Navigating DACA in Hospitable and Hostile States: State Responses and Access to Membership in the Wake of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
Navigating DACA in Hospitable and Hostile States: State Responses and Access to Membership in the Wake of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0002764216664942
复制
发表时间：
2016-11-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Silver, Alexis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cebulko, Kara;Silver, Alexis
本研究探讨了在阈法律的年轻移民的方式来应对不断变化的政策，要么合法化或非法化他们的存在在国家和国界。脱胎于两个更大的研究，依赖于人种学和深入访谈数据在马萨诸塞州和北卡罗来纳州，我们主要集中在纵向访谈与个人响应童年抵港者暂缓遣返行动（DACA）。我们研究的方式，其中联邦和州的政策相互作用，影响获得会员资格的年轻成年移民在国家有非常不同的政治气候。在马萨诸塞州，年轻人感到更加合法，并且对他们在DACA之后重新定向生活道路的能力更加乐观。相比之下，在北卡罗来纳州更加敌对的环境中，即使在DACA通过之后，州政策继续阻碍流动途径，并将以前没有证件的年轻人区分为外来者。而不是表征过渡到成年的阈法律的青年作为一个单向的过渡到排斥，我们强调的互动影响的国家和联邦一级的政策，并说明如何纳入可以发生在多个层面上，甚至在相反的方向同时。此外，我们讨论了如何在一个国家的敌对政策似乎反响向外，在其他国家的受访者提出溢出效应。
This study examines the ways in which liminally legal young immigrants respond to shifting policies that either legitimize or delegitimize their presence within state and national boundaries. Borne out of two larger studies that rely on ethnographic and in-depth interview data in Massachusetts and North Carolina, we primarily focus on longitudinal interviews with individuals responding to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). We examine the ways in which federal and state policies interact to affect access to membership for young adult immigrants in states with very different political climates. In Massachusetts, young adults felt more legitimacy and were more optimistic in their abilities to redirect their life pathways after DACA. In contrast, in the more hostile environment of North Carolina, state policies continued to impede mobility pathways and differentiate previously undocumented youth as outsiders even after the passage of DACA. Instead of characterizing the transition to adulthood for liminally legal youth as a unidirectional transition to exclusion, we emphasize the interactive influence of state-and federal-level policies and illustrate how incorporation can occur on multiple levels and even in opposite directions simultaneously. Moreover, we discuss how hostile policies in one state appear to reverberate outward, suggesting spillover effects for respondents in other states.