Abstract
Unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant minors (UUIM) have become the focus of increased attention. Unfortunately, public discourse is often decontextualized, simplistic, and polarized. Empirical literature fails to capture the experiences of UUIM and identify strategies to promote their well-being. In this article we begin to address these gaps through qualitative inquiry. We analyzed written narratives of 292 Latino UUIM using a theoretical thematic analysis. Participants described motives for, and experiences of, the migration process. Guided by Ungar et al.’s (2007) conceptualization of resilience, five subthemes emerged: access to material resources, relationships, identity and cohesion, social justice, and perilous journey. The results from our study highlight (a) the youth’s difficult and often traumatic experiences in their homeland, (b) the factors that made migrating to the United States appealing to them, and (c) the dangerous journey they experienced. Implications for practice, research, and advocacy are discussed.
Each year, thousands of immigrant youth cross the Mexican border into the United States (U.S.) in search of career and educational opportunities, often without documentation or legal guardians (Aldarondo & Becker, 2011; Scott, 2009). Although the cultural, familial, and socioeconomic backgrounds of these youth are diverse, they often share common reasons for migration and experience similar obstacles upon arriving in the U.S.
The number of immigrant youth who cross the border and engage with the legal system has increased in recent years. Between October 1, 2015 and August 31, 2016, the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) apprehended nearly 55,000 unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant minors (UUIM) at the southwest border (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 2016). This figure, representing an 11-month period, is nearly double all youth apprehended in the 2015 fiscal year (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 2015). The overwhelming majority of UUIM (approximately 97%) come from four countries: El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico (Kandel et al., 2014). In recent years, these countries have experienced an increase in crime rates, systemic state corruption, and poverty (Shifter, 2012). Youth in these contexts are often subject to violent attacks by both gang members and the police, who routinely assume they are gang affiliated (Scott, 2009). Given the dangerous and difficult situations they face in their countries of origin, UUIM may make the dangerous journey to the U.S. illegally rather than await a long and complicated legal immigration process that carries no guarantee of entry.
Most youth leave from Central America and migrate into Mexico by bus or on foot. Once the youth have crossed the border into Mexico, they oftentimes take trains toward the U.S. Youth are occasionally injured or killed in their attempt to migrate by train, as illustrated in the 2011 documentary films La Bestia and Which Way Home. The journey is also complicated by the fact that the routes across the Mexico–U.S. border are often monitored by authorities and criminals (Scott, 2009).
Once at the Mexico–U.S. border, the youth must cross the Rio Grande River or traverse the Arizona desert. Although some UUIM make this journey alone, others travel with traffickers or hired smugglers called coyotes. These smugglers charge families $5,000 to $10,000 for their services. The migration experience holds additional risks for youth, including being smuggled, trafficked, or sold into domestic servitude or sex work (Linton, Griffin, Shapiro, & Council on Community Pediatrics, 2017; Scott, 2009). Furthermore, youth often witness the death of companions due to drowning, hypothermia, hyperthermia, or dehydration (Eschbach, Hagan, Rodriguez, Hernandez-Leon, & Bailey, 1999).
UUIM enter the U.S. immigration system when they are apprehended by one of the subsidiary agencies of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including CBP, the U.S. Coast Guard, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, on suspicion of violating immigration law (Byrne & Miller, 2012). Initially, youth are placed in short-term facilities while awaiting a decision about their longer-term placement, whether that be asylum, removal, or other options. These short-term facilities are sometimes overcrowded to the extent that youth must take turns sleeping on the concrete floor. Furthermore, youth have described experiencing mistreatment by CBP prior to arrest, including aggressive physical treatment with Taser guns, shoving, and kicking, even when youth had turned themselves into CBP (Jones & Podkul, 2012). Many youth have reported that officials destroyed the only possessions that they had brought to the country, and reported being called “animals,” racial slurs, and other derogatory terms. Similar experiences have been documented in detention centers throughout the U.S. (Barciela & Little, 2013).
There are several legal options for youth following DHS interaction (Byrne & Miller, 2012). If youth are determined to be unaccompanied and under the age of 18, they are transferred to the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) under the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), while they await the outcome of their immigration process. Transfer to ORR custody is intentional and meant to emphasize care over punishment. Specifically, youth are placed in one of the following detention settings: transitional foster care, shelter care, secure care, or staff secure care. Those who are particularly vulnerable (e.g., under the age of 13, pregnant) are most likely to be placed in foster care. Shelters are the second least restrictive environment, and are often used to place youth who comply with officials and have no prior involvement with the criminal justice system. Secure care refers to placement in more traditional juvenile justice facilities, and is reserved for youth who have a history of violent offenses or pose a threat to themselves or others. Youth who have a history of nonviolent crimes or who pose an escape risk are often placed in staff secure care. The typical amount of time a youth spends in a detention facility ranges from one day to over two years, and averages approximately two months. Length may vary due to local resources and the ability of ORR to reunite a child with family.
During their time in ORR facilities, youth generally receive basic medical care and case management through networks of local providers and state-based juvenile justice agencies. As often as possible, youth are reunited with parents in the U.S. When a reunification is not an option, youth are released to a legal guardian, adult relative, or another ORR-approved individual. If a federal immigration judge orders repatriation of the youth, the U.S. government is responsible for this process (Byrne & Miller, 2012).
Developmental Impact of Immigration
By definition, minors are still physically, cognitively, and emotionally maturing (Suárez-Orozco, Todorova, & Louie, 2002). UUIM’s developmental trajectory is influenced by their physical journey and transition to living in the U.S. Consequences of migration can include the loss of a support system and loss of cultural familiarity. Furthermore, immigrants’ sense of security, sense of self, and overall well-being can be severely compromised (Derluyn, Broekaert, & Schuyten, 2008). UUIM often report experiencing a hostile social environment in the U.S. that influences their well-being, including explicit and implicit bigotry, social isolation, and negative self-evaluation (Aldarondo & Ameen, 2015; Zayas, 2010). Youth also experience prolonged separation from caregivers and adjustment stressors such as difficulties learning English and understanding the U.S. immigration system (Suárez-Orozco, Todorova, & Louie, 2002).
The potential for acculturative stress and resultant depression and anxiety among UUIM is high (Revollo, Qureshi, Collazos, Valero, & Casas, 2011). First, UUIM typically migrate from countries that are linguistically and culturally different from the U.S. Second, although the dearth of research with UUIM limits our ability to understand the applicability of current acculturation theories to their lived experiences, research clearly indicates that discrimination is related to increased acculturative stress in Latino adolescents (Cervantes, Padilla, Napper, & Goldbach, 2013). Third, high levels of overt prejudice toward undocumented individuals in our current sociopolitical climate could likely lead to greater exposure to experiences of discrimination, subsequently leading to acculturative stress among UUIM (Gonzales, Suárez-Orozco, & Dedios-Sanguineti, 2013). Fourth, although research suggests that perceiving social support from one’s ethnic community can attenuate the experience of acculturative stress, the process of seeking social support within their ethnic community poses challenges for UUIM due to the possible implications of disclosing their immigration status (Gonzales, Suárez-Orozco, & Dedios-Sanguineti, 2013; Mesch, Turjeman, & Fishman, 2008). Some undocumented individuals report discrimination within their own ethnic group due to their immigration status, whereas others report hostility from other undocumented individuals, reflecting preexisting conflicts from their shared countries of origin (Joseph, 2011; Sullivan & Rehm, 2005). As such, UUIM likely experience general acculturative stress, which is further exacerbated by discrimination and limited access to mitigating resources. To develop more nuanced theoretical frameworks for understanding UUIM, we must begin by developing a more comprehensive understanding of their migration experiences. However, the process of conducting research with UUIM is fraught with ethical and legal barriers.
Barriers to Empirical Investigations
Both ethical and legal factors serve as barriers to research with UUIM. ORR holds guardianship of these youth; thus, the federal government must be the consenting party for research, creating obstacles to attaining assent and consent, and significantly limiting the number of empirical investigations with UUIM. Consequently, the existing literature is primarily comprised of reviews, expert opinions, and summaries of issues pertaining to UUIM, and largely lacks the voices of UUIM. Within the literature pertaining to the well-being of this population, the knowledge base primarily stems from unaccompanied refugee minors in other countries (e.g., Derluyn et al., 2008) or from undocumented immigrant youth without detention experiences (e.g., Suárez-Orozco & Yoshikawa, 2013).
A Psychosocial Program for UUIM
In 2006, a team of counseling psychology doctoral students and volunteers led by an associate professor at a Southeastern university formed a program to promote the psychological well-being of UUIM. The program is funded by a multiyear, multiservice grant that aims to respond to legal, medical, mental health, housing, and educational needs of UUIM, and aims to create and disseminate “an integrated, child-centered model of expert legal counsel and advocacy, trauma-oriented mental health services, resilience-building youth development programming, and professional development of staff caring for [UUIM] in local detention facilities” (Aldarondo & Becker, 2011, p. 210).
Now in its 11th year, the program has evolved in response to the changing needs of UUIM and government-contracted shelter facilities. Psychoeducational group sessions focused on promoting narratives of hope and resilience among the youth comprise the core of the model. Trained bilingual facilitators guide youth in discussions and activities exploring and constructing key chapters in their “Book of Life.” The book invites the youth to document their immigration journeys and hopes for the future, reflect on their worldviews and values, and explore vocational desires. After learning more about the youth’s lives through these activities, we felt it was imperative to systematically study their lived experiences through the analysis of retrospective data following an established theoretical framework.
Theoretical Framework
Prolonged engagement with UUIM in the program informed the authors’ selection of a theoretical framework. In the analysis and interpretation of the results, we employed Ungar et al.’s (2007) conceptualization of resilience, which maintains that resilience is a dynamic process involving constant interactions between an individual and the individual’s evolving contexts. Developmental and ecological perspectives inform this approach to resiliency, allowing for a “culturally embedded” understanding of positive development (Ungar et al., 2007). This conceptualization of resilience encapsulates elements at both the individual level (one’s ability to overcome challenges) and environmental level (the capacity of one’s environment to provide culture-specific resources required for positive development). Thus, Ungar et al. (2007) theorized that the intersection and resolution of the following seven tensions are central to resilience: access to materials, relationships, identity, cohesion, power and control, cultural adherence, and social justice. These tensions occur cross-culturally, and their resolution is context dependent. Individuals must continuously engage in a process of negotiation as they navigate these tensions throughout life. Importantly, this approach eschews causality or linearity.
This conceptualization of resilience aligns with our inquiry in several ways. First, it challenges the Western individualistic approach set forth by previous theories and incorporates culture-specific understandings of well-being. Second, given the context-dependent navigation and resolution of the seven tensions, it recognizes that no “ideal” developmental trajectory exists. Instead, this perspective attends to the interplay between people, their specific environmental context, and their culture, thus enabling an application to diverse populations such as UUIM.
Purpose of the Current Study
The extant literature fails to capture the experiences of UUIM, particularly the tensions that catalyze their decision to immigrate and the context of migration from their countries of origin. These understandings are needed, as they form the cornerstone for developing effective policies and practices for just treatment of this vulnerable population. Therefore, the overall goal of this study was to understand the lived experiences of UUIM youth in the context of migration. In an effort to help fill this gap in the literature, we employed a theoretical thematic analysis of the narratives of UUIM who participated in the program (Braun & Clarke, 2006). According to Braun and Clarke (2006), a theoretical thematic analysis is driven by the researchers’ theoretical or analytic interest, and the researchers can employ theory at any stage of the study. Specifically, the following research questions guided our inquiry: (a) Why did UUIM leave their countries of origin to migrate to the U.S.?, and (b) How do UUIM describe their migration experiences? We use the findings to discuss how counseling psychologists can use a resilience lens to promote the well-being of this young population.
Methods
Setting and Participants
We report on demographic data collected in 2013 as part of the program. The setting of the project was a shelter for UUIM run by an ORR-contracted faith-based agency. Respondents in the shelter received access to medical treatment and education while awaiting decisions regarding their legal status and longer-term placement. It is important to note that these data were initially collected as a requirement from our funders; they were not collected with the intention of research and did not conform to a priori research questions. At the time of the current study, the data had been collected and stored for approximately two years. The data were determined to be retrospective by the institutional review board, thus waiving the need for consent. All data were de-identified and entered into a secure database.
The respondents (N = 292) in this study were under the age of 18, came from Latin American countries, did not have documented legal status in the U.S., and did not have an identified legal guardian or verified family member at the time of apprehension. All respondents completed a demographic form administered by program facilitators during their first session. Youth were excluded from data collection if they did not want to participate in the activities, struggled to understand Spanish, or presented as distressed during the introduction of the form. Those who did not complete the form engaged in alternate activities such as drawing, reading, or coloring. See Table 1 for more detailed demographic information about respondents.
Respondent Demographic Information
Note. N = 292.
Procedure
Programming occurred once a week for 2 hr and was led by trained facilitators. Facilitators included graduate students, community volunteers, and staff from community partner organizations. As facilitators of the program, all of the researchers had prolonged engagement with the youth. Specifically, all researchers served as group facilitators and built strong rapport by engaging regularly in interactive team building activities for approximately two to six years. The relationships between researchers and youth allowed for a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of UUIM, which informed the current research endeavors.
After introducing the program and forming groups of 12 to 15 individuals, the facilitators introduced the demographic form to those youth participating in the program for the first time. The form was written and administered in Spanish. For use in English-language presentations of the data, it was also translated into English, then back translated into Spanish using back translation methods (Brislin, 2000). Further, the number of groups varied each week due to the number of UUIM present. There were approximately five to 10 facilitators present each week. To accommodate the youths’ varying literacy levels, the form was often read aloud and program facilitators recorded youths’ answers verbatim.
The intent of the demographic form was to: (a) characterize the population served, (b) better understand the youths’ backgrounds to shape present and future sessions, and (c) inform program development. For example, information from these forms led facilitators to develop a new curriculum on career development. Information about the migration journey was often used to guide the implementation of the activities that focused on youths’ discussions of their journeys to the U.S. Closed-ended questions gathered information about personal characteristics and experiences, such as country of origin, education and work history, and family in the U.S. Aligning with our focus on understanding the lived experiences of UUIM in the context of recent stressors, the final question (an open-ended, two-pronged prompt) asked respondents: “Briefly, describe your reasons for immigrating to the United States and how you arrived to this country.”
Coding Team
The coding team included three counseling psychology doctoral students and three early career counseling psychologists. Two of the researchers are fluent in Spanish, and the remaining four are proficient in Spanish. All are documented citizens of the U.S. and identify as cisgender. Five out of six are female, and all are between 27- and 35-years-old. Further, three of the researchers identify as non-Latino White, two identify as Latina, and one identifies as Iranian. All of the researchers have formal qualitative analysis training, and the majority had previous experience conducting qualitative research. All have experience providing mental health services and programs to Latino populations. Prior to initiating data analysis, the coders uniformly expressed an interest in understanding factors related to youth’s resiliency as observed through prolonged engagement. Details pertaining to how the coding team addressed their biases are discussed later.
The first author (R. B. H.) is a licensed counseling psychologist whose clinical and research experiences focus on health disparities. Much of her prior work has employed mixed methods to explore undocumented Latino immigrants’ experiences of seeking health and educational services. The primary researcher shared her positionality statement, which includes a perspective of systemic oppression of UUIM and the need for immigration reform, with the research team prior to beginning analyses. As described next, the primary researcher led ongoing reflections on positionality, bracketing of potential biases, and consultation with other Latino researchers to ensure trustworthiness and credibility of the data analysis.
Analysis
Data were analyzed following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) procedure for theoretical thematic analysis in the field of psychology. This approach was chosen for its flexibility; it is compatible with different epistemological frameworks and provides a method for complex and rich interpretation of data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Additionally, theoretical thematic analysis enables researchers to employ a framework to interpret findings, resulting in a more explicit focus on the data in the context of a specific theory. The use of Ungar et al.’s (2007) theory of resilience in our analysis is further described below.
The coders first immersed themselves in the dataset by reviewing responses to the two-pronged, open-ended question. They independently read through all responses in Spanish and then coded a subgroup of ten responses, focusing on the key concepts of reasons for immigration and information about their journeys. Codes were inductive, and in-vivo labels represented respondents’ key thoughts or concepts (Braun & Clarke, 2006). After initial open coding of a subgroup of responses, the six researchers worked in three pairs to review their codes and create other preliminary codes. Pairs worked via telephone to discuss coding differences and revise codes. The team then met through a large telephone discussion and identified preliminary codes. Using these codes, each pair analyzed a third of the remaining responses in the dataset. Pairs discussed their codes via telephone to compare coding and settle discrepancies. Some pairs identified additional codes. All six researchers then reviewed the entire dataset, and final codes were agreed upon through a telephone meeting of the entire group. Ongoing comparisons of independent coding, subsequent discussions to rectify coding differences, and coding checks with the six independent researchers occurred throughout the analysis. Final codes were translated from Spanish to English once consensus was reached among the researchers, and back translation to Spanish was used to ensure retention of meaning and to disseminate findings in this paper (Brislin, 2000).
The coders initially developed subthemes and themes based on reviewing the data and identifying patterns of responses and meaningful information that addressed the respondents’ experiences (Braun & Clarke, 2009). Guided by theoretical thematic analysis methodology, the coders then employed the seven tensions of resilience described by Ungar et al. (2007) to inform the process of finalizing subtheme and theme development. Researchers discussed the essence of the data, reviewed Ungar et al.’s (2007) components of resilience, and identified tensions from that framework that were consistent. This process resulted in the emergence of subthemes, which were further abstracted into groups of themes. Themes were checked against each other and with the original dataset to ensure that they contained all relevant subthemes and to ensure that the themes were internally consistent and distinctive. Finally, themes and subthemes were used to construct narrative descriptions of the essence of the construct of resilience.
Bias and ensuring quality and trustworthiness
The coders discussed their biases throughout all stages of this research. First, they had training and previous experiences addressing the mental health of Latino populations. These experiences likely influenced what researchers expected from respondents regarding their motivation, affective experiences, and decision-making processes. For example, researchers expected to find that family played a strong role in UUIM’s decisions to migrate. Second, the researchers all explicitly value social justice principles and have advocated for expanded rights for undocumented immigrants. Third, researchers recognize that their privileges (e.g., education, financial stability) likely shaped researcher–respondent interactions when completing the demographic questionnaires and influenced the analysis (e.g., valuing education). Aware of these conditions, the coding team bracketed their biases prior to analyzing data and engaged in ongoing reflection on their positionality throughout all stages of data analysis and interpretation. Specifically, coders formally discussed biases and assumptions by dialoguing with each other electronically and in research team teleconferences. We also consulted with the last author, a Latino bilingual (English–Spanish) scholar very familiar with the program, as well as with another scholar of similar qualifications, for their content expertise and assistance with the methodology. These efforts helped center the analysis in the respondents’ experiences and perceptions rather than the researchers’.
The coding team utilized two other processes to safeguard the quality and trustworthiness of the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). First, prolonged engagement with the UUIM community and ongoing collaboration with community partners helped to refine the focus of the study and ensure codes, subthemes, and themes captured the youth’s experiences. Second, the use of multiple stages of analysis allowed for analyst triangulation, thereby enhancing the trustworthiness of the data (Angen, 2000). Independent coding occurred and was triangulated both within pairs and within the larger research team. Following Elo et al.’s (2014) approach toward triangulation, all members of the coding team independently developed preliminary codes using a subset of the data prior to discussing and resolving coding differences with other members of the coding team. This process ensured credibility of the study by checking that the “data accurately represent the information that the respondents provided and the interpretations of those data are not invented by the inquirer” (Elo et al., 2014, p. 5). Finally, the coders’ use of thick descriptions (e.g., using the respondents’ own words) helped enhance the trustworthiness of the study (Morrow, 2005).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Participants’ mean age was 16 (SD = 1.42); virtually all respondents were male. The majority of participants were born in Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador. Although most participants had previously attended school, approximately half had left school by sixth grade or earlier. More than half had previously held jobs. Over two-thirds were monolingual Spanish speakers, and almost all respondents had family in the U.S.
Theoretical Thematic Analysis
Two themes and five subthemes were identified using theoretical thematic analysis. For clarity in reporting the results, we describe themes and subthemes only. Both the text and Table 2 include the codes that resulted from our analysis. Participants’ responses were translated from Spanish to English for this article, retaining grammatical idiosyncrasies to the fullest extent possible, then back translated into Spanish to ensure accuracy (Brislin, 2000).
Themes, Subthemes, and Codes in Spanish and Translated Into English
Theme one: Tensions of Resilience
The first four subthemes relate to tensions of resilience. Four of seven possible tensions in our data fit with Ungar et al.’s (2007) model: (a) access to material resources, (b) relationships, (c) identity and cohesion (which we combined and will elaborate on later), and (d) social justice. Each of these subthemes is presented next.
Subtheme one: Access to material resources
This subtheme describes the availability of resources for UUIM to meet their financial, educational, and basic instrumental needs. Ungar et al. (2007) noted that what is perceived as a “need” varies by cultural context. In our sample, these needs were primarily identified as a lack of basic resources for survival, such as food and stable housing, as well as aspirational needs to improve respondents’ lives, such as the desire to search for work and pursue educational opportunities.
Youth reported a range of reasons for emigrating from their countries. Respondents often discussed their need to survive and described little choice in their migration; they perceived leaving their country as the only way to improve their lives. Reasons for migration included a lack of food, need for stable housing, and/or need for jobs that would allow them to support themselves and their families. They also described a lack of basic safety due to gang threats or other forms of violence. One example of necessity was given by one youth who wrote: “Well, first because in my country I had problems with the gangs. They wanted me to join the gang and I refused, so one day they beat me and they followed me, threatening that they were going to kill me.” Another youth reported a lack of basic care as the reason for migrating, stating that “Nobody took care of me in my country because I don’t have people to take care of me, because they died.”
Many youth reported wanting to study as a reason for leaving their country. These participants had lower levels of education and were unable to attend school in their countries of origin due to high tuition costs, as well as needing to work to support their families. Some respondents provided detailed educational goals, however most simply stated that they migrated to the U.S. “to study.” One respondent noted, “I wanted to go to school and learn more English.” Another reported that he migrated “in order to keep studying, I wanted to help my family. I want to study architecture here in the U.S. [and] I want to learn English.” Respondents frequently reported emigrating due to a lack of opportunity to study in their country of origin, given their desire to learn and improve their lives through education.
Youth also reported that they left their countries of origin because of financial difficulties and a lack of work options. Youth described how their countries of origin often lacked job opportunities or employment that paid enough for youth to support themselves. One youth stated, In my country, I did not have the opportunity to do something [useful and meaningful] and because I did not have a job in which I could make a little [money]. I could not do anything and I decided to come to the United States in order to work.
Another youth described his experience of poverty and desire to earn money: I want to be happy with my family because we do not have money nor do we have a house, and we do not have land in order to grow crops. We borrow land to grow crops, so because of this I came here [sic]. I want to earn money in order to buy land.
Subtheme two: Relationships
Ungar et al. (2007) found that relationships with others provided emotional support to youth and helped them cope with their surroundings. In our study, youth identified the loss of supportive relationships as an important reason they chose to leave. Youth often talked about the separation from their family in their home countries and desire to be reunited with family as a reason to migrate to the U.S. Youths’ responses typically focused on separation, loss, or a hope to reunite with family in the U.S. Often, the youths’ parents migrated when they were young; therefore, respondents hoped to reunify with their parents. One respondent reported migrating “because I did not know my mother and because I only lived with my grandmother.” Another youth talked about missing family as the motivation for his immigration: “The reason that I came was because [of] my mother, because I miss her a lot.” Many respondents echoed the statement that they wanted to move to the U.S. “in order to be with. . . family.”
Subtheme three: Identity and cohesion
Ungar et al. (2007) described “identity” as strengthening a sense of individual identity and “cohesion” as the combination of a sense of responsibility to one’s self as well as to the community’s greater good. In our sample, respondents often talked of their individual goals as supporting their family and seeking community well-being. Because youth described that serving their family and larger community strengthened their individual identities, we combined the tensions of identity and cohesion. Youth identified helping their families as a central goal for their future. They also described how their faith in God provided a sense of cohesion and helped them cope with difficulties experienced during their journeys.
Youth discussed wanting to help their families as a reason to migrate. Specifically, they described an inability to help their families in their home countries and a strong desire to provide for them. One respondent reflected on a desire to help due to family illness and poverty: The reason that I immigrated is because my father is very sick in his stomach, and my siblings want to keep studying and we don’t have a good income in order to send them to school; they cry because sometimes we do not have food to eat, in a few words I immigrated because of the necessity of helping my family.
Similarly, another youth noted: I immigrated because I wanted to help my mother because she was very sick from stress and she worried a lot about my brother, who is still in my country. . . I came in order to help her with what she needs because I did not get what I needed.
Some youth reflected on God’s role in their safe arrival in the U.S., or on their overall faith in God as part of the reason they believed they would succeed in life. One youth said of the journey, “I owe everything to God because he brought me safely here.” Another youth described how faith and spirituality were sources of support in remaining hopeful: “I know that with the help of God I can achieve it.”
Subtheme four: Social justice
Experiences of the sociopolitical context that influences these youth, their families, and communities, are included in the subtheme of social justice. This is consistent with the tension reported by Ungar et al. (2007) that described when youth experienced prejudice or negative effects of a sociopolitical context and worked toward justice. Youth in our study described their journey as a way to escape sociopolitical stressors in their home countries and create a better future for themselves in the U.S. This subtheme captures the active nature of resilience of youth who are attempting to change their context in order to create hope for their futures.
Youth described coming to the U.S. in search of a better future or a way to get ahead in life. Youth stated an explicit desire for a futuro mejor (better future), as well as their determination to actively improve their lives. This desire also includes the oft-articulated saying salir adelante (literally “to get ahead in life”), an encouraging phrase used to describe the will to live, to improve one’s life, and to successfully navigate difficult circumstances. One youth reflected on opportunities in the U.S.: I left school, I left my family to immigrate to the United States [and] have a better life and continue studying and working, in order to help my family and help my little brothers and sisters study.
Another youth stated, “I want to help my little brothers get ahead so they are not missing anything and so that they continue studying.” Also, one youth discussed his hopes for his future: “I want to move forward in my life and be someone in life.”
Theme two: Context of Resilience
The respondents in our study described contextual factors that influenced them, particularly during their journey to the U.S. We titled the one subtheme of this contextual theme “perilous journey” due to the many descriptions of danger, difficulty, and complexity UUIM encountered in their travels. Ungar et al. (2007) described resilience as an ongoing, active negotiation of an individual, family, and community with one’s environment. This contextual information is needed to better understand how these UUIM sought to navigate the aforementioned tensions of resilience.
Subtheme five: Perilous journey
This subtheme describes the ways that youth faced peril in their journey; namely, through the complexity of the journey, risks associated with traveling with others, struggles and hardships encountered during migration, and interaction with immigration officials. The youth described their complex journeys, providing detailed information about their modes of transport, the different countries they traveled through, and the shelters that housed them along the way. Many youth identified extreme physical hardships, danger, and numerous setbacks in their journeys. Youth described the types of transportation they used, including buses, cars, trains, rafts, and walking long distances. One youth stated, “I came by bus, walking, and cars.” Another youth talked about how the type of transportation varied by country: I left my country in a car and [crossed] the border between El Salvador and Guatemala through a river, [the border between] Guatemala and Mexico by car, and [crossed the border between] Mexico and the United States [through] a rough river in a raft, and then I walked.
Other youth also reported traveling through many countries before reaching the U.S. One wrote, “I left my country, I went through Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and I went through rivers.” A youth from Colombia described: I came in a plane to Guatemala and I left Colombia with a woman who knows about this with planes, and [went] from Guatemala to Mexico with a coyote that I paid in my country. I came in cars and from there I crossed the river, and then they caught me in [Texas] when I arrived.
Youth further discussed traveling with others to the U.S., generally with coyotes or known family and friends. One youth stated, “I arrived by a coyote and his guides.” Another stated, “I came with my cousins and we came to the United States.” Although traveling with family members was often a protective factor, it also held additional stressors. For example, respondents not only had to worry about their own safety, but also about their family members’ well-being. In fact, while describing the journey with a paid smuggler and siblings, one respondent said, “They left us in a shelter and we were there for about a month and a half because my brother was sick.”
Moreover, youth often discussed the struggles they experienced during their migration. This experience was often characterized as a long journey, incurring high costs to pay for coyotes, and often entailing extremely dangerous routes where they or their traveling partners faced a threat to their lives. One respondent reported that: “The journey was difficult, walking in the desert with all the dangers from animals and thieves that there are in the journey.” Many youth reported extreme physical conditions, including one who wrote, “I arrived in really bad shape, suffering from hunger, thirst, and cold.” Another youth declined to engage in the writing exercise, saying only, “I can’t tell you about the trip to the United States, it was something so difficult.”
Youth primarily talked about being caught by immigration agents at the end of their journeys, and highlighted the experiences that arose from their interactions. Many youth stated: “Immigration agents caught me.” One youth discussed voluntarily looking for agents because the difficult journey was no longer tolerable: “I turned myself in when I arrived to [Texas] because I felt I could not walk anymore and I turned myself into Immigration.” A few youth also wrote about “las hieleras” (the “freezers”), which refers to detention centers where the temperature is lowered and the immigrants are not given blankets or coats. One youth stated, “Immigration caught me and I was in la yelera [sic, phonetic match to la hielera] for 6 days” and another felt “desperate” after 3 days in la hielera.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study to descriptively characterize Latino UUIM while qualitatively exploring their lived experiences in the context of recent stressors. The results of our theoretical thematic analysis yielded two themes and five subthemes. The first four subthemes relate to the theme Tensions of Resilience and are conceptualized using Ungar et al.’s (2007) resilience framework. The fifth subtheme relates to the theme Context of Resilience. Although Ungar et al. (2007) identified seven tensions of resilience, the following four emerged from our analysis: (a) access to material resources, (b) relationships, (c) identity and cohesion, and (d) social justice. It is possible that we identified fewer tensions of resilience in this sample due to different data collection methods (i.e., our questions were briefer and not focused specifically on resilience). Additionally, the unique context of our study could have also influenced the subthemes of resilience identified in this sample. For example, the group home structure of the shelter where we recruited participants provided more opportunities for social support than secure or staff-secure UUIM facilities. However, any form of detainment under ORR creates stressors that are unique from those experienced by UUIM who were not apprehended.
The results of our study provide insight into (a) why UUIM left their countries of origin to migrate to the U.S., and (b) how UUIM experienced the migration journey. We found that reasons for migration can be understood as UUIM attempting to resolve tensions of resilience and attempting to adapt to their sociopolitical context. Similar to the findings of Ungar et al. (2007), we found that our respondents needed to meet their most basic needs through access and personal means (e.g., money to travel). However, it is important to note that our sample was not as heterogeneous as Ungar et al.’s sample, given that their study occurred prospectively and cross-culturally. As such, we found less diversity in the types of articulated needs. Further, we found that relationships were a central component of a youth’s migration experience, which is consistent with other studies of UUIM (Scott, 2009). This finding is also consistent with Ungar et al.’s framework that relationships serve as an important support for youth resilience. Respondents expressed a desire to reunite with, or support, family members living in their countries of origin. Moreover, we found a combined tension of identity and cohesion, instead of separate tensions as found by Ungar et al. (2007). For our sample, the youths’ identities were not individualistic; rather, they were related to cohesion (e.g., providing for their families, bettering themselves to promote the well-being of their communities). Consistent with Ungar et al. (2007), our respondents relied on religious identification. Regarding social justice, youth escaped a difficult sociopolitical context to search for a better future. This is consistent with other studies of youths’ responses to political unrest and widespread violence, in which many decide to leave their countries in hopes of economic opportunities, educational opportunities, and safety (Chavez & Menjívar, 2010).
Regarding how they experienced their migration journey, UUIM provided resonant descriptions of their migration experiences. These descriptions aligned with Ungar et al.’s (2007) framework and constitute the theme Context of Resilience. This framework emphasizes that youth adapt to the specific cultural and sociopolitical challenges they face and therefore, this context must be included in any study of resilience. Additionally, Ungar et al. (2007) asserted that resilience resides not only in individual young people, but also in the supports and resources present in their environments. In this population, environmental resilience was limited, as UUIM experienced a perilous journey with risk of death, traveled with smugglers, undertook complex ways of traveling, and engaged in interactions with immigration officials that led to detention. Other investigations have found that UUIM may incur physical injuries during migration and/or because of their interactions with coyotes (e.g., Chavez & Menjívar, 2010). Whereas these participants identified supports during their journey via family, coyotes, or the help of immigration officials, unfortunately even these supports brought risks, as youth then had to care for family members who became ill, were at risk from exploitation from coyotes, and/or faced deportation and poor treatment from immigration officials.
Our study extends the literature in several ways. First, we found that UUIM face and attempt to resolve four context-dependent, culturally embedded tensions of resilience. These tensions interact and allow for a nuanced, nonlinear understanding of the participants’ idiosyncratic reasons for migration. Second, we provide additional evidence for the complexity of the journey across our border, reifying media reports of the perilous experiences during migration and detainment (Barciela & Little, 2013), and expanding conversations in current political debates about solving our nation’s “immigration problem.” Third, we offer pragmatic considerations for researchers who may wish to engage in scholarly work with this vulnerable group. Given the legal and ethical barriers to completing research with UUIM, our approach (i.e., the retrospective use of de-identified program evaluation data already gathered) may offer a possible option. The data collection process also provided insights into cultural considerations associated with research with UUIM, such as the adaptation of the administation of written instruments (e.g., in a group format) or their replacement with verbal measures to accommodate various literacy levels.
Moreover, the notion of trauma and resilience is relevant in our conceptualization of the experiences of the UUIM in this study. These youth often reported experiencing numerous adverse and potentially traumatic events across all stages of the migration process, while also describing actively trying to improve their lives and provide hope for their future and that of their families. A common definition of trauma as presented in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders identifies trauma as exposure to a particular type of negative event, such as threatened or actual violence or death (5th ed., American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Although the event itself may be important, researchers have postulated that the reaction to the event is just as important to understanding whether the event is traumatic (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Feeling overwhelmed by emotion, having difficulty making sense of the experience, or having a shift in understanding the world and relationships due to the event, are also considerations when determining if the event is traumatic for an individual (Herman, 1997). Many youth in this study reported events that would be considered traumatic under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders definition. Unfortunately, we lack a detailed understanding of their experience of these events, and therefore we refrain from labeling them as traumatic.
Through the navigation of challenges associated with collecting data under ORR with a vulnerable population, we learned several lessons. Our data collection was via program evaluation and was as naturalistic as possible, embedded in our NMBR program, and used immediately to inform individual and group processes. For example, if we learned that a respondent only spoke an indigenous language, we would attempt to group this individual with another respondent who was bilingual in the indigenous language and Spanish. If we realized that a respondent had difficulties with reading and/or writing, we modified our planned activities to ensure that the youth could still participate in the activity. These processes highlight the immediate usefulness of the data and the importance of flexibility in psychosocial programming.
Limitations
Although this study offers unique insight into the lived experiences of UUIM, several limitations exist. First, the open-ended prompt was framed in terms of the UUIM’s individual experiences and did not directly ask about broader factors that may have influenced their decision to migrate. However, despite this bias, responses illustrating contextual, systemic, and family factors still emerged.
Second, it is possible that the respondents felt uncomfortable responding honestly and openly to the questions due to the novelty of the respondent–researcher relationship, environmental context, mistrust of perceived authority figures, and possible concerns about confidentiality. Moreover, data collection occurred in a facility where the youth were detained and during a year when the media focused heavily on the numbers of UUIM crossing the border. This discourse was often negative and polarizing, which may have influenced the respondents’ level of comfort and degree of openness in their responses.
Third, variability in literacy levels may have influenced the breadth and depth of responses. Considering that our forms were only available in Spanish, youth who only spoke an indigenous language may have been underrepresented in the data. It is important to note, however, that bilingual youth helped to translate the forms for their indigenous peers whenever possible.
Fourth, we noted that 94% of the sample, and most of the youth who are sent to the facility we worked in, were young males. Indeed, at least two-thirds of young Central American immigrants who come to the attention of authorities are male (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Regional Office for the United States and the Caribbean, 2014). It is possible that a sample consisting of equal or greater numbers of females would yield different themes, including greater reports of gender-based persecution and different lived experiences in one’s native country (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Regional Office for the United States and the Caribbean, 2014). Whereas an informal post hoc review of responses did not seem to indicate differences by gender, a multisite design or one with higher representation of females may be worthwhile for future study. Finally, the retrospective data analysis, which was necessary in regards to obtaining consent to conduct research, limited the scope of inquiry.
Broader Considerations: Implications of the Themes and Future Directions
The topic of immigration frequently creates divides in our current global political discourse. The conversation surrounding Latino immigration to the U.S. often relies on xenophobic assumptions and stereotypes (Cornelius, 2001; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2007). The results of this study present an alternate narrative, where undocumented immigrants of Latino origin immigrate to the U.S. to escape violence, pursue quality education, gain economic stability, and contribute to their families and communities. Finally, it speaks to the diverse strategies used to resolve the tensions of resilience given the limited contextual supports and dangers experienced by the UUIM population. These factors should be considered in the design of strategies to promote the well-being of this population within clinical, research, and policy initiatives.
Clinical Implications
Working with UUIM can be a unique and rewarding experience for counseling psychologists. These youth have often experienced life-threatening hardship while remaining highly motivated to succeed. Clinical work with this population demands a multicultural, trauma-informed, positive youth development perspective in order to meet their needs. As many UUIM report potentially traumatic experiences, professionals must be prepared to implement trauma-informed care that realizes the impact of trauma, recognizes signs of traumatic stress, responds to these concerns through appropriate practices, and seeks to resist retraumatization (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014). Trauma-focused treatment for UUIM has been effective in reducing PTSD and depression symptoms as well as improving self-concept (Descilo, Greenwalk, Scmitt, & Reslan, 2010). Additionally, clinicians should focus on reinforcing existing strengths and protective factors such as faith, commitment to family, and desire to better one’s economic position.
Findings support prior work from the American Psychological Association and the National Latina/o Psychological Association. For example, the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Immigration (2012) recommended developing a wide range of physical and mental health services for UUIM, spanning from adequate housing and school placement to psychosocial support. The National Latina/o Psychological Association’s “Guidelines for Mental Health Professionals Working with Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Minors” highlight the importance of understanding the psychological impact of what they conceptualize as complex trauma faced by UUIM as well as the significance of providing services from a social justice and advocacy standpoint (Torres Fernández, Chavez-Dueñas, & Consoli, 2015). The recommendations from both of these national organizations align with the vision of our psychosocial program for UUIM.
Counseling Psychologists as Catalytic Agents of Change
A decade of work responding to needs of this population has taught us that counseling psychologists have an important role to play in directing and catalyzing the effectiveness of community resources, expertise, and goodwill to address the needs and support the healthy development of these youth. Counseling psychologists’ commitment to multicultural issues, human development, and social justice provides a rich skillset from which to design and implement advocacy and social change strategies to promote the human rights and well-being of UUIM.
When working with UUIM, we are tasked not only with providing appropriate clinical services, but with humanizing and preparing shelter facilities housing UUIM, educating judges and lawyers about their vulnerabilities and strengths, and preparing these youth to successfully transition into the next part of their journey—be it as members of our communities or back in their communities of origin. As Prilleltensky, Peirson, and Nelson (1997) suggested, we must engage in collaborative, action-oriented, and socially relevant initiatives. Moreover, we should address the array of universal and culturally specific aspects of the experience of immigration affecting these youth. For example, a youth might find that in addition to his undocumented legal status, employability is hindered by health status, language, or prejudice (Yakushko, Watson, & Thompson, 2008). The role of the psychologist here is to equip the client with the tools necessary to manage experiences of oppression through identification of these experiences, support in coping with them, and empowerment to challenge the personal and societal status quo.
Advocating for UUIM also encompasses supporting child-centered immigration policy reform. As our federal government debates how to address the problems inherent in our immigration system, those who work with UUIM need to become engaged in the conversation and help define the terms of the debate. By bringing attention to issues faced by the youth through innovative research, we can heighten community awareness and use psychological science to inform politicians on sound and ethical decision-making processes. Through community education programs, we can also raise consciousness about the injustices experienced by UUIM and grow an advocacy base.
Community-based collaborative partnerships among universities, legal advocates, social workers, therapists, shelter staff, researchers, and other concerned citizens have an important role to play in making our legal, social, and mental health systems more responsive to the needs of UUIM. By building a strong community of “citizens–professionals,” the field of counseling psychology can influence the national climate for these youth, promoting their well-being and affording them the opportunity to interact with various systems in productive and empowering ways (Doherty & Carroll, 2007). Only through collective and coordinated efforts will these youth experience the “America” that they risked their bodies, their families, and their lives to reach.
Footnotes
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.