The Groves Conference on Marriage and Family: History and Impact on Family Science

Identification

Each country has great scope in designing the policies that surround travel and immigration. At a primary level, decisions around what constitutes legal identification are fundamental to mobility. Americans have been used to having to deal with identification only occasionally. A driver’s license (state-level regulated) and a social security card and number (nationally assigned and regulated) have been relatively easy to come by and not required for many transactions. Americans could cross the borders to Canada and Mexico without a passport until changes instituted after 9/11. In many countries, moving around inside the country also has required legal papers and one cannot freely change residence or work without the proper papers. Recent changes brought about by U.S. Homeland Security are causing the states to issue driver’s licenses that have secure protections against illegal duplication and false identity (Varsanyi, 2007). They must also provide cards for those who do not drive that meet these higher standards for identification. In some states registered voters are now required have to have these identifications as well, and in some states passports will not be allowed as an option (NCSL, 2010).

Undocumented immigrants have used fraudulent social security numbers and stay in the cash-only economy to avoid detection. This practice has led to payroll taxes being gathered with no one being in the end a beneficiary (Porter, 2005). There also are other norms of evasion that have helped the undocumented worker survive. The Matricula card developed by the Mexican government is a high-security card based on documents that are issued through a consular office (Bruno & Storrs, 2005). It has been available for a decade and allowed many otherwise undocumented workers to use banking and other business and agency services (Bakker, 2011; Versany, 2007). Of course, bankers loved it, and 33 states accept the cards for one or more agencies (Versany, 2007). Simultaneously, more pressure is being put on employers to use federal identity checking procedures to vet employees’ status. Documented immigrants and long-term visitors have much more paper work and checks to remain in status today.

Definition of Family

Defining family has been an important debate in family studies generally including applications to theory, research, and practice (Settles, 1986, 1999; Steinmetz, Peterson, & Sussman, 1999). In terms of immigration there are specific consequences for how families are delineated. Just a few of the definitional issues that impact family mobility are family reunification (whose family and what is family here and there); parental decision making and custody (adoption, separation and divorce, cultural practices and customs); marriage and domestic partnerships (what is recognized, what is required to maintain recognition who is recognized, exclusion of same-sex partners); sponsorship and contracts for continued responsibility (no eligibility for governmental programs or support); and treatment or intervention. A “family,” as its members perceive it is difficult to keep separated even when the governmental rules are clear about who is “properly” defined as family.

Reunification of families is a fundamental principle of U.S. immigration policy and about 70 percent of immigrants enter for that purpose according to United Nations data (cited in Hwang & Parrenas, 2010). It is a selective policy, with siblings and adult children left waiting until their relatives are naturalized to become eligible (Hwang & Parrenas, 2010). When countries have low overall quotas even spouses must wait many years. Children may age out if their parents have not filed for them promptly. In the U.S., citizen children do not provide a route for their parents to be naturalized. In the European Union these issues of family definition and reunion are even more scrutinized—especially since 9/11 (Kruse, Orren, & Angenendt, 2003).

Lister (2010) suggests that family ties are fundamental to the general rights of association. Whether or not “marriage” should be the basis for defining such beneficial relationships, in the United States many investigations hinge on the idea that the marriage must be in good faith for the family ties to be “worthy” for unification. Lister (2010) wonders whether aliens should be expected to have more stable relationships than other in-country families. In reality “families can contain a mix of undocumented immigrants along Page  143with native born family members” (J. Glick, 2011, p. 500), and these people may be located in many places in the country, country-of-origin, or other places.

Home

Both the location and domicile are critical concepts for immigration and family options (Settles, 2001b); however, ideals and realities are often in conflict. Citizenship and status differences within families may lead to multiple locations and perhaps permanent maintenance of more than one home. When one feels at home, often the sense of place, rituals of daily life, and artifacts create familiarity and stability. Not only the actual dwelling but also the neighborhood and community resonate to support a lifestyle and continuity. Emotion and meaning are found in the local food, ball teams, schools, and media. Language shapes the cultural messages. Home also may seem to be embedded in climate, geography, and regional economy and culture. Being born in a place, living there peaceably, working and paying ones taxes, marrying, having children are some of the underlying assumptions in understanding the importance of home as a concept and a destination. Returning home even when it is dangerous to do so is indicative of the power of the idea.

Boundaries

Therapeutic understandings of family and dyadic boundaries are quite different from legal and practical boundaries. Visible and invisible barriers may affect decisions and adjustment. Competitive relationships with the family back home and the other family members and friendships that develop in the new place may restructure family processes. Demands on physical energy and competency to manage connecting and communicating and maintaining functioning may be extreme for immigrants. Therapeutic understandings of family and dyadic boundaries provide a context to the losses and gains in how moving is experienced. Networks matter in terms of understanding what is at risk. Corneille and Brotherton (1993) suggest that ordinary developmental change may seem more stressful because of immigration. “Families experience the loss of natural support systems and need to ‘review and prioritize’ family values” (p. 337). Page  144Therapists must also become aware of how their values influence treatment.

Borders

National and state borders are often quite arbitrary and have implications for mobility. For example, in the United States family law is state-centered and laws about divorce, custody, sexual expression, abortion, wills, and inheritance are surprisingly often quite different (Settles, 2001a). The question of whether illegal immigrants are a positive or negative contribution to economic and social welfare is debated. Nadadur (2009) makes the argument that there is a net gain with a significant and positive impact on the U.S. economy overall. Since costs seem to be born more by local and state governments than the federal level, local and state laws have become more punitive and challenging to the federal primacy in immigration control. The contemporary economic theory of neoliberalism posits and privileges “openness for goods, technologies, currencies and ideas between nation-states” (Versany 2007, p. 314). In contrast, the nation-state is still a membership society “with political closure of its borders’’ (p. 314). It could be said that undocumented workers constitute a vulnerable labor sector that is needed for this neoliberal program. In contrast to national boundaries policies, many cities and regions now operate as global centers seeking immigrants and world trade.

Caregiving, Love, and Intergenerational Relationships

Immigration and especially temporary work visas cause splits in families and their relationship responsibilities which they try to address through caregiving at a distance, remittances, child caring for parents at a distance, and grandparents and extended kin caring for grandchildren (Settles, Zhao, Mancini, Rich, Pierre, & Odour, 2009). Remittances are the underpinning of connections between family members and supporters who are split in their residences. They represent the second largest source of external funding for developing countries (Lopez-Ekra, Aghazarm, Kotter, & Mallard, 2011). Almost half of all remittances are sent by women who also send money more regularly and for longer periods. To bring eligible Page  145relatives to the U.S., immigrants must assure that they can sponsor them at 125% of the poverty line and keep them from becoming public wards (Hwang & Parrenas, 2010; Lister, 2010). Separating young children from their parents is a problem both for in-status immigrants and for the undocumented who have citizen children and may be deported. When family survival is at stake many difficult choices may be made.

Separation often extends much longer than families anticipate. In a study of children of immigrants, over 54 percent of Central American children had four or more years of separation (Suarez-Orozco, Bang, & Kim, 2010). The authors noted the practice of sending Chinese babies back to grandparents to be raised until schoolage for parents in school or working here. Transnationalism requires support and resources being shared with relatives (Senyurekli & Detzner, 2008). Even then ambivalence is likely. Grief and lack of trust and missing the family grandparents and other relatives back home are issues following reunification, but children are remarkably resilient (Suarez-Orozco et al., 2010). Transnational ties are important even to second-generation young adults, reflecting enduring loyalties and interests in the parents’ countries-of-origin (Portes & Rumbalt, 2003). Informal reunification of families goes beyond the nuclear family (Bonizzoni, 2009). In some respects in the U.S., this intergenerational quandary is common for nonmigrants separated by distance and job locations (Senyurekli & Detzner, 2008). While this is less common in regions like the European Union, moving about is more frequent today. Countries like China are also having separated families for work and educational opportunities (Settles & Sheng, 2006).

Conflict and Abuse

Definitions surrounding violence count heavily in immigration and internal migration policy and relate to culture, legal systems, and broader social expectations. At the family level what was ordinary discipline of children may be considered abuse in the new setting (Baptiste, 1993). Some policies limit access to children and grandchildren, especially across country boundaries (Leslie, 1993). Marital support is associated with better outcomes in immigrant families (Leidy et al., 2009). A visit home might provide an opportunity Page  146for children to be separated from one parent or for extended family to intervene in family disagreements. The uncertainty and ambivalence surrounding immigration may aggravate conflicts.

Crime and Punishment

Countries try to exclude criminals and deport immigrants who break the law. Criminalization of immigrants in terms of failure to take the steps needed to stay in status, or the perception that they might be criminals, is a blemish felt by many Latinos (Hernandez, 2008) and more recently by Muslims. Even such small gestures as forbidding head scarves in French schools and public places may aggravate status questions (Giugni & Passy, 2004). Family may be seen as a resource for the deviant. The use of deportation, as a further punishment, is common after the conviction for minor offenses. Knowledge of what is legal is critical to the would-be mover. It is quite possible to end up being repatriated and left without any legal address. If one is fleeing, the question of extradition may arise. Built into the criteria for admission as a temporary worker for an immigrant are expectations that influence who will be favorably considered and therefore shaping responses that may lead to fraud or other illegal acts. Although many get away with questionable practices those who are found out receive heavy sanctions and usually deportation and later exclusion.

Technology, Travel, and Family Connectedness

Extensive and intensive communication and connections characterize immigrants and their families and communities of origin (Senyurekli & Detzner, 2008). Immigrants may pay telephone bills for hometown relatives, sometimes speaking for hours (Senyurekli & Detzner, 2008). Some families participate in long-distance nationalism and in transnational organizations that may serve to keep up a sense of belonging (Senyurekli & Detzner, 2008).Communication is not limited to those in direct contact, however, as social networks are common. Technological communications are not a true replacement for contact. The phone card, the e-mail address, Skype, the cell phone, pictures, and the ATM are all great helpers, but they are not free nor equally effective or private (Hotchner, 2011; Schulzbauer, 2010). Page  147Young children have trouble effectively engaging in transnational forms or communication (Bonizzoni, 2009). [In our family, we joke about who reads our e-mail and listens to our overseas calls to family in Russia until we realized that we in fact may be on a watch list or under surveillance.] Celebrities, such as Ernest Hemingway, who sounded paranoid when he said he was being watched, may in fact have been under surveillance (Hotchener, 2011). The current scandals in the Murdock news enterprises suggest that it is not only government that may have a wide reach in breaching privacy.

Even speedy transportation may not bring you together when you would want to be. Finances and jobs may limit trips and women are often pressured to go home more often (Senyurekli & Detzner, 2008). Going back and forth may be truncated to gain the continuity of residence needed for continuous residency for citizenship application (Teo, 2006). Many undocumented workers have stopped traveling back and forth as border crossing and airport security has been strengthened. Keeping documents ready for travel is often an issue. Access to the offices of the countries and regulatory groups is limited and hiring representatives is expensive. Travel policy is of interest to both the country of origin and the country of destination. How often and when one may travel and to what destinations is a dual process with contributions from each entity. Travel to countries where no real relationship exists with the sending country may be forbidden or simply ignored. An immigrant with good legal papers may still face limits on entry and reentry. It is important not to appear to abandon permanent residency status through long absences or tax return errors.

For the undocumented person leaving the country and coming back are high-risk situations that may lead to imprisonment, deportation, and permanent denial of reentry (Jimenez & Lopez-Sanchez, 2011). For the citizen, restrictions on how much money one may carry or what one may take out of the country or carry into the airport may lead to legal problems. Countries often regulate where and how one can live there, whether one can own property or work legally or whether one must make an investment. Regulations on banking and transfer of assets may now be factors in whether one has met regulations. Domicile and economic policy regulates the Page  148length of stay and whether reentry is limited as well as residence requirements, property ownership, work permits, banking and educational access or participation.

Health and Safety Considerations

Nation-states and local governments have often quarantined, isolated, or forbidden entrance over issues of health and potential spread of pathogens by travelers and immigrants. Historically, medical detention and quarantine were used to prevent Mexican immigration (Hernadez, 2008). Recent examples of travel restrictions include SARS and HIV/AIDS. In the U.S. we make those who would sponsor family members pledge to care for them and keep them off the health and welfare rolls. Currently, medical and health professionals are being attracted to developed countries from their own more impoverished nations (Rowthorn, 2008).

Legal Status and Citizenship

Being out-of-status is a continuous worry for the traveler, temporary worker, or immigrant since details matter greatly (Settles, 2001a). Glenn (2011) in her presidential address to the American Sociological Association said,

Citizenship itself is defined and administered in complex and idiosyncratic ways by each nation/state and interpreted by other nation/states in equally diverse ways. Transnational rights may be seen as an expansion of citizenship beyond the nation-state and realistically important in the global society (Bakker, 2010). Perhaps there is a right to have an identity. Stories of people who thought they were citizens and then were found to have not qualified in some way are quite common. When a nation’s borders are altered by war or negotiation, citizenship may or may not follow the people in Page  149their new situation. Dual citizenship is allowed in some cases, as in the United States and Russia, but is illegal in others, such as China. Rights and responsibilities attached to some aspects of citizenship may be detached and made available to others. For example, some towns in areas with many foreign nationals may allow voting on local issues where they have property (Versany, 2007). Conscription for military service may include permanent residents or nationals living elsewhere or exempt them. For families traveling together an array of passports, visas and other documents may make airport security a major incident. Children traveling with one custodial parent require documentation of the other parent’s (former spouse’s) agreement to permit the travel.

Recognizing the complexity and operational definitions as they enter into family calculations and assessments of risk and reward, it is important to remember that governmental definitions, policy and implementation are only some of the factors to which families respond. The undocumented worker who can send home remittances and go to night school may see his or her situation as favorable to family needs and responsibilities. The adolescent who serves as a cultural broker may have a strong sense of self and integrity (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2006). The international graduate student who has a baby with dual citizenship did not come just for that purpose, but is happy with the advantage that may give his or her child. Referring to that child as an “anchor baby” because the child is a citizen and may remain has a negative political twist that is expressed in calls to change the constitution on citizenship by birth. In the U.S., internal moving about is not directly regulated but issues of home, domicile, and residence do arise. For the college student in-state or out-of-state tuition may hinge on the length of time the family have lived there or whether one has been employed for a number years, previous to application. Divorce and custody agreements may confine mobility and require court approval to move children. An elderly person who qualifies for Medicaid nursing home care might not be able to move when relatives leave the state.

Coming and going are both dynamic processes. A significant number of immigrants return to their home countries to live is estimated at between 35 and 45 percent in the U.S. (Guzzetta, Page  1502004). Emigration is a part of the system of moving about and more than one-third return to the sending country. Historically, return migration was common even as this country was settled and before easy transportation was available (Guzzetta, 2004). Immigrants may feel that they can always return home, but may with time find themselves locked into the decision by their children’s acculturation and options or their own previous severing of roots back home (Teo, 2011).

Definitions and their consequences are an evolving process in the field of mobility and immigration. Legal changes sometimes follow public attitudes and lead them at other times. The states and the national government have tense dialogues over what is a national policy prerogative and what is state regulated. Most family law has in the past been in the state’s domain with a few national laws, such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and child support enforcement, and domestic violence being the exceptions. The control of borders both for travel and long-term stays and immigration has been the constitutional prerogative and plenary power of the national government, but recently state and even city governments have been testing laws and ordinances that seek to regulate aspects of immigration and temporary workers (Varsanyi, 2007). Whether these laws will hold up to judicial scrutiny is likely to be a vigorous fight and so far most local efforts have been overturned. The fact that the two realms of law are vested at different governmental levels and that the definitions of family and of documentation may well conflict provides much room for dispute.

American Immigration Values and Attitudes in a Global Perspective

American values in a global perspective are more welcoming than many places, but less than we might expect in terms of other relevant issues. Fundamentally the United States is a country of immigrants. Even our Native Americans are seen as migrating from Asia in fairly recent times. The great waves of immigration to the U.S. were mostly unhampered by passports until the 20th century ,and there continues to be resistance to anything that resembles a national identity card in the U.S. (Weiner, 1996). We have a history of ambivalence toward each wave of newcomers. Each state/region has a different history of who came and when it was settled and what is seen as American culture and tradition. Fears were expressed each time a new group was seen as having a significant difference in class, culture, language, or ethnicity/race. Sometimes legal Page  152action to ban or limit entry was initiated, such as the 19th century Chinese exclusionary acts (Varsanyi, 2007), or the 1921 U.S. quotas that privileged well-established sending European countries, but limited others sharply. Employment and housing discrimination was used to slow integration. Signs such as “no Irish may apply” or “English only spoken here” are typical of the underlying values and emotions. Often immigrants were helped to anglicize their names at immigration entry or later when they sought employment. Frequently new immigration groups have clustered in urban neighborhoods or rural communities where they could function easily before they had all the skills of acculturation. Recent immigration research has reexamined the experience of immigrant adjustment and has tended to “depathologize those who retain culture, use multiple languages, maintain cultural activities and family and community networks in more than one social context” (Senyurekli & Detzner, 2008, p. 152). Acculturation conflicts are experienced when messages from the cultures are difficult to reconcile and gaps occur between generations in terms of involvement in culture (Smokowski, Rose, & Bacallao, 2008).

As people became assimilated and began to succeed in their transition to the new country, they would move out of ethnic enclaves and in many ways erase the markers of their former identification. Food, religious, and ritual activities might still be preserved, but everyday life usually was quite similar to the general culture and perhaps had some regional culture layered onto these adaptations. Some greater interest exists now in those origins, but a tradition of losing former identifications and seeing acculturation as a pathway to being American is still the common ideal for immigrant success. Having a past is something to be afforded with success, with accomplishment, and the leisure to pursue origin research. The Irish dancing class, the Norwegian language summer camp, the vacation trip to the old country, the genealogy search, the destination wedding, and inviting grandmother with broken English to the parties with neighbors and work associates are all markers of felt security in the new identity. At this point families often have an exodus story which involves: who we were, how we came, what we were promised, and how it was realized (Settles, 1993). Segmented assimilation is more characteristic today with rapid integration just one possible Page  153alternative; longitudinal data suggest that today’s second generation young adults have a wide variation in outcomes and young females have advantages in both level of aspirations and accomplishments (Portes & Rumbaut, 2005).

Americans have a fairly loose definition of American culture, which includes an interest in foods, music, and arts and crafts that cut across boundaries and borders. A favorite way of handling intercultural relationships is the fair or other social event celebrating ethnic diversity. Most families have many customs, perspectives, and strategies that reflect family connectedness and tradition. They may not know why or what the origin is of these behaviors, but an ethnographer might be able to identify sources and meaning. Most families have some oral history and usually a box or file of unlabeled photos (Settles, 1993).

Our narrow national concern tends to be focused on the primacy of American English language, immersion education, citizenship as a goal, and work-place commitment, dedication and etiquette. There has not been a tradition of preserving language competencies in other languages. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) encourages language competency for their young people as missionaries and they are one of the largest resources for government needs for translators and speakers abroad. The U.S. citizenship exam has been tightened up, but still it focuses on an understanding of American government and history, speaking and writing, and not the technical language skills, social customs and manners as do many of the European tests (Kunnan, 2009). Kunnan (2009) suggests that a program of instruction using courses and allowing the gradual development of both English and civic competency. In Canada, Ng, and Newbold (2011) note that the problem of translation for immigrants in health care and cultural awareness, in general, frustrate service delivery. Language loss may be felt as an emotional betrayal (Tannenbaum, 2009). Language switching within a family may be used to convey other meanings and to distance relationships or develop alternative internal working models of the world (Teo, 2005).

European Union countries each have developed tight refugee and citizenship requirements. Each country has its own rules and many like Germany tightened anti-terror provisions, limited self employment to businesses over a million Euros and narrowed the definition of family following 9/11 (Kruse, Orren, & Angenendt, 2003). They maintain an “illusion” that immigrant workers will return home or fully acculturate and be assimilated, at the same time ethnic enclaves and neighborhoods belie these premises and discrimination continues. Australia has increased the pressure against asylum seekers with rigorous detention and harsh treatment of the undocumented. In Israel the welcome to immigrants coming to a homeland includes a great range of services and supports focusing on learning Hebrew and acculturation. Internationally the United Nations reports about half of the 18.2 million people forced to flee are under 18 years of age (Barowsky & McIntyre, 2008). Those who were unaccompanied minors are at particular high risk, experiencing threatening events, potential internment and continuing stress.

The U.S. accepts a wide range of English language competency, if there seems to be an effort being made. Accents are charming, not evil. Hard-working individuals who are pleasant and learn the appropriate personal distance regulation and deference gestures are usually respected. The wide availability of informal and part time adult education opportunities provides access to educational experiences and citizenship competencies. Historically, “Children of Europeans abandoned their parents’ language and culture and drove their way through schools and entrepreneurship into economic affluence” (Portes & Rumbaut, 2005, p. 985). At the local and state level there have been efforts to make English only replace the practice of posting signs in Spanish and having translators available.

In contrast, globalization (and NAFTA) has not won the hearts of Americans, as it was thought, in the immigration reform legislation of the 1980s (Settles & Fischer, 1987) and expansion of trade agreements in the 1990s.The perception is rather that good American jobs have gone abroad and waves of illegal immigrants are in our country becoming a burden. Even if small town and urban America is firmly linked to the global economy with their government officials hunting for economic development opportunities across the world Page  155the public is more threatened, than reassured by globalization. Economic contributions of legal immigrants and undocumented workers to the nation state and to their countries of origin are recognized widely in the academic and business communities (Nadadur, 2009). Those who reject undocumented workers see them as undermining jobs and wages and increasing costs at state and local governmental levels. While economists can argue that overall the economy grows and may even flourish in a global economic system at the family level displacement has long reaching implications and the new opportunities may not reach the affected families in a timely or relevant way. Feeding into the general unease about how immigration, both legal and illegal, and open trade boundaries is the relatively slim safety net available for American workers. Displacement can undercut health access, trim or unseat pension plans, and quickly cause housing and savings losses and destroy other possibilities for employment. Some trade protocols call for funding for assistance to those hurt by displacement, but often those efforts are ineffectual and do not help a broad enough sector for communities to be stabilized.

The advent of terrorism close to all of us has put the “stranger” into a different context. The reaction to 9/11 in terms of new laws, enhanced searches and policing, and media attention has made the climate for immigration limitation and enforcement more restrictive. The REAL ID act of 2005 trumped state regulations on drivers’ licenses and tightened validity requirements (Varsanyi, 2007). There are still many problems in implementing the program. Americans have never traveled abroad in great numbers, but air travel, global business and other opportunities have given individuals and their families increased options and more sophistication. Fear and anger are easily mobilized in terms of individuals, families and subcultures when economic downturns occur. The effect of some of this enforcement has been to limit undocumented workers willingness to reporting crimes and violence (Varsanyi, 2007). There is both interest in a more global outlook with some real reservations about the continuity and sense of being American. Fragmentation of societies and regions along ethnic and religious identities suggests that multiculturalism might entail disasters on a grand scale (Genov, 1997). Immigration policies are hot topics not just in the U.S., but also globally.

Changing Legal and Enforcement Approaches

One of the consequences of post-9/11 tighter restrictions and adding Canada and Mexico to the countries where one needs a passport has been a longer wait and more problems with passport issuance. Changing legal and enforcement approaches offer less opportunity for political intervention or flexibility in individual cases, but also more complex and difficult regulations and procedures for entry, residency, working, and long-term stays and citizenship and greater use of preventive detention.

This chapter cannot note all the changes and even all the current proposed reforms. The general trend is for the government to subcontract the visa, passport, immigration, homeland security at borders and transportation hubs, deportation facilities and activities to private contractors. The use of contractors for travel documents has affected the responsiveness of the process and made delays more frequent both for Americans traveling and for immigrants maintaining their legal status. Contractors have had weak guidelines and oversight (Hernandez, 2008). The guiding principle is that the alien (immigrant or visitor) is responsible for knowing the law. Mistakes are not excused or easily overcome.

Creating felonies where there were once misdemeanors is making maintaining their legal status ever more difficult. Stretching the meaning of aggravated felony to include unproven membership in a gang and expanding expedited removal without court hearing are examples of more risky situations for immigrants (Hernandez 2008). There has been a shift toward creating new legal sanctions for employers. While not enforced regularly, when they are, the impact can be significant. Instead of simply arresting the undocumented and deporting them, the employers are at risk for embarrassment, fines, and prison terms. Those who might wish to help immigrants or temporary visitors, such churches or non-profit agencies are being targeted by laws limiting contact and help. Enforcing current regulations where previously there had been openness to exceptions or alternatives has made many rules tougher without new legislation. The Obama administration has expanded aggressive enforcement and deportation of out-of-status aliens. In addition, to making it Page  157more difficult for the visitor or immigrant, the effect of these threats extends to those who are permanent residents or citizens regarding their sense of security (Hernandez, 2008). Deportation may separate parents from U.S. citizen children and/or force these children to leave the country (Suarez-Orozco, Bang, & Kim, 2010).

The ease with which a noncitizen may be deported and the relative lack of any protections of due process are somewhat surprising to Americans steeped in the law and order cop show with the Miranda warnings and other protections. In the U.S. since 9/11 many more people have been held in detention (Hernandez, 2008), often far from their support systems of families and friends, sometime for long periods with little or no contact with the outside world or reasonable health services. Temporary detention and deportation hearings affect at least a quarter of a million immigrants a year. Basically this system operates outside the justice system and rights one might expect as an American do not exist. Abroad most American are unaware of the policies in the places they are visiting or living and certainly do not know what their likelihood is of arrest, detention, or expulsion. In both situations, lack of knowledge of a country’s legal system may make one vulnerable to much more drastic actions such as: Will you be able to contact anyone? Who will hear appeals? Will deportation come before you can act? Can your embassy abroad or your senator and congressperson at home act for you on your behalf? Can you get useful representation or pay fees (or other necessary expenses)?

Other problems for the expatriate or the immigrant are centered on financial transactions. Money management and a tax home become major decisions within the structure of the country. Limits on cash carried out of the country are common. Cash transfers may be limited and cash itself may be monitored. For example in the homeland security program in the U.S., a charitable contribution may make you a person of interest and suspicion, particularly, if it is directed to a foundation that has multiple programs (Looney, 2006). There are many restrictions on labor moving across national boundaries, but fewer on capital and business (Legrain, 2008). It is quite common for visas to restrict work place participation and to monitor residence and tax-paying status. Many Americans are also facing barriers to their own opportunity to seek work or education outside of the U.S. Page  158For one family who is displaced or seeks to migrate the doors may be wide open in many nice locations. For another there may literally be no place for them in the world, and for most it will be a gray situation of illegality, marginality and vulnerability. Their rights to participate will be limited and confusing and their futures unclear.

Consideration of greater physical and legal barriers is being advocated and to some extent advanced (Skeldon, 2008). Construction of a border wall against Mexico was well underway in the George W. Bush administration, but the construction is no longer popular as it has been difficult to show success. However states along the border are experimenting with other legal efforts to hamper illegal immigrants in the country. Many situations have enhanced scrutiny such as needing papers or passports to change airplanes, more guarded crossing points at the borders, and the precipitous deportation of parents of citizen children.

For families who are trying to comply there are many challenges. Getting good advice is difficult. Many lawyers are not informed. The public often is behind on current policy and has assumptions that are no longer true. For example, marriage and family reunification is far more complex than is generally recognized. Even groups that deal with foreign visitors such as universities have fallen behind and are often not good advocates for their students and faculty with immigration and residency problems. Homeland security is involved in some complexities: including identification cards, smart card driver’s licenses, verification and registration of residency, etc.

Legal underpinnings and enforcement continue to have a negative evaluation of the current immigration pressure. Especially Mexican, Central American and Brazilian illegal workers are seen as a problem. The immigration lottery is supposed to give hope to a wide group outside the favored family reunification and skilled worker categories, but the program has run into difficulties and this year had to recall all the offers it sent out and redo the lottery (Moule, 2011). Words are weapons in the conflicts surrounding immigration policy and implementation. The concept of amnesty as an approach to handling the extremely difficult challenges of illegal immigrants who are well entrenched in our society and are productive workers Page  159has moved from being a generally positive idea to a highly negative one. “Earned legalization” was suggested as an alternative approach that emphasized the process would require some specific actions to mitigate the illegal status through penalties and extra efforts, but this approach has also been attacked as leading to more illegal immigration and rewarding those who avoided the regulations. With the downturn in the economy general anxiety about jobs and prosperity have stoked uneasiness about the patterns of legal and illegal immigration. The key idea that families are active agents of change which permeated our 1987 Groves Conference “Families on the Move” remains viable, but the current family situation must be expanded to recognize that many families are transnational with interests and residency that span more than one country (Settles, 1993). The new immigrant may be an American making their way in a transnational corporation or field of work living for awhile in different countries and becoming a permanent resident or citizen somewhere else or retiring to a favorite destination. The focus on assimilation and acculturation has ignored the many that come to the U.S. to be educated, work for some limited time, retire or have a second home. Similarly Americans are also being educated and working elsewhere as part of their life course.

Family Decision Making and Mobility

In this milieu of changing regulations and enforcement families face decisions about mobility aspirations and goals. Both moving and staying have dynamic choices, the push and pull of many forces affect the movement of individuals and families (Sussman & Settles, 1993; Settles, 2001b).

The lifestyle dreams and accessibility to opportunity underlie how families make mobility choices (Segal et al., 2006). The pull of perceived new options and actual assistance are strong factors. Where families have contacts they may feel more confident in seeking to immigrate or move. Chain migration and the use of social networks are commonly observed in ethnic enclaves (Glick, 2010). Families may sponsor individuals to move. Often there are recruitment campaigns from the receiving country if there is a need Page  160for labor and sometimes companies and their agents may offer some aid in travel. Usually this aid is at high interest rates or hidden costs, but it may be irresistible to the clients who hope for better options. Regulations for admission may privilege immigration to jobs sponsored by employers. Recruitment following the national interests of the receiving country may make the worker a captive of a specific visa definition. While not quite a bonded servant, the status is rather similar you are unable to change employers and your spouse may not work (Hwang & Parrenas, 2010). Human capital in terms of education and vocational competence smooth the transition (Segal et al., 2006). The push of insecurity, economic stress and sense of fewer options works to loosen ties to home and location. There are many pressures to find economic and social opportunity. Compared to capital there are many restrictions on labor mobility.

The active press of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and war may first lead to displaced persons and eventually to immigration or asylum seeking. Being a refugee is “sudden, uprooting and a traumatic experience” (Segal et al., 2006, p. 8). Violence in daily life is set in the greater context of violence in media and reality across the world. Some recognition of domestic violence and gender oppression is being seen as a trigger to offering asylum and refugee status. The splintering of ethnic, language, and religious groups in every part of the world suggest that we may have exchanged nuclear terror for everyday civil war and isolated acts of terror (Talbott, 1992). Finding a receiving country may be difficult and may not ever occur. Many refugees remain in displaced persons camps for years. Offers of asylum may only be temporary and may be withdrawn as the political climate changes (Leslie, 1993). To be forced to leave puts a different emotional and usually a greater economic burden on the individual and family. The difficulties of moving under pressure splinters family units. “When conditions in a home country are satisfactory and meet physical, social and emotional needs the likelihood of leaving is minimal” (Segal et al., 2006, p.4). Even in time of economic and political distress most people do not flee. Some may perceived security where there is none or have cultural or emotional ties that prevent them from taking action to escape. Hopes for a long lost moment of stability and continuity of culture may block more rational estimates of risk. Often people simply do not Page  161have the resources to move on or are blocked by legal, cultural, and economic barriers. Legal policies and enforcement procedures may expand or contract opportunity. Large social and kin networks and responsibilities may deter mobility. Local knowledge and contacts are not portable assets.

From a family perspective, mobility is a tool for improving family chances of survival and accomplishment of goals. Moving within one’s own country may be a step in searching for options, with immigration being toward the end of the continuum of moves to be considered. Intermediate mobility within the region or nation may be played off against the opportunities and risks of immigration. Families have their own agendas and operate to advance their goals threading their way through the barriers created by nation-states, corporations, and culture (Settles, 2001a). Managing risk may mean hard choices. Migration may mean changes in role relationships, family processes and decision making (Maternowska, Estrada, Campero, Herrera, Brindis, & Vostrejs, 2009). Separated families make many efforts to bridge the distance and maintain ties (Schmalzbauer, 2010).