Suchergebnisse

Forming families in a context of illegality -- "It's because he wants papers" : choosing a romantic partner -- "You feel a little bit less" : gendered illegality and desirability when dating -- "It affects us, our future" : negotiating illegality as a mixed-status couple -- "It was time to take that step" : pursuing legalization through marriage -- "It's a constant struggle" : becoming and being parents -- "I can't offer them what other people could" : multigenerational punishment of citizen children -- Immigration policy and the future of Latino families -- Appendix A. Reflections on methods and positionality -- Appendix B. Demographic characteristics of study participants.

Although previous scholarship demonstrates that gender profoundly affects the immigrant incorporation process, few studies assess the role of gender in the lives of 1.5-generation undocumented young adults. Drawing on 92 in-depth interviews, I examine how gender and immigration status intersect to affect undocumented young adults' dating, marriage, and parenting experiences. Although all undocumented young adults face the same structural limitations, I argue that their gendered social position leads men and women to experience and negotiate their illegality differently. Gendered expectations make immigration status relevant in different ways throughout of the family formation process, and affect undocumented young adults' ability to negotiate the limitations associated with their immigration status. As a result, undocumented young men are less likely than women to fully participate in family formation and move toward social incorporation. These findings suggest that gender plays a significant role in shaping experiences of illegality and that navigating gendered expectations is an important micro-level process within immigrant incorporation.

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.

RationaleLittle is known about how undocumented immigrants navigate healthcare utilization issues apart from access.ObjectiveWe examine a unique population of undocumented immigrants who have access to healthcare - college students at the University of California - to identify how immigration status hinders mental health service utilization in the absence of barriers related to eligibility and insurance coverage.MethodWe conducted semistructured interviews between March and July 2017 with 30 undocumented students at a University of California campus.ResultsWe argue that undocumented immigration status informs mental health-related illness cognitions to negatively affect students' ability to assess their own mental health and need for services. Students expressed low perceived need because they normalized mental strain as a natural product of their unstable immigration status. Many viewed treatment as futile because it could not address underlying immigration-related issues. They also anticipated stigmas associated with mental illness as well as their own undocumented status.ConclusionSolutions to address utilization disparities must go beyond eliminating formal barriers to health access and address such psychosocial barriers, as well as the larger political and social context that produces them.

RationaleLittle is known about how undocumented immigrants navigate healthcare utilization issues apart from access.ObjectiveWe examine a unique population of undocumented immigrants who have access to healthcare - college students at the University of California - to identify how immigration status hinders mental health service utilization in the absence of barriers related to eligibility and insurance coverage.MethodWe conducted semistructured interviews between March and July 2017 with 30 undocumented students at a University of California campus.ResultsWe argue that undocumented immigration status informs mental health-related illness cognitions to negatively affect students' ability to assess their own mental health and need for services. Students expressed low perceived need because they normalized mental strain as a natural product of their unstable immigration status. Many viewed treatment as futile because it could not address underlying immigration-related issues. They also anticipated stigmas associated with mental illness as well as their own undocumented status.ConclusionSolutions to address utilization disparities must go beyond eliminating formal barriers to health access and address such psychosocial barriers, as well as the larger political and social context that produces them.

Gender and migration is a complex relationship, involving dynamic interactions between women and men, embedded in a variety of institutions (families, labor markets, and others) that all vary across different periods of historical time. Although many studies in the field of gender and migration have appeared since the late 1970s, few contemporary migration scholars centrally integrate gender into their work. In 2006, Donato and colleagues called for advancing this field of research. Now, more than a decade later, studies have incorporated various methods and approaches, but despite some momentum, most recent books and articles about migration still do not explicitly integrate gender. In this introduction, we set the stage for research and findings that bridge this gap and appear in this special issue. We preview findings from these studies, suggesting that a gender analytical framework is essential to understanding migration in the 21st century.

Progressive subfederal immigration policy aims to reduce the consequences of illegality for undocumented immigrants. Drawing on interviews with representatives from immigrant‐serving organizations in California, we examine the case of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 60 driver's licenses to assess whether all Californian undocumented immigrants have equal access to a driver's license. Although A.B. 60 was race‐neutral legislation, we argue that its implementation was shaped by racialized migration histories and that it reproduces racialized illegality. Specifically, the deep history of undocumented Mexican migration to California has shaped the institutional capacity of nonprofit and community organizations, foreign consulates, and the Department of Motor Vehicles to advocate for, implement, and serve A.B. 60 applicants. As a result, Spanish‐speaking, Latina/o/x immigrants, particularly those of Mexican origin, experience greater access to A.B. 60 driver's licenses. To combat this, organizations actively worked to reracialize illegality as an issue that also affects non‐Latino populations. Ultimately, we demonstrate that the construction and experience of illegality are deeply tied to race and place.