Previous
Chapter 2
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in Tell Me How It Ends, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Migration and Personal Sacrifice
Language and Storytelling
International Relations and Political Responsibility
Gang Life vs. Community Engagement
Summary
Analysis
“So, how does the story of those children end?” Luiselli’s daughter asks her. This is a question she poses frequently, but Luiselli can’t answer, because she doesn’t know what happens after the interviews. Her daughter is especially interested in a story about two little girls who came to the United States from Guatemala after their mother had been living in the country for several years, saving up money for them to join her. After a long journey with a “coyote” and a stay in the icebox, the girls were reunited with their mother in New York. “That’s it?” Luiselli’s daughter asks. “That’s how it ends?” Luiselli tells her that this is how the story ends, but she privately acknowledges that this isn’t the case, since the real story has only just begun: the little girls now face a legal battle that will determine whether or not they’ll be deported.
The interest Luiselli’s daughter shows in hearing how immigrant narratives end is an example of the human desire for closure when listening to a story. This, Luiselli shows, isn’t necessarily possible when it comes to immigrant stories. In fact, this narrative lack of conclusion reflects the uncertainty that often comes with the experience of migrating to the United States without knowing if the journey will be successful or worthwhile.
Themes
In immigration court, the only way for a lawyer to argue for “potential avenues of relief” is to first have his or her client plead guilty to coming to the United States “without lawful permission.” In turn, this opens the client up to deportation, but it also gives the lawyer a chance to build a case for why the child should be allowed to stay. Luiselli explains that asylum and special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status are the most “common forms of immigration relief.” Both can even lead to permanent residency and, in some cases, citizenship. For the most part, children are often eligible to receive SIJ status if they’ve fled dangerous conditions. This means establishing that they “are impeded from reunification with at least one of their parents because of abuse, abandonment, or neglect.” It also means showing that returning to their home country would put them in danger.
Child migrants are in an incredible position of vulnerability, one that’s only exacerbated by the fact that they have to plead guilty to coming to the United States “without lawful permission” in order to seek potential forms of “relief.” This, Luiselli shows, is perfectly representative of the difficult position these children are in, as they struggle to advocate for themselves in a system that is biased against them from the start.
Themes
One strange thing about the intake questionnaire is that children increase their chances of avoiding deportation if they answer the questions “correctly.” Luiselli explains that a “correct” answer is one that “strengthens the child’s case and provides a potential avenue of relief.” This means that, in the “warped world of immigration,” stories about traumatic experiences are considered “correct answers.” If children don’t have enough “battle wounds to show,” it’s unlikely that lawyers will agree to represent them, since their cases will be hard to win.
Once more, Luiselli emphasizes the importance of storytelling. In this context, she illustrates the profound effect certain stories can have on a child migrant’s legal proceedings, since their ability to avoid deportation depends upon whether or not the child provides strong answers to the questions on the intake questionnaire.
Themes
Luiselli knows that the manner in which she records the children’s answers might affect whether or not lawyers agree to represent them. However, she doesn’t have much control over the interview process, though she can sometimes help children understand the questions more clearly and thus (in some cases) provide more in-depth answers. For instance, she has learned that she needs to “reconfigure the questions” for extremely young children, helping them approach the matter in language that makes sense to them. “I find myself not knowing where translation ends and interpretation starts,” she writes.
One difficult part about Luiselli’s job as an interviewer is that she can’t always help the children help themselves, since she can’t interfere with the process too much. What she can do, though, is make sure that the children understand the questions, finetuning her language so that they can tell their stories in the best way possible. Once again, then, readers see the power of language to influence the lives and futures of child migrants.
Themes
Get the entire Tell Me How It Ends LitChart as a printable PDF.
Over time, Luiselli and her niece become somewhat dispirited, though they don’t stop working at The Door. On the way home one night, Luiselli’s niece announces that she wants to study law in college. That way, she can make an impact in the United States’ immigration system, since there aren’t currently enough lawyers to represent child migrants. Luiselli notes that, because immigration cases take place in the civil courts, migrants “are not entitled to the free legal counsel that American law guarantees to persons accused of crimes.” As a result, undocumented minors rely upon lawyers willing to represent them pro bono, and though this does happen, there is still a desperate need for available attorneys.
The child migrants who come to the United States end up relying on people like Luiselli’s niece, who have committed themselves to helping undocumented immigrants. This is because they aren’t “entitled to the free legal counsel” to which anyone else in the country is normally entitled. Consequently, lawyers willing to work for free are crucial to an undocumented minor’s fight against deportation. These lawyers, Luiselli intimates, are the people who have stepped up to responsibly address the immigration crisis.
Themes
Luiselli returns to the story of her first interview. The migrant’s name is Manu López, and he is a sixteen-year-old boy from Honduras living in Hempstead, Long Island with his aunt Alina. She asks where his mother and father live, and when he shrugs, she writes “?” on the questionnaire. He’s terse and hesitant to speak, so she says, “I’m no policewoman, I’m no official anyone, I’m not even a lawyer. I’m also not a gringa, you know? In fact, I can’t help you at all. But I can’t hurt you, either.” Hearing this, he asks where she’s from, and when she tells him she’s from Mexico City, he points out that they’re “enemies.” “Yeah,” she replies, “but only in football, and I suck at football anyway so you’ve already scored five goals against me.” This makes Manu smile, and Luiselli sees that he’ll let her continue the interview.
One aspect of interviewing teenagers is that some of them are inevitably reluctant to talk. This, of course, would be the case for teenagers from any region of the world. Nonetheless, it’s Luiselli’s job to get as much information out of the undocumented minors as possible. To do this, she relies upon her interpersonal skills, leaving behind the formal language of the questionnaire in order to connect with people like Manu in a more casual manner. It is this approach that enables her to help Manu tell her the stories that will benefit his legal proceedings.
Themes
Manu doesn’t like talking about his mother, but he tells Luiselli that she “came and went as she pleased” because she “liked the streets.” He explains that he lived in Honduras with his grandmother, but that she died six months ago. He tells Luiselli that Alina has always sent money back to Honduras, where her two daughters (his cousins) also lived with Manu and their grandmother. Apparently, they too are now coming to the United States. Luiselli doesn’t fully understand why this is the case until she reaches the questionnaire’s final questions, which have to do with the influence of gangs on migrants. She notes that these questions often make child migrants—and especially older ones—“break down.” This is because most of the teenagers she speaks to have “been touched in one way or another by the tentacles of the MS-13 and Barrio 18.”
Once Manu opens up to Luiselli, it becomes clear that his story has to do with the history of gang violence in Central America. Because this is the case, it’s worth recalling Luiselli’s previous explanation of how gangs like MS-13 took hold of the Northern Triangle. Having originated in Los Angeles so that Salvadoran migrants could protect themselves from other gangs, MS-13 migrated to Central America because the United States deported large numbers of the gang’s members. Now the United States government is experiencing the repercussions of that decision, as minors like Manu are forced to leave their homes and come to the United States to escape violence.
Themes
“Did you ever have trouble with gangs or crime in your home country?” Luiselli asks Manu, reciting question 34. In response, he tells her a “fragmented” story, explaining that members of Barrio 18 waited for him and his friend outside their school one day. When they saw the gang members, they knew there were too many of them to fight, so they tried to leave, eventually breaking into a run. After hearing a gunshot, Manu turned around and saw that the gang had shot and killed his friend. Unable to do anything else, he kept running, narrowly escaping by slipping into a storefront. Hearing this story, Luiselli asks questions 35 and 36: “Any problems with the government in your home country? If so, what happened?” “My government?” Manu replies. “Write this down in your notebook: they don’t do shit for anybody like me, that’s the problem.”
In this moment, Manu confirms that he migrated to the United States to avoid gang violence. This is an important point in the development of his defense against deportation, since it suggests that his home in Honduras is indeed too dangerous for him to return to. Furthermore, it’s evident that the Honduran government has done nothing to help him, providing yet another reason why sending him back would pose a threat to his life.
Themes
Having told Luiselli that the Honduran government doesn’t help people protect themselves against gang violence, Manu takes out the police report he saved after filing a complaint about gang members harassing him. “He filed it months before his friend was killed, but the police never did anything,” Luiselli writes. The night his best friend was killed, he called Alina and told her what happened. Horrified, she made immediate arrangements for him to come to the United States, instructing him not to leave the house until the “coyote” was ready to take him away. “He didn’t attend his friend’s funeral,” Luiselli adds.
Alina’s decision to bring Manu to the United States is the direct result of his close encounter with members of Barrio 18. Because of this, it’s quite obvious that Manu migrated to the United States for safety reasons, thereby justifying Luiselli’s belief that migrants like him are more like refugees than immigrants.
Themes
Manu tells Luiselli that Alina paid a “coyote” $4,000 to bring him to the United States. Now, Alina has paid an extra $6,000 so that her daughters can also make the journey. This is because the gang that killed his friend has started “harassing” his cousins in his absence. Because of this, Alina has decided to pay for them to come to the United States, figuring that “the dangers of the journey” are more tolerable than letting them remain in Honduras.
Once again, Luiselli illustrates the great personal cost of migration. Although Alina has been working in the United States for years in order to save money, she now has to pay exorbitant sums just to ensure the safety of her loved ones. In keeping with this, Luiselli shows readers that migrants like Manu and his cousins aren’t coming to the United States because they want to chase the “American Dream,” but because they’ve exhausted all other options.
Themes
Luiselli explains that Enrique Peña Nieto, the president of Mexico from 2012 to 2018, oversaw a “new anti-immigration plan” that has tried to “halt the immigration of Central Americans through Mexico.” This has made it harder for migrants to travel north using the normal routes, so they’re forced to go by sea, which Luiselli fears is even more dangerous. She also notes that many of her fellow Mexicans criticize the United States’ policies, though Mexico itself has begun mass deportations of Central Americans, many of whom should be eligible for asylum. What’s more, the country has strengthened its control on its own southern border. This is something the United States has been “generously financing.” According to Luiselli, this accords with “the old tradition of Latin America-U.S. governmental relations,” in which Mexico gets paid to “do the dirty work..”
Luiselli’s description of Mexico’s immigration policy helps readers see that the United States isn’t the only nation with strict deportation practices. In effect, Mexico is trying to block migrants on its southern-border. It makes sense, then, that the United States would help fund this effort, since making it harder to travel through Mexico means it will be more difficult for migrants to reach the United States. However, Luiselli suggests that migrants will still find ways to come north, ultimately resorting to even more dangerous routes. These people are fleeing intense violence and miserable conditions, so desperate migrants will continue to do what they can to seek safety, in spite of harsh deportation practices. The United States’ willingness to let Mexico “do the dirty work” is also indicative of its eagerness to shirk political responsibility for the crisis.
Themes
Manu and Luiselli meet again six months after their initial interview. This time, they’re in a fancy building with a view of Staten Island. Because Manu’s copy of the police report he filed counts as “material evidence,” a high-powered team of lawyers has agreed to take his case. With such strong evidence, Luiselli explains, “it would be impossible for them to lose.” In this next stage of Manu’s legal battle, his new lawyers have asked Luiselli to continue acting as an interpreter—an offer she gladly accepts. When she sees him, she doesn’t hide her excitement, telling him that she’s also working at a university in Hempstead, Long Island, where he lives.
Unlike the majority of undocumented minors she interviews, Luiselli actually has the opportunity to learn about what will happen to Manu. As his personal translator and interpreter, she will find out how his story ends, receiving the kind of narrative closure both she and her daughter yearn for but rarely get to enjoy when it comes to the stories surrounding the immigration crisis.
Themes
As the meeting begins, Manu’s lawyers ask him if he’s still in school, and he tells them that he is. However, he says he wants to drop out. In response, they remind him that he must be enrolled in school in order to be eligible for “any type of formal relief.” Manu then reveals that Hempstead High School is “a hub for MS-13 and Barrio 18.” Upon hearing this, Luiselli goes “cold,” but Manu continues in a calm manner, explaining that he’s frightened of Barrio 18 but also doesn’t want to join MS-13. “Suddenly,” Luiselli writes, “we all suspect Manu and want to ask question thirty-seven: ‘Have you ever been a member of a gang? Any tattoos?’ No, he has no tattoos. And no, he’s never been part of a gang.”
The unfortunate “circular nightmare” of gang violence has brought itself to bear on Manu. Although he left Honduras specifically to get away from Barrio 18 and MS-13, he now finds himself facing them once again. He is also at an extra disadvantage because he’s forced to stay in school in order to qualify for any kind of permanent residency. This means that he has to endure the gangs just to ensure that he won’t be sent back to Honduras, where he would also have to endure the gangs. With this, Luiselli stresses the fact that the bureaucratic nature of the United States’ immigration system often fails to recognize the extremely difficult position many migrants find themselves in.
Themes
Manu isn’t part of a gang, but this is precisely why he has “good reasons to be afraid.” Apparently, people from Barrio 18 recently beat him up—he has two missing front teeth to prove it. “After the incident with Barrio 18, his aunt Alina worried he would end up in trouble because MS-13 boys saved him from losing the rest of his teeth, and now he owes them something,” Luiselli writes. Despite this, Manu says, he isn’t going to give in. He also vows to protect his cousins, now that they’ve come to the United States. When Luiselli asks what he means by the fact that he has to “look out for them,” he says, “Just look out for them, ’cause Hempstead is a shithole full of pandilleros, just like Tegucigalpa.”
Again, it’s evident that Manu is facing the same problems from which he originally fled. In the same way that MS-13 and Barrio 18 “pandilleros” (gang members) terrorized him in Honduras, they’re now terrorizing him in Hempstead, which makes him feel as if the two places are essentially the same. This similarity aligns with the fact that the gang problems plaguing Central America originated in the United States, proving once again that the nation is just as implicated in the entire crisis as its southern neighbors.
Themes
Luiselli once again considers the way people talk about immigration in the United States, suggesting that the prevailing discourse surrounding the topic fails to take into account the underlying causes of the crisis. Instead, people fixate on why migrant children aren’t simply “caught” as soon as they cross the border and then “sent back quickly.” “No one suggests that the causes are deeply embedded in our shared hemispheric history and are therefore not some distant problem in a foreign country that no one can locate on a map,” Luiselli writes, adding that this is a “transnational problem that includes the United States.” To that end, she argues that the United States should involve itself not as a “distant observer or passive victim,” but as an “active historical participant in the circumstances that generated that problem.”
In this moment, Luiselli makes one of her only proposals in the entire book—namely, that the United States should acknowledge its own culpability regarding the immigration crisis. This, she believes, would help all of the countries involved begin to see the problem as “transnational” and “hemispheric,” which would then help them address the “circumstances that generated” the situation in the first place.
Themes
The crisis surrounding immigration, Luiselli argues, isn’t confined to just one region. This, she asserts, is why it’s important for people to start talking about the problem as a “hemispheric war.” Doing this, she says, would help all of the governments involved recognize the extent to which this is a mutual problem, allowing them to “acknowledge the connection between such phenomena as the drug wars, gangs in Central America and the United States, the consumption of drugs, and the massive migration of children from the Northern Triangle to the United States through Mexico.” At the very least, calling this situation a “hemispheric war” would encourage people to “rethink the very language surrounding the problem and, in doing so, imagine potential directions for combined policies.”
As she urges Mexico, the United States, and countries in the Northern Triangle to change the way they talk about the immigration crisis, Luiselli effectively uplifts the importance of language once again, emphasizing the idea that altering a discourse can have profound effects on otherwise unapproachable problems. Simply changing the language used to describe the issue might help the involved countries understand how they could work together to form “combined policies” that will address the crisis in a smarter, more effective manner.
Themes
Several months after meeting with Manu and his new lawyers, Luiselli speaks on the phone with Alina. Alina explains that she spent years working in the United States so that she could eventually bring Manu and her daughters to the country. When she heard what had happened between Manu and the gang members pursing him, though, she gave up trying to save money and decided to put herself into debt in order to bring him to the States. Interlaced with this conversation, Luiselli lists questions 38, 39, and 40 from the intake questionnaire: “What do you think will happen if you go back home?”; “Are you scared to return?”; “Who would take care of you if you were to return to your home country?”
Yet again, Luiselli helps readers understand the significant cost that comes along with migration. Although Alina has spent years saving money, she suddenly has to put herself into debt simply to ensure the safety of her loved ones. Given this sacrifice, it’s clear that bringing Manu and his cousins to the United States was something she did out of a feeling of absolutely necessity. After all, it’s obvious what would happen if they went “back home”: the gangs they tried to escape would terrorize them once more.
Themes
Alina tells Luiselli that she had to pay $7,500 to get her eldest daughter out of an adult detention center after she crossed the southern border, since she’s 19. Hearing this, Luiselli guesses that this money came from Alina’s new husband (whom she married after moving to the United States). She notes that Alina’s husband has most likely depleted his “entire life savings” in order to ensure the safety of Manu and Alina’s daughters.
Once more, the cost of migration comes to the forefront of Tell Me How It Ends. In order to help her daughter get out of harm’s way, Alina has to pay exorbitant sums of money, ultimately draining whatever savings she and her husband have accrued since migrating to the United States in the first place.
Themes
