Online Proofing System Instructions The Wiley Online Proofing System allows authors and proof reviewers to review PDF proofs, mark corrections, respond to queries, upload replacement figures, and submit these changes directly from the PDF proof from the locally saved file or while viewing it in your web browser.
1. For the best experience reviewing your proof in the Wiley Online
Proofing System please ensure you are connected to the internet. This will allow the PDF proof to connect to the central Wiley Online Proofing System server. If you are connected to the Wiley Online Proofing System server you should see the icon with a green check mark above in the yellow banner.
Connected
Disconnected
2. Please review the article proof on the following pages and mark any
corrections, changes, and query responses using the Annotation Tools outlined on the next 2 pages.
3. To save your proof corrections, click the “Publish Comments”
button appearing above in the yellow banner. Publishing your comments saves your corrections to the Wiley Online Proofing System server. Corrections don’t have to be marked in one sitting, you can publish corrections and log back in at a later time to add more before you click the “Complete Proof Review” button below.
4. If you need to supply additional or replacement files bigger than 5 Megabytes (MB) do not attach them directly to the PDF Proof, please click the “Upload Files” button to upload files:
Click Here
5. When your proof review is complete and you are ready to submit corrections to the publisher, please click the “Complete Proof Review” button below:
Click Here
IMPORTANT: Do not click the “Complete Proof Review” button without replying to all author queries found on the last page of your proof. Incomplete proof reviews will cause a delay in publication. IMPORTANT: Once you click “Complete Proof Review” you will not be able to publish further corrections.
USING e-ANNOTATION TOOLS FOR ELECTRONIC PROOF CORRECTION Once you have Acrobat Reader open on your computer, click on the Comment tab at the right of the toolbar:
This will open up a panel down the right side of the document. The majority of tools you will use for annotating your proof will be in the Annotations section, pictured opposite. We’ve picked out some of these tools below:
1. Replace (Ins) Tool – for replacing text.
2. Strikethrough (Del) Tool – for deleting text.
Strikes a line through text and opens up a text box where replacement text can be entered. How to use it
Strikes a red line through text that is to be deleted. How to use it
‚
Highlight a word or sentence.
‚
Highlight a word or sentence.
‚
Click on the Replace (Ins) icon in the Annotations section.
‚
Click on the Strikethrough (Del) icon in the Annotations section.
‚
Type the replacement text into the blue box that appears.
3. Add note to text Tool – for highlighting a section to be changed to bold or italic.
4. Add sticky note Tool – for making notes at specific points in the text.
Highlights text in yellow and opens up a text box where comments can be entered. How to use it
Marks a point in the proof where a comment needs to be highlighted. How to use it
‚
Highlight the relevant section of text.
‚
‚
Click on the Add note to text icon in the Annotations section.
Click on the Add sticky note icon in the Annotations section.
‚
‚
Type instruction on what should be changed regarding the text into the yellow box that appears.
Click at the point in the proof where the comment should be inserted.
‚
Type the comment into the yellow box that appears.
USING e-ANNOTATION TOOLS FOR ELECTRONIC PROOF CORRECTION
5. Attach File Tool – for inserting large amounts of text or replacement figures. Inserts an icon linking to the attached file in the appropriate place in the text.
6. Drawing Markups Tools – for drawing shapes, lines and freeform annotations on proofs and commenting on these marks. Allows shapes, lines and freeform annotations to be drawn on proofs and for comment to be made on these marks.
How to use it ‚
Click on the Attach File icon in the Annotations section.
‚
Click on the proof to where you’d like the attached file to be linked.
‚
Select the file to be attached from your computer or network.
‚
Select the colour and type of icon that will appear in the proof. Click OK.
How to use it ̋" Click on one of the shapes in the Drawing Markups section. ̋" Click on the proof at the relevant point and draw the selected shape with the cursor. ̋" To add a comment to the drawn shape, move the cursor over the shape until an arrowhead appears. ̋" Double click on the shape and type any text in the red box that appears.
Book Review
Everyday Illegal
1
1
Department of Sociology, The University of Kansas, 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard, 716 Fraser Hall, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7540; e-mail:
[email protected]. 1
PE: Vinoth Kumar No. of pages: 5
Dispatch: 3.6.16
12282
Manuscript No.
On January 2, 2016, the day I sat down to write this review, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) launched a vast operation nationwide to round up and deport some of the Central American families who arrived in 2014 fleeing the violence in their homelands and who could not win their asylum cases in U.S. courts. From the point of view of the administration, this operation is meant to deter potential migrants from making the trip north. From the standpoint of the immigrants and their families, this action cascades into manifold consequences with short- and long-term consequences, both in the United States and in their homelands, for the immigrants and their U.S.-born family members and communities. The spillover effects are far and wide, as Aranda, Menjıvar, and Donato (2014) have observed. In Everyday Illegal, with ethnographic skill and analytical precision, Dreby captures some of the far-reaching effects of “illegality” by focusing on the experiences of Mexican families. She explores, through meticulously assembled data and to great effect, the contradictions that many immigrant family members live today: by virtue of lacking legal status they live “outside the law” (Motomura 2014), but paradoxically, it is there where they experience with particular acuity the power of the law, in its legislative and enforcement manifestations, and thus live “hyperaware” of the law (Menjıvar 2011). In today’s context of enforcement, Dreby observes, illegality matters a great deal; it frames people’s lives in consequential and unanticipated ways. Focusing on everyday matters, Dreby sheds light on the culture of fear and anxiety that immigration enforcement today engenders and the longterm consequences of lacking access to most goods and services in society. These effects accumulate and shape even the lives of individuals who hold regular, permanent statuses. To drive this point home, Dreby weaves in her own experiences as someone with a family member who at one point lacked legal status and currently suffers its long-term effects. Dreby started out expecting to write about the contrasting experiences of immigrants living in illegality in New Jersey and Ohio. Given the variation in state-level
S O C F
Everyday Illegal: When Policies Undermine Immigrant Families. Joanna Dreby. Oakland: University of California Press, 2015
CE: Wiley
Cecilia Menjıvar1
Journal Code
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Sociological Forum, 2016 DOI: 10.1111/socf.12282 © 2016 Eastern Sociological Society
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Menjı´ var
laws we see today, she logically assumed that the local context, with different laws, would lead to diverse experiences. But she found remarkable similarities across the two contexts. This is because no matter what states do, federal laws retain the power to determine who is allowed into the country and the legal statuses that immigrants will have. Given the unprecedented levels of federal enforcement and new limbo statuses that the federal government continues to create, it is at this level of government that key matters related to living undocumented originate. States can only ameliorate or exacerbate such effects but never to fundamentally alter them. Dreby’s analytical treatment of the contexts within which immigrants interact and legal status acquires meanings is subtle and multifaceted. She compares not only state contexts (Ohio and New Jersey) but also the local contexts of the school, where legal status impacts school performance and relations with peers, and neighborhood and social networks, within which discrimination and stigma are experienced but also where sources of support can make a difference in a child’s life. These local contexts, she contends, do not altogether eliminate the negative effects of broader systems of racial formation and immigration enforcement, but they do mediate the impact of broader forces in ways that can lessen the immediate everyday experiences children have with illegality. The expansion of the immigration system, both in its legislative and enforcement components, with visible and less observable manifestations, has created a rupture with the past. Back then, immigrants did not face the labyrinth of intractable laws that few can comprehend today and the enforcement regime was not as effective and overarching as it is today, with its vast network of technology and surveillance. As Dreby notes, the immigration system today places immigrants (both those who are undocumented but also family members who are documented and even the U.S. born) between a rock and a hard place as enforcement is the cornerstone of a system that offers few, if any, legal paths to regularization. Through its intensification, the enforcement system today has elevated the value of legal status while at the same time it has made it significantly more difficult to obtain legal status. As enforcement intensifies, a culture of fear is created in some communities; thus, the undocumented (as well as their family members) often withdraw from public life for fear of detention and deportation. Dreby demonstrates, though, that this culture of fear is gendered, as it is women who often fear not only the deportation of their partners but also the lack of support for their families that deportations create. Thus, as Dreby reveals and other scholars have observed, not all immigrants experience the current enforcement regime in the same way, as legal status interacts with social markers to produce substantial consequences, but not always in a predictable direction. There are some noteworthy gender effects she documents. Although the deportation regime has concentrated overwhelmingly on men (see Golash-Boza and Hondagneu-Sotelo 2013), women are not necessarily unharmed because they are left carrying the weight of their households and families when their partners are deported, an observation that Schmalzbauer (2014) also made in her work among Mexicans in Montana. Dreby calls these women “suddenly single mothers” because separation through deportation is abrupt and leaves no time for the women to prepare for single parenthood. These female-headed households are
Everyday Illegal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
3
therefore different from others. Dreby notes that when single-parent households are created through divorce, for instance, there is often preparation involved and arrangements made for ongoing parental involvement and under certain circumstances financial support. This is not the case when a parent is plucked from the family to be deported without any notice, as sometimes parents are detained on their way back from work or from the grocery store. In the process, these families are thoroughly transformed. They go through the trauma of losing the physical presence of a parent; they lose the financial contributions of these parents as deportees cannot earn enough in their origin countries to support their children in the United States; and the removal of a parent without any idea of when they will be together again disrupts bonds within families, alters gender and generational relations, and generally produces a lasting alteration in the family structure and redraws power lines within families. Importantly, Dreby observes perceptively, whereas for the parents a separation from their children is no doubt stressful, it represents only a segment of their adult lives. For the children, on the other hand, even a few years of separation can amount to half of their lives. This is deeply consequential for children’s development and identities. In effect, research by Amuedo-Dorantes and Lopez (2015) finds that immigration enforcement impacts adversely school performance, particularly among children ages 6–13, who are more likely to repeat a grade or drop out when they have a parent who is likely to be undocumented. There are also some important differences by race, national origin, and ethnicity. It is not a coincidence that Dreby focuses her work on Mexicans because this group makes up the vast majority of those detained and deported and therefore most affected by the system today. In fact, scholars have observed the overwhelming concentration of the enforcement regime in detaining and deporting Latino immigrants, which has led to a rethinking of the legal system as a racialized regime. Immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador are disproportionately represented in detentions and deportations, even when accounting for the share of undocumented immigrants in these four groups (Menjıvar, Abrego, and Schmalzbauer 2016). According to Golash-Boza and Hondagneu-Sotelo (2013:274), “between 1993 and 2011. . . there was a 10-fold increase in the number of Mexican deportees, and a 12-fold increase in the number of Central American deportees.” At the same time, these authors note, the deportations of Asian and European immigrants increased fourfold and those of African and Caribbean immigrants only doubled. But Mexican and Central American immigrants also overwhelmingly bear the brunt of the less visible ways in which the immigration regime reshapes the contours of families, and which Dreby also spends time documenting. Deportations and interior enforcement have attracted much attention, but the immigration regime also contributes to separating families through its legal requirements and rules of admissibility. Certain mechanisms in family reunification laws, for instance, have been found to maintain families separated for uncertain periods of time and thus affect the composition and organization of immigrant families, particularly among Latinos (Enchautegui and Menjıvar 2015).
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Menjı´ var
Another crucial mechanism of the immigration system that disproportionally affects working-class Latinos in particular is the bifurcation in the paths to legality dictated by mode of entry into the United States (see also Gomberg-Mu~ noz 2014). Immigrants who become undocumented through visa overstay can adjust their status to permanent residence from within the United States, but immigrants who enter without inspection (e.g., who cross the border) cannot. To adjust their statuses, these immigrants must leave the United States, but doing so triggers a three-, but much more frequently a ten-, year bar to readmission. This requirement has far more consequential effects for Latinos than for other groups. Given these legal mechanisms and unevenness in laws, Latinos in general (not only the undocumented) have become increasingly more cognizant of legality, as Dreby observes. Given the very real threats that the Mexican families faced, Dreby found that children with undocumented parents, including those born in the United States, had learned that their families were at risk and to be careful around police. However, and perhaps more telling, even the children without any unauthorized family members also expressed fears of deportation. This spillover effect is not confined to the neighborhoods of New Jersey and Ohio that Dreby documents; we also have observed this phenomenon in Phoenix, Arizona. Results from a school-based survey among middle school students (Santos and Menjıvar 2013) showed that simply awareness of SB 1070 had a negative association with the youth’s sense of being American, and this weakened sense of American identity resulted in a small but meaningful reduction in psychological well-being. Notably, in the Phoenix study this negative association was not moderated by race or ethnicity; the same negative associations between awareness of SB 1070, American identity, and self-esteem were detected in the entire sample of racially and ethnically diverse youth—including white youth who attend a very diverse school. One of the most salient points Dreby makes, which she substantiates with extensive observations and real-life examples and which parallels observations by other scholars, is that given enforcement practices and the salience of legal status today, legal status differentiates the life chances of individuals in similar ways as those of other social markers. Legal status creates divisions within families, with members who are U.S.-born having access to goods and services of society while their siblings, by virtue of their undocumented status, are denied such access. Legal status also creates differences between families, among classmates, and neighbors, with consequential effects for social mobility. Indeed, I would argue that legal status today can even offset the effects of advantage in other social positions because while it is against the law to discriminate based on gender, race, religious affiliation, and other social markers, the law dictates to discriminate based on legal status. The result is that legal status is creating new social hierarchies and exacerbating existing ones with immediate and long-term consequences. Dreby ends the book with a thoughtful discussion of proposals for immigration reform. Given contemporary experiences of immigrants who hold temporary statuses, she points to the potential negative consequences of requiring immigrants to remain in legal limbo, or “liminal legality,” for years before qualifying for permanent legal residence, a point with which I fully agree.
Everyday Illegal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
5
Everyday Illegal has much to offer—it is informative, well situated in scholarship, accessibly written, and carefully analyzed. It invites serious reflection not only about immigration today but also about new forms of stratification and exclusion. I highly recommend it to anyone who cares about the lives of immigrants and the future of the nation.
REFERENCES Amuedo-Dorantes, Catalina and Mary J. Lopez. 2015. “Falling Through the Cracks? Grade Retention and School Dropout Among Children of Likely Unauthorized Immigrants.” American Economic Review 105: 5: 598–603. Aranda, Elizabeth, Cecilia Menjıvar, and Katharine M. Donato. 2014. “Spillover Effects of Immigration Enforcement in Local Contexts.” American Behavioral Scientist 58: 13: 1696–1722. Enchautegui, Maria and Cecilia Menjıvar. 2015. “Paradoxes of Family Reunification Law: Family Separation and Reorganization Under the Current Immigration Regime.” Law & Policy 37: 1–2: 32–60. Golash-Boza, Tanya and Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo. 2013. “Latino Immigrant Men and the Deportation Crisis: A Gendered Racial Removal Program.” Latino Studies 11: 3: 271–292. Gomberg-Mu~ noz, Ruth. 2014. “The Punishment/El Castigo: Undocumented Latinos and US Immigration Processing.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41: 4: 2235–2252. Motomura, Hiroshi. 2014. Immigration Outside the Law. New York: Oxford University Press. Menjıvar, Cecilia. 2011. “The Power of the Law: Central Americans’ Legality and Everyday Life in Phoenix, Arizona.” Latino Studies 9: 4: 377–395. Menjıvar, Cecilia, Leisy Abrego, and Leah Schmalzbauer. 2016. Immigrant Families. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Santos, Carlos and Cecilia Menjıvar. 2013. “Youth’s Perspective on Senate Bill 1070 in Arizona: The Socioeconomic Effects of Immigration Policy.” Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Journal 7: 2: 7–17. Schmalzbauer, Leah. 2014. The Last Best Place?: Gender, Family and Migration in the New West. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Author Query Form Journal:
SOCF
Article:
12282
Dear Author, During the copy-editing of your paper, the following queries arose. Please respond to these by marking up your proofs with the necessary changes/additions. Please write your answers on the query sheet if there is insufficient space on the page proofs. Please write clearly and follow the conventions shown on the attached corrections sheet. If returning the proof by fax do not write too close to the paper’s edge. Please remember that illegible mark-ups may delay publication. Many thanks for your assistance. Query reference
Query
1
AUTHOR: Please confirm that given names (red) and surnames/family names (green) have been identified correctly.
Remarks
Proof Correction Marks MARKED PROOF Please correct and return your proofs using the proof correction marks below. For a more Please correct and return this set detailed look at using these marks please reference the most recent edition of The Chicago Manual of the Style and correction visit them marks on theshown Web at: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home. Please use proof below for all alterations and corrections. If you html wish to return your proof by fax you should ensure that all amendments are written clearly Instruction Instructiontotoprinter typesetter Leave unchanged Insert in text the matter indicated in the margin Delete Substitute character or substitute part of one or more word(s) Change to italics Change to capitals Change to small capitals Change to bold type Change to bold italic Change to lower case ‘superior’ character Insert superscript Insert subscript Insert ‘inferior’ character Insert full stop Insert comma
Textual mark under matter to remain
New matterbyfollowed followed by new by followed new or matter through single character, rule underline through single character, rule oror underline through single character, rule or underline or through all characters deleted through allthrough characters to to bebe deleted all characters to be deleted through letter or through characters under matter to be changed under matter to be changed under matter to be changed under matter to be changed under matter to be changed B Encircle matter to be changed through character or where required (As above) (As above)
or new character or new characters
or
under character under character e.g. e.g.overorcharacter e.g. over character
(As above)
Insert single quotation marks Insert double quotation marks Insert hyphen Start new paragraph Transpose
(As above) (As above)
Close up
linking
Insert or substitute space between characters or words Reduce space between characters or words
Marginal mark
or or
(As above)
characters
through character or where required between characters or words affected
and/or
