Gradations of Migrant Legality: The Impact of States’ Legal Structures and Bureaucracies on Immigrant Legalization and Livelihoods

IF 2.3 1区 社会学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY International Migration Review Pub Date : 2024-01-05 DOI:10.1177/01979183231223700
Deisy Del Real
{"title":"Gradations of Migrant Legality: The Impact of States’ Legal Structures and Bureaucracies on Immigrant Legalization and Livelihoods","authors":"Deisy Del Real","doi":"10.1177/01979183231223700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Immigrant legalization scholarship assumes that immigrants with “non-tenuous” legal statuses—with ostensible pathways to citizenship—smoothly transition into enduring legality. However, under-studied features of the legal structure and bureaucracy likely disrupt their legalization. Thus, the present article introduces the concept of “gradations of migrant legality” to examine how multilayered, embedded interactions between the state's immigration regime, the structure of legalization opportunities, and the permeability of application procedural standards impact immigrants’ legalization transitions. The study draws on in-depth interviews to compare Venezuelan migrants’ “non-tenuous” legalization process in Argentina and Chile. Whereas Argentina has an inclusionary immigration regime, legalization opportunity structure, and procedural standards, Chile has an exclusionary one. Despite these contrasting trends, both countries have had some inclusionary and exclusionary executive administrative measures. Findings show smooth transitions were possible in both countries when procedural standards were predictable and state bureaucrats eased obstructive requirements. However, disruptive transitions occurred when digitalization changed procedural standards, visa categories required self-sufficiency, and administrative actions imposed cumbersome requirements. Disruptive transitions were more prevalent and harmful to immigrants in Chile because most visa categories (under the law and administrative actions) required formal employment. In contrast, disruptive transitions were less prevalent and harmful to Venezuelan migrants in Argentina because they could access the Mercosur Residency Agreement, which protected their livelihood by not requiring proof of economic solvency. Broadly, the “gradations of migrant legality” framework shows that different organizational levels interact and have compounding, unequal effects on immigrants, including those with visa categories that provide seemingly straightforward pathways to citizenship.","PeriodicalId":48229,"journal":{"name":"International Migration Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Migration Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01979183231223700","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Immigrant legalization scholarship assumes that immigrants with “non-tenuous” legal statuses—with ostensible pathways to citizenship—smoothly transition into enduring legality. However, under-studied features of the legal structure and bureaucracy likely disrupt their legalization. Thus, the present article introduces the concept of “gradations of migrant legality” to examine how multilayered, embedded interactions between the state's immigration regime, the structure of legalization opportunities, and the permeability of application procedural standards impact immigrants’ legalization transitions. The study draws on in-depth interviews to compare Venezuelan migrants’ “non-tenuous” legalization process in Argentina and Chile. Whereas Argentina has an inclusionary immigration regime, legalization opportunity structure, and procedural standards, Chile has an exclusionary one. Despite these contrasting trends, both countries have had some inclusionary and exclusionary executive administrative measures. Findings show smooth transitions were possible in both countries when procedural standards were predictable and state bureaucrats eased obstructive requirements. However, disruptive transitions occurred when digitalization changed procedural standards, visa categories required self-sufficiency, and administrative actions imposed cumbersome requirements. Disruptive transitions were more prevalent and harmful to immigrants in Chile because most visa categories (under the law and administrative actions) required formal employment. In contrast, disruptive transitions were less prevalent and harmful to Venezuelan migrants in Argentina because they could access the Mercosur Residency Agreement, which protected their livelihood by not requiring proof of economic solvency. Broadly, the “gradations of migrant legality” framework shows that different organizational levels interact and have compounding, unequal effects on immigrants, including those with visa categories that provide seemingly straightforward pathways to citizenship.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
移民合法性的分级:国家法律结构和官僚机构对移民合法化和生计的影响
移民合法化学术研究假定,拥有 "非虚假 "合法身份的移民--表面上有通往公民身份的途径--会顺利过渡到持久的合法性。然而,研究不足的法律结构和官僚机构的特点很可能会扰乱他们的合法化进程。因此,本文引入了 "移民合法性分级 "的概念,以研究国家移民制度、合法化机会的结构以及申请程序标准的渗透性之间多层次、嵌入式的相互作用如何影响移民的合法化过渡。本研究通过深入访谈,比较了委内瑞拉移民在阿根廷和智利的 "非迂回 "合法化过程。阿根廷的移民制度、合法化机会结构和程序标准具有包容性,而智利则具有排斥性。尽管趋势截然不同,但两国都有一些包容性和排斥性的行政措施。研究结果表明,当程序标准可预测、国家官僚放宽了阻碍性要求时,两国都有可能实现平稳过渡。然而,当数字化改变了程序标准、签证类别要求自给自足以及行政行为施加了繁琐的要求时,就会出现破坏性的过渡。在智利,由于大多数签证类别(根据法律和行政行为)都要求正规就业,因此破坏性过渡更为普遍,对移民的伤害也更大。与此相反,在阿根廷,中断性过渡对委内瑞拉移民的影响和危害较小,因为他们可以利用《南方共同市场居留协定》,该协定不要求提供经济偿付能力证明,从而保护了他们的生计。从广义上讲,"移民合法性分级 "框架表明,不同的组织层次相互作用,对移民产生复合的、不平等的影响,包括那些签证类别提供了看似直接的入籍途径的移民。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
7.90%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: International Migration Review is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal created to encourage and facilitate the study of all aspects of sociodemographic, historical, economic, political, legislative and international migration. It is internationally regarded as the principal journal in the field facilitating study of international migration, ethnic group relations, and refugee movements. Through an interdisciplinary approach and from an international perspective, IMR provides the single most comprehensive forum devoted exclusively to the analysis and review of international population movements.
期刊最新文献
The Glaring Gap: Undervalued and Unrecognized Knowledges and Expertise in International Migration Research Ain’t I a Migrant?: Global Blackness and the Future of Migration Studies The Struggle Over Mobility Narratives: How Senegalese Activists use Alternative Information Campaigns to Contest EU Externalization Infrastructures of Social Reproduction: Migrant Survival and Economic Development at the Thailand-Myanmar Border Book Review: ‘Am I Less British?’
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1