Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T19:36:46.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not Every Family: Selective Reunification in Contemporary US Immigration Laws

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2010

Maria Cecilia Hwang  and
Rhacel Salazar Parreñas
Maria Cecilia Hwang
Affiliation:
Brown University
Rhacel Salazar Parreñas
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article questions the notion that family reunification is the cornerstone of US immigration policies and points to the violation of the right to family reunification in US law. It specifically looks at the forcible separation of legal residents from their families, including foreign domestic workers in the Labor Certification Program; US-born children with undocumented relatives, including parents and siblings; and guest workers. We argue that the growing influence of nationalist politics and big businesses trumps the interests of the family in US immigration policies, resulting in the prolonged and forcible separation of working-class and poor migrant families.

Type
Fixing America's Broken Immigration System
Information
International Labor and Working-Class History , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , Fall 2010 , pp. 100 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © International Labor and Working-Class History, Inc. 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

3. United Nations Development Report 2009, Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development (New York, 2009).

4. Sassen, Saskia, Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization (New York, 1996)Google Scholar.

5. Jennifer Ludden, “1965 Immigration Law Changed Face of America.” NPR, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5391395 (Accessed January 2010).

6. Reimers, David M., Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America, 2nd ed. (New York, 1992)Google Scholar.

7. Ngai, Mae M., Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton, 2004), 238Google Scholar.

8. The preference categories are as follows: (1) unmarried sons and daughters over the age of twenty-one of US citizens (maximum twenty percent); (2) spouses and unmarried children of legal resident immigrants (maximum twenty percent); (3) professionals, scientists, and artists of “exceptional ability” (maximum ten percent); (4) married adult children of US citizens (ten percent plus quota unused by the first three preferences); (5) siblings of US citizens (twenty-four percent plus quota unused by the first four preferences); (6) “skilled” and “unskilled” workers deemed in short supply (maximum ten percent); and (7) refugees (maximum six percent). (See Ngai, Impossible Subjectss, 350 fn. 107; Reimers, Still the Golden Door, 80–81.)

9. Reimers, Still the Golden Door, 70.

10. The occupational/family preferences were applied to the Western Hemisphere in 1976. The 1976 amendment also closed a legal loophole that had enabled undocumented immigrants with US-born citizens to legalize their status. See Ngai, Impossible Subjects, 261.

11. Reimers, Still the Golden Door, 259.

12. Ibid.

13. Ngai, Impossible Subjects, 227–64.

14. Sassen, Losing Control?

15. Parreñas, Rhacel Salazar, Children of Global Migration: Transnational Families and Gendered Woes (Manila, 2006), 147Google Scholar.

16. Gardner, Martha, The Qualities of a Citizen: Women, Immigration, and Citizenship, 1870–1965 (Princeton, 2005), 214Google Scholar.

17. Ibid.; Parreñas, Children of Global Migration, 141–60.

18. A prospective migrant could seek permission for reentry but the risk of denial discourages many from leaving the United States while their residency status is still pending.

19. Dizon, S., “The Child Status Protection Act: Does Immigration Math Solve the Family Unity Equation?” Hastings Women's Law Journal 16 (2004): 117–38Google Scholar; United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1f0c0a5659083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=1f0c0a5659083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed January 2010).

20. Gardner, The Qualities of a Citizen, 87.

21. Ibid., 87, 99, 176–98.

22. Fix, Michael E. and Zimmermann, Wendy, “All under One Roof: Mixed-Status Families in an Era of Reform,” Urban Institute, October 6, 1999Google Scholar.

23. Thai, Hung Cam, For Better or for Worse: Vietnamese International Marriages in the New Global Economy (New Brunswick, NJ, 2008), 16Google ScholarPubMed.

24. Legal resident parents can be placed under deportation proceedings if they have committed deportable offenses, some of which are relatively minor crimes. This mandate is applicable retroactively.

25. As an alternative, all of the members of a family can relocate to the home country of the parent(s), but this would deny the birthright citizenship of the children.

26. Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2202, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, September 24, 1996, 104th Congress, 2d session, Report 104–828, 213. (As cited in Fix, “All under One Roof,” 7.)

27. Fix, “All under One Roof,” 7.

28. Aizenman, N.C. and Hsu, Spencer S., “Activist's Arrest Highlights Key Immigrant Issue,” The Washington Post, August 21, 2007Google Scholar; Colvin, Amanda, “Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Realities of De Facto Deportation and International Comparisons Toward Proposing a Solution,” Saint Louis University Law Journal 53:219: 291–44Google Scholar; McElmurry, Sara, “Elvira Arellano: No Rosa Parks—Creation of ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’ in an Opinion Column,” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 31(2009): 182–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. Hahamovitch, Cindy, “Creating Perfect Immigrants: Guestworkers of the World in Historical Perspective 1,” Labor History 44 (February 1, 2003): 69–94 and 70, fn 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. USCIS, http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=13ad2f8b69583210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=13ad2f8b69583210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed January 2010).

31. Migration News 14(40 (2007): http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/comments.php?id=3318_0_2_0 (Accessed January 2010).

32. Biao Xiang notes that temporary labor migrants and professional H-1 migrants are paid below prevailing wages. See Xiang, Biao, Global “Body Shopping”: An Indian Labor System in the Information Technology Industry (Princeton, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. Hahamovitch, “Creating Perfect Immigrants.”

34. Schneider, Dorothee, “Symbolic Citizenship, Nationalism, and the Distant State: The United States Congress in the 1996 Debate on Immigration Reform,” Citizenship Studies 4 (November 1, 2000): 255–73, 259CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35. Martin, Philip, Martin, Susan Forbes, and Weil, Patrick, Managing Migration: The Promise of Cooperation (Oxford, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. Hahamovitch, “Creating Perfect Immigrants.”