This paper considers participation in unconventional politics and its determinants. In particular, analyses presented below focus on differences in low-risk protest activity among non-Latinos and Latinos of Mexican, Puerto Rican and Cuban origin. Central to this analysis is an examination of individual and network determinants of unconventional participation as well as determinants unique to immigrant populations: citizenship and generation. Ifind that, contrary to theoretical predictions, Latinos are less likely to protest relative to non-Latinos. There are also significant differences in participation by ethnicity: Latinos of Mexican and Puerto Rican descent are more likely to protest than their Cuban counterparts. Citizenship and generational status also influence the likelihood of political involvement suggesting these are factors that not only shape conventional political behavior but unconventional participation.

No abstract

Drawing on research spanning ten years in three immigrant destinations—Los Angeles, Denver, and Atlanta—we address the question, “How do political contexts shape undocumented youth movements?” To do so, we bring into dialogue social movements and immigration scholarship by providing a framework for understanding undocumented youth activism. Building on political opportunity theory in social movements and segmented assimilation theory in migration studies, we advance the notion of localized political contexts: contexts of varying levels of antagonism and accommodation toward immigrants, which shape the emergence and character of undocumented youth movements. We argue that variegated political, legal, and discursive landscapes shape undocumented activism in three ways: (1) the claims that are made; (2) the targets for these claims; and (3) the strategies and tactics the movement adopts. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of undocumented youth movements given the increasingly hostile political context unfolding at the national level.

Deferred Action for Childhood

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 immigration 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 academic trajectories. We situate our analysis within the crimmigration literature and discuss the implications of our findings in light of the current political climate.