Keywords

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.

Introduction

Highlighted by the failure of immigration reform in 2007, concern over immigration and immigration laws has escalated in the United States as the federal government is increasingly perceived as being unable to address what is believed to be a growing problem, unauthorized immigrationFootnote 1 (Sampson, 2008). However, since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the federal government has dissolved the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and created Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCP), placing both under the auspices of the newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS), while more than tripling the budget dedicated to border enforcement. This reorganization was paired with a new national strategy targeting illegal entry, border trafficking of humans, drugs, and other contraband, and apprehension of terrorists and weapons at ports of entry (Nuñez-Neto, 2008). Despite these changes, critics have argued that the federal government lacks adequate resources to enforce immigration law, leading Congress to broaden the authority of state and local governments to enforce immigration laws, largely in the form of agreements of understanding (Nuñez-Neto, Garcia, & Ester, 2007). Thus, despite an increased emphasis on securing the US border and enforcing immigration laws, a growing budget for border security, and greater participation from state and local level enforcement agencies, public perception is that federal immigration policy is failing.

As a consequence, proposals for state level initiatives focusing on immigration have escalated dramatically. Between 2005 and 2011 every state proposed at least one piece of immigration related legislation, many having done so multiple times, with the number of immigration related policies enacted at the state level increasing by nearly a factor of 8 (Meyer, Segreto, Carter, & Morse, 2012). Although some state legislation has expanded services or provided access to resources for immigrants, the majority of this state level legislation has increased restrictions and created state level penalties for immigration law violations (Chavez & Provine, 2009; Hegen, 2008). While much of this legislation targets unauthorized immigrants, estimated to make up as much as 28 % of the immigrant population in the United States (Passel & Cohn, 2011), the enacted state level legislation has the potential to impact much of the immigrant population regardless of status (Meyer et al., 2012). However, there is limited research in this area due to legal and ethical concerns in studying unauthorized populations (Suarez-Orozco, Yoshikawa, Teranishi, & Suarez-Orozco, 2011). Thus, immigrant Latino families find themselves in a social “perfect storm” of anti-immigrant public sentiment, local restrictionist legislation, a depressed economy, and increasingly, communities without an established immigrant Latino population (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 00041

Immigration related state legislation: 2005–2011. *2009–2010 estimates. **As of December 7, 2011. Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, retrieved from: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/immig/state-immigration-legislation-report-dec-2011.aspx

Full size image

Researchers have previously examined the impact and consequences of federal immigration policies and enforcement (i.e., Menjivar, 2006; Romero, 2006). However, little is known about the consequences of the current shift toward local and state policy on immigration. The movement toward state level immigration policy is occurring at the same time that the United States is experiencing the largest surge in immigrants since the early 1900s (US Department of Homeland Security, 2011). Immigrants are no longer only settling in metropolitan areas which have traditionally been ports-of-entry (Singer, 2004) and are settling in new destinations which have not historically had immigrant populations (Hernandez, 2004). This new wave of immigrants, primarily from Latin America and the Caribbean, has higher birth rates than the overall population in the United States and is thus contributing to a racial and ethnic demographic shift in the United States (Passel, Cohn, & Lopez, 2011). Moreover, these demographic changes, coupled with the surge in immigration legislation, are occurring during a widespread economic recession (US Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010).

With few exceptions researchers have yet to systematically consider how the creation of local immigration policy impacts immigrant families. The present study examines the consequences of state level immigration policy and local enforcement on Latino immigrant families in a small community in the Midwest during a time of rapid demographic change, economic instability, and a volatile political and social context. We first discuss the debate surrounding immigration reform and the primarily restrictive and punitive state level immigration legislation being enacted. Second, we describe the implementation of state level immigration policy at the local level. Third, we discuss how several demographic trends distinguish the present wave of immigration from those of the past, and how these factors shape the local context of one community which serves as the basis for the present study. Fourth, we describe the ethnographic methodology of the present study, and then provide results and discussion on the impact of state level immigration-related legislation on Latino immigrant families. Two broad questions are addressed: How are present immigration policies manifest in the lives of immigrant Latino families? What is the impact of present immigration policies on the experiences of immigrant Latino families?

Prior Literature

Public Opinion and Immigration Policy

As the perception has grown that federal immigration policy has failed to properly address unauthorized immigration, legislative activity has skyrocketed, ranging from a proliferation of local ordinances, to new legislation targeting immigrants in every state, to calls for revised federal legislation (Hegen, 2008; Ramakrishnan & Wong, 2007). Attempts at local lawmaking regarding immigration date back nearly two decades to proposition 187 in California which attempted to restrict benefits to unauthorized immigrants, but which was challenged and overturned in federal court (Calavita, 1996). Since 2005 state legislatures have proposed more than 8,000 laws or resolutions and in 2011 alone, more than 1,600 laws or resolutions were introduced, with more than 300 laws enacted (Meyer et al., 2012). In 2007, for the first time, legislatures in all 50 states considered at least one immigration-related proposal (Hegen, 2008). Although the proliferation of state level legislative activity has resulted in varied legislation, with some states enacting pro-immigrant legislation, the majority of legislation places on immigrant populations and creates state level penalties for immigration violations (Meyer et al., 2012).

Much of the backlash against federal immigration policy has centered on the public perception that increasing numbers of immigrants means more crime (Sampson, 2008) and that immigrants are an economic drain on local communities (Vandenack, 2011). Research suggests the predominant belief among the American public is that crime is strongly related to immigration (Alba, Rumbaut, & Martoz, 2005) and that immigrants negatively impact economic opportunity (Rumbaut & Ewing, 2007). At the individual level, the most salient factors that drive beliefs regarding immigration include conservative ideology and perceptions of cultural threat (Chandler & Tsai, 2001; Welch, Payne, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2011). Similarly, individuals with low levels of education are most likely to hold negative beliefs regarding immigration (Chandler & Tsai, 2001), while those who hold views linking Latino ethnicity with crime are more supportive of punitive criminal justice policy (Welch et al., 2011).

Yet, the empirical evidence presents a very different story. Research suggests that immigrants are less prone to crime than native-born populations (Bui & Thingniramol, 2005; Butcher & Piehl, 1998; Hagan, Levi, & Dinovitzer, 2008; Rumbaut & Ewing, 2007), and that immigrant concentration is likely to dampen levels of community crime and violence (Chavez & Griffiths, 2009; Martinez, 2002; Reid, Weiss, Adelman, & Jaret, 2005). Resent research also suggests that immigrants are likely to have a positive impact on economic opportunities in a community (Greenstone & Looney, 2010). Moreover, Chavez and Provine (2009) find that economic indicators, crime rates, and demographic changes have little explanatory value for state level restrictionist legislation; rather it is conservative ideology which is most strongly related with the enactment of restrictionist state legislation. Thus, the proliferation of state level legislation is driven at least in part by political rhetoric which exploits racialized fears and misperceptions about the impact of immigration (Chavez & Provine, 2009).

Immigration Policy at the Local Level

Operating in the perceived void created by weak federal policy, local legislation is driven by local concerns about the negative impact of immigrants, authorized and unauthorized, on local quality of life (Cave, 2008). State legislatures have enacted both pro-immigrant legislation, providing funds and services to immigrant populations and restrictive legislation, limiting access to a wide range of resources, including education, housing, social, and government services, and employment opportunities and creating state level penalties for immigration violations (Chavez & Provine, 2009; Hegen, 2008; Meyer et al., 2012). The bulk of legislation has been restrictive (Meyer et al., 2012), driven by political rhetoric which attempts to link Latino immigration, unauthorized immigration, and crime (Hagan & Palloni, 1999; Rumbaut & Ewing, 2007) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 00042

Immigration laws passed by state legislatures, 2011. Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, retrieved from: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/immig/state-immigration-legislation-report-dec-2011.aspx

Full size image

The intent of much of the state level legislation is to target the estimated 28 percent of the immigrant population which is unauthorized (Passel & Cohn, 2011), yet in practice immigration related state legislation addresses myriad status—legal immigrants, migrant and seasonal workers, refugees, or unauthorized immigrants. While legislation has increased penalties for human trafficking, these policies have also restricted or blocked access to a number of educational, social, and government services for immigrants, authorized and unauthorized alike (Meyer et al., 2012).

Although many states have passed immigration related legislation focused on single issues,Footnote 2 a number of states have also passed omnibus or multi-issue measures, which include several issues in one bill such as immigration law enforcement, employment verification, human trafficking and verification of lawful status for public benefits (Meyer et al., 2012). The most well-known omnibus measure, Arizona Senate Bill 1070, passed in April 2010, addresses topics related to immigration, such as trespassing, harboring and transporting illegal immigrants, alien registration documents, employer sanctions, and human smuggling. Prior to going into effect, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit requesting an injunction, arguing that the laws were unconstitutional. Ultimately the US Supreme Court blocked many of the provisions of Arizona’s S.B. 1070, but allowed for local law enforcement to check the immigration status of people they stop.Footnote 3 In 2011, 31 states introduced legislation imitating all or part of Senate Bill 1070, and five states—Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah—passed Arizona-style omnibus laws (Meyer et al., 2012).

The current study focuses on a rural community in North Central Indiana. Indiana Senate Bill 590, modeled after Arizona S.B. 1070, addresses a range of topics including law enforcement ability to make arrests for immigration violations, the use of E-Verify (an internet based system to determine work eligibility of employees) by state agencies, local and public contractors, and for accessing public benefits, and created funding for several studies to estimate the costs of unauthorized immigrants (Morse, Carter, Lawrence, & Segreto, 2012). Indiana has also placed restrictions on in-state tuition, scholarships, grants, and financial aid for unauthorized immigrants (H.B. 1402), created state penalties for immigration violations, and made citizenship a requirement for renewal of a license, via more targeted individual pieces of legislation (Meyer et al., 2012). Finally, all 92 counties in Indiana participate in Secure Communities, a federal program which enables sharing of biometric data between federal and local entities, in order to identify and remove unauthorized individuals (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement 2012).

Emerging Demographics and Immigration

A plethora of research has documented the changing face of the United States at the start of the twenty-first Century, with racial and ethnic minorities estimated to become a majority by the 2050 census (Ortman & Guarneri, 2009). Decades earlier than predicted, Latinos have become the largest ethnic minority in the United States. This transition is largely due to immigration from Latin America and the Caribbean, such that immigrant Latinos account for more than half of the entire foreign born population in the United States (US Department of Homeland Security, 2011). This demographic shift is most pronounced among children, as the number of children in immigrant families has more than doubled since 1990. It is estimated that more than 17 million children, age 17 and younger, were living in immigrant families in 2007 (Mather, 2009). By the 2000 census, one in five children had an immigrant parent (Shields & Behrman, 2004) and it is projected that one in three children will live in immigrant families by 2020 (Mather, 2009).

Unlike previous immigrant waves, growth in immigrant families has not been highly concentrated to a few states; rather rapid growth in immigrant families has been seen across all states (Hernandez, 2004). The most striking growth has occurred in areas that have historically had few immigrants. By the year 2000 nearly one-third of immigrants were living outside of established immigrant settlement states (Singer, 2004). This trend has continued through the 2010 census, as the largest growth in immigrants has occurred in areas which have not historically had large immigrant populations. States in the Midwest and the South have experienced growth in immigrant populations high above the national average (US Department of Homeland Security, 2012). Immigrants are also settling outside of traditional ports of entry, with immigrant growth in suburban and rural areas outpacing that in central cities (Singer, 2004). Dispersion of settlement by immigrant families has accelerated the racial and ethnic demographic shift of many areas. Looking at the population under the age of 20 Mather (2009) estimates that in 2007, one in seven counties across the United States already had a majority-minority population (where racial and ethnic minorities represent more than 50 % of the population) and that a considerable number of additional counties were quickly approaching that threshold. Not all communities are prepared to serve this shifting population as many locales which have not previously had large immigrant populations lack the institutional infrastructures to serve immigrant families (Hernandez, 2004).

The current study focuses on a rural community in North Central Indiana. Since 1990, the Latino population in Indiana has more increased by 230 % (US Census, 2010). Rural communities in the Midwest have not historically had large immigrant populations and in North Central Indiana, the Latino population growth is well above the state average, with much of this growth due to increases in the immigrant population (US Census, 2010). Many of the immigrant Latino families in the North Central Indiana have been drawn by the economic opportunities available in the light manufacturing industry (Guzman, Jara, & Armet 2011). However, between 2007 and 2009, Elkhart County saw considerable declines across a number of economic indicators. For a region already facing employment instability due to the decline of the manufacturing sector in general, unemployment more than doubled, while median household income dropped by nearly 20 % (US Census, 2009). Further, the number of families living below poverty increased by 50 %, with families with children in particular the worse off. Nearly one in four families with children was living below poverty by 2009 (US Census, 2009).

“piecemeal legislation places immigrants, regardless of status, under more arbitrary and localized sources of social control and subject to potentially more demanding constraints and harsher punishment.”

Research suggests local context (social, political and bureaucratic) is likely to impact the implementation and enforcement of policy (Hagan, Rodriguez, & Castro, 2011). Indiana is one of a handful of states to have enacted widespread immigrant related legislation (Meyer et al., 2012). Without the support of the federal government, piecemeal legislation places immigrants, regardless of status, under more arbitrary and localized sources of social control and subject to potentially more demanding constraints and harsher punishments (Hagan et al., 2011). As numerous states take on immigration related legislation and immigration enforcement is handled by local agencies, immigrants are in an increasingly precarious position. Previous research has begun to identify the potential negative consequences of immigration policy and anti-immigrant sentiment (Betancur, 1996; Menjivar, 2006, Romero, 2006). However, little research has examined the impact of local laws targeting immigrants and their families (Chavez, Lopez, Englebrecht, & Viramontez-Anguiano, 2012; Portes, Fernandez-Kelly, & Light, 2012). More research is needed to examine the impact of these policies on immigrant children and families and on unauthorized immigrants in particular.

The present study examines the consequences of state level immigration policy and local enforcement on Latino immigrant families in a small community in the Midwest during a time of rapid demographic change, economic instability, and a volatile political and social context. We draw on an ethnographic study of the experiences of immigrant families in a rural community in the Midwest to examine the impact of state level immigration-related legislation on Latino immigrant families. Two broad questions are addressed: How are present immigration policies manifest in the lives of immigrant Latino families? What is the impact of present immigration policies on the experiences of immigrant Latino families?

Methods

This present study is part of a larger ethnographic study on the experiences of immigrant Latino families navigating the post-secondary school educational pipeline in North Central Indiana. The larger ethnography included participant observations, active participation, in-depth interviews, and multiple interactions with the respondents. These data were combined to generate a more complete picture of the lives of the participants (Creswell, 2003; Spradley, 1979). A more detailed explanation of the methods is discussed in a forthcoming publication (Viramontez Anguiano & Lopez, 2012).

The current study draws on interviews with families. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with family members to better understand the experiences of Latino families. The interview protocol consisted of open-ended questions, which explored multiple domains, including the ecological factors that may impact the intersection between immigrant Latino families, schools, and communities. The protocol was based on previous literature that focused on immigrant Latino families (Delgado-Gaitan, 1992) and the authors’ combined 30 years of experience working and conducting research with immigrant Latino families.

Initial interviews lasted approximately 1 hour and were conducted mainly in participants’ homes. Most interviews involved multiple family members, including parents, children, and other relatives. The primary respondents during interviews were parents, although other family members, including children, were encouraged to speak and share their stories. Consent forms were provided at the beginning of each interview. Respondents were informed that their participation was voluntary and at any time they could withdraw from the study. No material incentives were offered to the participants. The study received approval from the Goshen College Institutional Review Board and was approved by the Goshen Community School’s Educational Board. Interviews were conducted primarily in Spanish and were recorded. Interviews were transcribed and translated from the audio recording. Authors engaged in multiple follow-up interactions and interviews with families, which served to enhance data collection.

Respondents were recruited in a purposive manner. Latino community leaders and key others helped identify potential participants for the study. A total of 40 families living in North Central Indiana were recruited and participated in this study. In most families, at least one family member was an unauthorized immigrant. The majority of families consisted of two parents and had an average of three children. The average age of the parents was 41 for mothers and 42 for fathers. Parent levels of formal education varied considerably, half of the parent participants had not completed high school, and approximately one-third had some college experience. Most parent participants were employed in the light manufacturing industry. The majority of the families were of Mexican descent, although families also were from various countries throughout Central and South America. The current study utilizes interviews with family participants to highlight the impact of immigration policy on immigrant Latino families.

Data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), and dominant themes from the data were identified (Creswell, 1998). These themes were illustrated through the use of thick descriptions or quotations (Miles & Huberman, 1994), and the data were mined for clarity to gain more detail on the themes which emerged (Creswell, 1998). A member check was conducted to bring greater trustworthiness to the findings. Specifically, in order to gain confidence in the data the first author continuously interacted with the respondents to verify the emerging themes and confirm what the respondents shared. Saturation of the data was determined through the analysis as a result of recurring themes throughout the overarching ethnography and its components. The open-ended nature of the interviews allowed for unanticipated themes or topics to be explored. The present study focuses on one of those themes—the impact of unauthorized immigration status and local immigration policy on immigrant Latino families.

Findings

Drawing on interviews with study participants, the present findings use direct quotations to examine the consequences of immigration policy on authorized and unauthorized immigrant Latino families in a small rural community in the Midwest. We address two broad research questions. First, how are local immigration policies manifest in the lives of immigrant Latino families? We find that the creation of state level legislation has resulted in considerable barriers for unauthorized Latino immigrants in particular, but also burdening immigrant Latino families in general. Second, how do these policies impact the experiences of immigrant Latino families? Portes and Zhou (1993) suggest that the prospects for immigrants hinge on the context within which they immigrate. We find that state level immigration policies negatively impact immigrant Latino families by extending the uncertainty of unauthorized immigration status beyond individuals in the form “mixed status families” which share the experience of “liminal legality.” Further, these data suggest that state level immigration policies exacerbate intergenerational conflict and increase isolation within families. These results are described below.

How Are Local Immigration Policies Manifest in the Lives of Immigrant Latino Families?

Policy Barriers

The majority of the families in the current sample were non-English speakers, had limited educational background in Latin America and the United States, and a limited understanding of American society, characteristics that may impede the ability of these immigrant Latino families to adjust to life in North Central Indiana. Further, this current research highlights the ways in which state level restrictionist immigration policies further burden this vulnerable group by limiting economic opportunity, restricting access to services, and isolating families from their community.

Police and Public Safety

Concern over the impact of immigrants, and Latino immigrants in particular, is not a new or recent phenomenon, and immigration policy which targets the undocumented immigrant via citizenship inspections, stops and searches, and raids in the Latino community has a long history in the United States (Romero, 2006). However, new state restrictions, including changes in the type of documentation required for obtaining a driving license, have proved particularly problematic for families. Respondents in the current study felt the effects of these recent changes, including the possibility of incarceration and deportation for failure to obtain a valid license. One man described the impact of these policies on his family when his mother, an unauthorized immigrant, was stopped and arrested for driving without a license. He stated:

Talking to a lawyer, he said there weren’t many prospects, but we could pay bail and if immigration didn’t come they would release her. A friend of mine, the same thing happened and he was out the same day on bail. With her, after four days, a sheriff volunteered to drive her to Indianapolis to the detention center so immigration wouldn’t have to come for her.

This participant’s experience echoes the concerns and frustrations of many families in the current study. Changes to immigration policy have meant that for many families, traveling to work and school has become a stressful event, one that may lead to negative interactions with police, arrest, detention, and deportation. Although unauthorized immigrants live with the ever present possibility of apprehension and deportation, new state level policies and enforcement strategies appear to add a new level of uncertainty and concern. The perceived arbitrary nature of enforcement and consequences serve to exacerbate fear and mistrust. This is particularly so for unauthorized immigrants, but these feelings are also manifest among the broader immigrant and Latino community.

In a recent study exploring the impact of immigration policies on Latinos, Romero (2006) describes the impact of immigration policing tactics (immigration inspections, stop and search street interrogations) in Chandler, Arizona in 1997. This research found that Latino residents were targeted on the basis of language, skin color, and community, rather than any evidence of probable cause. These targeted policies resulted in harassment, police abuse, reduced political participation, and a fractured Latino community (Romero, 2006). Thus, enforcement at the local level has implications for the broader community as well.

Statements from families in the current study underscore the ways in which state level policies have led to decreased levels of trust, and increased fear, in police. One woman, who is unauthorized, highlighted this sentiment. She recalled:

Sometimes when somebody does something to you or they rob you, you prefer to lose your things instead of calling the police because of the fear that the police will harm you more when supposedly they are there to help you . . . When my apartment was robbed, there were many police cars out doing stops, looking for illegal drivers . . . Instead of worrying about offenders they are out worrying about people who are only driving because they want to get ahead.

This respondent described the strain that unauthorized status, coupled with strict immigration policies, creates for families, including the lack of faith in police.

“When there are elections, they double check our identification, but not for others. It’s the same with getting a license. . . ” Father, with unauthorized status.

It was not only unauthorized individuals or those with unauthorized family members who felt this strain or found themselves adapting to these new laws, but authorized Latino residents as well. For example, one man, a naturalized citizen, spoke of the difficulty he faced when attempting to get a license. He stated:

When there are elections, they double check our identification, but not for others. It’s the same with getting a license. They sent me three times to the social security office. They kept saying my social security card, it wasn’t right. I came back with a note from the social security office, and I had to go back again, with a more formal letter. All that, just to renew my license.

This participant described increased scrutiny and multiple hurdles despite being a naturalized citizen, and despite following the proper procedure for renewing his license. He believed he was singled out because of language, skin color, and heritage.

Other respondents described seeking ways to circumvent these newly enacted restrictions for the time being. For example, Indiana residents can drive a moped without an official driver’s license. Thus, during the morning drive to the factories, immigrant Latino men can be seen riding their bicicletas and mopetas to work. They have become an everyday necessity. For many Latino families, consisting of authorized and unauthorized immigrant family members, the moped served as a means of transportation and a symbol of their increasingly restricted and penalized existence.

These quotes highlight the impact of state level immigration policy on relationships between the Latino community and criminal justice system. In general, Latinos are less experienced with the legal system, and more likely to be deferential to police, yet are less likely to report crime to the police (Walker, Spohn, & DeLone, 1996). For immigrant Latinos, the lack of familiarity with the American legal system also translates into greater fear of police and of retaliation by police (Walker, 1997).

Health and Social Services

As a result of local laws restricting services for unauthorized individuals, basic daily tasks, including seeking medical care, can also be problematic for families. Indiana has enacted legislation requiring e-verification of immigration status for all public agencies, including those providing health and medical services. Participants described obstacles related to going to the doctor or an emergency room. A father and mother, who are both unauthorized immigrants, but whose daughters are citizens, discussed their thoughts on accessing medical care for themselves and their children. They described:

They ask for social security, they ask for identification. The truth is, I don’t know what would happen if you ended up in the hospital in an emergency, they might treat you, but I really don’t know . . . things have to get pretty serious before I would go to the hospital. . . we have been going to the church which does check-ups.

Many families described new feelings of uncertainty and fear in trying to receive medical attention as a result of changes in local legislation. The threat of deportation to them is significant enough that they avoid seeking medical services except for the most severe cases. When necessary, they turn to alternate and informal medical services, such as those provided at the local church clinic. Research suggests that immigrant families are less able to access formal health care, in particular those with unauthorized family members (Hernandez, 2004).

Similarly, another mother, also unauthorized, described the trials of navigating bureaucracy to access medical insurance benefits for her children, who are citizens. She stated:

The kids have Medicaid. And each time we have an appointment I get nervous because I have to have all their papers and mine. And when I’m there, they ask for ID and I give them my school ID. I have a license from [another state], but I don’t show it to them. They ask me why I don’t have a license, if I drove there . . . they see me as less, my children are citizens. They want to know why I don’t have papers [state authorized identification] and they keep asking me for papers.

In this family, as was the case for many families, the children are citizens and qualify for social services, but the parents are unauthorized and feared the potential danger of deportation. For this family, an already tenuous situation was exacerbated in the attempt to legally access their children’s benefits making them less likely to seek out services.

“. . . things have to get pretty serious before I would go to the hospital.“ Father, with unauthorized status.

Passel and Taylor (2010) estimate that as many as four million US born children have parents who are unauthorized immigrants, while another 1.1 million children were themselves foreign-born and unauthorized immigrants, in 2009. Immigrant children face unique challenges compared to children of US born parents (Shields & Behrman, 2004) and unauthorized status, their own or that of a parent or family member, is likely to exacerbate problems.

Educational Opportunities

Similarly, given demographic trends, current immigrants are likely to be overrepresented among school aged children (Mather, 2009). Thus, families with unauthorized immigrant school aged children are particularly vulnerable to state legislation targeting access to educational services. Because federal law requires access to educational services through high school, state level legislation has targeted restrictions and placed constraints on post-secondary education (Meyer et al., 2012).

Families in the current study emphasized the importance of education for their children’s future and the role this played in their motivation to immigrate to the United States. One mother, from a family where all the members are unauthorized, voiced the tension that results from restrictionist immigration policies targeting educational attainment. She said:

We had hoped to stay so that he, my son, could study. The purpose of coming was to offer him something better in his education and studies. That has changed completely because we do not have the freedom to do it. We have the means and the desire to do it but there is something that stops us, the laws.

This family reflected the frustration and discouragement felt by many families in the face of stalled federal legislation, like the DREAM ACT which had the potential to provide an avenue to citizenship and educational attainment. This failed federal legislation combined with new punitive state level policies like those in Indiana have made it more difficult for unauthorized immigrants to enter post-secondary education.

For many unauthorized children the future is extremely uncertain and daunting. Recent legislation in Indiana has made it more difficult for unauthorized immigrant children to get scholarships and pay in-state tuition. One high school student, who is unauthorized but has spent the majority of her life in the United States, described the difficulty many unauthorized students face as they transition out of high school:

In telling me, my mom would tell me that she was, well if I had to go to [local community university], that she would work more hours to get me to go there . . . coming from a poor country, because I remember how things were and how my sister and I were sponsored and how we had to get help and I just didn’t want that any more I wanted to succeed. We were sponsored by two American people through a church. I remember that they would give us like basic foods and clothes. My mom would work either selling food or hair accessories so we didn’t get much money . . . I was willing to go, basically anywhere in the United States as long as I got an education . . . because after all the work that I had done. I just didn’t want that to go to waste. I wanted it to be useful. And to realize my dreams and all I had gone through just for nothing.

Despite financial hardship and unauthorized status, and the associated frustration and stress, this young woman adheres to the American Dream. She works hard and strives towards a better future by staying in school. Many Latino immigrants and others in the local community described the process of building capital to attenuate some of the impact of restrictionist state legislation and the barriers to education they create. Despite some local anti-immigrant sentiment many local residents work to support Latino immigrants in the community.

How Do Local Immigration Policies Impact the Experiences of Immigrant Latino Families?

Family, Immigration Status, and Liminal Legality

In our second research question we ask how state level immigration policies impact the experiences of immigrant Latino families. Portes and Zhou (1993) suggest that the prospects for immigrants hinge on the context within which they immigrate. We find that state level immigration policies negatively impact immigrant Latino families by extending the uncertainty of unauthorized immigration status beyond individuals, exacerbating intergenerational conflict, and increasing isolation of immigrant Latino Families.

Mixed Status Families and Liminal Legality

In the present study, we find that many immigrant Latino families are “mixed status families” that count authorized and unauthorized members within the family. The term, “unauthorized” refers to a person who resides in the United States, but who is not a US citizen, has not been admitted for permanent residence, and does not hold authorized temporary status permitting long term residence and work (Passel, 2007). However, families participating in this study spoke about concerns regarding laws targeting unauthorized immigrants, not only due to their own unauthorized status, but also as a result of the unauthorized status of a family member. While immigration status is explicitly an individual characteristic, which defines a particular individual’s status at a specific place and time, “mixed status families” share the burden of their unauthorized family members.

“Having one family member with an unauthorized status can generate fear and stress for an entire family, including the children.”

National estimates suggest there are over 1.1 million unauthorized foreign-born children in immigrant families in the United States. However, there are also an estimated four million children who are born to unauthorized immigrant parents while in the United States (Passel & Taylor, 2010). The large majority of children of immigrants are US citizens, yet many reside in families where their parents, siblings, or extended family members are unauthorized immigrants (Shields & Behrman, 2004). This “mixed status family” status creates unique challenges for families and children. Due to this “mixed status family” status many families experience the collateral consequences of state level legislation including family stress and uncertainty in the form of family level “liminal legality,” escalated intergenerational tension, and increased social isolation.

For example, Menjivar (2006) proposes the concept of “liminal legality” to describe the tension that individuals may experiences as a result of uncertain or temporary immigration status. Members of a family may have myriad statuses (citizen, naturalized, authorized, unauthorized), while individuals themselves may face uncertainty in their own status. Having one family member with an unauthorized status can generate fear and stress for an entire family, including the children. Almost all the families had at least one family member who was unauthorized. The mixed legal status of families in the current study severely compromised their efforts at social and economic mobility. For example, a young unauthorized immigrant from a family where all of her immediate family members are unauthorized, but who has an uncle who is a citizen, described how she came to be in the United States:

My uncle who had lived in the US 30 years came to visit and he brought [my father] back so he could see what life is like here . . . We came later by plane though Miami, Detroit, and then [North Central, Indiana]. . . our visa’s expired this past year and well, now we stay and are illegal.

New state level immigration policies raise the potential risk of deportation. Nonetheless, families continued to report feelings of hope, despite the increased stress, frustration, and fear. While the deportation of one family member has the potential to negatively impact an entire family, many families in the current study held on to the belief that their present status as unauthorized immigrants was temporary.

Respondents held out hope that a family member would become a citizen and provide a path to citizenship for others. For example, a mother shared how recent state legislation has impacted her family. While her daughter is a citizen, the remainder of the family is unauthorized. She said:

It has been an obstacle. Our licenses expired and we could not get new ones. We had to find somebody willing to get plates for our cars too. And, having a car here is not a luxury. It’s a necessity, for work and to get around. It hasn’t had a great impact on our work. Fortunately, we still have our jobs, but in our daily lives, we are frustrated. For us, it is a great risk for us to pick up our son from [local technical school]. But, we have to risk it. . .

There is no public transportation in North Central Indiana. Without a license, this woman is unable to register or insure her car and faces harsher penalties, including the possibility of deportation, if caught driving. She recognizes the great risk she creates for herself and her family by the simple act of picking her son up from school yet feels that it is a risk that she should take rather than the children. Many families reported similar instances of how the new state level legislation had made simple everyday tasks more difficult.

Nonetheless, in many mixed status families, even if the parent’s prospects for a change in status were not good they placed their hopes in their children. In “mixed status families,” risk and hope are shared. If the children could have an avenue by which to achieve residency or citizenship in the United States it meant families had a potential mechanism by which to bring an end to their families “liminal legality.” As many families reported, despite the challenges and barriers, it would all be worth it, if their children had the potential to become citizens.

Intergenerational Tension

Familism, a strong sense of family orientation, obligation, and cohesion, is often described as a buffer that aids immigrants in coping with the stress and uncertainty in adjusting in new home environments (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2007). As local immigration related legislation and enforcement has encroached in the lives of immigrants, many families reported increased fear and stress in their day to day lives, which may threaten this familism. A mother, who is an unauthorized immigrant but whose children are citizens, stated:

I feel for my oldest daughter. She asks ‘Mami, why don’t we go to [this or that] place?’ And I have to say no. It’s always on the back of your mind, because what happens if the police stop us? And what would we do? [The laws] they affect us. It affects the kids. I feel for my oldest daughter who wants to go out and have fun. And I always have the fear that [the police] will grab me or will take my children away.

The family and the prospects for their children are the driving force for parents. Many immigrant parents reported trying to shield their children from the negative effects of changing immigration enforcement, often at a great toll to themselves. They attempt to ensure that their children properly integrate in the community, yet try to manage the constant fear of whether a police officer would pull them or their spouse over, and the associated threat of deportation.

In the case where all family members are unauthorized immigrants, the prospects are bleaker for both parent and child. One mother described the disagreements between her and her son because he wanted to work, yet is an unauthorized immigrant. She recalled:

My son wants to work. I tell him, I wish he wouldn’t . . . he tells me [a friend] works. That guy works. He has expenses, but he can’t risk himself by working, even a part time. I feel that he . . . sometimes . . . he doesn’t care about school, nothing. He is really frustrated. I also feel guilty for having brought him here . . . that he isn’t being everything that he can be by being here.

In “mixed status families” cross generational differences reflect more than different levels of acculturation and facility with American society. Generational tensions within families may be exacerbated as legal considerations regarding immigration status delineate quite varied potential outcomes. For unauthorized immigrant youth, despite having lived the majority of their lives in the United States, the threat of deportation shapes many aspects of their lives. And this threat appears to become particularly salient during the transition from adolescence to adulthood.

Many children in “mixed status families” reported feelings of frustration and resentment at the inability to achieving any sense of normalcy or independence like other teenagers because of their unauthorized immigrant status. For parents in “mixed status families” there is fear and concern that their children’s developmental progression toward independence places them at risk. The majority of immigrant parents reported that the prospect of better opportunities for their children was a motivating force for their immigration. However, in the face of new and restrictive state level immigration policy parents also reported feelings of guilt as they acknowledged the possibility that the current political and legal climate may never allow their children to succeed in the United States.

“We have a house here, our kids were born here. But we don’t feel a part of the community, because we are not. We are still not a part of the community.” Father, 15 year resident, with unauthorized status.

Family and Social Isolation

As a function of increasing local enforcement, many families mentioned a sense of isolation and alienation from the broader community. For example, families shared feeling targeted and excluded, and being increasingly fearful of going out in the community. One father, of unauthorized status, described how recent immigration enforcement by local police has changed day to day life for his family, “We feel like prisoners in our own homes. We cannot move about and go out freely. We only go out of necessity such as to go grocery shopping or to go to work.”

In the case where the children are authorized immigrants or citizens, there is the potential of a positive outcome for the next generation, although not all feel that they are able to integrate even when the children are citizens. Many families noted a shift in public sentiment which kept them removed from the broader community. Most reported a fundamental shift in the perception of Latino immigrants within the community. One father, with unauthorized immigrant status, but whose children are citizens, despite living in the community for 15 years reported that he continued to feel like an outsider. He stated:

We should say how we feel, that we are not part of the community. We have a house here, our kids were born here. But we don’t feel a part of the community, because we are not. We are still not a part of the community.

Numerous families exacerbated feelings of exclusion by limiting their time out in public.

Families described the looming prospect of the separation of family members due to deportation. A mother, an unauthorized immigrant with a son and husband who are also unauthorized immigrants, discussed her families increasing isolation as they minimized going out into the community:

We used to have more freedom to go out. Now, we are always in the house. Our friends might come and visit us, but we almost never go out. One day, we were at a birthday party and they say, ‘You can’t leave, it’s only 8 at night!’ [Son] says, ‘No. If you guys want me to stay, well then somebody needs to take me home? I’ll stay, it’s no problem . . . If you want me to stay, someone must take me home.’ Well, nobody said anything, so we left. There are barriers, things that we don’t do spontaneously.

Daily fear was an overwhelming presence in the lives of many families in the current study. For many families the threat of deportation shaped their daily routines and choices. They always had to be mindful to avoid unnecessary risks. For unauthorized immigrants driving, buying a car and spending time in public needlessly represent unnecessary risks. In many families, the parents take the risks for their children. They work, drive, and make sure that the children are protected. For these families, where the parents are unauthorized immigrants, the risk inherent in their immigration is only worth it if they are able to establish the next generation and provide a pathway to success.

Conclusions

The present study offers valuable insights into the ways immigrant and Latino children and families are impacted by current immigration legislation. Our findings illustrate the ways in which state level immigration legislation creates barriers and challenges for immigrant Latino families, both authorized and unauthorized statuses alike. We find that many immigrant Latino families are “mixed status families” that share the plight of unauthorized family members. Due to this “mixed status family” status many families experience the collateral consequences of state level legislation including family stress and uncertainty in the form of family level “liminal legality,” escalated intergenerational tension, and increased social isolation.

“. . . lack of clear policy regarding immigration at the federal and local levels, forcing families to navigate myriad bad choices in their day to day lives.”

Our results suggest that the costs to immigrant families of restrictionist immigration policy extend far beyond the legal system into personal, social, and economic domains, resulting in Latino immigrant families feeling targeted by police and officials, and generalized feelings of fear within the community. Nonetheless, that all families mentioned these concerns, regardless of their immigration status, displays the degree to which the political rhetoric, anti-immigrant sentiment, and restrictionist immigration policies impact the entire Latino community. As a result, Latino immigrant families reported reduced social interactions and perceptions of growing negative sentiments from community members. This has served to further marginalize and exclude immigrant families from the broader community. “Mixed status families,” in particular, faced barriers to services, family stress and disagreement, and the possibility of physical separation. Despite finding a general pro-immigrant sentiment within the community, the impact of immigration and enforcement, and a growing anti-immigrant sentiment are felt throughout the entire Latino community.

Overwhelmingly, the large majority of families, regardless of status, noted feelings of fear and alienation. For many, this reflected a change from their prior experiences and expectations. The hope many families felt upon arriving in the United States has been replaced by an uncertain future for themselves and their children. While parents withdrew their own participation within the host community, they emphasized the need to maintain participation for their children. Parents discussed hopes that the experiences of their children would be different and the prospect that things would change. That immigrant Latino families drew on these dual strategies reflects the lack of clear policy regarding immigration at the federal and local levels, forcing families to navigate myriad bad choices in their day to day lives.

The current study highlights the ways in which state level policies impact those at the local level and have a significant impact on the lives of Latino immigrants, both authorized and unauthorized, in the United States. While the current study only represents the experiences of immigrants in one Midwest community, prior research suggests that these experiences are likely to mirror those of a growing segment of the immigrant population as immigrants continue to settle outside traditional ports of entry (Mather, 2009; Singer, 2004). In Indiana, which like many states has enacted a mix of immigration policy, pro- and anti-immigrant, the heavy burden and punitive impact of restrictionist legislation appears to outweigh any benefits and services which may be provided to authorized immigrants. Thus, in Indiana the overall trend for the time being appears to be an increasingly criminalized existence for immigrant Latino families. More research is needed to understand the changing context of immigration and state and federal policy responses in the twenty-first century.