Advertisement

Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 33, Issue 8, pp 613–627 | Cite as

Responding to the Structural Violence of Migrant Domestic Work: Insights from Participatory Action Research with Migrant Caregivers in Canada

  • Rupaleem Bhuyan
  • Lorraine Valmadrid
  • Esel Laxa Panlaqui
  • Novabella L. Pendon
  • Pearlita Juan
Original Article

Abstract

This study explores international domestic workers’ response to employer abuse and exploitation following changes to Canada’s Live-in-Caregiver Program in 2014. This research followed an interpretive policy analysis research design, using feminist, participatory, and action research methods. University-based researchers, advocates, and peer researchers collaborated to develop and implement the project’s research and advocacy goals. Thirty-one caregivers in Toronto and Calgary participated in individual and/or focus group interviews to discuss access to permanent residence, working conditions and forms of support. Many shared examples of labor exploitation and psychological hardship due to precarious work conditions and long periods of family separation. Barriers to accessing services and fear of losing status led the majority of caregivers to rely primarily on informal networks for mutual aid and support. This paper identifies how changes in Canada’s temporary foreign worker program for live-in-caregivers exacerbates the structural violence of migrant care work, where the risk for abuse, exploitation, and risk of losing status is normalized. Migrant caregivers accept the precarious work conditions with the promise of permanent residence and the chance to improve their lives for themselves and their children. Towards envisioning improvements in social service delivery, our research highlighted the need for social services to increase outreach and safety planning for migrant workers who are vulnerable to abuse, exploitation, and the loss of legal immigration status. Our research also supports grassroots advocacy to call for all migrant workers to be granted permanent resident status upon arrival to ameliorate the structural violence of migrant labor.

Keywords

Migrant Domestic workers Human trafficking Abuse Participatory action research Precarious immigration Violence against women 

References

  1. Anglin, M. K. (1998). Feminist perspectives on structural violence. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 2, 145–151.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.1998.9962613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arat-Koc, S. (2001). Caregivers break the silence: Participatory action research on the abuse and violence, including the impact of family separation, experienced by women in the live-in-caregiver program. Toronto: Intercede.Google Scholar
  3. Bakan, A. B., & Stasiulis, D. (1994). Foreign domestic worker policy in Canada and the social boundaries of modern citizenship. Science & Society, 58(1), 7–33.Google Scholar
  4. Banerjee, R., Kelly, P., Tungohan, E., GABRIELA-Ontario, Migrante-Canada, & Community Alliance for Social Justice. (2017). Assessing the changes to Canada's live-in-caregiver program: Improving security of deepening precariousness? Toronto: Pathways to Prosperity. Retrieved from http://p2pcanada.ca/files/2017/12/Assessing-the-Changes-to-Canadas-Live-In-Caregiver-Program.pdf.Google Scholar
  5. Bhuyan, R., & Smith-Carrier, T. (2012). Constructions of migrant rights in Canada: Is subnational citizenship possible. Citizenship Studies, 16(2), 203–221.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2012.667613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonifacio, G. T. (2013). Pinay on the prairies: Filipino women and transnational identifies. Vancouver & Toronto: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bragg, B., & Wong, L. L. (2015). "Cancelled dreams": Family reunification and shifting Canadian immigration policy. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies., 14, 46–65.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2015.1011364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brickner, R. K., & Straehle, C. (2010). The missing link: Gender, immigration policy and the live-in-caregiver program in Canada. Policy and Society, 29, 309–320.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.  https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caregivers Action Centre, Caregiver Connections Education and Support Organization, Eto Tayong Caregivers, GABRIELA Ontario, Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, Migrante Ontario and Vancouver Committee for Domestic Workers and Caregivers Rights (2018). Permanent status on landing: Real reform for caregivers. Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.migrantworkersalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Caregiver-Reform-Submissions_April-2018.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2018
  11. Chavez, L. R. (1997). Immigration reform and nativism: The nationalist response to the transnational challenge. In J. F. Perea (Ed.), Immigrants out: The new nativism and the anti-immigrant impulse in the United States (pp. 61–77). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Crenshaw, K. W. (1995). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement (pp. 357–383). New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  13. De Genova, N. (2002). Migrant "illegality" and deportability in everyday life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 419–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, J. A., & Lamper, M. D. (Eds.). (1993). Transcription and coding in discourse research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Faraday, F. (2014). Profitting from precarious: How recruitment practices exploit migrant workers. Toronto: Metcalf Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Fonow, M. M., & Cook, J. A. (2005). Feminist methodology: New applicaitons in the academy and public policy. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(4), 2211–2286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gee, J. P. (2001). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Gibson, K., Law, L., & McKay, D. (2001). Beyond heroes and victims: Filipina contract migrants, economic activism and class transformations. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 3(3), 365–386.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14616740110078185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldring, L., & Landolt, P. (2013). Conceptualizing precarious non-citizenship in Canada. In L. Goldring & P. Landolt (Eds.), Producing and negotiating non-citizenship: Precarious legal status in Canada (pp. 3–30). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  20. Government of Canada. (2017). Number of approved TFW positions for caregivers. Ottawa: Government of Canada Retrieved from https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/c65d2014-ef25-4781-b9b2-e13a7293b72d.Google Scholar
  21. Human Rights Watch. (2014). Hidden away: Abuses against migrant domestic workers in the UK. New York: Author Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/03/30/hidden-away/abuses-against-migrant-domestic-workers-uk.Google Scholar
  22. Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2015). Temporary Foreign Worker Program work permit holders with a valid permit on December 31st by program, 2006 to 2015. In Facts & figures 2015: Immigration overview, Temporary residents – Annual IRCC updates. http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/052642bb-3fd9-4828-b608-c81dff7e539c
  23. Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2017). Live-In Caregivers Work Permit Holders by Gender, Age Grouping (15 Year Hierarchy) and Year in which Permit(s) became effective, 2014–2016. Ottawa, ON.Google Scholar
  24. Keung, N. (2017a). Foreign caregivers’ Christmas wishes to Santa, Trudeau and Hussen. Toronto Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2017/12/15/foreign-caregivers-christmas-wishes-to-santa-trudeau-and-hussen.html
  25. Keung, N. (2017b). Immigration backlog keeps live-in caregivers from their families back home. Toronto Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2017/07/20/immigration-backlog-keeps-live-in-caregivers-from-their-families-back-home.html
  26. Keung, N. (2018). Canada’s immigration proram for migrant caregivers under review. Toronto Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2018/02/05/canadas-immigration-program-for-migrant-caregivers-under-review.html
  27. Langevin, L. (2007). Trafficking in women in Canada: A critical analysis of the legal framework governing immigrant live-in-caregivers. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 31(2), 191–209.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2007.9678768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leung, P. P. U. (2010). Autobiographical timeline: A narrative and life story approach in understanding meaning-making in cancer patients. Illness, Crisis & Loss, 18(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigourous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturaistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 30, 73–84.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oktar, L. (2001). The ideological organization of representational processes in the presentation of us and them. Discourse and Society, 12(3), 313–346.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012003003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parreñas, R. S. (2017). The indenture of migrant domestic workers. Women's Studies Quarterly, 45(1 & 2), 113–127.  https://doi.org/10.1353/wsq.2017.0031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pratt, G. (2012). Families apart: Migrant mothers and the conflicts of labor and love. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnisota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rodriguez, R. M. (2002). Migrant heroes: Nationalism, citizenship and the politics of Filipino migrant labor. Citizenship Studies, 6(3), 341–356.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1362102022000011658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006). Judging quality: Evaluative criteria and epistemic communities. In D. Yanow & P. Schwartz-Shea (Eds.), Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn (pp. 89–113). New York & London: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  35. Sharma, N. (2006). Home economics: Nationalism and the making of 'migrant workers' in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sokoloff, N. (2008). Expanding the intersectional paradigm to better understand domestic violence in immigrant communities. Critical Criminology, 16, 229–255.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-008-9059-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stasiulis, D. K., & Bakan, A. B. (2003). Negotiating citizenship: Migrant women in Canada and the global system. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tungohan, E. (2017). The transformative and radical feminism of grassroots migrant Women’s Movement(s) in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 479–494.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423917000622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Velasco, P. (2002). Filipino migrant workers amdist globalization. Candian Woman Studies, 21(4), 131.Google Scholar
  40. Walia, H. (2010). Transient servitude: Migrant labour in Canada and the apartheid of citizenship. Race & Class, 52(1), 71–84.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396810371766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Willgerodt, M. A., Kataoka-Yahiro, M., Kim, E., & Ceria, C. (2005). Issues of instrument translation in research on Asian immigrant populations. Journal of Professional Nursing, 21(4), 231–239.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2005.05.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis (Vol. 47). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social WorkUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Migrant Mothers Project, University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.The Neighbourhood OrganizationTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations