The Spillover Consequences of an Enforcement-First U.S. Immigration Regime

Abstract

In our introduction to this special issue, we describe how the immigration enforcement-first regime has consequences that extend beyond the supposed target population of undocumented immigrants and spill over to other groups, including legal permanent residents, U.S.-born Latinos/as, and other U.S.-born residents. The papers in this special issue address whether and how spillover effects exist and the form that they take. Often they include social, psychological, and in some cases, physical harm, and together they illustrate that directly or indirectly, U.S. policy’s emphasis on interior and external border enforcement affects all of us.

Keywords

U.S. immigration reform enforcement effects Latinos

The beginning of 2013 promised to be a good one for immigrants. Many in Congress expressed their intentions of reforming the U.S. immigration system, and strong support for reform came from the White House. Many hoped that the 1st year of president Barack Obama’s second term would address concerns in the Latino population, a constituency that significantly contributed to his reelection, about the broken immigration system. Moreover, the media buzzed around the potential for reform, particularly when the Senate passed an immigration bill in June of that year. Immigrants clamored for reform, and in particular, DREAMers, the term often used to talk about the undocumented children of immigrants, fervently declared that any immigration bill should legalize not just immigrant youth but their parents too. The underlying sentiment was that the immigrant population had suffered greatly from deportations, reaching up to 400,000 a year during the Obama administration, and that the resulting separation of families had caused much social suffering. The time seemed to be ripe for change.

Like attempts to reform the immigration system in the past, a sticking point was whether and, if so, how to regularize the statuses of the 11.7 million undocumented immigrants in the country (of which three fourths are Latinos), according to Pew Research Center estimates (Lopez & Gonzalez-Barrera, 2013). Avoiding anything resembling amnesty or the provision of a path to citizenship (even if long and bumpy, such as the 10 years in provisional status that immigrants would have to wait to be able to apply for legal permanent residence and then another 5 years to apply for citizenship through naturalization proposed in the Senate bill), concerns in the House of Representatives centered on prioritizing border security. And similar to prior attempts at reform, congressional gridlock affecting budget proposals, the debt ceiling, and debates about military intervention in other countries drowned out the voices clamoring for immigration reform. By the end of 2013, any remaining hopes for meaningful reform of the immigration system had died down.

Consequences of No Reform

The consequences of inaction on reform are varied, widespread, and grave. Having such a large population on the sidelines and in the shadows of U.S. society limits employment opportunities, puts a ceiling on the educational prospects of immigrant children, and relegates this group to a marginalized status at the bottom of the U.S. social-racial hierarchy (Aranda, Hughes, & Sabogal, 2014; Donato & Massey, 1993; Massey, 2008; Menjívar, 2006; Menjívar & Kanstroom, 2014; Yoshikawa, 2011). This legislative inaction translates into the infringement of the most basic social, economic, and human rights for out-of-status immigrants today but also to unsurmountable obstacles for their future integration (Massey, 2013). Thus, the impasse we see today has significant consequences for immigrants, their families, and communities.

Yet the costs related to the neglect of immigration reform go well beyond limiting immigrants’ opportunities to get ahead in life. Since the early 1990s, U.S. government policies and programs have emphasized enforcement by implementing, among other things, a strategy of “consequence enforcement” for those arrested by the Border Patrol (Meissner, Kerwin, Chishti, & Bergeron, 2013, p. 4). The consequences are massive and include expelling immigrants in the form of deportation; excluding them through detention in a burgeoning system of immigrant prisons, and at the very least, threatening them with the prospects of deportation, family separation, and financial insecurity—keeping immigrants in a constant state of vulnerability (De Genova, 2002). The collateral damage of these enforcement-first immigration practices has ripple effects not only for immigrants and their kin but also for neighborhoods, communities, and populations throughout the United States (Donato & Armenta, 2011) and beyond (Menjívar, in press). These ripple effects will persist and immigrants will remain in states of insecurity until Congress revamps federal admission and policy practices that have placed so many immigrants in vulnerable legal categories. Some immigrants find themselves worrying about the chances of their own removal from the United States and/or the expulsion of their loved ones from their homes and new country. And whereas some studies seem to indicate that immigrants relocate to other regions of the United States after localities implement strict enforcement programs (Watson, 2013), other research (Ellis, Wright, & Townley, 2014) finds that, following trends in the U.S. population in general, immigrants in the past two decades have become less migratory.

Mounting scholarly evidence points to the pressing need for comprehensive immigration reform, and the articles in this special issue contribute to this body of research. However, it is important to note that immigration reform has to be done carefully and thoughtfully, informed by what the research in this area shows. For instance, studies show that reform that privileges border enforcement over legalization is ineffective (Cornelius & Salehyan, 2007; Massey, 2013) and may prove detrimental in the long run because it can create dangerous conditions at the border that are harmful to immigrants and communities (Dunn, 1996; Eschbach, Hagan, & Rodriguez, 2003; Heyman, 2008, 2012; Spener, 2009). At the same time, legalization proposals must also be based on research as well as on a tradition of inclusion, not exclusion, of immigrants to ensure effectiveness in the long run. For instance, the proposal passed in the U.S. Senate in 2013 would require applicants to remain in registered provisional immigration status for 6 years, after which they can renew for another 6, and only after remaining in this provisional status for at least 10 years will they be able to seek legal permanent residence (provided they maintain a record clean of felonies or misdemeanors, maintain a job, and pay fees along the way). Although appearing to provide a path to legalization, this proposal would actually move thousands of immigrants into temporary statuses, or “liminal legality” (Menjívar, 2006) for at least a decade. Thus, immigration reform, while indisputably necessary and urgent, must be informed by research evidence and not by largely unfounded arguments about an insecure border.

The articles in this special issue examine the spillover effects of this restrictive immigration enforcement-first regime and identify the many ways in which increases in the criminalization of immigrants (see Dowling & Inda, 2013), and the threat of deportation and surveillance, negatively affect Latinos/as all over the country, reaching beyond the supposed target population of undocumented immigrants to those documented, including legal permanent residents, U.S.-born Latinos/as, and other U.S.-born residents. Such spillover effects include social, psychological, and in some cases, physical harm. Thus, directly or indirectly, U.S. policy’s emphasis on interior and external border enforcement affects all of us.

Spillover Effects and Enforcement’s Collateral Damage

This special issue delves into the spillover effects and the damage left in the wake of ramped-up enforcement. It examines the contours of this spillover and what this looks like “on the ground,” in the daily lives of immigrants; it also examines those populations that are most affected, and interrogates how the collateral damage is supported and maintained by the current immigration regime. These underlying themes reveal a paradox. As the United States attempts to reassure its citizenry that the nation’s borders are secure, and as leaders propagate the misleading notion that enforcement and harsh immigration policies are what strengthen national security, the cruel irony is that border policing and interior enforcement policies have created nightmares for immigrants, their families, and communities, including U.S.-born Latino/a citizens. Even native non-Latino/nonimmigrants are affected, as they respond to media constructions of immigrants as criminals by mobilizing and creating anti-immigrant groups (Chavez, 2008; Kil, Menjívar, & Doty 2009; Rodriguez, 1997). So, too, have documented Latino immigrants been affected; their employment outcomes now more closely resemble those of undocumented immigrants than in the past (Donato & Sisk, 2013). But the immigrants whom the policies target have felt the effects directly and for a long period of time. In a recently published book about immigrant life in a multiethnic metropolis that has so often served as a testing ground for Immigration and Customs Enforcement policies and programs—Miami, Florida—an immigrant from Colombia, Gabriel, aptly articulates the terror that has spread through his community as the result of this immigration regime: “Since 9/11 there has been persecution towards immigrants. They [the government] have utilized terrorism to justify the persecution of immigrants. They have confused the word immigrant with the word terrorist” (Aranda et al., 2014, p. 90).

The aggressive enforcement regime has resulted in the suffering of an entire group of individuals and legal violence in immigrant communities across the United States (Menjívar & Abrego, 2012). In spite of the mantra that U.S. immigration policies prioritize family reunification, the state has become a source of terror for children who fear their parents will be deported, immigrant parents who fear they will be taken from their children, and spouses who fear separation from their families (Dreby, 2010; Menjívar & Abrego, 2012). Such states of human insecurity are doing the opposite of what the family reunification provisions in the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 intended. Instead of strengthening them, families are being separated and have become fearful and insecure in routines of everyday life.

In this issue, we present findings from studies that examine the consequences of enforcement policies at various scales of analyses. Menjívar (this issue, p. 1805) shows how enforcement at the various levels of government reinforces the effects of each, so that states do not substitute for federal enforcement but instead exacerbate the effects of federal policies. The range of papers we include speaks to the effects of enforcement on individuals’ lives and opportunities; they investigate the likelihood of perceiving discrimination (see Ebert & Ovink, this issue, p. 1784), the vulnerabilities and psychological distress found in Latino/a families (those with and without authorized status; see Szkupinski Quiroga, Medina, & Glick, this issue, p. 1723), the social consequences related to interethnic and intraethnic relations in new and long-established immigrant destinations (see Flores, this issue, p. 1743; Vega, this issue, p. 1764), and the chances of being pulled over, detained, and arrested for driving without a license (see Donato & Rodriguez, this issue, p. 1696). At a broader level of analysis, one common denominator in these papers is the heterogeneity of sources and consequences of mass immigrant enforcement (see Menjívar, this issue). This heterogeneity is found in the various levels of government involved in immigrant policing, the geographic scale in which enforcement tactics are employed, and the diversity of those who are the objects of surveillance. What is remarkable about the heterogeneity is the strikingly similar consequences that are observed for immigrant Latino/a populations. Menjívar (this issue) picks up on the effects of this multilayered system on all spheres of immigrants’ lives and discusses how contemporary enforcement practices may affect the future incorporation of immigrants.

The Immigration Regime and Heterogeneity of Sources, Tactics, and Subjects

Levels of Government

The papers in this issue elaborate on patterns of enforcement at various levels of government—from municipalities (see Flores, this issue) to counties (see Ebert & Ovink, this issue) and states (see Szkupinski Quiroga et al., this issue)—and how these interact with policies at the federal level (see Donato & Rodriguez, this issue), particularly in cases where restrictive local ordinances exacerbate state and federal anti-immigrant legislation. For example, Donato and Rodriguez show how the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) laid the groundwork for state- and local-level enforcement efforts to thrive. The former established the foundation for 287(g) agreements between counties and the federal government to check the immigration status of those arrested by local police, and the latter, almost overnight, made it impossible for immigrants to have the right to due process. Specifically, the AEDPA eliminated judicial review of deportation decisions and lowered the offense threshold for the mandatory detention of immigrants, so that all offenders—even if they do not pose a flight risk—are detained and unable to obtain bond. These pieces of federal legislation ramped up in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, when immigrants were scapegoated for what many perceived and hailed as a failure to control U.S. borders; subsequently, the U.S. government increased spending on enforcement mandates and programs to an unparalleled degree (Meissner et al., 2013), even though the scholarly literature has shown that the enterprise of border control has been a “game of smoke and mirrors” dating back decades (Massey, Durand, & Malone, 2002).

It is in this context that, beginning in 2005, new forms of internal border control have become prevalent (Leerkes, Bachmeier, & Leach, 2013). With more immigrants in new immigrant gateways in the United States resulting, among other things, from growth in the internal mobility of immigrants (Cadena & Kovak, 2013), many localities began taking “matters into their own hands” and passed legislation aimed at barring immigrants from employment, housing, and social services, among other rights. And even though not all state-level laws and ordinances are the same, as in some regions there are inclusionary state-level laws passed (see below), many have focused on disrupting life for immigrants and creating conditions so hostile that immigrants will “self-deport.” As the articles in this issue demonstrate, the re-uptake of interior enforcement is expansive and cuts across all levels of government so that no realm of immigrant social life is left untouched.

Geographic Scales of Enforcement

Relatedly, we see heterogeneity of enforcement measures at various geographic scales. While these are tied to the practices of different scales of government, Walker and Leitner (2011) show that it is not simply the large concentrations of immigrants in localities but rather the dramatic growth in the presence of immigrant Latinos/as in certain areas that hastened to drive increases in state-level immigrant policies. These policies have tended to be restrictive, in contrast to those passed in localities with a long-term presence of Latino immigrants. Yet, with an increase of new immigrants in long-established Latino communities, Arizona has spearheaded some of the most draconian enforcement measures to date (see Szkupinski Quiroga et al., this issue) as well as new destinations, such as Hazleton, Pennsylvania (see Flores, this issue), and Davidson County, Tennessee (see Donato & Rodriguez, this issue), where negative enforcement policies and ordinances have also increased (Leerkes et al., 2013; Wilson, Singer, & DeRenzis, 2010). Not surprisingly, Walker and Leitner (2011) find that the pace of growth is the best predictor of the kind of local immigration policies that are passed. Moreover, places with highly educated populations and higher unemployment have lower likelihoods of passing exclusionary policies; in contrast, Republican areas with high proportions of owner-occupied housing tend to produce more exclusionary policies (Ramakrishnan & Wong, 2010). These findings translate into interesting geographic patterns in which municipalities in the South and outlying suburbs are places where a White conception of the nation thrives; thus immigrant policies in these areas are designed to exclude, expulse, and segregate Latino populations (Walker & Leitner, 2011).

Widespread Spillover Effects

With the heterogeneity of policies, geography, and a pattern of exclusionary measures meant to keep Latino immigrants out and deter communities of color from expanding (see Møller, 2014), the spillover effects affect a wide swath of the population. The collateral damage of exclusionary ordinances do not discriminate when it comes to immigrant generation (see Ebert & Ovink, this issue), national origins (see Flores, this issue), nativity (see Donato & Rodriguez, this issue; Vega, this issue), and documented status (see Szkupinski Quiroga et al., this issue). Anti-immigrant sentiment affects the stability of all communities, as we see in Flores’s (this issue) piece—because it is not just Latinos/as who lead lives marred by insecurity but their xenophobic neighbors—as long-established communities become unstable and White flight ensues out of immigrant-expanding areas.

As a whole, the articles in this issue tell the story of how interior enforcement is disrupting lives, families, and communities, all in the name of national security, as a result of exclusionary ordinances designed to slow the demographic shifts engulfing locales at various scales. In the absence of any meaningful immigration reform, we are likely to see further spillover effects as the cohort of undocumented immigrants lives on into future generations.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This special issue of American Behavioral Scientist is the first of two that include articles based on research presented at the conference, “Latinos in Old and New Destinations: Multi-disciplinary Approaches to Assessing the Impact of Legal Reforms” sponsored by the University of South Florida on November 8, 2013 in St. Petersburg, FL.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Elizabeth Aranda is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of South Florida. She has written about the lived experiences of immigrants, particularly their emotional wellbeing. Her recent book, with Sallie Hughes and Elena Sabogal, is Making a Life in Multiethnic Miami: Immigration and the Rise of a Global City, 2014, Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Katharine M. Donato is Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology at Vanderbilt University. From 2010 until 2013, she also served as Editor of the American Sociological Review. She is the author of more than 50 articles and two co-edited volumes. She is currently finishing a book manuscript on gender and international migration, with Donna Gabaccia.

Cecilia Menjívar is Cowden Distinghished Professor in the T. Denny School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State University. She has written extensively on the effects of immigration laws on various aspects of immigrants’ lives. Her most recent book, co-edited with Daniel Kanstroom, is Constructing Immigrant “Illegality”: Critiques, Experiences, and Responses, 2014, Cambridge University Press.

References

Aranda

Hughes

Sabogal

(2014). Making a life in multiethnic Miami: Immigration and the rise of the global city. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Press.

Cadena

B. C.

Kovak

B. K.

(2013). “Immigrants equilibrate local labor markets: evidence from the great recession.” Paper 19272, National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington D.C.

Chavez

R. L.

(2008). Spectacle in the desert: The Minuteman Project on the US-Mexico border. In Pratten

Sen

(Eds.), Global vigilantes (pp. 25-46). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Cornelius

W. A.

Salehyan

(2007). Does border enforcement deter unauthorized immigration? The case of Mexican migration to the United States of America. Regulation & Governance 1(2), 139-153.

De Genova

(2002). Migrant “illegality” and deportability in everyday life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 419-447.

Donato

K. M.

Armenta

(2011). What do we know about unauthorized migration. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 529-543.

Donato

K. M.

Massey

(1993). Effect of the Immigration Reform and Control Act on the wages of Mexican migrants. Social Science Quarterly, 74(3), 523-541.

Donato

K. M.

Sisk

(2013). Shifts in the employment outcomes among Mexican migrants to the United States, 1976-2009. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(1), 63-77.

Dowling

J. A.

Inda

J. X.

(2013). Governing immigration through crime: A reader. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

10.

Dreby

(2010). The burden of deportation on children in Mexican immigrant families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 74(4), 829-45.

11.

Dunn

T. J.

(1996). The militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border, 1978-1992. Austin, TX: CMAS Border & Migration Series and University of Texas Press.

12.

Ellis

Wright

R. A.

Townley

(2014). The Great Recession and the allure of new immigrant destinations in the United States. International Migration Review, 48(1), 3-33.

13.

Eschbach

Hagan

Rodriguez

(2003). Deaths during undocumented migration: Trends and policy implications in the new era of Homeland Security. In In defense of the alien (Vol. 26, pp. 37-52). New York, NY: Center for Migration Studies.

14.

Heyman

J. M.

(2008). Constructing a virtual wall: Race and citizenship in U.S.-Mexico border policing. Journal of the Southwest, 50(3), 305-334.

15.

Heyman

J. M.

(2012). Political economy and social justice in the US-Mexico border region. In Lusk

Staudt

Moya

(Eds.), Social justice in the U.S.-Mexico border region (pp. 41-59). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Verlag.

16.

Kil

Menjívar

Doty

(2009). Securing borders: Patriotism, vigilantism and the brutalization of the US American public. In McDonald

W. F.

(Ed.), Immigration, crime, and justice (pp. 297-312). Bingley, UK: Emerald/JAI Press.

17.

Leerkes

Bachmeier

J. D.

Leach

M. A.

(2013). When the border is “everywhere”: State-level variation in migration control and changing settlement patterns of the unauthorized immigrant population in the united states. International Migration Review, 47(4), 910-943.

18.

Lopez

M. H.

Gonzalez-Barrera

(2013). On immigration policy, deportation relief seen as more important than citizenship. Pew Research Hispanic Trends report. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/12/19/on-immigration-policy-deportation-relief-seen-as-more-important-than-citizenship/

19.

Massey

D. S.

(2008). Categorically unequal: The American stratification system. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

20.

Massey

D. S.

(2013). America’s immigration policy fiasco: Learning from past mistakes. Daedalus, 142(3), 5-15. doi:10.1162/DAED_a_00215.

21.

Massey

Durand

Malone

(2002). Beyond smoke and mirrors: Mexican immigration in an era of economic integration. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

22.

Meissner

Kerwin

D. M.

Chishti

Bergeron

(2013). Immigration enforcement in the United States: The rise of a formidable machinery. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/enforcementpillars.pdf

23.

Menjívar

(2006). Liminal legality: Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants’ lives in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 111(4), 999-1037.

24.

Menjívar

(in press). Laws beyond borders: Externalizing and internalizing borders in an era of securitization. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11.

25.

Menjívar

Abrego

L. J.

(2012). Legal violence: Immigration law and the lives of Central American immigrants. American Journal of Sociology, 117(5), 1380-1421.

26.

Menjívar

Kanstroom

(Eds.). (2014). Constructing immigrant “illegality”: Critiques, experiences and responses. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Møller

(2014). Restoring law and (racial) order to the old dominion: White dreams and new federalism in anti-immigrant legislation. Cultural Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/09502386.2014.886487

28.

Ramakrishnan

S. K.

Wong

(2010). Partisanship, not Spanish: Explaining municipal ordinances affecting undocumented immigrants. In Varsanyi

(Ed.), Taking local control: Immigration policy activism in U.S. cities and states (pp. 73-92). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

29.

Rodriguez

(1997). Social construction of the U.S.-Mexico border. In Perea

J. F.

(Ed.), Immigrants out! The new nativism and the anti-immigrant impulse in the United States (pp. 223-243). New York: New York University Press.

30.

Spener

(2009). Clandestine crossings: Migrants and coyotes on the Texas-Mexico border. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

31.

Walker

K. E.

Leitner

(2011). The variegated landscape of local immigration policies in the United States. Urban Geography, 32(2), 156-178.

32.

Watson

(2013). Enforcement and immigrant location choice (NBER Working Paper No. 19626). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19626

33.

Wilson

J. H.

Singer

DeRenzis

(2010). Growing pains: Local response to recent immigrant settlement in suburban Washington, DC. In Varsanyi

(Ed.), Taking local control: Immigration policy activism in U.S. cities and states (pp. 193-216). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

34.

Yoshikawa

(2011). Immigrants raising citizens: Undocumented parents and their young children. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.