“If They Notice I’m Mexican”: Narratives of Perceived Discrimination from Individuals Who Crossed the U.S.-Mexico Border at Ports of Entry

ABSTRACT

Understanding individuals’ encounters with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the largest law enforcement agency in the United States, is an important theoretical and policy-relevant issue. Travelers entering the U.S. through ports of entry may generalize their experiences with border officials to local law enforcement, and thus, negative experiences at ports of entry may reduce travelers’ willingness to cooperate with police and report victimization. Existing studies, however, have primarily examined unauthorized border crossings rather than travelers’ port of entry experiences. This study uses grounded theory and qualitative data to explore the perceptions and experiences of 191 young adults who discussed how individuals are treated when crossing the U.S.-Mexico border at land ports of entry. Findings show that participants reported perceptions and experiences of discrimination based on physical appearances, language differences, and nationality. Participants also described border officials engaging in routine law enforcement behaviors, including poor policing practices.     

Naïve Realism,Seeing Stars,and Perceiving the Past

It seems possible to see a star that no longer exists. Yet it also seems right to say that what no longer exists cannot be seen. We therefore face a puzzle, the traditional answer to which involves abandoning naïve realism in favour of a sense datum view. In this article, however, I offer a novel exploration of the puzzle within a naïve realist framework. As will emerge, the best option for naïve realists is to embrace an eternalist view of time, and claim that in the relevant case, one sees a still existent star‐stage located somewhere in the distant past.     

Accuracy of Clinician Predictions of Future Self‐Harm: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Predictive Studies

Assessment of a patient after hospital‐treated self‐harm or psychiatric hospitalization often includes a risk assessment, resulting in a classification of high risk versus low risk for a future episode of self‐harm. Through systematic review and a series of meta‐analyses looking at unassisted clinician risk classification (eight studies; N = 22,499), we found pooled estimates for sensitivity 0.31 (95% CI: 0.18–0.50), specificity 0.85 (0.75–0.92), positive predictive value 0.22 (0.21–0.23), and negative predictive value 0.89 (0.86–0.92). Clinician classification was too inaccurate to be clinically useful. After‐care should therefore be allocated on the basis of a needs rather than risk assessment.     

Implicit Bias,Moods, and Moral Responsibility

Are individuals morally responsible for their implicit biases? One reason to think not is that implicit biases are often advertised as unconscious, ‘introspectively inaccessible’ attitudes. However, recent empirical evidence consistently suggests that individuals are aware of their implicit biases, although often in partial and inarticulate ways. Here I explore the implications of this evidence of partial awareness for individuals' moral responsibility. First, I argue that responsibility comes in degrees. Second, I argue that individuals' partial awareness of their implicit biases makes them (partially) morally responsible for them. I argue by analogy to a close relative of implicit bias: moods.     

Understanding Implicit Bias: Putting the Criticism into Perspective

What is the status of research on implicit bias? In light of meta-analyses revealing ostensibly low average correlations between implicit measures and behavior, as well as various other psychometric concerns, criticism has become ubiquitous. We argue that while there are significant challenges and ample room for improvement, research on the causes, psychological properties, and behavioral effects of implicit bias continues to deserve a role in the sciences of the mind as well as in efforts to understand, and ultimately combat, discrimination and inequality.     

‘Pissed Off and Confused’/‘Grateful and (Re)Moved’: Affect,Privilege and National Commemoration in Aotearoa New Zealand

This article explores affect, colonial privilege, and the cultural politics of national commemoration in Aotearoa New Zealand. Based on focus-group interviews around two major national days, we examine means through which feelings and emotions are deployed in ways that enable the reproduction of social advantage. Situating affect within patterns of relationship, four interrelated affective-discursive practices are explored. In relation to Waitangi Day, agents tend to work under the rubric of anger and confusion. For Anzac Day, being grateful and moved shapes the interaction, although participants often indicate preferences towards “having a day off.” Given the colonial context in which these practices circulate, analysis observes the associated freedom and ease by which affective-discursive privilege is (re)produced. Often incongruent and rarely challenged, privilege allows associated actors to do what they want, when they want, however they want. This affective climate authorizes the ongoing reproduction of, and justification for, membership to a higher-status ethnic group of which unearned opportunities and entitlements remain its everyday, expected currency.