{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Gradations of Migrant Legality: The Impact of States’ Legal Structures and Bureaucracies on Immigrant Legalization and Livelihoods
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.
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.