Incomplete Inclusion: Legal Violence and Immigrants in Liminal Legal Statuses

• Author: Sarah M. Lakhani,Leisy J. Abrego
• Published date: 01 October 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12039
• Date: 01 October 2015

Incomplete Inclusion: Legal Violence and

Immigrants in Liminal Legal Statuses

LEISY J. ABREGO* and SARAH M. LAKHANI*

Although US political discourse suggests otherwise, no simple dichotomy sepa-

rates “documented” from “undocumented” immigrants. By examining the

integration prospects of immigrants in “liminal” legal standings beyond undocu-

mented status but short of permanent residency, we demonstrate that even when

they are legally present, the implementation practices of a multilayered immigra-

tion policy regime may cause them harm. Our analyses draw on 108 qualitative

interviews with immigrants who have been granted humanitarian relief, including

U Visa holders, beneficiaries of the Violence against Women Act provisions,

political asylees, and Temporary Protected Status recipients. As a result of “legal

violence,” these legally present immigrants remain vulnerable to blocked mobility,

persistent fear of deportation, and instability, confusion, and self-blame.

INTRODUCTION

After twenty-four years of living outside of the law in the United States,

Yesenia’s U Visa application was approved. With U Visa standing—a tem-

porary legal status based on humanitarian relief that provides a path to

permanent residency and US citizenship—she expected her circumstances

to improve drastically. Three years later, however, she reflected, “When

someone is a ‘wetback,’ the way they call us here, doors are closed to you a

lot . . . [If things continue] like this, I will never come out of poverty. I don’t

have a bank account. I don’t have a job. I’m not completely okay. I’m not

legally okay!” Yesenia’s legal legitimacy had not translated into social legiti-

macy in key transactions of daily life. Her U Visa status put her in a type of

“liminal legality” (Menjívar 2006), a tenuous legal position with more

protections than undocumented status but short of permanent residency and

Sarah M. Lakhani would like to thank Amit Lakhani for his support. Lakhani’s research was

generously supported by the American Bar Foundation, the American Association of University

Women, the Employment Instability, Family Well-being, and Social Policy Network at the

University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration, and the University of California

Institute for Mexico and the United States.

Leisy J. Abrego would like to recognize Carlos Colorado for his support. Abrego’s research

was funded by the Haynes Foundation and the Ford Foundation.

*The authors contributed equally to this article and are listed in alphabetical order.

Address correspondence to: Leisy J. Abrego, UCLA—Chicana/o Studies, 7357 Bunche Hall,

Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. Telephone: (310) 206–9414; Email: abrego@ucla.edu

bs_bs_banner

LAW & POLICY, Vol. 37, No 4, October 2015 ISSN 0265–8240

© 2015 The Authors

Law & Policy © 2015 The University of Denver/Colorado Seminary

doi: 10.1111/lapo.12039

citizenship; while it granted her legal permission to reside and work in the

country, the only document immediately associated with it—the Employ-

ment Authorization Document (EAD)1—was less recognizable than a green

card2and therefore did not afford her all of the rights she expected to receive.

As immigration and criminal laws continue to converge in the country and

mainstream media outlets use language and images that criminalize immi-

grants, many people are led to believe that immigrants are either documented

or undocumented, legally present, enfranchised members of the state or

unauthorized outsiders. However, Yesenia’s experiences as a U Visa holder

reveal what many of the millions of immigrants in liminal legal statuses

already know: there is no simple dichotomy between being “documented”

and being “undocumented.” Even when immigrants are legally present in the

United States through forms of humanitarian relief or other temporary pro-

grams, widespread misinformation about these legitimate yet lesser-known

standings and the implementation practices of a multilayered immigration

policy regime in a hostile political climate may cause immigrants harm.

Drawing on in-depth, semistructured interviews with 108 individuals in

two independent studies, including U Visa holders, beneficiaries of the Vio-

lence against Women Act (VAWA) provisions, political asylees, and Tem-

porary Protected Status (TPS) recipients in Los Angeles, we analyze the

barriers immigrants face when seeking to activate legal statuses attained

through humanitarian relief programs. Like the immigrants with TPS and

pending asylum cases that Menjívar (2006) examined in her seminal article on

“liminal legality,” these humanitarian relief recipients remain vulnerable to

misfires that emerge when attempting to use their legal standings in society.

We rely on the strengths of qualitative methods to reveal that although

immigration “law in books” extends certain legal rights and protections to

these liminally legal immigrants, the bureaucratic hoops, general lack of

awareness of temporary, humanitarian statuses, and an anti-immigrant

context often renders immigration “law in action” harmful to relief recipients

(Pound 1910). Specifically, the implementation of laws under the current

immigration regime makes immigrants occupying liminal legal statuses vul-

nerable to blocked social mobility,3persistent fear of deportation, and insta-

bility, confusion, and self-blame. As we explain in the following sections,

these experiences are visible through a legal violence theoretical lens.

IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION AND LEGAL STATUS

Along with human, economic, and social capital, legal status is a central

determinant of an immigrant’s life chances (Menjívar and Abrego 2012). The

various legal statuses that one can have in the United States, as conferred

through immigration policies upon individuals and groups, determine

complex rewards and penalties that, in turn, stratify immigrants’ experiences

and integration processes. On the immigration legal status spectrum,

266 LAW & POLICY October 2015

© 2015 The Authors

Law & Policy © 2015 The University of Denver/Colorado Seminary