Del Real Deisy
Sociology Department, University of Southern California, 851 Downey Way, HSH 314, Los Angeles, CA 90089.
Int Migr Rev. 2024 Jan 5. doi: 10.1177/01979183231223700.
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.
移民合法化研究假设，具有“非脆弱”法律地位且有表面上的公民身份获取途径的移民能够顺利过渡到持久合法状态。然而，法律结构和官僚体系中未得到充分研究的特征可能会扰乱他们的合法化进程。因此，本文引入“移民合法性等级”的概念，以研究国家移民制度、合法化机会结构以及申请程序标准的渗透性之间多层次、相互嵌入的互动如何影响移民的合法化过渡。该研究通过深入访谈来比较委内瑞拉移民在阿根廷和智利的“非脆弱”合法化过程。阿根廷拥有包容性的移民制度、合法化机会结构和程序标准，而智利则相反。尽管存在这些不同趋势，但两国都有一些包容性和排他性的行政措施。研究结果表明，当程序标准可预测且国家官僚放宽阻碍性要求时，两国的移民都有可能实现顺利过渡。然而，当数字化改变程序标准、签证类别要求自给自足以及行政行动施加繁琐要求时，就会出现破坏性的过渡。在智利，破坏性过渡更为普遍且对移民危害更大，因为大多数签证类别（根据法律和行政行动）要求有正式工作。相比之下，在阿根廷，破坏性过渡对委内瑞拉移民的影响较小且不太普遍，因为他们可以利用南方共同市场居留协议，该协议通过不要求经济偿付能力证明来保护他们的生计。总体而言，“移民合法性等级”框架表明，不同组织层面相互作用，对移民产生复杂且不平等的影响，包括那些持有看似直接通向公民身份的签证类别的移民。
