Table Of ContentInternational Perspectives on Migration 11
María Aysa-Lastra
Lorenzo Cachón Editors
Immigrant
Vulnerability
and Resilience
Comparative Perspectives on Latin
American Immigrants During the Great
Recession
Immigrant Vulnerability and Resilience
Series Editors:
Peter Li and Baha-Abu-Laban
The series publishes original scholarly books that advance our understanding of
internationalmigrationandimmigrantintegration.Writtenbyacademicexpertsand
policy specialists, each volume addresses a clearly defined research question or
theme, employs critical analysis and develops evidence-based scholarship. The se-
riesincludessingle-ormulti-authoredmonographs,volumesandeditedcollections.
Thescope oftheseries is internationalmigrationandintegration research. Topics
includebutarenotlimitedtothematicandcurrentissuesanddebates;comparative
researchofaregional,nationalorinternationalnature;thechangingcharacterofur-
banareasinwhichmigrantsorrefugeessettle;thereciprocalinfluenceofmigrants/
refugees and host communities; issues of integration and social inequality as well
as policy analysis in migration research.
For further volumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/8811
(cid:1)
Mar´ıa Aysa-Lastra • Lorenzo Cachon
Editors
Immigrant Vulnerability
and Resilience
Comparative Perspectives on Latin American
Immigrants During the Great Recession
Editors
Mar´ıaAysa-Lastra LorenzoCach(cid:1)on
DepartmentofSociology DepartamentodeSociolog´ıaI
andAnthropology UniversidadComplutensedeMadrid
WinthropUniversity Madrid,Spain
RockHill,SC,USA
ISSN2214-9805 ISSN2214-9813 (electronic)
ISBN978-3-319-14796-3 ISBN978-3-319-14797-0 (eBook)
DOI10.1007/978-3-319-14797-0
SpringerChamHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2015935670
©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2015
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof
thematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recita-
tion,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinfor-
mationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmeth-
odologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.Exemptedfromthislegalreservationarebriefexcerptsin
connectionwithreviewsorscholarlyanalysisormaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurposeofbeing
enteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework.Duplica-
tionofthispublicationorpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsoftheCopyrightLawof
thePublisher’slocation,initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalwaysbeobtainedfrom
Springer.PermissionsforusemaybeobtainedthroughRightsLinkattheCopyrightClearanceCenter.
ViolationsareliabletoprosecutionundertherespectiveCopyrightLaw.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublica-
tiondoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromthe
relevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Whiletheadviceandinformationinthisbookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublica-
tion,neithertheauthorsnortheeditorsnorthepublishercanacceptanylegalresponsibilityforanyerrors
oromissionsthatmaybemade.Thepublishermakesnowarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothe
materialcontainedherein.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Preface
The Great Divide Between Spain and the United States
During times of recession, immigrants are especially vulnerable because they are
over-represented in the secondary sector of the labor market, in jobs that are
unstable, poorly paid, and carry few benefits even during good economic times;
andthosefortunateenoughtobeworkingintheprimarysectoroftenholdperiph-
eralpositionsthatareatgreaterriskofeliminationduringleaneconomictimes.As
a result, immigrants generally experience higher rates of unemployment than
nativesduringdownturns.Immigrantsareresilient,ofcourse,andadaptincreative
ways,butevenwhentheyfindnewemploymentitisoftenforlowerpayandfewer
hours.
Althoughnativesmaynotsufferasmuchasimmigrantswhentheeconomygoes
bad, recessions necessarily increase their feelings of insecurity. As human beings
often do when faced with threatening circumstances beyond their control, natives
all-to-often look for scapegoats and project their fears and apprehensions onto
immigrants, blaming them for their poor economic prospects. The demonization
of immigrants as threatening “others” is unfortunately a common side effect of
economicdownturns.
TheseobservationsapplyonbothsidesoftheAtlantic,andtosomeextentLatin
AmericanimmigrantsinbothSpainandtheUnitedStateshavesufferedincreased
discriminationandexclusionintheyearssince2008,especiallythoseofAfricanor
Indigenousoriginswhoaresubjecttosystematicprocessesofracializationinwhich
negative attributes are tied to their physical characteristics (Massey 2014). In
general, however, the degree of racialization and exclusion has not been as pro-
nouncedinSpainasintheUnitedStates.Foronething,LatinAmericansinSpain
speak the same language as native Spanish citizens and come with cultures that
haveobviousSpanishroots.
A greater contrast, however, is the massive prevalence of illegality among
Latino immigrants living in the United States. According to the latest estimates,
around60%ofMexicanandtwo-thirdsofCentralAmericanimmigrantslivingin
v
vi Preface
the United States are unauthorized (cf. Hoefer et al. 2011; Acosta and de la Cruz
2011). Although many Latin American migrants to Spain overstayed their tourist
visasandbeganworkingwithoutauthorization,overtheyearstheSpanishgovern-
ment undertook a series of regularizations to grant them legal status. As a result,
relativelyfewLatinAmericanmigrantsareundocumented.Whatevertheproblems
and vulnerabilities they experience in Spain because of the Great Recession, they
donothavethemcompoundedbymassillegality,apeculiarlyAmericancondition
(Massey2013).
IllegalityisnotanintrinsiccharacteristicofimmigrantsintheUnitedStates,but
onemanufacturedbyU.S.policies(DeGenova2004).Therootsofmassillegality
can be traced back to 1965 when the U.S. Congress unilaterally terminated a
22-year-old guest worker treaty with Mexico and passed legislation to place
numerical limits on immigration from the Western Hemisphere for the first time
in history. Prior to that date the Bracero Program had liberally issued permits to
Mexicans for temporary labor in the United States, and there was no limit on the
annual number of Mexicans admitted for legal permanent residence. In the late
1950s,some450,000Mexicanscrossedthebordereachyearwithtemporarywork
permitsandanother50,000enteredaspermanentresidents(Masseyetal.2002).
During the early 1960s, however, the Bracero Program was scaled back and
ultimately ended in 1965 while in that same year a new cap of 120,000 residence
visas was imposed on the Western Hemisphere. In the ensuing years the separate
hemisphericcapwaseliminatedinfavorofasingleworldwidecapof290,000anda
new annual limit of 20,000 visas per country was imposed throughout the
Americas. Whereas in the late 1950s Mexico was legally sending half a million
migrants to the United States each year, 90 % as temporary workers, by the late
1970s the guest worker program was gone and permanent resident entries were
cappedat20,000.AlthoughU.S.policiestowardMexicanmigrationhadchanged,
theeconomicconditionspromotingandsustainingithadnot,andtheannualinflow
ofworkersquicklyreestablisheditselfunderundocumentedauspices(Masseyand
Pren2012b).
From1965to1979thenumberofborderapprehensionssteadilyroseasmigrants
who formerly had circulated with documents continued to migrate without them,
andbythelatterdatetheundocumentedflowhadreachedtheroughequivalentof
whereithadbeenbackinthelate1950s,exceptnowofcoursethemigrantswereall
unauthorized. The fact that the migrants were now “illegal” offered a golden
opportunity to politicians seeking to mobilize voters and bureaucrats seeking
moreresourcesfortheiragencies.Illegalmigrantswerebydefinition“lawbreakers”
and“criminals”whocouldeasilybeportrayedasagravethreattothenation,and
the 1970s and 1980s witnessed a rise of a “Latino threat narrative” in the mass
media(Chavez2001,2008).
TheLatinothreatwasinitiallyframedusingmarinemetaphorswhichportrayed
Mexicanmigrationasafloodinwhichtheborderwasbeinghitbya“tidalwave”of
migrants who would “inundate” U.S. society and “drown” American culture; but
Preface vii
over time, martial metaphors became more prominent (Santa Ana 2002). Illegal
migrants increasingly became “alien invaders” who launched “banzai charges” at
the border which was “defended” by outgunned agents who sought to “hold the
line”tokeeptheinvadersfrom“occupying”theUnitedStates.From1965to1979
newspapermentionsofMexicanimmigrationasacrisis,flood,orinvasionsteadily
increased(MasseyandPren2012a).
DuringtheColdWarthese“invaders”werecommonlyportrayedascommunist
infiltrators, especially after the Sandinistas came to power in Nicaragua and the
U.S.launcheditsContraInterventionwhileprovidingpoliticalsupportandmilitary
aidtoright-wingregimesinElSalvador,Guatemala,andHonduras.Theresulting
waveofcivilviolenceandpoliticalturmoilintheregiongeneratedhugewavesof
CentralAmericanrefugeesheadingnorthwardtotheUnitedStates.Fleeingaleft-
wing regime, those from Nicaragua were welcomed as political refugees and
granted an easy path to permanent U.S. residence. Those from El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras, however, had the misfortune of fleeing right-wing
regimesalliedwiththeUnitedStatesandwerelabeledeconomicrefugees,forcing
themtoenterprincipallyasundocumentedmigrants.Onceacrosstheborder,they
joined Mexicans as the second largest segment of the unauthorized population
(BakerandRytina2013).
After the end of the Cold War, undocumented immigration was increasingly
conflatedwith the“War onTerror.”Evenduringthe ColdWar,PresidentReagan
warned Americans that“terrorists andsubversivesare just twodays’driving time
from [the border crossing at] Harlingen, Texas” (Kamen 1990). The continuing
conflation of immigration is indicated by the press conference given recently by
Texas Governor Rick Perry, who alleged that terrorists were likely entering from
Mexico,notingthat“becauseoftheconditionoftheborderfromthestandpointofit
notbeingsecureandusnotknowingwhoispenetratingacrossthatindividualsfrom
ISISorotherterroristgroupscouldbe”(HuettemanandMontgomery2014).
The rhetoric of crisis and invasion ultimately brought about the progressive
militarizationoftheMexico-U.S.border,beginningwiththeImmigrationReform
and Control Act of 1986 and continuing through the 1990 Amendments to the
Immigration Act, the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsi-
bilityAct,the2001USAPatriotAct,andthe2010BorderSecurityAct.From1986
to 2012 the number of Border Patrol Officers increased by a factor of six and the
Border PatrolBudget grew 23times.Given economicconditions onbothsidesof
the border, however, the massive increase in border enforcement did not prevent
migrants from entering the United States, but it did raise the costs and risks of
border crossing to the point where it discouraged them circulating back and forth
(Masseyetal.2002).
According to Massey and Singer (1995), from 1965 to 1985 around 85 % of
undocumentedentrieswereoffsetbydepartures,andevenamonglegalimmigrants,
returnmigrationwascommon.JassoandRosenzweig(1982)estimatethatatleast
56%oflegalpermanentresidentswhoenteredtheUnitedStatesin1970returnedto
viii Preface
Mexico by 1979. Warren and Kraly (1985) estimate that out-migration among
Mexican legal residents in any given year averaged about 20 % of in-migration
duringthe1970s.Withthemilitarizationoftheborder,thiscirculationstoppedand
theprobabilityofreturningfromanygivenundocumentedtripplummeted(Massey
etal.2009).
With in-migration continuing apace and out-migration falling to record low
levels, the net rate of undocumented increased and undocumented population
growth accelerated through the 1990s and early 2000s to peak at a size of around
12millionin2008.Althoughthenumberofundocumentedresidentsdeclinedinthe
aftermathoftheGreatRecession,itappearstohavestabilizedataround11million,
around 60 % from Mexico and 15 % from Central America (Baker and Rytina
2013). Having spent many years in the United States and acquired U.S.-born
children, jobs, property, and lives north of the border, these migrants show no
sign of returning, despite the challenges of being undocumented and post-2008
economicdislocations.
Mass illegality could be easily solved by a legalization program, an option
supported by a majority of U.S. citizens according to surveys and enacted in
legislationpassedbytheU.S.Senate.Unfortunately,thepoliticalstalemateinthe
HouseofRepresentativeshasendedallhopeforimmigrationreform,atleastforthe
time being. Indeed, rather than enacting policies to promote the integration of
Latino immigrants,thethrustofU.S. actions inrecent decadeshas beentorender
immigrant integration less likely. Legislation passed in 1996 stripped away civic
and social rights from all non-citizens regardless of legal status, expanded the
grounds for deportation, streamlined the removal process, and limited the rights
ofapprehendedimmigrantstojudicialproceedings,actionsthatwereonlystrength-
enedbythe2001USAPATRIOTAct(Zolberg2006).Deportationsconsequently
surged from just 30,000 in 1990 to 419,000 in 2012 with bipartisan support from
PresidentsClinton,Obama,andbothBushes.
As the undocumented population grew, therefore, those without documents
came under ever greater pressure from federal authorities, putting downward
pressure on the wages and working conditions of all immigrants, including legal
immigrants (Massey and Gentsch 2014). After 2000, anti-immigrant policies
targeting undocumented migrants spread to the state and local levels (Hopkins
2010) though with more limited effects (Parrado 2012). With the prospects for
immigration reform dim, mass illegality has become a semi-permanent condition
forLatinoimmigrantsintheUnitedStates,andgiventhenegativeeffectsofcurrent
enforcement efforts, illegality has become the single greatest barrier to the social
and economic integration of immigrants in the United States. Mass illegality thus
represents the greatest divide separating Latin Americans in Spain from their
counterparts in the United States and the implications of this fact must always be
borneinmindwhenconsideringtheirprospectsineachnation.
PrincetonUniversity DouglasS.Massey
Princeton,NJ,USA
Preface ix
References
Acosta, Y. D., & De la Cruz, G. P. (2011). The foreign born from Latin America and the
Caribbean:2010.AmericanCommunitySurveyBrief10–15.Washington,DC:U.S.Bureau
oftheCensus.
Baker,B.,&Rytina,N.(2013).Estimatesoftheunauthorizedimmigrantpopulationresidingin
theUnitedStates:January2012.Washington,DC:U.S.OfficeofImmigrationStatistics.
Chavez,L.R.(2001).Coveringimmigration:PopulationimagesandthepoliticsoftheNation.
Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Chavez, L. R. (2008). The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation.
Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.
DeGenova,N.(2004).ThelegalproductionofMexican/immigrant‘illegality.’LatinoStudies,2,
160–185.
Hoefer,M.,Rytina,N.,&Baker,B.(2011).Estimatesoftheunauthorizedimmigrantpopulation
residing in the United States: January 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Immigration
Statistics.
Hopkins,D.J.(2010).Politicizedplaces:Explainingwhereandwhenimmigrantsprovokelocal
opposition.AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,104,40–60.
Huetteman,E.,&Montgomery,D.(2014,August22).Perrysaysterroristscouldbeenteringthe
U.S.fromMexico.NewYorkTimes,p.A17.
Jasso,G.,&Rosenzweig,M.R.(1982).Estimatingtheemigrationratesoflegalimmigrantsusing
administrativeandsurveydata:The1971cohortofimmigrantstotheUnitedStates.Demog-
raphy19(3):279–290.
Kamen, A. (1990, October 21). Central America is no longer the central issue for Americans.
AustinAmericanStatesman,p.1.
Massey,D.S.(2013).America’simmigrationpolicyfiasco:Learningfrompastmistakes.Dae-
dalus,142(3),5–15.
Massey,D.S.(2014).TheracializationofLatinosintheUnitedStates.InM.Tonry&S.Bucerius
(Eds.), TheOxford handbookonethnicity, crime, andimmigration(pp.21–40).NewYork:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Massey, D. S., & Gentsch, K. (2014). Undocumented migration and the wages of Mexican
immigrantsintheUnitedStates.InternationalMigrationReview,48(2),482–499.
Massey, D. S., & Pren, K. A. (2012a). Origins of the new Latino underclass. Race and Social
Problems,4(1),5–17.
Massey, D. S., & Pren, K. A. (2012b). Unintended consequences of US immigration policy:
Explainingthepost-1965surgefromLatinAmerica.PopulationandDevelopmentReview,38,
1–29.
Massey,D.S.,&Singer,A.(1995).NewestimatesofundocumentedMexicanmigrationandthe
probabilityofapprehension.Demography,32,203–213.
Massey,D.S.,Durand,J.,&Malone,N.(2002).Beyondsmokeandmirrors:Mexicanimmigration
inanageofeconomicintegration.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.
Massey,D.S.,Durand,J.,&Pren,K.(2009).NuevosEscenariosdelaMigraci(cid:1)onMe´xico-Estados
Unidos:LasConsecuenciasdelaGuerraAntiinmigrante.PapelesdePoblacio(cid:1)n,61,101–128.
Parrado,E.A.(2012).Immigrationenforcementpolicies,theeconomicrecession,andthesizeof
thelocalMexicanimmigrantpopulations.AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyofPoliticaland
SocialScience,641,16–37.
SantaAna,O.(2002).Browntiderising:MetaphorsofLatinosincontemporaryAmericanpublic
discourse.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.
Warren, R. & Kraly, E. P. (1985). The elusive exodus: Emigration from the United States.
Population Trends and Public Policy Occasional Paper No. 8. Washington DC: Population
ReferenceBureau.
Zolberg,A.R.(2006).Anationbydesign:ImmigrationpolicyinthefashioningofAmerica.New
York:RussellSageFoundation.
