Parenting Strain Among Mexican‐Origin Mothers: Differences by Parental Legal Status and Neighborhood

Despite increasing recognition of the critical importance of legal status for understanding the well‐being of immigrants and their families, there has been scant research on this topic. Using Wave 1 of the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (2000–2002) and the 2000 decennial census, the authors investigated how parenting strain among Mexican‐origin mothers varies by legal status and neighborhood context. They found significant differences in parenting strain by nativity and legal status, with undocumented mothers reporting the lowest level. Results from multilevel models with cross‐level interactions reveal that the influence of neighborhood immigrant concentration differs by legal status. Percent foreign born in the neighborhood is associated with reduced parenting strain for documented Mexican‐origin mothers, whereas it is associated with heightened parenting strain for undocumented Mexican‐origin mothers. The findings provide empirical support for the need to recognize legal status distinctions in studies of the well‐being of immigrants and their families.     

The Occupational Cost of Being Illegal in the United States: Legal Status,Job Hazards,and Compensating Differentials

Considerable research and pervasive cultural narratives suggest that undocumented immigrant workers are concentrated in the most dangerous, hazardous, and otherwise unappealing jobs in U.S. labor markets. Yet, owing largely to data limitations, little empirical work has addressed this topic. Using data from the 2004 and 2008 panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation, we impute legal status for Mexican and Central American immigrants and link their occupations to Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) data on occupational fatalities and occupational hazard data from the U.S. Department of Labor to explore racial and legal status differentials on several specific measures of occupational risk. Results indicate that undocumented workers face heightened exposure to numerous dimensions of occupational hazard – including higher levels of physical strain, exposure to heights, and repetitive motions – but are less exposed than native workers to some of the potentially most dangerous environments. We also show that undocumented workers are rewarded less for employment in hazardous settings, receiving low or no compensating differential for working in jobs with high fatality, toxic materials, or exposure to heights. Overall, this study suggests that legal status plays an important role in determining exposure to job hazard and in structuring the wage returns to risky work.     

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.     

Do undocumented migrants earn lower wages than legal immigrants? New evidence from Mexico

"This article examines the extent to which undocumented status lowers wage rates among immigrants to the United States from four Mexican communities. Regression equations were estimated to determine the effect of legal status on wages independent of other demographic, social and economic variables, and special efforts were made to control for possible sample selection biases. Findings suggest that the data are relatively free from selectivity problems that have characterized earlier studies, and that legal status had no direct effect on wage rates earned by male migrants from the four communities. Legal status also had little effect on the kind of job that migrants take in the United States, but it does play an important indirect role in determining the length of time that migrants stay in that country. By reducing the duration of stay, illegal status lowers the amount of employer-specific capital accruing to undocumented migrants, and thereby lowers wage rates relative to legal migrants." Data are for 1982-1983.     

Traces in the shadow: Occupational outcomes of previously undocumented migrants in Italy

Using a representative sample of currently legal third-country immigrants in Italy, obtained from the Social Condition and Integration of Foreign Citizens survey, this article examines the long-term labour market consequences of previous undocumented spells. First, formerly undocumented immigrants are identified using retrospective information on respondents' legal status. Second, immigrants are classified according to the duration of irregular spells before the achievement of the first residence permit. Third, current labour market outcomes are investigated to account for the endogeneity underlying the previous undocumented history. Results show that even though formerly undocumented immigrants are more likely to participate in the labour market, they are more likely to be employed in underqualified occupations than continuously legal immigrants. The duration of the irregular experience affects occupational qualification negatively, among both men and women. The lack of legal entry channels and policies to plan and regulate migration to Italy may reinforce labour market segmentation, exposing migrants to long-term occupational downgrade.     

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.     

The Changing Legal Status Distribution of Immigrants: A Caution

This article presents arguments and data to show that the decennial census and annual Current Population Surveys include immigrants falling into four broad legal status groups: naturalized citizens; legal immigrants; legal nonimmigrants; and undocumented migrants. Since 1986, the relative rewards and penalties imposed on these four categories have shifted dramatically in response to U.S. policies, as have the relative number of foreigners in each group. In general, the relative share of foreigners in the most vulnerable status groups has increased, with the proportion of undocumented migrants and legal nonimmigrant rising and that of legal immigrants falling. Researchers using census and CPS data need to be aware of the shifting distribution of foreigners by legal status over time and of the changing profile of opportunities experienced by each status group, and they need to exercise caution in their interpretation of trends with respect to immigrant assimilation and the effects of immigration on U.S. society.     

Undocumented Migration to the United States and the Wages of Mexican Immigrants

Prior work has documented the remarkable decline in the real wages of Mexican immigrant workers in the U.S. over the past several decades. Although some of this trend might be attributable to the changing characteristics of the migrants themselves, we argue that a more important change was the circumstances under within Mexican immigrants competed for jobs in the U.S. After 1986 a growing share of Mexican immigrants was undocumented, discrimination against them was mandated by federal law, and enforcement efforts rose in intensity. We combined data from the Mexican Migration Project (MMP) with independent estimates of the percentage undocumented among Mexicans living in the U.S. to estimate a series of regression models to test this hypothesis. Controlling for individual characteristics helps to explain the decline in the wages of immigrants, but does not eliminate the trend, which is only explained fully when the percentage undocumented is added to the model. A key date is 1986, confirmed by a Oaxaca–Blinder decomposition analysis, when undocumented hiring was criminalized and undocumented migration revived after IRCA's legalization programs ended. As the percentage undocumented rose to new heights in the face of employer sanctions, immigrant wages fell below what we would have observed under the former policy regime. Using newly available data from Warren and Warren (2013), we examined how variation in the percentage undocumented by state and year from 1990 through 2009 affected immigrant wages and confirmed a strong negative effect, but the addition of an interaction term to the model indicated that the negative effect was confined largely to undocumented migrants, whose wage penalty rose from 8 to 18 percent as the percentage undocumented rose from its observed minimum to maximum.     

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.     

“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.     

The Impact of Anti‐Immigration Policies and Perceived Discrimination in the United States on Migration Intentions among Mexican Adolescents

This exploratory study examined whether higher levels of perceived discrimination against Mexican immigrants in the United States (USA) were related to the migration intentions of Mexican adolescents. I drew the data for this study from a sample of 755 from a total of 980 adolescent students surveyed in Tijuana, Mexico in February 2009, who indicated they had some interest to migrate to the USA to either live or work in the USA. There were 392 male participants (51.9%) and 363 female participants (48.1%), with a mean age of the participants of 16 years. Over 65 per cent of the participants were born in Tijuana, Mexico and over 62 per cent of the participants indicated that their families had very low to average socio‐economic status, as measured by an SES scale. The majority of participants' mothers (74.2%) and fathers (68.6%) had less than a high school education. Multivariate OLS regressions were run controlling for gender, age and socio‐economic status. Results indicated that higher levels of perceived discrimination in the USA were a moderately significant predictor of lower migration intentions among Mexican adolescents who identified that they wanted to live or work in the USA, but higher levels of perceived discrimination did not significantly predict lower migration intentions among participants, who indicated that they felt they had to move to the USA to work and support their families.     

Undocumented Latina immigrants in Orange County,California: a comparative analysis

"This article examines a unique data set randomly collected from Latinas (including 160 undocumented immigrants) and non-Hispanic white women in Orange County, California, including undocumented and documented Latina immigrants, Latina citizens, and non-Hispanic white women. Our survey suggests that undocumented Latinas are younger than documented Latinas, and immigrant Latinas are generally younger than U.S.-citizen Latinas and Anglo women. Undocumented and documented Latinas work in menial service sector jobs, often in domestic services. Most do not have job-related benefits such as medical insurance.... Despite their immigration status, undocumented Latina immigrants often viewed themselves as part of a community in the United States, which significantly influenced their intentions to stay in the United States. Contrary to much of the recent public policy debate over immigration, we did not find that social services influenced Latina immigrants' intentions to stay in the United States."     

Comparison of two methods for estimating the number of undocumented Mexican adults in Los Angeles County

This article compares 2 different methods for estimating the number of undocumented Mexican adults in Los Angeles County. The 1st method, the survey-based method, uses a combination of 1980 census data and the results of a survey conducted in Los Angeles County in 1980 and 1981. A sample was selected from babies born in Los Angeles County who had a mother or father of Mexican origin. The survey included questions about the legal status of the baby's parents and certain other relatives. The resulting estimates of undocumented Mexican immigrants are for males aged 18-44 and females aged 18-39. The 2nd method, the residual method, involves comparison of census figures for aliens counted with estimates of legally-resident aliens developed principally with data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). For this study, estimates by age, sex, and period of entry were produced for persons born in Mexico and living in Los Angeles County. The results of this research indicate that it is possible to measure undocumented immigration with different techniques, yet obtain results that are similar. Both techniques presented here are limited in that they represent estimates of undocumented aliens based on the 1980 census. The number of additional undocumented aliens not counted remains a subject of conjecture. The fact that the proportions undocumented shown in the survey (228,700) are quite similar to the residual estimates (317,800) suggests that the number of undocumented aliens not counted in the census may not be an extremely large fraction of the undocumented population. The survey-based estimates have some significant advantages over the residual estimates. The survey provides tabulations of the undocumented population by characteristics other than the limited demographic information provided by the residual technique. On the other hand, the survey-based estimates require that a survey be conducted and, if national or regional estimates are called for, they may require a number of surveys. The residual technique, however, also requires a data source other than the census. However, the INS discontinued the annual registration of aliens after 1981. Thus, estimates of undocumented aliens based on the residual technique will probably not be possible for subnational areas using the 1990 census unless the registration program is reinstituted. Perhaps the best information on the undocumented population in the 1990 census will come from an improved version of the survey-based technique described here applied in selected local areas.     

The sociodemographic characteristics of Mexican immigrant status groups: implications for studying undocumented Mexicans

"Based on Warren and Passel's...estimate that nearly two-thirds of Mexican-born noncitizens entering the U.S. during 1975-80 and included in the 1980 Census are undocumented immigrants, this article uses the 1980 Public Use Microfiles to delineate four Mexican origin immigrant status groups--post 1975 Mexican-born noncitizens, pre-1975 Mexican-born noncitizens, self-reported naturalized citizens, and native-born Mexican-Americans." It is found that "the pattern of sociodemographic differences among these groups provides support for the idea that the first two categories contain a substantial fraction of undocumented immigrants. These two groups (especially the first) reveal characteristics that one would logically associate with undocumented immigrants--age concentration (in young adult years), high sex ratios, low education and income levels, and lack of English proficiency."     

Gender differences in the occupational status of undocumented immigrants in the United States: experience before and after legalization

"This article examines the incorporation of a national sample of undocumented immigrants both before and after they applied to legalize their status under the provisions of the [U.S.] Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Data from the 1989 and 1992 Legalized Population Surveys (LPS-1 and LPS-2) are used. These surveys provide labor force and occupational data for three critical reference periods: as newly arrived undocumented immigrants, as experienced undocumented immigrants, and as documented immigrants.... The overall upward mobility of both men and women between first job and the occupation held at time of application for legalization continued after legalization. On average, men also continued to report higher status jobs than women, although women did somewhat better after their status was legalized." This is a revised version of a paper originally presented at the 1997 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America.     

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.     

Wages Differences Between Temporary and Permanent Immigrants1

Temporary “guestworker” programs are often assumed to have less impact on native-born workers than permanent immigration. However, there are theoretical reasons to expect temporary immigrants to accept lower wages and thus for temporary migration to have a greater adverse impact on receiving country wages. This article develops these theoretical insights and tests for differences in wages paid to temporary and permanent undocumented Mexican immigrants. Survey data from Mexico shows that temporary immigrants earned wages about 12% lower than permanent immigrants. Controlling for human and social capital, a 7.4% difference in wages remains. Among married immigrants, temporary immigrants earn 9.6% lower wages with these same controls.     

Improved legal status as the major source of earnings premiums associated with intermarriage: evidence from the 1986 IRCA amnesty

Exploiting a natural experiment, this paper uses the 1990 US Census data and the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act amnesty to investigate the major mechanism through which intermarriage influences immigrant earnings. My strategy involves comparing international marriage premiums received by two groups of Mexican immigrants who arrived before and after the cutoff date of eligibility. Both groups face similar language and culture related obstacles and have to adapt themselves to the new environment, except that unauthorized Mexican workers who arrived before 1982 could obtain legal status through the amnesty while those who arrived after the cutoff date obtained legal status through marriage to a US citizen. Instrumental variables estimates show a significantly larger intermarriage premium for Mexican immigrants who migrated after the cutoff date and no statistically significant intermarriage premium is found in the pre-1982 group. The 35 % premium gap indicates a large effect of intermarriage on immigrant labor market outcomes, operating primarily through an improvement of legal status.