrants to

assert their rights because of fear of retaliation and even eviction from the house. M1

shared, “Well, sometimes landlords take advantage of us by not maintaining our housing

properly. It's difficult to assert our rights because of fear of retaliation or eviction.’’

M5 reported that landlords were overcharging for rent and refusing to fix things in

the apartment based on the immigrant status of the tenant, resulting in significant housing

discrimination. M5 shared, “I reported a landlord who was overcharging me for rent and

refusing to fix things in my apartment. They just told me to find a new place if I didn't

like it. It was infuriating.’’ H4 from the Hmong focus group also reported having faced

discrimination in housing whereby landlords sometimes charge higher rents or make it

difficult for immigrants to rent; despite having good credit and legal status. H4 stated,

It becomes frustrating for immigrants to face housing discrimination at the hands

of landlords despite having good credit scores and legal status just because they

are of different race and origin… My family and I have faced some discrimination

in housing. Landlords sometimes charge higher rents or make it difficult for us to

rent, even though we have good credit and legal status. It's frustrating.

143

H3 also reported that there have been instances where individuals have faced

housing discrimination, with landlords refusing to rent to them or demanding exorbitant

deposits because of their ethnicity. According to H3, most immigrant families struggle to

find secure safe and affordable housing due to housing discrimination as demonstrated by

the landlords in Minnesota: H3 shared,

In the Hmong community, there have been instances where individuals have faced

housing discrimination, with landlords refusing to rent to them or demanding

exorbitant deposits because of their ethnicity. It's heartbreaking to see families

struggling to secure safe and affordable housing

Experiences of Harassment, Humiliation, and Unfair Treatment From Landlords and

Neighbors

The findings equally highlighted that immigrants frequently experienced

harassment, humiliation, and unfair treatment from both landlords and neighbors. These

actions include racial slurs, property vandalism, insensitive remarks about immigrants'

cultures, and even unlawful entry into immigrants' apartments. These corroborate

Tsuchiya et al.’s (2021) assertion that for many immigrants living in Minnesota, securing

a safe, healthy, and affordable home is almost impossible due to systemic barriers that

have created disparities in home ownership. The findings also revealed the urgent need

for addressing the psychological and emotional toll of housing discrimination on

immigrants.

Six participants contributed to this subtheme. According to the participants,

immigrant tenants experienced harassment humiliation and unfair treatment from their

144

landlords and neighbors. Such actions of housing discrimination included harassment

because of different ethnicity such as yelling and vandalizing immigrant’s property,

unfairly treated compared to other tenants, and constant insensitive remarks about

immigrant’s culture. The participants also highlighted that immigrants faced housing

discrimination in terms of neighbors making insensitive comments and sometimes even

entering immigrant’s apartments without notice and abusing their culture including

wearing of hijab making them live in constant fear taking a toll on their mental health.

From the Hmong focus group, H3 reported that she was harassed by her neighbor based

on her ethnicity including yelling racial slurs and vandalizing our property: “My neighbor

once harassed us because of our ethnicity. He yelled racial slurs and vandalized our

property. It was terrifying and left our family feeling unsafe in our own home.”

Unfair treatment was mentioned by H2 who revealed that landlords and neighbors

treat immigrants unfairly and differently compared to other tenants who are not

immigrants based on their background. H2 stated, “I remember a time when my landlord

treated me unfairly compared to other tenants, and I felt it was because of my

background.’’ H4 revealed that neighbors constantly made insensitive remarks about

immigrant’s culture, and it made them feel unwelcome in their community. H4 shared, “I

had a neighbor who constantly made insensitive remarks about our culture, and it made

me feel unwelcome.’’ H1 narrated that the neighbor harassed the immigrant’s family

because of our ethnicity and cultural backgrounds. As per the participant, the findings

revealed that some immigrants reported cases of harassment to the police who helped

them. H1 shared, “Yes, I did report a case once. It was about my neighbor who was

145

harassing my family because of our ethnicity. I reported it to the local police and the

harassment stopped.’’

M5 demonstrated that Mexican immigrants experienced housing discrimination

including blatant racism and neighbors and landlords yelling slurs at them and their

family, which is terrifying, and it makes them lose the sense of belonging. M5 shared,

“I've experienced some blatant racism here. People have yelled slurs at me and my

family. It's terrifying, and it makes me feel like I don't belong.’’ Increased humiliation

was experienced by M4 who reported discriminatory landlords’ behavior such as unfair

treatment, which made them lose the sense of belonging as immigrants due to being

treated differently. M4 stated, “I felt humiliated by my landlord's behavior. It affects

your sense of belonging when you're treated differently.’’ Harassment was experienced

by S2, who expressed that neighbors harassed immigrants, including entering their

apartment without notice and making sensitive remarks, including abusive language in

hijab, for Somali immigrants, thus creating fear and a toll on their mental health.

Theme 5: Culture and Language Barriers Make Immigrants Vulnerable to Human

Rights Violations

The findings of this study shed light on the significant challenges faced by

immigrants in Minnesota due to culture and language barriers, which make them

vulnerable to human rights violations. The implications of these findings have far-

reaching consequences for policy, practice, and advocacy efforts aimed at addressing the

rights and well-being of legal immigrants in Minnesota. Researchers have reported that

for Mexicans, Somalis, and Hmong immigrants in Minnesota, a significant barrier to

146

healthcare access is proficiency in English. LEP compromises legal immigrants’ access to

healthcare by limiting the quality of interactions between patients and healthcare

providers (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). Participants noted that culture and language barriers

make immigrants vulnerable to human rights violations. Some participants suggested the

need for English classes for immigrants to learn the language for effective

communication, although it is hard to find affordable classes. Language access is another

key factor in mitigating language barriers that lead to violations of immigrants due to

their lack of knowledge concerning human rights violations. Participant responses

suggested that to mitigate the language barrier, government agencies and service

providers should offer information and services in multiple languages to immigrants.

Participants also suggested the need for cultural sensitivity training to combat negative

stereotypes against immigrants. Some participants highlighted that more cultural

education in schools would help break down stereotypes; while others reported that it’s

important for police officers and landlords to receive cultural sensitivity training.

Some immigrants attended cultural sensitivity training sessions to educate others

about customs and practices, hoping to reduce misunderstandings and discrimination of

immigrants. Participants also suggested that staff and volunteers in organizations should

undergo cultural competency training to understand the backgrounds, traditions, and

sensitivities of Mexican, Somali, and Hmong immigrants. This can help reduce

misunderstandings and potential biases. According to the participants, these programs

focus on educating law enforcement officers, social workers, healthcare professionals,

and educators about the unique cultural backgrounds and experiences of immigrants from

147

these communities. It has helped improve interactions between these professionals and

immigrants, reducing instances of discrimination and ensuring that individuals receive

fair and equitable treatment, thus reducing discrimination against immigrants in the

Minnesota.

Cultural differences between immigrants and residents promote human rights

violations and were also reported by participants as promoters of human rights violations

through discrimination. Participants also responded that social, and cultural differences

and language barriers can create isolation and misunderstandings. The lack of cultural

competency among service providers and, at times, hostility from certain segments of the

population can further contribute to these violations against the immigrants in Minnesota.

Further, participants highlighted language barrier as a factor making immigrants

vulnerable to human rights violations in Minnesota as language barriers can be isolating.

It is challenging to communicate effectively in many situations. This theme has four

subthemes, as discussed below.

Language Barriers Make Immigrants Vulnerable to Human Rights Violations

Nine participants contributed to this subtheme. All the participants reported that

language barriers make immigrants vulnerable to human rights violations as language

barriers can be isolating and challenging to communicate effectively in many situations.

Participants reported that culture and language are very different from the mainstream

and that can create misunderstandings as many legal immigrants often face challenges

that can expose them to vulnerabilities. These challenges can include language barriers,

cultural differences, and a lack of understanding of their legal rights and the complex

148

immigration system. Participants opined that legal immigrants, especially those from

Mexico, Somalia, and Hmong communities, are frequently marginalized and isolated in

Minnesota. In addition, the participant pointed out that children's education can be

affected as legal immigrants, due to language barriers, are unfamiliar with the education

system.

From the Hmong focus group, H3 reported that language barriers can be isolating

because it is challenging to communicate effectively in many situations. H3 stated,

“Language barriers can be isolating. It's challenging to communicate effectively in many

situations.” H1 expressed that culture and language are very different from the

mainstream, and that can create misunderstandings which contribute to immigrants’

vulnerability to human rights violations. H1 shared, “Well, it can be tough. Many times,

our culture and language are very different from the mainstream, and that can create

misunderstandings.’’ From the Mexican focus group, M5 confirmed that the limited

information in Spanish about their rights makes them need more resources and support to

navigate the legal system, which makes it difficult to understand legal regulations and

their rights as immigrants making them vulnerable to human rights violations by the

native people of Minnesota or even other immigrants who understands the terrain and the

language in Minnesota. M5 stated, “Another thing that bothers me is the lack of

information in Spanish about our rights. We need more resources and support to navigate

the legal system.’’ Participants from the individual interviews also noted that limited

ability to speak English due to language barriers also contributes to the vulnerability of

immigrants to human rights violations in Minnesota, as reported by P1. According to P1,

149

the language barrier is often significant as many legal Mexican immigrants may not be

fluent in English, which can make it hard for them to access information or communicate

their concerns effectively. As a result, due to language and cultural barriers, they may

struggle to find and communicate with attorneys or advocates, which can lead to

misunderstandings. P1 stated,

Well, it's sometimes difficult to explain our problems because of the language

barrier. Many of us can't speak fluent English, and that can lead to

misunderstandings. For Mexican immigrants, the language barrier is often

significant. Many legal Mexican immigrants may not be fluent in English, which

can make it hard for them to access information or communicate their concerns

effectively. Due to language and cultural barriers, they may struggle to find and

communicate with attorneys or advocates. This can lead to misunderstandings,

and they might not be fully aware of their rights.

P2 indicated that many Mexican immigrants may not be fluent in English, making

it difficult for them to access information or communicate effectively with legal

professionals due to the language barrier. This language barrier can lead to

misunderstandings and delays in the legal process. Lack of access to legal information

makes them vulnerable to human rights violations. P2 shared, “For Mexican immigrants,

language is often the first hurdle.’’ P3 also reported that language barriers can be a

significant hurdle for the Mexican communities as limited proficiency in English can

limit their access to essential services, education, and employment opportunities. The

responses of H1 and P1 confirms Bleakley and Chin’s (2010) assertion that English

150

proficiency helps immigrants integrate economically into their new home by narrowing

the wage gap between immigrants and United States citizens. Limited English language

proficiency is a major barrier to effective integration to the American society.

Legal immigrants face challenges that can expose them to vulnerabilities of

human rights violations including language barriers. P4 reported that immigrants face

various challenges, and these challenges can include language barriers, cultural

differences, and a lack of understanding of their legal rights and the complex immigration

system. Legal immigrants, especially those from Mexico, Somalia, and Hmong

communities, are frequently marginalized and isolated. P4 stated,

When we look at legal immigrants, they often face challenges that can expose

them to vulnerabilities…legal immigrants, due to language barriers and

unfamiliarity with the education system, may not be able to advocate effectively

for their children's educational rights… Moreover, children's education can be

affected by legal immigrants, due to language barriers.’’

Additionally, P4 indicated that language barriers, unfamiliarity with the legal

system, and limited financial resources can exacerbate immigrant’s struggles including

vulnerability to violation and discrimination, stating that ‘’;anguage barriers,

unfamiliarity with the legal system, and limited financial resources can exacerbate their

struggles.’’ P5 also highlighted that language barriers and cultural misunderstandings

often hinder access to essential services like healthcare and education. P5 shared, “When

we turn our attention to the Somali community, we encounter a different set of

151

challenges. Language barriers and cultural misunderstandings often hinder access to

essential services like healthcare and education.’’

Cultural Differences Between Immigrants and Residents Promote Human Rights

Violations

Lougarre (2020) noted that the ICESCR clearly protects immigrant’s economic,

social, and cultural rights in its preamble by explicitly recognizing that economic, social,

and cultural rights ‘derive from the inherent dignity of the human person.’ However, not

ratifying the ICESCR indicates that the United States is reluctant to wholly endorse the

interdependence of human rights and the domestic enforcement of the ICESCR (Hamidi,

2020). This directly affects the degree of protection offered by the United States to the

economic, social, and cultural rights of legal immigrants. The findings revealed the lack

of cultural sensitivity training, which should be integrated into various sectors, including

education, law enforcement, and healthcare. This can foster a better understanding of

immigrant cultures and reduce the potential for discrimination and misunderstandings as

legal immigrants integrate in Minnesota.

Four participants contributed to this subtheme. According to these participants,

cultural differences between immigrants and residents promote human rights violations.

Some participants indicated that a lack of awareness about Hmong culture leads to

misunderstandings. Hmong focus group participant H3 indicated that a lack of awareness

about different cultures leads to misunderstandings between immigrants and residents

leading to human rights violations. H3 shared, “I think there's a lack of awareness about

Hmong culture, and that leads to misunderstandings. I've had to explain our traditions

152

countless times.” From the Somali focus group, S2 reported that cultural differences can

also be a barrier that contributes to human rights violations against immigrants in

Minnesota. Cultural differences can also be a barrier that can make immigrants hesitant to

seek help or report violations because they are not sure how things work, as reported by

S2: “Cultural differences can also be a barrier. In Somalia, we have our way of doing

things, and here it's different. It can make us hesitant to seek help or report violations

because we're not sure how things work.’’

S4 revealed that a lack of understanding of our culture can lead to

misunderstandings among immigrants and residents contributing to human rights

violations through increased discrimination. S4 stated, “Also, the lack of understanding

of our culture can lead to misunderstandings. Sometimes, things that are normal for us

can be seen as strange or even suspicious here.’’ From the individual interviews, P1

indicated that language barriers are often a significant issue, making it harder for them

(Mexicans, Somalis, and Hmong) to access essential services, understand their rights, and

even seek legal assistance when needed.

Need For Improved Access to English Language Learning Programs

Four participants contributed to this subtheme. The participants indicated the need

for improved access to English language learning programs. Although finding affordable

classes is difficult for the immigrants, immigrants need to learn English to access jobs

and services as English proficiency is crucial in accessing services by the immigrants.

Language barriers are a significant challenge faced by immigrants. To mitigate this,

participants opined that government agencies and service providers should offer

153

information and services in multiple languages. This makes it easier for immigrants to

access resources and navigate the system. From the Hmong focus group, H1 shared,

“Well, I think one of the key things we need is more English language programs.

Immigrants need to learn English to access jobs and services, but sometimes it's hard to

find affordable classes.’’ H2 revealed that English proficiency is crucial and there is a

need for improved access to English language learning programs by the immigrants to

enhance their English proficiency. H2 stated, “Yes, I agree with H1, English proficiency

is crucial. Also, legal aid for immigration issues should be enhanced.’’

According to the responses provided by P2, “Language access is another key

factor and government agencies need to provide services in numerous languages to

guarantee that legal immigrants can access essential information without language

obstacles,” Government agencies should provide services in multiple languages to ensure

that legal immigrants can access essential information.’’ Enhancing language access was

mentioned by P4, who stated,

Language barriers are a significant challenge for immigrants who may face

discrimination challenges including human night’s violation. However, to

mitigate this challenge, government agencies and service providers should offer

information and services in multiple languages that can be understood by the

immigrants… Language barriers are a significant challenge. To mitigate this,

government agencies and service providers should offer information and services

in multiple languages.

154

The Need for Cultural Sensitivity Training to Combat Negative Stereotypes Against

Immigrants

Eight participants contributed to this subtheme. The participants confirmed that

there is a need for cultural sensitivity training to combat negative stereotypes against

immigrants in Minnesota. Participants revealed that more cultural education in schools

would help break down stereotypes and that it is important for police officers and

landlords to receive cultural sensitivity training. Participants also reported that staff and

volunteers in organizations should undergo cultural competency training to understand

the backgrounds, traditions, and sensitivities of Mexican, Somali, and Hmong

immigrants. Participants were optimistic that this can help reduce misunderstandings and

potential biases against legal immigrants in Minnesota. Participants indicated that

government agencies should invest in cultural competency training for their employees to

ensure they can effectively communicate and serve these immigrant communities without

violating their rights or discriminating against them. According to the responses from the

participants, the program should focus on educating law enforcement officers, social

workers, healthcare professionals, and educators about the unique cultural backgrounds

and experiences of immigrants from these communities. It can help in improving

interactions between these professionals and immigrants, reducing instances of

discrimination, and ensuring that individuals receive fair and equitable treatment.

From the Hmong focus group, H4 reported that providing cultural education in

schools can help reduce stereotypes against immigrants which may reduce human rights

violations. H4 stated, “More cultural education in schools would help break down

155

stereotypes.’’ From the Mexican focus group, M3 recommended that there should be

cultural sensitivity training for officials and service providers to reduce human rights

violations. M2 shared, “We should also promote cultural sensitivity training for officials

and service providers.’’ One participant provided discrepant data by revealing that many

immigrants attend cultural sensitivity training sessions to educate others about their

customs and practices, hoping to reduce misunderstandings and discrimination. On the

same note, P1 suggested the need for more cultural exchange programs and community

events that promote understanding between different communities. P2 also confirmed

that there is a need for enhanced cultural competency and sensitivity training within

organizations and government agencies. This would help staff better understand and

respect the diverse backgrounds, needs, and experiences of immigrants from these

groups. P2 stated, “First and foremost, it’s essential to enhance cultural competency and

sensitivity training within organizations and government agencies.’’

From individual interviews, two individual interview participants described

suggestions for improving the lives of immigrants by enhancing cultural competency

training programs to mitigate human rights violations. P4 corroborated P2's perception by

indicating that staff and volunteers in organizations should undergo cultural competency

training to understand the backgrounds, traditions, and sensitivities of Mexican, Somali,

and Hmong immigrants. They opined that this can help reduce misunderstandings and

potential biases. P5 noted that government agencies should invest in cultural competency

training for their employees to ensure they can effectively communicate and serve these

immigrant communities in Minnesota, P5 stated that “one noteworthy example is the

156

Cultural Sensitivity Training Program" initiated by the Minnesota Department of Human

Rights in collaboration with community organizations.

Theme 6: Legal System Complexity and Legal Immigrants’ Lack of Awareness on

How to Navigate the Complex Legal Environment

The study findings emphasize the significant hurdles faced by legal immigrants

when attempting to navigate the United States legal system. Rubio-Hernandez and Ayon

(2016) noted that most immigrants and especially asylum seekers have faced a new

odyssey of navigating the complex United States immigration laws and a restrictive

environment that bars them from winning the promised protection. The experiences of

human rights violations are linked to the complex legal system in Minnesota and

immigrants’ lack of awareness on how to navigate it. This theme was supported by

responses from six participants, two came from the Hmong and Mexican focus groups. In

support of this theme, participants made two key arguments. The first argument was that

the United States legal system is extremely complex and difficult for legal immigrants to

navigate and secure justice for human rights violations committed against them. Despite

the complexity of the legal environment, legal immigrants generally lack awareness and

knowledge on how to navigate it. The second argument was that to address the

complexity of legal system, there is need for community organizations and other

stakeholders to create awareness on legal immigrants’ human rights in order to assist

them navigate the complex legal environment.

157

Lack of Knowledge and Awareness on How to Navigate the Complex Legal

Environment

The findings also revealed that systemic challenges within the legal framework

disproportionately affect immigrants and refugees. For instance, participant H4, a

member of the Hmong focus group, described how reporting human rights violations in

the United States is difficult to navigate. According to H4, the fact that some legal

immigrants are not fluent in English makes reporting human rights violations against

them even more difficult since they do not understand how to go about it: “Reporting

violations is complicated. When you don't speak English fluently, you might not know

where to report or how to do it properly. And even if you try, sometimes, people just

don't listen or take you seriously. It's discouraging.”

The complexity of the United States legal environment was also mentioned by

participants P1 during individual interviews, and participant M3 during the focus group

discussion with the Mexicans. Participant P1 referred to the legal framework as having

several systemic challenges that mainly affect immigrants and refugees: “Legal

immigrants, as well as refugees, have faced systemic challenges within the legal

framework.” M3 described how complex the legal environment is from the immigration

process perspective. According to M3, the process of completing immigration paperwork

is confusing, stressful, and can jeopardize one’s immigration status if done wrongly:

“Immigration paperwork can be confusing and stressful. One mistake can jeopardize our

status. Having more accessible legal advice for immigration matters is essential.”

158

The findings also underscored how changes in immigration laws create

uncertainty and fear among immigrants. According to P2, changing laws regularly not

only confuses immigrants but also burdens them with the need to constantly familiarize

themselves with the new laws:

Immigrants often face difficulties in navigating the complex legal and

immigration systems. Changes in policies and the uncertain immigration

environment can create an atmosphere of fear and insecurity. This fear can be

exploited by unscrupulous individuals or organizations, leading to rights

violations

Wood (2018) confirmed this by noted that during the first 3 years in office, the

Trump administration propagated three categories of policy actions on refugees and

asylees, which framed the way legal immigrants were perceived and treated by some

immigration enforcement officers in Minnesota. These categories included those that

abandon longstanding US legal principles and policies, most notably non-

refoulement and due process, blocking the entry of refugees and asylees, and those that

criminalize foreign nationals who attempt to seek asylum in the United States (Wasem,

2020). These policy shifts necessitate constant familiarization with new laws. The

volatile nature of immigration policies requires the development of resources and support

systems that legal immigrants may use to adapt to the changing legal landscapes. The

findings equally suggest the provision of up-to-date information and legal assistance by

Legal aid organizations and community groups to help immigrants navigate these

changes effectively and mitigate feelings of vulnerability and insecurity.

159

A lack of awareness about rights and available resources emerged from

participants’ responses as a critical issue. From P1’s perspective, the issue of lack of

awareness is common among Hmong immigrants. As a result of limited awareness,

Hmong immigrants are unable to navigate the complexities of immigration law: “As for

Hmong immigrants, they may have limited education and knowledge of the United States

legal system, making it challenging to understand their rights or navigate the

complexities of immigration law.” The issue of lack of knowledge and awareness was

also reiterated by participant P5, who argued that legal immigrants become vulnerable to

exploitation and abuse:

Secondly, there is a general lack of knowledge about their rights and the available

resources. This can leave legal immigrants vulnerable to exploitation and abuse,

as they may not be aware of the protections afforded to them under United States

laws.

These responses suggest the prioritization of educational initiatives by community

organizations, legal aid agencies, and government bodies targeting legal immigrants.

These initiatives should focus on raising awareness about immigrants' rights, available

resources, and avenues for reporting human rights violations. The complexity of the legal

system presents a formidable barrier for legal immigrants, particularly those with LEP.

This barrier requires legal practitioners, policymakers, and community organizations to

work collaboratively to simplify legal procedures and ensure accessibility for all,

including immigrants with language barriers. Providing translated resources and

160

accessible information is imperative to empower immigrants to report human rights

violations effectively.

Theme 7: Fear of Reporting Abuses and Violations

The study findings accentuate the significant impact of the fear of deportation and

family separation on immigrants' willingness to report human rights violations. Nine

participants contributed to this theme, noting the fear of reporting abuses and violations

due to their immigrant status as they fear being deported if they report violations to

human rights organizations or police. Most immigrants feared reporting violations

claiming that to seek legal assistance would lead to their deportation and even separation

from their families. Participants expressed that the fear of deportation and family

separation can deter individuals from reporting abuses or seeking legal redress when their

rights are violated. This vulnerability is exacerbated by the lack of affordable legal

representation for immigrants, which further limits their ability to navigate the complex

legal system.

The study participants revealed that the immigration enforcement climate can

prevent immigrants from reporting violations, for fear that their immigration status would

be scrutinized. This fear often forces them into silence, allowing human rights violations

to persist. Participants also revealed that they failed to report violations for fear of

retaliation from human rights violation perpetrators. Most participants fail to report

violations because of fear of retaliation, or fear of not being believed by the relevant

authority. The fear of repercussions, especially among the Mexican immigrant

community, can be paralyzing making these immigrants fear reporting any violation and

161

racial discrimination from landlords and neighbors. Two subthemes emerged in the

thematic analysis as described below.

Immigrants Experience Fear of Being Deported if They Report Human Rights

Violations

Two participants contributed to this subtheme by demonstrating that the majority

of immigrants experience the fear of being deported if they report violations to human

rights organizations. The participants revealed that the immigration enforcement climate

could be the reason for fear of reporting human rights violations as they are afraid of

being deported. P1 recounted that many immigrants are afraid that seeking legal

assistance or reporting violations may lead to deportation or separation from their

families; this is because they fear being scrutinized by law enforcement, which could

result in deportation: “Many are afraid that seeking legal assistance or reporting

violations may lead to deportation or separation from their families.’’

P1 also reported the fear of seeking legal assistance because of the fear that their

status may be scrutinized making them remain silent, thus permitting human rights

violators to continue with discriminatory behaviors: “The immigration enforcement

climate can deter these immigrants from reporting violations, fearing that their status may

be scrutinized. This fear often forces them into silence, allowing human rights violations

to persist.’’ P5 indicated that as immigrants they feared seeking legal assistance for the

fear of deportation and family separation. Such fear deters immigrants from reporting

abuses or seeking legal redress when their rights are violated. This vulnerability is

exacerbated by the lack of affordable legal representation for immigrants, which further

162

limits their ability to navigate the complex legal system. P5 stated, “The fear of

deportation and family separation can deter individuals from reporting abuses or seeking

legal redress when their rights are violated. This vulnerability is exacerbated by the lack

of affordable legal representation for immigrants.’’

This confirms Danso and Lum’s (2013) assertion that despite their rights to due

process (Fifth Amendment), Minnesota courts do not appoint immigration attorneys to

represent indigent immigrants detained for civil immigration law violations. As such,

immigrants must find a pro bono attorney or private lawyer willing to take their cases or

forego representation all together.

Fear of Retaliation From Human Rights Violation Perpetrators

The study findings also revealed that immigrants may endure labor exploitation,

wage theft, and unsafe working conditions due to their fear of reporting abuses. This not

only affects their economic stability but also their physical and mental health, as noted by

P5. Legal immigrants may choose to remain silent, even when they witness violations,

because they fear the consequences of reporting. Some participants, such as M5,

expressed doubts about whether reporting would result in any help or justice. This

suggests a need for efforts to build trust between immigrant communities and law

enforcement agencies, human rights organizations, and other relevant authorities.

Some of the discriminations faced by immigrants include housing discrimination,

refusal to pay wages after working, losing a home after reporting violation, racial

profiling by the police, wage theft and unsafe working conditions. Responding during the

Hmong focus group discussion, H2 recounted that reporting feels like it might bring more

163

trouble, and she is not sure of getting any help at all.H2 stated, “I haven't reported

anything, even though I've seen some things. Reporting feels like it might bring more

trouble, and I'm not sure if they'd help.” Similarly, H4 and H5 expressed that they feared

reporting violations because of previous stories regarding consequences faced by other

immigrants who reported violators to human rights violations. H4 shared, “I never

reported anything. You hear stories of others who did and faced repercussions. I didn't

want to risk it.” In agreement with H4, H5 responded: “Same here. Reporting can be

risky, and sometimes you're not sure who you can trust.”

Participants for the Mexican focus group revealed that the fear of being reported

to the immigration department is the key reason why immigrants fear reporting human

rights violations, as reported by M5: “I had an incident where someone threatened to

report me to immigration just because I got into an argument with them. It's terrifying to

live with that kind of constant fear.’’ M1 shared a failure to report a lack of wage

payment for fear of being reported to the authorities for deportation. According to M1,

workplace leaders refused to pay the minimum wage, and they threatened to report to the

immigration if complaints were made against them: “Well, my workplace refused to pay

me the minimum wage, and they threatened to report me to immigration if I complained.

It affected my family's financial stability, and we lived in fear.’’ Some immigrants feared

reporting after facing housing discrimination for the fear of losing their homes. As

reported by M4, she feared reporting housing discrimination due to fear of being deported

or losing her home: “My cousin faced housing discrimination. She decided to document

everything, but she's hesitant to report it because she's worried about losing her home.’’

164

Some immigrants faced racial profiling by the police, but they could not report it

due to fear of what would happen if they did report, as reported by M5: “My brother was

racially profiled by the police, but he didn't report it. He was afraid of what might happen

if he did.’’ Further, M5 cited fear of retaliation and fear of not being believed as reasons

not to report discrimination and human rights violations: “I haven't reported anything

personally. It's mainly because of fear of retaliation, and the fear of not being believed.’’

From the individual interviews, P1 reported that the fear of repercussions, especially

among the Mexican immigrant community, can be paralyzing as immigrants fear being

attacked by the violation perpetrators or being deported: “The fear of repercussions,

especially among the Mexican immigrant community, can be paralyzing.’’ P5 reported

labor exploitation as a significant concern for immigrants since they are paid low wages

or legal immigrants may be forced into low-wage jobs with poor working conditions

because they fear reporting abuses, including wage theft and unsafe working conditions.

This not only affects their economic stability but also their physical and mental health.

Summary

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to use the knowledge

gained from participants’ responses through individual interviews and focus group

discussions to provide information that may contribute to policy reforms considerations

to improve the treatment of legal immigrants This goal was achieved by exploring how

legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali, and Hmong descents experience human rights

violations in Minnesota. In this chapter, the results of the study were presented. Findings

from both the individual and focus group interviews indicated that Somali, Hmong, and

165

Mexican legal immigrants experience various forms of human rights violations, including

educational discrimination, workplace discrimination, housing discrimination, racial

profiling, and negative stereotyping. Generally, the findings across all the three focus

groups were consistent with those obtained from the individual interviews; no major

differences were noted. These human rights violations are mainly perpetrated by the

complex legal environment in the United States and immigrants’ lack of awareness on

how to navigate it. Cultural differences, language barriers, and immigrants’ fear of

retaliation from offenders if they report violations against them all contribute to

continuous human rights violations against legal immigrants in Minnesota. In Chapter 5, I

discuss these findings in relation to theoretical and empirical literature. I discuss the

implications and limitations of this study and make recommendations for policy reform,

as well as future research and practice.

166

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to use the knowledge gained from participants’

responses through individual interviews and focus group discussions to provide

information that may contribute to policy reform considerations to improve the treatment

of legal immigrants by exploring how legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali, and Hmong

descents experiences human rights violations in Minnesota. This study was conducted as

a qualitative phenomenological study that explored the experiences of human rights

violations against legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali, and Hmong descent in

Minnesota.

This research was crucial because migration trends are evolving and impacting

the connection between immigrant populations and human rights principles, yet at the

time when this study was conducted, there was little or no substantial research to back up

these changes especially as it related to legal immigrants (see de Haas et al., 2019).

Minnesota is home to a large number of immigrants from across the world including

Latin Americans, Africans, and Asians, making Minnesota’s immigrant population more

culturally diverse than the national immigrant population (Wasem, 2020). This cultural

diversity is accompanied by incidents of human rights violations against legal

immigrants, especially from Latin America, Africa, and Asia, represented in this study by

Mexican, Somali, and Hmong populations. This made Minnesota an ideal location for

this study, exploring the experiences of legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali, and

Hmong descent on human rights violations. This study explored the experiences of

167

human rights violations faced by legal immigrants in Minnesota, with the hope of

contributing to policy reforms that would improve the treatment of legal immigrants in

host countries.

The findings from both the individual interviews and focus groups indicate that

Somali, Hmong, and Mexican legal immigrants experience various forms of human rights

violations, including discrimination in education, workplace discrimination, housing

discrimination, racial profiling, and negative stereotyping. These human rights violations

are mainly perpetrated by the complex legal environment in the United States and the

huddles immigrants encounter when trying to navigate the legal system. Cultural

differences, language barriers, and immigrants’ fear of retaliation when they report to

authorities about their human rights violations. All these contribute to the continuous

human rights violations against legal immigrants in Minnesota.

To better understand the results of this study, I compare the results to what had

already been covered in other literature and discuss how the theoretical framework was

linked to the results. In the following section, I describe how my findings confirmed,

disconfirmed, or extended knowledge in the study area by comparing the results of this

study to what we knew in the review of existing literature in Chapter 2. I further discuss

how the findings of the study are linked to Fineman’s vulnerability theory and the

theoretical framework of the study.

Interpretation of Findings

As illustrated in Table 1, there were seven main themes that emerged from the

interviews and focus group discussions: (a) experiences of educational discrimination, (b)

168

experiences of workplace discrimination, (c) experiences of racial profiling and negative

stereotyping, (d) experiences of housing discrimination, (e) cultural and language barriers

that make immigrants vulnerable to human rights violations, (f) legal system complexity

and lack of awareness on how to navigate the legal environment on the part of legal

immigrants, and (g) the fear of reporting abuse and violations.

Experiences of Educational Discrimination

The findings of the study confirm with existing literature that despite being

legally entitled to certain human rights protections, legal immigrants in Minnesota

continue to face discrimination, harassment, and denial of basic services such as

healthcare and education (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). Such violations not only impact the

well-being and dignity of legal immigrants and their families but also pose serious

challenges to their social and economic integration, exacerbating existing disparities and

inequalities (Tsuchiya et al., 2021). The experiences of educational discrimination among

minority populations in Minnesota, as detailed through the themes of difficulty accessing

quality education and harassment and bullying in schools, can be compellingly analyzed

through the lens of Fineman's vulnerability theory. The theory, which outlines the four

key elements of vulnerability -- constancy, particularity, universality, and complexity

(Fineman, 2010), offers a robust framework for understanding and addressing the

systemic issues highlighted in the experiences of legal immigrants of Mexican, Somali,

and Hmong descent in Minnesota.

Fineman (2010) maintained that vulnerability is a constant state inherent in the

human condition, which requires societal institutions, such as the education system, to

169

respond effectively to individual needs. The difficulties in accessing quality education

and the harassment faced by immigrant children in schools reflect the constant

vulnerability that these populations experience. The language barrier LEP, and cultural

differences create a persistent state of disadvantage, impacting their ability to integrate

fully into society and the educational system. This aligns with Fineman's notion that

vulnerability is constant and not episodic, underscoring the need for a responsive

educational system that adapts to the diverse needs of its students.

While vulnerability is inherent to all, its manifestation is particular to each

individual's situation. The specific challenges faced by Somali, Hmong, and Mexican

immigrants in Minnesota's education system illustrate this particularity. For the Hmong

community, there is a significant language barrier, while for the Mexican and Somali

communities, deportation threats and Islamophobia have a psychological impact on

children's academic performance, demonstrating unique forms of vulnerability that

demand tailored responses. This particularity calls for educational policies and practices

that recognize and address the distinct barriers faced by each immigrant group, rather

than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach.

Despite the particularity of individual vulnerabilities, Fineman (2010) argued that

vulnerability is universal -- an attribute that applies to all individuals. This universality is

evident in the shared experience of educational discrimination among immigrant

communities in Minnesota, regardless of their specific ethnic or national backgrounds.

The universal challenge of accessing quality education and the widespread instances of

harassment and bullying in schools highlight a systemic issue that affects all minority

170

populations, pointing to the need for comprehensive reforms that benefit all vulnerable

groups within the education system.

Fineman equally emphasized the complexity of vulnerability, which arises from

the interaction between individual circumstances and institutional or structural responses.

The interplay between the educational discrimination faced by immigrant communities

and the systemic barriers within Minnesota's education system exemplifies this

complexity. For instance, the inadequate response of schools to bullying based on ethnic

differences and the systemic inequities in educational outcomes by race, ethnicity, and

immigration status reflect a complex web of factors that exacerbate the vulnerability of

minority populations. This complexity requires a multifaceted response that addresses

both individual needs and systemic inequalities.

The experiences of Somali, Hmong, and Mexican immigrants underscore the

constant, particular, universal, and complex nature of vulnerability, affirming the

applicability of Fineman's theoretical framework to the study. This analysis highlights the

imperative for responsive state action and educational reforms that acknowledge and

address the multifaceted vulnerabilities faced by minority populations, ensuring equitable

access to quality education and a safe, supportive learning environment.

Workplace Discrimination

Existing literature has suggested that phenotypically, European immigrants face

far less discrimination than their counterparts from Asia, Latin America, and Africa

(Portes & Rumbaut, 2016). In comparing the adaptation of African, Latin American,

Asian, and European immigrants in the United States, Portes and Rumbaut (2016) opined

171

that non-European immigrants are faced with greater obstacles than those from Europe.

In another study, Danso and Lum (2013) confirmed the findings of this study by

maintaining that in Minnesota, East African, Hispanic, and Asian immigrants experience

higher rates of hostilities by citizens than immigrants from European countries.

Fineman posited that vulnerability is a constant, inherent aspect of the human

condition, which necessitates a responsive state to address and mitigate its effects. The

experiences of discrimination shared by immigrants, from being denied employment

opportunities to facing wage disparities, underscore a constant vulnerability due to their

ethnic backgrounds and immigration status. This constant state of vulnerability is

exacerbated in the workplace, where immigrants are systematically marginalized,

highlighting the need for a responsive state mechanism that can offer protections and

enforce laws that curb such discriminatory practices. Fineman emphasized the

particularity of vulnerability, suggesting that while it is universal, its manifestations and

impacts are specific to individuals' situational contexts. In this study, the immigrants'

particular vulnerabilities stem from their ethnic backgrounds, legal status, and socio-

economic conditions. These factors not only make them more susceptible to exploitation

and discrimination but also hinder their ability to seek redress or advancement in their

workplace. The particularity of their vulnerabilities is evident in the discrimination faced

in hiring practices, wage disparities, and the general workplace environment, demanding

tailored responses that recognize and address these specific needs.

Despite the particularity of experiences, vulnerability is also universal; it affects

all individuals irrespective of their status. The experiences of workplace discrimination

172

shared by the immigrants in Minnesota reflect this universality, as individuals from

various ethnic backgrounds—Hmong, Mexican, Somali—report similar challenges. This

universality underscores the pervasive nature of discrimination and the shared

vulnerability of immigrants in the workplace, highlighting the need for universal

protections and interventions that address the root causes of discrimination and

vulnerability.

Fineman's vulnerability theory acknowledges the complexity of vulnerability,

which arises from the interaction of multiple societal factors, including economic, legal,

and social dimensions. The study's findings encapsulate this complexity, showing how

workplace discrimination against immigrants is not merely about individual prejudice but

is entangled with systemic issues such as the non-recognition of foreign credentials,

economic exploitation, and legal inadequacies that fail to protect against discrimination.

This complexity necessitates multifaceted responses that go beyond simple legal

remedies to include community education, policy changes, and a cultural shift towards

inclusivity and equity. The above subthemes identified in this study align with and

confirm the applicability of Fineman's vulnerability theory, demonstrating how the

workplace discrimination faced by immigrants in Minnesota is a manifestation of their

inherent, particular, universal, and complex vulnerabilities. This analysis corroborates the

relevance of Fineman's theoretical framework for understanding the challenges faced by

immigrants and calls for a responsive state that is attuned to these vulnerabilities and

capable of implementing measures that ensure equitable treatment and opportunities for

all individuals, irrespective of their ethnic background or immigration status.

173

Theme 3: Experiences of Racial Profiling and Negative Stereotyping

Fineman (2010) argued that vulnerability is a constant state in human life,

affecting all individuals irrespective of their socio-economic status. The arrest and

detention of legal immigrants in Minnesota for reasons such as being noisy in a hotel

room and for snow blocking a number plate demonstrate how racial profiling contributes

to unfair treatment of immigrants by state troopers and other service providers (Tsuchiya

et al., 2021). The findings of this study illustrate this constancy of vulnerability through

ongoing racial profiling and discrimination faced by legal immigrants. This vulnerability

is not transient but a continuous challenge that impacts their daily lives and well-being,

underscoring the need for constant vigilance and responsive policies to mitigate these

issues. The particularity aspect of Fineman's theory highlights how certain groups are

more susceptible to specific vulnerabilities due to their unique positions in society. The

study's focus on legal immigrant communities from Somali, Mexican, and Hmong

backgrounds reveals how these groups face heightened vulnerability due to their racial,

ethnic, and religious identities. Instances of discrimination, harassment, and racial

profiling are particular to these communities' experiences, illustrating how vulnerabilities

are not uniform but tailored to individuals' social, cultural, and legal contexts. This

necessitates tailor-made responses by the state to address the treatment of these

communities and protect them from human rights violations.

Despite the particularities of each group's experiences, the universality of

vulnerability is evident in the shared experiences of discrimination and negative

stereotyping across different immigrant communities. Fineman (2010) emphasized that

174

vulnerability is a universal condition, affecting all individuals and groups at various

points in their lives. The data showed that, regardless of origin, legal immigrant

communities face systemic challenges that underscore the universal aspect of

vulnerability, necessitating a broad, inclusive approach to policy-making and social

support. The complexity of vulnerability is demonstrated through the multifaceted

impacts of racial profiling, discrimination, and negative stereotyping on immigrant

communities. These experiences do not exist in isolation but are interconnected with

various aspects of individuals' lives, including their mental health, trust in law

enforcement, and ability to integrate into society. The study findings reveal how these

issues complicate the lives of immigrants, affecting everything from access to healthcare

and legal representation to their sense of belonging and identity. This complexity requires

nuanced, multifaceted responses from the state and society to address the root causes and

wide-ranging effects of these vulnerabilities.

The experiences of the Mexica, Somali, and Hmong legal immigrant communities

serve as a vivid illustration of the constancy, particularity, universality, and complexity of

vulnerability, reinforcing the applicability of the study to this theoretical framework. This

analysis confirms the need for a responsive state that actively works to mitigate the

vulnerabilities faced by immigrant communities, ensuring their protection, inclusion, and

equitable treatment within society.

Theme 4 - Experiences of Housing Discrimination

According to Dion (2001), in the early 2000s, Somali Americans reported higher

levels of perceived housing discrimination compared to other immigrants in the United

175

States. Responses from participants highlighted that legal immigrants of Hmong,

Mexican, and Somali communities, commonly face discrimination when seeking housing

due to their ethnicity and immigrant status.

By examining the reported instances of discrimination, exploitation, harassment,

and the emotional toll on Mexican, Somali, and Hmong legal immigrants, it is evident

how these experiences align with the four key elements of vulnerability identified by

Fineman (2010): constancy, particularity, universality, and complexity. In the context of

housing discrimination against immigrants, the constancy of vulnerability is reflected in

the ongoing and persistent nature of discriminatory practices. Immigrants continually

face barriers in securing housing due to their ethnicity and immigrant status. This

ongoing struggle represents the constancy of vulnerability, emphasizing the need for

responsive measures to mitigate these challenges. The effects of vulnerability are

particular, affecting individuals and groups in specific, differentiated ways. The

experiences of the Somali, Hmong, and Mexican communities highlight this particularity.

Each group faces discrimination not just on the basis of being immigrants but also due to

specific racial, ethnic, and cultural factors. This discrimination manifests in unique

challenges, such as being denied housing, charged higher rents, and exposed to

substandard living conditions, showcasing the specific ways in which vulnerability

affects these groups. This calls for policy reforms that address the specific challenges of

each of these groups to mitigate housing discrimination in Minnesota.

Vulnerability as a universal condition, affecting all individuals and groups at

some point, shows that housing discrimination is not an isolated issue affecting only a

176

few but is a widespread problem that impacts many immigrants. This universality

requires a collective response and the implementation of policies and practices that

address the systemic nature of housing discrimination. The interplay between economic

exploitation, emotional distress, and social exclusion faced by immigrants demonstrates

the complexity of vulnerability. Discriminatory practices in housing not only affect the

material conditions of immigrants but also their psychological wellbeing and sense of

belonging. This complexity requires multifaceted solutions that address both the

immediate and underlying causes of discrimination. These findings affirm the need for a

responsive state that recognizes and addresses the vulnerabilities of immigrants through

comprehensive policies and practices. Legislative action, enforcement of housing

regulations, and support services are critical in mitigating the impacts of discrimination

and fostering an environment where all individuals have the opportunity to secure safe,

affordable, and dignified housing.

Theme 5: Culture and Language Barriers Make Immigrants Vulnerable to Human

Rights Violations

The findings of this study shed light on the significant challenges faced by

immigrants in Minnesota due to culture and language barriers, which make them

vulnerable to human rights violations. Language barriers cause conflicts between job

duties and English lessons as immigrants sometimes face a paradox in which they need to

attain greater levels of English fluency but would have to miss work that provides vital

income to attend these language classes (Wasem, 2020). This limits their economic

ability to take care of their needs and those of other family members. The findings of this

177

research confirmed the applicability of Fineman's theoretical framework by illustrating

how these elements of vulnerability manifest in the experiences of legal immigrants, and

they underscore the need for a responsive state that addresses these vulnerabilities.

Fineman discussed vulnerability as a constant aspect of the human condition, suggesting

that all individuals are vulnerable at any given time and in some way. This study

highlighted how the constant challenge of language and cultural barriers renders

immigrants perpetually vulnerable to human rights violations. This constant vulnerability

necessitates ongoing support and responsive measures from the state and its institutions

to mitigate these risks and ensure the well-being of immigrants. The particularity of

vulnerability refers to the specific circumstances or characteristics that exacerbate an

individual’s or group’s vulnerability. In the context of the study, immigrants’ particular

vulnerabilities arise from their LEP and the cultural differences they navigate in

Minnesota. These particular factors not only hinder their economic integration and access

to basic resources but also expose them to potential human rights violations. The study

illustrated how the particular vulnerabilities of immigrants necessitate tailored responses,

such as access to English language programs and cultural sensitivity training.

While vulnerability is shaped by particular conditions, it is also a universal aspect

of the human condition, affecting all individuals regardless of their specific

circumstances. The study's focus on immigrants in Minnesota reflects a broader universal

truth about the vulnerability of immigrants across Minnesota, who face similar challenges

of language and cultural barriers in different contexts. This universality underscores the

importance of acknowledging and addressing the vulnerabilities of immigrants as a

178

global concern, requiring cooperative and comprehensive approaches. Fineman

emphasized the complexity of vulnerability, which arises from the interconnectedness of

various social, economic, and institutional factors. The study revealed the complexity of

immigrants' vulnerabilities, showing how language and cultural barriers are intertwined

with broader issues of access to healthcare, legal rights, and social integration. This

complexity demands multifaceted responses that address not only the immediate barriers

but also the systemic conditions that perpetuate vulnerability.

The study's findings on the challenges faced by immigrants in Minnesota due to

language and cultural barriers resonate with Fineman's vulnerability theory, illustrating

the constancy, particularity, universality, and complexity of their vulnerabilities. The

study confirmed the need for a responsive state that recognizes and addresses these

vulnerabilities through comprehensive policies and practices aimed at facilitating

immigrants' integration and protecting their rights. This aligns with Fineman's call for a

responsive state that actively works to mitigate vulnerabilities and foster resilience

among its most vulnerable population.

Theme 6: Legal System Complexity and Legal Immigrants’ Lack of Awareness on

How to Navigate the Complex Legal Environment

The study findings confirm the significant hurdles faced by legal immigrants

when attempting to navigate the United States legal system. Rubio-Hernandez and Ayon

(2016) noted that most immigrants especially asylum seekers have faced a new odyssey

of navigating the complex United States immigration laws and a restrictive environment

that bars them from winning the promised protection. This theme aligns closely with

179

Fineman's vulnerability theory, confirming the applicability of the study to the theoretical

framework by illustrating the multifaceted challenges legal immigrants face,

underscoring their vulnerability within the legal system. Vulnerability, according to

Fineman, is a constant state in human conditions; it does not ebb and flow but is an

inherent aspect of the human experience. The constant challenge faced by legal

immigrants in understanding and navigating the complex legal system in the United

States, as highlighted by the study's findings, mirrors this element of constancy in

vulnerability. Immigrants continually face barriers such as language difficulties, lack of

awareness of their rights, and the intricacies of immigration laws and procedures. This

constant challenge creates a perpetual state of vulnerability for legal immigrants in

Minnesota.

Fineman also discussed the particularity of vulnerability, noting that while it is

universal, individuals experience vulnerability in specific and often unique ways. This

notion is reflected in the experiences of different immigrant groups mentioned in the

study, such as the Hmong immigrants, who face specific challenges related to language

barriers, limited education, and knowledge of the legal system. These particularities

necessitate tailored solutions and support systems to effectively address and mitigate the

vulnerabilities faced by distinct immigrant communities. The universality of vulnerability

refers to its all-encompassing nature, affecting all individuals regardless of their specific

circumstances. The systemic challenges within the legal framework that

disproportionately affect immigrants and refugees, as identified in the study, underscore

this universality. Every immigrant, regardless of their origin, status, or intentions,

180

encounters these systemic obstacles, highlighting the universal vulnerability of

immigrants navigating the United States legal system.

The complexity of vulnerability is illustrated through the intricate web of legal,

systemic, and personal challenges faced by immigrants. The study's findings point to the

complexity of immigration laws, the evolving nature of policies, and the multifaceted

barriers to accessing justice and understanding rights. This complexity necessitates a

responsive state that provides accessible legal aid, clear and simplified procedures, and

education on rights and resources. Such measures would address the complexity of

immigrants' vulnerability, aligning with Fineman's call for a responsive state that actively

works to mitigate vulnerability through thoughtful and inclusive policies and support

systems. The themes identified in this study not only highlight the challenges faced by

legal immigrants in the United States but also deeply resonate with Fineman's

vulnerability theory. The constant, particular, universal, and complex nature of these

challenges confirms the applicability of the study to the theoretical framework,

emphasizing the need for a responsive state that acknowledges and addresses the inherent

vulnerabilities of legal immigrants through comprehensive support and reform.

Theme 7: Fear of Reporting Abuses and Violations

Research has shown that being and staying healthy is a fundamental right of every

human being, and a prerequisite for all people to work, be productive, contribute to

economic and social development in both countries of origin and destination, and

improve livelihoods (Gany et al., 2013). The study findings accentuate the significant

impact of the fear of deportation and family separation on immigrants' willingness to

181

report human rights violations. As P1 stated, “Many are afraid that seeking legal

assistance or reporting violations may lead to deportation or separation from their

families.’’ This fear deters individuals from seeking legal assistance or reporting abuses

when their rights are violated and hinders legal immigrants from attaining their full

potential. Fineman's framework, which posits vulnerability as a constant, particular,

universal, and complex condition of the human experience, provides a useful lens through

which to analyze the study's findings. This study's findings highlight the constant fear of

deportation and family separation faced by legal immigrants, as a manifestation of their

perpetual vulnerability. This fear is not occasional or conditional but a continuous state

that influences their decisions and actions, such as the reluctance to report human rights

violations or seek legal assistance. The theory also emphasizes the particularity of

vulnerability, suggesting that specific groups or individuals may face unique

vulnerabilities based on their societal position or circumstances (Fineman, 2010). This

study underlines this aspect by showing how legal immigrants, especially those without

legal representation, are particularly vulnerable. They are uniquely impacted by the fear

of legal repercussions, which discourages them from reporting abuses or seeking help.

This particularity underscores the need for targeted interventions that address the specific

vulnerabilities of immigrant communities.

Pointing to the universality of vulnerability, Fineman (2010) argued that

vulnerability is a condition that affects all humans, albeit in different ways and degrees.

This study’s focus on legal immigrants’ fears reflects this universality, as it is a specific

instance of the broader human condition of vulnerability. Every human being can face

182

situations that expose them to harm or abuse, but the universality of vulnerability also

calls for a universal approach to protections and rights, including those for immigrants.

Finally, Fineman recognized the complexity of vulnerability, which is shaped by a

confluence of various societal, economic, and legal factors. This study's findings

demonstrate this complexity, showing how the fear of reporting abuses among legal

immigrants is not merely about legal consequences but also ties into issues of economic

exploitation, physical and mental health, and the broader immigration enforcement

climate. This complexity suggests that addressing the vulnerabilities of immigrants

requires a multifaceted approach that considers all these interrelated factors.

This study not only confirms the applicability of Fineman’s theoretical framework

but also highlights the need for responsive state mechanisms that can address and

mitigate the vulnerabilities faced by legal immigrants, in line with the theory's call for a

responsive state that recognizes and acts upon the vulnerabilities of its subjects (Fineman,

2010).

Limitations of the Study

While this study contributes to the literature by providing additional information

on the lived experiences of human rights violations against immigrants, it is important to

note that this study does have its limitations, which necessitates further research in the

study area.

The study was conducted with a carefully selected, albeit limited, sample size of

20 participants, comprising 15 legal immigrants from three distinct backgrounds—five

Mexicans, five Somalis, and five Hmong—who engaged in three focus group

183

discussions, alongside three human rights experts and two immigration advocates. While

the sample size is modest, it is crucial to acknowledge that data saturation was achieved

within the scope of this research. Given the specific demographic composition and the

limited number of participants, the results may not fully represent the broader population

of legal immigrants residing in Minnesota.

The selection of participants from only three immigrant communities and the

inclusion of a limited number of human rights experts and immigration advocates mean

that the experiences and perspectives captured in this study are deeply informative yet

might not encapsulate the full diversity of experiences across the wider legal immigrant

population in the region. Despite these limitations, the qualitative nature of this research

and the achievement of data saturation ensured that the study provided valuable insights

into the participants' experiences and perceptions regarding human rights violations

against legal immigrants. These insights may be used to inform policy discussions and

interventions aimed at improving the treatment of legal immigrants. Nonetheless, future

research with a larger and more diverse sample could enhance the generalizability of the

findings and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issues faced by the

broader population of immigrants in Minnesota and potentially beyond.

Another limitation was language barriers as English is not a first language for

Mexican, Somali, and Hmong immigrant populations. This has the potential to negatively

impact the richness of the data. To mitigate this limitation, I used purposive sampling to

find and recruit only participants who were proficient in English. While this selection of

proficient English-speaking participants served the purpose of providing valuable data, it

184

also limited the experiences of participants to only those who were proficient in English

as reflecting the larger population of legal immigrants within their communities. Also, the

time frame for data collection was limited due to the time to complete the study as per the

University and IRB guidelines.

While it was impossible to eliminate all personal influence, I acknowledged my

personal biases and consciously made efforts to separate my experiences from the study.

Also, the use of data from focus group discussions and individual interviews helped to

validate the findings of this study. I also conducted member checking after transcribing

the collected data before I began data analysis, to ensure that I captured the lived

experiences of the participants without any personal biases. I also mitigated personal

biases by seeking diverse perspectives from human rights experts and immigration

advocates in individual interviews, as well as legal immigrants from the three immigrant

communities in focus group discussions. This helped me to stay objective and focused on

the collected data during the data analysis and interpretation of findings.

The limitation of respondents providing tailored responses that are not based on

lived experiences, just to get through with the process of focus group discussion, or to fit

in the current narrative from the news or peers was mitigated by carefully selecting

independent-minded participants for focus group discussions. While this study is limited

to empirical investigations on human rights violations and its impact on legal immigrants

in Minnesota, future research might use different instruments to assess different

components, including stress, exhaustion, resilience, organizational support, or

organizational commitment.

Human Rights Violations Against Legal Immigrants in Minnesota

Students also viewed