Crossroads: The Psychology of Immigration in the New Century

or deported, immigration officials and other key personnel
should honor U.S. human rights commitments and ensure
fair legal procedures (e.g., access to counsel and assessment
of cognitive abilities) and accurate court decisions (Legal
Action Center, 2010).
All relevant personnel within the legal system should also
be trained to work with immigrants in general and those
with mental disabilities in particular. A continuing and welldesigned
training program oriented toward cultural and
psychological sensitivity and a basic social science framework
concerning immigrant issues should be developed and offered
to all actors. The content and the process of being part of
a legal procedure need to be understood from the cultural
perspective of the defendant. It is thus important to recognize
that a combination of cultural and situational stressors may
lead to disorganized and confusing behaviors that may be
perceived by key personnel as pathological. Finally, the
training should be approached from an ecologically framed
understanding (see the Guiding Frameworks section of this
report) and an appreciation of the immigrant experience
(Tsytsarev & Landes, 2008).
In Conclusion
The classic tools of the field of psychology—normed
psychological tests and psychological batteries—have a
long history of being misused. At the most basic level,
assessment tools are often not developed for or normed on
the cultural and linguistic populations to which they are
applied (Ortiz, 2011; Suzuki et al., 2005). The challenges of
the field when assessing immigrants and second-language
learners are aptly summed up by the question, “Who is
given tests in what language by whom, when, and where?”
(Solano-Flores, 2008). Individuals assessing immigrants and
second-language learners often do not speak the language
and are not familiar with the culture of the person they are
assessing. Newcomers are too often assessed too early in
their language acquisition process (Cummins, 2000), with
major life implications (Menken, 2008). The contexts in
which they are assessed are often unfamiliar and in less than
optimal testing conditions (Solano-Flores, 2008).
Clearly, given the multiplicity of languages and cultural
backgrounds represented by the new immigration, it is
unrealistic to expect that normed tests will be available
for every immigrant and language group encountered. It
is simply not possible to evaluate immigrant populations
with the degree of fairness and equity that is desired. This
phenomenon is also related to the underperformance of
bilinguals on both native language and English language
tests. These issues are not well understood by psychologists
in general practice and there are very few, if any, approaches
that can be used in all cases to evaluate individuals in truly
nondiscriminatory ways. Psychology as a field needs to
recognize these limitations. It is also essential, given the
rapid diversification of the United States, that research be
conducted to increase our understanding of these issues.
At the very least, appropriate assessment instruments and
qualified psychologists should be used in settings where
there are high densities of particular languages and cultures
represented (e.g., Spanish in areas where many students or
clients whose first language is Spanish are being served).
When this is not possible and an assessment is done through
an interpreter, extreme caution must be taken in making
diagnoses and interpretations. Psychologists should be
mindful of making high-stakes decisions about individuals’
lives based on what might be considered speculative
assessment strategies with immigrant populations.
52 Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Immigration