Florencia, on the other hand, felt she had limited options for her future. She described to me, “I am truly the middle child … I’m not there like Joaquín, or here like Rosa and Mariana.” Florencia wanted to take advantage of the 2012 law passed by the Obama administration that allowed youth who had arrived in the United States at a young age to obtain temporary legal status. One of the conditions of this law was for the minor to be enrolled in school, and she was not. Her teachers at school wanted to help her, as they described her as a very engaged and dedicated student who just got “unlucky.” Florencia considered returning to Mexico, but she was nervous about not being very fluent in Spanish, not knowing the country, and not having friends. The situation was complicated by the fact that she had a daughter and a Puerto Rican partner, Marco, who was a US citizen. They considered getting married and applying for her permanent residency. However, they worried that if the government did not grant the status adjustment she could be deported. Undocumented youth living in the United States face difficult decisions with serious consequences that shape their aspirations.
Rosa and Mariana, though young, were aware of their parents’ efforts to bring in money, save, and distribute their earnings across members of the family. Maria Fernanda always made sure Rosa and Mariana spoke to Joaquín over Skype, and she used him as an example that her younger daughters should follow. “I want to be like Joaquín and go to college,” Mariana told me. “Yes, me too! But I never want to leave Florencia and I don’t want her to go to Mexico,” Rosa said. The sisters showed me a heavy porcelain pig on the top shelf in their bedroom. They climbed the walls to grab it. When I shook it, I heard the sound of coins. Mariana told me, “this is for us to go to college … our parents put some money in there every week.” Rosa continued, “Yes, my mom says that it is the only way to guarantee she will not spend the money or send it to Mexico.” Rosa and Mariana enjoyed school and during the summer they participated in summer camps in the neighborhood. They both also had access to after-school programs and had many friends in the neighborhood. They loved summer because it meant block parties, comidas, and outings with neighborhood friends. Their school was 15 minutes away from their house. Both of their teachers spoke Spanish and English. One teacher, Cassie, explained to me, “if you want to teach in this neighborhood you have to be familiar with Mexican culture and Spanish … there are so many Puerto Ricans and Mexicans here that we have figured out ways to incorporate some of their traditions in our activities.” Her openness to the students’ language and culture stood in stark contrast to teachers at the school I had observed in the South Bronx.
One may think, after reading Maria Fernanda’s story, that there are too many factors that may or may not contribute to the different trajectories of separated siblings: gender of children, level of income, neighborhood where they lived, relationship with caregivers, and their mother’s and their own legal status. Maria Fernanda placed the burden of care on her shoulders, as she felt responsible for the trajectories of each of her children. Maria Fernanda’s constellation faced adversities in terms of legality, but they were also positioned well above the average income of the constellations that participated in this study. Having substantial income to spare allowed Maria Fernanda to support Joaquín, but that only happened because her partner also earned money and allowed her to save some of her earnings. Joaquín went on to university in part because he had his mother’s constant motivation to finish his degree. Money was also attached to his achievement. Legality for Florencia worked against her as she pursued a high school diploma, but she also became pregnant and dropped out before she could finish. Rosa and Mariana, who were American citizens and were fortunate to be born when their parents had more income and were more stable, did not spend much time with Maria Fernanda, as she worked long hours. The point here is that a multitude of factors influence children and youth’s life experiences, especially education experiences. I argue, however, that the stability of mothers, which I define below, allows mothers to try to provide and care for all of their children, wherever they are.
* * *
Media portrayals demonstrate implicit assumptions about children who stay behind when parents migrate. These portrayals refer to children of migrants who are in the home country as “orphans” or “abandoned” children. Generally, such portrayals assume that children who stay behind are vulnerable and disadvantaged by the mother’s absence. When they do admit that migration might be in some way positive, media portrayals generally focus solely on how remittances alleviate the strain on household budgets. For example, one UNICEF publication, The Impact of International Migration: Children Left Behind in Selected Countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (2011), maps out the “negative” effects on children: psychological, economic, education, safety, and health. Obviously, there are plenty of negative consequences for children and youth when a primary caregiver leaves to migrate. However, there are unforeseen experiences, related to schooling for example, that such reports rarely include. In order to make sense of patterns related to more complex and nuanced observations, one may have to spend more time with children and youth.
The influence of parental migration and remittances on the educational attainment of children in migrants’ countries of origin and host countries remains an important and open debate. Research on the education of children of immigrants in the United States is more established; various studies address the school performance of first- and second-generation students (e.g., Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008), patterns of acculturation (e.g., Portes & Rumbaut, 1996, 2001; Portes et al., 2011), and language acquisition and academic achievement (e.g., Bartlett & Garcia, 2011). Apart from US-based research, which Thomson and Crul (2007) have described thus: “in some ways, this reflects the growing disparity between, on the one hand, immigrant youth who are performing well, and, on the other, the relatively high numbers dropping out of school and failing to find secure employment” (p. 1032), the authors also point to the experiences of immigrants in Europe. They critique the assimilationist model by stating that it homogenizes ethnic groups and fails to recognize how groups of migrants may be different even within the same nationality. They contend, “It also fails to bring to light clear ethnic and religious differences within migrant communities in Europe, like Syrian Christians or Kurds” (1034). Significant questions remain about the experience of schooling and education of children in their home countries.
I compare how Mexican maternal migration has influenced the education experiences of the children left behind in Mexico and their siblings living in the United States. I use separated siblings as a way to refer to siblings who are not in the same home and country and do not share the same residence. I argue that these micro-contexts where siblings live and how they live in Mexico and in New York City present us with a somewhat surprising picture of the different education experiences of separated siblings. It is inaccurate to assume that children left behind are automatically at a disadvantage. My analysis reveals that the contrary is possible. I present the story of Maria Fernanda and her children to illustrate concerns about the schooling of separated siblings. I draw from all other constellations involved in this study to highlight the major findings regarding separated siblings.
While we often assume that the quality of education and social opportunities is better in the United States, data in this research suggest this is not always the case. Based on my research on separated siblings and schooling, I discovered two major patterns: (1) the emotional and financial stability of mothers in New York City allowed for more emotional and financial support of the children in Mexico, but not necessarily for the children in the United States; and (2) schooling experiences for children and youth in New York City varied a great deal depending on residential location. As with chapter 3, I consider children and youth primary sources as I attempt to provide another split-screen description of how separated siblings fare in the two countries. Ultimately, I argue that within these constellations, children of immigrant par
ents in the United States are not always “better off”; this study exemplifies the importance of looking comparatively at the educational experiences of children from transnational families in different locations.
Children of Immigrants in the United States
Mexico, like many other countries in the world, is home to a number of children with immigrant parents. In the United States an estimated 15 million immigrants entered the country during the 1990s (Capps & Fortuny, 2006). The same report indicates that immigrants from all countries comprise more than 12 percent of the US population, and their children, more than 20 percent. One in every five children of immigrants is foreign born, thus immigrant families in the United States are characteristically mixed-status, with children and parents who are citizens and non-citizens. As different studies have shown (see Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2001), mixed-status families affect the well-being of children. Socioeconomically speaking, children of immigrants live in lower income families than US-born children (Capps & Fortuny, 2006). Thomson and Crul (2007), Crul and Schneider (2009), and Barban and White (2011) all agree that in Europe, children of immigrants do experience a better trajectory overall in terms of education and occupation than their parents.
The schooling experiences of children and youth attending schools in the South Bronx, as I will show below, are influenced by waning support for bilingualism and bilingual education as well as by an economic context in which immigrants continue to be relegated to low-paying work. It is important to consider the complex interrelationships among school, community, history, and economy, including the ways in which social class and previous educational experiences set up students to pursue certain pathways through school. In addition, it is essential to engage a transnational perspective, as the siblings and mothers often do.
According to Zong and Batalova (2014), Mexican immigrants accounted for 28 percent of the country’s 41.3 million foreign-born. The Mexican population in the United States more than tripled since the 1980s, and even though there has been some decline following the 2008 crisis, large-scale immigration shapes how families organize across borders. Academically, children of Mexican immigrants have performed below other groups of children in New York City. In 2011, writer Kirk Semple published a piece in the New York Times entitled “In New York, Mexicans Lag in Education” that referred to census data indicating that more than 40 percent of all Mexicans between ages 16 and 19 in the city have dropped out of school. No other major immigrant group has a dropout rate higher than 20 percent, and the overall rate for the city is below 9 percent. Among Mexican immigrants aged 19 to 23 without a college degree, only 6 percent are enrolled in tertiary education. Laird Bergad, director of CUNY’s Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, disputed the Community Service Society’s report on dropout rates in the Mexican community, arguing that the way they calculated the dropout rate was erroneous because they included non–high school age adults in their findings. Also, many scholars have noted that migration is an “emancipatory event,” so, if migrants finish secundaria1 and migrate to the United States to work instead of continuing study before the age of 18, it is not the same as a young person who drops out of compulsory schooling in the United States before the age of 18.
Research has shown that 36 percent of first-generation and 11 percent of second-generation Mexican Americans aged 16–24 do not have a diploma (or its equivalent) (Brick et al., 2011: 9). College enrollment rates of Mexican Latinos are lower than their peers: among children of Mexican migrants, 33 percent had completed only high school in 2010 (ibid.). The children of Mexican immigrants face significant educational challenges: 30 percent of Hispanic public school students report speaking only English at home, and 20 percent of second-generation students report speaking English with difficulty (Fry & Gonzalez, 2008: 11). Further, 28 percent of Hispanic students live in poverty, compared with 16 percent of non-Hispanic students (p. 13). Indeed, the 2000 Census showed that more than 40 percent of foreign-born Mexican immigrants living in New York City had less than a twelfth grade education, with no diploma. Given the correlation of socioeconomic status, parents’ education level, and English language ability with academic success, these indicators are not encouraging.
The situation becomes even more challenging for mixed-status families. Suárez-Orozco and Suárez-Orozco (2001) showed how special issues arise in families that have a mix of documented and undocumented children. In some instances, the undocumented child may become the family’s scapegoat, while the documented child may occupy the role of “the golden child” (p. 35). Children in mixed-status families may experience tension and resentment, as well as guilt and shame. The authors state, “One of the most demoralizing aspects of undocumented status is its effect on the educational aspirations of immigrant children” (p. 34). Parents’ attitudes toward education are expressed to their children. The same authors found that attending school and getting a degree are high on the priority list of Latinos (Mexicans included). In my study, three families within the transnational care constellations studied had mixed-status siblings living in the same home. My observations were similar to the authors’ findings on the motivation immigrant children had about gaining an education. In one constellation where the family was mixed-status, the undocumented daughter in New York City suffered with the reality that she may not be allowed to go to college. That particular situation caused Maria Fernanda, her mother, to reflect on how much she would invest in her daughter’s education given that she herself could only get as far as high school.
Children of Immigrants in Mexico
There is reason to suspect that maternal migration has mixed effects for the education of the children left behind. Cohen (2004) has discussed a “culture” of migration where the act of migrating is associated with the desire for upward mobility. But does this upward mobility take place? If yes, does it travel back to Mexico? I found that, financially, an upward mobility sometimes does take place. But in order to travel back to Mexico there is a need for emotional stability in the United States. Even though children and young people spoke about not being privy to explanations for their parents’ migration, this fact did not always negatively influence their education experiences.
The correlation between migration and remittances on families and children in the host country has been widely studied. Different conclusions emerge from these studies. Parental migration may produce economic benefits but also emotional costs. Asis and Ruiz-Marave (2013) argue that, based on their study with young children in the Philippines, “economically better off families are in a better position to enhance the children’s academic performance. Should children need tutoring, for example, this will not pose a problem for families with more economic resources” (p. 14).
In terms of development in an economic sense, remittances are known to benefit families who have been left behind economically (Asis, 2006). However, what happens with the money and how it is spent leaves doubt about the real efficacy of remittances. Cortés (2007) discusses how remittances can create dependence on the receiver side and even contribute to children’s disinterest in school. Kandel and Kao (2001) found that children of migrant parents, particularly boys, may have a greater propensity to drop out of school than children of non-migrants. In her research, Dreby (2007) found that more than 40 percent of children interviewed in Mexico who had immigrant parents dropped out of school in the middle of their studies. However, Dreby and Stutz (2012) argue that children’s scholastic success depends on their experiences after a parent migrates and not on their migrant parents’ hopes and desires.
In the field of economics, scholars have assessed the causal impacts of remittances on children’s education. In Mexico, remittances totaled US$21.7 billion in 2010 according to the National Bank of Mexico, making remittances the second largest source of foreign trade after tourism. How much remittances help migrant families in Mexico is a matter of debate. As research has shown (Sawyer, 2010), remittances allow families to meet expenses they otherwise mig
ht not be able to afford. Jensen and Sawyer (2012) point out, though, that remittances may actually exacerbate inequalities within families and come at the high cost of separation. Regarding these potential inequalities in the host society, Robert C. Smith (2005) uses the term “remittance bourgeoisie” to describe those who live more comfortably because of the flow of dollars. The flip side is the existence of a “transnational underclass” that receives no remittances. This new reality in the host society causes this underclass to participate in a “dollarized” society (Smith, 2005), having negative consequences for the population of towns with intense out-migration.
Economic remittances represent only part of the reality of separated families. For many of the families in this study, income did increase when they received remittances. However, constant interruptions related to changes of jobs, birth and death of family members, and separation heavily impacted the socioeconomic status of these families. Even though there have been numerous studies on the impacts of remittances, none have uncovered how constant interruptions of financial support affect children here and there.
Emotional consequences of maternal migration are another core concern. Children and youth in this research described feeling anxious and sad during periods of time since their parent/s departed. The psychological literature on the effects of migration has looked at “levels of acceptance” or tolerance of children depending on their cognitive development (Carandang and Sison, 2007). Battistella and Conaco’s (1996) findings show that children of migrant parents experience higher anxiety and loneliness. Thus, children and youth do remain attached to images of their parents on the other side. According to Parreñas (2005a), “the strength of family relationship, particularly the children’s closeness to their parents, is reflected in the children’s choice of their parents as role models” (p. 11). The emotional attachment Parreñas refers to is exemplified by the fact that children want to follow their parents’ footsteps (60 percent of the children would like to work abroad). Añonuevo and Añonuevo (2002) in their study of female workers abroad have pointed toward a reality in terms of children’s aspirations to work like their parents. They conclude that children and youth feel they could earn a higher salary abroad without considering going to school.
Motherhood across Borders Page 16