Immigrant and Refugee Children and Families

Culturally Responsive Practice

Alan Dettlaff, Rowena Fong

• Publisher: Columbia University Press
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9780231541794
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Emigración e inmigración

Designed for students of social work, public policy, ethnic studies, community development, and migration studies, Immigrant and Refugee Children and Families provides the best knowledge for culturally responsive practice with immigrant children, adolescents, and families. This textbook summarizes the unique circumstances of Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, South Asian, African, and Middle Eastern immigrant and refugee populations and the challenges faced by the social service systems, including child welfare, juvenile justice, education, health, and mental health care, that attempt to serve them. Each chapter features key terms, study questions, and resource lists, and the book meets many Council on Social Work Education Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) competencies. The book addresses the policy landscape affecting immigrant and refugee children in the United States, and a final section examines current and future approaches to advocacy.

PART |

U.S. Immigration and Refugee Systems and the Federal Policy Landscape

CHAPTER |

Introduction

ALAN J. DETTLAFF, ROWENA FONG, and CAITLIN O’GRADY

IN 2013, the foreign-born population of the United States reached a historic high of more than 41 million (Zong & Batalova, 2015). However, transnational migration to the United States is not a new phenomenon. In fact, since the founding of the United States, migration has been an integral component of the country’s history (Jaggers, Gabbard, & Jaggers, 2014). Who migrates to the United States, and why do they undertake this journey? This chapter will explore these questions, first by providing a theoretical overview of the factors driving migration and then by discussing trends in migration patterns during specific periods of U.S. history. After exploring these questions, the chapter concludes by considering how a historical understanding of migration patterns can inform social work practice with the present foreign-born population.

FACTORS DRIVING MIGRATION: A THEORETICAL OVERVIEW

In order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing migration from an individual’s country of origin, it is necessary to draw on theories spanning a range of disciplines (Brettell & Hollifield, 2008). Economic theory, for example, suggests that “push” factors such as poor living conditions, lack of employment opportunities, and low wages drive individuals to leave their country of origin, whereas “pull” factors such as available employment and higher wages influence decisions to migrate to a specific receiving country (Brettell & Hollifield, 2008; Massey, Durand, & Malone, 2003). Economic factors in isolation, however, do not sufficiently explain individuals’ decisions to migrate (Brettell & Hollifield, 2008; Massey et al., 2003). Political conditions within a sending country also largely influence migration patterns. In countries with weak systems of governance, individuals and families may undertake the migration journey because the government in their country of origin lacks the necessary infrastructure to provide services essential to their well-being (Betts, 2011). Individuals’ migration decisions are influenced by internal conditions within their country of origin as well as by the extent to which social capital is available to migrants in a receiving country (Brettell & Hollifield, 2008; Massey et al., 2003). Massey et al. identify migrant networks as the primary form of social capital driving migration to a specific receiving country, and they define migrant networks as “sets of interpersonal ties that connect migrants, former migrants, and nonmigrants at places of origin and destination through reciprocal ties of kinship, friendship, and shared community origin” (Massey et al., 2003, p. 19). This definition suggests that when there is an established community of individuals of shared cultural and national heritage in a receiving locale, there is a greater likelihood of subsequent migration. New migrants entering a community where there is an established network of support have more resources available to navigate the cultural context of their new country of residence, thus easing the transition to life in the receiving country (Massey et al., 2003). The term immigrants is used to identify individuals who migrate from their country of origin to a new country of residence for reasons such as those listed here.

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN VOLUNTARY AND FORCED MIGRATION

The previous section framed migration as a decision that individuals make voluntarily, but it should also be noted that there are cases where individuals are forced to migrate as a result of government-sponsored violence and persecution directed at them because of their membership in a specific target group (Zolberg, Suhrke, & Aguayo, 1989). In these cases, the international community acknowledges a need for special protection (Zolberg et al., 1989). Individuals escaping persecution in their country of origin may seek temporary protection in a neighboring country and request permission to permanently resettle in a third country as a refugee. Individuals are identified as refugees if they are unable to return to their country of origin because of persecution or the threat of persecution and are granted permission while abroad to resettle in a host country (Burt & Batalova, 2014). Refugees resettling in the United States are able to apply for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status one year after their admission to the United States (Burt & Batalova, 2014). In 2012, 58,179 individuals were resettled in the United States under refugee status (Burt & Batalova, 2014).

Refugees are granted protected status before arriving in their country of resettlement, but forced migrants may also arrive in a country where they wish to resettle without having been granted this protected status. Such migrants are identified as asylees, signifying that they have not been granted refugee status before resettling but instead subsequently request protection upon their arrival (Burt & Batalova, 2014). Asylees do not enter their new country of residence with protected legal status, and therefore they must prove before an immigration court that fear of persecution prevents their return to their country of origin.

The international community distinguishes between immigrants, refugees, and asylees, but the literature suggests that in practice these distinctions are not always clear (Betts, 2011). Even among individuals not formally recognized as refugees or asylees, material deprivations or a lack of security that will threaten their survival if they remain in their country of origin may force them to migrate (Betts, 2011). Whether migrants are identified as immigrants, refugees, or asylees, it is important to recognize the complexity of factors driving their migration journey to their new country of residence.

U.S. MIGRATION TRENDS: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

An analysis of migration patterns throughout U.S. history illustrates the ways in which multiple factors converge to influence the migrations of specific populations in distinct sociopolitical contexts. This section will offer a brief history of migration flows to the United States from the time of its founding to the present, emphasizing the factors that influenced the migrations of specific populations during distinct periods of U.S. history.

Migration in the Late Eighteenth Through Late Nineteenth Centuries

In the immediate aftermath of U.S. independence in the late eighteenth century, the U.S. government welcomed mi grants as a strategy to populate their newly founded territory and to help their economy prosper. Jaggers et al. (2014) refer to this period from 1776 through 1881 as the Open Door era, signifying that there was little to no emphasis on regulating migration flows during this period. The individuals and families who undertook the migration journey to the United States during this period were primarily Europe an: between 1790 and 1892, more than 16 million Europeans migrated to the United States, of whom approximately 90 percent were from the northern European countries of Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, and the Scandinavian region (Bankston & Hidalgo, 2006). Asian migration to the United States also began toward the end of this period, with the first Chinese immigrants arriving in California at the start of the Gold Rush era in 1849 (Paik, Kula, Saito, Rahman, & Witenstein, 2014). Migration to the United States during this period was motivated largely by the lure of employment opportunities and opportunities for economic and social advancement (Bankston & Hidalgo, 2006).

The Beginning of Immigration Regulation

Although the U.S. government welcomed immigrants to help the country prosper after its founding, it began to place regulations on migration flows in the late nineteenth century as the immigrant population continued to grow (Jaggers et al., 2014). Jaggers et al. (2014) define the period from 1882 through 1916 as the Era of Regulation and identify such regulation as largely a result of concerns that increased migration would pose a threat to the country’s national and cultural identities. Chinese immigrants in particular were impacted by nativist discrimination, which culminated in the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Jaggers et al., 2014; Paik et al., 2014). In response to the fear that Chinese laborers were taking away job opportunities from U.S.-born citizens, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 barred all skilled and unskilled Chinese laborers from entering the United States. The legislation also imposed barriers that made it increasingly difficult for Chinese immigrants who were not laborers to enter the country, thus, by the turn of the twentieth century, largely decreasing the number of Chinese who made the migration journey to the United States (Jaggers et al., 2014; Paik et al., 2014).

In addition to legislation restricting Chinese migration, the U.S. government began to establish ports of entry to process immigrants arriving in the United States. First, Ellis Island in New York was established to process immigrants arriving from Europe, and later Angel Island was established in San Francisco, California, in 1910 to process immigrants arriving from Asia (Jaggers et al., 2014). During the period of these initial regulations, the majority of individuals migrating to the United States continued to be of European origin, although there was a demographic shift from northern Europe to southern and eastern Europe (Bankston & Hidalgo, 2006). From 1901 to 1910, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Italy were the countries that sent the most immigrants to the United States (Wasem, 2013). Economic factors continued to motivate migration during this period, although a growing number of eastern European migrants, particularly Jewish migrants from Russia, came to the United States to escape political and religious persecution (Bankston & Hidalgo, 2006). In 1910, a growing number of Mexican migrants also began to enter the United States, to escape the violence resulting from the Mexican Revolution (Bankston & Hidalgo, 2006).

The Escalation of Immigration Restriction

The continuing flow of migrants to the United States, and the changing demographics of the migrant population, spurred increased nativist fears and stricter attempts to limit the number and types of individuals entering the United States (Jaggers et al., 2014). Jaggers et al. (2014) characterize these increased regulatory efforts as reflecting an Era of Restriction, which they estimate to have spanned the period from 1917 through 1964. This period of increased restriction began with the Immigration Act of 1917, which both prohibited illiterate individuals over the age of 16 from entering the country and imposed an $8 head tax on all immigrants (Jaggers et al., 2014; Rosales, 2000). The Immigration Act of 1917 was followed in 1924 by legislation that granted entry to the United States according to a nationality-based quota system, which allotted 96 percent of all designated entries to individuals from European countries and prohibited all non-white Asian migrants from entering the United States (Hernandez, 2010; Rosales, 2000). Because of the necessity of Mexican labor to keep the U.S. economy strong, Mexicans were exempt from the quota system (Hernandez, 2010; Rosales, 2000). As a result of this restrictive legislation, from 1921 through 1930, migration was predominantly from Europe and Mexico, with Germany, Canada, Italy, and Mexico sending the most migrants during this period (Wasem, 2013).

With the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 and the resulting scarcity of employment, the U.S. government became increasingly concerned with limiting migration flows. Whereas the U.S. economy had previously relied on Mexican labor, this demand reversed during the era of the Great Depression, and the climate in the United States became increasingly hostile to Mexican immigrants (Rosales, 2000). In an effort to curb Mexican migration, particularly Mexican immigrants who entered the United States without documents, the government passed legislation in 1929 that punished individuals caught for a second time without documents with a fine of $1,000 and a prison term of one year (Rosales, 2000). The political climate remained hostile to immigrants until the onset of World War II, when the number of males sent to fight overseas created a labor shortage in the United States (Rosales, 2000). As migration from Europe dramatically decreased during World War II (Rumbaut, 1994), the U.S. government responded to this labor shortage by entering into a formal agreement with the Mexican government that allowed Mexican men who met specified age and physical health requirements to enter the United States legally on a temporary basis as guest workers (Boehm, 2008; Donato, 1994; Gamboa, 1987; Hernandez, 2010; Rosas, 2011). This program, known as the Bracero program, remained in effect from 1942 through 1964 (Boehm, 2008; Donato, 1994; Gamboa, 1987; Hernandez, 2010; Rosas, 2011). Although adult males meeting the specified age and health requirements were given legal authorization to work in the United States, demands for labor and unstable economic conditions in Mexico led to a rise in undocumented immigration to the United States among ineligible males, women, and children from Mexico who sought the same economic opportunities as Bracero laborers (Hernandez, 2006, 2010). This rise in undocumented immigration led to increased enforcement activities on the part of the U.S. government. A 1954 campaign known as Operation Wetback was the most notable enforcement activity of this period. The intent of this highly publicized campaign was to intensify enforcement efforts, with the aim of demonstrating to the Mexican immigrant community that “illegal” immigration would not be tolerated (Hernandez, 2006, 2010). The period that Jaggers et al. (2014) define as the Era of Restriction is thus characterized both by legislation restricting entry into the United States based on country of origin and by increased efforts to curb and punish “illegal” immigration.

Changing Trends in Migration Flows: 1965 to the Present

Research suggests that migration flows to the United States changed significantly after 1965 as a result of national legislation that ended the nationality-based quota system (Jaggers et al., 2014). Rather than allocating immigrant visas on the basis of national origin, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 allocated 300,000 immigrant visas per year, including 170,000 visas allocated for migrants from the Eastern Hemisphere. Allocations according to hemisphere were eliminated in 1978 (Jaggers et al., 2014). Changing migration patterns were influenced not only by these legislative changes but also by official recognition of the need to grant special protection to individuals fleeing persecution in their country of origin. Although the United Nations’ 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees formally defined the plight of refugees and acknowledged the responsibility of the international community in granting protection to this category of migrants (Zolberg et al., 1989), the United States’ acknowledgment of the plight of refugees can be traced to the Refugee Act of 1980. The Refugee Act of 1980 officially adopted the United Nations’ definition of refugee and established the Office of Refugee Resettlement to coordinate resettlement efforts (Kennedy, 1981; Office of Refugee Resettlement, n.d.). The establishment of this formalized system for admitting refugees to the United States, coupled with the elimination of the nationality-based quota system, led to demographic shifts in the national origin of individuals migrating to the United States.

Reflecting these changing demographic trends in migration patterns, statistics indicate that from the 1960s to the present, the majority of migrants arrived in the United States from Latin America and Asia (Jaggers et al., 2014; Rumbaut, 1994; Wasem, 2013). In contrast to 1940, when only 13 percent of immigrants were arriving from Latin America and Asia and 86 percent were arriving from Canada and Europe, by 1990, less than 13 percent of the immigrant population were arriving from Canada and Europe and 84 percent were arriving from Asia and Latin America (Rumbaut, 1994). Although the role of legislative changes in shifting patterns of migration flows cannot be ignored, Rumbaut (1994) suggests that the reasons for the changing demographics are more complex. Changes in migration patterns can also be attributed to internal conditions within sending countries in the post–World War II ...