U.S. Policy and the De-humanization of Immigrant Women

Shange H.S. Petrini

UCLA Pre-Law Society Law Review

2001 Edition

Introduction

            After years of struggle for women’s rights here in the United States, most people would tell you that women have nearly reached equal grounds with men and that there are few cases of suppression of women as chattel, as there were a century ago.  But this is not the case for immigrant and other “non-citizen” women in the United States.  Protection of the law is generally reserved for citizens and legally present individuals, despite international humanitarian treaties that attempt to establish it otherwise.  Because most women arrive in the United States by virtue of the legal status and through the visa of their husbands, they do not enjoy full immigration or legal status and are therefore vulnerable to exploitation[1].  Immigration policy in the United States is male or gender neutral, but this has little sense when most of the legal immigrants[2] and refugees[3] in the United States are women.  The experiences, survival strategies, social roles and lifestyles of women in the United States are much different than those of men and those issues need protection by the law[4].

            The thesis of this article is that the traditional approach of US immigration law is from a male perspective and does not offer the legal protection necessary for the unique situation of women; immigrant women suffer with no recourse as a result.  This paper will address this statement through a review of the Family Unity policies of immigration laws, domestic violence, and employment and will try to outline how these things affect women.  Family Unity policies encourage the sustenance of social structures and practices that are adversarial to women.  Immigrant women are prone to abuse and it is difficult for them find relief through the law.  When they do seek relief it often results in further abuse and deportation.  U.S. policy sees the difference between men and women in the migrant context as being that men only work (which is obviously not correct, at least in a contemporary context).  It is nearly impossible for immigrant women to find employment because of the nature of their social experience structured and / or encouraged by U.S. policy via Family Unity.  These issues have not gone un-addressed and there is much effort to change policy by pressure groups and individual lawyers in the courts.  Policy is changing, but it is slow and while the status quo remains nearly static, women suffer unjustly from situations that have solutions that are not being realized at a practical pace.  These ideas will be developed and enriched further by discussion below, following which some brief suggestions for change in policy will be outlined.

Family Unity

Policy

            Most visas issued in the United States are family sponsored visas[5].  These visas are an expression of international[6] and domestic law that favors Family Unity policies in considering visa issues.  Family Unity is basically the doctrine that the immigration service and courts will seek the interest of the unity of the family in granting visa applications and other legal matters regarding immigration.  In comparison with other nations immigration policies, such as Canada and Australian, the United States policy is said to be dominated by Family Unity.[7]  It has been demonstrated on a number of occasions that the intent of congress in passing immigration legislation has been one of Family Unity, and the courts have also acted accordingly.  This brings into United States immigration a strong issue of gender, as most Family Unity visas are granted to women, few primary beneficiaries are women, and most legal immigrants to the United States are women.[8]

Enclaves

When a migrant moves into a host society, they often compensate for the loss of social resources through close association with other individuals from similar backgrounds.  They can in this way provide the support that is needed in case of sickness, in finding employment, in maintaining cultural identity and values, etc.

Families are key to migrant networks. They provide the core structure for the migrant groups.  Families are the most basic of traditional social units. Familial relationships are naturally very important. Therefore, in the countries of origin, they are the bodies that operate for self-interest. The family competes for survival with other groups. In the host country, they provide the structure for enclaves and the establishment of networks.

Among sociological readings of immigration the importance of the family is continually indicated. There is a consensus that, among relations and groups (such as friendships, regionally identified relations, etc), the family is the strongest and most important. Among family members there is a natural affinity and a person feels much obligation to fulfill expectations and to act for the benefit of the family because of the strength of these bonds. Portes[9] states that the strength of a group and its ability to provide benefits and to enforce sanctions depends on the density (amount of inter-relational ties). A family unit tends to have the optimal of density ties. It also tends to have a very hierarchical structure. Therefore we can expect that it is the family organization that would be the most effective in providing benefits and enforcing sanctions. Further, the family is a natural shelter for the preservation of culture and customs. The family would then be very important in providing a sense of common identity and solidarity among networks of migrants in host countries who have similar customs.

MacDonald and MacDonald[10] have indicated that migration organization among Italians at the turn of the century was according to kinship ties and not village or community ties. Portes[11] points out that migrants tend not to feel any obligation to those from the same community that they do not know. There were community organizations, but these did not transfer to organization of migrants in the host country. The organization from "home" that does transfer into the host country is the family. The family is a unit that works together for the preservation of its members at home. This membership is very important as a strategy of individuals to cope with the economic hardships and unpredictability of developing countries. Communities do act for the good of the town, but gain for self interest only exceptionally escapes the family. The family makes decisions of who will go to other countries to send remittances. When a pioneering member finds good work in that country, the family works with that individual to organize other members to migrate also. It is not the community that organizes migration, but the family. The importance of membership to a family takes precedence over other relationships in networks. People behave for the good of the family. This then is a key body in the migrant communities of the host country.

Families provide the backbone for the enclaves and networks of migrants in host countries. It is usually one individual from a family (community) that first goes into a locality to seek economic opportunities. If the individual finds them, similar opportunities are then provided for other family members. According to Massey[12] settling of families is essential for the establishment of communities and therefore migrant networks. After a family settles, other people from outside the family (friends or clients of the family) often follow. "Weak" community organizations are then established. Boyd[13] points out that individuals relate to these larger groups through the family. She also states that familial connections are more likely and become more important for the migrant over time. If the implementation of Portes’ idea of the characteristics of an effective group is correct (supra), then the kind of support needed for an informal enterprise free of fraud, as Portes describes, can be best found in a family. The familial organization is also important for gaining legal legitimacy of residency. Policy of many receiving nations allows for legal migration to happen through families. Therefore, the family provides opportunities for social, economic and legal advantages in host countries.

If it is so that the key component of the strength of these migrant enclaves and networks is the family, then this gives strength to Boyd's[14] paper in which she discusses the reinforcement of values that are oppressive to women. Because the roles of women are defined and enforced within the family and the family units are one of the most important structures in enclave networks, then the strength of these characteristics of gender roles are strongly enforced in these networks.  In cultures where the woman is seen as subservient to the man and without voice, these values are reinforced and persist in these enclave communities.  These enclave communities are nearly impenetrable by the host society and domestic policy influence (via sanctions, etc).

The family is also important to migrants because of the policies of the host countries (with Family Unity). The subservient role (and so economic disadvantage) of women is therefore reinforced by this policy. The experiences and hardships of women are unique in host countries, and policy should be made to address the issues and needs of this group, keeping in mind the conditions in which these women live in their communities and at home.[15]

Immigration Status and Domestic Violence

            Among the issues for immigrant women that U.S. policy deals with poorly is the protection of them from abusive husbands.  Since women arrive after their husbands to the United States, they don’t have as much experience in the new culture and are therefore easily manipulated and intimidated.  The U.S. legal system is just as unfamiliar and forbidding as everything else in their new home and this is accentuated when the system works against them because of their ignorance or because of lying or manipulations of their husbands.  Because the woman is not a citizen and not an independently legal resident, the law for them is complicated and discouraging.  It is very difficult for them to know how to use the law and behave in such a way to protect themselves and have the benefits of relief from injustice.

Domestic Violence

            To many people unfamiliar with family violence or of being abused themselves, the issue of justice in domestic violence cases is unproblematic and trivial.  Domestic violence has traditionally been seen as a private and unimportant issue, ignored and shunned in public arenas such as the court of law.  UNICEF states that in countries throughout the world generally domestic violence is “often sanctioned under the garb of cultural practices and norms, or through misinterpretation of religious tenets… the abuse is effectively condoned by the tacit silence of the law-enforcing machinery.”[16]  This is especially significant given our society’s traditions of gender bias and also that the victims of home violence are most often women.  Sexism was prevalent in our culture such that even the laws discriminated against interests of women in court, specifically in domestic violence cases.  Such laws were discovered and summarized by a congressional investigation in the mid-90’s, which reported that some states even protect boyfriends and husbands from civil prosecution of the beatings doled out to ‘their women’[17].    The committee further reported that “centuries of laws that classified women as the chattel of their spouses have promoted a widespread belief in the culpability of the victim, whereby women are presumed to have done something to merit the violence they suffered.”[18]  This is a result of and a reinforcement of popular opinion of violence against women.  A survey of Colorado judges reported that 41% “believe juries perceive sexual assault victims as less credible than other crime victims.”[19]  Some statistics have reported that a woman is beaten or assaulted every 15 seconds in the U.S.[20] and that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women 15 – 44 years of age.[21]  It is an important issue that needs attention in our society, and legal ‘sins of omission’ in this regard are denying the human rights of all women.

VAWA

            This situation, in addition to other specific legal limitations on relief for battered immigrant women, led the congressional committee above sited to pass the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 (VAWA).  Since 1924 there have always been long lists of people wanting to enter the United States.  Family Unity policy allowed for working husbands who were legal permanent residents (LPR’s) or citizens to bring their wives into the United States to live with them until they could obtain their visas.  They were also bumped up on the list so that all wives of citizens or LPR’s could obtain a visa within two years.  Until they had their visa (or green card), they were placed on conditional status under their husband’s visa to stay and needed their spouse to remove this conditional status tying them to their husbands, allowing them to have their own visas and therefore freedom.[22]  In this condition, it was easy and sadly common for the husbands to abuse their wives and threaten to terminate the wife’s visa or obstruct them from obtaining their visa through a removal of their conditional status.[23]  But the VAWA changed this so that the wife has the freedom to self-petition for the removal of the conditional status if they can prove that they are battered.[24]  This new law was very important for many women as it made it easier for them to escape the tyranny of their husbands.  It was passed so that the United States could respect the Violence Against Women treaty they had signed some time before in the U.N.  But there are still some basic shortfalls in this legislation and some aspects that it does not alleviate to allow for women to escape their abusive homes.  If she flees her husband before she applies for a removal of conditional status or divorces him (when she does not have a child by him) she can lose all her rights to remain in the U.S. and be deported.  The community she lives in often discourages her from reporting any problems to the police and she will be marginalized in this society if she leaves him.[25]

            VAWA relief can only be had if the wife is able to obtain the semi-legal status of a conditional visa through the husband participating in the petition for her to obtain such.[26]  Otherwise, she may reside with him without this status and therefore be denied all legal recourse whatsoever, other than that of deportation.  If she is able to obtain a conditional status visa, to self-petition under VAWA, she must show that she has been battered[27], that she is married to a U.S. citizen or LPR[28] and that the marriage was had in good faith[29] and that she is of good moral character.[30] 

Proving spousal abuse can be very difficult.  Most people consider such things as family business and private matters, including the victim.  Studies have shown that most abuse goes unreported until it happens for about the 35^th time.[31]  When it is reported, often counter claims and inventions of the husband can obscure who is the batterer and who is the victim or defender (as will be discussed further).  Obtaining evidence of battery by the spouse can be extremely complicated and legally problematic, precluding prosecution in court or serious pursual of the issue by the police.  By statute, some articles that can be used as evidence include affidavits, shelter records and hospital records.[32]  Congress has declared that any credible evidence can be used as proof of domestic violence and abuse,[33] but this is yet to be implemented by the INS or the BIA.[34]  Obtaining documentation as listed in the INA can be especially difficult when the wife is unable to adequately conduct herself so as to take advantage of services of a hospital or shelter.  She may feel unwelcome or overwhelmed at these places, as many new migrants can easily be (especially when feeling vulnerable and emotionally shaken) and communicating their needs may be particularly difficult if no one can speak their language or, worse yet, their dialect.  Therefore, it has also been established through statute that if strong evidence is not available, she may be eligible for self-petition if she can prove that she has ended a good faith marriage (as will be discussed below) and that she has suffered hardship[35] since her arrival under a conditional status.[36]  Hardship can be easier to establish than abuse because there is no perpetrator to deny accusations, as is the case with abuse.  She must show that the marriage was in good faith in that a divorce or annulment of the marriage was granted.[37]

Spousal abuse, as has been mentioned, can go on for a long time until it gets reported.  When the violence has reached the level that the wife has sought outside help, it usually means things have gotten really bad.  While most women want to stay with their husbands and make things work when it reaches this point it is nearly impossible.  But to self-petition under VAWA, the woman needs to be married to a U.S. citizen or LPR, or have a child in common with one.[38]  Although the woman no longer needs the husband’s consent or participation to petition for the removal of their conditional status, they still need to be married to someone with current, valid legal status.  It is quite difficult that she find another man, as she wouldn’t want to be suspected as an infidel by either the court or, worse, by her community.  But to stay with her husband could cause suspicion and throw a red flag for an audit as to the validity of their marriage by the INS.  It is assumed that a woman is staying in the relationship only for the legal benefits and that therefore the marriage was illegitimate from the start,[39] which would preclude her from any legal relief.[40]  While she may apply for a good faith marriage waiver (or divorce waiver, as discussed supra), she cannot do so if her husband has been deported before their divorce, as she would more quickly lose her legal status and be deported also.

Not only must it be established that the marriage in issue be of good faith (qualifying her for application of a self-petition, as discussed supra), but also that her previous marriage was in good faith.[41]  Because it was common for the abuser to deny her possibility of aid by claiming that their marriage was not in good faith and undertaken as an arrangement for her to obtain a visa, Congress changed the law to state that the credible of witness of only one and not both the individuals is sufficient.[42]  But this change did not include testimony regarding the previous marriage, which the abusive husband (or ex-husband) may still call into question by claiming it was fraudulent.[43]

Establishing good moral character can be more and more complicated as complaints and legal actions against the domestic violence proliferate.  It is not uncommon for either the husband, when threatened by criminal charges and deportation, to lie and place the blame or accusation of primary aggression on the wife.  It is also not uncommon, especially when the abuse has persisted for extended periods of time (as discussed supra), for the woman to also become violent and abusive (whether as a reaction, loss of control, or as self defense).  Whether or not the woman is innocent of violence in her turn, such accusations can produce effects that will compromise her ability to show good moral character.  Evidence for good moral character can be established by simply showing that there are no bars in force for visa application (which would be a result of a deportation order) and the burden lies on the INS to prove otherwise (which it will often try to do).[44]  While good moral character can be waived for eligibility of applying for a self-petition of removal of conditional status, it cannot for the granting of the removal or adjustment.[45]  As will be discussed further, women are disproportionately affected by the requirement of moral character because it is more common in their cases than in men’s for there to be court action that is defined as a conviction for abuse,[46] (which is the INS definition of a conviction of an aggravated offense and therefore no waivers are allowed and she is subject to mandatory deportation with permanent bars from ever returning[47]).

Asylum

            An alternative to VAWA that has been used by immigration lawyers has been to claim asylum for their clients.  While this has been difficult and not always successful (as will be discussed here), it oftentimes is no less complicated than applying for VAWA relief, as has been shown supra.  Asylum is an international issue.  While the danger and pervasiveness of violence against women in the home was recognized by UNICEF (as cited supra at n.6), asylum for domestic violence can be difficult because it does not involve a government or group, but is an issue between two individuals.[48]  But it can be said that a government is relevant if it does nothing to stop it, as this would be action through inaction and the government would be a participant in the persecution of the woman in the home generally.[49]  It was also recognized by UNICEF that this negligence on the part of the government is common.[50]

            Another difficulty with seeking relief through asylum is trying to define gender as a social group persecuted for their beliefs.  Gender is generally not considered a group relevant on political factors of claiming immigration relief through asylum.[51]  It is odd that asylees and refugees are seen as genderless in policy, when most refugees are women.[52]  Gender as a relevant social group was held in re Acosta (19 I&N, Dec. 211, 233) but it suggested that this not be codified and that it be established on a case-to-case basis.  Gender was also successfully argued in re A-&K-[53], re M-K-[54] and the more famous re Kasinga[55] (FGM case).

            Establishing persecution is another point in seeking asylum.  While there has been difficulty in arguing that a woman is being persecuted for her beliefs in equality of the sexes, it is becoming more common for physical harm, such as domestic violence, to be used in asylum claims under international standards, and this is sometimes the case in the United States.[56]  Domestic violence can be seen as a form or torture and as such meets the humanitarian requirements that are part of the doctrine of asylum.[57]  Under article 3 of the UN Convention Against Torture, no person should be expelled if it is believed that they will be tortured[58] but the U.S. did not sign onto this treaty until 1998 with the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (Pub. L. No. 105-277, 2242(b) 112 Stat. 2681).[59]  Asylum claims tend to be difficult partly because of the reluctance of the United States courts and government to attend to international law (as compared to other countries) and partly because international definitions of asylum eligibility were not intended for these individual cases.  For this reason the Violence Against Women treaty was signed, but because of the inefficiencies of our federal checks and balances government in implementing policy to conform to our treaties[60], VAWA has been a difficult tool for relief for battered immigrant women.

Criminal charges

            How policy and law conceives and handles domestic violence cases has changed since the mid-nineties.  As a result of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment,[61] police departments across the nation obligated their officers to make an arrest at every incident of domestic violence.  The experiment showed that for that particular city and for the individuals involved, arrest was an effective deterrent of repeated abuse[62] but it took the right or choice of pressing charges against the abuser away from the victim.[63]  The implementation of this policy was hasty and not well thought out by policy makers[64] as the experiment failed replications resulting in deterring from recidivism.[65]  Many of the police officers that were required to make an arrest would arrest both the individuals because they are unable to determine who was the perpetrator of the violence or because they did not want to arrest the husband.  They would do so to protest having to make the arrest in the first place.[66]  As a result, VAWA advocated the arrest of the perpetrator only.[67] 

The victim’s role in choosing whether to press charges is further restrained by no drop and mandatory prosecution policies that follow mandatory arrest.[68]  This policy is pursued by district attorneys that are weary of victims dropping charges on their abusive husbands.  But this also often leads to an adversarial relationship growing between the victim and the D.A. as the D.A. puts pressure on the victim to prosecute and testify, which can also cause the victim to then see the D.A. as the enemy and may choose to work against the D.A.’s office to release their husbands.[69]  In forcing the victim to prosecute, they may be subpoenaed and be put in the situation where they may incur criminal charges for not testifying in court.[70]  Sometimes the abuser, whether they be guilty or not, will take a plea just to prevent their spouse from being in court or put in jail.[71]  As was explained earlier, it can be difficult to convince a jury to be just in convicting an abuser, but this is made even more difficult when the testimony of the victim seems compelled.[72]

            As also discussed above, proceedings for domestic violence may result in deportation.  It is in the interest of policy makers to deport these criminals, because the public wants to see that measures are being taken to regulate undesirable immigrant flows.[73]  But it can often happen that women also are being prosecuted for abuse, as many act in self-defense or lose control after trying to end years of abuse.[74]  Immigration and criminal laws have tried to come down hard on perpetrators of abuse that they assume are male, but this can work against the woman very easily.[75]  Often the judge is mindful of this and recommends diversion or counseling of some sort instead of convicting here, but by policy of the INS, this is considered a conviction just the same.[76]  This kind of conviction leads directly to deportation, even if it was a misdemeanor, as this is considered an aggravated felony to the INS, and carries the result of infinite bars to re-entry to the United States.[77] 

It can also be easy for the woman to be falsely accused by the husband of participation or initiating the abuse, as can be seen in cases where the husband speaks better English and has a knowledge of the system can communicate better with the police and easily accuse her convincingly of being the perpetrator of the violence.[78]  When an abusive husband threatens the wife that he will use the system against her if she seeks relief, as often happens, when she is wrongly arrested, this is confirmed and accentuates her victimization and sense of utter hopelessness.[79] 

When the legal permanent resident (LPR) husband of a family unity derivative is “convicted” for abuse, he is deported, resulting in the woman losing her status and being deported soon after.  The woman therefore, when in an abuse situation, must have an effective strategy for avoiding false accusation, arrest and “conviction” and having her own husband arrested before she is able to complete her paperwork with the INS for self-petition of a change of status.  This is a result of policy that attempts to protect her but works against her.  When a woman is in an abusive situation, she does not think rationally.  Most immigrant women (especially those with conditional status and therefore here less than two years) are unaware of the law and dangers discussed supra and are very lucky if their actions do not preclude them from seeking justice.

Cancellation of removal

            If the woman has been placed in deportation (now referred to as removal) proceedings and it is ordered that she be deported, there is some relief from removal, such as applying for a cancellation of removal.  By statute, cancellation of removal should be easy for battered women,[80] but this relief is still discretionary and contingent on approval be the Attorney General.  Battered women’s’ applications for cancellation for removal are included with other such applications for other causes and claims and the Attorney General is restricted to granting only 4,000 such cancellations per year total.[81]  Because of VAWA, women for whom conditional status removal was denied may also be included under this cap.[82]  To qualify for cancellation of removal, all applicants must demonstrate good moral character for three years previous (with the exception of VAWA applicants, who need to establish character since arrival) (which obviously then exclude all domestic violence “convicts” from this relief).[83]  Also, as part of protection from marriage fraud, immigrant women may not qualify if they have been divorced before three years of residency in the United States.[84]  Reasons for which this form of relief is problematic for abused immigrant women are easy to identify.  This form of relief is therefore rare for them.[85]

Further obstructions to relief

            Much of the difficulty for the immigrant women’s relief is a result of officials being paranoid of fraud.  The public harbors and feeds great “fears of hoards of abused spouses flocking to [countries that give them refuge].”[86]  Officials are slow to offer to broad sway to help battered immigrant women because they are fearful of setting precedence or passing legislation that could have loopholes to be exploited by undesirable immigrants.[87]

There are other non-legal obstructions that play a very active and important role in the victim finding peace.  These include fear, a hope that her husband will change, guilt of inducing his deportation, a lack of self-sufficiency, and cultural norms and sanctions enforced unofficially by her community.  In a survey sited by Michell Anderson, 61% of Latina and 57% of Filipina battered women did not report their abuse for long periods of time because of a fear of deportation.[88]  If the female fears arrest, other studies show that they will very rarely report abuse.[89]  Many wives also fear for their lives, as causing their abusive husbands legal trouble could cause them to beat them even more severely.[90]  Many wives, especially those that hold the family in the utmost importance, still hold hopes that their husbands will change and become the sweet person they fell in love with, but this healing is obstructed by criminal prosecution, especially if it is followed by deportation (in the case for LPR’s).[91]  Some wives also feel guilty in enforcing law that can have irreversible punishment[92], such as the permanent bars that result of an aggravated felony (or misdemeanor interpreted as such by the INS).[93]

The section following this will address the issue of economic dependence more fully, but it is helpful to here point out some issues that are relevant to obstructing relief to domestic violence.  Martin discusses how victims more likely to be fired or forced to quit because time off to recuperate and because embarrassment of wounds, which also  “prohibits basic commercial activities such as grocery shopping, going out to dinner, or using public transportation.”[94]  Congress research concludes that “gender based violence impairs a woman’s ability to obtain and maintain employ on an equal level with men.”[95]  Because immigrant women have less education and receive less pay for their work[96] and because they often have no work authorization as family unity derivatives and cannot receive any public assistance or welfare[97] (as will be discussed further in the section following), it is very difficult for them to make the determination of being self sufficient before their decision for seeking relief or leave from their marital abuse is sought.  The issue of self-sufficiency is especially accentuated if they experience ostrocization from their communities.

As a coping strategy, migrants will form enclave communities (as discussed supra).  These communities are essential survival in a strange place.  The values and norms from their home communities are transferred to these enclave communities here in the U.S.  For many Asian cultures, it is important to protect the honor and reputation of the community and therefore the reporting of domestic violence, whether it be by the victim or anyone else, brings dishonor and results in shunning and other unofficial sanctions.[98]  It is the part of many cultures, especially those from Asia and Europe (or European based, such as Southern America) to keep family problems quiet and not bring them into the public.  There is also a great push to keep the family united for Latino cultures and they are willing to save the family at all costs,[99] even if it means tolerating regular beatings.  This situation is especially prevalent in cultures where the female is taught to be subservient and submissive to any of the husband’s wishes.[100]

All of these factors combine against the woman to discourage her from reporting abuse.  These are, in many ways, not factors or are not as intense of an issue for native United Stater women who need to report abuse.  Together with the legal complexities of dealing with an abusive situation, it can seem impossible for immigrant women to find hope and redress of their difficulties.  They feel completely alone and hopeless in a strange place.

Employment

            Traditionally it is the husband that goes out into the world and earns a cash living for his family, while the woman stays home.  For this reason, men have traditionally dominated migration as a way to find work.[101]  Although this trend is changing, as was discussed above, policy, especially that relating to men, has been geared for the male sex exclusively.  For example, most work visas in the latter part of the 20^th century were given to men, and to discourage permanent migration, women were not allowed to migrate with their family.[102] 

Many immigrant women are unemployable.  If they have come to the United States under the visa of her LPR husband, she is not allowed to work until her conditional status has been removed.[103]  Many Mexican women will come to the United States to be with their husbands, and reside illegally as they wait for their husbands to obtain legal status so that they can apply for a visa under that status.[104]  While they are illegally here, they cannot work.  Because immigrant families must work very hard to survive in the U.S., women are induced to work, and because of their subservience to their family’s wishes, they will go out and obtain illegal work.[105]  Doing so compromises any legal status or hope of obtaining such, because if they are caught working illegally, their visa will be denied.[106]  It is difficult for immigrant women to find work, as they lack the skills and education that men have.  Many women are often illiterate even in their own language.  When they arrive in the United States, they are unfamiliar with the culture.  It is more difficult for immigrant men than immigrant women to find work.

Female work

            The role of women is seen as working in the home, tending to childcare, and other socially reproductive tasks.  Immigrant men work more than the women.[107]  On arrival to the U.S., they are expected to stay home while the men go out and work.  This is appearing in statistics that show that female immigrants work less than native women for the first seven years of their residence, but when they do start working seven years later, they work much more than most native women.[108]  If women do find work, most often it is as domestic help such as housecleaning and childcare.  Much of this work is done informally and the immigrant is not documented as an employee and paid in cash.  The illegal nature of their work puts them in precarious circumstances.  If they are legally permitted to work, such informal work does not allow them to gain the documentation that they may need to show residency, etc. for other visa applications or an adjustment of status.

Policy ignorance

            Policy makers see the social reproductive work of women as unproductive.[109]  With the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 90), there was a reduction of unskilled and service sector visas in favor for more skilled labor[110] therefore women who worked jobs such as nannies or housecleaners, or who sought such work, would work illegally. 

IMMACT also changed social security.  Part-time domestic workers could no longer be eligible for social security funds because they did not reach a certain threshold of income for immigrants in order to qualify for these funds.[111]  The only way they could qualify for funds, they would have to become naturalized citizens or through other sources of relief.  Naturalization requirements are difficult to fulfill because of their illiteracy and lack of knowledge of U.S. civics and the language, which are required for naturalization.[112]  Other relief options are biased towards men.  They include naturalization, formal employment for forty consecutive quarters and armed service.[113]  Gender and social role differences are not considered in these cases by these policies.[114]  Because there are few benefits of legal work, there is little incentive to take the steps of gaining the necessary visa and doing the paperwork for legal employment.  This contributes to the woman’s dependence on men and her enclave community for support.

Conclusion

            The experience of emigrating and moving to a strange country can be difficult.  For women this is even more the case.  The way that United States policy deals with issues relating to immigrant women is negligent and restrictive.  As a result immigrant women are put into situation that set the stage for their exploitation.  The policies that have family unity as a goal encourage the sustenance of the structures that oppress women to be transferred to the United States within enclave communities.  When they are abused, it is difficult for them to seek relief from the law, as the law is complicated and often works against them, to the advantage of an abuser that continues to manipulate and control her life in the process.  It is assumed by traditional policy that women are dependent on men and therefore do not need to have laws facilitating or protecting their employment, or such employment is intentionally restricted by policy.  Traditional law approaches immigration from a male perspective and does not offer legal protection necessary for the unique situation of women.

            There has been progress made in the passing of VAWA and other amendments that have attempted to facilitate the life of immigrant abused women, but these policies are contradictory and can run the victim through a series of hostile legal processes.  There has been policy change, but this change is insufficient and needs to be more effective.  Policy in this regard is only altered through the concentrated and exhaustive efforts by civil rights lawyers and organizations.  The government needs to be more responsive to addressing the needs of these abused women so that they may have the basic humanitarian recourses that have a right to.  Change needs to happen above the levels of judicial review and through legal precedent, it needs to happen through decisive and comprehensive decisions made by the legislature.  There needs to be a recognition of the discrimination in the law and efforts made to remedy it that go beyond conflicts of federalism[115] or immigrant paranoia.  There also needs to be a shifting from a family unity perspective in relating to immigrant women’s’ status in the U.S. which make them dependent on their husbands and more laws need to be proliferated to protect their jobs and to aid them in gaining self sufficiency.  The degree of dependence imposed by policies guided by the family unity goal impinge on the human natural rights of women to be independent and self sufficient residents in the United States.