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.     

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 relationship between parent immigration status and concrete support service use among Latinos in child welfare: Findings using the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being (NSCAWII)

The underutilization of concrete services by immigrants is widely documented across several service sectors, yet evidence is lacking on the use of such services among immigrants reported to child welfare for the purposes of reducing maltreatment. It has been suggested that Latino immigrants involved with the child welfare system may face steep challenges to receiving needed services due to issues surrounding legal status, language and cultural barriers. The purpose of this study was to determine whether referral to and receipt of concrete services by Latino families reported to child welfare agencies, was associated with legal immigration status. The sample included children of Latino parents who participated in the second National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being (NSCAWII), who remained in the home following a child welfare investigation (n = 561). Over a third (37%) of Latino families were referred for at least one concrete service, yet only 17% received any. Weighted logistic regression models showed that families in which the primary caregiver was undocumented had significantly lower odds (OR = .24) of receiving services once referred. Families who had trouble paying for basic necessities (OR = 7.52), those with active domestic violence in the home (OR = 4.98), and those receiving ongoing child welfare services (OR = 4.52) had increased odds of referral for services by the caseworker. The odds of receiving services increased when the primary caregiver was unemployed (OR = 5.24), when there was domestic violence in the home (OR = 4.59), and with the receipt of child welfare agency services (OR = 8.83). There appears to be an unmet need for concrete services among Latinos investigated by child welfare, as demonstrated in the gap between overall service referral and receipt. A parent's legal status may be one reason for that unmet need, implying that children of undocumented parents are less likely to have basic needs met to mitigate economic stress and reduce maltreatment risk upon contact with child welfare. Policy recommendations and implications for child welfare practice are discussed.     

Perceived discrimination and depression among Mexican-origin adults in California

We contend that perceived discrimination has an independent effect on depression outcomes among adults of Mexican origin. Using a sample of 3,012 Mexican-origin respondents in Fresno, California in 1995/96 (ages 18-59) we investigate the direct and moderating connections between perceived discrimination, acculturative stress, and mental health (CES-D). We also investigate the social patterning of perceived discrimination. While more highly acculturated immigrant respondents were more likely to experience discrimination than their less acculturated counterparts, more highly acculturated U.S. born respondents were less likely to experience discrimination. Discrimination was directly related to depression, but this effect was moderated through nativity/country of residence, English-language acculturation, sex, and country of education variables. Moderate levels of legal status acculturative stress were especially depressive for native-born U.S. residents.     

Child maltreatment dynamics among immigrant and U.S. born Latino children: Findings from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being (NSCAW)

Latino children are the largest and fastest growing ethnic minority group in the United States, and the proportion of child maltreatment victims who are of Latino ethnicity has been growing since 2000. However, our knowledge of the characteristics, maltreatment patterns, and risk factors associated with maltreatment among immigrant and U.S. born Latino children and their families has been incomplete. The goals of this study are to establish the national prevalence of immigrant and U.S. born Latino children who come to the attention of child welfare systems in the United States; to expand our knowledge regarding the role of nativity in child maltreatment patterns among Latinos; and to determine if disparities in child maltreatment patterns and risks exist among Latino families using data from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being. Despite considerable risks, data indicate that immigrant Latino children are slightly underrepresented among children who present to child welfare systems when compared to the general population. Moreover, no significant differences were observed between immigrant children and U.S. born children with regard to substantiation patterns. However, significant differences emerged between the two groups in risk factors and maltreatment type, warranting further investigation.     

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.     

The Living Arrangements of Children in Immigrant Families in the United States1

Little is known about the living arrangements of first‐ and second‐generation immigrant children. Using data from the Current Population Survey and a multivariate approach, I compared living arrangements of immigrant children to U.S.‐born white children with U.S.‐born parents. Findings show, except for foreign‐born black and some Hispanic children, that foreign‐born children lived with married parents more frequently than did U.S.‐born white children with U.S.‐born parents. However, by the third generation, a pattern emerged showing a decline in living with married parents among some immigrant children and a rise in living with single parents. The noticeable “downward assimilation” amon some second and third‐generation immigrant children fits a theory of segmented assimilation and is concerning because single‐parent families confront more social problems and sociodemographic risks.     

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.     

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.     

Negative Acculturation and Nothing More? Cumulative Disadvantage and Mortality during the Immigrant Adaptation Process among Latinos in the United States

Foreign‐ and U.S.‐born Hispanic health deteriorates with increasing exposure and acculturation to mainstream U.S. society. Because these associations are robust to (static) socioeconomic controls, negative acculturation has become their primary explanation. This overemphasis, however, has neglected important alternative structural explanations. Examining Hispanic mortality using the 1998–2006 U.S. National Health Interview Survey‐Linked Mortality File according to nativity, immigrant adaptation measures, and health behaviors, this study presents indirect but compelling evidence that suggests negative acculturation is not the only or main explanation for this deterioration.     

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."     

Health insurance coverage and routine health care use among children by family immigration status

This study utilizes Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey data to investigate children's (17 years and younger) health insurance coverage and routine medical and dental care visits by family immigration status (N = 2846). We use a combination of nativity (U.S. and foreign born) and legal status (authorized and unauthorized) of mothers and their children to categorize family immigration status (citizen mother-citizen child; authorized mother-citizen/authorized child; unauthorized mother-citizen/authorized child; unauthorized mother-unauthorized child). Health care use is measured by routine medical visits and dental visits. We find that health insurance coverage and dental visits are lowest for the children of unauthorized mothers but gaps are most pronounced for unauthorized mother–unauthorized child pairs. Policy implications, in light of recent health and immigration-related legislation, are discussed.     

Sponsors,sponsorship rates and the immigration multiplier

"This article reviews the evidence pertaining to the extent to which U.S. immigrants actually make use of the family reunification entitlements of United States immigration laws, examining the two available studies which are based on probability samples of immigrant entry cohorts. It then provides new estimates of the characteristics of the U.S. citizen sponsors of immigrant spouses and parents.... With respect to the characteristics of sponsors, analysis of the information in the GAO [General Accounting Office] report indicates that 80 percent of the persons who immigrated in FY 1985 as the spouses of U.S. citizens were sponsored by native born U.S. citizens. In contrast, native born U.S. citizens sponsored only five percent of the parent immigrants. Additional findings on the country of origin and sex of the sponsored immigrants are presented."     

Adoption,Foreign‐Born Status,and Children's Progress in School

Using recent data from the American Community Survey, the author investigated how the dynamics of immigration influence our understanding of the adoption–schooling relationship. The results suggest that implications of immigrant and adoption statuses could be understood within specific familial contexts. Thus, no statistical differences were found in the outcomes of foreign‐born adoptees in U.S. native families and their peers with immigrant parents. Instead, the most favorable patterns of schooling progress were found among U.S.‐born adoptees living in immigrant families. Among immigrants, the analysis indicated similar patterns of achievement among Hispanic and White adoptees that are inconsistent with the predictions of segmented assimilation theory. However, there was a Hispanic disadvantage relative to Whites among immigrant children living with biological and stepparents. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of these findings for kinship selection and assimilation processes and the contention that alternative theoretical frameworks should be used to understand the implications of adoption status.     

Gender differences in immigrant health: the case of Mexican and Middle Eastern immigrants

This article draws on theories of gender inequality and immigrant health to hypothesize differences among the largest immigrant population, Mexicans, and a lesser known population of Middle Easterners. Using data from the 2000-2007 National Health Interview Surveys, we compare health outcomes among immigrants to those among U.S.-born whites and assess gender differences within each group. We find an immigrant story and a gender story. Mexican and Middle Eastern immigrants are healthier than U.S.-born whites, and men report better health than women regardless of nativity or ethnicity. We identify utilization of health care as a primary mechanism that contributes to both patterns. Immigrants are less likely than U.S.-born whites to interact with the health care system, and women are more likely to do so than men. Thus, immigrant and gender health disparities may partly reflect knowledge of health status rather than actual health.     

Nativity as a Moderator of Familial and Nonfamilial Correlates of Latino/a Youth Prosocial Behaviors

Familial and nonfamilial relations play prominent roles in fostering youths’ prosocial tendencies. The present study examined the direct and indirect relations among family conflict, parental and peer acceptance, deviant peer affiliation, and prosocial tendencies. Participants included 306 (53.8% female, M_age = 15.50, SD = .42; range = 14–18) U.S. Latino/a adolescents and their parents (87.9% mothers). The majority of adolescents were born in the United States (N = 206, 68.0%; average time in United States = 10 years) and identified as a Mexican heritage group member (N = 248, 81.0%). Findings differed by nativity as parental acceptance predicted prosocial tendencies for U.S. Latinos/as born outside the United States and peers were significant predictors of prosocial tendencies for U.S.‐born Latino/as.     

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.     

Self-care among school-aged children of immigrants

The present study uses data from the National Household Education Surveys Program to examine the unsupervised time (“self-care”) experienced by children in immigrant families. We argue that traditional models of self-care are insufficient for understanding self-care among immigrant families and should be expanded to capture the unique characteristics of this population. Considering the high rates of poverty, limited English proficiency, and unique cultural norms of immigrant parents, children of immigrants may be especially at-risk for self-care. Interestingly, results demonstrate that immigrant parents are not more likely to leave their children unsupervised than native-born parents, however the context surrounding self-care appears to differ, as immigrant children are more likely to be caring for a sibling during self-care. Additionally, we find that within immigrant families, boys and children of parents who speak a non-English language at home are more likely to be in self-care. These findings underscore the importance of examining parental nativity status in research on child care arrangements, as patterns and contextual factors associated with self-care may depend on the immigrant status of the parent.     

Public Assistance Use among U.S.‐Born Children of Immigrants1

U.S.‐born children of immigrants may be less likely to receive some social services than are children of native‐born parents if foreign‐born parents who are themselves ineligible are less likely to apply on their children's behalf. We use retrospective data from a sample of about 2,400 lowincome households in three U.S. cities to determine whether children with foreign‐born caregivers are less likely than children with native‐born caregivers to receive benefits from any of five programs over a two‐year period: TANF, SSI, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and WIC. The most significant disparities between children of citizen and noncitizen caregivers are in TANF and food stamp use.