Suchergebnisse

This paper explores the impact of the 2007 European Union enlargement on the consumption behavior of immigrant households. Using data from a unique Italian survey and a difference-in-differences approach, we find that the enlargement induced a significant consumption increase for the immigrant households from new member states both in the short- and in the medium-run. This enlargement effect cannot be attributed to the mere legalization as it concerns both undocumented and documented immigrants, albeit through different channels. Detailed information on immigrants' legal status (undocumented/documented) and sector of employment (informal/formal) allows us to shed light on the exact mechanisms. Following the enlargement, previously undocumented immigrants experienced an increase in the labor income by moving from the informal towards the formal economy, whereas immigrants who were already working legally in Italy benefitted from the increased probability of getting a permanent contract. Enhanced employment stability in turn reduced the uncertainty about future labor income leading to an increase in documented immigrants' consumption expenditure.

The purpose of the study was to examine differences between documented and undocumented Latino immigrants in the prevalence of three immigration-related challenges (separation from family, traditionality, and language difficulties), which were made more severe after the passage of restrictive immigration legislation in 1996. Specifically, the study sought to determine the combined and unique associations of legal status, the three immigration-related challenges listed above, and fear of deportation to acculturative stress related to family and other social contexts. Participants in the study consisted of 416 documented and undocumented Mexican and Central American immigrants living in two major cities in Texas. The Hispanic Stress Inventory–Immigrant form was used to assess acculturative stress in the sample. Results indicated that although undocumented immigrants reported higher levels of the immigration challenges of separation from family, traditionality, and language difficulties than documented immigrants, both groups reported similar levels of fear of deportation. Results also indicated that the immigration challenges and undocumented status were uniquely associated with extrafamilial acculturative stress but not with intrafamilial acculturative stress. Only fear of deportation emerged as a unique predictor of both extrafamililal and intrafamilial acculturative stress.

This article focuses on the effects of an ambivalent legal status on Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants' experiences with the U.S. educational system, focusing on how liminal legality shapes access to educational opportunities and immigrants' perceptions of these opportunities. Drawing on the segmented assimilation framework and on thirty-four in-depth interviews conducted with Guatemalan and Salvadoran immigrants in Phoenix, Arizona, the author argues that an ambiguous legal status molds views and perceptions of educational prospects and, as such, is central in determining immigrants' place in the educational system. While waiting for their statuses to become regular, they dream of higher education-dreams that are for the most part unattainable. Their legality, while not the only determining factor, does exacerbate and facilitate other conditioning circumstances, such as financial difficulties, family separations, and so on, that also impinge on their educational prospects. This case highlights the importance of immigration policies in shaping assimilation in critical ways. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2008 The American Academy of Political and Social Science.]

Drawing upon in-depth interviews with young adult children of Brazilian immigrants, Cebulko finds that legal status, like race, class and gender, acts as a form of social stratification. Legal status, however, involves multiple categories, including grey areas in-between fully 'legal' and 'illegal.' Undocumented, liminally legal, lawful permanent residents, and citizens each live with a different set of rights and level of precariousness. These impact not only their economic opportunities, but also the social dynamics of Brazilian youth's transition into adulthood. Cebulko's work will be of interest to scholars of immigration, legal status, and stratification, especially as countries contemplate immigration reform, including the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in the United States.

This article focuses on the effects of an ambivalent legal status on Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants' experiences with the U.S. educational system, focusing on how liminal legality shapes access to educational opportunities and immigrants' perceptions of these opportunities. Drawing on the segmented assimilation framework and on thirty-four in-depth interviews conducted with Guatemalan and Salvadoran immigrants in Phoenix, Arizona, the author argues that an ambiguous legal status molds views and perceptions of educational prospects and, as such, is central in determining immigrants' place in the educational system. While waiting for their statuses to become regular, they dream of higher education—dreams that are for the most part unattainable. Their legality, while not the only determining factor, does exacerbate and facilitate other conditioning circumstances, such as financial difficulties, family separations, and so on, that also impinge on their educational prospects. This case highlights the importance of immigration policies in shaping assimilation in critical ways.

In this paper, we explore how the effects of perceived immigrant threat, American national identity, and attitudes toward immigration-dominated racial/ethnic groups on perceptions of immigrant contributions differ for documented and undocumented immigrants. We contend that different levels of perceived risk associated with undocumented and documented immigrants activate the effects of immigrant threat and American identity in different ways. We consider the varying effects of general perceptions of immigrant threat, and we also differentiate the effects of American pride (i.e., positive sentiments about being an American) and American exclusion (i.e., negative sentiments associated with criteria needed to be considered an American). We use data from the 2016 to 2017 Voter Study Group surveys, which includes a survey experiment with respondents randomly assigned to documented and undocumented immigrant treatments. We find strong negative effects of immigrant threat perceptions on Americans support for both immigrant groups, with observed effects significantly stronger for undocumented immigrants. Further, while American exclusion has strong negative effects on attitudes for both immigrant groups, American pride depresses support only for undocumented immigrants. We also find that evaluations of Hispanics have effects on perceptions of contributions for documented and undocumented immigrants, though the effect of Asian evaluations is limited to documented immigrants.

The main purpose of this article is to analyze the labor market integration of documented and undocumented skilled Mexican immigrants in Los Angeles Metropolitan region during the global recession of 2008. To this end, we use a mixed methodological approach. From the quantitative perspective, we analyze data from the American Community Survey. The qualitative approach includes 20 open-ended interviews with Mexican skilled immigrants. The main findings reveal that skilled immigrants were not negatively affected by the global recession. In addition, legal immigration status turned out to be the most important factor in differentiating those who obtained a skilled occupation and those who did not. However, some immigrants, including those who were undocumented, were able to strategically use their investment in human capital and their access to professional social networks in order to obtain professional occupations.

AbstractThis paper explores the impact of the 2007 European Union enlargement on the consumption behaviour of immigrant households. Using data from a unique Italian survey and a difference‐in‐differences approach, we find that the enlargement induced a significant consumption increase for the immigrant households from new member states both in the short and in the medium run. This enlargement effect cannot be attributed to the mere legalization as it concerns both undocumented and documented immigrants, albeit through different channels. Detailed information on immigrants' legal status (undocumented/documented) and sector of employment (informal/formal) allows us to shed light on the exact mechanisms. Following the enlargement, previously undocumented immigrants experienced an increase in the labour income by moving from the informal towards the formal economy, whereas immigrants who were already working legally in Italy benefited from the increased probability of getting a permanent contract. Enhanced employment stability in turn reduced the uncertainty about future labour income leading to an increase in documented immigrants' consumption expenditure.

This paper explores the impact of the 2007 European Union enlargement on the consumption behaviour of immigrant households. Using data from a unique Italian survey and a difference-in-differences approach, we find that the enlargement induced a significant consumption increase for the immigrant households from new member states both in the short and in the medium run. This enlargement effect cannot be attributed to the mere legalization as it concerns both undocumented and documented immigrants, albeit through different channels. Detailed information on immigrants' legal status (undocumented/documented) and sector of employment (informal/formal) allows us to shed light on the exact mechanisms. Following the enlargement, previously undocumented immigrants experienced an increase in the labour income by moving from the informal towards the formal economy, whereas immigrants who were already working legally in Italy benefited from the increased probability of getting a permanent contract. Enhanced employment stability in turn reduced the uncertainty about future labour income leading to an increase in documented immigrants' consumption expenditure.

This report is prepared in the framework of the Europe H2020 project 'Rebuilding an inclusive, value based Europe of solidarity and trust through social investments' (RE-InVEST). The project aims to evaluate the social investment strategy of the European Commission implemented in 2013 in response to the social damage of the financial crisis in 2008. The RE-InVEST consortium assesses the social damage of the crisis from human rights and capability based approaches with an eye to those vulnerable groups affected the most by the crisis in the 12 countries (and 13 regions) covered by the consortium. The analyses are carried out by the local partners, who consist of NGOs and/or researchers. The crisis of 2008 didn't affected Belgium in the same way as other European countries. Belgium was one of the first countries that linked up again with growth. But this revival was temporarily. From 2012 on, the backlash hit Belgium. Economic growth became negative intensified by higher unemployment rates. This backlash was also translated into electoral choices. A conservative inspired government took form and installed a neoliberal agenda with a lot of austerity measures. Among vulnerable people in Belgium people with a history of migration tend to be the most exposed. Poverty among them is high, much higher than among native people. Within this group undocumented migrants and newcomers are the most affected, but they are nearly invisible in statistics and official reports. Due to the harsher political climate they feel more than others the impact of the crisis and the anti-crisis measures. The harsher political climate is also translated into more restrictive policies towards people with a history of migration. For this reason the group was identified as particularly affected by the crisis. The RE-InVEST consortium has jointly developed the PAHRCA-methodology that combines princi­ples of Participatory Action research with Human Rights and Capability Approaches. This qualitative, par­ticipatory research does not generate ...

What determines whether a temporary migrant chooses to go abroad as a documented worker or as an illegal alien? We address the question from a theoretical perspective by focusing on how immigration policies, aimed at both documented and undocumented foreign workers, influence the choice between the two modes of migration. Calibrating our model to the specific case of temporary emigration from Thailand, we provide estimates of the relative policy effectiveness. The deportation rate facing undocumented aliens is shown to be the most potent instrument, while some of the measures directed at documented contract workers are found to be more effective in influencing the choice of emigration mode than border controls and employer sanctions aimed at illegal immigrants.