Navigating “illegality”: Undocumented youth & oppositional consciousness

In recent years, a vibrant political movement has emerged, led by a sector previously thought to be too vulnerable to engage in public protest-undocumented youth. This article explores the experiences of undocumented youth and their emergent activism. I posit that growing up within the context of dominant discourses regarding immigration in a moment marked by a re-entrenchment of borders and citizenship shapes not only the lived experiences, but also the political consciousness of many undocumented young people. Drawing on 18 months of ethnographic research with undocumented Latino youth activists in California, this article argues that oppositional consciousness is forged through the constant navigation of “illegality”. I examine two sites upon which this navigation takes place – the negotiation of fear and shame and the navigation of the exclusion – and explore the way in which negotiation of “illegality” in these sites of daily life contributes to the development of an oppositional consciousness.     

Experiencing ‘Illegality’ as a Family? Immigration Enforcement,Social Policies,and Discourses Targeting Mexican Mixed‐Status Families

Mexican mixed‐status families have been front and center in embroiled national debates about the place of undocumented immigrants and their citizen family members in this country. These families face unique obstacles, including possible family fragmentation caused by deportation, challenges to birthright citizenship, and they are often targeted by anti‐immigrant elected officials and political pundits that perpetuate a racialized discourse that casts even citizen children in these families as an abomination of US citizenship. Therefore, “illegality” may be a familial experience that can be endured by citizens and non‐citizens alike. Despite their unique vulnerabilities, researchers know very little about how mixed‐status families experience belonging in the country while managing possible tensions and inequalities shaped by immigration status. In this article, I review the research on punitive immigration enforcement and the scholarship on social policies and discourse targeting mixed‐status families. I conclude by reviewing new directions in sociological research and suggest avenues for research that may examine mixed‐status families' subjectivities, belonging, and negotiations of family relationships.     

Does Where I Live Affect Whether I Apply? The Contextual Determinants of Applying for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program provides temporary relief from deportation and legal work authorization for eligible undocumented youth in the United States. This study investigates the factors that help or hinder undocumented youth in applying for DACA. We focus on contexts of reception to understand the determinants of DACA applications, as studies of previous legalization programs indicate that the communities in which immigrants live help shape application decisions. Our analysis shows that more immigrant‐serving organizations in a state translate into more applications, that DACA implementation rates are not statistically significantly lower in states with hostile policy climates, and that socioeconomic factors are most significantly related to DACA applications. In identifying the collective factors that influence applying to DACA, we demonstrate that the structural opportunities and barriers present in receiving locales shape undocumented youths’ decisions to regularize their immigration status, which has significant implications for their resulting incorporation trajectories.     

“The Politics of the HealthCare Reform Debate: Public Support of Including Undocumented Immigrants and Their Children in Reform Efforts in the U.S.”

Although U.S. immigration and health care policies appear to be highly correlated, scholarship has yet to gauge the public's views toward providing undocumented immigrants with health coverage at the state level. We analyze support for including undocumented immigrants in health care reform in New Mexico. Utilizing an original public opinion survey of New Mexico adults, we find that individuals are more supportive of the state providing health care to the children of undocumented immigrant than to their parents. Multivariate logistic regression analyses suggest that factors such as liberal ideology and perceptions of commonalities with Latinos increase support levels. Despite a lack of support among a majority of respondents, the influence of perceived commonalities with immigrants suggests that reform advocates and political elites who mobilize along ethnic or human solidarity may be successful in creating conditions for the inclusion of undocumented immigrants in the public provision of health care at the state level.     

When Do Papers Matter? An Institutional Analysis of Undocumented Life in the United States

This article assesses how two key institutions differentially shape immigrants’ relationship to their rights in American society. We draw on over 200 in‐depth interviews to argue that there is a stark difference between how schools encourage undocumented youth to view themselves as equal members of US society and how undocumented workers are marginalized in the workplace. We find that even as schools track and stratify students, they also foster a culture of meritocracy between documented and undocumented youth. Schools ultimately render immigration status irrelevant as undocumented youth learn to navigate the primary institution of this stage of their lives. Conversely, immigration status is central to the experience of undocumented workers, who develop a particular set of survival skills that help them live and work successfully in the United States without being detected while also erecting a barrier between themselves and any additional rights they may be afforded.     

Documented,Undocumented, and Liminally Legal: Legal Status During the Transition to Adulthood for 1.5‐Generation Brazilian Immigrants

This article deconstructs the “illegal–legal” binary that characterizes much immigration scholarship. Using in‐depth interviews with 42 1.5‐generation Brazilian immigrants in young adulthood, I find that respondents discuss a distinct hierarchy with four categories of legal membership—undocumented, liminal legality, lawful permanent resident (LPR), and citizen—that affect their daily lives and incorporation. Liminally legal and LPR statuses in particular challenge this illegal–legal dichotomy. Liminal legality is an “in‐between” status in which immigrants possess social security numbers and work permits but have no guarantee of eventual citizenship. Without opportunities to regularize their status, both undocumented and liminally legal young adults face increased vulnerabilities to poverty and social exclusion. Liminally legal youth, however, are in better positions than their undocumented peers during early adulthood because of state‐delimited rights associated with their legal status.     

Multigenerational Punishment: Shared Experiences of Undocumented Immigration Status Within Mixed‐Status Families

Estimates suggest that approximately 16.6 million people in the United States are members of mixed‐status families composed of undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens or documented immigrants. Drawing on interviews with 32 undocumented 1.5‐generation parents, the author explores how immigration laws affect undocumented parents and their citizen children. She finds that U.S. citizen children and their undocumented parents often share in the risks and limitations associated with undocumented immigration status. She conceptualizes this phenomenon as multigenerational punishment, a distinct form of legal violence wherein the sanctions intended for a specific population spill over to negatively affect individuals who are not targeted by laws. Though not restricted to familial relationships, multigenerational punishment tends to occur within families because of the strong social ties, sustained day‐to‐day interactions, and dependent relationships found among family members. This sheds light on how laws can further the reproduction of inequality within families and over generations.     

Aging and undocumented: The sociology of aging meets immigration status

Being undocumented is strongly correlated with low wages, employment in high risk occupations, and poor healthcare access. We know surprisingly little about the social lives of older undocumented adults despite the vast literature about youth and young undocumented migrants. Literature about the immigrant health paradox casts doubts on the argument that unequal social conditions translate to poorer self-reported health and mortality, but few of these studies consider immigration status as the dynamic variable that it is. Reviewing research about older migrants and minorities, I point to the emergence of undocumented older persons as a demographic group that merits attention from researchers and policymakers. This nexus offers important lessons for understanding stratification and inequality. This review offers new research directions that take into account multilevel consequences of growing old undocumented. Rather than arguing that older-aged undocumented migrants are aging into exclusion, I argue that we need careful empirical research to examine how the continuity of exclusion via policies can magnify inequalities on the basis of immigration status and racialization in older age.     

Leaving the ‘perfect DREAMer’ behind? Narratives and mobilization in immigration reform

This paper focuses on the consequences of the narrative used to support immigration reform by some immigrant activists, and especially how this narrative may negatively impact potential allies. Policies and policy proposals such as the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals have been consistently championed using a specific narrative of undocumented youths which presents them as well-assimilated, driven, and US-educated. The paper is drawn from 60 in-depth interviews conducted with undocumented youths in 2013 in New York City and northern New Jersey. The paper builds on the literature relative to narratives in social movements, framing and policy-making. Findings indicate that recent campaigns continue to make extensive use of this narrative, even though it creates a divide within the undocumented community. This unintended consequence has recently led some activists to step away from the ‘perfect DREAMer’.     

Decoding Worker “Reliability”: Modern Agrarian Values and Immigrant Labor on New York Dairy Farms

This article examines the reasons offered by New York dairy farmers for hiring undocumented immigrant workers in their milking parlors, and connects those discourses to broader economic and cultural change in U.S. agrarian society. Based on interviews with 25 dairy farmers on 22 farms, this article examines farmers’ assessments of the Amish, white non‐Amish, Puerto Rican, and undocumented Latino labor pool. The analysis shows that farmers consider undocumented immigrants the most “reliable” workforce, and that their reliability stems from their deportability and from their separation from their families, which drives them to work long hours. I argue that farmer discourses about immigrant “reliability” must be understood in the context of economic pressure to adopt a more commercial orientation to dairying, and of modern agrarian values that prize urban middle‐class lifestyles. Ultimately, worker “reliability” is a euphemism for the transnational separation of workers from their families, and one that is operationalized by farmers to justify the pursuit of economic success and more leisure time off the farm.     

“No One Will Speak for Us”: Empowering Undocumented Immigrant Women Through Policy Advocacy

This article draws on data from an exploratory study involving an organized group of Mexican immigrant mothers engaged in community-based policy advocacy in the Pacific Northwest. Participants in the project lobbied state legislators on bills expanding the rights of undocumented immigrants—most notably, bills granting access to in-state tuition and driver’s licenses. In-depth interviews (n=12) reveal that through this process, participants came to see themselves as political subjects, despite their unauthorized legal status. Findings reveal that participants’ engagement in the policy process is centered on the idea of expressing needs and reflects their interest in improving individual, family, and community well-being. In this sense, their participation in politics flows from their roles as mothers and caregivers. By illuminating the experiences of a group—undocumented immigrant women—often overlooked in research on immigration policy and practice, this case offers a counter-narrative to the dominant portrayal of immigrant women and suggests ways to integrate community organizing and collective action into policy practice.     

Constructing “Social Change” through Philanthropy: Boundary Framing and the Articulation of Vocabularies of Motives for Social Movement Participation*

I embrace Mills's (1940) conception of motives to offer new insight into an old question: why do people join social movements? I draw upon ethnographic research at the Crossroads Fund, a “social change” foundation, to illustrate that actors simultaneously articulate two vocabularies of motives for movement participation: an instrumental vocabulary about dire, yet solvable, problems and an expressive vocabulary about collective identity. This interpretive work is done during boundary framing, which refers to efforts by movements to create in-group/out-group distinctions. I argue that the goal-directed actions movements take to advance social change are shaped by participants' identity claims. Moreover, it is significant that Crossroads constructs its actions and identity as social movement activism, rather than philanthropy. This definitional work suggests that analyzing the category social movements is problematic unless researchers study how activists attempt to situate themselves within this category. Hence, methodologically attending to organizations' constructions of movement status can theoretically inform research which essentially takes social movements as a given, in exploring their structural components.     

“That's not Grassfed!” Identity Formation,Maintenance, and Co‐Optation in Oklahoma's Grassfed Livestock Movement

Using interview data from thirty‐one grassfed ranchers across Oklahoma, we adapt a culturally focused social movement framework to explore a regional grassfed livestock movement. Drawing on social movement and agrifood literature, we examine how grassfed actors forge a cohesive grassfed collective identity and how collective identity processes inspire engagement in forms of individualized, cultural protest. We address how collective identity politicizes movement actors, moving them to prioritize cultural issues of the grassfed movement and development of a grassfed activist identity, sometimes above other tangible, economic rewards. We also consider how grassfed ranchers are restricting the boundaries of movement membership in response to increased interest in alternative agricultural practices by new producers and by agrifood elites, and how they use market‐oriented tactics to enforce those boundaries. In doing so we draw parallels to conventionalization processes in the organic sector. By emphasizing the identity work of grassfed producer‐activists, we provide new perspectives on an emerging agricultural movement gaining traction in the US and abroad.     

Social Influences and Aggregated Immigration Dynamics: The Case of Spain 1999–2009

This research aims at broadening the applicability and scope of network‐based explanations of international migration to include explanations of aggregated immigration dynamics for multiple immigrant collectives. Using a unique dataset that contains data on approximately 4.5 million international immigration events from 180 different origin countries in Spain between 1999 and 2009, my analysis shows conclusively that information about changes in the supply of immigrant social capital between past and potential immigrants explains the variation in local immigration rates in the destination society. It also show that incorporating information about such social network influences is very informative when the goal is to explain (1) temporal variation in intra‐collective international immigration flows across different locations in the destination, (2) temporal variation in inter‐collective international immigration flows within a specific location in the destination, (3) intra‐collective differences in international immigration across locations in the destination, and finally (4) inter‐collective differences in local international immigration within the same geographical location in the destination.     

Opposition to Pro‐Immigrant Public Policy: Symbolic Racism and Group Threat

This study examines the relationship between symbolic racism and native‐born citizens’ policy opinions toward legal and undocumented immigration. With data from the 1994 General Social Survey and the NPR/Kaiser Foundation/Kennedy School of Government 2004 Immigration Survey, the results from logit regression models indicate that symbolic racism significantly predicts opposition to legal immigration, immigrant access to federal aid, and standard costs for college, citizenship for U.S.‐born children, and work permits for undocumented immigrants. The effects are independent of group threat and other factors. Symbolic racism explained more variation in policy opinions toward government assistance, while group threat explained more variation toward immigration levels and citizenship status. Depending on the issue, native‐born citizens likely derive their immigration policy opinions from moral ideologies in addition to intergroup competition.     

Non‐Citizen Mexican Youth in US Higher Education: A Closer Look at the Relationship between State Tuition Policies and College Enrollment

This paper examines state policies that extend or deny in‐state tuition to children of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Using the Current Population Survey (1997–2010), we assess changes in college enrollment among Mexican‐born non‐citizens — a proxy for the undocumented population. In contrast to previous analyses, we find that policies extending in‐state tuition to undocumented youth do not directly affect rates of college enrollment. However, we find that Mexican‐born non‐citizen youth residing in states that deny in‐state tuition have a 12.1 percentage point lower probability of being enrolled in college than their peers living in states with no such policies.     

From political opportunities to niche-openings: the dilemmas of mobilizing for immigrant rights in inhospitable environments

This article examines how undocumented immigrants mobilize for greater rights in inhospitable political and discursive environments. We would expect that such environments would dissuade this particularly vulnerable group of immigrants from mobilizing in high profile campaigns because such campaigns would carry high risks (deportation) and have little chance of success. However, we have witnessed many mobilizations by undocumented immigrants in both Europe and the United States over the past 20 years. This article uses the case of undocumented youths in the United States (DREAMers) to examine how a group of undocumented immigrants have overcome important barriers and become a powerful voice for immigrant rights in the country. The article suggests that while undocumented immigrants faced inhospitable contexts, cracks and “niche-openings” they continued to present themselves to groups with the right set of cultural, legal, and economic attributes. Immigrants in possession of these attributes (in this case, youth) could target a niche-opening and argue that they are particularly deserving of legalization. This article also highlights an important dilemma: In contexts characterized by general closure and hostility, narrow mobilizations targeting niche-openings provide the only path to legal status for some, but they can also differentiate (discursively and legally) between “deserving” and “undeserving” undocumented immigrants. Differentiation can contribute to stratifying the immigrant population, with those deemed more deserving facing greater rights and entitlements and those deemed less deserving facing greater restrictions and repression. This carries the risk of magnifying normative and legal inequalities between immigrant groups while introducing many points of conflict within the broader immigrant rights movement.     

Troubling the ‘Happy Family’: US Liberalism and Narratives of Transnational Adoption and Immigration from China

This essay connects adoption and immigration from China by considering the relationship between the adoptee and the Chinese nanny hired to care for her. I examine news media alongside Wendy Lee’s 2008 novel, Happy Family, which portrays the adoptive family through the perspective of a Fujianese immigrant domestic worker. Transnational adoption from China emerged in the early 1990s as undocumented immigration from the Fujian province rose, representing a major shift in Chinese immigration. These practices have been apprehended divergently in mainstream discourses. This essay approaches the family as a site of neoliberal privatization that frames adoption in terms of inclusion into US national ideologies of race, gender, and class, while undocumented immigration from China has been framed through exclusion. I argue that the nanny destabilizes the construction of the family as a space of depoliticized inclusion through her labor, revealing the neoliberal inequalities that shape both adoption and immigration.     

Restoring Law and (Racial) Order to the Old Dominion

In 2006, cities and counties across the USA began adopting ‘Illegal Immigration Relief Acts’ to relieve themselves of the economic and social burden that undocumented immigrants were allegedly presenting. By restricting the access of undocumented residents to housing, jobs and social services, local ordinances would encourage undocumented residents to ‘self-deport’ from the locality if not from the nation. Highly contentious, politically and juridically, local anti-illegal immigration laws have divided communities. Proponents maintain that such laws merely uphold the ‘rule of law’, while opponents see them as thinly veiled efforts to drive out Latin American residents, with immigration status serving as a proxy for race. A growing body of scholarship examines local anti-immigrant law and offers significant insights into the causes and undeniably racialized effects of these laws. Yet the issue of racism requires more scholarly attention. Critical race theory holds that all racisms are historically particular and must be examined as expressive of particular conjunctures. To that end, this essay develops a theoretically informed and historically grounded analysis of local anti-immigration law. It establishes local and national interests in local anti-immigrant law and explains how these interests converge. Through a case study of Prince William County (PWC), Virginia, I examine local anti-immigrant activism and connect them to larger political shifts in the contemporary USA. I argue that local white propertied interests converge with national conservative and federalist interests in the county's anti-illegal immigrant law. The essay seeks to demonstrate the value of bringing cultural studies methodology to bear on (local) immigration law.