Experiences of Muslim and Non-Muslim Battered Immigrant Women With the Police in the United States

Abstract

Little research has been conducted to distinguish the unique experiences of specific groups of interpersonal violence victims. This is especially true in the case of battered Muslim immigrant women in the United States. This article examines battered Muslim immigrant women’s experiences with intimate partner violence and their experiences with the police. Furthermore, to provide a more refined view related to battered Muslim immigrant women’s situation, the article compares the latter group’s experiences to battered non-Muslim immigrant women’s experiences. Finally, we seek to clarify the similarities and differences between battered immigrant women aiming to inform responsive police service delivery.

Keywords

battered immigrant women experiences with police Muslim and non-Muslim

Although the causes, nature, and extent of violence against women have been thoroughly discussed and debated, little research has been conducted to distinguish the unique experiences of specific groups of victims. This is especially true in the case of battered Muslim immigrant women in the United States. A review of the literature shows that very few articles address the nature of interpersonal violence experiences and help-seeking behaviors of this population (Ammar, 2000; Ayyub, 2000; Hassouneh-Phillips, 2001b; Moe, 2007; Ting & Panchanadeswaran, 2009). There are some articles examining the help-seeking behaviors of Arab immigrant women, but this includes both Muslim and non-Muslim participants (Abu-Ras, 2003, 2007; Ammar, 2000; Kulwicki & Miller, 1999). Furthermore, though a number of studies have examined battered immigrant women’s help-seeking behaviors from service providers including the police (Ahmad, Driver, McNally, & Stewart, 2009; Ammar, Orloff, Dutton, & Aguilar-Hass, 2005; Dosanjh, Deo, & Sidhu, 1994; Dutton, Ammar, Orloff, & Terrell, 2006; Hyman, Forte, Mont, Romans, & Cohen, 2006; Lee & Hadeed, 2009), we know comparatively little about these experiences for Muslim immigrant women.

Clearly, then, there is a void in scholarship that must be filled, and this knowledge gap provides the impetus for the study of battered Muslim immigrant women presented here. Specifically, this article examines battered Muslim immigrant women’s experiences with intimate partner violence (IPV) and the interplay between this group of battered women and the police. Furthermore, to provide a more refined view of issues related to battered Muslim immigrant women’s situation, the article compares this group’s experiences to battered non-Muslim immigrant women’s experiences with IPV and help-seeking from the police. Finally, we seek to clarify the similarities and differences between battered immigrant women to support better police response and policies.

Theoretical Background

Intersectionality, Not Primacy of Heritage Culture: The Role of Religious Identity

The primacy of gender in the analysis of immigrant battered women’s experiences has been a subject of critique by many scholars (Abraham, 2000a, 2000b; Crenshaw, 1994; Josephson, 2002; Kasturirangan, Krishnanand, & Riger, 2004; Kulwicki & Miller, 1999; Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005). The “intersectionality” (Crenshaw, 1994) or “ethno-gender” (Abraham, 2000b) critique of the primacy of gender takes into account the multiple aspects of women’s identities and argues that gender identity is influenced by other dimensions such as class, national origin, ethnicity, and race. In the case of battered immigrant women, a number of studies have utilized this critique to elevate national origin/heritage culture in IPV to a primary explanatory factor (Abu-Ras, 2007; Burman, Smailes, & Chantler, 2004; Erez & Hartley, 2003; Papp, 2010). The results of such studies have been referred to as “culturally sensitive” analyses. All too often, however, research on immigrants (or other marginal groups) blames social problems on the culture to which they belong, thereby overlooking other interlocking systems of disadvantage such as class, patriarchy, poverty, and racism or ethnic bias (Pratt & Sokoloff, 2005; Volpp, 2005).

The primacy of the heritage culture in explaining the issues facing battered immigrant women has often resulted in the stereotyping of their communities (Dasgupta, 2000; Volpp, 2005) and portraying them as passive and accepting of the violence (Abraham, 2000b). Worse, it has absolved mainstream social institutions of responsibility toward reaching out to serve them (Orloff & Rodriguez, 1997). As Jiwani (2005) notes, “the focus on culture quickly becomes one of implicitly or explicitly comparing a seemingly backward, traditional, and oppressive cultural system to the modern, progressive, and egalitarian culture of the U.S.” (p. 852). This article focuses on the intersectionality of gender, immigration, and religion with IPV.

The intersectionality of gender and immigration has been explored by a number of studies in the last decade (Acevedo, 2000; Ammar et al., 2005; Bui, 2003; Burman et al., 2004; Dasgupta, 2000; Dutton et al., 2006; Erez & Ammar, 2003; Hyman et al., 2006; Latta & Goodman, 2005; Raj & Silverman, 2002; Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005; Volpp, 2005; Wachholz & Miedema, 2000). The inclusion of religion as a variable in the intersectionality formula, however, has not been addressed enough in the literature generally, and in the literature on violence against immigrant women more particularly.

The secularization thesis of Marx, Morgan, and Weber posits that due to the emergence of modern socio-cultural and technological forces, religious beliefs, practices, and institutions eventually lose their significance in society (Marx & Engels, 1970; Morgan, 1985; Weber, 1963). Islamic practices, however, have disproved this secularization thesis. Societies where Islam is practiced, including the United States, since the early 1970s have been involved in the process of Islamization, a process whereby Islam as a religion has dominated the functioning of societal or community values, norms, and institutions.

Thus, the aim of exploring religious identity as part of the intersectionality variables here is not to replace cultural with religious primacy. Rather, the objective is to acknowledge religion as a factor, like other factors, worthy of analysis, and to better understand its influence as one of many variables impacting women’s lives.

The Influence of Immigration on IPV

Immigration is associated with the promise of a new and “better” life, including education, employment, financial security, freedom from war, conflict or persecution, and family stability. Despite such ideals, the inherent hardships of the migration process are well documented (Motomura, 2006). The realities of immigration often include learning a new language, finding gainful employment, adjusting to different cultural norms and values, and essentially adopting an entirely new lifestyle. These hardships are particularly pronounced for women when their immigration is tied to a partner or spouse or to marrying a citizen of the host country. For these women, the challenges of immigration and acculturation coincide with a power imbalance between the woman and her partner/spouse, characterizing a situation whereby “mobility amplifies gender asymmetry” (Ammar & Orloff, 2007, p. 314; see also Raj & Silverman, 2002).

Through no other experience is such gender asymmetry more profound than through IPV. It is generally understood that the experiences of battered immigrant women are similar to those of all battered women in the United States in terms of the dynamics of IPV as a “a pattern of assault and coercive behaviors, including physical, sexual, and psychological attacks and economic coercion, that adults use against their intimate partners” (Hassouneh-Phillips, 2001a, p. 415). However, for the former group, the conditions of immigration create an experience of violence that is qualitatively different. That is, immigration not only heightens their vulnerability to violence, but when it does occur, it also amplifies the nature of the violence they experience (Hass, Ammar, & Orloff, 2006).

In the corpus of research conducted on battered immigrant women, the problems of heightened vulnerability and intensified violence are well supported (Abraham, 2000a, 2000b; Ammar & Orloff, 2007; Kulwicki & Miller, 1999; Raj & Silverman, 2003; Raj, Silverman, McCleary-Sills, & Liu, 2005). Statistically, research reveals that battered immigrant women have a higher lifetime prevalence of IPV than the general population. Recent studies report IPV rates among immigrant women in Latina, Filipino, South Asian, and Korean communities ranging from 30% to 50% in comparison with the 22.1% estimate associated with the general population (Dutton, Orloff, & Hass, 2000; Hass et al., 2006; Raj & Silverman, 2002; Song, 1996; Yoshihama, 2002; Yoshihama & Sorenson, 1994). Not only do immigrant women experience a higher prevalence of IPV but such experiences are more severe as well. Battered immigrant women endure more physical and emotional abuse and, perhaps most importantly, suffer an additional form of immigration-related abuse (Erez & Ammar, 2003; Hass et al., 2006; Orloff, Jang, & Klein, 1995; Raj et al., 2005).

Immigration-related abuse is unique in that it is often premised on the vulnerability of battered immigrant women as newcomers to the United States. Factors such as immigration status, limited English language skills, limited knowledge of legal protections and services, financial dependence on partners/spouses, and lack of social support systems intensify the women’s sense of isolation (Dutton & Hass, 2001; Orloff & Sullivan, 2004). Consequently, this may leave battered immigrant women feeling helpless, unable to escape the violence, and imprisoned in the abusive relationship (Dutton & Hass, 2001; Orloff & Sullivan, 2004). Examples of immigration-related abuse include, but are not limited to, the partner/spouse not filing for papers that would confer legal immigration status on her and/or her children, withdrawing immigration papers that were filed on their behalf, or threatening to report her to officials for deportation if she calls the police (Ammar & Orloff, 2007). These examples demonstrate the manipulative and coercive methods employed by partners or spouses that silence and entrap battered immigrant women.

Indeed, the influence of immigration-related abuse on battered immigrant women’s help-seeking behaviors is most alarming. Research shows that issues concerning immigration status, fluency in English, co-occurrence of violence, severity of violence, length of time in the United States, and the availability of support and advocacy all play a role in the willingness of battered immigrant women to seek interventions from external sources (Acevedo, 2000; Ammar, 2000; Ammar et al., 2005; Bui, 2003; Dutton et al., 2006; Dutton et al., 2000; Erez & Ammar, 2003; Grodner & Sweifach, 2004; Kaukinen, 2004; Kasturirangan et al., 2004; Orloff & Kaguyutan, 2002; Raj & Silverman, 2002; Yoshioka, DiNoia, & Ullah, 2001).

In a broader context, the aforementioned problems are compounded by the intertwining forces of sexism and racism, creating an experience of IPV that is qualitatively different from other battered women (Abraham, 2000a, 2000b; Crenshaw, 1994). A combination of prejudice and discrimination lead to decreased social opportunities, limited economic mobility, and acculturation difficulties, thereby perpetuating vulnerability as new immigrants in general, and as domestic violence victims in particular. The intertwining forces that condition the different IPV experiences of immigrant and mainstream women also differentiate the experience within immigrant groups (Menjivar & Salcido, 2002). A number of researchers have identified special IPV experiences within particular immigrant groups (Abraham, 2000a, 2000b; Abu-Ras, 2007; Ammar, 2000; Ammar et al., 2005; Bui, 2003; Ingram, 2007; Kim & Emery, 2003; Kulwicki & Miller, 1999; Moe, 2007; Morash, Bui, Stevens, & Zhang, 2008; Orloff & Rodriguez, 1997; Yoshihama, 1999). The balance of this article examines the particular IPV experiences of battered immigrant women who adhere to Islam and compares their experiences with those of battered non-Muslim immigrant women. Throughout, the intersectionalities of gender, ethnicity, religion, and immigration are the focus of the analysis.

Heterogeneity in the Muslim Population

It is worth emphasizing some important issues about the heterogeneity and size of the Muslim population prior to proceeding in our discussion about IPV among battered Muslim immigrant women. There are more than one and a half billion Muslims living in approximately 85 countries around the world, speaking more than 200 dialects (Ammar, 2007; Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2011). Given this diversity, it is impossible to generalize one distinct culture as belonging to all Muslims. In a similar vein, there can be no singular interpretation of an American Muslim lifestyle or belief system.

There is no agreed-upon count of Muslims in the United States, because the U.S. Census Bureau does not track religious affiliation. According to the U.S. Department of State (2008), “estimates vary widely from 2 million to 7 million” (p. 48). Sizable populations can be found in all states. The largest concentration of Muslims may be found in the southern United States (32%), particularly in Florida and Texas, followed by the Northeast, where 29% of Muslims have settled, particularly in New Jersey and New York (U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Information Programs, 2009). Similar concentrations can be found in the Midwest, especially in the Central Great Lakes area (22%) in states such as Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. Finally, a significant population of Muslims resides in the West (18%), mostly in California (U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Information Programs, 2009).

Based on these data, it can be said that the dispersed existence of Muslim immigrants across the United States is a symptom of the growing influx of all immigrants to the country. In fact, according to the 2010 Current Population Survey (CPS), “the first decade of this century was the highest decade of immigration in the nation’s history” (Camarota, 2010). Approximately 1 million immigrants have entered the United States legally each year for much of the past decade and an estimated half million have entered illegally each year (Papademetriou & Terrazas, 2009). Furthermore, by 2040, it is projected that 27% of the country’s population will consist of immigrants and their children (Ammar et al., 2005). This demographic change has serious implications for the criminal justice system in that the growth in immigrant populations increases the urgency for criminal justice agencies to adapt and provide appropriate services to diverse populations.

Method

Research Setting and Data Collection

This article is based on interviews with 34 Muslim women and 84 non-Muslim women.¹ This is a purposive sample that included identifying various social service agencies that work with immigrants. Our partners from the National Network on Behalf of Battered Immigrant Women identified contact persons in those social agencies with whom we discussed the distribution of the surveys, the interviewing process, and the safety of the women. Once the agency agreed to participate in the study, we mailed the sets of questionnaires and instructions concerning the interviews. In addition, in the summer of 2000 in Seattle, Washington, we approached social service providers from other parts of the United States who attended the Annual Meeting of the National Network on Behalf of Battered Immigrant Women. Seventeen agencies participated in this research. The respondents came from the following states: California, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Bilingual social service workers and legal advocates made contact with their existing and past battered immigrant women clients who sought services and with whom they have established a relationship of trust. The women were briefed on the purpose of the research and were asked about their willingness to participate in the interviews. The bilingual social service workers and legal advocates either conducted the interview in the women’s native language or helped interpret some of the difficult concepts and filled out the questionnaires in English. As only 24.5% of the sample spoke English fluently, most of the interviews were interpreted in the participant’s native language by the interviewers. The instrument was originally written in English with the help of a cross-cultural/multilingual group. The women’s native languages as reported by the interviewers included Arabic, Armenian, Bengali, Farsi, French, Haitian, Hindi, Japanese, Malaysian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Turkish. The researchers were very aware of the problems that emerge in translation (and using English as a base language); however, limited resources precluded adapting the instrument to a variety of immigrant communities. These data were collected in the course of research on “Violence Against Immigrant Women and Systemic Responses,” supported by Grant 98-WT-VX-0030 from the U.S. National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

Immigrant battered women in general and Muslim immigrant battered women in particular are a difficult group to access for research (Abu-Ras, 2007; Ahmad, Ali, & Stewart, 2005; Dutton et al., 2000; Dutton et al., 2006; Narayan, 1995). Hence, much of the research conducted on this group of battered women includes small, nationally specific case studies (Abraham, 2000b; Ammar, 2000; Bhuyan & Senturia, 2005; Bui, 2003). The first author’s relationship with the National Network on Behalf of Battered Immigrant Women was an essential component for the success of accessing such a relatively large number of willing participants in this research. The Network provided the researchers with the collaboration necessary for the social service organizations to believe in the research and its legitimacy. The participants were recruited from 17 service organizations, shelters, or legal aid agencies who offered advocacy services to battered immigrant women.

Participants were briefed about the requirements of their participation and were told that their participation would not have negative immigration or other legal consequences. The advocates indicated that they only recruited and approached women whom they were sure would agree to participate. Respondents provided consent to participate in the study and were paid US$20 for their participation, whether they completed the questionnaire or not. All of the women in the sample had experienced IPV in the previous 12 months, although not all were seeking help for IPV at the time of contact. An extensive closed- and open-ended questionnaire was used, which tapped into demographic characteristics; measurements of prevalence, severity, types, risk, and lethality of IPV; and help-seeking from a variety of organizations, including the police.

The nonprobability sample, the verbal interpretation of some questions, and sometimes the incomplete questionnaires or answers to some questions all mean that the results cannot be generalized. However, the results do provide us with some important preliminary insights into the similarities and differences among various groups of immigrant women, while including religion as an important variable within the intersectional formula for battered immigrant women.

Research Questions

This article attempts to answer several questions. First, what is the nature of the interpersonal violence immigrant Muslim women experience? Second, what is the policing response to this group of battered immigrant women? Third, how do these experiences compare with those of non-Muslim immigrant women? Variables related to women’s experiences with IPV, the use of police services, language issues, and their perceived level of control in the process are described and discussed. Building upon this knowledge, a fourth research question asks what conclusions can be drawn from the data regarding police services. The implications of these conclusions are discussed with respect to the benefits and limitations of policing as a source of intervention in the lives of battered immigrant Muslim and non-Muslim women.

Results

Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Muslim and Non-Muslim Samples

Selected socio-demographic characteristics of the sample of both Muslim and non-Muslim women are presented in Table 1. Both groups were ethnically heterogeneous and spoke a range of native languages, and almost one quarter of both samples were fluent in English. Most of the Muslim women identified as Arab (70%), with the remainder identifying as South Asian (15%), Iranian (12%), or Turkish (3%). The bulk of the non-Muslim sample (93%) was various denominations of Christianity and originated from 11 different countries or regions. The average age of the non-Muslim sample was slightly higher than their Muslim counterparts, and the Muslim women had a slightly higher educational level than the non-Muslim women. Almost half (44.1%) of the Muslim women were employed compared with nearly two thirds (63.1%) of the non-Muslim participants.

Table 1.

Selected Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Muslim and Non-Muslim Samples.

	Muslim (%)	Non-Muslim (%)	Difference
Percentage fluent in English	26.5 (n=9)	22.9 (n=19)	3.6% (χ² = 3.471)
Average age	31.97	32.3	0.33 years (t=.241)
Average education	11.55	9.75	1.8 years (t=2.006)*
Percentage employed	44.1 (n = 15)	63.1 (n = 53)	19% (χ² = 3.570)*
Marital status
Percentage married	61.3 (n = 19)	40.2 (n = 33)	21.1%
Percentage divorced or separated	35.4 (n = 11)	45.1 (n = 37)	9.7% (χ² = 12.9000)*
Percentage with children	85.3 (n = 29)	86.7 (n = 72)	1.4% (χ² = 0.043)
Percentage with children from the same husband	89.3 (n = 25)	79.2 (n = 57)	10.1% (χ² = 1.399)
Percentage who have lived in the United States for 15 years or more	60.6 (n = 20)	75.9 (n = 63)	15.3%
Reasons for immigration (multiple response attributes)
Following spouse	42.4 (n = 14)	17.9 (n = 15)	24.5%
Escaping violence	24.2 (n = 8)	4.8 (n = 4)	19.4%
Married an American citizen	12.1 (n = 4)	4.8 (n = 4)	7.3%
Fled violence in family	6.1 (n = 2)	2.4 (n = 2)	3.7%
To improve their economic situation	3 (n = 1)	21.4 (n = 18)	18.4%
Married a legal permanent resident	3 (n = 1)	0	3%
Family reunification	0	16.7 (n = 14)	16.7%
Political repression	0	14.3 (n = 12)	14.3%
Other reason	9.1 (n = 3)	13.1 (n = 11)	4%
For business or work	0	3.6 (n = 3)	3.6%
To attend school	0	1.2 (n = 1)	1.2% (χ² = 36.937)*
Participant’s immigration status (multiple response attributes)
Naturalized citizens	32.4 (n = 11)	10.1 (n = 8)	22.3%
Legal permanent residents	44.1 (n = 15)	26.6 (n = 21)	17.5%
Undocumented	8.8 (n = 3)	34.2 (n = 27)	25.4%
Have a work visa	0	5.1 (n = 4)	5.1%
Percentage who are amnesty lawful permanent residents	2.9 (n = 1)	1.3 (n = 1)	1.6% (χ² = 21.948)*
Spouse’s immigration status (multiple response attributes)
Naturalized citizens	58.8 (n = 20)	27.5 (22)	31.3%
Legal permanent residents	20.6 (n = 7)	35 (n = 28)	14.4%
Percentage of respondents whose spouses have another status	8.8 (n = 3)	16.2 (n = 13)	7.4%
Spouses are amnesty lawful permanent residents	5.9 (n = 2)	1.2 (n = 1)	4.7%
Spouses are undocumented	5.9 (n = 2)	17.5 (n = 14)	11.6%
Spouses are special agricultural workers	0	1.2 (n = 1)	1.2%
Spouses have a work visa	0	1.2 (n = 1)	1.2% (χ² = 13.996)*

p ≤ .05.

More Muslim (61.3%) than non-Muslim (40.2%) women were married, while 35.4% of Muslim women reported being divorced or separated compared with 45.1% of the non-Muslim women. As well, the majority of women in both groups reported having children with the same husband.

Turning to the question of why these women came to the United States, the data in Table 1 indicate that most (42.4%) of the Muslim women came to follow their spouses, or to escape violence (24.2%), compared with 17.9% and 4.8%, respectively, of the non-Muslim women. The reason most often cited for coming to the United States by non-Muslim women was to improve their economic situation (21.4%).

With respect to the immigration status of both the respondents and their spouses, nearly a third (32.4%) of the Muslim women were naturalized citizens and nearly half (44.1%) were legal permanent residents. However, only one tenth (10.1%) of the non-Muslim women were naturalized citizens and more than one quarter (26.6%) reported being legal permanent residents; 34.2% were undocumented. Finally, with respect to the immigration status of the respondents’ spouses, the majority (58.8%) of the Muslim women reported that their spouse was a naturalized citizen, compared with just less than a third of the non-Muslim women’s spouses. As well, 20.6% of the Muslim women’s spouses were legal permanent residents compared with 35% of the non-Muslim women’s partners.

IPV Experiences of Muslim and Non-Muslim Women

Table 2 presents our findings comparing the IPV experiences of the Muslim and non-Muslim women. Both Muslim and non-Muslim women reported that the majority of their experiences with abuse have been with an intimate partner (90.3% and 93.9%, respectively). Although Muslim women reported being victimized by abuse at a lesser rate than non-Muslim women, the former reported a higher percentage of abuse while pregnant, more frequent abuse, and endured abuse for longer periods of time compared with non-Muslim women. Furthermore, more non-Muslim women reported that their husbands abused them weekly and now and then. A similar percentage of Muslim (23.5%) and non-Muslim women (27.3%) in the sample reported that they were still experiencing abuse from an intimate partner.

Table 2.

Intimate Partner Violence Experiences of Muslim and Non-Muslim Women.

	Muslim (%)	Non-Muslim (%)	Difference
Who abused the participant and type of abuse (multiple response attributes)
By their husband or partner	90.3 (n = 28)	93.9 (n = 77)	3.6%
By their husband/partner and someone else	9.7 (n = 3)	1.2 (n = 1)	8.5% (χ² = 6.089)*
Reported at least one form of psychological abuse	75 (n = 24)	90.1 (n = 73)	15.1% (χ² = 4.316)*
Reported at least one form of physical abuse	96.9 (n = 31)	100 (n = 81)	3.2% (χ² = 2.554)
Reported at least one form of sexual abuse	90.6 (n = 29)	95.1 (n = 77)	4.5% (χ² = 0.777)
Reported their partner tried to prevent their advancement	37.5 (n = 12)	72.8 (n = 59)	35.3% (χ² = 12.267)*
Threatened by their partner	93.3 (n = 28)	100 (n = 81)	6.7% (χ² = 5.499)*
Experienced abuse while pregnant	60 (n = 18)	29.6 (n = 24)	30.4% (χ² = 8.585)*
Abuse started while pregnant	28 (n = 7)	26 (n = 13)	2% (χ² = 0.034)
Abuse increased during pregnancy	20 (n = 5)	43.2 (n = 19)	23.2% (χ² = 3.777)*
How often participant was abused (%; multiple responses allowed)
Abused daily	54.8 (n = 17)	36.6 (n = 30)	18.2%
Abused weekly	25.8 (n = 8)	40.2 (n = 33)	14.4%
Abused monthly	16.1 (n = 5)	12.2 (n = 10)	3.9%
Abused now and then	3.2 (n = 1)	7.3 (n = 6)	4.1% (χ² = 5.099)
Reasons for abuse (multiple response attributes)
Partner views women as inferior	25 (n = 8)	19 (n = 15)	6%
Partner’s substance abuse	13 (n = 4)	22 (n = 17)	9%
Partner was influenced by his family	6.3 (n = 2)	3 (n = 2)	3.3%
Partner was jealous	6.3 (n = 2)	8 (n = 6)	1.7%
Partner was angry	3.1 (n = 1)	8 (n = 6)	4.9%
Partner was affected by a family history of abuse	3.1 (n = 1)	1.3 (n = 1)	1.8%
Partner was stressed	0	5 (n = 4)	5%
An extra-marital affair	0	3 (n = 2)	3%
Due to immigration	0	3 (n = 2)	3%
Other explanations	38 (n = 12)	21 (n = 16)	17%
Participant did not know why	6.3 (n = 2)	9 (n = 7)	2.7%
Length of abuse (multiple response attributes)
Still experiencing abuse	23.5 (n = 8)	27.3 (n = 21)	3.8%
Experienced abuse for less than 1 year	2.9 (n = 1)	7.8 (n = 6)	4.9%
Experienced abuse for 1-3 years	11.8 (n = 4)	20.8 (n = 16)	9%
Experienced abuse for 4-7 years	23.5 (n = 8)	18.2 (n = 14)	5.3%
Experienced abuse for 8-11 years	17.6 (n = 6)	6.5 (n = 5)	11.1%
Experienced abuse for 12 or more years	17.6 (n = 6)	13 (n = 10)	4.6% (χ² = 6.277)
Feelings resulting from abuse (multiple response attributes)
Helpless	29.4 (n = 5)	9.8 (n = 5)	19.6%
Depressed/sad	23.5 (n = 4)	7.8 (n = 4)	15.7%
Bad, hurt, or terrible	11.8 (n = 2)	29.4 (n = 15)	17.6%
Hate	11.8 (n = 2)	21.6 (n = 11)	9.8%
Fearful, worthless, or ashamed	17.6 (n = 3)	13.7 (n = 7)	3.9%
Humiliated	0	3.9 (n = 2)	3.9%
Accepting/surrendered or trapped	0	3.9 (n = 2)	3.9%
Angry	0	2 (n = 1)	2%
			(χ² = 10.096)
Percentage who tried to leave the relationship to end the abuse	78.1 (n = 25)	69.8 (n = 44)	8.3% (χ² = 0.733)
How many times the participant tried to leave the relationship (multiple response attributes)
Percentage who tried to leave once	15.6 (n = 5)	31.6 (n = 18)	16%
Percentage who tried to leave multiple times	68.8 (n = 22)	49.1 (n = 28)	19.7%
Percentage who never tried to leave	15.6 (n = 5)	19.3 (n = 11)	3.7%(χ² = 3.578)

p ≤ .05.

Six percent more Muslim women than non-Muslim women indicated that they believed their husbands abused them because the men perceive women to be inferior. More non-Muslim women, however, reported that their husbands abused them because of substance use (9% more). Muslim women indicated that they felt helpless as a result of the abuse (19.6% more), whereas non-Muslim women were more likely to report feeling bad, hurt, or terrible (17.6% more). Similarly, non-Muslim women were more likely to report that they felt hate (9.8% more), and Muslim women were more likely to report feeling depressed/sad (15.7% more) than their non-Muslim counterparts. Muslim and non-Muslim women reported similar feelings of fear, worthlessness, and shame.

Both Muslim and non-Muslim women tried to leave the abusive relationship. However, more Muslim women than non-Muslim women indicated that they tried to leave the relationship multiple times (19.7% more). Non-Muslim women, however, reported trying to leave the relationship once (16% more often).

Respondents reported a range of reasons as to why they stayed in the relationship, including economic reasons (e.g., money problems, lack of a job), lack of social support (e.g., nowhere to go), fear of reprisal or escalated violence from the abuser, cultural beliefs (e.g., bringing shame on the family, the belief that a good wife or mother should not leave the family), or immigration-related issues (e.g., inability to speak English, dependence on the abuser to obtain immigration documents). Table 3 shows the summary comparison between Muslim and non-Muslim women regarding reasons for staying in the relationship. There were three main reasons for doing so that were statistically significant. Approximately 37% more Muslim than non-Muslim women reported that cultural and religious beliefs prevented them from leaving, and 40.1% more Muslim than non-Muslim women stated that they feared negative reactions from the community if they left the abuser. Almost 32% more Muslim women than non-Muslim women reported that pending immigration papers controlled by the spouse were a reason why they stayed in the abusive relationship.

Table 3.

Summary Comparison of the Muslim and Non-Muslim Subsamples Reason for Staying.

	Muslim (%)	Non-Muslim (%)	Difference
Family	92.9 (n = 13)	69.2 (n = 18)	23.7% (χ² = 2.913)
Economic	78.6 (n = 11)	72 (n = 18)	6.6% (χ² = 0.203)
Lack of support	78.6 (n = 11)	76.9 (n = 20)	1.7% (χ² = 0.014)
Cultural and religious beliefs	71.4 (n = 10)	34.6 (n = 9)	36.8% (χ² = 4.945)*
Community reaction	78.6 (n = 11)	38.5 (n = 10)	40.1% (χ² = 5.871)*
She loves him	28.6 (n = 4)	42.3 (n = 11)	13.7% (χ² = 0.733)
Fear of escalated violence	38.5 (n = 5)	28 (n = 7)	10.5% (χ² = 0.433)
Immigration	28.6 (n = 4)	23.1 (n = 6)	5.5% (χ² = 0.147)
Did the fact that immigration papers filed by your spouse were pending prevent you from leaving the violent relationship	53.8 (n = 7)	22 (n = 9)	31.8% (χ² = 4.816)*

p ≤ .05.

Experiences With the Police

Police were involved in abuse incidents experienced by Muslim women 24% more often than in abuse incidents experienced by non-Muslim women (see Table 4). Muslim women’s intimate partner abuse appears to be more of a public affair than it is for non-Muslim women in that 30% more Muslim women indicated that a neighbor called the police. Almost 44.1% more non-Muslim women indicated that the police asked the abuser to leave. Muslim women also reported police interventions that were not as decisive as in cases of non-Muslim women (e.g., asking the abuser to leave, 44.1% less; or arresting him, 17.9% less). Muslim women were less likely to be asked by the police to stop bothering the spouse; 17.4% of non-Muslim women compared with 5.3% of Muslim women reported this. No Muslim women were arrested by the police, while 8.7% of the non-Muslim women in this sample were arrested. Muslim women also indicated that they were less pressured by the police to compromise with the abuser than non-Muslim women were (8.5% less).

Table 4.

Muslim and Non-Muslim Women’s Experiences With the Police.

	Muslim (%)	Non-Muslim (%)	Difference
Participant indicated the police were involved in an abusive situation	81.8 (n = 27)	57.8 (n = 48)	24% (χ² = 5.945)*
Who called the police (multiple response attributes)
Neighbor	38.5 (n = 10)	8.5 (n = 4)	30%
The participant	34.6 (n = 9)	59.6 (n = 28)	25%
More than one person	23.1 (n = 6)	14.9 (n = 7)	8.2%
Female family member	3.8 (n = 1)	6.4 (n = 3)	2.6%
Spouse	0	2.1 (n = 1)	2.1%(χ² = 13.480)*
How the police reacted
Positive	60 (n = 15)	59.6 (n = 28)	.4%
Negative	12 (n = 3)	19.1 (n = 9)	7.1%
Neutral	28 (n = 7)	21.3 (n = 10)	6.7%(χ² = .813)
Police response
Warning given to spouse/partner	47.4 (n = 9)	66.7 (n = 18)	19.3% (χ² = 1.713)
Spouse/partner arrested	52 (n = 13)	34.1 (n = 15)	17.9 (χ² = 2.121)
Spouse/partner made to leave	26.3 (n = 5)	70.4 (n = 19)	44.1% (χ² = 8.674)*
Participant taken to the hospital	15.8 (n = 3)	17.4 (n = 3)	1.6% (χ² = 0.019)
Participant taken to a shelter	15.8 (n = 3)	13 (n = 3)	2.8% (χ² = 0.064)
Did nothing	5.3 (n = 1)	33.3 (n = 9)	28% (χ² = 5.165)*
Told participant not to bother the abuser	5.3 (n = 1)	17.4 (n = 4)	12.1% (χ² = 1.459)
Participant arrested	0	8.7 (n = 2)	8.7% (χ² = 1.735)
What the women wanted of the police
Calm down spouse/partner	95.7 (n = 22)	87.2 (n = 34)	8.5% (χ² = 1.188)
Tell the spouse/partner that he or she is wrong	100 (n= 19)	95 (n = 38)	5% (χ² = 0.983)
Ask the spouse/partner to leave	91.3 (n = 21)	87.2 (n = 34)	4.1% (χ² = 0.246)
Arrest spouse/partner	77.3 (n = 17)	77.5 (n = 31)	0.2% (χ² = 0.000)
Take spouse/partner to jail	71.4 (n = 15)	66.7 (n = 24)	4.7% (χ² = 0.139)
Amount of control women felt in their encounter with the police
A little control	20 (n=5)	30.2 (n=13)	10.2%
Some control	32 (n = 8)	19 (n = 8)	13%
A lot of control	20 (n = 5)	30 (n = 13)	10%
No control	28 (n = 7)	21 (n = 9)	7%(χ² = 2.792)
Percentage of participants who reported that the police did not pressure them to compromise	100 (n = 22)	91.5 (n = 43)	8.5% (χ² = 1.988)
Percentage asked for their immigration status	4 (n = 1)	10.9 (n = 5)	6.9% (χ² = 0.988)
Reasons for not calling the police
Fear of spouse/partner	87 (n = 20)	67.2 (n = 41)	19.8% (χ² = 3.275)
Did not want their spouse/partner get in trouble	73.9 (n = 17)	57.4 (n = 35)	16.5% (χ² = 1.937)
Did not want their children to see the police	71.4 (n = 15)	60 (n = 36)	11.4% (χ² = 0.871)
Language barriers	69.6 (n = 16)	51.7 (n = 31)	17.9% (χ² = 2.169)
Not a police matter	69.6 (n = 16)	31.7 (n = 19)	37.9% (χ² = 9.792)*
Fear of reprisal from family or friends	65.2 (n = 15)	38.3 (n = 23)	26.9% (χ² = 4.841)*
Police cannot do anything to resolve the matter	65.2 (n = 15)	37.7 (n = 23)	27.5% (χ² = 5.103)*
Fear of partner’s/spouse’s or friends	56.5 (n = 13)	40 (n = 24)	16.5% (χ² = 1.837)
Percentage of women who did not have access to a translator when dealing with the police	60 (n = 15)	59.6 (n = 28)	.4% (χ² = .001)

p ≤ .05.

Both Muslim and non-Muslim women equally wanted the police to reprimand the abuser. Overall, however, when encountering police, Muslim women felt less control over the situation than non-Muslim women did. Very few women in both samples were asked about their immigration status by the police (one Muslim woman and five non-Muslim women). Both groups of battered women indicated that they did not or would not call the police out of fear of their spouses. However, more Muslim women reported this as their primary concern (19.8% more). More Muslim women also reported not involving the police out of fear of reprisal from their family or friends (26.9% more). Muslim women also indicated that they feared the response of their husband’s family and friends more than non-Muslim women did (16.5% more). Compared with non-Muslim women, 16.5% more Muslim women indicated that protecting their spouses was an important reason for not calling the police, and 11.4% more did not want their children to see the police.

Language barriers were more of a deterrent against calling the police among Muslim women than among non-Muslim women (17.9% more). Muslim women who were fluent in English called the police more often (8:1) than non-Muslim women who were fluent in English (4:1). The same percentage of non-Muslim and Muslim women indicated that translators were not provided to them. More Muslim than non-Muslim women did not call the police because they did not believe it was a matter for the police (37.9% more). Finally, more Muslim women than non-Muslim women said that they felt the police could not do anything to resolve the matter (27.5% more).

Discussion

Understanding battered immigrant women’s plight as significantly different from those of their sisters who have been in the United States for several generations, for whom English is their mother tongue, and who feel relatively more familiar with the functions of societal institutions no doubt contributed greatly to the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) protections (and the law’s subsequent reauthorizations) for battered immigrant women. However, at this point, in the development of policy for battered immigrant women in the United States, it is essential that we understand the intersectionalities that create particularities within otherwise common experiences of woman abuse. This study has attempted to explore these particularities with specific attention to the intersectionalities of gender, immigration status, and religion for Muslim and non-Muslim immigrant women.

Both battered immigrant Muslim and non-Muslim women in this study indicated that partners were the main perpetrators of abuse. Both groups of battered immigrant women experienced the same feelings of fear, worthlessness, and shame as a result of being victims of abuse. Neither group of battered immigrant women were asked for their immigration status at the time of encountering the police. Both groups had similar experiences with the unavailability of translators during their encounter with the police.

The particular issues that battered Muslim immigrant women experienced are worth noting despite the inability to make any generalizable statements. Muslim battered immigrant women in this study were less likely to call the police (compared with non-Muslim battered immigrant women) because they feared reprisal from the abuser or family members, the abuse was not a police matter, or that police could not do anything about the problem anyway. Moreover, the fact that more battered Muslim immigrant women reported that neighbors were likely to call the police reinforces the idea of reluctance to call the police. This becomes particularly perplexing when many of the battered Muslim immigrant women in this study noted that their encounters with the police were useful. Persuading Muslim immigrant battered women to contact the police or seek help to stop IPV involves raising their awareness about the legal protections available to them in the United States, the services they can access to reduce and stop the violence, and the potential benefit from well-trained police intervention. However, it is essential that campaigns launched to raise Muslim battered immigrant women’s awareness speak to them from within a context that does not neutralize their intersectional identity (i.e., being women, their cultural experiences, religious adherence, or immigrant status). As such, the standard pamphlets written in English and then translated into multiple languages are not the most effective forms of raising awareness. Useful pamphlets that can engage Muslim battered immigrant women and address issues from within their particular experiences may include the various debates concerning the acceptance of violence against women in Islam, the possibility of seeking help from American institutions without totally betraying their identity, and the empirical evidence about how intervention reduces violence. Also, the experiences of other Muslim battered women who benefited from seeking help from the police are important to disseminate either through pamphlets, or electronically through Youtube, Facebook, or Twitter. Other venues of dissemination include ethnic newspapers, television, and radio programs. Raising the awareness of Muslim immigrant youth about violence against women is also essential. The presence of police officers in schools, speakers from various agencies delivering services addressing violence against women from an intersectionality perspective, and encouraging the youth to access services in the schools including counselors and teachers to discuss such issues are a few examples to support the needs of battered immigrant women in general and Muslim battered immigrant women in particular.

Although police intervention with both groups of women displayed similar patterns, the experiences of battered Muslim immigrant women in this study showed that police were less likely to ask the batterer to leave when at the scene. Future research should explore the potential reasons for the seemingly lower likelihood that police will intervene by asking the batterer to leave when the abuse victim is a Muslim immigrant woman. A range of possible explanations might be tested in this regard, including the capacity of police to understand the context or events that took place at any given scene because of misinterpretations of cultural or religious traditions or beliefs. Indeed, problems like these have been documented in the literature (see Ferraro, 1989, 1993; Wachholz & Miedema, 2000). Furthermore, police may not be able to respond appropriately because language difficulties may make it hard for officers to empathize with battered Muslim immigrant women’s fears of reprisal, deportation, or of bringing shame to the family, all of which were reported at significantly higher proportions compared with battered non-Muslim immigrant women. However, the results also suggest that the police blame battered Muslim immigrant women less and support them in not compromising with the abuser compared with battered non-Muslim immigrant women.

Although this study cannot provide any generalizable results, the findings show the multiple layers involved in police reactions to Muslim battered immigrant women and the importance of appropriate interventions, rather than just multiple interventions, to ensure women’s safety. Future research with representative samples should explore this question more systematically. Future research should also examine the issue of whether victim’s religious adherence or the kind of violence she experiences influences how police intervene. There is also a need to educate the police about the diversity of the immigrant community and the need to have law enforcement styles that are responsive to the complexity of the situation instead of a standard “culturally appropriate” response. This responsive law enforcement style with battered immigrant women in general, and Muslim battered immigrant women in particular, is important when dealing with both the victim and the batterer. Regardless, IPV research shows that future reporting of abuse incidents depends at least in part on whether a victim received her preferred response during the present intervention (Hickman & Simpson, 2003). Consequently, future research on battered immigrant women in general, and Muslim battered immigrant women in particular, needs to focus on how police behavior responds to the victim’s desired outcomes and the factors that impact such responses.

In general, the results of this study show that police intervention with Muslim battered immigrant women exhibited mixed results in terms of desired outcomes. The Muslim battered immigrant women in this sample reported that they did not feel pressured when they encountered the police, did not get arrested by the police, and were less likely to be asked by the police to stop bothering the perpetrator. At the same time, however, the Muslim battered immigrant women (compared with the non-Muslim battered immigrant woman) felt less control during the encounter with the police, encountered less swift action toward the perpetrator, were more afraid of the spouse’s retaliation, and found language was a barrier in effectively communicating with the police.

To make help-seeking from the police, a more viable option for battered immigrant women in general and Muslim battered immigrant women in particular in the United States, several issues need to be addressed. First, it is imperative that the police adjust their hiring practices, training, and skill sets to match the diversity of the population they serve. Some suggestions include hiring bilingual officers whose perspectives on interpersonal violence are progressive and who can empathize with victims, seeking to attract and hire Muslim women as police officers, and investing in continual training and skill development with regard to responding to violence against women generally and within particular communities. Second, it is important that police departments introduce the value of service delivery versus law enforcement in dealing with IPV. This requires a paradigm shift for many departments that emphasizes the importance of service delivery and community service. Many departments in the last two decades have introduced community policing and problem solving policing, which, if adopted fully can facilitate service delivery. A service-oriented approach may encourage Muslim battered immigrant women—who may be afraid of the police because of the perceptions they have from their heritage culture and due to threats from the abuser about deportation—to contact the police for help. Third, any policing of IPV within the Muslim immigrant community requires coordinated responses with community groups, health care providers, shelters, religious groups, organizations that can provide inexpensive and effective translation, schools, and immigration officers. This cooperation is often time-consuming and difficult, especially because it is critical to coordinate with community groups who do not believe IPV is a sanctioned Islamic practice (Ammar, 2007). It is important that police agencies find ways to understand these distinct needs within the context of a broader understanding of intersectionality (i.e., remain cognizant of the women’s multiple social locations, including immigration status, diverse conditions as mothers, young or old, and length of residence in the United States), so that they are able to offer appropriate and effective interventions for battered immigrant women in general and Muslim battered immigrant women in particular.

The current investigation offers an initial step toward comparing and understanding the experiences of an understudied population, Muslim immigrant women, with U.S. police. Methodologically, however, the sample size is small, making generalizations from the findings difficult at best. While future research can benefit from studying a larger sample, it is important to share with those concerned about IPV that researchers exploring battered immigrant women generally find it difficult to access a large number of interviewees (Dutton et al., 2006). It is even more difficult to access the less studied population within this group, Muslim battered immigrant women, for a variety of reasons. These reasons include the unwillingness of this Muslim population generally to speak about familial issues with anyone outside the family, fear of divulging any information due to various Acts and policies that may lead to imprisonment or deportation, and finally distrust of researchers and fear that they will misuse the information for negative political ends.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was conducted with the support of Grant 98-WT-VX-0030 from the U.S. National Institute of Justice.

Notes

Author Biographies

Nawal Ammar is a professor and dean of the Faculty of Social Science and Humanities at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. She has published numerous articles and book chapters in criminology and legal studies. She has received approximately $2 million in grants from state and federal funders in the United States, NATO, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council in Canada, and private foundations both in the United States and Canada. She sits on the boards of numerous journals and non-profit organizations dealing with issues of violence against immigrant women.

Amanda Couture-Carron is currently a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Toronto and a recent graduate from the master of arts program in criminology at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Her research has been in the area of intimate partner abuse generally and, more specifically, as experienced by immigrant women, as well as dating abuse from the perspective of South Asian Muslims. Her research also explores first- and second-generation immigrant youth experiences. Her work has been published in Qualitative Sociology Review and South Asian Diaspora.

Shahid Alvi is a professor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. His current research interests include youth crime, the immigrant experience, and the links between violence and culture. His recent publications focus on homeless youth, poor minority women’s victimization by psychological and physical abuse, immigrant women’s health, and the immigrant experience. He is the author or co-author of numerous articles, book chapters, and four books. His new book, Youth Criminal Justice Policy in Canada: A Critical Introduction, was published in 2012.

Jaclyn San Antonio received her BA and MA degrees in criminology from the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Her research interests include violence against women, youth capacity-building, state crime, and international development. Her latest research on the 2010 Haiti earthquake was recognized with awards from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the American Society of Criminology. She recently completed a school-building mission with Free the Children in the indigenous communities of Ecuador and currently leads a community development network for at-risk youth in Toronto, Canada.

References

Abraham

(2000a). Isolation as a form of marital violence: The South Asian immigrant experience. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9, 221-236.

Abraham

(2000b). Speaking the unspeakable: Marital violence among South Asians in the U.S. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Abu-Ras

(2003). Barriers to services for Arab immigrant battered women in a Detroit suburb. Journal of Social Work Research and Evaluation, 3(4), 49-66.

Abu-Ras

(2007). Cultural beliefs and service utilization by battered Arab women. Violence Against Women, 13, 1002-1028.

Acevedo

M. J.

(2000). Battered immigrant Mexican women’s perspectives regarding abuse and help-seeking. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 8, 243-282.

Ahmad

Ali

Stewart

D. E.

(2005). Spousal abuse among Canadian immigrant women. Journal of Immigrant Health, 7, 239-246.

Ahmad

Driver

McNally

M. J.

Stewart

D. E.

(2009). Why doesn’t she seek help for partner abuse? An exploratory study with South Asian immigrant women. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 613-622.

Ammar

N. H.

(2000). Simplistic stereotyping and complex reality of Arab-American immigrant identity: Consequences and future strategies in policing wife battery. Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 11, 51-70.

Ammar

N. H.

(2007). Wife battery in Islam: A comprehensive understanding of interpretations. Violence Against Women, 13, 516-526.

10.

Ammar

N. H.

Orloff

(2007). Battered immigrant women’s domestic violence dynamics and legal protections. In Muraskin

(Ed.), It’s a crime: Women and justice (pp. 430-443). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

11.

Ammar

N. H.

Orloff

Dutton

M. A.

Aguilar-Hass

G. A.

(2005). Calls to police and police response: A case study from the Latina immigrant women in the USA. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 7, 230-244.

12.

Ayyub

(2000). Domestic violence in the South Asian Muslim immigrant population in the United States. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9, 237-248.

13.

Bhuyan

Senturia

(2005). Understanding domestic violence resource utilization and survivor solutions among immigrant and refugee women: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 895-901.

14.

Bui

H. N.

(2003). Help-seeking behavior among abused immigrant women: A case of Vietnamese American women. Violence Against Women, 9, 207-239.

15.

Burman

Smailes

S. L.

Chantler

(2004). “Culture” as a barrier to service provision and delivery: Domestic violence services for minoritized women. Critical Social Policy, 24, 332-357.

16.

Camarota

S. A.

(2010). Immigration and economic stagnation: An examination of trends, 2000 to 2010 (Backgrounders and Reports). Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved from http://www.cis.org/highest-decade

17.

Crenshaw

(1994). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. In Fineman

Mykitiuk

(Eds.), The public nature of private violence (pp. 93-118). New York: Routledge.

18.

Dasgupta

S. D.

(2000). Charting the course: An overview of domestic violence in the South Asian community in the United States. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9, 173-185.

19.

Dosanjh

Deo

Sidhu

(1994). Spousal abuse: Experiences of 15 Canadian South Asian women. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: India Mahalia Association.

20.

Dutton

M. A.

Ammar

Orloff

Terrell

(2006). Use and outcomes of protection orders by battered immigrant women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

21.

Dutton

M. A.

Hass

G. A.

(2001). The use of expert testimony concerning battering and its effects on immigrant women. In American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence (Ed.), Domestic violence and immigration: Applying the immigration provisions of the Violence Against Women Act. A training manual for attorneys and advocates. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.

22.

Dutton

M. A.

Orloff

L. E.

Hass

(2000). Characteristics of help-seeking behaviors, resources and service needs of battered immigrant Latinas: Legal and policy implications. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 7, 245-305.

23.

Erez

Ammar

(2003). Violence against immigrant women and systemic responses: An exploratory study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

24.

Erez

Hartley

C. C.

(2003). Battered immigrant women and the legal system: A therapeutic jurisprudence perspective. Western Criminology Review, 4, 155-169.

25.

Ferraro

K. J.

(1989). Policing woman battering. Social Problems, 36, 61-74.

26.

Ferraro

K. J.

(1993). Cops, courts, and woman battering. In Bart

P. B.

Moran

E. G.

(Eds.), Violence against women: The bloody footprints (pp.165-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Grodner

Sweifach

(2004). Domestic violence in the orthodox Jewish home: A value-sensitive approach to recovery. Journal of Women and Social Work, 19, 305-317.

28.

Hass

G. A.

Ammar

Orloff

(2006). Battered immigrants and U.S. citizen spouses. Legal Momentum, 1-10. Retrieved from www.legalmomentum.org/assets/pdfs/wwwbatteredimmsanduscspouses.pdf

29.

Hassouneh-Phillips

(2001a). American Muslim women’s experiences of leaving abusive relationships. Health Care for Women International, 22, 415-432.

30.

Hassouneh-Phillips

(2001b). Polygamy and wife abuse: A qualitative study of Muslim women in America. Health Care for Women International, 22, 735-748.

31.

Hickman

L. J.

Simpson

S. S.

(2003). Fair treatment or preferred outcome? The impact of police behavior on victim reports of domestic violence incidents. Law & Society Review, 37, 607-634.

32.

Hyman

Forte

Mont

J. D.

Romans

Cohen

M. M.

(2006). Help-seeking rates for intimate partner violence (IPV) among Canadian immigrant women. Health Care for Women International, 27, 682-694.

33.

Ingram

E. M.

(2007). A comparison of help seeking between Latino and non-Latino victims of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 159-171.

34.

Jiwani

(2005). Walking a tightrope: The many faces of violence in the lives of racialized immigrant girls and young women. Violence Against Women, 11, 846-875.

35.

Josephson

(2002). The intersectionality of domestic violence and welfare in the lives of poor women. Journal of Poverty, 6(1), 1-20.

36.

Kasturirangan

Krishnan

Riger

(2004). The impact of culture and minority status on women’s experience of domestic violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5, 318-332.

37.

Kaukinen

(2004). The help-seeking strategies of female violent-crime victims: The direct and conditional effects of race and the victim-offender relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 967-990.

38.

Kim

Emery

(2003). Marital power, conflict, norm consensus, and marital violence in a nationally representative sample of Korean couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 197-219.

39.

Kulwicki

A. D.

Miller

(1999). Domestic violence in the Arab American population: Transforming environmental conditions through community education. Issues in Mental Health, 20, 199-215.

40.

Latta

R. E.

Goodman

L. A.

(2005). Considering the interplay of cultural context and service provision in intimate partner violence: The case of Haitian immigrant women. Violence Against Women, 11, 1441-1464.

41.

Lee

Y. S.

Hadeed

(2009). Intimate partner violence among Asian immigrant communities: Health/mental health consequences, help seeking service utilization. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 10, 143-170.

42.

Marx

Engels

(1970). Selected works. Moscow, Russia: Progress Publishers. (Original work published 1845-1846)

43.

Menjivar

Salcido

(2002). Immigrant women and domestic violence: Common experience in different countries. Gender & Society, 16, 898-920.

44.

Moe

A. M.

(2007). Silenced voices and structured survival: Battered women’s help seeking. Violence Against Women, 13, 676-699.

45.

Morash

Bui

Stevens

Zhang

(2008). Getting out of harm’s way: One-year outcomes for abused women in a Vietnamese immigrant enclave. Violence Against Women, 14, 1413-1429.

46.

Morgan

L. H.

(1985). Ancient society. Tucson: Arizona Press. (Original work published 1878)

47.

Motomura

(2006). Americans in waiting: The lost story of immigration and citizenship in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.

48.

Narayan

(1995). “Male-order” brides: Immigrant women, domestic violence and immigration law. Hypatia, 10(1), 104-119.

49.

Orloff

L. E.

Jang

Klein

C. F.

(1995). With no place to turn: Improving legal advocacy for battered immigrant women. Family Law Quarterly, 29, 313-329.

50.

Orloff

L. E.

Kaguyutan

J. V.

(2002). Offering a helping hand: Legal protections for battered immigrant women: A history of legislative responses. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 10, 95-183.

51.

Orloff

Rodriguez

(1997). Barriers to domestic violence relief and full faith and credit for immigrant and migrant battered women. In Johnson

Websdale

(Eds.), Full Faith and Credit: A Passport to Safety (pp. 130-148). Reno, NV: National Councel of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

52.

Orloff

L. E.

Sullivan

(2004). Breaking barriers: A complete guide to legal rights and resources for battered immigrants. Washington, DC: Legal Momentum. Retrieved from http://niwaplibrary.wcl.american.edu/cultural-competency/Breaking-Barriers-MANUAL-BB.pdf/view

53.

Papademetriou

D. G.

Terrazas

(2009). Immigrants and the current economic crisis: Research evidence, policy challenges & implications. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

54.

Papp

(2010). Culturally driven violence against women: A growing problem in Canada’s immigrant communities (Policy Series, No. 92). Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Frontier Centre, Centre for Public Policy.

55.

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (2011). The future of the global Muslim population: Projections for 2010-2030. Retrieved from http://pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx

56.

Pratt

Sokoloff

(2005). Structural contexts, culturally competent approaches, community organising and social change. In Sokoloff

(Ed.). Domestic violence at the margins: Readings on race, class, gender and culture (pp. 293-300). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

57.

Raj

Silverman

(2002). Violence against immigrant women: The roles of culture, context, and legal immigrant status on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 8, 367-398.

58.

Raj

Silverman

(2003). Immigrant South Asian women at greater risk for injury from intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 435-436.

59.

Raj

Silverman

J. G.

McCleary-Sills

Liu

(2005). Immigration policies increase South Asian immigrant women’s vulnerability to intimate partner violence. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, 60(1), 26-32.

60.

Sokoloff

N. J.

Dupont

(2005). Domestic violence at the intersections of race, class, and gender. Violence Against Women, 11, 38-64.

61.

Song

Y. I.

(1996). Battered women in Korean immigrant families: The silent scream. New York: Garland Publishing.

62.

Ting

Panchanadeswaran

(2009). Barriers to help-seeking among immigrant African women survivors of partner abuse: Listening to women’s own voices. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 817-838.

63.

U.S. Department of State (2008). Muslims in America – A statistical portrait. Retrieved from http://iraq.usembassy.gov/resources/information/current/american/statistical.html

64.

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Information Programs (2009). Being Muslim in America. Retrieved from http://www.america.gov/publications/books/being-muslim-in-america.html

65.

Volpp

(2005). Feminism versus multiculturalism. In Sokoloff

N. J.

Pratt

(Eds.), Domestic violence at the margins: Readings on race, class, gender, and culture (pp. 39-49). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

66.

Wachholz

Miedema

(2000). Risk, fear, harm: Immigrant women’s perceptions of the “policing” solution to women abuse. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 34, 301-317.

67.

Weber

(1963). The sociology of religion (E. Fischoof, Trans). Boston, MA: Beacon. (Original work published 1922)

68.

Yoshihama

(1999). Domestic violence against women of Japanese descent in Los Angeles: Two methods of estimating prevalence. Violence Against Women, 5, 869-888.

69.

Yoshihama

(2002). Battered women’s coping strategies and psychological distress: Differences by immigration status. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 429-452.

70.

Yoshihama

Sorenson

S. B.

(1994). Physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by male intimates: Experiences of women in Japan. Violence & Victims, 9, 63-77.

71.

Yoshioka

M. R.

DiNoia

Ullah

(2001). Attitudes toward marital violence: An examination of four Asian communities. Violence Against Women, 7, 900-926.