Dreams Deterred: The Collateral Consequences of Localized Immigration Policies on Undocumented Latinos in Colorado

• Author: Debora M. Ortega,Lisa M. Martinez
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12118
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• Date: 01 January 2019

Dreams Deterred: The Collateral Consequences of

Localized Immigration Policies on Undocumented

Latinos in Colorado

LISA M. MARTINEZ and DEBORA M. ORTEGA

Recent years have seen a broadening of the scope of immigration enforcement. As a result,

immigrants free of criminal convictions, once considered low priorities for enforcement, are

increasingly subject to arrest, detention, and removal. At the same time, federal immigration

authorities have sought the cooperation of states and localities in the enforcement of immigra-

tion laws. While there has been growing scholarly attention paid to the ways in which legal

geographies can account for variation in local immigration policies, the long-term effects of

these policies on immigrants themselves are often overlooked. In this article, we use the case of

Colorado, one of the first states to pass a “show-me-your-papers” law in 2006, and data from

two qualitative studies to highlight the collateral consequences of enhanced immigration

enforcement on immigrants’ economic opportunities, emotional health and well-being, and aca-

demic trajectories. We situate our analysis within the crimmigration literature and discuss the

implications of our findings in light of the current political climate.

I. INTRODUCTION

The deportation of undocumented immigrants living in the United States reached an

all-time high

1

in 2013 (Gonzalez-Barrera and Krogstad 2014). Close to 439,000

unauthorized immigrants were deported that year (Gonzalez-Barrera and Krogstad

2014; Department of Homeland Security 2015), more than half of whom were deported

for noncriminal violations (Gonzalez-Barrera and Krogstad 2014). This record number

of deportations is notable for two reasons. First, the share of deportations by US

Customs and Border Protection after apprehension at the border was 25 percent, com-

pared to 17 percent in 2012; second, 83 percent of deportations were expedited removals

or reinstatements of final orders, meaning the deportations were carried out without

appearances before a judge (Gonzalez-Barrera and Krogstad 2014; italics added). As a

result, individuals in deportation proceedings had fewer opportunities to have their cases

heard or to apply for a stay of removal.

We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. We are also indebted

to Amada Armenta for comments on a previous version of this article.

Address correspondence to: Lisa M. Martinez, Department of Sociology & Criminology, University of

Denver, 2000 E. Asbury Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80208, USA. Telephone: (303) 871-2994; Email: lisa.

martinez@du.edu.

LAW & POLICY, Vol. 41, No. 1, January 2019

©2018 The Authors

Law & Policy ©2018 The University of Denver/Colorado Seminary

doi: 10.1111/lapo.12118

ISSN 0265-8240

At the same time that immigration enforcement was ramping up, President

Obama announced an executive action with significant implications for undocu-

mented youth: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Among its provi-

sions, DACA deprioritizes deportation and provides work authorization to young

people who meet certain eligibility criteria.

2

Since its implementation in 2012, nearly

800,000 young people have applied for and received DACA, improving their educa-

tional and occupational opportunities (Gonzales, Terriquez, and Ruszczyk 2014; Marti-

nez 2014; Perez 2014; Hsin and Ortega 2017). Two years after DACA was announced,

the Obama administration proposed yet another executive action meant to secure the

US–Mexico border and deport felons while also deprioritizing the deportation of nonfelon

family members. The program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful

Permanent Residents (DAPA), built on DACA (Kalhan 2015) and would have allowed

unauthorized immigrants with US-citizen or lawful-permanent-resident children to receive

work authorizations and protection from deportation, provided they had been in the

United States since January 1, 2010 (National Immigration Law Center 2015). In terms

of enforcement priorities, DAPA would purportedly focus on “felons, not families.”

Nonetheless, according to Sarabia (2018, 248), “the focus on deporting ‘criminal aliens’

mark[ed] a shift from ‘illegalization’ to the ‘criminalization’ of immigration enforcement.”

DAPA was eventually blocked when several states sued the government on the grounds

that it violated federal statutes (Ewing 2014), and it was never officially implemented. The

National Immigration Law Center (2015) notes that, had DAPA been enacted, nearly

four million immigrant parents of US citizen children would have been eligible for

deferred action, adding to the two million young immigrants eligible for DACA.

The election of Donald Trump in 2016 ushered in a new era of enhanced immigration

enforcement. The Trump administration not only rescinded DACA and officially ended

DAPA but also called on the Department of Homeland Security to expedite removals.

Although preliminary data suggest that the number of deportations has decreased since

Trump took office, the number of immigration-related arrests rose by 40 percent

between 2016 and 2017 (Bialik 2018), and noncriminal arrests increased by 150 percent

during this period, suggesting a change from targeted to indiscriminate enforcement

practices (Amuedo-Dorantes, Puttitanun, and Martinez-Donate 2018).

While the nation debates the Trump administration’s immigration priorities, such as

implementing bans on migration from certain countries, building a fortified border

wall, and denying entry to asylum seekers, lost in the discussion are the people who are

affected by detention and deportation (Aranda, Menjı

´var, and Donato 2014; for

exceptions, see Dreby 2012, 2015). To that end, we examine the costs of enhanced

immigration enforcement by asking, “What are the consequences of localized immigra-

tion policies on undocumented Latinos?” Drawing on the crimmigration (Stumpf

2013) literature, we show the collateral consequences of detention or deportation expe-

rienced by five individuals while Colorado’s show-me-your-papers law, S.B. 90 (2006),

was in effect from 2006 to 2013. Under S.B. 90, law enforcement officials had the

authority to stop persons suspected of being in the country without documents, signal-

ing a new, localized approach to immigration enforcement (Provine et al. 2016). Our

findings call attention to the impact of localized immigration policies—specifically,

S.B. 90—which linger well beyond immigrants’ initial contact with law or immigration

enforcement and have negative consequences for mixed-status family members as well

(Dingeman-Cerda and Coutin 2012). We classify the consequences of detention and

deportation into three types: economic consequences affecting the ability to work, con-

sequences for emotional health and well-being, and life course disruptions affecting

academic trajectories.

©2018 The Authors

Law & Policy ©2018 The University of Denver/Colorado Seminary

Martinez and Ortega DREAMS DETERRED 121