Immigrant Informal Labor in Times of Anti-Immigrant Rage: Insights from Greater Phoenix

Part of the Immigrants and Minorities, Politics and Policy book series (IMPP)


Comprising 25 cities and towns, in 2003 Greater Phoenix was the 13th largest metropolitan area in the U.S. in terms of gross production and the third largest in the southwest only after Los Angeles-Long Beach and Orange County in California (Mayors 2004). Between 1993 and 2003, the Greater Phoenix’s economy grew in average 8.2 % annually, a rate they placed this area among the ten most rapidly expanding metropolitan economies in the U.S (Mayors 2004). High-wage occupations led this growth, followed by medium-wage paying jobs in the high-tech, aerospace/aviation, biotechnology, and software industries (MAG 2005). Due to its location within one of the major transportation corridors in North America, Greater Phoenix is also becoming a hub in the trade resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).


Labor Market Block Group Informal Economy North American Free Trade Agreement Immigrant Worker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anselin L (1995). Local Indicators of Spatial Association-LISA. Geogr Anal. 27(2):93–115Google Scholar
  2. Biernacki P and Waldorf D (1981) Snowball sampling: problem and techniques of chain referral sampling. Socio Meth Res 10(2):141–163Google Scholar
  3. Bohley S (1990) The Informal economy of San Antonio's "Westside", Tomás Rivera Center, pp 55Google Scholar
  4. Carpio G, Irazabal C, Pulido L (2011) Right to the suburb? Rethingking Lefebre and immigrant activist. J Urban Aff 33(2):185–208Google Scholar
  5. Castells M, Portes A (1989) World underneath: the origins, dynamics, and effects of the informal economy. In: Portes A, Castells M, Benton LA (eds) The informal economy: studies in advanced and less developed countries. The John Hopkins University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Census US (2000) Characteristics of the population, population and Housing Census.
  7. Census US (2002) American community survey.
  8. Census US (2007) American community survey.
  9. Census US (2011) American community survey.
  10. Collom L (2003) Day laborer center opens in Phoenix. Arizona Repub,   2Google Scholar
  11. Crotty S, Boscoa F (2008) Racial geographies and the challenges of day labor formalization: a case study from San Diego County. J Cult Geogr 25(3):223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher J (2006) Street and work center day labor hiring sites in Phoenix Metro Area. School of Planning, Arizona State University, TempeGoogle Scholar
  13. GPEC (2007) Regional Profile, Greater Phoenix Economic Council, Phoenix, AZGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee J, Wong D (2001) Statistical analysis with ArcView GIS. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. MAG (2005) Regional report, a resource for policy makers in the Maricopa region. Maricopa Association of Governments, AZGoogle Scholar
  16. Mayors (2004) The U.S. Conference. U.S. metro economies: global insightGoogle Scholar
  17. Méndez E, Rodriguez I (2009) Imaginaries and migration. J Southwest 51(4):477–490Google Scholar
  18. Portes A (1995) Economic sociology and the sociology of immigration: a concepyual overview. In: Portes A (ed) The economic sociology of immigration. Russell Saga Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Sassen S (1989) New York city’s informal economy. In: Portes A, Castells M, Benton LA (eds) The informal economy: studies in advanced and less developed countries. The Johns Hopkins University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Sassen S (1991) The global city. Princeton: Princeton University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Sassen S (2003) The repositioning of citizenship: Emergent subjects and spaces for politics. The New Centennial Rev 3(2):42--66Google Scholar
  22. Sassen S (1995) Immigration and the local labor market. In: Portes A (ed) The economic sociology of immigration. Russell Saga Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Sassen S (2000) Informalization: imported through immigration or a feature of advances economies. WorkingUSA 3(6):6–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Valenzuela A (2000) Controlling day labor: government, community and worker responses. In: California Policy Option 2001. Mitchell D J B, Nomura P (ed) Los Angeles: UCLA anderson business forecast and school of public policy and social researchGoogle Scholar
  25. Valenzuela A (2003) Day labor work. Annu Rev Sociol 29(1):307–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Meter KM (1990) Methodological and design issues: techniques for assessing the representatives of snowball samples. NIDA Res Monogr Series. Mono 98:31–43Google Scholar
  27. Valenzuela A, Nikolas T, Edwin M, Ana Luz G (2006) On the corner: day labor in the United State. Center for the study of Urban Poverty, UCLA, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  28. Williams CC, Windebank J (1998) Informal employment in the advanced economies. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Transborder StudiesTempeUSA
  2. 2.Fisher Architecture and PlanningOMERIsrael

Personalised recommendations