Debates about immigration in the United States – whether in public discourse or among policymakers – tend toward the facile. Rather than capturing the complexities of migration and transnational families, discussions often devolve into sweeping generalizations, framed simplistically in terms of “right” or “wrong,” or, particularly damaging, dehumanizing migrants and their loved ones. Such inequalities are particularly evident along two axes of power – the production of “il/legality” in the United States and the gendered aspects of movement across borders.
Illegality is the state of being contrary to or forbidden by law. Therefore, illegality is a challenge for Latino/a immigrants because they initially migrate across the border already knowing it is not allowed. Immigrants hope to move into the United States as a chance of hope to make a better living for themselves or family. Yet, becoming legal requires money, education, a non-criminal background, and more. Imagine yourself in a foreign country, too afraid to ask for efficient resources like an education to help stabilize yourself and succeed. These individuals lack documents on reasoning as to why and whether or not they should be in the United States.
States are responsible for much of the suffering families experience before, during, and after migration. Key players include the governments of El Salvador, Mexico, and—especially through the categorization of immigrants—the United States. Unlike popular notions that migrants are either “legal” or “illegal,” there is considerable nuance as Salvadorans move in and out of different statuses. The immigration status of undocumented migrants can change; those with Temporary Protected Status may lose it. A legal permanent resident of the United States can be deported. Shifting statuses are difficult for all, but Abrego demonstrates particular vulnerability among those without authorization to be in the United States. As one migrant so aptly explains, “it breaks you down” (p. 81). The production of illegality has a cumulative effect—on border crossings, housing, work opportunities, and above all, movement between nations.
WHAT ARE THE PUSH AND PULL FACTORS THAT EXPLAIN LATINA IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES.
Each year, thousands of undocumented, or “illegal,” migrants from Mexico and Central America attempt to cross the U.S. border. These migrants face a variety of challenges on their journey, ranging from harsh desert conditions and corrupt smugglers to government border guards and fences. Many of these migrants choose to leave their homes because of “push” factors such as economic hardship, and they are drawn to the United States because of “pull” factors such as job opportunities. However, this controversial issue includes human rights factors at home, in transit, and within the U.S. More discussion of the human rights implications of undocumented immigration is sorely needed.
There are various pull and push factors that determine why a Mexican citizen would choose to come to the United States. Some pull factors that make the United States appealing include: access to better healthcare and quality education, large existing communities of Mexican immigrants, family reunification, and more job opportunities. These factors are correlated with the economic benefits of the American dream. Some push factors that compel a Mexican citizen to leave his or her home country include: high crime rates, drug trafficking, unemployment, poverty, and climate hazards that lead to water shortages (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1992).
People in the United States tend to attribute Mexican immigration (and Central American migration, often through Mexico to the U.S.) to economic factors, focusing on the push factor of lack of economic opportunity, or on the pull factor of lax or ineffective border control policies. Actually, there is a complicated array of intertwined push and pull factors driving immigration flows. One might think of the push-pull factor as flip sides of various coins, each coin representing a different kind of factor – economic, cultural, sociological, political, and geographic. Students can think about these various push-pull factors when examining different kinds of data – qualitative and quantitative – on immigration (news reports, fiction, memoirs, collections of immigrant correspondence, statistics, etc.). Keep in mind that push-pull factors regard the causes of migration flows, not their impact on sending and receiving countries. That’s a whole other controversial kettle of fish.
The push factors are the things that push the individual away from their home country. A pull factor is some aspect of the place where an individual wants to go that makes it better than where the individual came from. Whether the factors are pull or push or a combination, Mexican families migrate to the United States to provide better futures for their children, even if the parents would have rather stayed in their native land. This differentiates first generation from second generation immigrants, because. Second generation immigrants have a better chance of attaining the American dream once they’ve lived in the United States for longer, even though their parents may not have initially come for that reason. If they are given the chance.
HOW ARE GENDERED MIGRATION EXPERIENCES SIMILAR AND DIFFERENT BETWEEN LATINAS AND LATINOS
Because sexual norms are transmitted and absorbed by local culture and social networks, sexuality is likely to be profoundly influenced by migration. Migration can alter sexuality at the cultural, personal, and structural levels. At the cultural level, the contrast between the more “traditional” culture of migrant sending communities and the more “liberal” sexual ethos in the U.S. could result in more liberal notions about sexual behaviors. This could be especially so for women if migration is associated with greater autonomy and interpersonal power (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1992). On the other hand, other byproducts of migration may operate in favor of tradition. The marginal position occupied by many migrants can be alienating, encouraging migrants to turn inward and reinforce aspects of their home cultures in an effort to maintain stability and protect their identity from negative perceptions in the host society. In this environment, cultural traits such as traditional gender roles, particularly those pertaining to sexuality, could be reinforced as women’s bodies become the site for struggle over disorienting cultural change.
Migration can also affect sexuality via aggregate level structural factors, particularly with respect to the sex ratio. Temporary labor migration from Mexico to the United States has historically been male-centered. While the development of transnational communities and fortification of migrant networks encourages the migration of women, both married and unmarried, the dangers and expense associated with border crossing often perpetuates an uneven gender composition. The implications for sexuality are obvious and multi-faceted, as finding opposite sex partners becomes very difficult for men but relatively easy for women. At the same time, migration also has an impact on sexuality in sending communities, where the sex ratio can be equally unbalanced in favor of women.
WHAT IS CULTURAL CITIZENSHIP AND HOW DO LATINO IMMIGRANTS CREATE A SENSE OF BELONGING IN THE US
Citizenship is the officially sanctioned mark of one’s membership of a political community, of a state. With it come rights and duties and a passport which tells the world where you “come from.” While most people have one and the same citizenship throughout life, immigrants may acquire the citizenship of their new country of residence. As such, the person who was previously an alien is now a fellow citizen, enjoying the same formal status as people who are ‘born’ citizens of the country and who have that citizenship running through their family tree.
When defined as a matter of rights and duties and a passport, citizenship is a purely formal matter of having a certain objective status in a society. However, recent decades’ political debates about the granting of citizenship to immigrants tell another story of citizenship as a highly contested policy domain, which is not just about rules but also about identity. The inflow of immigrants to Western democracies has almost everywhere triggered disputes about who can become a citizen, what should be the demands on people who apply for citizenship, and, ultimately, what it means to be part of our community. These disputes reveal that politicians and public debaters alike often make a close link between citizenship and nationality, between status and identity.