SOC003 UOCD History of Welfare Programs in America Questions you can find resources anywhere to find the answers Who do Edin and Shaefer study? How do
SOC003 UOCD History of Welfare Programs in America Questions you can find resources anywhere to find the answers
Who do Edin and Shaefer study?
How do poor people “pay” for government aid?
How many people receive U.S. government aid? How has this number changed over time?
What is the history of welfare programs in America? How did these programs change in
1996?
How did the sociologists involved in welfare reform feel about the policies that ended up
going into effect?
Many eligible families do not apply for welfare. Why not?
(About) how many Americans live in poverty?
Why is the Mississippi Delta so poor?
Given the lack of formal opportunities, how do people in the Mississippi Delta attempt to
make ends meet? How are women and children especially affected by these challenges?
According to Edin and Shaefer, is the Mississippi Delta unique in its level of poverty?
What does Pedro Noguera belive is the most pressing issue in American education? How
does he think we should address this issue?
Which groups of students are disproportionally absent from higher education? According to
Noguera, how can we address that?
What is the achievement gap? How is it changing over time?
Which groups of students consistently perform the best in the American education system?
Which groups of students consistently struggle?
What does Ann Arnett Ferguson mean by the “punishing room?” Is it one room, or a series
of spaces? Which students are found in these spaces?
What assumptions about race, class, and gender underpin the school disciplinary system at
Rosa Parks Elementary?
What percentage of America’s incarcerated population is serving time for drug offenses?
What sort of drug offenses have these people committed?
When did the “war on drugs” emerge? How has it changed over time?
What does it mean to say there is a racial disparity in imprisonment rates? Which groups
are particularly overrepresented?
Alexander claims that America’s criminal justice system is discriminatory. According to
Alexander, what two processes creates this discriminatory system?
How is drug-law enforcement different than other types of law enforcement?
What is the fastest growing group of incarcerated people?
How does “aging” in prison differ from “aging” among the general population?
What happens when older adults are released from prison? How likely are they do
recidivate?
What is the current gender pay gap?
How does the gendered pay gap differ for different racial groups? What about groups of
different ages or educational backgrounds?
There are multiple ways to calculate the gender pay gap. How do these calculations vary?
How does our understanding of the gender pay gap change if we look longitudinally at
cohorts based on birth year?
What are the four essential features of a fundamental social cause of health inequalities?
What role(s) do(es) “flexible resources” play in reproducing health inequalities?
What does it mean to look at “flexible resources” on the individual level v. the contextual
level?
What sort of policies might address the fundamental social causes of health inequalities?
According to McMillian Cottom, how are black women viewed in healthcare settings? What
are the implications/results of this attitude?
According to Johnson, how have immigration policies excluded and discriminated again
racial minorities?
How have United States deportation rates changed over time?
Golash-Boza and Hondagneu-Sotelo argue that the United States is currently experiencing a
deportation crises. According to Golash-Boza and Hondagneu-Sotelo, what created this
crisis?
The Department of Homeland Security is concerned about “criminal aliens.” What crimeshave most of these “criminal aliens” committed?
How does the disproportionate detention and deportation of Latino men affect their
families? Original Article
L a t i n o i m m i g r a n t m e n an d t h e
deportation crisis: A gendered racial
removal program
Tanya Golash-Boza a and Pier r ette Hon da g n e u -S ot e l o b
a
University of California, Merced
University of Southern California
b
Abstract This article reviews how US deportations ballooned between 1997 and
2012, and underscores how these deportations disproportionately targeted Latino
working class men. Building on Mae Ngai’s (2004) concept of racial removal, we
describe this recent mass deportation as a gendered racial removal program. Drawing
from secondary sources, surveys conducted in Mexico, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security published statistics, and interviews with deportees conducted by the first
author in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Brazil and Jamaica, we argue that: (1)
deportations have taken on a new course in the aftermath of 9/11 and in the wake of the
global economic crisis – involving a shift towards interior enforcement; (2) deportation
has become a gendered and racial removal project of the state; and (3) deportations will
have lasting consequences with gendered and raced effects here in the United States. We
begin by examining the mechanisms of the new deportation regime, showing how it
functions, and then examine the legislation and administrative decisions that make it
possible. Next, we show the concentration of deportations by nation and gender.
Finally, we discuss the causes of this gendered racial removal program, which include
the male joblessness crisis since the Great Recession, the War on Terror, and the continued criminalization of Black and Latino men by police authorities.
Latino Studies (2013) 11, 271–292. doi:10.1057/lst.2013.14
Keywords: deportation; gender; immigration; great recession; war on terror;
criminalized masculinity
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies
www.palgrave-journals.com/lst/
Vol. 11, 3, 271–292
Golash-Boza and Hondagneu-Sotelo
1 In 2009 and 2010,
the first author
conducted 150
semi-structured
interviews with
deportees in
Jamaica, the
Dominican
Republic,
Guatemala and
Brazil, in addition
to participant
observation at
airports where
deportees arrive
and interviews
with government
officials and
NGOs in the four
countries. Those
272
Between 1997 and 2012, the US government carried out 4.2 million deportations.
This figure amounts to more than twice the sum total of every deportation before
1997 (1.9 million people). Nearly all of these recent deportees have been Latino
men, creating a crisis in Latino families and communities. We suggest this
constitutes a gendered racial removal program, and argue that changes in
immigration law, the War on Terror, the law enforcement racial profiling and
criminalization of Latino men, and the male joblessness crisis in the United States
have produced this deportation crisis. We conclude by offering some questions,
analyses and implications for both research and action.
Many scholars working from diverse disciplines have analyzed the soaring
number of deportations (Coutin, 2000; Hing, 2003; Ngai, 2004; Hernandez,
2008; Brotherton and Barrios, 2011; Golash-Boza, 2012; Kanstroom, 2012; King
et al, 2012; Kretsedemas, 2012), and the increase in police/Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) cooperation (Zilberg, 2004; Stumpf, 2006; Donato
and Armenta, 2011; Armenta, 2012; Coleman, 2012), yet these studies have not
explicitly considered the intersectionality of gender, class and race in these
removals. In this article, we review how US deportations ballooned between
1997 and 2012, and we underscore how these deportations disproportionately
targeted Latino working class men. Building on Mae Ngai’s (2004) concept of
racial removal, we refer to this recent mass deportation as a gendered racial
removal program. We explain the legal and administrative mechanisms supporting this process, and we indicate how structural factors in the economy and the
politics of race, criminalization and immigration have prompted these changes.
Methodologically, we draw on secondary sources, surveys conducted in Mexico,
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published statistics, and
interviews with deportees conducted by the first author in Guatemala, the
Dominican Republic, Brazil and Jamaica.1 We begin by examining the mechanisms of the new deportation regime, showing how it functions, and then examine
the legislation and administrative decisions that make it possible. Next, we show
the concentration of deportations by nation and gender. Finally, we discuss the
causes of this gendered racial removal program, which include the male joblessness crisis since the Great Recession, the War on Terror, and the continued
criminalization of Black and Latino men by police authorities.
G e n d e r an d I m m i g r a t i o n Co nt r o l
Starting with the Page Law of 1875 and continuing through the mid-twentieth
century with the Bracero Program (1942–1964), the United States actively
recruited immigrant men from Asia and Latin America to fill expanding labor
needs in the west, while only tenuously admitting Asian and Latina immigrant
women into the nation. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century,
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435
Latino Studies
Vol. 11, 3, 271–292
Deportation crisis and gendered racial removal
non-white women were particularly vulnerable to deportation and exclusion, as
immigration inspectors regarded women as drains on social welfare resources and
as probable public charges (Moloney, 2012). Keeping the Asian and Latina women
out or restricted in number was a strategy aimed at deterring the demographic
reproduction and permanent settlement of Asian and Latino families and communities in the United States (Glenn, 1986; Chan, 1991; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994,
1995; Chavez, 2008). To be sure, men were deported in round-ups and incarcerated in prisons, detention centers and internment camps, but as recently as the fiscal
crisis of the state in the 1990s, exclusionary policies such as California’s Proposition 187 and the 1996 immigration and welfare reform acts targeted women
(Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1995; Marchevsky and Theoharis, 2006; Chavez, 2008;
Fujiwara, 2008; Park, 2011; Moloney, 2012).
We suggest that the current targeting of men for deportation signals a rupture
with previous restrictionist immigration regime policies that had focused on
excluding women (from reproduction) and including men for labor (production).
Although no explicitly gendered legislation codifies this new turn, changes in
administrative policies and practices have created a situation where the vast
majority of deportees are working class men from Latin America and the
Caribbean. We contend that the institutionalized criminalization and surveillance
of men of color in urban streets (Young, 1999; Zilberg, 2004; Wacquant, 2009;
Ramirez and Flores, 2011; Rios, 2011) – heightened in the post-9/11 climate of
Islamaphobia and male joblessness exacerbated by global financial crisis and
economic restructuring – have created the context for this shift. This became evident
in both practice and discourse, as police surveillance, detention and deportation
targeted Latin American immigrant men (Dowling and Inda, 2012). A labor market
that increasingly relies on service jobs and offers diminishing numbers of construction and manufacturing jobs deems these men disposable and redundant.
During the 1990s, political campaigns in the United States constructed the
“immigrant danger” as a feminine reproductive threat (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1995;
Chavez, 2004, 2008; Gutierrez, 2008). Lawmakers and voters targeted the bodies
of immigrant women – namely poor immigrant women, women of color and
especially Mexican women – as pregnant breeders, a danger to society and the
nation. The reproductive capacity of Latina immigrant women was constructed
as a threat that might disrupt demographic homogeneity, drain resources at
public schools and hospitals, and reproduce even larger Latino communities. The
1996 federal reforms to welfare and immigration legislation passed in this context
rendered many immigrant women ineligible for government benefits. The safety
net for immigrant women shrunk, the service sector jobs that traditionally employ
women increased, and the perception of immigrant women as threats to the
nation has become muted in recent years.
In this context, the gendered construction of immigrant danger has shifted. The
new danger is masculine, one personified by terrorist men and “criminal aliens.”
The DHS, the cabinet department created after the September 11 attacks, which
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435
Latino Studies
Vol. 11, 3, 271–292
interviews were
part of a larger
project focusing
on the
consequences of
mass deportation.
273
Golash-Boza and Hondagneu-Sotelo
replaced the old Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), has framed its
efforts in a discourse of national security. Mass deportation emerged as a primary
strategy for protecting the nation from the gendered and racial threats of criminal
and fugitive aliens and terrorists.
Twenty- first Century Deportations : Ge nd e r e d R a c i a l R e m o va l
Along with this shift in discourse towards a focus on criminal aliens, the comingling of national security and immigration policy has produced unprecedented numbers of deportations. In 2011, the DHS deported 392,000 foreign
nationals, and returned an additional 324,000 to their home countries without a
removal order. At least since the early 1990s, Latino and Caribbean men have
been the targets of deportation policy. However, as criminal deportations have
risen both proportionally and in absolute numbers, these trends have affected
some national origin groups more than others. Between 1993 and 2011,
deportations increased ninefold. This increase is due almost exclusively to
increases in the numbers of Mexican and Central American deportees. There
was a 10-fold increase in the number of Mexican deportees, and a 12-fold
increase in the number of Central American deportees. In contrast, European and
Asian deportations quadrupled, and African and Caribbean deportations
doubled. By 2011, 97 per cent of deportees were from the Americas – only 5060
people were deported to Asia; 3131 to Europe; and 1602 to Africa (Table 41,
DHS Yearbook of Immigration Statistics).
DHS has not released publically available data on the gender of deportees since
1997. According to the 1997 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, there was an
increase in the number of female deportees post-1996. Between 1992 and 1995,
only about 6 per cent of deportees were women. In 1996, the proportion rose to
12 per cent and increased to almost 16 per cent in 1997. This increase in the
deportation of women in the mid-1990s happened at the same time that pundits
constructed Latinas as breeders and drains on the welfare state.
More recent individual country studies show that the vast majority of
deportees continue to be men, and that many have close ties to the United States.
Hagan et al (2008) found that, in El Salvador, 95 per cent of deportees are men,
three quarters were undocumented in the United States, nearly 79 per cent have
family members in the United States, and their median stay in the United States
had been 8 years. The study by Headley et al (2005) of Jamaican criminal
deportees revealed that 28 per cent had arrived in the United States before age 16,
98.5 per cent were men, and the average time in the United States had been 12
years. Nina Siulc (2009) found that about three-quarters of Dominicans deported
on criminal grounds were legal permanent residents of the United States, and
about 80 per cent of them had spent over 5 years in the United States before their
274
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435
Latino Studies
Vol. 11, 3, 271–292
Deportation crisis and gendered racial removal
first arrest. In this article, we look at deportees more globally, and find similar
trends – nearly all deportees are men, and many had strong ties to the United
States before being deported.
Other scholars have focused on the legal and social implications of deportation
(Kanstroom, 2012), trends in immigration enforcement (Kretsedemas, 2012) and
the consequences of deportation (Brotherton and Barrios, 2011). However, few
analysts have considered why deportations are escalating in this particular
historical moment, and, more importantly for our analysis, why the vast majority
of deportees are Black and Latino working class men. Drawing on work that
examines gender, immigration and exclusion, we argue that: (1) deportations have
taken on a new course in the aftermath of 9/11 and in the wake of the global
economic crisis – involving a shift towards interior enforcement; (2) deportation has
become a gendered and racial removal project of the state; and (3) deportations will
have lasting consequences with gendered and raced effects here in the United States.
Mechanisms of the N ew Deportati on R egime
Deportations have increased since the mid-1990s, facilitated by the passage of an
arsenal of new laws, including the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), the 1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act. As Hagan et al
(2008, 66) indicate, removals averaged about 20,000 annually from 1900 to
1990,2 but began escalating in the 1990s. Deportations then ballooned to over
208,000 removals in 2005. By 2012, that figure had nearly doubled to 409,849
removals.3
Scholars generally recognize the 1996 IIRIRA as the principal legislation
facilitating the removal of hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The 2003
creation of the DHS and ICE replaced the INS and serves as the new institutional
apparatus conducting these deportations. The 1996 legislation facilitated deportations by expanding the grounds on which non-citizens could be deported,
eliminating most grounds for appeal, and implementing an expedited removal
process. Thus, as Figure 1 shows, deportations rose sharply beginning in 1996.
However, deportations leveled off, and even declined in 2002, only to rise
precipitously with the creation of DHS and ICE in 2003.
The laws regarding deportation have not changed substantially since 1996.
Instead, Congress has appropriated increasing amounts of money for immigration law enforcement, in line with DHS’s annual budget requests. The Fiscal Year
(FY) 2011 budget for DHS was $56 billion, 30 per cent of which was directed at
immigration law enforcement through ICE and Customs and Border Patrol
(CBP). Another 18 per cent of the total went to the US Coast Guard and 5 per
cent to US Citizenship & Immigration Services – meaning over half of the DHS
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435
Latino Studies
Vol. 11, 3, 271–292
2 The average
number of
“removals”
between 1900 and
1990 was about
18,000. These
figures did not
include the
hundreds of
thousands of
Mexicans who
were repatriated
in the 1930s, nor
the million
Mexicans who
were returned
during
“Operation
Wetback” in
1954. The reason
for this is that, in
the 1930s,
hundreds of
275
Golash-Boza and Hondagneu-Sotelo
thousands of
Mexicans
departed
“voluntarily” and
thus were not
recorded as
removals. In
1954, the Border
Patrol recorded 1
million “returns”
as Operation
Wetback was
concentrated
along border
towns. See Lytle
Hernandez (2010)
for a discussion of
Operation
Wetback and
Balderrama
(1982) for a
discussion of the
mass repatriation
of Mexicans and
their children in
the 1930s.
3 As of 1 April
1997, the
government
reclassified all
exclusion and
deportations
procedures as
“Removal
proceedings,” but
in this paper we
use the terms
deportation and
removal
interchangeably.
2012 figure from:
www.ice.gov/
removal-statistics/.
4 FY 2011 Budget
Summary and
Background
Information.
Department of
Education.
www2.ed.gov/
about/overview/
budget/budget11/
276
Removals 1980-2012
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Figure 1: Removals: 1980–2012.
Note: Data for 1980–2011 from Table 39 DHS/OIS: http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/
YrBk10En.shtm, accessed 4 April 2013. Data for 2012 from: http://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/,
accessed 4 April 2013.
budget is directed at border security and immigration law enforcement (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 2012). To put this $56 billion in
perspective, the Department of Education FY 2011 budget was $77.8 billion, and
the Department of Justice $29.2 billion.4 The rise in deportations over the past
decade primarily stems from Executive Branch decisions to expand immigration law
enforcement, as part of the broader project of the War on Terror.
F ro m bo r de r t o i nt e rio r e nf o rce m e n t
The criminalization of immigrants constitutes a new form of legal violence in
Latino communities, legally sanctioned social suffering resulting from the convergence of immigration law and criminal law (Menjivar and Abrego, 2012). While
entire families and communities suffer this violence, the removals and deportations have targeted Latino men. Mass deportation began with President Bush, but
under the Obama administration, deportations have continued to rise, and the
focus now centers on criminal aliens – non-US citizens who have been convicted
of crimes.5 During this same period, emphasis has shifted from border
enforcement to interior enforcement. The ratio of returns to removals reflects
this shift – as returns are primarily a border enforcement mechanism.6
“Returns” occur when a Border Patrol agent denies entry, whereas a
“removal” involves a non-citizen attending an immigration hearing or waiving
the right to a hearing – as in an expedited removal. In 1996, there were 22
times as many returns as removals. This ratio has dropped continuously, and
in 2011, for the first time since 1941, the United States removed more people
than it returned. We can only crudely measure the weight of interior versus
border enforcement by this shift, as some people apprehended at the border
can be processed through a removal procedure. Nevertheless, the trend is
striking (Figure 2).
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435
Latino Studies
Vol. 11, 3, 271–292
Deportation crisis and gendered racial removal
1,800,000
summary/
11summary.pdf
and FY 2011
Budget.
Department of
Justice. www
.justice.gov/opa/
pr/2010/February/
10-ag-109.html,
accessed 20
February 2012.
Removals
Returns
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
5 The Bush
administration
also conducted
several highly
visible
immigration raids.
These immigration
raids generated
more fear than
actual immigration
enforcement, as
they accounted for
a very small
percentage of
actual
deportations – less
than 1 per cent.
See Golash-Boza
(2012) for an
analysis of these
raids.
400,000
200,000
0
Figure 2: Removals and Returns: 1927–2011.
1,400,000
1,200,000
ICE
Border Patrol
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
Figure 3: ICE and border patrol apprehensions 2002–2011.
Source: Table 35 DHS “Aliens Apprehended by Program and Border Patrol Section and Investigations
Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Jurisdiction”: FY 2002–2011.
The distribution of apprehensions of non-citizens among law enforcement
agencies also indicates a shift towards interior enforcement. Immigration law
enforcement officers who work in two branches of the DHS carry out deportations: CBP and ICE. CBP is only authorized to work up to 100 air miles from the
border; most interior enforcement falls to ICE. Over the past decade, we have
witnessed a shift towards ICE apprehensions. In 2002, interior apprehensions
accounted for 10 per cent of all DHS apprehensions. By 2011, that figure was
nearly 50 per cent. Figure 3 displays these trends.
This shift towards interior enforcem…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
