The Burden of Deportation on Children in Mexican Immigrant ... · The Burden of Deportation on...

JOANNA DREBY University at Albany, State University of New York

The Burden of Deportation on Children in Mexican

Immigrant Families

In 2011, a record number of foreign-bornindividuals were detained and removed fromthe United States. This article looks at theimpact enforcement policies have had onMexican families more broadly and childrenspecifically. Drawing on interviews with 91parents and 110 children in 80 households,the author suggests that, similar to the injurypyramid used by public health professionals,a deportation pyramid best depicts the burdenof deportation on children. At the top of thepyramid are instances that have had the mostsevere consequences on children’s daily lives:families in which a deportation has led topermanent family dissolution. But enforcementpolicies have had the greatest impact on childrenat the bottom of the pyramid. Regardless of legalstatus or their family members’ involvement withimmigration authorities, children in Mexicanimmigrant households describe fear about theirfamily stability and confusion over the impactlegality has on their lives.

I first met Sofia after she had been released. Thereality of her situation did not hit me until shepulled up a pant leg, at the end of the interview,and showed me the tracking device strapped to

Department of Sociology, Arts & Sciences 327, Universityat Albany, State University of New York, 1400 WashingtonAve., Albany, NY 12222 ([email protected]).

This article was edited by Ralph LaRossa.

Key Words: childhood/children, ethnography, familystress or crisis, Hispanic Americans, immigration/migrantfamilies.

her ankle. At the time, Sofia was struggling tosupport her four U.S.-born citizen children afterher husband was deported. Sofia was afraid thatshe too would get deported and not be ableto take her children back with her to Chiapas,Mexico. She was scrambling to save money forthe children’s passports before her next courtdate.

Sofia’s problems started when she and herhusband were detained by local police one nightwhen they went to Wal-Mart for diapers. Theyhad left the couple’s four children with Sofia’sbrother, who lived with them. The arrestingofficer said Sofia’s husband had not stopped ata stop sign in the parking lot. The couple wastaken to the local jail for 2 days before beingsent to an immigration facility. They got wordhome about what happened, but Sofia was notable to talk to her children for the 4 days she wasdetained. A friend went for the children and senta lawyer to get Sofia released. Sofia’s husbandwas deported directly. Her eldest daughter, age12, described the day she found out her parentshad been arrested:

[My uncle] came in my room and he woke meup and he said that ‘‘Your mom is . . . the policegot her.’’ I don’t know, like—my head almostexploded. . . . It look like it exploded ’cause that’s,like, my mom.

A record high of nearly 400,000 individualswere deported from the United States inboth 2010 and 2011 (Preston, 2010; U.S.Department of Homeland Security, 2011).An even greater number of individuals werereturned to their country of origin via voluntary

Journal of Marriage and Family 74 (August 2012): 829 – 845 829DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00989.x

830 Journal of Marriage and Family

departure: 476,000 in 2010 and 580,000 in2009 (U.S. Department of Homeland Security,Office of Immigration Statistics, 2010a, 2010b).Contrary to popular perception, deportees andreturnees are typically not criminal offenders(Human Rights Watch, 2009). Many live infamilies, with spouses and children; others havefamily members in their home country whodepend on them. More than 100,000 of theindividuals deported between 1998 and 2007were like Sofia; they were parents of U.S.-born citizens (U.S. Department of HomelandSecurity, Office of the Inspector General, 2009).Today, more than three quarters of the childrenof immigrants are U.S. citizens and one thirdlive in mixed-status families (Capps & Fortuny,2006; Fortuny, Capps, Simms, & Chaudry,2009). Contemporary deportation policies arelikely to affect millions of children living in theUnited States.

Current deportation policies also dispropor-tionately affect Mexicans, who comprise approx-imately 30% of the foreign-born individuals inthe United States and 58% of unauthorized res-idents (Passel & Cohn, 2011). In 2010, 83% ofthe detained, 73% of those who were forciblyremoved, and 77% of those who signed volun-tary departures were Mexican. (U.S. Departmentof Homeland Security, Office of ImmigrationStatistics, 2010b). In this article, I look at theimpact of enforcement policies on Mexican fam-ilies more broadly and children specifically. Idraw on interviews with 91 parents and 110children in 80 households, including parents’stories about the impact deportations have hadon their families as well as the often overlookedaccounts from children. My goal is to documenthow an emphasis on enforcement that targetsMexicans at the level of public policy has hadconsequences for young children, many of whomare U.S. citizens, who have Mexican immigrantparents.

I start with families in which a parent hadbeen detained or deported. The experiences ofthese families show that the most devastatingconsequence of an act of detention or deportationfor children was in the forced formationof single-parent, female-headed households.Whether a temporary or a long-term—orpermanent—arrangement, the economic andemotional implications of single parenthoodadversely affected children. In this sense,deportation policies are inexorably linked to theintimate politics of gender and family.

I then turn to the stories of families whohave had no direct experience with a detentionor deportation. My interviews show that, asDe Genova (2010) suggested, it is not thedeportation act itself, but the possibility ofdeportation, or a migrant’s ‘‘deportability,’’ thathas affected an even greater number of children.As children described their fears about theirparents’—and, at times, their own—legal status,it became clear that an actual deportation wasjust the tip of the iceberg. Some children hadheard the stories of friends who were detained,but most had only heard about it on the news.The threat of deportability inspired fears ofseparation among children regardless of theirown legal status or family members’ actualinvolvement with immigration officials. It alsoresulted in U.S. citizen and immigrant childrenalike conflating immigration with illegality.

Analogous to the injury pyramid used inpublic health to describe the burden of injuryon the population (see, e.g., http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/key_facts/VIP_key_fact_5.pdf), my data suggest that a depor-tation pyramid is the conceptual model that bestdescribes the burden of enforcement policies onchildren (see Figure 1). In the most severe cases,a child’s family may be permanently disruptedwhen a parent, typically a father, is deported.More frequently, however, deportation tacticshave more subtle consequences for a great num-ber of young children who, fearing illegality,begin to dissociate with their immigrant heritageand identity.

BACKGROUND

At the start of the 21st century, the United States,as well as other countries in Europe and aroundthe world, has become quite nearly obsessed withborder control and the deportation of noncitizensin the name of national security (De Genova,2010). Concerns with the removal of criminalsand political threats to U.S. sovereignty havebeen around since the founding of this nation(Kanstroom, 2007). But the rise of what DeGenova called the ‘‘Deportation Regime’’ of themodern era can be traced, in part, to the terroristattacks of September 11, 2001, which promptedrecent efforts to crack down on illegal immi-gration (Peutz & De Genova, 2010). The nearly400,000 who were deported from the UnitedStates in each year of 2010 and 2011 representmore than twice the 189,000 who were deported

The Burden of Deportation on Children 831

FIGURE 1. A DEPORTATION PYRAMID TO ASSESS THE BURDEN OF DEPORTATION POLICIES ON CHILDREN.

in 2001 (U.S. Department of Homeland Security,Office of Immigration Statistics, 2010b). Previ-ously, the most extensive deportation campaignin U.S. history was in the 1930s, when a total of458,000 Mexicans were forcibly removed fromthe United States over a 9-year period (Massey,Durand, & Malone, 2002, p. 34).

Although in an ideological sense moderndeportation campaigns have aimed to protectU.S. citizens from potential terrorist attackslike those of September 11, just like in the1930s, those most adversely affected by recentdeportations have been Mexicans. In 2010,Mexicans accounted for the highest percent-age of any nationality in apprehensions (83%),detentions (61%), removals (73%), and returns

(81%; Department of Homeland Security, Officeof Immigration Statistics, 2010b).

The apprehension and removal of Mexicanstoday is likely to have a profound impact onfamilies, including children, living in the UnitedStates. Before the mid-1980s, Mexican migra-tion was predominantly composed of seasonalmale sojourners whose families remained inMexico (Massey et al., 2002). Past deportationswould have removed a Mexican from his work-place in the United States, but sent him backto his family living in Mexico. Over the past20 to 30 years, however, there has been a majorincrease in the settlement patterns of Mexicanmigrants throughout the United States, primarilydue to the militarization of the U.S. – Mexican


border (Massey et al., 2002). As it became moredifficult for migrants to return to families inMexico, many either brought their families withthem or formed families here. Female migrationrates from Mexico have increased since 1986(Massey et al.), and the number of U.S.-bornchildren with unauthorized parents rose sharplyover the past decade, from 2.7 million in 2003 to4 million in 2008 (Passel & Cohn, 2009). Esti-mates suggest that, in 2009, 8% of children bornin the United States had at least one unauthorizedparent (Passel & Cohn, 2011). Contemporarydeportation campaigns are likely to affect mil-lions of U.S. citizen children growing up inMexican households.

Aside from the obvious personal tragedy thatdeportations entail, little is known about thesystematic effects that contemporary enforce-ment policies—and forced separations—havehad on men, women, and children. Most exist-ing research has focused instead on the socialconstruction of illegality or how communitieshave responded to the threat of deportation (seeMenjivar, 2011; Peutz & De Genova, 2010).Nonetheless, separations are common duringinternational migration. One study found that80% of children in U.S. immigrant families hadbeen separated from one or both parents prior tomigration (Suarez-Orozco, Todorova, & Louie,2002). These types of separations differ fromthose that result from forcible removals, yet theypoint to useful themes for exploring the impactof deportation policies on children and families.

Historically, men have most often migratedfirst (Foner, 2000). Male-led migration patternshave had a series of consequences for fam-ily relationships, creating tensions between themen who migrate and the women who stayhome. Accusations of infidelities, for example,may strain relationships from a distance, bothbetween partners and between parents and chil-dren (Menjivar & Agadjanian, 2007). In Mexico,fathers who do not send money home may beviewed as being unsuccessful family providers;fathers may avoid communication with theirfamily members when they are unemployed andcannot send money (Dreby, 2010).

Female-led migration is much less commonhistorically. Today, however, the demands of theservice economy mean that many more groupsof women have migrated with—or at times,before—men (Ehrenreich & Hochschild, 2002).Mexican and Central American women havecrossed the border illegally to work as caretakers

of other people’s children in order to providefor their own children and/or parents whoremain in their home countries, creating whatscholars call global care chains (Ehrenreich& Hochschild). These difficult decisions toleave family members behind have been oftendescribed, by women themselves, as painfulsacrifices made for the sake of their families(Dreby, 2010; Hondagneu-Sotelo & Avila, 1997;Parrenas, 2001).

Gender expectations shape family relation-ships from a distance. When women are labormigrants, they may take on caregiving roles intransnational families (Perez, 2004). Althoughin some ways, women’s migrations have chal-lenged gender divisions of labor within fami-lies, gender expectations have continued to besalient in transnational spheres (Parrenas, 2005).Because mothers and fathers may be judged dif-ferently for leaving their children to migrate,‘‘migrant mothers bear the moral burdens oftransnational parenting’’ (Dreby, 2010, p. 204).

Children’s experiences in families are oftenoverlooked; when children have been studied,it is often as ‘‘adults in the making’’ (Thorne,1987). For example, scholars have studied thelives of the children of immigrants extensivelyinsofar as they are indicative of differentgroups’ experiences with assimilation (Kasinitz,Mollenkopf, Waters, & Holdaway, 2008; Portes& Rumbaut, 2001). When parents and childrenlive apart during migration, however, children’sexperiences may vary from those of theirparents. Scholars of transnational families havefocused on how migration affects childrenindependently from their parents and haveshown that separation has mixed consequencesfor children.

In some ways, international separation hashad positive payoffs for nonmigrant children dueto the economic benefits of remittances. Infanthealth has been better in Mexican householdswith U.S. migrants (Frank, 2005; Kanaiaupuni& Donato, 1999). Some migrant parents haveused their remittances to improve children’seducational prospects by sending them to privateschools (Moran-Taylor, 2008). In some cases,nonmigrant children in migrant households havebeen found to have different types of socialand educational aspirations than their peers(Schmalzbauer, 2008; Smith, 2006).

In other ways, parental migration has hadnegative consequences for nonmigrant children.Children of migrants living in places with high


rates of migration may get caught up withthe community-wide ‘‘culture of migration’’:When they have seen most members of theircommunity, regardless of education level, gonorth (i.e., to the United States), children havelittle incentive to do well in school (Kandel& Massey, 2002). Separation also has hademotional repercussions for children. Childrenhave felt resentful of parents’ absences despiteunderstanding the economic rationale of theseparation (Coe, 2008). Many have exhibitedbehavioral problems during adolescence (Dreby,2007). Gender expectations of migrant menand women have also affected children—whatParrenas (2005) has described as the ‘‘genderedwoes’’ of migration; children have felt themost resentful of migrant mothers who cannotbe caregivers from a distance (see alsoDreby, 2010). Difficulties in intergenerationalrelationships may continue after reunification(Artico, 2003; Menjivar & Abrego, 2009).

Compared with voluntary separations duringmigration, little is known about how forcedseparations have affected children and theirfamilies or how children have reacted to them.In response to a series of large-scale workplaceraids between 2006 and 2008, legalistic accountsand policy reports documented the negativeimpact raids have had on children, who were,at times, left at school with no one to pickthem up after a parent was apprehended(Capps, Castaneda, Chaudry, & Santos, 2007;Chaudry et al., 2010; Thronson, 2008). Althoughthe Obama Administration scaled back onworkplace raids, enforcement has increased overthe past few years.

Researchers do know that parents’ legal statusaffects children. Brubeck and Xu (2010), forexample, found a statistical relationship betweenparents’ legal vulnerability and child well-being.Yoshikawa’s (2011) qualitative interviews andfield work with immigrant families in NewYork City showed that unauthorized parentsexperienced disadvantages that were passed onto U.S.-citizen children, such as less informationabout and access to social services.

Moreover, the mere threat of deportation hasaffected communities as a whole, making somegroups ‘‘hyper-aware’’ of legality (Menjivar,2011, p. 378; see also Hagan, Castro, &Rodriguez, 2010). One study, conducted inTexas, found that the fear of deportability isoften expressed in concerns of being separatedfrom family members and friends (Talavera,

Nunez-Mchiri, & Heyman, 2010). Nationwide,Latinos have felt the threat of deportability: APew Hispanic Center survey found that, in 2008,a full 68% of Latino respondents worried thatthey, a family member, or close friend mightbe deported (Lopez & Minushkin, 2008). Thisfinding attests to the impossibility of separatingcommunities of the unauthorized from those whoare legal migrants, because today’s immigrantfamilies are typically composed of memberswith various legal statuses (see Menjivar &Abrego, 2009).

Forced separations of family members aredifferent from those in which family memberschoose to live apart. In the case of the former, theintervention of the state in family life is clear.In addition, parents’ ability to provide for theirfamilies after deportation is limited. Parents haveno choice regarding their returns; narratives ofsacrifice common among parents in transnationalfamilies are likely to differ. Nonetheless, thecomparison reveals useful themes for analysis.

First, one can expect that family structure mat-ters during forced separations. When familieschoose to separate, men and women play differ-ent roles in their families depending on who hasleft home and who remains behind. The Depart-ment of Homeland Security does not releaseinformation on deportees’ gender, yet researchhas found that the majority of deportees aremale (Golash-Boza, 2011; Kohli, Markowitz, &Chavez, 2011). What happens to families whenmen are more frequently forcibly removed thanwomen? As with voluntary transnational fami-lies, who leaves and who stays behind is likelyto shape experiences of forced separation.

Second, deportation policies are likely toaffect child well-being. A report by the UrbanInstitute found numerous changes in behavioramong children whose parents were detainedor deported as reported by their families,including increased frequency of crying, lossof appetite, sleeplessness, clingy behavior, anincrease in fear and anxiety, and generic fearsof law enforcement officials (Chaudry et al.,2010). Unlike children in voluntary transnationalfamilies who experience a disjuncture betweenthe economic benefits and emotional costs ofseparation, enforcement policies are unlikely tohave financial benefits for children.

Finally, community-level variables mayshape children’s experiences. Deportation poli-cies have had a widespread impact on U.S.Latino immigrant communities. One might


expect that, as with children of migrants inMexico who are affected by high levels of com-munitywide migration, heightened awarenessof enforcement tactics among Latinos makessalient the threat of deportability for childrenliving in Mexican immigrant households.

METHOD

Drawing on theories that suggest that childrenare unique individuals whose experiences mayvary significantly from those of other membersof their families (Thorne, 1987), in this article Iconsider children as the primary unit of analysis.In the case of deportation, the need to focus onchildren’s unique experiences is clear. In theory,U.S.-born citizen children of immigrants havethe same rights afforded any child in the UnitedStates but, in practice, children of unauthorizedmigrants may be disadvantaged because of theirparents’ legal status (Yoshikawa, 2011).

In order to focus on the meaning enforcementpolicies have for children’s lives, I drewon data from a larger ethnographic studyI completed between 2009 and 2012 thatwas designed to explore various aspects ofchildren’s experiences growing up in differenttypes of Mexican immigrant households. Mystudy included interviews with parents and theirchildren in northeast Ohio (2009 – 2011), wherethe Mexican community is relatively small anddispersed, as well as in central New Jersey(2011 – 2012), where the Mexican communityis concentrated. The larger study emphasizeddifferences between the two sites. Indeed, Ifound differences in enforcement practices.In Ohio, stories of deportations often startedwith arrests for minor traffic infractions. Sofia,mentioned in the opening vignette, is a casein point; she was reported to U.S. Customsand Immigration Enforcement (ICE) after beingarrested as a passenger in a vehicle whose driver,her husband, had failed to stop for a stop sign. InNew Jersey, stories of deportations most oftenstarted with more severe encounters with thelaw, such as a DUI in one case or a speedingticket in another. The local context is crucial, butin this article I focus on the experiences that weresimilar for families in New Jersey and Ohio. Thecross-site comparison identifies themes that mayapply to Mexican children living elsewhere.

The larger study also purposively sampleddifferent types of families, including those inwhich children were U.S. born, legal migrants,

and undocumented as well as parents in thesame three categories. I interviewed parents andchildren in a total of 80 families. Of the 110children interviewed, 71 were U.S.-born chil-dren, eight were legal migrants, and 31 wereundocumented. I also learned of 16 families’experiences with deportation. In nine cases,one or both of the children’s parents had beendetained or deported, and those I interviewedreported detailed accounts of an additional sevenfamilies who were close friends or extended fam-ily members. I tried to interview these familiesbut, wanting to keep a low profile, they declinedformal interviews.

In northeast Ohio, I interviewed families inand around a mid-size city with a population ofapproximately 200,000. The Mexican immigrantpopulation was quite small but had grownsignificantly since the 1990s. There were nocommunity-based organizations that cateredto the needs of the Latino community andfew Spanish speakers at area social serviceorganizations. There was a Catholic churchthat offered Spanish Mass. I gained accessto families in Ohio with the benediction ofthose at the church. I am not Latina, but Ibegan taking my children—whose father isMexican—to a bimonthly youth program churchstaff organized for Latino children. I participatedfor over a year before approaching church staffabout my intended study. I initially relied on acommunity member to identify families. I thenused snowball sampling with participants andthrough my own networks to identify familiesoutside of the church.

At the New Jersey site, the Mexican immi-grant population also had grown significantlysince the 1990s; however, at this site the pop-ulation is highly concentrated. Of the 55,000city residents in 2010, approximately 35% wereforeign born, and 50% were Latino or Hispanic(U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). The school super-intendent estimated that at one of the city’selementary schools, 80% of the students livedin Mexican immigrant families. There werenumerous churches of various denominationsthat offered services in Spanish, and communityhealth clinics had Spanish speakers on staff. Idid not rely on any of these organizations butinstead used my own networks to locate thosewho met the sample criteria. I had previouslylived in the city for 10 years and knew many fam-ilies personally, whom I asked for interviews


and for recommendations of other families tocontact.

At each site I first interviewed the mother,although in a few cases I interviewed fathersas well. I gave parents the option to do theinterview in Spanish or English; most I did inSpanish. These interviews were semistructuredand covered a wide range of topics, includingthe family migration history, transnationalties, daily routines, language practices in thehome, children’s health and child-care history,children’s school experiences and peer grouprelationships, and any comments children hadmade about their race or immigration status.The parents chose where the interview tookplace. The majority occurred in the families’homes. I then interviewed all children ages 5through 15 in the family who were willing.Some occurred on the same day as the parentinterview; in other cases, I returned later, visitingthe family home twice. Again, I gave childrena choice of Spanish or English. Interviewsfollowed a structured format. I asked childrenabout their families, their language use, schoolsand friendships, daily routines, family activities,and awareness of class and identity. I endedwith questions to measure their awareness ofimmigration status. I adapted the questions tothe child’s age, posing more simple questionsto younger children and using more in-depthquestions with older children.

I had repeated contact with many childrenand families in the study. I did home and schoolvisits with a smaller group of 12 families. Thisenabled me to observe children in these familiesas well as other children I had interviewed intheir neighborhoods and schools. In Ohio, Iparticipated in many church-based activities,where I came into contact with families. InNew Jersey, approximately one third of thefamilies were people I had known for years.Contact with families outside the interviewsetting contextualized information gathered ininterviews.

I obtained approval from the institutionalreview boards at both Kent State Universityand the University at Albany, State Universityof New York for all phases of this study. I alsoreceived a Certificate of Confidentiality from theNational Institutes of Health to further protectthe identities of the study participants. All namesthat appear in this article are pseudonyms.

The analysis involved systematic manualreview of field notes and transcriptions of the

taped interviews, focusing on the interviews withchildren, to identify salient themes. I considereda theme salient, such as the fear of familyseparation, when it had been repeated by childrenof various ages, both genders and across sites.I also triangulated children’s accounts to thoseof adults: The themes below arose, for the mostpart, in both parent and child interviews. Finally,because I used many closed-ended questionswith young respondents, I used SPSS to codefor children’s answers to certain questions, suchas whether or not they knew what an immigrantwas. This allowed for comparisons of children’sresponses by site, age, location, and householdtype. Although I anticipated conducting theanalysis solely on families in which a parenthad been detained or deported, I found thatenforcement policies have an impact on childrenacross all types of immigrant households. Inthe following section, I focus on similaritiesin children’s experiences across the twosites.

RESULTS

One common fear parents expressed in inter-views is that they could lose custody of U.S.-bornchildren if detained or deported. A recent studyfound cause for parents’ concerns: In 2011,more than 5,100 U.S. children were living infoster care after a parent’s detention or deporta-tion (Wessler, 2011). These extreme cases exist,but focusing on such outcomes obscures themore insidious ways deportation policies affecta greater number of children. Although a depor-tation can permanently alter a child’s life, Ilearned more often about the short- and long-term consequences of apprehensions. Moreover,the majority of the children I met had not hada parent deported, yet the threat of deportabilityaffected them profoundly.

Public health workers routinely use an injurypyramid to visually depict how severe fatalaccidents can obscure the much more numerousincidences that would otherwise be overlooked(see Segui-Gomez & MacKenzie, 2003). At thetop of the injury pyramid are incidents that arefew in number but with serious consequences,such as a fatal drowning. Those at the bottomof the pyramid are less severe, but morenumerous, such as a drowning incident inwhich no medical care is required. Drowningsthat have long-term health consequences liecloser to the top of the pyramid, and those


with short-term effects, such as an visit tothe emergency room, are located closer tothe bottom. Public health professionals use theinjury pyramid to more effectively describe theburden of injury associated with different typesof incidents (Wadmann, Muelleman, Coto, &Kellerman, 2003).

In a similar manner, my findings suggestthat, to fully capture the impact of deportationpolicies on children, one must consider howchildren’s lives are changed by both therelatively infrequent, more intrusive cases ofdeportation and the more common instances inwhich it is the politics of deportation that affectchildren. In the following sections, I start bydiscussing the impact acts of deportation havehad on children and their families, and then Iturn to the way the threat of deportation hasshaped children’s emerging identities. I suggestthat, like the injury pyramid, a deportationpyramid can serve as a conceptual model thathelps illustrate the burden of deportation forchildren.

Forced Separations and Children’s Families

The most detrimental effect of forced separationon children was the abrupt shift from living withtwo parents to living with just a mother, becausemost children in my sample had lived with bothparents, at least for a time (see also Chaudryet al., 2010). Of the 80 families I interviewed,eight were single-parent households, but in allbut two families the mothers had previouslylived with their children’s father. For some,single parenthood was short lived, and familiesexperienced great hardship for the period oftime surrounding the incident. Others describedlong-standing effects even after the family wasreunited. Finally, for some children, a father’sdeportation led to a permanent change in thefamily structure. I interviewed two mothers whowere in deportation proceedings, but both wereable to live with their children. Thus, deportationwas also a gendered process in that it resultednot just in single parenthood, but sudden singlemotherhood.

‘‘I don’t really have much contact withhim’’: Permanent repercussions. For three ofthe 16 families who had an experience withimmigration officials, a deportation act markeda permanent change in the family configuration.These are the types of instances that lie at the top

of the deportation pyramid. Perla’s experiencesprovide an illustration.

Perla’s oldest daughter was an infant when herex-husband was first arrested. He was accusedof being involved in gang violence and wassent to prison to await trial. As a new mothersuffering from postpartum depression, Perlastruggled and moved in with her in-laws fora time. She was angry with her husband, butwhen he was released, they reconciled, but therelationship was tumultuous. He was physicallyand emotionally abusive. ‘‘Sometimes I endedup sleeping all alone on the floor of the room’’she explained. Perla stayed with him, however,because she was pregnant with their secondchild. Then he was arrested again. This time, hewas found guilty, served a 5-year sentence, andwas deported. At first, Perla waited for him, butwith time she gained perspective and moved on.Perla’s new boyfriend accepts her children ashis own. Although they have had their ups anddowns and do not live together, Perla’s daughtersconsider him their father. At the eldest’s 9thbirthday party, I watched the young girl excitedlygrab his arm, saying, ‘‘Papa,’’ whispering abouta new present.

In many ways, the deportation of Perla’s ex-husband was a blessing in disguise because shewas ultimately able to get out of an abusiverelationship. Nonetheless, Perla struggled as asingle mother. She worked two jobs, one at a gasstation in the mornings and another cleaning atnight. She would not be able to afford her one-room apartment if her younger brother had notmoved in with her. She also depended on himfor child care. Perla has had no help from herex-husband or his family since his deportation.‘‘Only once did his brother come and take thegirls out to eat.’’ Perla’s ex-husband has nocommunication with the girls. Once, she said, hecalled from Mexico, but he didn’t seem to knowwhat to say.

Gladys’s story is similar. Her husband wasdeported after he was arrested for involvement inillicit business activities. Gladys described him,too, as being abusive, and her life turned upsidedown after his arrest. Before he was deported,she was a stay-at-home mother. Once, theyseparated temporarily, and Gladys’s husbandsupported her financially throughout. But withhis arrest, she was on her own. She began towork an afternoon shift. When I interviewed thefamily 3 years later, Gladys saw her children,ages 14 and 7, only a few hours per day during


the week. Her ex-husband occasionally calledfrom Mexico, but 14-year-old Marjorie had littleto say about her father: ‘‘I don’t really havemuch contact with him.’’ Her 7-year-old brothersaid, ‘‘I just say hi and pass [the phone] to mysister.’’

Few women and children I intervieweddescribed such severe domestic violence.Nonetheless, I chose these families to exem-plify the permanent effects a deportation hason children even when one might expect thatpreexisting marital problems would likely havealso led to single parenthood. When temporarilyseparated from their children because of incar-ceration in Perla’s case and a trial separation inGladys’s case, both fathers remained in contactwith their children. As deportees, neither did.Fathers in transnational families often use fre-quent phone calls, gifts, and remittances to stayconnected to the children with whom they do notlive (Dreby, 2010). Deportees, however, cannotearn enough money to support their childrenliving in the United States. In the absence ofan economic tie to their children, fathers’ emo-tional connection also falters, as evidenced bythe lack of communication Perla’s and Gladys’schildren reported with their fathers. These casesalso illustrate the gendered impact of contem-porary deportation policies. Although mothersand children did not describe children as feel-ing outwardly resentful of deported fathers, thedeportation most often severs paternal bondswith children and could very well lead to chil-dren’s resentment of their fathers as they age.

‘‘And this is why we still can’t be together’’:Lingering consequences. On the deportationpyramid, underneath instances in which familiesare permanently altered lie those in whichfamilies experience long-term emotional andfinancial consequences even after they have beenreunited. Vanessa is a case in point.

About a year into their marriage, whenVanessa was 5 months pregnant, Vanessa’shusband was deported. Late one night, whenhe was returning from his shift as a cook ata Mexican restaurant, the police stopped himand asked for an ID. He showed them hisMexican license. They reported him to ICE.Vanessa did not get to see him before they senthim back to Mexico, 10 days later dressed inthe same grease-covered clothes he had wornwhen arrested. During the first few days of hisdetention, Vanessa ended up in the emergencyroom; she was diagnosed with thrombosis and

lost her baby. Vanessa could have lost her babyregardless of whether her husband had beendeported, but she believed—and it is certainlyplausible—that the stress of the deportationsparked her health problems. To make mattersworse, Vanessa could no longer afford the two-bedroom condo they rented, and their car wasimpounded. But she borrowed money so that herhusband could return to Ohio within 5 months.

Vanessa’s problems did not end when herhusband returned, because he could not get hisold job back:

He asked, but they didn’t want to give it to himbecause of what happened. Somebody told methat they were worried what would happen if thepolice got him again . . . since he had already beendeported.

Her husband did find a job at a restaurant overan hour away; he moved there, and Vanessaremained near her job and family. She explainedthat her husband did not want to drive anymore:‘‘He was left traumatized by what happened.’’They continued this arrangement for more than2 years, even after the birth of their son. Vanessaexplained, ‘‘And this is why we still can’t betogether.’’

The financial effects of a deportation arelong reaching even after reunification. Suddenlysingle mothers like Vanessa have to figure outhow to reunify their families, whether it is bybringing their husbands back north or by movingback to Mexico. Brandon’s mother describeda price tag of $3,600 to bring her husbandback from Mexico. Another mother paid $2,500.Clara’s husband was detained for just 9 days;her brothers, picked up at the same time, signeda voluntary removal and were deported. Herhusband refused to sign the voluntary removalform, and she was able to get him a lawyer,but it cost them $5,000 for bail and another$5,000 in legal fees over the next 2 years. Claraexplained that they borrowed money to payoff the debts they had accrued. Two yearslater, she said, ‘‘Right now, we are in theblack. . . . Sometimes we don’t have enougheven for food.’’ Women typically bear thefinancial burdens of a husband’s deportation.

Few of the children I interviewed describedlong-term emotional trauma after being reunitedwith their parents, although most were quiteaware of legality, as I elaborate on below.Nonetheless, I was not able to interview children


sent into foster care after a deportation orchildren who had returned to Mexico. Bothscenarios are likely to have severe, long-termemotional consequences for U.S.-born children.

The women I interviewed, however, describedhow they, and especially their partners, felttraumatized after a deportation or detainment.Vanessa said, ‘‘I don’t feel safe talking to thepolice. . . . Sometimes I want to dye my hairblond and have blue eyes.’’ She also explainedhow hard it was for her husband back in Mexico:‘‘You see, in your country, when you go back,everyone adores you. But he arrived and every-thing was bad, and he was ashamed. He almostnever went out of the house. He felt awful.He didn’t have money.’’ Maria felt extremelyfrustrated when her Honduran husband acteddefeated after he was deported to Mexico. Theday of his arrival, he was robbed and had hisMexican ID stolen.

They were going to deport him all the way toHonduras, and I said to him, ‘‘Here; I have somecopies of the IDs,’’ and I said, ‘‘I will send youthe papers.’’ And he said, ‘‘What for?’’ I told him,‘‘I sent a copy to my father so that he can goand get you wherever you are, or give me a faxnumber, something where I can send some proof,the children’s birth certificates that prove you aretheir father or our wedding certificate. That waythey can let you go.’’ He said, ‘‘No, don’t doanything.’’

I found in previous research that men wholeave their families to work in the United Statesbelieve they are making a sacrifice that willbe worthwhile, because they expect to be ableto fulfill their roles as economic providers fortheir families (Dreby, 2010). But men who aredeported are emasculated; they cannot providefor their families economically anymore andhave become an economic burden. A deportationdrastically alters men’s relationships with theirwives and children.

‘‘They got them’’: The short-term effects.I asked Maria’s son Brandon, who said hismother was Mexican and his father Honduran,if anyone in his family had been back toHonduras. ‘‘My dad and my uncle, . . . theygot them,’’ he answered. ‘‘Who got them?’’I asked. ‘‘The police.’’ Brandon went on toexplain, ‘‘Well, they were going to work, andthey went down a street they didn’t know. Andthere was a police [car] there. My uncle wasdriving, but they took them.’’ The day before our

interview, Brandon had turned 5. The incidenthad happened 6 months before. Brandon’s fatherwas already back living with him; they had beenapart for just 4 months, yet the incident clearlystuck out in his mind, and Maria described howupset Brandon had been during the months hisfather was away.

Brandon was remarkable in that he was fullyaware of his father’s deportation. Many childrenhis age did not know why their fathers had beenaway. This may be in part because they weretoo young to understand. But parents were alsoreluctant to explain the circumstances to youngchildren, to protect them from worrying aboutsuch matters. One mother whose husband hadbeen deported explained, ‘‘I always tell [my5-year-old son] that he is at work or playingsoccer.’’

Regardless of whether children felt emotionaldistress during short-term separations, beingthrust from a family in which a father isthe primary wage earner to one in which amother is the sole provider affected their lives.Unlike when a husband is laid off or hurt atwork, suddenly single mothers could not rely onunemployment or worker’s compensation. Theirincome dropped drastically one day to the next,which was a shock for families already gettingby on low wages. The immediate short-termeconomic fallout of a deportation act affectedchildren’s families greatly.

All of the 16 mothers in families affecteddirectly by an act of detention or deportationhad difficulties paying the rent afterward. Infact, an Urban Institute report revealed thatone effect of deportations is housing insecurity(Chaudry et al., 2010). Gladys, for example,moved eight times with her two children inthe 3 years after her husband’s deportation, andSofia had problems with housing even after shewas released. When Sofia returned home with theankle bracelet around her leg, her cousins—whoshared her home with her—moved out becausethey did not want to risk ICE finding them there.Sofia could not pay the rent on her incomealone.

Sudden single motherhood also resultedin numerous changes in a family’s dailyroutines, especially child care. Gladys enteredthe workforce for the first time in 12 years afterher husband was imprisoned and then deported.Her daughter, 11 at the time, became the primarychild-care provider for her 4-year-old son in theafter-school hours. Marjorie, now 14, explained:


My mom started working when I was in fifth grade.So I’ve been pretty much taking care of my brothersince like fifth grade. . . . It was a lot harder for mebecause I never really experienced my mom goingto work.

Mothers also described changes in their house-keeping habits. Sofia, for example, said shehad not been able to go to the Laundromat:‘‘What I do is wash the clothes by hand.’’Because Sofia did not drive, she—like manyI interviewed—depended on her husband fortransportation. Similarly, another mother said,‘‘When my husband was here we would go outtogether to wash [the clothes], but now there isa building across the street that has a laundryroom, so we use that.’’ She added, chuckling,‘‘We’ll see if one day we get in trouble.’’ Changein daily routines, short-term economic instabil-ity, and short-term emotional distress constitutethe next echelon of the deportation pyramid.

The Threat of Deportation

The deportation pyramid does not bottomout with the families in which a member isdeported or detained; instead, a much broadersector of children in Mexican householdshave been affected by today’s emphasis onenforcement. Many of the 110 children Iinterviewed talked about the possibility ofa deportation even if it had not directlyaffected their immediate family. Twenty-ninechildren I interviewed were undocumentedthemselves; most were aware of the fact. EvenU.S.-born children described the possibilityof their families being split up because ofenforcement practices. Moreover, a widespreadmisconception among the children I interviewedwas that immigrant was synonymous withundocumented. Fears of deportation werecommon among children regardless of theirown legal status or that of their parents. Thelower half of the deportation pyramid representsthe impact the threat of deportability has onchildren.

‘‘We might be apart’’: Fears of familyseparation. ‘‘When we came here, the firsttime the police fined us, the second time theysent us back to Mexico, the third they let usgo, and the fourth time they let us go too,’’explained 9-year-old Adrian as he recountedhis experience crossing the border with hisbrother 2 years earlier. Neither Adrian nor his

brother distinguished between the police andimmigration officials in the retelling. Over athousand miles from the U.S. – Mexican border,they continued to view police as synonymouswith trouble. Their mother explained:

They know [about their legal status] andsometimes when I see a patrol car, I say ‘‘policein sight,’’ and they know that they have to sit upstraight. . . . Then they see that it has gone by andthe danger is gone, then they relax.

The children I interviewed who were oldenough to remember coming to the United Statesreacted like Adrian; they were afraid of the policeor, at the very least, were aware that they neededto be careful around the police. One mother saidthe following of her 9-year-old son:

He is conscious [of the family’s legal status]because when we are in the van he puts on hisseat belt and he checks on the other [4-year-oldbrother] in his car seat . . . or he sees a police andhe says [to his brother], ‘‘Here comes the police,sit good.’’

Anita, a legal permanent resident who has beenunable to legalize the status of four of herfive children, explained that the girls could notdistinguish between the police and immigrationofficials when they first got here. Her 11-year-old daughter Carmen, who was 9 when she cameto the United States from Mexico, ‘‘has a greatfear of the police. She was afraid that they wouldsend her back to Mexico.’’ At school,

her biggest worry is [her legal status]. She used toevade people so they would not ask her questionsbecause she was afraid that they would ask her fora social security number. . . . She started biting hernails out of worry.

U.S. citizen children also expressed fears ofdeportation disrupting their lives. I asked a 6-year-old whether she ever felt scared that herparents are immigrants. She said yes, ‘‘becauseif I am here and my mom goes to MexicoI am going to be sad because I would missher.’’ A 10-year-old U.S. citizen whose motherhad severe kidney disease and received dialysisbiweekly thought her family is going to haveto go back to Mexico some day, ‘‘’Cause thepoliciales [police] are looking for people thatdon’t have papers to be here.’’ A 10-year-old boysaid,


What happens if some cop comes into our houseand wants to see our papers and then when we don’thave it. My little brother and my other cousin havetheirs and we have to go and that’s what is scaryabout it.

Some of these children had a friendor extended family member detained byimmigration officials. For example, one mothertold me that after a close friend of the familywas deported she and her husband got theirchildren passports and explained to them thatif something like this happened, they wouldall go back to Mexico together. Most childrenI interviewed, however, had never knownanyone who was detained or deported, buttalked about the possibility of being separatedfrom their parents. Often they had seen newscoverage about the increase in enforcementtactics nationwide. A 10-year-old told me, whenI asked her if she had ever seen someone havehis or her parents taken away, ‘‘Yes, I’ve seenit on TV.’’ Twelve-year-old Osvelia said sheis scared that the members of her family areimmigrants ‘‘Because when that happened onthe news that a lot of people were getting likedcatched, like um, came to the door random andjust took them. Yeah, I got really scared thattime.’’ When I asked a 9-year-old about whatshe thought it is like to be an immigrant, sheanswered ‘‘Sad.’’ ‘‘Why?’’ I asked her. Shereplied,

I saw a video of people and they are immigrantsand one time they were going back to Mexico andthe policeman caught them and they took them.And they had a daughter and they left the daughterin the car.

Fears of separation, whether it is the separa-tion of family members or the separation ofundocumented children from the lifestyle andfriendships they have forged in the United States,are the penultimate echelon of the deportationpyramid.

‘‘They are not supposed to be here’’:Children’s (mis)understandings of immigration.I asked 10-year-old Andrea whether she knewwhat an immigrant is. ‘‘Yeah, it is when someoneis illegal in this country and the police – ICEcome to look for them to send them back to theircountry.’’ Her eyes started watering when shethen told me her parents are immigrants. I askedif she is proud that her parents are immigrants.She said ‘‘No.’’

‘‘Do you ever feel scared that they are immi-grants?’’ I continued.‘‘Yeah,’’ she said as her chin quivered.‘‘What scares you?’’ I asked.

‘‘When the police – ICE come, they will takethem.’’ Andrea confused being an immigrantwith being undocumented. I asked, ‘‘What doyou think it is like to be an immigrant?’’ Sheanswered, ‘‘I think it is hard because you haveto, like, try not to be caught by police – ICE andyou would like to stay in this country to like havejobs and children to be legal in this country.’’

Like Andrea, a number of children born inboth Ohio and New Jersey equated immigrationwith illegality. A 12-year-old U.S. citizen boytold me when I asked him what he thoughtit was like to be an immigrant: ‘‘Like theymust be like scared when like they, if theycatch them, then they have to go back to theircountry.’’ A 10-year-old said that most in hisfamily are immigrants and that he thinks it wouldbe ‘‘weird’’ to be an immigrant. ‘‘What’s weirdabout it?’’ I asked him. ‘‘I think that like thepeople that are not from here, they are notsupposed to be here.’’ Interestingly, childrenresponded this way even after I gave them adefinition for an immigrant as simply beingsomeone who is born in one country and thenmoves to another country to live. Children whowere immigrants themselves even made thismistake. I asked 13-year-old Cristina, who isa legal migrant, what she thinks it is like tobe an immigrant. She answered, ‘‘Well, I thinkit is very difficult because you can’t . . . likeif you leave and then they ask you for yourpapers and you don’t have them, they will callimmigration.’’ The only children who did notmake such a conflation were U.S.-born childrenwho had one parent who was also a U.S. citizen.The unquestioned citizenship of both parent andchild perhaps shielded children from thinkingcritically about the impact legal status has onpeople’s lives.

In contrast to U.S.-born children, many olderundocumented children had a sophisticatedunderstanding of how legality affected them.For example, a 14-year-girl shared the followingwith me:

[It’s] kind of unfair for us because, for example, Iwant to become a doctor. But I probably can’t docollege here because first of all, it’s so expensiveand you need to like have papers, I guess. My,well, my mentality has been, well I’m not going to


do college here, I’m going to do it in Mexico. Butto the kids that want to do it here, that’s not fairfor them. Especially if they’re like really good inschool.

Younger undocumented children were notnearly as articulate; indeed, they often seemedconfused about legality just as U.S.-bornchildren were. This was true for Belen,Margarita, and Gregorio, all of whom Iinterviewed at age 6. All three said they wereborn in Mexico. Then I gave them a definition ofan immigrant. I was surprised when I then askedif they knew anyone who was an immigrant:All three said they did not. I had been told bysome parents, as these cases perhaps confirm,that their children did not really understandlegality. Although this is true to some extent,some interviews suggested that young childrenare aware that there are social differences basedon legal status at very young ages even ifthis was difficult for them to articulate. Forexample, 7-year-old Kevin said he was bornin Mexico but did not know anyone in hisfamily who is an immigrant, just like Belen,Margarita, and Gregorio did. This was after Igave him a definition of an immigrant. But whenI later asked him point blank, ‘‘Are you animmigrant?’’ he admitted ‘‘Yes.’’

‘‘Would you want your friends to know that youare an immigrant?’’ I asked.‘‘No,’’ he answered.‘‘Why?’’‘‘Because I would be ashamed.’’

At some point, young children may realizethat the word immigration and its variants hasa negative connotation. In fact, nearly all thechildren I interviewed, of all ages and at bothsites, said that they that preferred that othersnot know that either they or their parents areimmigrants.

According to Gonzales (2011), children’sawareness of illegality is not fully realized untilthey confront external, structural discrimination.This helps explain the differences between theolder and younger undocumented children Iinterviewed; the former understood the issue oflegal status more clearly. Yet younger childrenappeared to also be aware of status differencesrelated to immigration. They knew it is a privatefamily matter, not to be shared with others.

U.S.-born children were especially aware ofthe stigma associated with being an immigrant,

even though most parents reported that they didnot talk to their children directly about legality.Although most children said they preferred thattheir friends at school not know that their motheror father are immigrants, they also said that theywould want their friends to know that theirparents speak Spanish or are from Mexico. One8-year-old girl said she needed to be carefulabout whom she told.

‘‘Would you want your friends to know your Momis an immigrant?’’ I asked.‘‘Not every, every single friend, but some ofthem.’’‘‘How come?’’‘‘They are like mean because I was born in adifferent place from my mom.’’

When I asked her if she ever felt scared thather mom is from another country, she answered,‘‘Because I feel a little bit nervous and scared.Because people are mean. They are so mean.They make you think, and make you mad andbe scared.’’ Twelve-year-old Osvelia waveredwhen I asked about whether she wanted peopleto know about her parents’ undocumented status:‘‘I really don’t—like, um, I want some peopleto know.’’

‘‘So which people would you feel okay knowing?’’I asked her.‘‘My friends that I feel like keep secrets well.’’

A 10-year-old boy told me he did not wantpeople to know ‘‘because then it spreads aroundthe whole school, [and] they start rumors.’’

Both U.S.-citizen and undocumented childrenexpressed some confusion about immigrationstatuses. More important, like older undocu-mented students interviewed by Abrego (2011),the young children I met associated stigma withimmigration regardless of their own legal sta-tus. Although most told me they were proudthat either they or their parents were from Mex-ico, few felt proud that they or their parentswere immigrants. The conflation that childrenmade between immigration and illegality is par-ticularly devastating for children’s identity andsense of self. This is the bottom echelon of thedeportation pyramid.

DISCUSSION

To explore the burden of deportation policieson children, I considered severe cases, in


which a deportation act permanently restructuredchildren’s families, as well as less dramaticcases, in which children experienced short-and long-term changes in their families whentheir mothers took on the economic andemotional burdens of sudden single motherhood.I also included the ways that the ‘‘threat ofdeportability’’ (see De Genova, 2010) affectedchildren, including their fears of separation,awareness of illegality, and dissociation withtheir immigrant heritage.

To fully capture the burden of deportationpolicies on children, I suggest that social sci-entists, policy makers, and other associatedprofessionals use a deportation pyramid anal-ogous to the injury pyramid used in medicalsettings. The deportation pyramid is not a typol-ogy into which each family fits neatly; indeed,children who have experienced a deportationdirectly are likely to also suffer from fears ofseparation. Instead, the deportation pyramid isa conceptual model that depicts the ripplingeffects deportation policies have had on all chil-dren in Mexican families regardless of theircitizenship status and actual involvement withthe Department of Homeland Security. A smallnumber of instances at the top of the pyra-mid are those in which children’s daily livesare permanently altered because of an act ofdeportation. A much greater number occur atthe bottom of the pyramid, in instances whenchildren are indirectly affected by the poli-cies that criminalize their parents, relatives, andneighbors.

At the pinnacle of the deportation pyramidare instances in which a child’s family structureis disrupted after a deportation act, like Perlaand Gladys, whose marriages ended with thedeportation of their children’s fathers. Becausethese men could not provide for their U.S.-born children from employment in Mexico,they could not use financial provision for theirchildren from a distance as a way to remainin their children’s lives, as do fathers andmothers in intentional transnational families(see Dreby, 2010; Parrenas, 2005). Deportationpermanently ruptures deportees’ relationshipswith their children remaining in the UnitedStates. Although I did not interview any familiesin which a child was sent to foster care andparental rights were terminated after a parentwas deported (see Wessler, 2011), such incidentswould also fall at the pinnacle of the deportationpyramid.

Just below the top of the pyramid are instancesin which U.S.-born children must return toMexico after a deportation. Sofia and herchildren exemplify such a case. A few monthsafter I interviewed her, Sofia returned with herfour children to her parents’ home in ruralChiapas, Mexico. The three younger children didnot speak Spanish well, having been educated inU.S. schools for all of their lives. The transitionto schooling in Mexico can be very difficult forchildren who have previously attended schoolin the United States (Zuniga & Hamann, 2006).Deportations permanently affect these childreneven if they continue to live with both parents.

Next on the deportation pyramid are instancesin which families experience long-term financialand emotional consequences after an enforce-ment act, even when the family is reunited inthe United States. In many cases, like that ofVanessa and her husband, who were apart forjust 5 months, the actual period of separationwas relatively short, but the emotional and eco-nomic fallout were long reaching. This was alsotrue for Clara, whose husband was detainedfor just 9 days but who still talked about thecosts 2 years later when she struggled to feedher children as they dealt with the many debtsthey had accrued since. Below this on the pyra-mid are instances in which families experienceshort-term changes in daily routines, economicstability, and emotional distress after an arrest,detention, or deportation.

In all families directly affected by acts ofenforcement, women take on the short- and long-term financial burdens of the forced separations.Because they are typically left without theirpartners, who are detained and deported eitherfirst or in lieu of women, women must figureout how best to financially provide for theirchildren. Moreover, men are demoralized bydeportation. Unlike other fathers separated fromchildren during migration, deportees are unableto provide for them. Narratives of sacrificecannot be used to maintain family unity despitethe distance. Women thus must not only providefinancially for their children, but also must finda way to rally the men in their lives. In thissense, like those in transnational families, singlemothers bear the greatest burdens of forcedseparations (Dreby, 2010). Forced separationsare inevitably tied to gender politics in families.

Children, too, face hardship from an act ofenforcement. Higher up on the deportation pyra-mid, children experience permanent changes in


family structure and especially in their relation-ships with their fathers. Lower down on thepyramid, children are affected indirectly by theeconomic hardship of living in a single-parenthousehold, albeit temporarily. Emotionally, theirrelationships with their fathers suffer. The timingof the deportation in a child’s life clearly matters.Younger children are less aware of and affectedby a parental detention. Older children, likeGladys’s daughter, who became her brother’sprimary babysitter, take on new roles in theirfamilies. More binational research is neededto look at the consequences of deportation forchildren over time. As is true for transnationalfamilies, separations seem to have reverberat-ing consequences even after reunification (seeArtico, 2003; Suarez-Orozco et al., 2002).

The bottom half of the deportation pyramidrepresents the more numerous instances in whichthe threat of deportability has an impact onchildren’s lives. Children, regardless of whetherthey have had a direct experience with an actof enforcement, harbor many fears about theirfamily stability. Undocumented children, likeAnita’s daughter, who withdrew into herself inschool settings, worry about their own precariouslegal status. U.S.-citizen children are fearfulthat their family will be separated if theirparents are detained or deported. This is perhapsexacerbated by the fact that parents, believingthat their children do not understand legality,rarely talk directly about issues of immigrationwith their children.

Children are, however, aware of social sta-tus differences due to immigration. Even theyoungest children, who did not fully under-stand immigration, hid the fact that they or theirparents are immigrants. This shows they wereaware of the stigma associated with illegality(see also Abrego, 2011). This brings us to thebottom of the deportation pyramid. Children inthe Mexican families I interviewed have begunto associate immigration with illegality regard-less of their family’s legal status. With newsprograms highlighting the worst case scenariosof families caught up in enforcement politics,children in Mexican immigrant families believethat all immigrant families are at risk. Misunder-standings about immigration and their immigrantheritage are perhaps the most devastating effectof the threat of deportability on children andchildren’s identity.

In two very different local contexts, I foundthat contemporary enforcement policies have

had a profound impact on children in Mexicanfamilies regardless of the parents’ or children’slegal status or the family’s actual involvementwith the Department of Homeland Security. U.S.policymakers would be wise to consider the bur-den of enforcement policies on children the sameway as public health practitioners use the injurypyramid. A deportation pyramid illustrates theways current policies affect many more chil-dren than just the 100,000 reported by the U.S.Department of Homeland Security’s Office ofthe Inspector General (2009) as having had theirparents or parents deported and the 5,100 left infoster care when a parent is detained or deported(Wessler, 2011). These cases are just the tipof the iceberg. The effects of detentions anddeportations are long reaching—with long- andshort-term consequences for children—affectingboth the gender politics of families and espe-cially children’s relationships with their fathers,yet enforcement policies have a lasting impres-sion on the greatest number of children at thebottom of the deportation pyramid. Children suf-fer deeply when they constantly worry about thestability of their families; research has shownthat family instability has severe negative con-sequences for child well-being (Brown, 2010).Moreover, many are confused about immigra-tion, something that is evident in the way 10-year-old Andrea referred to the ‘‘police- ICE’’when telling me she was afraid of being sepa-rated from her parents. Also, children have begunto associate stigma with immigration, conflatingit with illegality and hiding their immigrant her-itage. This is a truly sad direction for a countrythat prides itself as being a nation of immigrants.

NOTE

This study was funded by the Foundation for Child Develop-ment Young Scholars Program. Kent State University alsoprovided support for the data collection. I thank RobertoGonzales, Cecilia Menjivar, Tamara Mose-Brown, LeahSchmalzbauer, and Kathy Trent for their helpful comments.Above all else, I thank the children I interviewed—andtheir parents—for speaking so honestly to me about theirexperiences.

REFERENCES

Abrego, L. (2011). Legal consciousness of undocu-mented Latinos: Fear and stigma as barriers toclaims-making for first and 1.5 generation immi-grants. Law & Society Review, 45, 337 – 369.doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00435.x


Artico, C. I. (2003). Latino families broken byimmigration: The adolescent’s perspective. NewYork: LFB Scholarly.

Brown, S. (2010). Marriage and child well-being: Research and policy perspectives. Jour-nal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1059 – 1077.doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00750.x

Brubeck, K. & Xu, Q. (2010). The impact of detentionand deportation on Latino immigrant childrenand families: A quantitative exploration. HispanicJournal of Behavioral Sciences, 32, 341 – 361.doi:10.1177/0739986310374053

Capps, R., Castaneda, R. M., Chaudry, A., & San-tos, R. (2007). Paying the price: The impactof immigration raids on America’s children.Urban Institute for the National Council ofLa Raza. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411566_immigration_raids.pdf

Capps, R., & Fortuny, K. (2006). Immigration andchild and family policy. Washington, DC: UrbanInstitute.

Chaudry, A., Capps, R., Pedroza, J. M., Castaneda,R. M., Santos, R. & Scott, M. M. (2010). Facingour future: Children in the aftermath of immigra-tion enforcement. Urban Institute. Retrieved from:http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/facing_our_future.pdf

Coe, C. (2008). The structuring of feeling in Ghana-ian transnational families. City & Society, 20,222 – 250. doi:10.1111/j.1548-744X.2008.00018.x

De Genova, N. (2010). The deportation regime:Sovereignty, space and the freedom of movement.In N. De Genova & N. Peutz (Eds.), Thedeportation regime (pp. 33 – 65). Durham, NC:Duke University Press.

Dreby, J. (2007). Children and power in Mex-ican transnational families. Journal of Mar-riage and Family, 69, 1050 – 1064. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00430.x

Dreby, J. (2010). Divided by borders: Mexicanmigrants and their children. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Ehrenreich, B., & Hochschild, A. R. (2002). Globalwoman: Nannies, maids and sex workers in the neweconomy. New York: Metropolitan/Owl Books.

Foner, N. (2000). From Ellis Island to JFK: NewYork’s two great waves of immigration. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Fortuny, K., Capps, R., Simms, M., & Chaudry, A.(2009). Children of immigrants: National andstate characteristics. Urban Institute. Retrievedfrom http://www.urban.org/publications/411939.html

Frank, R. (2005). International migration and infanthealth in Mexico. Journal of Immigrant Health, 7,11 – 22. doi:10.1007/s10903-005-1386-9

Golash-Boza, T. (2011). Immigration nation: Raids,detentions, and deportations in post – 9/11 Amer-ica. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Gonzales, R. (2011). Learning to be illegal: Undoc-umented youth and shifting legal contexts inthe transition to adulthood. American Soci-ological Review, 76, 602 – 619. doi:10.1177/0003122411411901

Hagan, J., Castro, B., & Rodriguez, N. (2010).The effects of U.S. deportation policies onimmigrant families and communities: Cross-border perspectives. North Carolina Law Review,88, 1799 – 1824.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, P., & Avila, E. (1997). ‘‘I’mhere but I’m there’’: The meanings of Latinatransnational motherhood. Gender & Society, 11,548 – 560. doi:10.1177/089124397011005003

Human Rights Watch. (2009). Forced apart (by thenumbers): Non-citizens deported mostly for non-violent offenses. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/node/82173

Kanaiaupuni, S. M., & Donato, K. (1999). Migradol-lars and mortality: The effects of migrationon infant survival in Mexico. Demography, 36,339 – 353.

Kandel, W., & Massey, D. S. (2002). The cultureof Mexican migration: A theoretical and empir-ical analysis. Social Forces, 80, 981 – 1005.doi:10.1353/sof.2002.0009

Kanstroom, D. (2007). Deportation nation: Outsidersin American history. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Kasinitz, P., Mollenkopf, J. H., Waters, M. C., &Holdaway, J. (2008). Inheriting the city: Thechildren of immigrants come of age. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Kohli, A., Markowitz, P. L., & Chavez, L. (2011).Secure communities by the numbers: An analy-sis of demographics and due process. Retrievedfrom http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf

Lopez, M. H., & Minushkin, S. (2008). National sur-vey of Latinos. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrievedfrom: http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=93

Massey, D., Durand, J., & Malone, N. (2002). Beyondsmoke and mirrors: Mexican immigration in an eraof economic integration. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Menjivar, C. (2011). The power of the law: Cen-tral America’s legality and everyday life inPhoenix, Arizona. Latino Studies, 9, 377 – 395.doi:10.1057/lst.2011.43

Menjivar, C., & Abrego, L. (2009). Parents and chil-dren across borders: Legal instability and intergen-erational relations in Guatemalan and Salvadoranfamilies. In N. Foner (Ed.), Across generations(pp. 160 – 189). New York: New York UniversityPress.

Menjivar, C., & Agadjanian, V. (2007). Men’smigration and women’s lives: Views fromrural Armenia and Guatemala. Social Science


Quarterly, 88, 1243 – 1262. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00501.x

Moran-Taylor, M. J. (2008). When mothers andfathers migrate North: Caretakers, childrenand child rearing in Guatemala. Latin Amer-ican Perspectives, 35, 79 – 95. doi:10.1177/0094582X08318980

Parrenas, R. S. (2001). Servants of globalization:Women migration and domestic work. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Parrenas, R. S. (2005). Children of global migra-tion: Transnational families and gendered woes.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2009). A portraitof unauthorized immigrants in the UnitedStates. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved fromhttp://pewresearch.org/pubs/1190/portrait-unauthorized-immigrants-states

Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2011). Unauthorizedimmigrant population: National and state trends2010. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved fromhttp://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf

Perez, G. M. (2004). The near northwest sidestory: Migration, displacement, and Puerto Ricanfamilies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Peutz, N., & De Genova, N. (2010). Introduction. InN. De Genova & N. Peutz (Eds.), The deportationregime (pp. 1 – 29). Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2001). Legacies: Thestory of the immigrant second generation. Berke-ley: University of California Press.

Preston, J. (2010, October 6). Deportations from U.S.hit a record high. The New York Times. Retrievedfrom http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/us/07immig.html?sq=deportations&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1312899733-FOIHBx/It9W/gQ5R68TUxw

Schmalzbauer, L. (2008). Family divided: The classformation of Honduran transnational families.Global Networks, 8, 329 – 346. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0374.2008.00198.x

Segui-Gomez, M., & MacKenzie, E. J. (2003). Mea-suring the public health impact of injuries. Epi-demiologic Review, 25, 3 – 19. doi:10.1093/epirev/mxg007

Smith, R. C. (2006). Mexican New York: Transna-tional lives of new immigrants. Berkeley: Univer-sity of California Press.

Suarez-Orozco, C., Todorova, I., & Louie, J. (2002).Making up for lost time: The experienceof separation and reunification among immi-grant families. Family Processes, 41, 625 – 643.doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.00625.x

Talavera, V., Nunez-Mchiri, G. G., & Heyman, J.(2010). Deportation in the U.S. – Mexico border-lands: Anticipation, experience and memory. InN. De Genova & N. Peutz (Eds.), The deporta-tion regime (pp. 166 – 195). Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press.

Thorne, B. (1987). Re-visioning women and socialchange: Where are the children? Gender & Society,1, 85 – 109. doi:10.1177/089124387001001005

Thronson, D. (2008). Creating crisis: Immigrationraids and the destabilization of immigrant families.Wake Forest Law Review, 43, 391 – 418.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). State and county quickfacts. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34/3451210.html

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2011,October 18). FY 2011: ICE announces year-endremoval numbers, highlights focus on key prioritiesincluding threats to public safety and nationalsecurity. Retrieved from http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1110/111018washingtondc.htm

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Officeof Immigration Statistics. (2010a). Immigra-tion enforcement actions: 2009. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/enforcement_ar_2009.pdf

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Officeof Immigration Statistics. (2010b). Immigra-tion enforcement actions: 2010. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/enforcement-ar-2010.pdf

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office ofthe Inspector General. (2009). Removals of ille-gal alien parents of United States citizen chil-dren (Report No. OIG-09-15). Retrieved fromhttp://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_09-15_Jan09.pdf

Wadmann, M. C., Muelleman, R. L., Coto, J. A., &Kellerman, A. L. (2003). The pyramid of injury:Using encodes to accurately describe the burdenof injury. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 42,468 – 478. doi:10.1067/mem.2003.306

Wessler, S. F. (2011). Shattered families: The per-ilous intersection of immigration enforcement andthe child welfare system. Applied Research Center.Retrieved from http://arc.org/shatteredfamilies

Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Immigrants raising children:Undocumented parents raising children. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.

Zuniga, V., & Hamann, E. T. (2006). Going home?Schooling in Mexico of transnational children.CONfines de Relaciones Internacionales y CienciaPolitica, 2(4), 4 – 57.

The Burden of Deportation on Children in Mexican Immigrant ... · The Burden of Deportation on...

Documents

Transcript of The Burden of Deportation on Children in Mexican Immigrant ... · The Burden of Deportation on...