Undocumented and in College

Students and Institutions in a Climate of National Hostility

Terry-Ann Jones, Laura Nichols, Terry-Ann Jones, Laura Nichols

• Publisher: Fordham University Press
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780823276172, 9780823276165
• eBook ISBN: 9780823276189
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

The current daily experiences of undocumented students as they navigate the processes of entering and then thriving in Jesuit colleges are explored alongside an investigation of the knowledge and attitudes among staff and faculty about undocumented students in their midst, and the institutional response to their presence. Cutting across the fields of U.S. immigration policy, theory and history, religion, law, and education, Undocumented and in College delineates the historical and present-day contexts of immigration, including the role of religious institutions. This unique volume, based on an extensive two-year study (2010–12) of undocumented students at Jesuit colleges in the United States and with contributions from various scholars working within these institutions, incorporates survey research and in-depth interviews to present the perspectives of students, staff, and the institutions.

1 Theoretical and Conceptual Considerations for the Study of Undocumented College Students

TERRY-ANN JONES

Introduction

Developing a model through which to understand the reasons for migration has long been central to the field of migration studies, and the scholarship that has emerged to better understand this common human activity has contributed to this effort. The movement of human beings across regions predates the establishment of political borders, yet scholars still struggle to understand the process through a comprehensive theoretical approach. Scholars of migration theory often lament that there is no single, comprehensive theory of international migration that reflects the myriad contemporary processes of migration. I would argue that there should not be a single, comprehensive theoretical approach to such diverse, dynamic processes in which both the players and their realities are so widely divergent, even if they hail from similar countries or regions. Instead, scholars have developed several varying and often complementary approaches that define, explain, and predict processes of international migration. This chapter reviews the major theoretical approaches to international migration and considers their use as a tool to explain the dynamics surrounding the migration processes, meanings of citizenship, race/ethnicity, racism, stigmatization, and other challenges that undocumented youth encounter in interacting with institutions, particularly in their pursuit of a tertiary-level education.

Classical Theories of International Migration

Although theories of international migration have evolved as scholars have debated the priorities and considerations that drive the migration process, Ravenstein’s “laws of migration”¹ is commonly cited as the starting point for the development of migration theory. Ravenstein developed a set of governing principles related to migration, among which he theorized that migration is primarily caused by economic factors.

Lee’s concept of the push-pull theory of migration is similarly fundamental to the development of contemporary theories of migration that explain the decision-making process, as the decision to migrate involves consideration of the characteristics of the home country that individuals and families try to escape (push factors) and factors that are attractive in the receiving country (pull factors).² About three-quarters of the undocumented population of the United States are Latinos, and the majority of undocumented students were born in Latin America, particularly Central America. Accordingly, the push factors that propel their families to the United States are likely to include poverty, political instability, and increasingly prevalent gang-motivated crime and violence, all of which are pervasive in the parts of Latin America that are the major sending countries of undocumented immigrants in the United States. That the five countries with the highest murder rates in the world are all in Latin America (Honduras, Venezuela, Belize, El Salvador, and Guatemala)³ is undoubtedly related to the urgency with which people emigrate from these countries, even without the documentation that they require for legal status. From the standpoint of the receiving country, the relative political and economic stability and the prospects for upward socioeconomic mobility serve as attractive pull factors, even when discerning migrants consider the risk of entering and living in the United States without legal immigration status. Further, the breakdown of immigration policy post-1986 in the United States combined with heightened security efforts post-9/11 has resulted in immigration policies and practices that are at best ambiguous and at worst conflictual, leaving individuals and families at the mercy of local sentiment and constantly changing political power.⁴ It is on this basis of contemplating the risks and benefits associated with migration that the following theories of international migration are based.

Contemporary Theories of International Migration

Building on Lee’s model of a decision-making process that weighs the potential benefits of migration against the potential costs, other theories of migration have emerged, many of which assume that an individual makes a rational decision based on her or his best interests, or perhaps the best interests of their children or other family members. Other models are based on macroeconomic factors and structural patterns that are beyond the control of individual migrants. The neoclassical economics approach is based on the assumption that transnational discrepancies in labor supply, demand, and wages serve as major motivating factors for migration. Migrants, according to this approach, leave countries with high unemployment, high labor supply, and low wages in favor of countries with lower unemployment, higher labor demand, and higher wages. The assumption that migration essentially serves to improve the economic conditions of migrants has, however, attracted much criticism, as it does not account for the myriad other factors that encourage people to leave their home countries, or the macroeconomic factors that individuals do not determine.

Both the world-systems approach and the dual labor market approach consider the macroeconomic and structural factors that influence migration decisions. According to the world-systems approach, migration is the result of inequities between states and as long as those inequities persist, the flow of people will continue from poor countries with limited global influence, or “periphery” countries, to the wealthy, dominant, “core” countries. In contrast to the world-systems analysis’ emphasis on the power dynamics between countries, the dual or segmented labor market approach considers the conditions of the receiving country’s domestic labor market. The duality or segmentation of the labor market refers to the tendency in migrant-receiving countries for some jobs to be relegated to a secondary status, marked by lower wages, lower skill level, and less security. For example in the United States, positions in agricultural labor, slaughterhouses and meat processing, landscaping, and domestic work are often stigmatized in this way. The consequence of the stigmatization of some segments of the labor market is that these “secondary” types of jobs become unattractive to the U.S.-born, which then limits the availability of labor, creating a demand for foreign labor. This demand stimulates the impetus to migrate.

The new household economics of migration is grounded in a similar assumption as the neoclassical economics approach, that migration is a response to global differentials in the supply and demand of labor and capital.⁵ However, in this model the cost-benefit analysis of the possible risks that the migration process might entail versus potential economic gains considers the family or household rather than just the individual. In this context, the expectation is that the decision, the costs, and the benefits are all shared by the family or household. For example, it is not uncommon for parents to migrate without their children, leaving them in the care of family members while they seek employment abroad. Leaving the children behind eases the difficult process of obtaining employment, caretaking, and housing, but the migrant then has the obligation to support not only herself and her children who remain in the home country, but also caregivers and possibly other family members. As such, the later migration of children who are or become undocumented is likely to affect not only the individual child or her parents, but also a broader network that could include the extended family, and members of the family or household may incur expenses through the process. The migration of undocumented children ought not be reduced to only economic motivations; rather, an understanding of the significance of kinship networks in the decision to migrate, as well as the difficulties or lack of opportunities in the home country that would make the risk of undocumented status a more attractive option than staying at home, are fundamental to developing an understanding of the needs, fears, and challenges that new immigrant students in the United States face, especially their anxieties over protecting their family members. The new household economics model also recognizes that wage differentials are not necessary for migration to occur; there are other risks and benefits such as personal safety and educational opportunities for family members that are also considered.

To distinguish the new household economics of migration from the neoclassical approach, Porumbescu underscores the divergent ways in which each of the two approaches perceives return migration.⁶ Because the neoclassical economics approach posits that migration occurs in order to improve wages and economic standing, return migration suggests a failure to attain this upward mobility. On the other hand, the new household economics of migration prioritizes the family and/or household, so return migration suggests that the migrant has attained the desired goals of migration and the return is an indicator of success.

Although the family commitments that are embedded in the new household economics of migration suggest that parents carefully weigh the costs and benefits of migrating with children who will be without legal migration status, parents are often criticized for their role in the predicament of undocumented children and youth. Using the example of the perception of asylum-seeking children and their parents in Norway, Engebrigtsen contends that the generally negative way in which they are perceived by the Norwegian public reflects cultural biases.⁷ The parent-child relationship is assumed to be based on care and nurturing of the child by the parent according to Norwegian standards of parenting, and placing a child in the precarious position of being an undocumented immigrant is deemed to be contradictory to these standards. However, Engebrigtsen argues that based on the perspectives of some of the countries of origin of unaccompanied minors who arrive in Norway, the child can from an early age express care and nurturing for his or her family through the process of migration, which can lead to prosperity for the family. In other words, assumptions on the part of receiving societies that undocumented children have been harmed by their families fail to consider the nuanced ways in which care is expressed in different cultural contexts. While it is unlikely that any parent, regardless of culture, would desire that their children live the furtive life of an undocumented migrant, Engebrigtsen’s perspective does question the receiving country’s assumptions of the children’s needs and of their particular source of distress. According to Engebrigtsen, “the general proposition that child migration leads to psychological trauma is also problematic.”⁸ Ensor similarly argues that “Migration, colonialism, and missionary activity served as vehicles through which white middle-class Western notions of childhood, and their associated Western academic discourses, were exported to the world in the nineteenth century.”⁹ She contends that it is this imposition of cultural norms that resulted in the perception of children as victimized, traumatized, and lacking agency in their own lives. On the contrary, as we will see in future chapters, undocumented university students demonstrate an admirable level of determination and strength as they not only strive for their education, but also in many cases share responsibility for the family’s and community’s well-being. The research presented in the following chapters indicates, from the undocumented youth’s perspectives, their expressed needs and their relationships with their family members, but the research findings also illustrate that the students’ own fortitude and agency are no less ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Half Title
• Introduction
• 1. Theoretical and Conceptual Considerations for the Study of Undocumented College Students
• 2. Immigration, Jesuit Higher Education, and the Undocumented
• 3. Becoming Allies in Eradicating Long-Standing Legal Barriers
• 4. Alma Mater, Mater Exulum. Jesuit Education and Immigration in America: A Moral Framework Rooted in History and Mission
• 5. Getting, Staying, and Being in College: The Experiences of Students
• 6. From Research to Action: Jesuit Institutional Practices in Response to Undocumented Students
• Conclusion
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgments
• Index