Search

This Note could be read as another Note addressing Congress’s power to strip jurisdiction from Article III courts. Yet, when this power is exercised in the immigration context, its impact extends far beyond the realm of checks and balances. Instead, this Note is about the insulation of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and its unfettered ability to create, interpret, and adjudicate its own laws. Not allowing courts to review BIA decisions leaves mixed-status families vulnerable to the harsh consequences of inherently arbitrary decisions made by executive officers. These practices go against the established common law principles of family unity. For nearly a century, our judiciary has emphasized the importance of maintaining the family nucleus and parental autonomy. The courts have explained that it is central to our nation’s history and culture that parents have the right to be present in their child’s upbringing, enacting safeguards such as procedural protections for parents against the intrusion of the State. However, when it comes to mixed-status families, these judicial protections do not extend to immigration proceedings. When a child is born in the United States to undocumented parents, they are forced to decide between complete family separation and the forced removal of a citizen child from the country. Stripping jurisdiction from courts to hear immigration proceedings of mixed-status families prevents the courts from addressing the violations of the fundamental right to family unity. While Congress does have the power to limit the jurisdiction of Article III courts, Congress cannot withhold judicial relief from people seeking to protect their rights to life, liberty, or property. Judicial recognition of the fundamental right to family unity, in the context of mixed-status families, would be a first step in enabling federal courts to preserve the constitutionality of our immigration system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the effects of contradictory U.S. immigration laws on unaccompanied minors from Central America. As children, they are considered deserving of protection, but as undocumented immigrants, they are subjected to state legal violence. Apprehended at the border, they must interact with multiple immigration agencies and finally apply for humanitarian deportation relief. Interactions in these institutional spaces teach youths about U.S. laws and behavioral norms expected of young claimants deemed deserving of humanitarian protection, which are construed in contrast to discourses that stigmatize their co-ethnics as "bad" immigrants. These interactions shape youths' sense of belonging and commonsense understanding of the law or legal consciousness. I argue that the "legal consciousness" of unaccompanied minors is dichotomous and characterized by: (1) a combination of trust and fear in the state; (2) concurrent feelings of deservingness/rights and stigma/subordination; (3) information and misinformation about U.S. laws. This dichotomous consciousness shapes how youths claim belonging and rights in social interactions and in their applications for legal status. To signal their own belonging and deservingness, youths leverage information about their rights and normative notions about desirable teen and migrant behavior. Yet, in the process, they also inadvertently perpetuate stigmas about co-ethnics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Family involvement has become increasingly recognized as essential to academic success. However, the racial and cultural gap between the teaching force and students in American schools is large and expanding, leading to increased challenges associated with relationship-building between families and schools. This is a study of teachers in a school district in the State of Florida that has high rates of poverty, large numbers of new and undocumented immigrants, and many families who speak languages other than English at home. Using a Bourdieusian theoretical framework, this study investigates teachers' recognition of their own habitus and that of families and of the doxa within the field of the school. This study asks the teachers, by their own accounts, what prevents them from greater success in developing and sustaining culturally sustaining family-school partnerships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While I was wrapping up this article, events at our southern border continued to accelerate. Over 5,000 troops were bivouacking there, setting up barbwire, firing tear gas, and taking a Thanksgiving break, as migrants/refugees began attempting entry. Meanwhile Trump was working to ban asylum seekers. Accordingly, the situation's turbulence resists finality and can only be treated as an ongoing work-in-progress. But if we can't predict where all this is leading, we can at least shed some light on how it fits into a larger picture. Reflections on children's traditional place in family and culture suggest that howsoever welcomed and cherished, they were often deployed to meet pressing needs of the group. We may trace an evolution in children's overall welfare being confirmed by reduced mortality rates. But on balance their condition is highly mixed: we merely need to observe the plight of today's immigrant children as bargaining chips for passing President Trump's pricey Wall. Cited below are historical precedents for treating children not as ends but as means to secure cultural/political goals alien to their developing natures. Occurring in Canada as well as the U.S. and Australia were systematic removals of indigenous peoples from their native lands. A different, ostensibly benign policy was the evacuation of English children from urban centers to safer rural areas during World War II bombings. Somewhat akin to these practices was our wartime removal of Japanese families to internment camps. Also closer to home were the early 20th Century Orphan Trains that shipped migratory youths from New York streets to labor in the Midwest. These precedents provide contexts for our central focus on current U.S. policies under Trump's Zero Tolerance: the separations of minors from their migratory parents. Just as previous historical practices reveal distinctive psychohistories, today's situation merits in-depth exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Anthropology & Education Quarterly is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper attempts to make a contribution to the niche area of roots tourism and the broader nexus of tourism and migration, in particular to the literature on roots tourism among second generation, which has only recently attracted scholarly attention. Despite a gradual increase in scientific contributions on roots tourism, most of the literature has focused on the experiences of the first, second and later generations as a single phenomenon. The principal originality of this work lies in the analysis on roots tourism in an under-explored geographical/ethnic context, that is Greek second generation in Italy. The purpose of this study, which is based on an analysis method that combines structured questionnaire data with life stories collected through in-depth interviews, is to analyse the relationship between second-generation Greek migrants’ attachment to the birth-country of their parents and their homeland travel. Specifically, frequency and reasons for their travelling, self-perception during their stay in Greece and their definition of ‘home’ are investigated. The results of the study show that frequent journeys to Greece are crammed with a much deeper meaning as they are transnational practices aimed at visiting relatives and friends, the desire to find cultural roots and relocating cultural identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Although the translocal practices of first generation migrants have been relatively well researched, little is known about whether, and to what extent, their children—the second generation—engage in translocalism. Using the case study of remitting by Paamese rural–urban migrants living in Port Vila, Vanuatu, this paper compares translocal behaviours of first and second generation migrants and draws connections between the transnational and translocal scales. For Paamese, remitting provided visible evidence of incorporation into the translocal community and was considered something migrants “should” do. Beliefs about remitting were not related to migrant generation, and although remitting reliably was associated with social prestige, those who did not remit experienced feelings of guilt and shame. Participation in remitting was almost universal, and whereas first generation migrants remitted to a wider range of individuals, second generation migrants, who concentrated their remittances on close kin, remitted more frequently and reliably. Most remittances were sent to home villages, however a significant proportion were intra‐diasporic, with remittance destinations determined by the location of close family members. It is argued first, that migrant generation is not necessarily a reliable indicator of translocalism, and second, that where translocal behaviours such as remitting represent a strong social norm, it is unlikely that they will disappear with the second, or subsequent, generations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on resolutions approved by the Board of Directors of the U.S. National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) at its House of Delegates (HOD) meeting held in March 2018. Topics discussed include campaign launch to increase the number of NCSS affiliated Local Social Studies Councils in HOD, development of a curriculum program involving past and present models of inquiry and engagement, and support for children of undocumented immigrants.

Nearly 5.1 million children younger than age 18 live with at least one undocumented parent, about 7% of the U.S. child population. Between 2010 and 2013, an estimated 300,000 parents of U.S. citizen children were deported. Raising children in the context of deportation risk increases overall parenting stress for undocumented Latino parents. To investigate this and understand the experience of undocumented parenting, the authors interviewed 70 undocumented parents in two Southwest cities from 2012 to 2013. The authors frame their analysis using the lens of the problem of “illegality.” There are three domains of stressors associated with parenting in the context of deportation risk: trapped parenting, threat of family separation, and altered family processes. The authors discuss these findings in the context of the literature on undocumented families and parenting stress and connect these findings to the current sociopolitical context experienced by Latino families in the United States . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes a constructivist grounded theory study about cross‐border relationships within Mayan families divided between the United States and Guatemala. Nine families participated, and each included a U.S.‐based undocumented migrant parent and a Guatemala‐based adolescent and caregiver. Findings pertaining to the family process of consejos—defined as a communication practice in Latino families wherein older family members pass on conventional wisdom to younger family members—are discussed. Although consejos has been identified as an important cultural practice in Latino families, it has rarely been examined in Mayan families or explored as an important aspect of transnational family relationships. Findings suggest that for some transnational and mixed‐status Mayan families, consejos has become an important family process and a way in which migrant parents maintain a presence in their children's lives despite being physically separated. Implications for future research with transnational migrant families, and Mayan families in particular, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite increasing recognition of the critical importance of legal status for understanding the well‐being of immigrants and their families, there has been scant research on this topic. Using Wave 1 of the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (2000–2002) and the 2000 decennial census, the authors investigated how parenting strain among Mexican‐origin mothers varies by legal status and neighborhood context. They found significant differences in parenting strain by nativity and legal status, with undocumented mothers reporting the lowest level. Results from multilevel models with cross‐level interactions reveal that the influence of neighborhood immigrant concentration differs by legal status. Percent foreign born in the neighborhood is associated with reduced parenting strain for documented Mexican‐origin mothers, whereas it is associated with heightened parenting strain for undocumented Mexican‐origin mothers. The findings provide empirical support for the need to recognize legal status distinctions in studies of the well‐being of immigrants and their families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior research has examined the incorporation outcomes among unauthorized migrants after implementation of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). However, few studies have evaluated how legalization opportunities produce gendered outcomes among the second-generation children of unauthorized immigrants. We examine the association of legalization opportunities provided through IRCA with the years of schooling attained by the sons and daughters of Mexican American immigrants. By distinguishing likely eligibility for one of two programs implemented under IRCA—the Legally Authorized Workers and Special Agricultural Workers programs—we consider whether type of legalization program matters by assessing gender differences in schooling among children of Mexican immigrants. Although legalization provides a substantial educational premium for the children of Mexican immigrants regardless of gender, the size of the legalization premium is smaller, on average, for sons than daughters. The advantage to daughters is especially notable among those with parents eligible for the Special Agricultural Workers program. We consider these findings in the context of theories of immigrant incorporation and intergenerational mobility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we focus on the developmental contexts of middle childhood and early adolescence to explore the lives of citizen-children living with undocumented Mexican parents. We draw on the concept of belonging to highlight the distinct situation of citizen-children and the ways in which they come to understand their place in a world. To capture the experiences of citizen-children born to undocumented Mexican immigrant parents and their sense of belonging to place and community, we conducted in-depth interviews with 83 citizen-children in late childhood and early adolescence in three groups. One group of citizen-children lived in Mexico after their parents' deportation. Another group remained in the U.S. after parents were detained or deported. The third group did not have a parent in deportation proceedings. Qualitative analyses of children's recorded interviews revealed their experiences of discovery of parents' undocumented status; political, social and material exclusion; and rupture of family ties. Children were keenly aware that birthright citizenship afforded them numerous privileges unavailable to their parents, but that it did not extend to the very privilege, they valued most: an intact family. The loss of parents through detention or deportation forced some children to consider existential questions about who they were and where they belonged, sometimes pitting family members against one another. Our findings suggest that belonging is intimately tied to broader forces of legal persecution that go beyond individualized notions of illegality and have deep, possibly lasting psychological effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the competing policy imperatives within and between tiers of government and policy makers’ perceptions of the relative “deservingness” of undocumented children, which contribute to an uneven geography of entitlements to public services across the European Union. While scholars have contrasted the formal exclusion of undocumented migrants with their informal inclusion, the article explores the tension between formal exclusion and formal inclusion: where the state, through granting legal entitlements to services, contradicts the logic of its own enforcement paradigm. The analysis presents the findings of a comprehensive mapping of entitlements to health care and education for undocumented children across the European Union’s 28 member states and draws on interviews with policy makers across 14 member states to explore the justification for entitlements granted at national and substate levels. It finds that competing policy imperatives are most acute in relation to children where the logic of immigration control faces competing social and humanitarian imperatives within the national administration and in regional and municipal tiers of government. That tension reflects the social construction of undocumented children as both “illegal” and vulnerable, negative perceptions among policy makers of the deservingness of undocumented migrants countered, to a degree, by positive perceptions of the deservingness of children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the ways in which liminally legal young immigrants respond to shifting policies that either legitimize or delegitimize their presence within state and national boundaries. Borne out of two larger studies that rely on ethnographic and in-depth interview data in Massachusetts and North Carolina, we primarily focus on longitudinal interviews with individuals responding to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). We examine the ways in which federal and state policies interact to affect access to membership for young adult immigrants in states with very different political climates. In Massachusetts, young adults felt more legitimacy and were more optimistic in their abilities to redirect their life pathways after DACA. In contrast, in the more hostile environment of North Carolina, state policies continued to impede mobility pathways and differentiate previously undocumented youth as outsiders even after the passage of DACA. Instead of characterizing the transition to adulthood for liminally legal youth as a unidirectional transition to exclusion, we emphasize the interactive influence of state- and federal-level policies and illustrate how incorporation can occur on multiple levels and even in opposite directions simultaneously. Moreover, we discuss how hostile policies in one state appear to reverberate outward, suggesting spillover effects for respondents in other states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article asks whether parents’ legal status as noncitizens or undocumented migrants leads U.S.-born youth to engage in active, compensatory political and civic participation or whether parents’ legal exclusion generates apolitical, even alienated views of citizenship. Drawing on 54 in-depth interviews conducted over a 2-year period with 40 teenagers from Mexican-origin immigrant families living in the San Francisco Bay area, we find no evidence of widespread apathy or disengagement. Many youth participated in rallies on behalf of immigrant rights, and many were engaged in community groups, volunteer efforts, or even political action, irrespective of parents’ status. However, youths’ views on “good citizenship” did hint at community-level effects of illegality: Some young people have internalized a “don’t rock the boat” notion of citizenship as staying out of trouble. At the same time, others redefined citizenship to include noncitizen parents. We conclude that the children of immigrants—especially those with unauthorized parents—face dual demands: There is pressure to “stay out of trouble” and stay quiet to protect their families, but these young people’s birthright citizenship also provides rights and standing to make claims on behalf of family members lacking formal voice in the political system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of increasingly ‘culturalised’ discourses on immigrant integration in Europe, this article aims to contribute to a de-essentialised understanding of ethnic and religious identity. Based on the analysis of quantitative data, it reveals the multifarious relationship between identification and culture among second-generation Turkish and Moroccan Dutch in the Netherlands. Some instances of self-identification with nominal labels (‘Turkish’ and ‘Muslim’) appear to go hand in hand with stronger sociocultural orientations in daily life and are more substantive; others (‘Moroccan’) do not. These findings point to different social mechanisms at work in shaping identifications with certain identity labels and once more illustrate that ethnic and religious identifications do not necessarily reflect cultural ‘otherness’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Irish-American adoptions were a revolutionary way of dealing with Ireland's problem of the illegitimate child. Ireland had long been promoted as a Catholic, and thus, a morally pure country. Having a child out of wedlock often resulted in the mother and child being shunned by their family and community and having little choice but to seek the help of church-run institutions. These institutions began facilitating illegal extraterritorial adoptions in 1947 to relieve mounting pressures as those seeking their help continued to grow annually. These adoptions were heavily concerned with protecting the religious faith of the child, and this often took prominence over the quality of the home. The adoptions were facilitated exclusively by these church-run institutions, allowing for complete control over the selection of prospective parents. The standards of these adoptions fell well below what was expected on the U.S. domestic scale, with no visits to the homes of prospective parents, and, crucially, there was no way to facilitate the reversal of an adoption. During the early life of the Irish- American adoptions, the Irish Department of External Affairs had little involvement and only issued passports for children that had been adopted. However, this changed in 1951, as the 'Jane Russell Case' attracted front-page media attention. The Russell case highlights the lackadaisical approach of many of those within the department to exporting some of Ireland's youngest citizens. Undue publicity continued in the early 1950s, notably with the German newspaper, 8 Uhr Blatt. It is this media attention that forced the department to finally address the glaring issues that severely hindered the success of Irish-American adoptions. The department was powerless to do anything once the child had been passed into the care of the adoptive parents. The Adoption Act of 1952 marked a major turning point in the care of illegitimate children in Ireland. Legal adoption was opened on the domestic and international fronts. The conditions and standards of the Irish-American adoptions improved dramatically under this act as requirements for adoption were officially put in place, and while they still had their issues, the standard of these adoptions continued to improve through their latter stages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the unprecedented increase in the flow of migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to the United States, this article analyzes the impact of U.S. interior enforcement on parent-child separations among Central American deportees, along with its implications for deportees' intentions to remigrate to the United States. Using the EMIF sur survey data, we find that interior enforcement raises the likelihood of parent-child separations as well as the likelihood that parents forcedly separated from their young children report the intention to return to the United States, presumably without documents. By increasing parent-child separations, interior enforcement could prove counterproductive in deterring repetitive unauthorized crossings among Central American deportees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Henri Raczymow's term of mémoire trouée - memory with holes - is often understood as a synonym to Marian Hirsch's “postmemory”. Even though there is a semantic connection between these two concepts, it seems important to point out differences between them. Mémoire trouée concept was presented by Raczymow in 1986 on the Jewish Writers Conference. The essay became a collective voice of Jewish immigrants in France. What is this “hole” in the memory? How did it appear? What are literary methods of description of this void? Most of all, this void has its “double” - emptiness in the “shtetl memory” and emptiness in the “Shoah memory”. The aim of this article is to analyze Raczymow's essay, especially his conception of “the second generation's” writing; to interpret voids in the memory in the Jewish experience and literary transposition of mémoire trouée in Raczymow novels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Approximately 8 million Latinos in the United States are undocumented immigrants, nearly half of whom are parents to a minor. Concerns over deportation may affect the way families with undocumented members perceive legal authorities relative to documented immigrant families. Yet, there have been few studies on how Latinos (documented or undocumented) interact with, and form attitudes about, police and no studies on adjudicated youth from families with an undocumented member. To address this gap, 155 pairs (N = 310) of Latina immigrant mothers and their first-time offending sons were interviewed. More than half of the mothers, and 12.3% of youth, were undocumented residents. Controlling for key contextual factors, youth whose mothers were undocumented held more negative attitudes toward the police than youth whose mothers were documented. Youth, however, did not perceive judges differently based on mother's documentation status, suggesting that documentation status relates to police specifically rather than justice system attitudes broadly. The same pattern was noted when considering youth's own documentation status. Because negative attitudes toward police have been associated with decreased reports of victimization and other crimes, policy related to undocumented immigration should consider the unintended effects of such laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using data on 2,535 children included in the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, we investigate how the legal status of immigrant parents shapes their children’s behavioral functioning. Variation in internalizing and externalizing problems among Mexican youth with undocumented mothers, documented or naturalized citizen mothers, and U.S.-born mothers is analyzed using a comparative framework that contrasts their experience with that of other ethnoracial groups. Our findings reinforce the importance of differentiating children of immigrants by parental legal status in studying health and well-being. Children of undocumented Mexican migrants have significantly higher risks of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems than their counterparts with documented or naturalized citizen mothers. Regression results are inconsistent with simple explanations that emphasize group differences in socioeconomic status, maternal mental health, or family routines. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

We combine two approaches to gauge the achievements of the Mexican-origin second generation: one the intergenerational progress between immigrant parents and children, the other the gap between the second generation and non-Latino whites. We measure advancement of the Mexican-origin second generation using a suite of census-derived outcomes applied to immigrant parents in 1980 and grown children in 2005, as observed in California and Texas. Patterns of second-generation upward mobility are similar in the two states, with important differences across outcome indicators. Assessments are less favorable for men than women, especially in Texas. We compare Mexican-Americans to a non-Latino white reference group, as do most assimilation studies. However, we separate the reference group into those born in the same state as the second generation and those who have migrated in. We find that selective in-migration of more highly-educated whites has raised the bar on some, not all, measures of attainment. This poses a challenge to studies of assimilation that do not compare grown-children to their fellow natives of a state. Our model of greater temporal and regional specificity has broad applicability to studies guided by all theories of immigrant assimilation, integration and advancement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the immigration of Latin Americans and Mexicans to the United States throughout the 1990s and 21st century. The authors discuss anthropological research that relates to immigration, explore how anti-Mexican sentiment has grown throughout the U.S., and examine the issues related to illegal immigration, including the concept of anchor babies.

Twenty-first-century efforts to address an "immigration state of emergency" are anchored by timeworn racialized and gendered discourses of national precariousness and belonging. Through an assessment of recent policies governing mixed-citizenship- status families, this article studies how rhetorics of protecting the security of a vulnerable national citizenry justify the disparate legal treatment of undocumented migrants and their US citizen children. Part I of the article explores how recent attempts to repeal birthright citizenship for US-born children of undocumented parents merely reflect in exaggerated form how procedures for determining foreign-born children's citizenship have long relied upon racialized and feminized discourses of national vulnerability. Part 2 examines how family-deportation regimes forcing undocumented parents to choose between deporting their citizen children with them or leaving them in state custodial institutions like foster care communicate that nationalist cultural assimilation should trump the constitutional right to family and national residency. Children's unique developmental needs combine with national security fears to authorize sociolegal states of emergency. By evaluating 2010-13 immigration enforcement legislation, the channeling of children from mixed-legal-status families into foster care, and new policies like prosecutorial discretion and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the article contributes to the feminist, ethnic, and migration studies literatures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

- There were roughly 4 million children of undocumented parents in the United States in 2008. This article describes the effects that parental undocumented status can have on developmental contexts experienced in early childhood, before formal school entry. It focuses on early childhood as a crucial but still overlooked period for the study of children in immigrant families, a developmental stage when foundational cognitive and social skills are developing and in which social and economic disadvantage has particularly potent effects. Moreover, 91% of children under 6 with at least 1 undocumented parent are themselves U.S. citizens, which highlights the role of parental documentation status in affecting contexts of development that children may have access to but cannot select themselves. This article focuses on 3 sets of developmental contexts that may be sensitive to documentation status of parents: immediate postmigration contexts, in areas of legal, local enforcement policy, and neighborhood characteristics; everyday social settings, including program use, housing quality, and work conditions; and family processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the Supreme Court's decision in ZH ( Tanzania) is an important one, as this note explains, it is less novel than many suppose - and is in some ways disappointing. By stressing the importance of immigrant children's best interests, it fails to use this opportunity to promote their Convention rights effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unauthorized immigrants account for approximately one-fourth of all immigrants in the United States, yet they dominate public perceptions and are at the heart of a policy impasse. Caught in the middle are the children of these immigrants—youth who are coming of age and living in the shadows. An estimated 5.5 million children and adolescents are growing up with unauthorized parents and are experiencing multiple and yet unrecognized developmental consequences as a result of their family's existence in the shadow of the law. Although these youth are American in spirit and voice, they are nonetheless members of families that are "illegal" in the eyes of the law. In this article, the authors develop a conceptual framework to systematically examine the ways in which unauthorized status affects the millions of children, adolescents, and emerging adults caught in its wake. The authors elucidate the various dimensions of documentation status—going beyond the binary of the "authorized" and "unauthorized. " An ecological framework brings to the foreground a variety of systemic levels shaping the daily experiences of children and youth as they move through the developmental spectrum. The article moves on to examine a host of critical developmental outcomes that have implications for child and youth well-being as well as for our nation's future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Migration and stratification are increasingly intertwined. One day soon it will be impossible to understand one without the other. Both focus on life chances. Stratification is about differential life chances – who gets what and why – and migration is about improving life chances – getting more of the good things of life. To examine the interconnections of migration and stratification, we address a mix of old and new questions, carrying out analyses newly enabled by a unique new data set on recent legal immigrants to the United States (the New Immigrant Survey). We look at immigrant processing and lost documents, depression due to the visa process, presentation of self, the race-ethnic composition of an immigrant cohort (made possible by the data for the first time since 1961), black immigration from Africa and the Americas, skin color diversity among couples formed by US citizen sponsors and immigrant spouses, and English fluency among children age 8–12 and their immigrant parents. We find, inter alia, that children of previously illegal parents are especially more likely to be fluent in English, that native-born US citizen women tend to marry darker, that immigrant applicants who go through the visa process while already in the United States are more likely to have their documents lost and to suffer visa depression, and that immigration, by introducing accomplished black immigrants from Africa (notably via the visa lottery), threatens to overturn racial and skin color associations with skill. Our analyses show the mutual embeddedness of migration and stratification in the unfolding of the immigrants’ and their children’s life chances and the impacts on the stratification structure of the United States. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This article examines the legal consciousness and incorporation experiences of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Although this population may be disaggregated along several axes, one central distinction among them is their age at migration. Those who migrated as adults live out their daily lives in different social contexts than those who migrated as children. Therefore, although all undocumented immigrants are legally banned, their identities, sense of belonging, and interpretation of their status vary. Based on ethnographic observations and in-depth interviews of Latino undocumented immigrants from 2001 to 2010, I examine how illegality is experienced differently by social position. The findings suggest that the role of life-stage at migration and work-versus-school contexts importantly inform immigrants' legal consciousness. Fear predominates in the legal consciousness of first-generation undocumented immigrants, while the legal consciousness of the 1.5 generation is more heavily infused with stigma. Fear and stigma are both barriers to claims-making, but they may affect undocumented immigrants' potential for collective mobilization in different ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discuses the largely poor social conditions faced by Haitians living in the Dominican Republic. Emphasis is given to the Dominican government's policy on granting Dominican citizenship to Haitian nationals and their children. The author explains how Dominican notions of national sovereignty are largely at odds with an international understanding of human rights and social justice. Haitian immigrants make up a large portion of the Dominican Republic's labor force, but are victims of racism and mass deportations. Children of illegal Haitian immigrants face particularly poor working conditions, which has brought about international criticism for Dominican anti-Haitian policies.

The article presents discussion regarding children and the social disruption of immigration enforcement in the United States. Details are given describing the social report "Facing Our Future: Children in the Aftermath of Immigration Enforcement," by The Urban Institute, which examined instances of family separation, family well-being and child mental health resulting from the deportation of illegal immigrants from the United States between 2008 and 2009. Commentary is then given analyzing the implications of the study on the nation's social policy and the future social problems which could stem from it.