By Asad L. Asad

Drawing on in-depth interviews with 50 Latin American immigrants in Dallas, Texas, this article uncovers systematic distinctions in how immigrants holding different legal statuses perceive the threat of deportation. Undocumented immigrants recognize the precarity of their legal status, but they sometimes feel that their existence off the radar of the US immigration regime promotes their long-term presence in the country. Meanwhile, documented immigrants perceive stability in their legal status, but they sometimes view their existence on the radar of the US immigration regime as disadvantageous to their long-term presence in the country. The article offers the concept of system embeddedness—individuals' perceived legibility to institutions that maintain formal records—as a mechanism through which perceived visibility to the US immigration regime entails feelings of risk, and perceived invisibility feelings of safety. In this way, the punitive character of the US immigration regime can overwhelm its integrative functions, chilling immigrants out of opportunities for material and social well-being through legalization and legal status. More broadly, system embeddedness illuminates how perceived visibility to a record-keeping body that combines punitive and integrative goals represents a mechanism of legal stratification for subordinated populations—even absent prior punitive experiences with other social control institutions that might otherwise be thought to trigger their system avoidance.

Law & Society Review, Volume 54, Number 1 (2020): 133–167

By  Krystlelynn Caraballo and Volkan Topalli

Research suggests undocumented immigrants are vulnerable to
robbery, burglary, and car theft, but studies have focused exclusively on victims’ perspectives rather than those of street offenders. This study draws from in-depth, semi-structured inter views of 25 active street offenders from a major southeastern US city to understand offenders’ perspectives and motivations for
deciding whether to target immigrants. Our findings support that some street offenders explicitly select targets based on perceived individual and socio-structural risk factors and the assumption of undocumented status. These include objective and subjective assessments of immigrants’ reliance on cash-intensive employment, fear of deportation, and inability to access formal justice systems. Our interviews with offenders reveal they and their acquaintances rely on mainstream stereotypes of immigrants (documented and undocumented) and of Latinx populations to determine vulnerability, select targets, and to a lesser extent.

Justice Quarterly, 40(1); 2023, 31p.

By Cecilia Menjívar

Stumpf and Manning’s Article, Liminal Immigration Law, explains the origin, mechanisms, and persistence of liminal laws in three cases they analyze: DACA, immigration detainers, and administrative closure. Their analysis unearths key similarities across these cases: the “stickiness” and robustness of liminal rules, their transitory nature, and their flexibility in contrast to the inflexibility of traditional law. This Essay expands Stumpf and Manning’s analysis by considering social science scholarship on the legal production of legal statuses. It examines the liminal case of Temporary Protected Status to capture the effects of liminality on the ground for individuals and families, the power of liminal rules as an instrument of immigration control and governance, and the key role of racialization practices in the creation, interpretation, and implementation of liminal rules. The conceptual extension in this Essay exemplifies how the analytic lens that Stumpf and Manning propose will prove generative for legal, socio-legal, and social science scholarship more generally.  

  IOWA LAW REVIEW ONLINE,  Vol. 110:51 2024, 16 p.