Introduction Immigration has significantly influenced employment
Immigration has significantly influenced employment throughout the United
States’ history, especially in the Central Valley of California (Schneider, 2011). The rise
of a global economy generated a tremendous increase of immigrants seeking employment
in the first decade of the twenty first century. Immigrants successfully found
employment in many industries that required low level skills and paid low wages
(Chassamboulli & Palivos, 2014). The influx of immigrants helped the United States and
the Central Valley of California maintain the competitive edge in business and also
helped them sustain economic stability in a global economy. Immigration has become a
controversial subject in the United States and in the Central Valley of California, and the
controversy has affected immigrant employment.
The history of the United States includes many examples of immigrant ingenuity
and fortitude in seeking a better life. Immigration has been part of American culture
since its inception as a nation, and immigrants have comprised the backbone of the
United States because of their willingness to work in low skill level jobs for low pay
(Anderson, 2010; Handlin, 1979). These immigrants’ presence can still be felt today.
Moissa (2013) reported that as of 2013, 16.1% of immigrants constituted the American
workforce. However, although many immigrants have been able to flourish in the United
States, they have had many obstacles to overcome to become assimilated to American
society including inability to speak the English language, unfamiliarity with American
culture, and lack of American education (Kretsedemas, 2012). In addition to these
challenges, immigrant employment laws and policies have produced many barriers for
immigrants to America. These additional burdens rendered securing employment
without the fear of deportation or breaking the law difficult, and law and policies have
produced changes to the U.S. immigrant workforce and in immigrants’ efforts toward
assimilation.
Most current laws and policies have affected immigrants and their employment
status in the United States. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)
imposed penalties on employers who hired illegal immigrants, which also impacted legal
immigrants since they were viewed as threats to American prosperity by taking jobs from
citizens (Orrenius & Zavodny, 2012). Twenty-eight years after the IRCA, the
government introduced E-Verity, which also affected immigrants (U.S. Department of
Labor [DOL], 2014a). E-Verify is an internet-based system that compares information
from an employee's Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to data from U.S.
Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records to confirm
employment eligibility. These laws typify examples of the legal issues immigrants face
as they live and work in the United States (Harper, 2012).
Employing immigrants has historically affected the United States and specifically
the Central Valley of California in its efforts to remain globally competitive. An
immigrant’s employment status could be an underlying cause of immigrant retention and
departure. Therefore, understanding immigrants’ experiences in employment will help
employers understand immigrant retention or departure from employment. Employers
will also be able to understand the impact of immigration status from an immigrant
perspective. Immigrants comprise an integral part of the American workforce and their
contributions to the economy are necessary for the United State’s competitive advantage
in the global economy.
Background
History of Immigration in the United States
The United States has been at the forefront of immigration since its foundation as
a country (Handlin, 1979). Immigration has long described the makeup of most of
America’s population except for its native people. Immigrants came to the United States
for many reasons, primarily to seek a better life, which is achieved through residency and
employment. These two areas have traditionally served as the means to secure prosperity
and happiness in the United States (Anderson, 2010; Kretsedemas, 2012). Throughout
the US’s long history of immigration, seven historical periods have brought sweeping
changes to immigration and employment in the nation.
The first critical period of immigration began just after the American Revolution.
During this time immigration to the United States was seen as an opportunity to obtain a
better life. The news spread abroad that the new country of the United States tolerated
many religions and promoted freedom of speech and the practice of democracy (Handlin,
1979). The influx of immigrants caused the United Stated to pass the first immigration
law which required residency before becoming an American citizen (Anderson, 2010)
and it represented one of the first attempts at controlling immigration. However, despite
this attempt to control immigration, it steadily increased during the next hundred years
until the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the first mass immigration seen in United
States history (Hirschman & Mogford, 2009). The majority of immigrants came from
Europe, and during that time, manufacturing of textiles and non-durable goods
represented America’s largest industry. Manufacturing continued to grow at an
astounding rate until the stock market crash of 1929, which ushered in the Great
Depression (Zolberg, 2006), the worst economic disaster since the formation of the
United States (Handlin, 1979). It left the majority of the country unemployed and
immigration, beset by its worst setback, was at an all-time low. Not only did the
Depression encourage immigrants to leave America and return to their home countries to
find employment, the Great Depression discouraged anyone from immigrating to the
country (Boyd, 2002). The downturn of immigration during the Great Depression started
to change at the start of World War II, when immigration was encouraged to help fill the
large employment losses caused by the military draft, which saw millions of men leave
their jobs to fight during the war. Immigration during the war was still highly controlled
and restrictive, but immediately after the war, immigration policy loosened to allow
immigration to flourish in the United States (Bankston & Hidalgo, 2006).
Immigration to the United States spiraled in the period after World War II. The
United States economy was prospering after World War II (Handlin, 1979; Kretsedemas,
2012), and workers were needed to fill the country’s manufacturing industry. To help
meet the demand, the Immigration and Nationalization Act (INA) of 1952 (U.S. DOL,
2014b) became the first attempt at a national immigration policy for the United States and
enabled many immigrants to come to the United States and enter the manufacturing
workforce. Further contributing to flourishing immigration, Caesar Chavez led a fight in
1965 to protect the rights of immigrant farm workers in Central California, and he
engendered positive change for immigrants at both the federal and state levels (Park,
2011). In part due to the momentum from Caesar Chavez’s reforms, the 1970s proved to
be the decade for the largest immigration wave in the United since the 1950s, a wave that
stirred up one of the largest controversies for the Reagan administration. Immigration
law in the California Central Valley and other areas still remain controversial today.
During the Reagan year’s two events changed the way Americans perceived immigration.
Amnesty and the passing of IRCA legislation were viewed as landmark events for
immigration. During his tenure, President Ronald Reagan provided amnesty to six
million undocumented workers (Lemay, 2007; Zolberg, 2006). The amnesty came with
limitations, but opened the door for a large wave of immigrants to enter America in the
1990s (Fix & Passel, 2001). In addition, to immigrant amnesty, the IRCA shaped the
country’s immigrant landscape by requiring employers to verify the eligibility of workers
as part of the hiring process and to document paperwork as part of company records. The
IRCA constituted part of the amnesty package, which provided criteria to keep illegal
immigration to a minimum (Anderson, 2010; Tichenor, Replogle, & Gans, 2012). The
Reagan years yielded the biggest changes in immigration since the Immigration and
Nationalization Act of 1952, but immigration issues also came to the forefront in the last
decade before the 21st century.
The last decade of the 20th century saw the largest wave of immigrants in the
history of the United States in a single decade (Fix & Passel, 2001), which legal
admissions due to the Immigration Act of 1990 helped generate. Immigrants, who were
mostly from Mexico, were also expanding into states with growing economies (Huffman,
2003). The last decade of 20th century proved to be important for immigration, but the
21st century tested the resolve of the American public and its attitude toward immigration.
The September 11, 2001 tragedy changed the process of immigration; after the
tragedy, immigration was seen as a security threat to the United States (Mallie, 2010;
Mauro, 2011). The housing market crash of 2007 further escalated panic surrounding
immigration because unemployment increased to an all-time high of 11.2% (Holt, 2009).
The anti-immigration bills from Arizona and Alabama further changed the public’s view
of immigration and caused immigrants to fear deportation and separation from families.
Arizona and Alabama have exhibited concern surrounding immigration, and locally, the
California central valley is at the forefront of immigration reform due in part to the
economic importance of immigrants in the agricultural industry (Bernstein, 2013; Felde,
2013).
Immigrant Assimilation into American Society
Immigrants have faced many obstacles in their search for a better life in America.
Progressing into American society entails many components, including learning the
English language and acquiring appropriate education. For assimilation, acquiring
gainful employment is preeminent. However, immigrants frequently come to the United
States with limited skills, making their assimilation difficult because they can only apply
for low skill employment (Anderson, 2010). Wage growth, the increase of wages over an
immigrant’s employment life, represents another complication for immigrants attempting
to assimilate into American society (Harding, 2013). Wage growth helps immigrants
achieve a better life by allowing them access to resources to invest in education and
improve their social and economic standing in the community; however, actually
realizing wage growth often proves difficult.
Language acquisition is one of the most important elements of assimilation into
any society. The English language can be one of the most difficult to learn while
simultaneously living and working in the United States (Creticos, Schultz, Beller, & Ball,
2006). Immigrants believe the lack of English comprehension hurts their employment
opportunities and keeps them from achieving a better life (Ullman, 2010). Obtaining
education is also paramount for an immigrant to successfully assimilate; Harding (2013)
posited education as the key to success in America. Education can help immigrants
progress in their jobs and in their communities, and a formal education can help an
immigrant acquire the English language quicker than any other means and can lead to
higher positions in their jobs, thereby leading to higher earning potential.
After an immigrant assimilates into American society the next step involves
earning the status of a permanent resident alien. Becoming a permanent resident alien is
distinct from being an immigrant and grants the resident certain rights and privileges
almost identical to those of an American citizen (Jasper, 2008; USCIS, 2014c). As one of
the privileges, after earning this status, immigrants can petition the United States
government to bring their family to the United States. Family support is a key element of
integration into American society (Oulahan, 2011).
After an immigrant lives in the country for a number of years and earns the status
of a resident alien, becoming an American citizen signifies the final step towards full
assimilation (Anderson, 2010; Creticos et al., 2006). Immigration resident and
employment laws do not apply to immigrants who attain this status; their progression has
earned them the rights and privileges of an American citizen.
Historical Immigration and Employment Laws and Policies
Immigration and employment laws and policies have been instituted throughout
the 238 year history of the United States, and different issues related to immigration at
different times in U.S. history led to many of these laws and policies. Some of these laws
and policies were also responses to public pressure to the government’s controversial
views on immigration in the United States (Schneider, 2011). The first major legislation
affecting immigration was the INA of 1952.
The INA represented the United States government’s first attempt to develop a
comprehensive immigration policy (Anderson, 2010: Jasper, 2008). Prior to the INA,
U.S. immigration policy was based on a quota system (Jasper, 2008). The quota system
severely limited the number of immigrants entering the United States based on ethnic
guidelines. However, a landmark amendment in 1965 of the INA abolished racial and
national quotas, ensuring equality in immigration for all races from all parts of the world.
The INA was amended in 1976 and 1980 to add more visas and categories for
immigration to the United States. The INA signified one of the most influential laws
passed in the 20th century (Schneider, 2011; Zolberg, 2006) until the IRCA of 1986.
The IRCA placed requirements on employers when hiring employees and was enacted at
the same time President Ronald Reagan offered amnesty to six million illegal
immigrants. The public outcry for immigration control helped contribute to the law’s
enactment (Krikorian, 2014). But instead of immigration control, both the ICRA and
amnesty ultimately boosted immigration instead of deterring it. Several other attempts
were later made to deter illegal immigration, but instead, the 1990s saw the largest
migration of immigrants the country had experienced in its history (Fix & Passel, 2001).
Current Immigration and Employment Issues
Numerous concerns previously unknown to immigration surfaced in the 21st
century. The 911 tragedy and the 2007 economic recession brought sweeping changes to
immigration and employment affecting the lives of many immigrants (Mallie, 2010). As
the decade progressed, so did the difficulty for immigrants wishing to migrate and work
in the United States. The new initiatives from the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) produced some of these extreme difficulties (Bacon & Hing, 2010).
The DHS directly affected immigrant employment by conducting raids and audits
of businesses throughout the United States, which led to businesses and families altering
their employment strategies. The DHS started auditing businesses instead of employing
raids to control illegal immigration in the United States and the new strategy was aimed
at companies who hired undocumented workers. Additionally, immigrants saw more
obstacles during the 2007 housing market crash. The housing market crash caused
unemployment to soar to 11.2%, jobs became scarce (Holt, 2009), and the jobs that
previously no one wanted were now in high demand. As a result, immigrants, who held
the majority of low skill level jobs, often returned to their countries due to the scarcity of
work caused by competition for their previously held job (Mauro, 2011) and due to
Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants. These issues continue to affect U.S.
immigration and U.S. immigrant employment.
Characteristics of Immigrants
Distinct immigrant characteristics separate them from naturalized American
citizens. The characteristics of race, ethnicity, occupation, income, education and
language often determine how an immigrant is treated, and thus these characteristics
directly impact an immigrant’s quality of life (Mosisa, 2013). These characteristics
create barriers for immigrants who live and work in the United States and especially in
the California Central Valley.
Theoretical Framework
Motivation and job satisfaction represent critical components in an immigrant’s
quality of life. Immigrant’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivations considerably influence the
success of their quest for assimilation and employment in the United States (Herzberg,
1966; Maslow, 1943). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which suggests that every human
being has five levels of interrelated needs that must be fulfilled in order to be motivated,
parallels many barriers of immigration and employment in the United States (Maslow,
1943). Immigrant needs closely resemble Maslow’s hierarchy of needs but are
contingent on indefinite periods of time and culture (Capps et al., 2003; Creticos et al.,
2006; Maslow; 1954). As immigrants assimilate into American society, their needs are
better measured by Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory (Herzberg, 1966).
Hygiene and motivation factors are needed in the workplace to induce improved
performance and attitudes. Hygiene factors, such as wages and healthy working
conditions, are extrinsic, fulfill humanity’s basics needs, and prevent workers (including
immigrant workers) from becoming dissatisfied at work. In contrast, motivation factors,
which can include challenging work and recognition for good performance, are intrinsic
and lead individuals to higher performance levels. The presence of certain barriers such
as inability to speak the English language, lack of education in American schools, and
unfamiliarity with American culture can often lead to immigrants remaining focused on
the hygiene factors for years and never focusing on motivators due to the conditions
previously described while assimilating into American society.
Statement of the Problem
Immigration has historically been a controversial subject in America. The central
issues facing immigration revolve around the economy, laws, housing, education, health
care and especially employment (Greenstone & Looney, 2012; Mosisa, 2013; Peri, 2012).
Friedman and Mandelbaum (2011) proposed that immigration, education and sensible
regulation are traditional ingredients of the American formula for greatness. The 2007
recession created many difficulties pertaining to employment and immigrants were faced
with immigration and employment challenges that affected in their everyday lives. These
employment decisions are still the central themes of immigrant survival and well-being.
Immigrant employment became a controversial issue especially after U.S. courts
upheld several immigration laws and policies (Silkenat, 2013), that negatively impacted
immigrant employment. Immigrants were now forced to make decisions whether to stay
or leave their place of employment. Many immigrants felt this trepidation, but as the
literature reveals, the evidence that explains the reasons immigrants left their employment
is inconclusive.
Immigrant employment remains a critical issue in the United States especially in
the California Central Valley. Latino immigrants leave or stay in their places of
employment for many reasons; therefore, a case study will add to the research that
investigates the reasons Latino immigrants stay or leave their places of employment in
the California Central Valley. This case study’s significance lies in its presentation of
findings that will help employers understand Latino immigrants’ perspectives of
immigrant employment in the United States and in the California Central Valley, thereby
benefiting the economy and immigrants’ success. To date, the only research on these
topics comes from statistics, history books, and reviews, but this case study will be
conducted from the perspective of Latino immigrants currently working in the California
Central Valley. Latino immigrant’s candid feedback and perceptions using case study
methods will help employers and policy makers apprehend the reasons immigrants leave
or stay in their places of employment.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study is to discover the factors that cause Latino
immigrants to leave or remain in their places of employment in the California Central
Valley. In addition, it is the purpose of this case study to understand and describe the
effect of immigration and employment laws and policies on a Latino immigrant’s
employment status in the California Central Valley.
Research Questions
The following questions were used for this case study:
1. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central Valley understand and
describe the factors that cause them to remain at their places of employment?
2. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central Valley understand and
describe the factors that cause them to leave their places of employment?
3. How do current immigration and employment policies in the United States affect
a Latino immigrant’s employment status in the California Central Valley?
4. How do Latino immigrants understand and describe their struggles or obstacles
they face in their search for employment in the California Central Valley?
Significance of the Study
The significance of the case study arises from four specific concerns: (a)
immigrants facing employment difficulties from employer recruiting and retention
policies, (b) changing legislative immigration reform, (c) complications for staffing
agencies’ recruitment strategies, and (d) impact on educator research. These reasons
mentioned represent gaps in the literature that addresses immigrant employment in the
United States.
Employers, who fill the majority of low skill jobs by hiring immigrants (Mosisa,
2013), are facing escalating challenges in finding workers to fill low skill level jobs. To
ameliorate conditions, employers need to determine why immigrants leave or stay at their
places of employment and they must discover whether immigration and employment
laws and policies contribute to this phenomenon. Immigrants’ lived experiences will
offer a glimpse of the obstacles they encounter in employment and can provide
employers with recruiting and retention policies and strategies that will affect the
economic prosperity and global competitiveness of the United States and especially in the
California Central Valley.
Immigration reform is at the forefront of legislation in America. The U.S.’s
failures to enforce immigration laws and the presence of states beginning to enact strict
laws on immigration have forced the United States government to re-evaluate its
immigration policy (Eastman, 2012). The experience of Latino immigrants employed in
the Central Valley of California can contribute vital information that can be used to
comprehend immigrants’ experiences in employment.
Employment agencies are abundant in the United States and provide temporary
services for many employers (Passel, 2005), and many of these agencies refer immigrants
to employers for work assignments. Sometimes issues pertaining to immigration status
arise, and the employees leave for no apparent reason. Immigrants’ experiences could
provide staffing agencies clarity on the possible reasons for attrition including
immigration concerns. Educators and researchers can use the lived experience of
immigrant employment in the United States to build upon their research probing
immigration and employment issues. This case study will provide knowledge that can
affect immigration reform and legislation in the United States, and it can also offer
information to fill the gaps in immigrant employment literature.
Theoretical Definitions
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – a theory by Abraham Maslow based on a
hierarchy of needs from human motivations. Humans’ basic needs are physiological,
safety, love and belonging, self-esteem and self-actualization. The needs are interrelated
with each other with exceptions (Maslow, 1943).
Herzberg’s Hygiene-Motivation Theory – a theory by Frederick Herzberg that
asserts the presence of certain factors in the workplace that cause job satisfaction, while a
separate set of factors cause dissatisfaction. Motivation factors influence job satisfaction
and hygiene factors are needed to avoid dissatisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner, & Bloch
Snyderman, 1959).
Operational Definitions
Amnesty - an official pardon for people who have committed political offenses
(Anderson, 2010; Jasper, 2008).
Assimilation – the process by which a minority group gradually accepts and
conforms to the culture, language and customs of another group (Anderson, 2010; Jasper,
2008).
E-Verify - An internet based system that businesses use to determine the
eligibility of employees to legally work in the United States (USCIS, 2014d).
Employment - An agreement between an employer and employee that establishes
a working relationship under contract (Martin, 2010).
Immigrant – a foreign born person residing in the United States who is not a
citizen (USCIS, 2014c).
Immigration – the movement of people to a country or region to permanently
live and work (Anderson, 2010).
Undocumented immigrants – a foreign born person not authorized to reside in
the United States without valid documentation (Passel & Cohn, 2011).
Delimitations
The delimitations of this case study have been determined to maximize the
potential to gain access to rich information from Latino immigrants who can illuminate
the lived experiences arising from being employed in the United States workforce in the
Central Valley of California. The delimitations will focus on immigrant status, a Latino
ethnic group, and employment.
The first delimitation, immigrant status, is paramount for this case study. The
focus of this case study will involve first generation Latino immigrants between the ages
of 18-70 who currently live in the United States, specifically in the California Central
Valley.
Second, the case study is delimited by employment status and specific geographic
location. Latino immigrants must be employed to offer critical insight for this case study.
They will be employed within the city of Woodland, California in Yolo County.
According to Patton (2002),”Phenomenology aims at gathering a deeper understanding of
the nature or meaning of our everyday experiences” (p. 104). An important facet for this
case study entails unveiling immigrants’ perception of the obstacles they encounter with
the employment while living and working in the United States.
Organization of the Study
The remainder of the case study is organized into four chapters including a
bibliography and appendices. In Chapter 2, a review of literature consisting of seven
main topics is presented. The review of literature starts with five sections which detail
(a) the history of immigration, (b) immigrant assimilation into American society, (c)
immigration policy and employment issues, (d) current immigration, and (e) employment
issues and gaps in literature that explores immigrant employment. The next two chapters
explain two theoretical frameworks and characteristics of immigrants. Chapter 3 contains
the research design and methodology of the case study. It includes an explanation of the
population, sample, instrumentation, data collection methods, and data analysis. Chapter
4 comprises a presentation, analysis, and discussion of the findings of the case study, and
Chapter 5 consists of the summary, findings, conclusions, and recommendations for
further research.
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
The review of literature consists of an examination of topics related to immigrant
employment and immigrants’ employment experiences. It contains detailed analyses of
(a) the history of immigration in the United States, (b) immigrant assimilation into
American society, (c) historical immigrant employment laws and policies, (d) current
immigration employment issues, (e) characteristics of immigrants, and (f) theoretical
frameworks. Mosisa (2013) stated that as of 2012, 25 million immigrants (16.1%)
constituted the United States workforce. This phenomenon directly impacts the United
States’ economic well-being and global competitiveness (Mosisa, 2013). The literature
review includes an overview of immigration and employment issues related to
immigrants from the 20th through the 21st century. Finally, the gap in immigrant
employment literature will be examined through an analysis of current research. This
review of the literature that addresses immigrant employment and immigrant experiences
provides an understanding of the population selected for this research.
History of Immigration in the United States
Immigration has been embedded in the fabric of American culture since
immigrants began migrating to the United States before and after its formation as a nation
(Handlin, 1979; Kretsedemas, 2012). Immigrants have come to this country seeking
better opportunities for various reasons, including freedom, employment and a better way
of life. Early immigrants’ success generated a continuous wave of immigration to this
country, and immigration has enabled the United States to become an example of
diversity for other nations. In this paper, the history of immigration in America will be
analyzed according to seven distinct periods that will highlight significant immigration
events and their ramifications for global and economic development of the United States.
Immigration after the American Revolution
Immigration began with the American Revolution and the birth of the United
States. Prior to the American Revolution, immigration had been limited to those seeking
freedom from religious persecution (Anderson, 2010). Immigrants came to America to
practice their own religion and for better opportunities to improve their lives
(Kretsedemas, 2012). This type of environment and the promises of capitalism appealed
to immigrants from all over the world. America was viewed as the land of opportunity
and many immigrants left their countries to pursue better financial and other
opportunities. After the American Revolution and the formation of the United States,
immigration began to adopt a different meaning for immigrants. During this period,
Congress realized the importance of immigration for the country’s growth and economic
stability and authorized an increase of immigrants to the United States (Anderson, 2010;
Krestsedemas, 2012).
After the American Revolution, Congress did not establish any laws pertaining to
immigration; drafting such laws was left to the states. After the states began enacting
immigration laws, Congress saw the inconsistency of immigration criteria between states
and created the first immigration bill in 1790 which required two continuous years of
residency before naturalization was granted to immigrants (Handlin, 1979). Five years
later in 1795 Congress raised the residency requirement to five years. The stricter
requirement for naturalization notwithstanding, immigration steadily increased during the
next sixty years as the United States became a destination for prosperity for many
immigrants. The decades from 1790 to 1850 were pivotal for immigrants as the United
States continued expanding toward the West (Handlin, 1979; Krestsedemas, 2012).
Immigrants prospered during this time and the advent of the Industrial Revolution
increased migration of immigrants who were searching for a better life to the United
States (Hirschman & Mogford, 2009).
The Industrial Revolution
The Industrial Revolution yielded the most significant changes in immigration
since the founding of the United States (Hirschman & Mogford, 2009). Immigration was
at its zenith during the Industrial Revolution, and numerous opportunities for freedom
and employment brought immigrants from around the world. Many immigrants from
Europe migrated to the United States for the numerous jobs created by manufacturing
(Hirschman & Mogford, 2009). Factory growth and the demand for unskilled labor
helped immigrants continue to be employers’ ideal source of labor (Zolberg, 2006).
Immigrants were generally more willing to accept lower wages and inferior working
conditions than native-born workers (Zolberg, 2006). The news of immigrant success
spread to other countries, and immigrant migration grew until the beginning of the Great
Depression (Anderson, 2010). During the Great Depression immigration decreased due
to lack of jobs in the United States until the onset of World War II (Handlin, 1979).
The Great Depression
The Great Depression tremendously reduced U.S. employment, and low
employment and the poor economy adversely affected immigration to the United States
(Anderson, 2010). Because of widespread unemployment, many immigrants who were
already in the country were deported or left voluntarily to return to their country of origin
(Boyd, 2002) so that natives could have the jobs. Additionally, many ethnic groups were
denied entrance into the United States due to anti-immigration legislation. President
Franklin D. Roosevelt continued immigration policy but reinforced the quota systems
established by the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924 (Boyd, 2002; Kretsedemas, 2012).
Even ethic groups facing persecution from the Nazi’s during the 1930s were
prohibited to immigrate. Between 1929 and 1935, large numbers of Mexican immigrants
were repatriated back to Mexico (Boyd, 2002). Immigration continued to be
unconventional until the outbreak of World War II when the United States saw the largest
mobilization of serviceman to war. Jobs that were scarce during the Great Depression
were now plentiful, and immigrants were welcomed back to the United States to work in
jobs that supported the war effort. Immigration moderately increased in the United States
to support the prosperous economy after World War II (Bankston & Hidalgo, 2006).
Post World War II
After World War II, the United States prospered by becoming a manufacturing
nation. As industries grew so did the need for labor (Handlin, 1979; Kretsedemas, 2012),
resulted in a steady migration of immigrants from Europe and Mexico (Tichenor et al.,
2012). During the 1950s, the large number of immigrants coming into the United States
increased social and political pressures to create new immigration policies, and they
began to change. The INA of 1952 was designed to accommodate every aspect of
immigration since the formation of the United States, and it established a formal system
that would serve American immigration until the 1980s (Jasper, 2008; U.S. DOL, 2014b).
During the next 30 years, U.S. immigration policy experienced social and political shifts,
spurred in part by a major event in the 1960s. The unionization of farm workers
by Cesar Chavez caused both federal and state entities to enact laws related to immigrant
employment (Park, 2011). The farm worker strikes caused an upheaval never seen by
employers. Cesar Chavez formed the United Farm Workers organization to combat
unfair pay to provide benefits for immigrant farm workers in the Unites States (Gutierrez
& Zavella, 2009; Pawel, 2009). The events surrounding Cesar Chavez and immigrant
farms workers aligned with the biggest amendment since the INA of 1952. The Kennedy
era, in large part due to the civil rights movement, enacted the Immigration and
Nationality Act Amendment of 1965. Hipsman and Meissner (2013) summarized the
Immigration and Nationality Act Amendment of 1965:
The Act repealed the national-origins quota system and replaced it with a
sevencategory preference system based primarily on family unification. The
1965 act increased numerical limits on immigration from 154,000 to 290,000. A
ceiling on immigration from the Americas (120,000) was imposed for the first
time, and a per-country limit of 20,000 was set for Eastern Europe. The new caps
did not include "immediate family members" of U.S. citizens (spouses, minor
children, and parents). (p. 2)
The 1970s started the largest immigration wave since the formation of the United States
(Hipsman & Meissner, 2013). Both legal and illegal immigrants came during the 1970s,
with Mexico providing the largest population. The decade of the 1980s was controversial
due to the amnesty given to illegal immigrants and due to the enactment of the ICRA of
1986 (Anderson, 2010; Tichenor et al., 2012).
The Reagan Years
The 1980s, commonly referred to as the Reagan years, marked the first time in
U.S. history that illegal immigration was brought to the forefront of the United States
Congress’s and the American public’s conscious (Krikorian, 2014; Tichenor et al., 2012).
President Ronald Reagan and Congress made drastic changes to immigration policy that
would affect immigration into the future (Lemay, 2007; Zolberg, 2006). The ICRA of
1986 changed immigrant criteria for working in the United States and President Ronald
Reagan approved amnesty for six million immigrants who met new citizenship standards
(Anderson, 2010; Tichenor et al., 2012). The bill was the first landmark decision since
the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendment of 1965 and the first significant event to
impact immigration since the farm workers movement in the 1960s. This law required
employers to hire persons who may legally work in the United States and to verify the
eligibility of persons who seek employment. The law also provided amnesty for six
million illegal immigrants provided they met the requirements set forth in the law
(Krikorian, 2014; Orrenius & Zavodny, 2012). The Reagan years set the tone for the
1990s when immigration reached its highest peak in U.S. history.
The Last Decade of the 20th Century
During the 1990s, more immigrants came to the United States than in any other
decade in the nation’s history (Fix & Passel, 2001). Increases in legal admission ceilings
from 1975, 1976 and 1990 accounted for the heavy influx of immigrants (Fix & Passel,
2001; Jasper, 2008). During the 1990s, many immigrants who settled in the United States
were residing in states with low immigrant populations, as Fix and Passel (2001)
explained, “The foreign-born population in these states grew twice as fast during the
1990s as it did in the more traditional immigrant receiving states” (p. 1). Immigrants
who ventured out into unchartered territory for new opportunities began to settle in states
as North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia, states that previously comprised low immigrant
totals.
A successful American economy from 1992-2000 drove the immigration shift
from the western states to the mid-west and eastern states (Huffman, 2003). Throughout
the 1990s immigrants ventured into areas of employment opportunity and affordable
housing. Mexican immigrants accounted for the largest group to immigrate to the United
States from 1992-2000 (Fix & Passel, 2001). This trend helped future Hispanic families
come into the new area and further the number of immigrants coming from Latin
countries, most notably Mexico.
The Immigration Act of 1990 represented the biggest change to immigration
(Anderson, 2010; Bell, 2012). This law along with trend of immigrants seeking new
immigration territories was the catalyst for the biggest wave of immigrants seen in
American history. Bell (2012) encapsulated the Immigration Act of 1990:
This legislation has been seen as a return to the pre-1920’s open door immigration
policy of the United States. It allowed for an increase in the number of legal immigrants
into the United States and waived many of the conditions that had previously restricted
immigration of certain groups. The act allowed for sanctuary in the country and increased
the numbers of work visas and visas awarded to immigrants hoping to become permanent
residents of the United States. (p. 1) The trends of settling into areas of previously low
immigrant totals and the new immigration law created opportunities for immigration to
the United States, but drastic changes to immigration that were necessary for U.S.
security and well-being were ushered in during the beginning of the 21st century (Fix &
Passel, 2001; Harper, 2012;
Mallie, 2010).
The 21st Century and Beyond
The September 11, 2001 tragedy engendered sweeping changes to immigration
from the Department of Homeland Security, changes were focused on combating
terrorism (Mallie, 2010; Mauro, 2011). Immigrants were faced with dilemmas they had
never before encountered, and fear of deportation was rampant among immigrant families
(Harper, 2012). Congress passed laws that restricted the movement of immigrants that
constrained immigrants from using public amenities for fear of being deported or
investigated (Krikorian, 2014; Mauro, 2011).
The Housing Crash of 2007, which affected employment throughout the United
States, made conditions worse for immigrants (Holt, 2009). Jobs were difficult to find
and the issue of immigrants taking jobs from American citizens was reported in the news
and on television. Immigrants were faced with uncertainty about life in the United States,
an uncertainty that was exacerbated when Arizona and Alabama passed anti-immigration
laws in their states (Arroceha, 2012; Small, 2011). These laws spread fear to immigrants
in these states and many left their jobs out of fear of being investigated or deported. The
history of immigration typifies a quandary; the United States depends upon and
welcomes immigrants until they cause controversy and become inconvenient for the
American public (Bacon & Hing, 2010; Eastman 2012).
California Central Valley
Immigrants have long made their residences in the California central valley, and
immigrants primarily employed by the agricultural and manufacturing industries have
overcome many obstacles in their path to become assimilated into American society.
Immigration and employment have constantly been controversial topics during the 21st
century, especially in the city of Woodland, California. According to City-Data (2013)
45.9% of the city’s population are foreign born, and Hispanics constitute 94.8% of the
population. Immigration and employment issues in Woodland, California can have a
devastating effect on immigrants and the agricultural industry. A recent poll questioning
residents from the city revealed that the majority of city residents favor immigration
reform placing pressure on lawmakers to generate solutions to immigration and
employment problems in the California Central Valley (Felde, 2013). California
legislation is at the forefront of immigration reform in the nation because of the
importance of the Central Valley in sustaining the nation’s economy (Bernstein, 2013).
Immigrant Assimilation into American Society
Assimilation of immigrants into American society has always been an issue of
debate (Anderson, 2010). Since the formation of the United States, immigrants have
come to this country to assimilate and achieve more affluent lives than would be possible
in their home countries. Immigrants have assimilated in several ways to help them adapt
to the American culture, and historically, assimilation has been successful for immigrants
coming to the United States for several reasons. Employment, wage growth,
understanding the English language, obtaining an American education, and achieving
permanent resident status and American citizenship have been necessary for assimilation
into mainstream American culture (Anderson, 2010; Kretsedemas, 2012).
Employment
Employment acquisition is one of the most critical components for immigrants
recently arriving in the United States because it will determine their success in
assimilating into the American culture (Harding, 2013; Silkenat, 2013). Immigrant
assimilation is contingent on immigrants finding and keeping employment in the United
States; however, employment acquisition for immigrants can signify a major obstacle
when living in the United States (Harding, 2013; Silkenat, 2013). Inability to speak the
English language and a lack of American education can severely limit an immigrant’s
potential for gaining employment resulting in employment in low skill level jobs with
minimum pay. In addition to these obstacles, immigrants are finding employment
acquisition difficult as the immigration and employment policies constantly change in the
United States. The assimilation of immigrants relies on finding and keeping employment
in the United States.
Wage Growth
After finding employment, wage growth can be used to measure immigrant
assimilation into American society. Wage flexibility in America directly contributes to
assimilation (Harding, 2013). Immigrants’ increase in wages enables them to improve
their social status and to achieve their goals for entering the country. The increase in
earnings also provides an opportunity for immigrants to pursue an education for
themselves and for their family. In addition to impacting assimilation, wage growth helps
immigrants become valuable economic assets to the United States.
Language
Assimilation in the United States can be challenging for immigrants, but the
language barrier is immigrants’ biggest obstacle. The English language is one of the most
difficult for immigrants to learn because of slang and regional differences in the English
language within the United States (Caps et al., 2003; Creticos et al., 2006).
Ullman (2010) asserted that 84% of immigrants believe it’s somewhat or very hard for
new immigrants to get a good job or achieve affluence in the country without learning
English. Notwithstanding difficulties in learning the language, immigrants overall do
take a positive view of learning English (Anderson, 2010; Ullman, 2010). Seventy
percent of those surveyed who spoke little or no English when arriving in America said
they have taken classes to improve their English skills (Ullman, 2010). Once immigrants
gain an adequate mastery of the English language their assimilation can be further
improved by pursuing an education (Harding, 2013; Ullman, 2010).
Education
An education where vocational training is offered can dramatically improve the
lives of immigrants and their families into the future. Indeed, immigrants understand
education is the means to prosperity in American society (Creticos et al., 2006; Ullman,
2010). Education levels for immigrants improve across generations, just as they have
historically for Americans (Anderson, 2010), and Passel (2005) reported that 32% of
legal immigrants have obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 30% of
natives and 15% of illegal immigrants. Immigrants who receive an education gain higher
wages and are more likely to hold higher positions in employment.
Permanent Resident Status
The next step for further assimilation involves earning permanent resident status
(Harding, 2013; Mosisa, 2013), which is represented by a permanent resident card. A
permanent resident card or “green card” symbolizes the transition from immigrant to a
resident. This symbolic distinction is a major milestone toward citizenship in American
society and bestows an immigrant with certain rights and responsibilities (Jasper, 2009;
USCIS, 2014c).
A permanent resident status is considered the first step in becoming an American
citizen (Jasper, 2009; USCIS, 2014c), and a permanent resident card represents
successfully transitioning into American society and successfully overcoming the barriers
of unemployment, unfamiliarity with the English language, and lack of American
education (Creticos et al., 2006; Jasper, 2008). A resident card provides immigrants
many benefits. An immigrant who earns the distinction of a permanent resident can
legally earn money, live and work in the United States permanently. Additionally,
permanent residents who meet certain requirements are eligible for social security and
Medicare benefits (U.S. Social Security Administration, 2014).
An immigrants’ transition to American society is eased by possessing a green card
(Anderson, 2012). Once this status is reached, many immigrants can start the process of
bringing family members to live with them in the United States, and the family unit can
further ease an immigrant’s transition into mainstream American culture (Oulahan, 2011).
Many immigrants are satisfied with a permanent resident card; however, full assimilation
into American society occurs when an immigrant becomes a citizen of the
United States (Anderson, 2010; Creticos et al., 2006).
American Citizenship
The zenith of assimilation into American society for immigrants is naturalization
or citizenship because acquiring citizenship grants immigrants privileges and rights in the
United States. According to the USCIS (2014a),” Naturalization is the process by which
U.S. citizenship is granted to foreign citizens or nationals after he or she fulfills the
requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act” (para 1).
The requirements for attaining citizenship include meeting the five-year residency
mandate for permanent status (USCIS, 2014c). The rules consist of several exceptions,
but the majority of immigrants fall in this category. Other requirements for citizenship
include the ability to read, write and speak English and understanding United States
government and history (Jasper, 2008; USCIS, 2014c). The law further specifies that an
immigrant should have good moral character and live according to the principles of the
United States Constitution (Jasper, 2008; USCIS, 2014c).
Immigrants who attain the status of a United States citizen are assimilated into
American society on paper, but they still have much to learn while living and working in
the United States. The language barrier will continue to be an issue with first generation
immigrants, but in theory should improve over time while living in the United States
(Anderson, 2010; Capps et al., 2003). Immigrants will continue to fill low skill level
jobs, which aid the U.S. economy (Harding, 2013), and education will still continue to
symbolize success for immigrants. While only a small percentage of immigrants pursue
higher education their children will be the recipients of an American education (Ullman,
2010). An immigrant who attains citizenship is considered to be fully assimilated into
American society and does not have to worry about immigration and employment laws in
the United States (Creticos et al., 2006; Kretsedemas, 2012).
Historical Immigration and Employment Laws and Policies
Immigration and employment laws and policies have existed since the foundation
of the United States. The 21st century has seen efforts to control immigration
employment laws and policies as part of national security, but also for U.S. economic
stability and global competitiveness (Mallie, 2010; Mauro, 2011). Congress enacted
several key pieces of legislation to address immigration and employment issues during
the first part of the 21st century because of concerns stemming from events such as the
tragedy of September 11, 2001 and the Housing Market Crash of 2007. These laws and
policies were responses to the American public’s concern for jobs and for its concerns
arising from the continuing wave of immigrants coming to the United States (Harding,
2013; Holt, 2009; Mauro, 2011). As a result, several significant laws and policies have
shaped the current landscape of immigration and employment in the United States.
Immigration and Nationality Act
The U.S. government has used the INA of 1952 as its basic body of immigration
law (U.S. DOL, 2014b). Prior to this act, immigration was primarily a quota system from
1907 to 1924. The INA addressed all aspects of immigration policy, but the quota system
remained until the 1965 amendment. This INA of 1952 represented the U.S.
government’s first attempt to control immigration (Anderson, 2010; Jasper, 2008).
Immigrants with special skills were favored and admitted into the United States because
they would quickly assimilate into American culture. The 1965 amendment abolished
racial and national quotas and was the beginning of distributed immigration from all parts
of the world. The visa quota was amended in 1976 and again in 1980 to approve more
visas and accommodate refugees and asylum seekers (Jasper, 2008). This INA has
changed over the decades to accommodate the number of immigrants who wished to
come to the United States. Currently, new immigrants who legally enter the United
States have to apply for a visa, a process that has become difficult for immigrants due to
many legal considerations and categories for entrance into the United States
(Krestsedmas, 2012; Tichenor et al., 2012). The U.S. DOL (2014b) explained the
INA,”The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets forth the conditions for the
temporary and permanent employment of aliens in the United States and includes
provisions that address employment eligibility and employment verification “(para 1).
Immigrants wanting to enter the United States must adhere to the guidelines set forth by
the Department of Labor and the INA or risk deportation to their home countries. The
INA remained the main body of immigration law until the IRCA of 1986 (Anderson,
2010; Jasper, 2008).
Immigration Reform Control Act
The IRCA of 1986 represented the first piece of legislation that directly impacted
immigration and employment (Medved, 2011; Orrenius & Zavodny, 2012). This law
required that employers only hire persons who may legally work in the United States and
that the employer must verify the eligibility and employment of hired employees (U.S.
DOL, 2014a). The bill included the employment eligibility form (I-9) which was
required to be kept on file for all employees working in the organization. The IRCA gave
six million illegal aliens the opportunity to become United States citizens once they met
all the requirements set forth by the law (Krikorian, 2014), and it provided employment
opportunities for more than six million illegal aliens and opened the door for many
immigrants to come to the United States in search of employment (Silkenat, 2013).
The IRCA contained several key elements that addressed the immigration and
employment issues in America. Employers had to attest to an employee’s immigration
status and hiring or recruiting unauthorized immigrants was a violation of the law
(Medved, 2011; Orrenius & Zavodny, 2012). At this juncture in U.S. history,
immigration reform was on the verge of becoming a deterrent to immigration until
amnesty was added to the ICRA, a turn of events that upset the American public
(Orrenius & Zavodny, 2012).
Amnesty
The IRCA was designed to curtail immigration and create standardization when
hiring or recruiting for employment, but President Reagan who supported immigration
reform during his administration, spearheaded the amnesty provision (Medved, 2011).
His call for immigration reform involved giving amnesty to more than six million illegal
aliens residing in the United States (Medved, 2011; Orrenius & Zavodny, 2012). The
controversial amnesty law provided amnesty to illegal immigrants who met certain
requirements before being granted citizenship (Orrenius & Zavodny, 2012). The
requirements included paying fines, back taxes and possessing minimal knowledge of
American history, language and government and were binding for undocumented
immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982. Amnesty, not
immigration reform, was the controversial component of this law. Two decades later, the
September 11, 2001 tragedy complicated the American public’s view on immigration and
employment in the United States.
Tragedy of 9/11
The attack on the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001
directly impacted immigration policies and employment issues in the United States
(Mallie, 2010; Mauro, 2011). The Department of Homeland Security was formed after
the tragedy of 9/11, and one of its objectives entailed enforcing immigration laws in the
United States. These efforts greatly influenced employment (Mallie, 2010).
The Department of Homeland Security’s first priority involved scrutinizing the
visa system and ensuring strict enforcement of policies and procedures (Mallie, 2010).
During this time, extra measures were added to the visa process to prevent unauthorized
entrance into the United States (Mauro 2011; Silkenat, 2013), which resulted in long
waiting times for immigrants who wanted to enter the country. The Department of
Homeland Security instituted another enhanced visa process which required immigrants
who were authorized to work in the United States to return to their countries of origin for
processing instead of the prior version of remaining in the United States while
undergoing the visa process (Harper, 2012; Mauro, 2011). This process severely
restricted immigrants’ entrance into the United States and affected employment retention
(Harper, 2012; Mallie, 2010, Mauro, 2011; Mosisa, 2013). Immigration and employment
were affected, but two new controversial bills more severely affected employment.
E-Verify
E-Verify is an internet based government program aimed at confirming the
eligibility of people who are legally authorized to work in the United States (U.S. DOL,
2014a; Harper, 2012). E-Verify is not a mandatory program for employers, but the
Department of Homeland Security has mandated its use for all federal agencies (Harper
2012; Silkenat, 2013; U.S. DOL, 2014a). The E-Verify program corroborates the
documents of a hired employee with the documents on file with the Department of
Homeland Security. If a mismatch occurs, a hired employee is given the opportunity to
correct their status while being able to work for a limited time (U.S. DOL, 2014a).
E-Verify’s controversial nature lies in the program’s inaccuracies (National
Immigration Law Center, 2013). The objective of the program is to ensure a legal
workforce for employers and to validate that those working in the United States doing so
legally. However, Harper (2012) propounded that substantive immigration reform that
produces polices aimed at employer and employee terms for a successful workforce in
the United States offers a better approach to immigrant reform than E-Verify and internal
enforcement offer. The E-Verify system is still deemed unreliable and has caused several
states to enact laws to address their immigration and employment issues (National
Immigration Law Center, 2013).
Anti-Immigration Bills
Immigration and employment restrictions have progressively toughened since the
September 11, 2001 tragedy (Mallie, 2010), but two new bills further changed the
dynamics of immigration and employment in the United States. The advent of Arizona’s
Senate Bill (SB) 1070 and Alabama’s House Bill (HB) 56 produced a shift in thinking
from state governments (Corlett, 2011). Cieslik, Felsen, and Kalaitzidis (2009) averred
that preoccupation with security and immigration has generated the perception of racism
and intolerance toward minority groups. These bills altered the way many Americans
viewed immigration and changed immigrants’ perception of U.S. immigration and
employment policies. Immigrants were now battling immigration and employment issues
that the United States government never previously addressed (Silkenat, 2013).
Arizona SB 1070 became law in April 2010 and represented the strictest antiimmigration
bill in United States history (Small, 2011). This controversial law gave law enforcement
the right to stop individuals and verity their immigration status and made it a crime for
immigrants to be without valid registration documents in their possession at all times
(Eastman, 2012; Small, 2011).
Racial profiling of immigrants lay at the heart of the controversy with SB 1070
(Weeden, 2010). Many Hispanic immigrants reside in Arizona and many of these
immigrants were targeted by law enforcement. Minorities objected to this law due to
perceptions of racial profiling and demanded that the United States government intercede
with this Arizona ruling (Corlett, 2011: Eastman, 2012; Weeden, 2010).
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned three provisions of the Arizona law, but the
main provision is still in effect today. This ruling affected the employment of all
immigrants regardless of immigration status because they felt they could be targeted
(Eastman, 2012; Small, 2011). They could be stopped at any time and this action
adversely affected immigrant employment retention rates in Arizona. This perception
had a negative effect on employment of immigrants throughout the United States
(Silkenat, 2013; Weeden, 2010). This law became the precursor for another law enacted
in Alabama that would affect immigration and employment by severely restricting
immigrants’ rights.
In June 2011, Alabama also drafted and passed anti-immigration legislation
(Brooks, 2012). Alabama HB 56 severely restricted the rights of illegal immigrants by
authorizing law enforcement to stop people for reasonable suspicion of illegal
immigration and to deny any illegal immigrant the right to housing, employment,
transportation, education and any type of public benefits (Arrocha, 2012; Brooks, 2012).
The ruling’s effect was catastrophic; Alabama saw large disenrollment from
schools and losses of employees from major industries in the state. The ruling affected
legal and illegal immigrants throughout Alabama because all immigrants became targets
of racial profiling due to their immigration status (Arrocha, 2012; Brooks, 2012). The
reverberations of Alabama HB 56 were not limited to the state; the American public,
fueled by perceptions of racial profiling, decried the law.
Current Immigration and Employment Issues
Many changes to immigration and employment policy were ushered in at the
beginning of the 21st century and have slowly made it difficult for immigrants to attain
and retain employment in the United States. The immigration laws have complicated
conditions for immigrants to apply for citizenship status, and an immigrant’s receipt of
authorization to legally work in the United States now takes longer (Silkenat, 2013). The
employment process has become more complex with many companies using E-Verify
and performing background checks (Harper, 2012). These issues have contributed to the
ardor of living and working as an immigrant in the United States.
Department of Homeland Security Initiatives
The raid at a meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa in May 2008 further brought
the issue of immigration and employment to the forefront of the American public
(Peterson, 2009). This immigration raid was the largest in U.S. history and changed the
way the Department of Homeland Security conducted operations, and it resulted in the
arrest of immigrants who falsified documents and committed fraud to gain employment.
The employer was also indicted on charges of conspiracy to harbor undocumented
workers and identity theft. The public outcry stemming from the treatment of these
employees and their families led to a new immigration strategy from the Department of
Homeland Security (Peterson, 2009; Tichenor et al., 2012).
The Department of Homeland Security’s new strategy, directed by President
Barack Obama, involved auditing employers and levying stiff fines and penalties for
hiring and recruiting undocumented workers. The Department of Homeland Security’s
new strategy targeted employers instead of employees for violations of immigration and
employment policy in the United States (Bacon & Hing, 2010). The Department of
Homeland Security recognized auditing companies as the best method of enforcing
immigration and employment laws. This new strategy has affected many companies’
hiring strategy and made compliance the first initiative for achieving a legal workforce.
Housing Market Crash
The housing market crash of 2007 affected the economic stability of the United
States, and many major mortgage companies went into default. Foreclosures also
increased and unemployment rates rose, both of which impacted immigration and
employment (Bacon & Hing, 2010; Mauro, 2011). Holt (2009) stated that the national
unemployment rate increased from 4.9% in December of 2007 to 9.5% in June of 2009
and the housing market crash created the worst recession since the early 1980’s.
Homeowners were delinquent in payments and foreclosures were in the millions.
Furthermore, due to the spiraling unemployment rate, the low paying jobs that no one
previously wanted were now in high demand. Both citizens and immigrants were
competing for these jobs, and immigration became a divisive topic with the American
public (Holt, 2009).
Previous jobs that could not be filled were being taken by over qualified
applicants. The job market turned into fierce competition and those with higher
education were seeking the lower wage opportunities. Because of the fierce competition
for employment, many immigrants could not find jobs, forcing them to return to their
native countries to find employment (Mosisa, 2013). The immigrants who did stay in the
country encountered extreme difficulty in finding employment because of stiff
competition and strict employment requirements.
Illegal Immigration
Illegal immigration is also a major concern affecting immigration and
employment in the United States. The Center for American Progress reported that illegal
immigrants accounted for 11.1 million of the U.S. population (Garcia, 2013). The
number of undocumented immigrants coming to the United States continues to rise at a
steady rate despite recent court rulings.
Illegal immigration created difficulty for legal immigrants and citizens to obtain
employment in the United States. The illegality of hiring undocumented workers in the
United States has not deterred some employers from hiring illegal immigrants, and as a
result, illegal immigrants are one cause of stiff competition, low pay and low skills in the
American job market.
Employers who hire illegal immigrants are forcing competition for jobs in the
workforce because this practice precludes the hiring of documented workers who are
entitled to higher pay. Passel and Cohn (2011) declared that the number of illegal aliens
in the workforce is 8 million out of an overall population of 11.1 million illegal aliens.
Employers seek the cost savings of hiring illegal immigrants because hiring them
encourages competition for jobs offering low wages. The competition for these low
paying jobs encourages immigrants and citizens who are eligible for those jobs not to
apply. The shortage of employees applying for jobs is subsequently cut substantially,
enabling illegal immigrants to dominate industries such as construction, agriculture,
service and manufacturing. Illegal immigration also creates lower wages.
Illegal immigrants accept lower wages because of their absence of documentation
to work in the United States. Due to the fierce competition for jobs, illegal immigrants
are favored by employers because they will accept lower pay than legal immigrants and
citizens will accept (Garcia, 2013; Passel & Cohn, 2011). They also often use other
people’s identities to obtain authorization documents to work in the United States. Illegal
immigrants pay their income taxes, but other people’s names, which prevents the Internal
Revenue Service and the American government from collecting all the taxes from the
workforce in the United States. Finally, illegal immigration hurts employment due to
illegal immigrants’ low skill levels.
Immigrants’ low skill levels negatively affect the American economy. Capps, Fix,
Passel, Ost, and Perez-Lopez (2003) explained,” Nearly two-thirds of low-wage
immigrant workers do not speak English proficiently, and most of these workers have had
little formal education” (p. 1). Immigrants’ lack of American education inhibits them
from possessing skills that are transferable to the workforce, and many immigrants’
difficulties with the English language render them capable of performing only menial
tasks. The lack of skill limits their employment to manual labor that legal immigrants
and citizens do not want to perform. Further compounding conditions, employers are
reluctant to spend time and money training illegal immigrants because of their
immigration status and the constant turnover of personnel (Peri, 2012).
English Language Acquisition
Acquiring proficiency in English provides increased employment opportunities for
immigrants in the United States. Learning English can catalyze the next step toward
success in the life of an immigrant, could be better employment, housing and educational
opportunities. The benefits of learning English are critical for immigrants to successfully
assimilate into American society. Conversely, limited English can impede an immigrant’s
financial status, employment status, and social status in America (Creticos et al., 2006).
Approximately 14 million or nearly 9.5% of all working-age adults between the ages of
18 and 55 in the United States either did not speak English at all or spoke it less than
“very well,” and 89% of the Limited English Proficient (LEP) population was foreign
born (Creticos et al., 20060. Limited understanding of English hampers an immigrant’s
ability to thrive in all aspects of American society.
Additionally, the limited acquisition of English can severely impact an
immigrant’s financial status. Immigrants with limited English skills earn much lower
incomes than people from other segments of the population earn. Capps et al. (2003)
expounded, ”Immigrants' hourly wages are lower on average than those for natives, and
nearly half earn less than 200% of the minimum wage—versus one-third of native
workers” (p. 1). On the other hand, immigrants who learn English as a second language
experience better success in competing for higher wages (Mosisa, 2013).
Furthermore, immigrants who cannot speak, read and write English are less likely
to advance in their careers than those with better English skills (Creticos et al., 2006).
Immigrants are also less likely to apply for jobs that require an intermediate use of the
language. To avoid this dilemma, many immigrants accept low skill work that does not
require using English. But immigrants who are provided English training from
employers and from government are able to transition from low skilled work into entry
and mid-level management. Thus acquiring, the English language can transform their
lives and help them achieve success in the labor market.
English language acquisition is also important for social status of immigrants.
Creticos et al. (2006) elaborated,” Limited English proficiency also places barriers to
broad community participation” (p. 18). Community participation includes voting, civic
duties and volunteering. Unfamiliarity with English can inhibit an immigrant’s
community participation, but community participation can help immigrants assimilate
into American culture and integrate into the community because it helps them increase
their English skills. Interacting with proficient English speakers can help immigrants
master the language at a faster pace than by only speaking their native languages within
their own group. Therefore, attaining proficiency in the English language can become an
advantage for immigrants instead of a barrier in immigration and employment issues.
21st Century Immigration Reform
Because the U.S. Congress has not passed comprehensive immigration reform,
employment for immigrants has been difficult (Gonzalez, 2013). Immigration reform is
an issue that has garnered national attention, but movement to confront the problem has
been stagnant (Gonzalez, 2013; Greenstone & Looney, 2012). Failure to pass
comprehensive immigration reform will hurt the future of U.S. national security and
economic growth (Garcia, 2013; Mosisa, 2013).
U.S. national security constitutes a paramount factor in immigration reform.
Immigration starts at the country’s borders, where immigrants legally and illegally enter
every year (Garcia, 2013; Mallie, 2010). While much effort has been exhausted to make
border security one of nation’s main priorities, the efforts have fallen short of their
intentions (Mallie, 2010; Schneider, 2011). One immigration reform that can affect
immigration and employment in the United States entails enacting a national system to
identify and authorize immigrants to work and live in the United States (Garcia, 2013). A
system of identification would satisfy many requirements from the United States
government and foster a more efficient effort to help immigrants find employment
(Harper, 2012). A system of identification would also enable illegal immigrants to meet
requirements for permanent resident status and eventually American citizenship (Harper,
2012). To date, Congress has not created a plan for identification and a pathway toward
citizenship that is accepted by the public and by U.S. Legislature (Silkenat, 2013).
Moreover, immigrants who are not familiar with immigration and employment policies
are reluctant to share their views because of possible deportation and legal sanctions
against them (Silkenat, 2013). Immigration reform would enable immigrants to present
their concern without fear of reprisal from the United States government and would make
U.S. border security an important value to immigrants as well as to citizens. Immigration
reform would also address employers’ concerns about hiring undocumented workers
(Creticos et al., 2006; Harper, 2012). A system of identification that helps immigrants
find and keep employment regardless of their status would increase U.S. national security
and ensure the employment process is fair and consistent for everyone.
Immigration reform can also help the economy. The importance of U.S. national
security not diminished, the economic consequences of non-immigration reform can
cause the most immediate damage to the United States. Garcia (2013) estimated that the
failure of immigration reform and its effect on employment status will cause a loss of
$832 billion within 10 years. This economic loss could be diverted if Congress enacts
comprehensive immigration reform to benefit all Americans. Current immigration laws
and policies have kept immigrants from fully participating in the economy and in the
community, so immigration reform can serve both immigrants and the American public
by creating laws and policies that assist immigrants achieving legal status and helping
both immigrants and citizens obtain employment in the United States. The United States
Congress has recently introduced a comprehensive immigration reform package, but
public opinion about immigration has made the reform package one of the most
nationally controversial topics in the last decade. As the economy struggles, inadequate
immigration reform will continue to be the Achilles’ heel of any immigrant who wishes to
live and work in the United States (Garcia, 2013; Mosisa, 2013; Silkenat, 2013).
Characteristics of Immigrants
Several characteristics of immigrants are examined in this case study. According to the
U.S. DOL (2014a),
Foreign-born workers represented 16.3 percent of the U.S. labor force in 2013
which accounts for 25.3 million foreign born workers above the age of 16 in the
labor force. Hispanics made up 47.8 percent of the foreign-born labor force in
2013. (p. 1)
Immigrants constitute a large percentage of the American workforce and considerably
impact the United States economy, facts that evidence the importance of apprehending
immigrants’ characteristics. The characteristics of immigrants are unique and create
challenges for finding employment in the United States.
Race and Ethnicity
When describing immigrant ethnographic statistics, Mosisa (2013) stated, “About
38 percent (9.5 million workers) of the foreign born workers were from Mexico and
Central America and Hispanics made up 48.3 percent of the foreign-born labor force in
2012” (p. 1). Whites, blacks and Asians were not included as persons identified as
Hispanics or Latinos. Mosisa (2013) further reported, “Foreign-born men were more
likely to be labor force participants (78.5 percent) than were native-born men (68.6
percent). In contrast, foreign-born women (54.8 percent) versus native-born women (58.2
percent) were less likely to be in the labor force” (p. 2).
Occupation
Immigrants usually work in manual labor jobs. The U.S. DOL (2014a) reported
the following occupational information:
In 2013, foreign-born workers were more likely than native-born workers to be
employed in service occupations (24.8 percent versus 16.7 percent). Within
service occupations, about one-third of the foreign born workers were employed
in building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations, about twice the
proportion for the native born. Foreign-born workers also were more likely than
native-born workers to be employed in production, transportation, and material
moving occupations (15.4 percent versus 11.1 percent) and in natural resources,
construction, and maintenance occupations (12.9 percent versus 8.3 percent).
(p. 1)
Income
Immigrants, both men and women, earn less money on average than citizens do.
Mosisa (2013) presented the following immigrant income statistics:
In 2012, the median usual weekly earnings of foreign-born full-time wage and
salary workers were $625, compared with $797 for their native-born
counterparts. The lower earnings of the foreign born workers partially reflect that
foreign-born workers tend to have lower levels of educational attainment. In
general, earnings are higher for people with more education. Foreign-born men
earned about 74.1 percent as much as native-born men: $665 per week,
compared with $898 per week. Among women, the foreign born earned about
83.0 percent as much as the native born: $589 per week, compared with $710 per
week. For both the native born and the foreign born, women’s earnings were
lower than those of men. (p. 11)
Education
When describing immigrants’ education statistics, Mosisa (2013) averred,
“Immigrants have a diverse set of educational backgrounds. Sixty eight percent of the
foreign – born population has attained a high school diploma, GED, or higher degree,
compared to eighty nine percent of the native-born population” (p. 9).
Language
The majority of immigrants that come to the United States have limited English
proficiency. Nwosu, Batalova, and Auclair (2014) presented statistics for those with
LEP:
In 2012, there were 25 million Limited English Proficient individuals ages 5 and
older in the United States, accounting for 8.5 percent of the 294 million people
ages 5 and older. Spanish speakers - accounted for 64 percent (16.1 million) of
the total LEP population. In 2012, approximately 50 percent (20.3 million) of the
40.6 million immigrants ages 5 and older were LEP. (p. 1)
California Central Valley Immigrant Characteristics
The California Central Valley immigrant population possesses characteristics that
make it unique to the case study. According to City-Data (2013) the city of Woodland,
California comprised 94.8% Hispanics and 45.9% of those are foreign born. The
unemployment rate for the city is 14.6% and agriculture represents the largest industry,
37% of the population works (City-Data, 2013).
Motivation and Job Satisfaction Theories
Motivation and job satisfaction theories describe intrinsic and extrinsic values
associated with motivation. Comprehending motivation provides the rationale for human
behavior (Herzberg, 1966; Maslow, 1943). Cherry (2014) explained,”Motivation is
defined as the process that initiates, guides, and maintains goal-oriented behaviors” (p. 1).
Job satisfaction is the level of contentment a person feels regarding their job (Herzberg,
1968; Maslow, 1954). Motivation and job satisfaction theories assist in understanding the
mindset of individual goal attainment.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Abraham Maslow (1943) composed a hierarchy of needs based on human
motivations. The five levels of motivations are interrelated, some with exceptions. The
levels of need progress once a person feels the motivations are met for that particular
level. Maslow (1943) described five levels of motivation built on a pyramid structure
(see Figure 1). The pyramid starts with the most basic needs and progresses to the
pinnacle of human motivation, and each level of need encompasses different values. A
closer examination of the hierarchy of needs will explain the factor of motivation for each
level.
Figure 1. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Figure 1 details all 5 levels on Maslow’s
hierarchy of need, beginning with physiological and ending with self-actualization.
Adapted from Motivation and Personality, by A. Maslow, 1954; copyright Harper, New
York, NY, 1954. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs#cite_note-honolulu-
In Maslow’s hierarchy, physiological needs are the basics of human survival.
Breathing, food, water are needed to sustain life. Maslow (1943) stated,” physiological
needs are the most pre-potent of all needs” (p. 9), and they must be met before a person
can move into the next level of safety. The safety needs represent necessities for the
security of the body, family, employment, finances and resources. The safety needs are
critical because without them, people are reluctant to acquire other needs that could
benefit their lives. Once the safety needs are fulfilled, a person is able advance to the
third level of needs--love and belonging.
Maslow (1943) asserted that humans need to belong to a group and feel
acceptance and belonging. The size of the group does not matter; a person simply needs
the feelings of belonging to a group. Examples of groups that can engender feelings of
love and belonging include family, religious groups, friends and co-workers. Sex is
another component of love and belonging, but the fulfillment can come from the feeling
of affection and not just from the act itself. Loneliness is a significant factor because it
can greatly affect the efforts a person places on seeking love and belonging. Once people
have satisfied the physiological, safety, and belonging needs, they can advance to the next
level of self-esteem.
Self-esteem is confidence, respect and achievement (Maslow, 1943). Respect for
oneself and from others are important as these needs are both intrinsic and extrinsic
depending on the circumstances. Satisfaction with oneself and one’s life drives this
motivation. Fulfilling this need brings a person closer to the last step--self-actualization.
Maslow (1943) defined self-actualization, “The desire to become more and more what
one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming” (p. 21). He declared that
people reach self-actualization when they become the best they can be and fulfill their
potential. An example would be not only to be an athlete but becoming one of the best in
the world. Achieving one’s potential is an important motivator for this final need.
Applying Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to immigration and employment can
explain the many obstacles immigrants encounter while living and working in the United
States (Arrocha, 2012; Creticos et al., 2006; Maslow, 1954). Immigrants often struggle
mightily to fulfill their physiological needs. Coming to a country without the basic
necessities of life can be daunting and places immigrants in constant fear of inability to
secure the basics for survival (Maslow, 1943; Silkenat, 2013). Immigrants have different
physiological needs that native U.S. citizens do. Safety needs are another important
concern for immigrants because of legal, financial and family issues, and concerns about
how to fulfill their safety needs can persist until a firm foundation is developed in the
United States. The hierarchy of needs for immigrants has differences based on indefinite
periods of time and culture (Maslow, 1943; Silkenat, 2013).
Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory
Herzberg et al. (1959) developed a motivation-hygiene or two-factor theory based
on their studies of 200 accountants and engineers in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area
(see Figure 2). They concluded that people have two sets of needs, the lower order (or
hygiene factors) and the higher order (or motivator factors). Hygiene factors are extrinsic
and are not related to job tasks, and they can include company policies, supervisory
practices, or wages (Herzberg, 1968). Motivation factors arise from intrinsic conditions
of the job itself, such as recognition, achievement, or personal growth (Hackman &
Oldham, 1976). Hygiene factors are needed to ensure an individual is not dissatisfied,
and motivation factors are needed to spur an employee to higher performance.
Figure 2. Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory. Figure 2 details components of both
hygiene factors (extrinsic) and motivation (intrinsic). Retrieved from
http://alidademer.com/organizational-performance/
Herzberg et al. (1959) theorized that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction act
independently of each other. They also suggested the key to improving productivity and
attitude on the job were dependent on management focusing on both hygiene and
motivation factors (Herzberg, 1966).
Herzberg (1966) mentioned a list of factors to motivate employees but the
immigration and employment issues affecting immigrants render implementing these
strategies in the workplace strenuous. Immigrants to the United States are concerned
with hygiene factors which can last for many years or their entire lifetime (Creticos et al.,
2006; Herzberg, 1966; Silkenat, 2013). Inability to speak English, an absence of
American education, and unfamiliarity with American culture represent factors that
hinder an immigrant’s progression from hygiene to motivational needs. Immigrants
continuously work on the hygiene needs to avoid becoming dissatisfied, but the
motivational needs are difficult to achieve. Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory and
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can describe and explain many of the issues affecting
immigrants in their quest to achieve the American dream (Anderson, 2010; Creticos et al.,
2006; Herzberg, 1966; Maslow, 1954).
Gaps in Immigrant Employment Literature
The review of literature reveals a scarcity of research investigating employment
issues affecting immigrants. Although immigrant and employment issues are addressed
from statistical and editorial reviews, an absence of literature from immigrants’
perspectives about immigration and employment issues is apparent. These perspectives
can provide valuable information that elucidates some of the problems hampering Latino
immigrant employment in the United States and especially in the California Central
Valley.
The review of literature provides a basis to understand the obstacles that Latino
immigrants face and the mindsets they have when looking for employment in the United
States and in the California Central Valley. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory provides
many of the fundamental reasons why immigrants come to the United States. Herzberg’s
hygiene-motivation theory explains immigrants’ mindset once they immigrate, live and
find employment in the United States. The literature review is arranged to provide a
synopsis of immigration from America’s founding down to current immigration and
employment issues. Findings of the case study will be described in Chapter Four and
Chapter Five will include conclusions and recommendations for actions and for further
research based on the case study’s findings.
Table 1
Synthesis Matrix of Major Research Concepts
Research area
Concept
References
History of
Immigration in
the United
States
The history of immigrants in the
United States is deconstructed into
seven distinct periods. These
periods highlight immigrant
struggles and their quest to
assimilate, work and live in the
United States.
Anderson, 2010; Aroccha, 2012; Bacon et al.,
2010; Bankston & Hidalgo, 2006; Bell, 2012;
Berstein, 2013; Boyd, 2002; City-Data, 2013;
U.S. DOL, 2014b; Eastman 2012; Felde,
2013; Fix & Passel, 2001; Gutierrez, 2009;
Hanlin, 1979; Harper, 2012; Hipsman &
Meissner, 2013; Hirschman & Mogford,
2009; Holt, 2009; Huffman, 2003; Jasper,
2008; Kretsedemas, 2013; Krikorian, 2014;
Lemay, 2007; Mallie, 2010; Mauro, 2011;
Orrenius et al., 2012; Park, 2011; Pawel,
2009; Small, 2011; Tichenor et al., 2012;
Zolberg, 2006
Immigrant
Assimilation
into American
Society
Assimilation is one of the most
difficult obstacles for immigrants
in the United States. The
integration of the listed elements
are crucial for immigrants to
become fully assimilated into
American society.
Anderson, 2010; Anderson, 2012; Creticos et
al., 2006; Harding 2013; Jasper, 2009;
Kretsedemas, 2012; Mosisa, 2013; Oulahan,
2011; Silkenat 2012; SSA, 2014; Passel,
2005; Ullman, 2010; USCIS, 2014
Immigration and
Employment
Laws and
Policies
Notable immigration and
employment laws and policies are
presented to understand the
increasing difficulty of
immigration and employment of
immigrants in the United States.
These laws and policies have
become pivotal in immigration
reform.
Anderson, 2010; Arrocha, 2012; Brooks,
2012; Corlett, 2011; U.S. DOL, 2014a, 2014b;
Eastman, 2012; Harding, 2013; Harper, 2012;
Holt, 2009; Jasper, 2008; Krestsedmas, 2012;
Krikorian, 2014; Mallie, 2010; Mauro, 2011;
Medved, 2011; Mosisa, 2013; Orrenius and
Zavodny, 2012; Silkenat, 2013; Small, 2011;
Tichenor et al., 2012; Weeden, 2010
Current
Immigration
and
Employment
Issues
Current immigration and
employment issues has made it
difficult for immigrants to find and
sustain employment. The
controversy surrounding
immigration has placed negativity
on immigrants and their plight for
assimilation.
Bacon & Hing, 2010;
Capps, Fix, Passel, Ost & Perez-Lopez, 2003;
Creticos, Schultz, Beeler & Ball, 2006;
Garcia, 2013, Harper, 2012; Holt, 2009;
Mauro, 2011; Mosisa, 2013; Passel & Cohn,
2011; Peri, 2012; Peterson, 2009; Silkenat,
2013; Tichenor, 2012
Characteristics of
Immigrants
Characteristics of immigrants are
described to present common
obstacles and differences from
citizens in the United States. The
characteristics are based on
statistics from the United States
census.
City-Data, 2013; U.S. DOL, 2014a; Mosisa,
2013;
Nwosu, Batalova & Auclair, 2014
Theoretical
foundation
The theoretical perspectives of
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and
Herzberg’s Hygiene-Motivation as
they pertain to immigrant
employment in the United States.
Hierarchy of Needs: Arocha, 2012; Creticos,
2006; Herzberg, 1954; Herzberg, 1966; Kerry,
2014; Maslow, 1943 ; Maslow, 1954;
Maslow, 1968; Silkenet, 2013
Hygiene-Motivation Theory: Anderson, 2010;
Creticos, 2006; Hackman & Oldham, 1976;
Conclusion
This review of literature entailed a detailed exploration of major themes
associated with immigration and employment. The review of literature revealed
components that surfaced issues of immigrant employment in the United States. The
chapter started with a history of immigration in the United States, primarily major periods
that influenced the current immigration and employment laws and policies in America.
Major hurdles facing immigrant assimilation into American society based on an
immigrant’s perspective were reviewed. Historical immigration and employment laws
and policies were also reviewed because they provided the basis for ongoing immigration
reform in the United States. Current immigration and employment issues were explored
to determine the current obstacles facing immigrants in today’s world. The
characteristics of immigrants were investigated to see the elements that compose the
majority of the workforce in America.
Finally, a theoretical framework was established to explain the motivations and
needs of immigrants while living and working in the United States. The two theoretical
frameworks of Abraham Maslow and Frederick Herzberg reveal intrinsic and extrinsic
Herzberg, 1959
; Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg,
1968
; Silkenat,
2013
motivations that can be juxtaposed with immigrants’ experiences. A gap in immigrant
employment literature was revealed due to a paucity of research based on immigrants’
perspectives. This research contends that the experiences of Latino immigrants with
employment issues warrant a case study which places value on their voices. Chapter 3
describes in detail the methodology used for the case study while the interpretation,
analysis and findings are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 concludes with conclusions
and recommendations based on the case study.
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
This chapter included a detailed description of the methodology used for research
of this case study, its central topic being Latino immigrant employment in the United
States and especially in the California Central Valley, Woodland, California. The
methodology will be used to gather information to interpret and analyze Latino
immigrants’ employment experiences. An overview of the problem statement and the
purpose statement will be provided in the chapter. A detailed description will also be
provided of the research design, population and sample. Data collection and analysis
methods to be employed for this case study will also be overviewed, and the study’s
limitations will be presented. Prior to executing this case study, approval from the
Brandman University Institutional Review Board (BUIRB) was obtained. All parts of
this chapter supported the case study of Latino immigrant employment in the United
States and especially in the California Central Valley, Woodland, California.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this case study is to discover the factors that cause Latino
immigrants to leave or remain in their places of employment in the California Central
Valley. In addition, it is the purpose of this case study to understand and describe the
effect of immigration and employment laws and policies on a Latino immigrant’s
employment status in the California Central Valley.
Research Questions
To examine Latino immigrants’ employment experiences, a case study approach
was used to answer the following research questions (Patton, 2002).
1. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central Valley understand and
describe the factors that cause them to remain at their places of employment?
2. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central Valley understand and
describe the factors that cause them to leave their places of employment?
3. How do current immigration and employment policies in the United States affect
a Latino immigrant’s employment status in the California Central Valley?
4. How do Latino immigrants understand and describe their struggles or obstacles
they face in their search for employment in the California Central Valley?
Research Design
McMillian and Schumacher (2009) described a research design as, “the
procedures for conducting the study, including when, from whom, and under what
conditions the data will be obtained” (p. 20). A research design can be identified as a
blueprint for the study. Understanding the meaning, structure, and essence of
immigrants’ experiences with employment will be attempted through this study, and a
qualitative case study research design will be employed to accomplish this task (Patton,
2002). Patten (2012) states, “In qualitative research, researchers gather data that must be
analyzed through the use of informed judgment to identify major and minor themes
expressed by participants’ (p. 9). A case study is the appropriate research design for this
study due to the uniqueness of the issue (McMillian et al., 2009; Stake, 1995).
Creswell (2008) refers to the case study as, “an in-depth exploration of a bounded
system based on extensive data collection” (p. 344). A bounded system is unique due to
the characteristics of participants, the place of the study and the specific time (McMillian
et al., 2009). The research method allows the researcher to gather viewpoints from first
generation immigrant populations about immigrant employment and the effects of
immigration status. McMillian and Schumacher (2009) tell us that, “the researcher
defines the case and its boundary” (p. 24). Qualitative research gathers data through
structured or unstructured interviews, focus groups and observations over a period of
specified period of time. Qualitative data captures the worldly experience of someone
through his or her words and communicate this to the researcher (Patton, 2012). The
qualitative data from research participants revealed themes and patterns that enabled the
researcher to answer the underlying questions of the case study. A Latino immigrant’s
insight of employment adversity can shed valuable information for future research of the
subject.
Population
McMillan and Schumacher (2009) defined a population as, “a group of elements
or cases, whether individuals, objects or events, that conform to specific criteria and to
which we intend to generalize the results of the research” (p. 129). Latino immigrants
living and working in the Central Valley of California, city of Woodland, California
constituted the population for this case study, and the sample was drawn from Latino
immigrants between the ages of 18 and 75 who are employed full time by agricultural
and manufacturing industries from the city of Woodland, CA.
The city of Woodland, CA is comprised of a population of 55,486 residents and is
located fifteen miles west of Sacramento, CA. The major industries in Woodland consist
of retail, agriculture and manufacturing. The majority of the workforce is comprised of
Latino immigrants with less than a high school education and a basic knowledge of the
English language. The basic knowledge of the English language consists of reading,
writing and comprehension at a fourth grade level. The community of Woodland, CA is
comparable to many cities in the California Central Valley that support the agricultural
and manufacturing industries by the employment of Latino immigrant labor.
Sample
Patten (2007) described purposive sampling as, “when researchers purposively
select individuals who they believe will be good sources of information” (p. 51). Patton
(2002) expressed that purposeful sampling is in-depth understanding of the phenomenon
which is information rich and reveals critical issues for the purpose of the research.
The sample for this study was limited to four groups of six to ten Latino immigrants from
agricultural and manufacturing industries in Woodland, California. The sample was
selected from Woodland, California due to the immediate accessibility of Latino
immigrant labor. Many cities in the California Central Valley mirror the industries of
Woodland, California. The majority of Latino immigrants were from the migrant labor
housing such as the Yolo County Housing and Spring Lake Housing from within the city
of Woodland, California. The sample was comprised of first generation Latino
immigrants between the ages of 18 and 75 who were employed full time in various
industries in Woodland, California.
Participants were notified of this study orally through a community organizer
from Woodland two weeks before its commencement. The community organizer is a
major landowner in Woodland, California with memberships in the Woodland Chamber
of Commerce and the Yolo County Farm Bureau. He was critical for this study because
he is a recognized leader in the community and a resource for immigrant labor in
Woodland. Immigrants, labor organizations, and city officials respect him because of his
diligence in helping immigrants find employment. His bilingual skills also helped bridge
the gap between the researcher and the Latino participants.
A letter of introduction was sent to the community organizer explaining the nature
of the research and the criteria for the participants. The researcher visited the community
organizer to ensure the study and process was understood and that the study and the
process would be explained to possible participants. The community organizer verbally
recruited participants for this study at five agricultural and manufacturing companies in
Woodland, California. He spoke to approximately 70 Latino immigrants two weeks prior
to the study and explained to them the process of selection and their rights as participants
of the study. The community organizer told the participants that they could withdraw
from the study at any time without penalty. He explained that on the day of the study he
would go to each location and pick participants for the study. None of the immigrants
declined the study, but 30 were selected to participate and agreed to be part of the study.
On the day of the study, the community organizer provided transportation for participants
from five locations to a private agricultural hall of a major employer in Woodland.
Participants were again provided the opportunity to decline the study and not be
interviewed. Five participants were on standby in case one of the participants dropped
out of the study. Participants were grouped together in four focus groups of consisting of
six members. Patten (2007) posited that “focus groups are normally between 6 to 12
participants gathered to discuss a topic in a nonthreatening environment in which group
members feel free to express their opinions, attitudes and experiences” (p. 155). The
focus groups were scheduled at specified times at a private agricultural hall of a major
employer in Woodland, California.
Data Collection
Upon approval by the BUIRB, the community organizer at Woodland, CA
contacted participants verbally and also with a pamphlet in Spanish and English
explaining the purpose of the study, the focus group structure and then asked for
participation in the focus groups. All participants were informed that all responses
containing identifiable characteristics were confidential and would be used for statistical
purposes only with no disclosure of information. Each participant was provided a letter
of informed consent in English and Spanish at the beginning of the focus group from the
researcher. This letter and other correspondence requiring consent and signatures were
returned prior to the start of the study.
Focus group participants were notified of the date and time of the meeting both
verbally and in writing. They received a letter in English and Spanish stating the purpose
of the focus group and the process, and they would then be given written notice
informing them of their rights to stop their interviews and leave at any time during the
focus group without repercussions. A voice recorder was used to record the
conversations of the groups. The interview process with the focus group was structured
and each participant was asked the same questions. The researcher guided the
participants’ throughout the interview to keep responses pertinent to the study topic. All
interview data from the focus group was transcribed and categorized into a folders by
focus groups. Any information from the focus group will be destroyed five years after
the information was transcribed and analyzed for the study.
Instrumentation
Instrumentation is the tool or measure that will be used by the researcher for data
collection (Patton, 2002). The instrumentation selected for this study is qualitative
questions. Open-ended questions were used to gather data collection from focus groups.
Patton (2002) states, “open-ended responses permit one to understand the world as seen
by the respondents” (p. 21). The questions were written in advance providing a set
format. All participants were asked the same questions in a predetermined selected order.
The questions contained information pertaining to immigration employment and were
written in English and in Spanish. The questions were provided at the time of the focus
group, which will generate participants’ spontaneity of their opinions, attitudes and
experiences.
Patton (2002) tells us that, “In qualitative inquiry, the researcher is the
instrument” (p. 14). The researcher as the instrument can provide skill, competence and
credibility to the qualitative method (McMillan, 2009; Patton, 2002). The researcher as
an instrument can add validity to the case study. Using both open-ended questions and
the researcher as an instruments can elicit in-depth information from participants of the
case study.
Reliability, Validity and Credibility
A field test was conducted with a focus group of non-participants. The
nonparticipants were three volunteers from a food processing company in Woodland,
California. These non-participants were first generation Latino immigrants who live and
work in the California Central Valley. The field participants had a basic knowledge of the
English language and were fluent in Spanish. The basic knowledge of the English
language consists of reading, writing and comprehension at a fourth grade level. The
field participants were interviewed and provided a list of questions from the researcher.
Due to limited language skills, the researcher verbally asked the questions to the field
participants. The dialogue between the researcher and the participants involved questions
that stimulated conversation that explained examples of their experiences. This process
was the prototype for the case study participants’ focus groups. The results from the
nonparticipant focus groups allowed for reflection and improvements of the instrument,
which will build validity, reliability and credibility for the case study. Patton (2002)
asserted that “Validity of qualitative inquiry hinges on the skill, competence and rigor of
the researcher and not just on the instrument” (p. 14).
Several methods were used to verify validity and credibility in the case study.
The same set of questions was used with each focus group, and the same focus group
structure was employed for all four groups. Data recording, coding and sorting were also
the same for all focus group, and all of these methods helped ensure the case study’s
validity and reliability (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010, p. 204).
Triangulation will ensure the trustworthiness and accuracy of data (Patten, 2007),
further establishing the case study’s validity. The researcher consulted with several
content experts reviewed to verify the accuracy and completion of this case study.
Data Analysis
Data collected from the case study was analyzed using several different methods
of triangulation (Patton, 2002; Bamberger, Rush, & Mabry, 2012). The focus group data
were analyzed, focusing on themes and patterns that provided answers to the research
questions. Transcribing all the documentation for research review was the first priority.
After all the data from focus groups were transcribed, the second step was to code
the data. As Patton (2002) stated, analyzing qualitative data involves creativity,
analytical rigor and hard work. Coding the data manually enabled themes and patterns to
emerge from the focus groups.
After transcribing and coding the data, the results from the case studies must be
interpreted. This is the process that will reveal themes or patterns that can answer the
research questions. The case study was reviewed to produce an accurate assessment that
was used to determine Latino immigrants’ experiences with employment. Finally, the
collected data was analyzed to grasp and elucidate the meaning, structure, and essence of
the experience of a phenomenon for a group of people or for a person (Patton, 2002, p.
482). The analysis of the case study was finalized by synthesizing all the information for
themes, patterns and common experiences (McMillan & Schumacher. 2009; Patton,
2002).
This paper’s conclusion will include a report of the findings from the case study.
All findings will be synthesized in the report, which will also include details from focus
groups. The report will help with the case study summary and recommendations from
the case study in addition to assisting in drawing conclusions.
Limitations
Every study has limitations that the researcher cannot control and can directly
impact data analysis. Four limitations were identified for this case study; immigration
status, language, education and participants’ responses. Immigrant status could affect
responses given in the focus groups if immigrants of multiple races are reluctant to
answer questions regarding citizenship because they are concerned that their answers
could affect their immigration status. To mitigate this limitation’s effect, an explanation
will be provided to each participant that their information will not be used in any way that
could lead to consequences for them and will be destroyed five years after the case study
is concluded.
Language could also influence data collection. Focus groups will be conducted in
English and Spanish, and this could cause some confusion in focus groups. Additionally,
any participant’s lack of English comprehension could directly impact the case study’s
focus groups. To mitigate this limitation, the researcher employed a witness who was
bilingual in English and in Spanish. The witness was a human resources professional
with eight years of experience dealing with immigrant employment and labor and was
fluent in Spanish and English.
The third limitation involves each participant’s education level. Many immigrants
have only limited education of less than a high school from their country and reading,
writing and comprehension of English at a four-grade level and this may prevent
participants from actively participating in the focus groups.
Lastly, in qualitative research, ensuring that participants answer questions
honestly is a significant limitation. The data will be limited to the answers that the
participants give. Due to some of the above-mentioned limitations, participants may feel
uncomfortable providing completely candid responses, which could leave the case study
with information that does not actually reflect the true feelings in participants’ hearts.
Furthermore, participants might embellish their experiences to sound more heroic, which
could also lead to less than fully accurate data.
Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to provide an overview of the methodology that
was used for the case study of Latino immigrant employment in the United States and
specifically in the California central valley. The chapter began with a brief overview of
the problem and purpose statement. Next, was a review of the research questions that
was used during this case study. The next sections of this chapter detailed the research
design, population and sample, all of which were important elements of this case study.
The remaining sections of the chapter provided the data collection and analysis methods
used for the case study. A section was devoted to the reliability, validity and credibility of
the case study, and the final section revealed the limitations of the case study. Key
findings from the research that will facilitate the conclusions and recommendations of the
case study will be presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 will include further details,
conclusions from the case study, and will include recommendations based on analysis of
the research.
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH, DATA COLLECTION, AND FINDINGS
The findings from the research examining Latino immigrant employment in the
California Central Valley are examined in this chapter. Latino immigrant employment
accounts for 60% of the California Central Valley’s economy from Yolo to Yuma County.
This chapter summarizes the information derived from focus groups from a small sample
of participants obtained from Woodland, California in Yolo County, and the chapter
includes information such as the purpose statement, research questions, research methods,
data collection, population, and the sample. Chapter IV ends with the data obtained from
four focus groups consisting of direct quotes and paraphrases from study participants.
The data are organized by focus groups, the four research questions, and themes or
patterns.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this case study was to discover the factors that cause Latino
immigrants to leave or remain in their places of employment in the California Central
Valley. In addition, it was the purpose of this case study to understand and describe the
effect of immigration and employment laws and policies on a Latino immigrant’s
employment status in the California Central Valley.
Research Questions
The following questions were used for this case study:
1. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central Valley understand and
describe the factors that cause them to remain at their places of employment?
2. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central Valley understand and
describe the factors that cause them to leave their places of employment?
3. How do current immigration and employment policies in the United States
affect a Latino immigrant’s employment status in the California Central
Valley?
4. How do Latino immigrants understand and describe their struggles or
obstacles they face in their search for employment in the California Central
Valley?
Research Methods and Data Collection Procedures
In this qualitative case study, focus groups were used to investigate Latino
immigrant employment in the California Central Valley. Focus groups enabled the
researcher to interact with the participants and to understand their perceptions of
employment. Patten (2007) stated,”a clear advantage of using focus groups is that the
method reveals the evolution of perceptions in a social context” (p. 155). The
participants in the focus group can have different perceptions on information once
discussed with others. Prior to the focus groups, a pilot study was conducted with one
group of three Latino immigrants. The researcher used the pilot study to refine the
questions used in the study. The final questions for the focus group were narrowed down
to seven, but each question had sub-questions that probed further to gain a deeper
understanding of participants’ perceptions.
Data were collected from four focus groups through structured questions. Each
focus group participant was provided with a demographic sheet, a consent form, and
other associated letters for their approval and understanding of the study. The focus
groups were held in an agricultural hall, and the researcher used a script to obtain data
from participants. All focus group questions were asked and answered in Spanish. Focus
group participants were audio recorded, and these data were transcribed into English and
Spanish to ensure the accuracy and validity of their statements.
Population
Latino immigrants living in the California Central Valley working in the
manufacturing or agriculture industries constituted this study’s population. The members
of this population work in Yolo County, California, in the city of Woodland. The
population consists of both men and women, most of whom are Latino.
Sample
All sample participants were selected from Woodland, California by a community
organizer. The community organizer is one of the largest landowners in Woodland. He
has membership with the Woodland Chamber of Commerce and the Yolo County Farm
Bureau and is a major employer in Yolo County of immigrant labor. The community
organizer recruited approximately 70 immigrants for the study from several agriculture
and manufacturing locations. On the day of the study, he selected 30 participants who
met the criteria for the study. Only 25 participants were used for the study, while 5
participants were on standby in case someone did not want to participate in the study at a
later time. Purposeful sampling was used to obtain participants who met the criteria for
participation and who would be good sources of information regarding employment
experiences. The study comprised 25 participants who were distributed into three focus
groups of six and one focus group of seven. In addition, participants for this study met
the following criteria:
1. First generation Latino immigrants
2. Employed in the manufacturing or agriculture industry
3. Between the ages of 18 to 75
4. Employed full-time
Demographic Data
All participants were Latino males who worked full time in the agriculture
industry and used Spanish as their primary language. Participants ranged in age from 24
to 67 years. Immigrations statuses varied from undocumented to naturalized citizens,
with the majority being permanent resident aliens. The demographic data for each
participant are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Study Participant Demographic Data
Participant Race/ Primary Employment
number ethnicity Gender Age language Immigration status status Industry
1 Mexican Male 48 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
2 Mexican Male 41 Spanish Undocumented Full time Agriculture
3 Mexican Male 58 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
4 Mexican Male 59 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
5 Mexican Male 29 Spanish Undocumented Full time Agriculture
6 Mexican Male 56 Spanish Undocumented Full time Agriculture
7 Mexican Male 64 Spanish Citizen Full time Agriculture
8 Mexican Male 44 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
9 Mexican Male 58 Spanish Undocumented Full time Agriculture
10 Mexican Male 36 Spanish Undocumented Full time Agriculture
11 Mexican Male 67 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
12 Mexican Male 52 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
13 Mexican Male 53 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
14 Mexican Male 38 Spanish Undocumented Full time Agriculture
15 Mexican Male 26 Spanish Undocumented Full time Agriculture
16 Mexican Male 24 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
17 Mexican Male 45 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
18 Mexican Male 61 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
19 Mexican Male 37 Spanish Undocumented Full time Agriculture
20 Mexican Male 41 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
21 Mexican Male 54 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
22 Mexican Male 60 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
23 Mexican Male 36 Spanish Permanent resident lien Full time
Agriculture
24 Mexican Male 52 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
25 Mexican Male 26 Spanish Permanent resident alien Full time
Agriculture
Presentation and Analysis of Data for Focus Group 1
Observations of Study Environment and Participants of Focus Group 1
Focus group 1 met at an agricultural office in Woodland, CA on July 20, 2015,
from 7:00am to 9:00 am. The advocate brought the participants at the exact time for the
interviews. The advocate selected the participants based on the criteria for the study. The
participants for the first group had the most seniority in their companies and had many
years of employment. The sessions began with a brief discussion of the purpose of the
study and a detailed synopsis of each part of the study. The focus group interviews were
conducted in Spanish, the primary language of all participants. The researcher, an
assistant, and the community advocate facilitated the study. The researcher informed
participants of their rights and provided each participant with a consent form.
Participants also received an audio release form, the participant bill of rights, and a
demographic questionnaire. The researcher explained each form in detail and answered
any questions from participants. The researcher additionally informed participants that
data from each form and their responses from the interview would only be used for data
collection and analysis. Participants were also informed that their responses would be
anonymous and would not be used for the researcher’s personal interest.
The first focus group consisted of six participants. Each participant was assigned
a number to keep track of his responses. All participants were seated around a table and
were conversing with each other freely prior to the start of the interviews. The
participants of the first group were apprehensive about the questions regarding
immigration, but the researcher put them at ease and reminded them that the information
they conveyed would remain anonymous. After the first question, participants were more
at ease to share their perceptions and stories regarding immigrant employment. Most of
the participants answered the questions with examples from their experiences. A few,
however, did not answer but nodded their heads in agreement with their fellow
participants. During the interview, several participants asked for clarification of the
questions to fully understand the meaning behind the dialogue.
Participants’ body language went through several stages. They were initially
nervous and apprehensive about answering the questions, most of them displaying this by
crossing their arms and their legs. Each participant shook hands and displayed
friendliness toward each other. During the mid-stage of the interview, participants were
making direct eye contact with each other, waiting for visual clues for their chance to add
their perspective on the question. Many times during the interview participants clapped
for each other because of the truthfulness of their responses. In the final stage of the
interview, participants showed relief and a sense of accomplishment and had relaxed
body postures with their arms by their sides and uncrossed legs. Participants also leaned
forward instead of trying to stay farther away as in the beginning stage. Overall, the first
group was the most vocal of the four focus groups.
The focus group finished 30 minutes prior to the two hours provided for each
group. All participants were provided time off from their jobs to participate in the focus
group and received support from their companies. All participants were thankful they
could participate in the study and hoped their information could be useful in immigration
employment issues in the future. The researcher closed the session by turning off the
audio recorder and thanking everyone for their participation. Four of the six participants
stayed 10 minutes after conclusion of the focus group to thank the researcher for the
opportunity to participate in the study.
Findings for Focus Group 1 by Research Questions
Research Question 1. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central
Valley understand and describe the factors that cause them to remain at their places of
employment? The six participants in focus group 1 identified six factors that would cause
them to remain at their place of employment: (a) employment, (b) future, (c) opportunity,
(d) wages, (e) family, and (f) hours. Table 3 displays each factor as an emerging theme.
Table 3
California Central Valley Immigrant Factors for Remaining at Place of Employment
Theme
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Employment
X
X
X
X
X
X
6/6
Future
X
X
X
3/6
Opportunity
X
X
X
X
X
X
6/6
Wages
X
X
X
3/6
Family
X
X
X
X
X
X
6/6
Hours
X
X
X
3/6
Employment. Employment for immigrants means finding and keeping a job. This
was one of the most important themes that came from all participants. Employment can
mean the difference between surviving in the United States and heading back to their
home country. Participant 3 stated, “I came to the United States and immigrated for the
need and want to work.” Participant 3’s statement encouraged the others to speak about
employment as one of the main reasons for remaining at their place of employment.
Participant 6 declared, “There is more work here than anywhere else, and that is the
reason many of us stay for many years.”
Participant
Future. To immigrants, future meant their chance of success in all their pursuits
while living in the California Central Valley. Success has a plethora of meanings, but the
participants saw their future as their success with their employment and families for a
long time. Three of the six participants mentioned future as one of reasons they remain at
their places of employment. Participant 4 mentioned a better future in the California
Central Valley instead of the poverty that embraces them in Mexico. All three
participants equated remaining employed as part of their future in the California Central
Valley.
Opportunity. Opportunity is the chance of good fortune, a chance for progression
in employment and personal pursuits. All six participants mentioned opportunity as one
of the factors in their decision to remain at their place of employment. Participants 4 and
5 voiced that greater opportunity exists in the California Central Valley than in Mexico.
Participant 1 stated, “Better opportunities are here for those who work hard at their jobs.”
The rest of the participants agreed wholeheartedly with the others’ remarks.
Wages. Three of the six participants identified money as a factor to remain at their
places of employment. Participant 4 stated, “There is better pay than in Mexico.”
The researcher asked the participants if pay was a motivating factor to remain employed.
Participants 1 and 3 told the researcher that wages keep them employed and enable them
to pursue opportunities and a better future, indicating the important role of wages in their
decisions to remain at their places of employment.
Family. All of the participants revealed family as one of the main reasons for
remaining at their places of employment. Participants viewed family and employment as
dependent on one another. Participant 4 stated, “Taking care of our families keeps us at
our place of employment. Without our families we could not find employment.” Many
immigrants gain employment through family contacts. Participants noted that family
referrals helped them get their current jobs. The family bond is so strong that many
immigrants remain at their places of employment for years due to family. Participant 6
stated, “Our families came here first, and we followed them to their places of
employment. Without our families, we would not be able to easily gain employment.”
Participant 4 declared, “We look for employment where our families work, and when
family is together it makes life easier.” Without family support, immigrants would face
difficulty finding and sustaining employment in the California Central Valley. Hours.
Three of the six participants (Participants 3, 4, and 6) identified full time, regular work as
a factor in remaining at their places of employment. Participant 4 said, “I work year
round because I am given many hours of work. This keeps me at my job year round.”
The participants indicated that they are still likely to stay at their places of employment
with fewer hours, but they would have to find supplemental work to make up for fewer
hours.
Research Question 2. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central
Valley understand and describe the factors that cause them to leave their places of
employment? The six participants in focus group 1 identified six factors that would cause
them to leave their places of employment: (a) employment, (b) opportunity, (c) wages, (d)
hours, (e) immigration status, and (f) employer relations. Table 4 displays each factor as
an emerging theme.
Table 4
California Central Valley Immigrant Factors for Leaving Their Places of Employment
Theme
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Employment
X
X
2/6
Opportunity
X
X
2/6
Wages
X
X
2/6
Hours
X
X
X
3/6
Immigration status
X
X
X
X
X
X
6/6
Employer relations
X
X
X
X
4/6
Employment. Two of the six participants reiterated that employment at another
establishment would be a reason they would leave. Participant 1 stated, “Many times I
have been laid off, and this is a reason I would seek employment at another
establishment.” Participant 6 revealed that employment was important to him and that he
would change jobs if he knew the company would shut down or lay off employees.
Employment for both participants would play a central role in their decisions to leave
their places of employment.
Opportunity. Two participants cited opportunity as an important theme. To them,
an opportunity meant leaving for a better position or being employed by a great company.
Participant 2 stated, “I am always looking for better opportunities because it will help me
take better care of my family.” Participant 5 repeated the same sentiments of Participant
2, asserting that he would gladly change jobs if it meant better benefits for him and his
family. Opportunity was an important reason that would affect an immigrant’s decision
to leave a current place of employment.
Wages. Wages were a factor in two of the participants’ decisions to leave their
places of employment. Participants 1 and 3 both agreed they would leave for better
paying jobs. Participant 1 explained, “If there is a place that pays more money than I
Participant
currently make, I would leave my place of employment.” Participant 3 expressed, “If I
find out I can make more money somewhere else, I would my place of employment.
Higher wages would definitely benefit me and my family.”
Hours. Three participants cited full time, regular employment. All three agreed
that a 40-hour workweek was more important than wages. Participant 2 stated, “I would
rather have full time, regular work instead of seasonal work, even for more money.”
Participant 4 responded, “I don’t like moving around, but for better hours I would change
my place of employment. It is important to have full time work to take care of family.”
Participant 5’s response was identical to Participant 4’s response, indicating that his
concern was a 40-hour work week instead of making more money.
Immigration status. Immigration status emerged as the most cited reason
immigrants would leave their places of employment. Immigration status is an
immigrant’s legal authorization to live and work in the United States. Although there are
many categories of immigrant status, the main ones covered in this study were
undocumented, permanent resident alien, and naturalized citizen.
Undocumented immigrants are in the country illegally without having the proper
authorization to work in the United States. Many of the participants were undocumented
immigrants. Permanent resident aliens are immigrants who have legally entered the
United States and are authorized to work for any employer. Naturalized citizens are
immigrants who have met the requirements of the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services to become American citizens. Participants in this study represented
all three categories.
All of the participants asserted immigration status as the top reason immigrants
would leave their places of employment. This factor was crucial not only because it
brought up their employability but also their possible incarceration and removal from the
United States. Participants answered the questions, but fear and apprehension could be
easily sensed in their responses. Participant 3 stated, “I do not have documents, and
without documents, many places will not give me work.” Participant 6 responded,
“Without a green card, without proper documentation, there is no work in many places.”
Participants 1 and 2 stated, “It is very hard to speak about our immigration status. Many
of our employers know our status and treat us differently than those who are here
legally.” Participant 4 recalled several instances that required him to leave places of
employment because of his immigration status. In one instance, he was asked to come to
the office to show his papers, and because he did not have an authentic green card, he left
the same day. Participant 5 stated, “If you do not have papers, it is very difficult to stay
at one job. It is safe to keep moving around.” All participants agreed that this was the
main reason immigrants move around frequently for employment.
Employer relations. Four of the six participants mentioned employer relations as
one of the reasons they would leave their places of employment. Employer relations is
the conduct employers have toward their immigrant population. The four participants
agreed that poor management would cause them to leave their places of employment.
Poor management is illegal conduct toward immigrants, such as not paying overtime, no
pay raises, no lunch breaks, yelling, and unrealistic work expectations.
Participant 3 responded, “If our employers treat us right you stay; if you get
treated wrong then you will look elsewhere for another job.” Participant 6 explained that
being treated right makes all the difference in the world when working. He stated,
“Immigrants who are treated badly by management leave right away. Management
knows they can treat immigrants badly because they know immigrants won’t report them
to the authorities.” Participant 1 made only one comment about immigration status. He
said, “I will leave any employer that treats me badly.” Participant 5 explained that he
would also leave his employment if the employer treats him badly as well.
Research Question 3. How do current immigration and employment policies in
the United States affect a Latino immigrant’s employment status in the California Central
Valley? The six participants in focus group 1 identified two policies that would affect
their employment status in the California Central Valley: immigration status and
employer verification. Table 5 displays each factor as an emerging theme.
Table 5
Immigration and Employment Policies That Affect Immigrant Employment Status
Theme
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Immigration status
X
X
X
X
4/6
Employment verification
X
X
X
3/6
Immigration status. An immigrant’s status can determine eligibility to work in the
United States. Four of the six participants identified immigration status as one of the
most important policies that affects their employment. All participants agreed that
permanent resident status was the most critical to obtain. Participant 4 said, “If I do not
have proper documentation, then it is impossible to find work in the central valley. This
Participant
is a big problem for immigrants who are undocumented.” Participant 1 explained, “It
affects me tremendously not having an immigration status. My employment is not an
issue if I have a valid immigration status.” Participant 5 commented, “The immigration
policy affects us personally because we Mexicans cannot apply at jobs without a proper
immigration status. It really weighs heavily on me every time I go to work.” Participant
2 responded, “Without proper immigration status, you close the doors to many jobs
offered here in the central valley.” Participants 3 and 6 did not respond about
immigration status but nodded their heads in agreement with the information other
participants provided.
Employment verification. Employers must verify immigrants’ employment
statuses. Through this employment policy, employers physically verify immigrants’
documents prior to their employment. Three of the six participants identified
employment verification as a policy that affects their employment status. Participant 6
was the most vocal of the group about this topic. He voiced:
In many places, with the proper papers presented to your employer, you can work
without the fear of deportation or getting in trouble. Many employers are very
strict about checking documentation, and this becomes a problem when you know
your documents are authentic. This policy affects the work status of all
immigrants in the central valley.
Participant 1 stated, “Here in the fields employers do not check as thoroughly as do other
companies in the central valley. It is well known you can find work in the fields, but the
work is very demanding and low paying.” Lastly, Participant 3 explained, “It is difficult
and scary when showing documents to employers. You never know what is going to
happen; that is why working in the fields or manufacturing is safe for immigrants.” The
other three participants did not respond but nodded their heads in agreement with the
responses from the three participants.
Research Question 4. How do Latino immigrants understand and describe their
struggles or obstacles they face in their search for employment in the California Central
Valley? The six participants in focus group 1 identified four factors they described as
struggles and obstacles when searching for employment in the California Central Valley:
(a) documentation, (b) language, (c) racism, and (d) immigration policy. Table 6 displays
each factor as an emerging theme.
Table 6
Struggles and Obstacles Immigrants Face While Searching for Employment in the
California Central Valley
Theme
1
2
3
4
5 6
Total
Documentation
X
X
X
X
4/6
Language
X
X
X
3/6
Racism
X
1/6
Immigration policy
X
X
2/6
Documentation. Employers require documentation as part of the employment
process. For an employer, documentation for eligibility to work in the United States
consists of (a) a permanent resident card (green card), (b) a driver’s license, (c) an
identification card, (d) a birth certificate, and (e) a social security card and/or a visa.
Four of the six participants identified documentation as a major obstacle during an
employment search. Participant 2 said, “One of our biggest struggles is obtaining
documents. Without documents we cannot find work.” Participant 3 stated, “You cannot
Participant
look for work without documents; it is the main barrier for someone who does not have
documents.” Participant 4’s response was, “One of the first things asked for at a new job
is documents. Without proper documents, you will not get a job.” Participant 5 also
explained, “Without documents it is very difficult to get a job. A job can provide for my
family and children, but without having the proper documentation, it becomes a struggle
for not just myself but for my entire family.”
Language. The ability to speak and comprehend English is an obstacle for many
immigrants seeking employment in the California Central Valley. Spanish was the
primary language of all participants for this study and increases the difficulty of finding a
job. Three of the six participants mentioned language as a barrier to finding employment.
Participant 2 explained,
We have the language barrier that affects us tremendously. Not knowing the
English language keeps us in the fields. We understand our supervisors because
they speak Spanish, but if we work elsewhere, we leave because we cannot
understand the English language.
Participant 3 said, “English is very important for a job, and many times you go for an
interview they will ask you whether you can speak English. It is frustrating because you
do not get the job because of your lack of English.” Participant 4 proclaimed, “We all
wish to work, but the lack of understanding English puts us at a great disadvantage.”
Racism. One of the six participants identified racism as an obstacle. Participant 2 spoke
passionately about racism, stating, “Looking for work is difficult, especially if you are an
immigrant. There is racism in hiring immigrants even if you have documentation.”
Immigration policy. Two of the six participants identified immigration policy as an
obstacle to finding employment. Immigration policy means providing immigrants an
easier path to gain immigration status and to secure employment without fear of
deportation. Participant 1 expressed his concern for changes in immigration policy,
asserting that the federal government is not doing much on behalf of immigrants working
in the California Central Valley. He said,
Immigration needs to make it easier for us to obtain documents. It is difficult at
this time, and you always worry about being caught without legal documentation.
It would help this country to provide immigrants an easier path to obtain a status
and documentation.
Participant 4 explained his sentiments about immigration policy from the perspective of
employers. He stated, “Businesses need to change their policies to make it easier for
immigrants to secure employment. We know they must follow the law, but they can
influence the laws surrounding immigration policy.”
Presentation and Analysis of Data for Focus Group 2
Observations of Study Environment and Participants of Focus Group 2 Focus
group 2 met at an agricultural office in Woodland, CA on July 20, 2015, from 9:30am to
10:30am. The advocate brought the participants 15 minutes prior to the session. The
advocate selected participants from several companies who had been employed for
several years but who did not have the most seniority, using the criteria for the study as a
guide for participant selection. The sessions began with a brief discussion of the purpose
of the study and a detailed synopsis of each part of the study. The focus group interviews
were conducted in Spanish, the primary language of all participants. The researcher, an
assistant, and the community advocate facilitated the study. The session began with the
researcher informing participants of their rights. Participants were provided the informed
consent form, an audio release form, the participant bill of rights, and a demographic
questionnaire. The researcher explained each form in detail and answered any questions
from participants. The researcher also informed participants that the data from each form
and their responses to the interview questions would only be used for data collection and
analysis. Participants were also informed that their responses would be anonymous and
would not be used for the researcher’s personal interest. The second focus group
consisted of six participants. Each participant was assigned a number to keep track of his
responses. All participants were seated around a table and were conversing with each
other freely prior to the start of the interview. The participants of the second group were
more at ease than those in the first group and were not as apprehensive. After the
introduction, participants were more at ease with sharing their perceptions and stories
regarding immigrant employment. Most of the participants answered all of the questions
with examples from their experiences, but a few did not answer each question. The
participants who did not answer a particular question displayed agreement with their
body language and were asked to further elaborate on the questions they responded to.
During the interview, several participants asked for clarification of the questions to fully
understand the meaning behind the dialogue. Participants’ body language went
through several stages. They were initially nervous and apprehensive about answering
the questions, most of them displaying this by crossing their arms and their legs. Each
participant shook hands and displayed friendliness toward each other. During the mid-
stage of the interview, participants were making direct eye contact with each other,
waiting for visual clues for their chance to add their perspective on the question. Many
times during the interview, participants clapped for each other because of the truthfulness
of their responses. In the final stage of the interview, participants showed relief and a
sense of accomplishment with relaxed body postures of arms by their sides and uncrossed
legs. Participants also leaned forward instead of trying to stay farther away as in the
beginning stage. Overall, the second group was the second most vocal of the four focus
groups.
The focus group finished 40 minutes prior to the two hours provided for each
group. All participants were provided time off from their jobs to participate in the focus
group and received support from their companies. All participants were thankful they
could participate in the study and hoped their information could be useful in immigration
employment issues in the future. The researcher closed the session by turning off the
audio recorder and thanking everyone for their participation. Two participants stayed 5
minutes behind to thank the researcher for the opportunity to participate in the study.
Findings for Focus Group 2 by Research Questions
Research Question 1. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central
Valley understand and describe the factors that cause them to remain at their places of
employment? The six participants in focus group 2 identified five factors that would
cause them to remain at their places of employment: (a) employment, (b) longevity, (c)
family, (d) familiarity, and (e) documentation. Table 7 displays each factor as an
emerging theme.
Table 7
California Central Valley Immigrant Factors for Remaining at Place of Employment
Theme
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Participant
Employment
X
X
X
3/6
Longevity
X
X
X
3/6
Family
X
X
2/6
Familiarity
X
1/6
Documentation
X
X
2/6
Employment. Three of the six participants identified employment as a reason they
stay at their place of employment. Participant 1 said, “We have jobs, which is important
to us and will help us stay instead of moving around. It keeps us together with our
family.” Participant 4 mentioned employment as one of the reasons he stays at his one
place of employment, stating, “We stay at our job because we know we always have
employment here. There is a risk if you leave your job because you might not be able to
find employment at another place.” Participant 5 agreed with the other two participants,
stating, “Employment was my first concern when I came to the California Central Valley.
This is the reason I stay at my place of employment.”
Longevity. For participants, longevity means staying at a place of employment
for years. Three of the six participants identified longevity as the reason they stay at their
place of employment. Participant 2 said, “We have jobs we have been working at for
years. It would be unwise for us to leave our jobs.” Participant 3 reiterated the same
reason and added, “I have worked for the same employer for many years. I have heard of
many bad things happening to family and friends who look elsewhere.” Participant 5
also talked about his experience with longevity at one job. He said it would probably be
in his best interest to move, but he feels secure where he is currently working. He stated,
“I have worked for years at my job, and I would not want to risk what I have earned.”
Family. Two of the six participants cited close and extended family members for staying
at their place of employment. Family members identified were mothers, fathers, brothers,
sisters, and extended family such as cousins. Family creates a network of support when
staying at a place of employment. Participant 2 explained, “The reason we are here is
because of family. We follow our families because they invite us here, and upon our
arrival, we invite more of our family.” Participant 6 proclaimed, “We have family
members working here now. We stay in one location because our families help and
support us.”
Familiarity. One participant mentioned vast experience with a job over a period
of time as the reason for staying at his current place of employment. The participant
explained that familiarity is being comfortable with a job and everything that goes along
with that employment. Participant 5’s response was, “We know our job very well and the
way things run at our job. Our supervisors know us well, and for this reason we stay at
our job.”
Documentation. Two of the six participants mentioned documentation as a reason
they stay at their place of employment. Documentation means having valid, legal
documents to work for an employer. The two participants explained that not having
authentic documentation makes it difficult for any immigrant to secure employment
elsewhere. Participant 1’s response was, “Documentation is a big reason we stay at our
job. Without legal documentation, it is difficult to go anywhere, and this is why we stay
at our place of employment.” Participant 6 explained, “Our documentation makes it hard
for us to move around. We can earn more money at other places of employment, but for
many of us, the documentation keeps us at our jobs.”
Research Question 2. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central
Valley understand and describe the factors that cause them to leave their places of
employment? The six participants in focus group 2 identified five factors that would
cause them to leave their place of employment: (a) opportunity, (b) wages, (c) family
issues, (d) immigration status, and (e) benefits. Table 8 displays each factor as an
emerging theme.
Table 8
California Central Valley Immigrant Factors for Leaving their Place of Employment
Theme
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Opportunity
X
X
2/6
Wages
X
X
2/6
Family issues
X
1/6
Immigration status
X
X
2/6
Benefits
X
1/6
Opportunity. Two of the six participants identified a chance for progression in
employment as a reason for leaving their place of employment. The two participants
mentioned opportunity to advance in their jobs with better pay, hours, and benefits.
Participant 2 revealed he would leave his place of employment for the opportunity to
advance within a company. He stated, “There’s always a place where they pay you more,
and there are more opportunities for you and your family.” Participant 5 explained, We
look for better opportunities because field work is very difficult and the pay is very low,
yet there is no time for your family because you work every day. If someone can find a
better opportunity, more pay, and better benefits, then it is in their best interest to leave
their job.
Wages. Two participants described better pay as the reason they would leave their
place of employment. Participant 1 stated, “If you can find a place that will pay you
more, then it might be worth it to leave your place of employment.” Participant 5
Participant
explained, “A good reason to leave your job would be better pay, but it must be taken in
consideration with other factors before you decide.”
Family issues. One participant described that family issues can affect the decision
to leave the current place of employment. Family issues can consist of health problems,
money problems, education issues, legal problems, and more. Participant 6 explained,
Many times leaving your place of employment depends on family issues. Many years
ago I worked for a company for many years, and I had to move because of my children’s
education. You must do what is in the best interest of your family, and this was the
reason for leaving a job I had worked for so many years. Immigration status.
Immigration status refers to the legal authorization to live and work in the United States.
Two of the six participants identified immigration status as a reason they would leave
their place of employment. Participant 3 communicated that without the proper
immigration status, it is difficult to maintain employment. He explained, “Immigration
status affects our decision. They will ask for documentation, and we do not have
documentation of our status, so we return to the fields.” Participant 5 shared,
“Immigration status is one of the main reasons we would leave our employment. If there
is any question about immigration status, it is better to leave than to be discovered as
undocumented.”
Benefits. Benefits are rewards presented to employees during their employment.
Benefits can be medical, dental, vision, vacation, and unemployment insurance.
Participant 4 was the only one to mention this as a reason to possibly leave his place of
employment. He proclaimed,
Many times we do not have the same benefits as other people because of our
undocumented status. Undocumented employees cannot apply for unemployment
benefits because of their status. The people who have their documentation
receive their unemployment, but us who do not have our documents struggle the
most.
Research Question 3. How do current immigration and employment policies in
the United States affect a Latino immigrant’s employment status in the California Central
Valley? The six participants in focus group 2 identified two policies that would affect
their employment status in the California Central Valley: immigration status and
employer verification. Table 9 displays each factor as an emerging theme.
Table 9
Immigration and Employment Policies that Affect Immigrant Employment Status
2
6 Total
Immigration status X X 2/6
Employment verification X X X 3/6
Immigration status. Two of the six participants mentioned immigration status as
one of the policies that affects their employment status. Participant 2 was very adamant
on his opinion of immigration policy. He insisted, “There needs to be a better
immigration policy for immigrants. Applying for an immigration status such as a green
card should be easier since we are already working in the California Central Valley.”
Participant 6 expressed the same sentiments as Participant 2 and added, “The immigration
policies should be easier for those who have been here for many years. We live in fear of
Th
eme
P
nt
articipa
1
3
4
5
being deported, and there should be a program to make it easier to gain an immigration
status such as a green card or citizenship.”
Employment verification. Employers verify employees’ eligibility by legal
documentation. Legal documentation consists of documents such as permanent resident
cards, visas, driver’s licenses, and identification cards. Three of the six participants
stated that employer verification policy affects their employment status. Participant 1
exclaimed, “Many times at other jobs they ask for verification of documents, and if you
do not have them, you cannot get that job.” Participant 4 explained that the policy
regarding documentation is getting harder each year because the government is placing
more emphasis on employers. He stated, “The government makes it harder for employers
to hire employees. You must have the proper documents or they will turn you away.”
Participant 5 commented,
Employers make it difficult for immigrants to get work. We have to get an
immigration status and then show the legal documents to our employers. It used
to be easier before computers to get a job, and it is difficult, and the only work
left is in the fields.
Research Question 4. How do immigrants understand and describe their
struggles or obstacles they face in their search for employment in the California Central
Valley? The six participants in focus group 2 identified three factors they described as
struggles and obstacles when searching for employment in the California Central Valley:
(a) documentation, (b) language, and (c) immigration policy. Table 10 displays each
factor as an emerging theme.
Table 10
Struggles and Obstacles Immigrants face While Searching for Employment in the
California Central Valley
Theme
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Documentation
X
X
2/6
Language
X
X
2/6
Immigration policy
X
X
X
3/6
Documentation. Documentation refers to paperwork that provides immigrants the
ability to secure work. Employers verify these items for eligibility to work in the United
States. Two participants mentioned documentation as an obstacle to employment in the
California Central Valley. Participant 1 relayed, “With legal documents it is easy to find a
job. Many of us do not have legalized documents, and it puts us in a disadvantage.”
Participant 6 felt the same way about documentation. His facial expressions expressed
his concern, and he noted, “If you do not have legal documents, you will work in the
fields for a long time unless they pay a new law.” Both expressed their frustration with
the obstacle of documentation while searching for jobs in the California Central Valley.
Language. Two of the six participants identified language as an obstacle in
searching for and obtaining work in the California Central Valley. Both participants
agreed that English is a necessity for finding a job. Participant 3 provided the following
response, “If one cannot speak the English language, you are at a disadvantage for
finding a job.” Participant 5 explained, “Being about to speak English gives you more
opportunities for finding a job. Without knowing the English language, you will search
for a long time for a job or just go work in the fields.”
Participant
Immigration policy. Three of the six participants acknowledged immigration
policy as a barrier to finding employment. Immigration policy refers to the U.S.
government’s procedures for dealing with immigrants who live and work in America.
Participant 2 explained, “Immigration is not doing enough to help immigrants. It is
making it harder for immigrants who are here to find a job.” Participant 3 responded,
There needs to be changes from the federal government about immigrants living
and working in the United States. We came here to make a life, and our
employers need us, but the policies are getting harder just to stay at your job. We
do not want to get deported but want to make a life for our family.
Participant 4 immediately wanted to give his response after hearing from Participant 3.
Participant 4 proclaimed, “I just want immigration to give us a fair chance like everyone
else. We just want to work and provide for our families instead of living in fear.”
Presentation and Analysis of Data for Focus Group 3
Observations of Study Environment and Participants of Focus Group 3 Focus
group 3 met at an agricultural office in Woodland, CA on July 20, 2015, from 11:30am
to 12:30pm. The advocate brought the participants at the exact time for the interviews.
The advocate selected the participants based on the criteria for the study. The third
group consisted of both senior participants from their companies and seasonal workers.
The sessions began with a brief discussion of the purpose of the study and a detailed
synopsis of each part of the study. The focus group interviews were conducted in
Spanish, the primary language of all participants. The researcher, an assistant, and the
community advocate facilitated the study. The session began with the researcher
informing participants of their rights. Participants were provided the informed consent
form, an audio release form, the participant bill of rights, and a demographic
questionnaire. The researcher explained each form in detail and answered any questions
from participants. The researcher informed participants that their data from each form
and their responses from the interview would be used only for data collection and
analysis. Participants were also informed that their responses would be anonymous and
would not be used for the researcher’s personal interest.
The third focus group consisted of six participants. Each participant was assigned
a number to keep track of his responses. All participants were seated around a table and
were conversing with each other freely prior to the start of the interviews. The
participants of the third group were apprehensive about the questions regarding
immigration, but the researcher put them at ease and reminded participants that their
information would remain anonymous. After the first question, participants were more at
ease with sharing their perceptions and stories regarding immigrant employment. Most
of the participants answered all of the questions with examples from their experiences,
but some did not answer each question. They would reply many times in agreement with
their fellow participants. During the interview, several participants asked for clarification
of the questions to fully understand the meaning behind the dialogue.
Participants’ body language went through several stages. They were initially
nervous and apprehensive about answering the questions, most of them displaying this by
crossing their arms and their legs. Each participant shook hands and displayed
friendliness toward each other. During the mid-stage of the interview, participants were
making direct eye contact with each other, waiting for visual clues for their chance to add
their perspective on the question. Many times during the interview participants clapped
for each other because of the truthfulness of their responses. In the final stage of the
interview, participants showed relief and a sense of accomplishment with relaxed body
postures of arms by their sides and uncrossed legs. Participants also leaned forward
instead of trying to stay farther away as in the beginning stage. Overall, the third group
was vocal, but many times the researcher had to ask probing questions to seek a response.
Participants were reluctant to answer questions unless they were gently asked their
opinion on the question.
The focus group finished 30 minutes prior to the two hours provided for each
group. All participants were provided time off from their jobs to participate in the focus
group and received support from their companies. All participants were thankful they
could participate in the study and hoped their information could be useful in immigration
employment issues in the future. The researcher closed the session by turning off the
audio recorder and thanking everyone for their participation. Four of the six participants
stayed 10 minutes after conclusion of the focus group to thank the researcher for the
opportunity to participate in the study.
Findings for Focus Group 3 by Research Questions
Research Question 1. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central
Valley understand and describe the factors that cause them to remain at their places of
employment? The six participants in focus group 3 identified five factors that would
cause them to remain at their place of employment: (a) familiarity, (b) hours, (c)
employer relations, (d) employment, and (e) family. Table 11 displays each factor as an
emerging theme.
Table 11
California Central Valley Immigrant Factors for Remaining at Place of Employment
Theme
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Familiarity
X
X
2/6
Hours
X
X
2/6
Employer relations
X
1/6
Employment
X
1/6
Family
X
X
2/6
Familiarity. Participants viewed familiarity as knowing your surroundings, the
people around you, and the area where a person lives. Two of the six participants listed
familiarity as one of the factors that would cause them to remain at their place of
employment. Participant 3 explained that experience has taught him that change is not
necessarily a good thing. He said, “Right here where I work now I am very comfortable.
I have known my job and the people I work with. This is what keeps me going every
day.” Participant 5 expressed his views along the same lines. He proclaimed, “We work
comfortable here at the ranch. We know our boss, the fields, and the people, plus we
have been settled here for a long time.
Hours. Two participants identified hours as one of the reasons they remain at their
place of employment. Participants viewed hours as full time, regular work with at least
40 hours each week plus overtime. Participant 2 replied,
My job gives me 40 hours or more each week. This is very important to me
because it helps feed my family and pay my bills. Other jobs pay more but give
less hours, and this is why I stay at my current job.
Participant 4 responded similarly: “We are provided more hours, which helps us provide
for our families. I stay at my current job because I am always given more hours.”
Employer relations. The way employers treat employees was a concern for one
Participant
participant. Participant 6 said the owner and his supervisors treat him well. They make
him feel valued, and his work makes a difference in the community. Participant 6 said, I
am very comfortable at my job because of the way I am treated. This is the reason I stay
at my current job. At prior jobs, I was treated inhumanely because of my immigration
status, and the treatment caused me to leave immediately.
Employment. Participant 2 defined employment as finding and keeping a job. He
responded, “I found work here at my current job. It was difficult to find work, but I
managed to find a job here in Yolo County. My job is what keeps me from finding
employment elsewhere.”
Family. Two participants out of the six proclaimed that family was the reason
they stayed at their place of employment for many years. Both participants also stated
that family supports each other when searching for employment and when keeping their
jobs. Participant 1 said, “Our families help us during our search for employment, and
without their help, I would not be able to make it on my own.” Participant 5 mentioned,
“We come here because our families are established and they can help us find work. Our
families are one of the reasons we remain at our jobs for years.”
Research Question 2. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central
Valley understand and describe the factors that cause them to leave their places of
employment? The six participants in focus group 3 identified four factors that would
cause them to leave their place of employment: (a) seasonal work, (b) family, (c)
immigration status, and (d) benefits. Table 12 displays each factor as an emerging theme.
Table 12
California Central Valley Immigrant Factors for Leaving Their Place of Employment
Theme
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Seasonal work
X
X
2/6
Family
X
X
X
3/6
Immigration status
X
X
X
3/6
Benefits
X
X
2/6
Seasonal work. Seasonal work refers to work that only lasts for a couple of
months. Seasonal work keeps immigrants employed for a short period of time, primarily
in the agricultural industry. Two of the six participants mentioned seasonal work as a
factor for leaving their place of employment. Participant 2 explained that seasonal
employment is a way of life unless a person can find a good place of employment with
family support. He stated, “We stay at our jobs until the end of the harvest. Without any
work, we will leave our jobs to find work elsewhere.” Participant 6 expressed, “The only
reason we leave is because there is no work after the season ends. Our family cannot
support us for the entire year, and for this reason we move where we can find work.”
Family. Family refers to the support parents and siblings offer. Three of the six
participants identified family as a factor for leaving their place of employment. Family
support is paramount with employment for immigrants. The three participants agreed
that many leave their place of employment to care for their families in Mexico.
Participant 1 exclaimed,
I will work at my job for as long as I can, but the only reason I would leave my
job is to go back to Mexico to care for my family. If my family was with me, I
would stay at my job.
Participant 3 expressed a similar response as Participant 1,
Participant
My family is the only reason I would leave my job. My family is the reason I
work so hard, but many times I am called back to Mexico for family issues, and
this is the reason I would leave my job.
Participant 5 conveyed a similar response and added, “My family is important to me, and
I would leave my job to help them at a moment’s notice.”
Immigration status. Immigration status refers to the status of legally living and
working in the United States. An immigration status can be permanent resident alien,
undocumented resident, and citizen. Three of the participants identified their
immigration status as a reason they would leave their place of employment. Participant 2
answered, “If my immigration status was questioned, I would leave my job because I
cannot take the chance of being deported.” Participant 4 replied, “My immigration status
is always on my mind. Even though I have documentation, I would leave my job instead
of taking the chance of being detained by immigration.” Participant 6 said his
immigration status could trigger an audit of his documentation, and that would cause him
to leave his job.
Benefits. Unemployment, disability, and medical insurance are examples of
benefits employees receive. Two participants identified benefits as a reason they would
leave their employment. Participant 1 explained, “If I get laid off or work is slow, I
cannot apply for benefits such as unemployment, and this would be a reason I would
leave my job and move on to another.” Participant 6 expressed, “As an immigrant with
questionable documents, it would be in my best interest to leave my employment instead
of working for no benefits.”
Research Question 3. How do current immigration and employment policies in
the United States affect an immigrant’s employment status in the California Central
Valley? The six participants in focus group 3 identified two policies that would affect
their employment status in the California Central Valley: immigration status and
documentation. Table 13 displays each factor as an emerging theme.
Table 13
Immigration and Employment Policies That Affect Immigrant Employment Status
Theme
1 2
3 4
5
6
Total
Immigration Status
X
X
2/6
Documentation
X
X
2/6
Immigration status. Two of the six participants mentioned immigration status as a
policy that affects their employment status. Participant 5 stated, “My immigration status
affects my employment. If I was ever questioned about my documents or if they were to
be verified, I would probably lose my job. Yes, policies affect me personally.”
Participant 6 commented,
I have a problem with the immigration policy in the United States. It is difficult
to enter the United States, and it makes it harder to find and keep a job. I wish the
government would make polices that would welcome immigrants and not scare
them away.
The other four participants did not answer but expressed full agreement with both
comments the two participants provided by nodding their heads.
Documentation. All of the participants expressed their concern about
documentation, but only two commented on the subject. Participant 1 stated, The
policy of checking documents is a nervous time for immigrants. We do not know if
Participant
they will give us employment or if we will be under investigation by immigration.
Many times if they ask us to go for verification at the local social security office, we
will not return to that employer.
Participant 3 expressed his concern by exclaiming, “I will present my documentation, but
I believe the employment policy targets immigrants. We come here searching for work,
then in one day you can be terminated for not having proper documentation.”
Research Question 4. How do Latino immigrants understand and describe their
struggles or obstacles they face in their search for employment in the California Central
Valley? The six participants in focus group 3 identified three factors they described as
struggles and obstacles when searching for employment in the California Central Valley:
(a) language, (b) immigration status, and (c) documentation. Table 14 displays each
factor as an emerging theme.
Tbale 14
Struggles and Obstacles Immigrants Face While Searching for Employment in the
California Central Valley
Theme
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Language
X
X
X
3/6
Immigration status
X
X
X
X
4/6
Documentation
X
X
2/6
Language. Language refers to the ability to speak, read, and write English. Three
of the six participants identified language as a barrier when searching for employment in
the California Central Valley. Participant 3 answered, “The number one barrier is
English. It affects us with everything we do. Our inability to speak English keeps us
employed in the fields and in unskilled work.” Participant 4 agreed, stating, “Not
Participant
knowing English is what keeps me from finding employment. I am in the fields, and this
work required no English. I would look for better work, but my English prevents me
from finding a better job.” Other participants agreed with nodding heads that English is
an obstacle to finding employment in the California Central Valley.
Immigration status. Four of the six participants identified immigration status as
an obstacle to finding employment. Participant 1 expressed, “We find it difficult to
obtain an immigration status since many of us are undocumented. We are always careful
everywhere we work because of our status.” Participants 2 and 3 both agreed that
immigrants’ immigration status is an obstacle and expressed a desire for the federal
government to make it easier for immigrants to obtain a legal immigration status.
Participant 5 related:
When I first came to the California Central Valley, it was my immigration status
that kept me from applying for jobs. I was always worried about getting in
trouble with the law. My family let me know places to apply where they are not
as strict about your immigration status. I feel this is a great concern for all
immigrants.
Documentation. Participants mentioned green cards, visas, driver’s licenses, and
identification cards as important documentation. Participants viewed policies regarding
documentation as obstacles in obtaining employment. Participant 3 replied, “My barrier
to employment is documentation. The documents are not authentic, and it is really hard
to find employment without legal papers.” Participant 4 shared the same feeling, “It is
the most difficult obstacle for an immigrant to have legal papers. It really gives us few
choices in finding work.”
Presentation and Analysis of Data for Focus Group 4
Observations of Study Environment and Participants of Focus Group 4 Focus
group 4 met at an agricultural office in Woodland, CA on July 20, 2015, from 1:00 to
3:00pm. The advocate brought the participants at the exact time for the interviews. The
advocate selected participants based on the criteria for the study. The fourth group
comprised seasonal participants and was the youngest of the groups by mean age. The
sessions began with a brief discussion of the purpose of the study and a detailed
synopsis of each part of the study. The focus group interviews were conducted in
Spanish, the primary language of all participants. The researcher, an assistant, and the
community advocate facilitated the study. The session began with the researcher
informing participants of their rights. Participants were provided the informed consent
form, an audio release form, the participant bill of rights, and a demographic
questionnaire. The researcher explained each form in detail and answered any questions
from participants. The researcher also informed participants that their data from each
form and their responses from the interview would only be used for data collection and
analysis. Participants were also informed that their responses would be anonymous and
would not be used for the researcher’s personal interest.
The last focus group consisted of seven participants. Each participant was
assigned a number to keep track of his responses. All participants were seated around a
table and were conversing with each other freely prior to the start of the interview. The
participants of the last group were apprehensive about the questions regarding
immigration, but the researcher put them at ease and reminded participants that their
information would remain anonymous. The researcher had a difficult time with the last
group because they were not as vocal as the other three groups. After the first question,
participants were more at ease with sharing their perceptions and stories regarding
immigrant employment. Some of the participants answered the questions with examples
from their experiences, but it was difficult for the researcher to receive responses from
this group. Even with further probing, the last group was reluctant to answer questions.
During the interview, several participants asked for clarification of the questions to fully
understand the meaning behind the dialogue. This group overall was the most difficult
due to the moderate communication between the researcher and participants.
Participants’ body language went through several stages. They were initially nervous and
apprehensive about answering the questions, most of them displaying this by crossing
their arms and their legs. Each participant shook hands and displayed friendliness toward
each other. During the mid-stage of the interview, participants were making direct eye
contact with each other, waiting for visual clues for their chance to add their perspective
on the question. Many times during the interview participants clapped for each other
because of the truthfulness of their responses. In the final stage of the interview,
participants showed relief and a sense of accomplishment with relaxed body postures of
arms by their sides and uncrossed legs. Participants also leaned forward instead of trying
to stay farther away as in the beginning stage. Overall, the last group was the least vocal
of the four focus groups. The fourth group still managed to provide valuable data for the
researcher based on the research questions asked to each participant. Even though all of
the participants were seasonal workers, they made an excellent effort to provide their
responses for the study.
The focus group finished one hour prior to the two hours provided for each group.
All participants were provided time off from their jobs to participate in the focus group
and received support from their companies. All participants were thankful they could
participate in the study and hoped their information could be useful in immigration
employment issues in the future. The researcher closed the session by turning off the
audio recorder and thanking everyone for their participation. Four of the seven
participants stayed 10 minutes after conclusion of the focus group to thank the researcher
for the opportunity to participate in the study.
Findings for Focus Group 4 by Research Questions
Research Question 1. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central
Valley understand and describe the factors that cause them to remain at their places of
employment? The seven participants in focus group 4 identified four factors that would
cause them to remain at their place of employment: (a) familiarity, (b) wages, (c)
employment, and (d) family. Table 15 displays each factor as an emerging theme.
Table 15
California Central Valley Immigrant Factors for Remaining at Place of Employment
Theme
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Familiarity
X
X
2/7
Wages
X
1/7
Employment
X
X
2/7
Family
X
X
X
3/7
Familiarity. Participants described familiarity as knowing the job, people, and
work on a frequent, continuous basis and being comfortable at their place of employment.
Participant 5 revealed, “I am very comfortable with my job, my supervisor, and the city I
Participant
live in. This keeps me at my job because I do not have anything that will surprise me.”
Participant 6 expressed that he was familiar with all aspects of his job and that he does
not want to jeopardize his job. He said, “I like where I work and know everything about
the company; therefore this keeps me at my job.” The rest of the participants did not
respond but nodded their heads in agreement with Participants 5 and 6.
Wages. Wages refers to the amount of money paid to employees for work. One
participant identified wages a reason for staying at his place of employment. Participant
4 stated, “I stay at my job because they pay higher than other companies.” Wages were
his reason for longevity at the job.
Employment. Employment refers to the ability to find and keep a job. Two of the
participants mentioned employment as the reason they stay at their jobs. Participant 1
remarked, “It is difficult to enter or change a job; this is the reason I stay at my job.”
Participant 6 agreed with participant 1 and replied, “This is the place I first found work,
and the longer I stay at my job, the more difficult it is to leave and find work elsewhere.”
Family. The family network is an important part of employment for immigrants.
Three of the seven participants noted family as a reason they remain at their jobs.
Participant 2 shared, “My entire family is in Yolo County, and they helped me find a job
and they are the reason I remain at my job.” Participant 3 expressed a similar statement
in reference to his family, “Many of my family work at the same place I do, and it makes
sense for me to stay at the same job instead of moving around.” Participant 7 stated, “My
family is the driving force behind my employment. Without my family I would not
remain at my job or in Yolo County. Many of the challenges related to employment are
reduced with the help and support of family.
Research Question 2. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central
Valley understand and describe the factors that cause them to leave their places of
employment? The seven participants in focus group 4 identified four factors that would
cause them to leave their place of employment: (a) employer relations, (b) wages, (c)
hours, and (d) racism. Table 16 displays each factor as an emerging theme.
Table 16
California Central Valley Immigrant Factors for Leaving Their Place of Employment
1
4 7 Total
Employer relations X X X 3/7
Wages X X X 3/7
Hours X X 2/7
Racism X 1/7
Employer relations. Immigrants will only tolerate inhumane behavior to a degree
before they decide to quit their jobs. Three of the participants revealed employer
relations as one of the reasons they would leave their place of employment. Participant 1
expressed his concern for bad behavior from any of his supervisors and stated, “Treating
people bad can only be tolerated so much. When this behavior continues, we look for
other employment.” Participant 4 declared, “I would leave immediately if I was being
treated badly by a supervisor. I can find another job with the help of my family.”
Participant 7 was very vocal about his response and remarked, “I will not be treated badly
where I work and would leave quickly to avoid that kind of environment.” Wages.
Three of the seven participants chose wages as the reason they would leave their jobs.
Participant 1 explained that his main concern is wages because he supports his family
Theme
articipa
P
nt
2
3
5
6
back in Mexico. He stated, “Without a decent income I cannot send money home. I
would leave my job for more money because my family depends on me.”
Participants 5 and 6 both agreed with Participant 1 and added the following: Our pay is
the most important thing for us. We need our pay to support our families and to
survive. The pay we receive is above average, but if they were to reduce our pay
we would be forced to leave our jobs.
Hours. Two participants identified hours as a reason they would leave their jobs.
Both participants expressed that they cannot survive on part time work and that it was
imperative to receive 40 hours of work per week. Participant 2 remarked,
My current job gives me all the hours I want, but if they cut my hours I would
have to leave. My main priority is to take care of my family, and I cannot do this
with part time work.
Participant 6 added, “We need full time work to survive. If we do not get hours, then
many of us leave for other jobs in the area.”
Racism. Racism refers to discrimination against immigrants based on their
nationality, skin color, or language. One participant mentioned racism as a reason he
would leave his place of employment. Participant 3 explained:
I have worked for companies that are very racist. They abuse immigrants because
of their language and their country of nationality. They do not promote or give
equal training because we are immigrants, and this type of treatment forces me to
move to another company.
Research Question 3. How do current immigration and employment policies in
the United States affect a Latino immigrant’s employment status in the California Central
Valley? The seven participants in focus group 4 identified two policies that would affect
their employment status in the California Central Valley: documentation and immigration
status. Table 17 displays each factor as an emerging theme.
Table 17
Immigration and Employment Policies That Affect Immigrant Employment Status
Theme
1
2
3 4
5 6
7
Total
Documentation
X
X
X
3/7
Immigration status
X
X
2/7
Documentation. Immigrants need documents such as a green card, a visa, an
identification card, and a birth certificate to legally work in the United States. The
employment policy requires legal, valid documentation to be able to work for a company.
Three of the seven participants noted these two policies affect their employment status.
Participant 2 stated:
The policy on documentation by employers makes it hard for immigrants to apply
for jobs. Some use the government system and others do not, and that makes
searching for a job very difficult. They need to change the policy to make it
easier for immigrants living and working in the California central valley.
Participant 3 divulged,
The policy of employers requiring identification makes it scary when applying for
a job. You never know what they will tell you. If they ask you to verify your
identification through the social security administration, most immigrants will not
return to that place of employment.
Participant
Participant 7 remarked, “The policy needs to change to help immigrant obtain
documentation easier. It is sometimes difficult to work at a place because they want to
keep checking your documentation.”
Immigration status. An immigration status provides immigrants a way to live and
work in the United States legally. Participant 1 commented, “My immigration status has
always affected my employment. I am always in fear of being called in to verify my
documents. If this happens, I could possibly lose my job or make it difficult to find a
new one.” Participant 5 agreed that immigration status affects his employment in a
negative way and explained, “My immigration status prevents me from applying for
some really good jobs. There is always the chance they may check further into your
documents and find something wrong.” The other participants agreed with the two
participants but did not want to comment about the subject verbally.
Research Question 4. How do Latino immigrants understand and describe their
struggles or obstacles they face in their search for employment in the California Central
Valley? The seven participants in focus group 4 identified two factors they described as
struggles and obstacles when searching for employment in the California Central Valley:
language and documentation. Table 18 displays each factor as an emerging theme.
Table 18
Struggles and Obstacles Immigrants Face While Searching for Employment in the
California Central Valley
Theme
4 6 Total
Language X X 2/7
Documentation X X 2/7
Participant
1
2
3
5
7
Language. Two of the seven participants indicated that language was the biggest
obstacle in their search for employment in the California Central Valley. Language was a
concern for both of these participants because they could not speak any English at all.
Participant 4 said, “Not being able to speak English puts us at a disadvantage because
most employers will not give you work unless you speak and understand a small amount
of English.” Participant 6 followed his response and exclaimed, “They will not give us
work because we cannot speak English, and this is why we can only work in the fields.”
Documentation. Documentation is a vital element to find and secure employment.
Two of the seven participants identified documentation as a barrier to finding a job.
Participant 2 mentioned, “They will not give us work without proper documentation. It
gets really tiring applying for jobs, and you keep getting turned down.” Participant 3
expressed, “It is hard enough to come to the United States from Mexico, and then you
have to provide valid documentation. The government needs a program to help us, and in
turn this will help our families and community.”
Comparison of Focus Groups by Research Questions This section
provides a comparison of findings from each focus group. The comparisons will
provide an overview of the frequency of emerging themes by research question. Each
focus group answered questions directly related to the four research questions.
Identifying the frequency of emerging themes by each research question will illustrate
patterns common to each group. This method of comparison will provide a clear
picture of the data collection from the study.
Comparison of Findings From Research Question 1
The goal of Research Question 1 was to gather data from the following question:
How do Latino immigrants in the California Central Valley understand and describe the
factors that cause them to remain at their places of employment? The four focus groups
identified ten factors that cause them to remain at their places of employment. Table 19
displays the factors and shows the frequency of each factor from each focus group.
Table 19
Focus Group Comparison by Emerging Theme: Research Question 1
Total
Employment 11/25
Future 3/6 0/6 0/6 0/7 3/25
Opportunity 6/6 0/6 0/6 0/7 6/25
Wages 3/6 0/6 0/6 1/7 4/25
Family 6/6 2/6 2/6 2/7 12/25
Hours 3/6 0/6 2/6 0/7 5/25
Longevity 0/6 3/6 0/6 0/7 3/25
Familiarity 0/6 1/6 2/6 2/7 5/25
Documentation 0/6 2/6 0/6 0/7 2/25
Employer relations 0/6 0/6 1/6 0/7 1/25
Employment and family emerged as the most frequently occurring factors from
the participants. Employment accounts for 44%, and family accounts for 48% of
responses from participants regarding the factors that would cause them to remain at their
place of employment. These two factors were most often mentioned from the four focus
groups as reasons to stay at their places of employment.
Comparison of Findings From Research Question 2
The goal of Research Question 2 was to gather data from the following question:
How do Latino immigrants in the California Central Valley understand and describe the
Theme
Focus
g
roup
1
2
3
4
6
6
/
3
6
/
1
6
/
1
7
/
factors that cause them to leave their places of employment? The four focus groups
identified ten factors that would cause them to leave their places of employment. Table
20 displays the factors and lists the frequency of each factor from each focus group.
Immigration status emerged as the most frequently occurring factor from participants,
accounting for 44% of participant responses regarding why they would leave their places
of employment.
Table 20
Focus Group Comparison by Emerging Theme: Research Question 2
Total
Employment 2/25
Opportunity 2/6 2/6 0/6 0/7 4/25
Wages 2/6 2/6 0/6 3/7 7/25
Hours 3/6 0/6 0/6 2/7 5/25
Immigration status 6/6 2/6 3/6 0/7 11/25
Employer relations 4/6 0/6 0/6 2/7 6/25
Family 0/6 1/6 3/6 0/7 4/25
Benefits 0/6 1/6 2/6 0/7 3/25
Seasonal work 0/6 0/6 2/6 0/7 2/25
Racism 0/6 0/6 0/6 1/7 1/25
Comparison of Findings From Research Question 3
The goal of Research Question 3 was to gather data from the following question:
How do current immigration and employment policies in the United States affect a Latino
immigrant’s employment status in the California Central Valley? The four focus groups
listed three policies that affect their employment status in the California Central Valley.
Table 21 displays the factors and lists the frequency of each policy from each focus.
Table 21
Focus Group Comparison by Emerging Theme: Research Question 3
Theme
Focus g
roup
1
2
3
4
2
6
/
0
6
/
0
6
/
0
7
/
Total
Immigration status 10/25
Employment verification 3/6 3/6 0/6 0/7 6/25
Documentation 0/6 0/6 2/6 2/7 4/25
Immigration status is the most frequently occurring policy that participants
identified, accounting for 40% of the responses from participants on the policies that
would affect their employment in the California central valley. Even though the other
two themes did not have high responses of frequency, it is interesting to note that
employment verification and documentation added a significant dimension of interest for
the four focus groups.
Comparison of Findings From Research Question 4
The goal of Research Question 4 was to gather data from the following question:
How do Latino immigrants understand and describe their struggles or obstacles they face
in their search for employment in the California Central Valley? The four focus groups
listed five obstacles they face when searching for employment in the California Central
Valley. The factors and frequency of each struggle from each focus group are in Table
22.
Table 22
Focus Group Comparison by Emerging Theme: Research Question 4
Total
Documentation
10/25
Language 3/6 2/6 3/6 2/7 10/25
Racism 1/6 0/6 0/6 0/7 1/25
Immigration Policy 2/6 3/6 0/6 0/7 5/25
Theme
Focus g
roup
1
2
3
4
4
6
/
2
6
/
2
6
/
2
7
/
Theme
Focus
g
roup
1
2
3
4
4
6
/
2
6
/
2
6
/
2
7
/
Immigration Status 0/6 0/6 4/6 0/7 4/25
Participants cited documentation and language most often, each accounting for
40% of participant responses regarding the struggles they face when searching for
employment in the California central valley. These two barriers represent significant
challenges.
Summary
This chapter provided the data and findings from four focus groups conducted in
Woodland, CA in Yolo County. Analysis of each focus group does not reveal any
overarching differences, but some data needed to be mentioned in the study. These
infrequent factors needed to be listed because of their importance in each focus group and
for the study. The findings from the study revealed unique factors affecting the
immigrant employment in the California Central Valley. Chapter five contains an
analysis of major findings as well as conclusions and recommendations.
CHAPTER V: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents an overview of the case study investigating Latino
immigrant employment in the California Central Valley. The chapter covers the purpose
statement, research questions, research methodology, population, and sample. It then
continues with major findings, unexpected findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
The chapter finishes with concluding remarks and reflections from the researcher about
the study.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this case study was to discover the factors that cause Latino
immigrants to leave or remain in their places of employment in the California Central
Valley. In addition, it was the purpose of this case study to understand and describe the
effect of immigration and employment laws and policies on a Latino immigrant’s
employment status in the California Central Valley.
Research Questions
Four questions were used for this case study. The goal of the first question was to
discover why Latino immigrants stay at their places of employment, while conversely the
goal of the second question was to discover why Latino immigrants leave their places of
employment. The goal of the third question was to discover how immigration and
employment polices affect Latino immigrant employment. Finally, the goal of the last
question was to discover the struggles Latino immigrants face when searching for
employment in the California Central Valley.
1. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central Valley understand and
describe the factors that cause them to remain at their places of employment?
2. How do Latino immigrants in the California Central Valley understand and
describe the factors that cause them to leave their places of employment?
3. How do current immigration and employment policies in the United States
affect a Latino immigrant’s employment status in the California Central
Valley?
4. How do Latino immigrants understand and describe their struggles or
obstacles they face in their search for employment in the California Central
Valley?
Research Methods and Data Collection Procedures
In this qualitative case study, focus groups were used to investigate Latino
immigrant employment in the California Central Valley. Focus groups enabled the
researcher to interact with the participants and to understand their perceptions of
employment. Patten (2007) stated,” a clear advantage of using focus groups is that the
method reveals the evolution of perceptions in a social context” (p. 155). The
participants in the focus group can have different perceptions on information once
discussed with others. Prior to the focus groups, a pilot study was conducted with one
group of three Latino immigrants. The researcher used the pilot study to refine the
questions used in the study. The final questions for the focus group were narrowed down
to seven, but each question had sub-questions that probed further to gain a deeper
understanding of participants’ perceptions.
Data were collected from four focus groups through structured questions. Each
focus group participant was provided with a demographic sheet, a consent form, and
other associated letters for their approval and understanding of the study. The focus
groups were held in an agricultural hall, and the researcher used a script to obtain data
from participants. All focus group questions were asked and answered in Spanish. Focus
group participants were audio recorded, and these data were transcribed into English and
Spanish to ensure the accuracy and validity of their statements.
Population
Latino immigrants living in the California Central Valley working in the
manufacturing or agriculture industries constituted this study’s population. The
population works in Yolo County in the city of Woodland, California. The population
consists of both men and women, most of whom are Latino.
Sample
All sample participants were selected from Woodland, California by a community
organizer. The community organizer is one of the largest landowners in Woodland. He
has membership with the Woodland Chamber of Commerce and the Yolo County Farm
Bureau and is a major employer in Yolo County of immigrant labor. The community
organizer recruited approximately 70 immigrants for the study from several agriculture
and manufacturing locations. On the day of the study, he selected 30 participants who
met the criteria for the study. Only 25 participants were used for the study, while 5
participants were on standby in case someone did not want to participate in the study at a
later time. Purposeful sampling was used to obtain participants who met the criteria for
participation and who would be good sources of information regarding employment
experiences. The study comprised 25 participants who were distributed into three focus
groups of six and one focus group of seven. In addition, participants for this study met
the following criteria:
1. First generation Latino immigrants
2. Employed in the manufacturing or agriculture industry
3. Between the ages of 18 to 75
4. Employed full-time
Major Findings
Several major findings resulted from the participants’ responses during the focus
groups. The findings for this study will be explained by each research question and will
connect with the review of literature.
Research Question 1 Major Findings
Research Question 1 asks, “How do Latino immigrants in the California Central
Valley understand and describe the factors that cause them to remain at their places of
employment?”
The analysis of the findings revealed two major factors that would cause
immigrants to remain at their places of employment: family and employment.
Opportunity and familiarity emerged as two minor factors. Even though these factors
were infrequently expressed, their importance cannot be overlooked for this study. These
four factors were re-emerging themes in the four focus groups and also surfaced in the
review of literature. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene
theory help explain these motivations why immigrants stay at their places of employment.
Family. Family refers to the support network of spouses, parents, siblings,
cousins, and friends. Many of the participants’ family members are from the same
country as the participants. Oulahan (2011) considered family a key element for
assimilation into American society. Research has also shown that immigrants with a
family support network have an easier time integrating into American culture (Anderson,
2010; Oulahan, 2011). Family can directly impact immigrants’ remaining at their places
of employment. Participant 4 stated,”Taking care of our families keeps us at our place of
employment. Without our families we could not find employment.” The participants in
the study emphatically asserted that family members really wanted them to remain at
their job. Participant 12 exclaimed, “We have family members working here now. We
stay in one location because our families help and support us.” The family support
system emerged as a primary reason that Latino immigrants find and remain at their
places of employment in the California Central Valley. Family was interdependent with
employment, opportunity, and familiarity because of the motivations of the immigrants in
the study.
Under Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, family falls under the need for love and
belonging. An immigrant’s perspective can also place family as part of the physiological
and safety needs from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The two theoretical frameworks for
this study support family as a reason immigrants stay at their jobs (Hertberg, 1966;
Maslow, 1943).
Employment. Employment means finding and keeping a job. This was a major
challenge for participants and was listed as a major factor leading immigrants to stay at
their place of employment. Employment meant the difference between staying in the
California Central Valley and heading back to their home country. Participant 3 stated, “I
came to the United States and immigrated for the need and want to work.” His response
was typical for many participants in the study. Employment is the most important goal
for immigrants because it can mean their success in assimilating into American culture
(Harding, 2013; Silkenat, 2013). Participant 11 mentioned, “Employment was my first
concern when I came to the California Central Valley.” The responses from participants
indicate that employment is critical to the success of Latino immigrants in the California
Central Valley. The research from the review of literature places employment as the
single most critical element for immigrants during immigration. Without employment,
none of the other factors could help immigrants stay at their places of employment.
Employment falls under Maslow’s categories of physiological and safety needs.
Employment helps the other needs get fulfilled for immigrants who choose to remain at
their places of employment (Hertzber, 1966; Maslow, 1943). Employment is also a
hygiene need from Herzberg’s theory. Employment meets the lower needs of hygiene,
but higher goals such as motivation can be curtailed by language and education.
Participants of this study realized the importance of having basic needs fulfilled for them
to remain at their place of employment.
Opportunity. Participants viewed opportunity as the chance for prosperity and
progression in their personal and professional lives. Participants did not mention
opportunity frequently, but in relation to the overall study it is an important factor for
immigrants who remain at their places of employment. Participant 1 said, “Better
opportunities are here for those who work hard at their jobs.” Opportunity also surfaced
during the literature review as a key ingredient for success in immigrants’ current
employment and for the future (Anderson, 2010; Krestsedemas, 2012). Many of the
participants responded with enthusiasm when discussing opportunities that were available
to them.
Familiarity. Familiarity refers to being comfortable with a job, surroundings, and
people. Even though familiarity was not a frequently expressed theme, its importance
should not go overlooked because it ties directly into the other factors. Participant 5 said,
“We know our job very well and the way things run at our job. Our supervisors know us
well, and for this reason we stay at our job.” Participants repeated that familiarity was a
factor in staying at their places of employment. They realized that changing jobs could
be a detriment to them and could jeopardize their earning a living. Conversely,
participants knew that being familiar with their employment can be a success for them
and for their families.
Research Question 2 Major Findings
Research Question 2 asked, “How do Latino immigrants in the California Central
Valley understand and describe the factors that cause them to leave their places of
employment?”
The analysis of the findings revealed one major factor that would cause
immigrants to leave their places of employment: immigration status. Employer relations,
wages, and hours also emerged as minor factors. Though infrequently expressed, these
minor factors should be mentioned because of their importance in the overall reasons for
immigrants leaving their places of employment. These four factors were re-emerging
themes in the four focus groups and also surfaced in the review of literature. Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs and Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory help explain these
motivations on why immigrants leave their places of employment.
Immigration status. Immigration status is immigrants’ legal authorization to live
and work in the United States. The categories of immigration status are undocumented,
permanent resident status, and naturalized citizen. Participants cited immigration status
as one of the main reasons they would leave their place of employment. Employers’
biggest obstacle is employing immigrants with legal immigration status (Peri, 2012).
Participants repeated that immigration status made it difficult for them to stay at one
place of employment. Participant 3 said, “I do not have documents, and without
documents, many places will not give me work.” Participant 1 expressed a similar
sentiment, “It is very hard to speak about our immigration status. Many of our employers
know our status and treat us differently than those who are here legally.” Participants
also stated that when questioned about their immigration status, it was better for them to
leave and find another job than to risk the consequences of being terminated, or even
worse being deported. Participant 9 communicated, “Without the proper immigration
status, it is difficult to maintain employment.” The review of literature also referenced
that immigration status continues to be a reason for high turnover in companies in the
California Central Valley (Peri, 2012; Medved, 2011).
Immigration status falls into the safety category of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
A secure immigration status provides immigrants with the opportunity for employment,
which is vital to their physiological and safety needs. In addition, immigration status also
represents a hygiene factor of Herzberg’s theory. Participants repeatedly stated that they
desire to achieve a secure immigration status so they can live and work in the California
Central Valley.
Employer relations. Employer relations refers to the ways in which employers
conduct themselves toward immigrants who work for them. Though employer relations
was not a frequently occurring factor, it is worth mentioning because it reflects
immigrants’ experiences. Several participants mentioned that being treated badly by
supervisors or a company would cause them to leave their place of employment.
Participant 25 remarked, “I will not be treated badly where I work and would leave
quickly to avoid that kind of environment.” Participants were eager to work for
employers, but they also valued their own dignity. Participant 3 responded, “If our
employers treat us right you stay; if you get treated wrong then you will look elsewhere
for another job.” Employer relations falls within the category of esteem in Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943). Participants desired and sought self-esteem in their
own personal and cultural ways, and good employer relations was one way for them to
achieve good self-esteem.
Wages. Wages refers to the amount of money paid to employees for work.
Wages was an infrequent response but did contribute to the reasons participants would
leave their place of employment. Participants 1 and 3 both agreed they would leave for
better paying jobs. Participant 1 explained, “If there is a place that pays more money
than I currently make, I would leave my place of employment.” Participant 3 expressed,
“If I find out I can make more money somewhere else, I would leave my place of
employment.” Wages are an essential part of an immigrant’s successful assimilation into
American society (Harding, 2013). Several participants mentioned that low wages or
being underpaid was a factor in their leaving their place of employment. With low skills,
many immigrants are forced to stay at their jobs, but their livelihood remains connected
to earning higher wages. Accordingly, several participants mentioned that they would
risk leaving their jobs for a chance at higher wages at another job. Participant 5
explained,”A good reason to leave your job would be better pay, but it must be taken in
consideration with other factors before you decide.” Wages falls under the categories of
physiological and safety needs. Participants consider wages necessary to successfully
live and work in the California Central Valley.
Hours. Hours refers to full time, regular work of more than forty hours.
Participants cited hours as a reason they would leave their places of employment. Hours
was not a dominant theme but was important enough to add as a factor for leaving their
jobs. Participant 2 remarked, “My current job gives me all the hours I want, but if they
cut my hours I would have to leave.” In the literature review, wages and hours were
factors in immigrants’ successful assimilation into American society (Harding, 2013).
Participant 6 added, “We need full time work to survive. If we do not get hours, then
many of us leave for other jobs in the area.” Participants repeatedly stated that they could
not stay at their places of employment with only part time work, explaining that they
needed full time work or it was not worth working at their places of employment. They
stressed that they needed full time hours to provide for their families.
Research Question 3 Major Findings
Research Question 3 asked, “How do current immigration and employment
policies in the United States affect a Latino immigrant’s employment status in the
California Central Valley?” The analysis of the findings revealed one major policy that
affects an immigrant’s employment in the California Central Valley: immigration status.
Employment verification and documentation emerged as minor factors. Though
infrequently expressed, these policies should be mentioned because of their importance to
participants and to this study. These three factors were re-emerging themes in the four
focus groups. The literature reviewed thoroughly discussed immigration and
employment policy in the United States. In addition, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and
Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory help explain immigrants’ motivations regarding
immigration and employment policies in the California Central Valley and their
employment.
Immigration status. Immigration status is an immigrant’s legal authorization to
live and work in the United States. Participants in all four focus groups cited that the
immigration status policy negatively affects their employment in the California Central
Valley. They stated that although they were employed, many of their statuses were not
legal, which places their jobs and their families in jeopardy. Participant 19 commented,
“My immigration status has always affected my employment. I am always in fear of
being called in to verify my documents.” Immigration policy has been targeted in recent
years with the introduction of Arizona’s SB 1070 and Alabama’s HB 56, which have
made it difficult for immigrants of any status living and working in the United States.
Participant 5 explained, “My immigration status prevents me from applying for some
really good jobs. There is always the chance they may check further your documents and
find something wrong.” Immigration policy grants legal status for immigrants to live in
the United States, but in recent years it has been more difficult for immigrants to attain
(Harper, 2012; Silkenat, 2013). Immigration status affects an immigrant’s search for
employment in the California Central Valley because immigrants are afraid of being
questioned about their immigration status whether it is legal or not (Small, 2011; Weeden,
2010). Participant 6 stated, “We live in fear of being deported, and there should be a
program to make it easier to gain an immigration status such as a green card or
citizenship.” The participants of the study exclaimed that the current immigration policy
needs to be modified for immigrants living in the California Central Valley, whether they
are here legally or not.
Immigration policy falls under the safety category of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
and falls within the hygiene needs of Herzberg’s theory (Herzberg, 1959; Maslow, 1943).
Participants realized that Herzberg’s hygiene needs and the lower levels of Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs are their motivation for employment. Immigration policy affects not
only employment but other factors that are critical for successful assimilation into the
American culture.
Employment verification. The law requires employers to verify employees’
eligibility to work in their company. Employers physically check documents to ensure
employees can legally work in the country. Examples of documentation are a permanent
resident card, a visa, a driver’s license, and a birth certificate. Participants explained that
the policy of verifying documentation affects their employment status in the California
Central Valley. Participant 6 voiced, “Many employers are very strict about checking
documentation, and this becomes a problem when you know your documents are
authentic.” Participants stated that they would bring the required documents after being
hired, but many companies would use E-Verify, a system the United States government
uses to verify documentation (U.S. DOL, 2014a). Participants described this system as
inaccurate and discriminatory because it targets immigrants. Participant 3 explained, “It
is difficult and scary when showing documents to employers. You never know what is
going to happen; that is why working in the fields or manufacturing is safe for
immigrants.” Participants also stated that the immigration policy does not mandate the
use of E-Verify but that it does place undue burden on immigrants to produce
documentation. Participants argued that the employment verification policy makes
finding a job difficult.
Documentation. Documentation refers to the legal, physical records required for
each employee who works in the United States. Although employment verification and
documentation seem interchangeable, the policies differ in application. Documentation
refers to the actual documents employees need in order to work, while employment
verification refers to the actions the employer takes to verify eligibility to work.
Participant 1 stated, “The policy of checking documents is a nervous time for immigrants.
We do not know if they will give us employment or if we be under investigation by
immigration.” Participant 3 expressed his concerns, “I will present my documentation,
but I believe the employment policy targets immigrants.” Participants agreed that current
immigration and employment policies affect an immigrant’s employment status in the
California Central Valley.
Research Question 4 Major Findings
Research Question 4 asks, “How do Latino immigrants understand and describe
their struggles or obstacles they face in their search for employment in the California
Central Valley?” The analysis of the findings revealed one major obstacle immigrants
face in their search for employment in the California Central Valley: documentation.
Language and immigration status emerged as minor factors. Though infrequently
expressed, these minor factors should be mentioned because they contribute to the overall
obstacles immigrants face while searching for employment in the California Central
Valley. These three factors were re-emerging themes in the four focus groups and also
emerged in the review of literature.
Documentation. Documentation refers to records such as a visa, a permanent
resident card, a driver’s license, birth certificates, and identification cards. Participants
cited documentation as the main obstacle they face while searching for employment in
the California Central Valley. Participants explained that finding work is difficult without
documentation because employers require documentation for employment. Participant
15 replied, “My barrier to employment is documentation. The documents are not
authentic, and it is really hard to find employment without legal papers.” Many of the
participants stated that even with legal documentation, employers still question the
validity of their documents. Participant 20 mentioned, “They will not give us work
without proper documentation. It gets really tiring applying for jobs, and you keep
getting turned down.” Furthermore, obtaining documentation is difficult for immigrants
already living and working in the California Central Valley. The obstacle is intensified
when employers use the E-Verify program by the USCIS, which is not mandatory in the
United States (Harper, 2012; USCIS, 2014d). Participants expressed that documentation
was the key to employment in the California Central Valley and that the government
should address the situation to facilitate the economy and wellbeing of America.
Documentation falls under the category of safety in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,
and it is also a hygiene factor in Herzberg’s theory. Immigrants often seek the lower
levels of needs because this drives them to succeed in American society. The higher
levels of needs can only be realized when they feel comfortable at their jobs without any
type of retaliation at their jobs for anything related to their immigration.
Language. Language is the ability to speak and comprehend English. It was not
the main obstacle for participants, but it deserves mention because of its importance in
obtaining employment in the California Central Valley. In the literature review, however,
language emerged as the most difficult obstacle for immigrants while assimilating into
American culture (Creticos et al., 2006; Jasper, 2008). Participant 22 said, “Not being
able to speak English puts us at a disadvantage because most employers will not give you
work unless you speak and understand a small amount of English.” Because many of the
participants primarily spoke Spanish, they stated that they cannot apply to companies that
require English for employment, which has led them to primarily agricultural or
manufacturing jobs. Participant 24 expressed, “They will not give us work because we
cannot speak English, and this is why we can only work in the fields.” Participants said
English can be a major obstacle, but documentation was more important for them because
it enables immigrants to assimilate into the California Central Valley.
Language falls under the category of safety in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and
hygiene under Herzberg’s theory. Language is a lower order need in Maslow’s model
that is important for growth but not survival. Participants voiced that language would be
a lifetime barrier for them, but their primary goal was to be employed and to hope for a
better future for their families while in the California Central Valley, stating that their
English would develop while working.
Immigration status. Immigration status is an immigrant’s legal authorization to
live and work in the United States. Participants also cited this as an obstacle when
searching for employment in the California Central Valley. Although immigration status
was an infrequently expressed obstacle, it is important to mention because of its influence
on the other two obstacles of documentation and language. Participants explained that
immigration status is needed to live and work in the United States, but they also
conveyed that immigrants have managed to come to the California Central Valley without
this status and still be successful. Participant 17 related:
When I first came to the California Central Valley, it was my immigration status
that kept me from applying for jobs. I was always worried about getting in trouble with
the law. My family let me know places to apply where they are not as strict about your
immigration status.
However, participants did note that many immigrants currently living and working
in the California Central Valley live in fear because of unpredictability in verification of
employment from employers. Participant 13 expressed, “We find it difficult to obtain an
immigration status since many of us are undocumented. We are always careful
everywhere we work because of our status.” The employment policy directly impacts
immigrants’ job security based on their immigration status.
Immigration status falls under the physiological and safety needs of Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs because of its importance for an immigrant’s survival. Immigration
status also falls within the hygiene factor of Herzberg’s theory.
Unexpected Findings
The researcher found fear and the language barrier as unexpected findings from
participants of the study. Fear was noticeable among many participants of the study in
their responses and in their body language despite the fact that the researcher, who is
bilingual (English and Spanish), attempted to mitigate their fears by explaining the
process of the study, including confidentiality and privacy, in Spanish, the participants’
native language. Many of the participants were very selective in their responses, and the
researcher had to probe further to solicit answers applicable to the study. Participants’
fears subsided near the end of each focus group, but it was noticeable that fear had an
effect on each focus group. Much of the fear was due to participants’ beliefs that any
question into their immigration status could prove disastrous to them. The study was
successful, but the researcher did not expect the effect of fear on the group based on their
immigration status. .
The language barrier was also an unexpected finding among the participants. All
of the participants had limited English proficiency, their primary language being Spanish.
The proficiency of Spanish varied from beginner to intermediate from each participant.
In addition, different dialects of Spanish were evident depending on the region of Mexico
the participants came from. Participants’ responses were understandable expect for some
words that no one in the group recognized. When an unrecognizable word was spoken,
the researcher asked the meaning behind it. Many of the participants and the researcher
were able to understand the words once they were understood in each one’s own dialect.
The language barrier and different dialects caused some confusion during the first focus
group, but eventually all focus groups ran smoothly.
In summary, the unexpected findings of fear and the language barrier caused some
confusion, but ultimately the study was successful because of the efforts of the
participants and the researcher.
Conclusions
The researcher came to several conclusions based on the data from the study. The
conclusions were based on information from the review of literature, the theoretical
framework, and the qualitative interviews with participants. The conclusions provide a
synthesis and deeper insight of the research.
Research Question 1
How do Latino immigrants in the California Central Valley understand and
describe the factors that cause them to remain at their places of employment? The
research from the factors, findings, and the review of literature reveals support systems as
an important reason immigrants remain at their places of employment. Participants stated
that support systems helped them secure employment and remain employed in the
California Central Valley. These types of support systems facilitate immigration
employment at the local level but have difficulty at the state level. Participants noticed a
need for a formal system of networking in the California Central Valley. Accordingly,
California’s local governments and state government should establish formal support
systems to meet the employment needs of immigrants in the California Central Valley
and to help immigrants remain at their places of employment. Support systems should
include staffing agencies and employment centers.
The federal government and California’s local governments need to address
support systems for Latino immigrants as a catalyst for helping the economy of the
California Central Valley and of the United States. Local leaders need to advocate for
support systems because support systems will serve the employment needs of major
employers in the California Central Valley. In conclusion without any type of advocacy
for support systems, Latino immigrants will continue to face difficulty obtaining
employment in the California Central Valley, which will negatively affect the economy in
the future.
Research Question 2
How do Latino immigrants in the California Central Valley understand and
describe the factors that cause them to leave their places of employment? The research
from the factors, findings, and the review of literature highlights employment policy as
the primary reason immigrants leave their places of employment in the California Central
Valley. Employment policies consist of verification of employment and documentation
audits of immigrants working at their places of employment. Employment policies vary
throughout the state, and many are based on wage orders of their industry. Industries
such as agriculture and construction have high turnover rates due to strict employer
verification policies and because these strict policies are not clearly communicated to
employees, especially to employees who struggle with English.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the U.S. government and California
governments restructure their immigrant employer policies. An advocate or a committee
appointed by the State of California that represents Latino immigrants should be integral
in reporting the status of employer policy. The advocate or committee will report the
statistics and studies that will ensure the ethical treatment and employment of Latino
immigrants in the California Central Valley. This advocacy would oversee complaints
from Latino immigrants against federal and state agencies, ensuring a fair and objective
process without discrimination. The advocate or committee for equitable employer
policy would provide a voice and reprisal system for Latino immigrants living and
working in the California Central Valley. The advocate or committee would also ensure
that the updated immigrant employment policies are clearly communicated to all
immigrant workers in both English and Spanish. It is concluded that employers of Latino
immigrants who do not have clear policies on documentation that are explained to them
will result in high turnover of employees in the California Central Valley.
Research Question 3
How do current immigration and employment policies in the United States affect
a Latino immigrant’s employment status in the California Central Valley? The research
from the factors, findings, and review of literature reveals United States immigration
policy as the major influence on an immigrant’s employment status in the California
Central Valley. Immigration policy has created many barriers for immigrants living and
working in the California Central Valley. Current immigration policy does not support
undocumented workers or those with immigration issues in the California Central Valley.
Many undocumented workers and those with immigration issues do not approach
officials due to fear of deportation. The current administration of the United States has
not supported any efforts to improve immigration processes, especially for immigrants
working in the California Central Valley.
Immigration policy is not presently a priority for the United States government.
The state of California has passed some initiatives to deal with immigration policy, but
the responsibility rests with the United States government. Latino immigrants require an
advocate or a committee appointed by the state of California to meet their needs and to
support them in their struggles with immigration policy. The only way the United States
government and the state of California can know of immigration policy issues is for an
advocate to report these issues at a national and state level. An advocate will ensure fair,
legal treatment of Latino immigrants who feel they have been mistreated because of
immigration policy. These reports would be available to news stations, newspapers, and
researchers to improve immigration policy in the California Central Valley. It is
concluded that the absence of a migrant employee advocate will result in continued abuse
and high turnover of Latino immigrants in the California Central Valley.
Research Question 4
How do Latino immigrants understand and describe their struggles or obstacles
they face in their search for employment in the California Central Valley?
The research from the factors, findings, and the review of literature reveals that
discrimination was evident in the employment of immigrants in the California Central
Valley. Discrimination is the unfair treatment of immigrants who are searching, applying
for, and securing employment in the California Central Valley. Participants described
discrimination as both overt and covert among companies in the California Central
Valley. Overt describes the open observation of discrimination against immigrants. The
participants stated they are routinely denied employment at companies throughout the
California Central Valley because they are Latino, an example of overt discrimination.
Covert discrimination is the concealment of discrimination that involves using other
reasons to deny Latino immigrants better wages or promotions. Immigrants working in
the California Central Valley face discrimination with pay and benefits because of their
immigration status and documentation. During their times of struggle, they found
nowhere to turn for help due to the many issues surrounding their immigration status,
whether they were legal or not.
A strategy to end or reduce discrimination of Latino immigrants is to appoint a
person or committee from the state of California to oversee and report allegations of
discrimination. Many agencies deal with discrimination in the workplace, but the fear of
Latino immigrants negates any investigations into wrongdoings from companies. The
person or committee would be part of the migrant worker program, and their focus would
be to investigate claims of employment discrimination from Latino immigrants. This
initiative would provide a refuge for Latino immigrants to voice their concerns and report
discrimination to an authority who can initiate change from companies. The results from
this case study investigating immigrant employment reveal that employment
discrimination is still a major issue for immigrants in the California Central Valley. It is
concluded that the absence of an advocate for Latino immigrants will result in continued
discrimination and will continue to affect employment opportunities for Latino
immigrants.
Implications for Action
The implications for action are presented as topics for further study that will
promote the well-being of Latino immigrants working in the California Central Valley.
The California Central Valley represents one of the most diverse agricultural places in the
entire world cultivated entirely by a Latino immigrant workforce. The Latino immigrant
workforce will thrive and succeed with actions that promote solidarity among entities
such as government, business, and industry. Three implications for action are presented
that facilitate Latino immigrant employment in the California Central Valley.
Immigrant Employment Centers
The study findings revealed that Latino immigrants depend on family for a variety
of reasons. The absence of family support severely impacts Latino immigrant
employment in the California Central Valley. Accordingly, having regional immigrant
employment centers would greatly help advance Latino immigrant employment in the
California Central Valley. There currently are programs for migrant housing in the
California Central Valley. The California legislature could establish a similar program to
facilitate Latino immigrant employment issues. These centers could be utilized with the
migrant housing centers to mitigate a variety of issues affecting Latino immigrants.
These centers would be a refuge for Latino immigrants seeking help with employment,
immigration, and documentation issues. The state would provide these services free of
charge along with the confidentiality that no federal or state agency could use their
information for deportation purposes. These centers could be a model for immigrant
employment for other states.
Immigrant Advocacy
Immigrant advocates for Latino immigrants is another strategy that can positively
impact Latino immigrant employment in the California Central Valley. Latino
immigrants do not trust the state of California officials because of their immigration
status. Appointing bilingual individuals throughout the California Central Valley who
would represent immigrants is a good plan to help with Latino immigrant employment
issues. Immigrant advocates could represent Latino immigrants at hearings about
unemployment, workers compensation, and discrimination. This would alleviate the need
for translators. Also, Latino immigrants would come forward more often because of their
confidence and trust in these immigrant advocates. Furthermore, immigrant advocates
would be able to bridge the gap between Latino immigrants and the state of
California government agencies.
Immigrant Employment Website
Contrary to popular belief, many Latino immigrants have access to the internet.
The internet can be accessed in Spanish, and a website dedicated to Latino immigrant
employment would be a great step for change. Latino immigrants are constantly looking
for employment opportunities in the California Central Valley; a website would help them
find employment. The website could be sponsored by major employers in the
California Central Valley. Such a website would benefit both employers and employees.
The website would list jobs in the California Central Valley and other resources
for Latino immigrants looking for employment. The website could be provided at kiosks
at immigrant housing centers. These kiosks would also help employers, such as those in
the agriculture industry, to employ Latino immigrants quickly, thus reducing costs and
facilitating the harvesting of crops in minimal time. There are currently no websites
dedicated to immigrant employment. But with the help of employers and the California
legislature, establishing a website dedicated to Latino immigrant employment would
definitely aid the economy and the state of California.
United States Comprehensive Immigration Plan
One of the biggest concerns from participants was the lack of response from the
United States government on immigration and employment issues. One of the biggest
ways the United States government can help immigrants is for Congress to devise a plan
for both immigrants who reside here illegally and those wanting to work in the United
States to obtain citizenship. Notwithstanding the programs for seasonal workers, the
immigration issue has not been resolved in the United States. Congress needs to make a
conscious effort to enact laws that will ease the burdens of immigrants searching for
employment in the United States. A plan for seasonal workers needs to be expanded, and
a system of identification for immigrants needs to be provided. This system would allow
immigrants legal residency while they work in the United States and pay taxes. No such
system is currently in place, but an aggressive blueprint for a seasonal worker system and
immigrants living and working in the United States would help the economy.
Immigration and employment issues will only be resolved with the unification of
Congress toward an immigration plan.
In summary, these implications for action are a start in the right direction to
further the advancement of Latino immigrant employment in the California Central
Valley and in the United States as a whole. The participants of this study have voiced
their opinions and represent but a small percentage of Latino immigrants in the California
Central Valley. Latino immigrants in the California Central Valley are eager to live and
work in the United States, but their issues must be heard and actions must be taken for
their assimilation into American society.
Recommendations for Further Research
Scant research has investigated immigrant employment. This gap in literature
provides an opportunity for further research in this area. Because Latino immigrant
employment continues to be a major theme in the California Central Valley and with the
United States government, it is vital to explore other perspectives. These perspectives
involve different points of view from other researchers who will add to the body of
knowledge on Latino immigrant employment. This knowledge could prove useful in
furthering immigration and employment policies in the United States and in the
California Central Valley. The recommendations for future research are provided to
explore different perspectives of immigrant employment.
Recommendation 1
The interviews from this study were primarily conducted with immigrants
working in agriculture or manufacturing. A study utilizing immigrants from different
industries would be beneficial for further knowledge of immigrant employment. The
service and construction industries also employ large numbers of immigrants.
Immigrants from these industries would provide further knowledge about immigrant
employment issues.
Recommendation 2
The data from this study revealed family as a major factor for immigrants
remaining at their places of employment. A qualitative study examining the effect of
family on immigrant employment would further illuminate this crucial issue. The
potential study would explain the importance of families on the immigrant workforce and
their influence on immigration and employment policy.
Recommendation 3
The review of literature revealed a lack of information from employers’
perspectives. A study examining employers’ perspectives of immigrant employment
would be beneficial for the businesses in the California Central Valley. The study could
concentrate on the impact of immigrant employment on employers in the California
Central Valley.
Recommendation 4
Many immigrants feel that the California legislature does not understand
immigrant issues. Another study could investigate the California legislature’s
relationship with immigrant employment. The study would explore the how the
legislature could be more helpful in helping immigrants in the California Central Valley
find employment.
Recommendation 5
All of the participants in this study were Hispanics originally from Mexico. It is
recommended that a study be conducted with participants from other ethnic groups to
gather the perspectives of immigrants from other groups. The study could prove useful
for immigration and employment policy reform.
Recommendation 6
This study involved a mixture of participants’ immigration statuses. The
participants were selected at random without any regard to immigration status. It is
recommended that a study be conducted for comparison and contrast of participants
based on their immigration statuses. The comparison and contrast could be
undocumented residents versus permanent resident aliens.
Concluding Remarks and Reflections
The results from this study have provided great insight into Latino immigrant
employment in the California Central Valley. The concluding remarks and reflections are
a testament to the ingenuity and fortitude of immigrants working every day in the
California Central Valley. The following initiatives could be the turning point for Latino
immigrant employment in the California Central Valley.
The California Central Valley has the distinction of having the largest population
of immigrants in the United States but the United States government still views them as
just an immigration problem. The United States government primarily Congress needs to
step up and develop a comprehensive immigration plan. This plan would solve many of
our immigration and employment issues in the California Central Valley. The
comprehension immigration plan should facilitate employment in the United States and
the California Central Valley and contain multiple scenarios of immigrant issues. This
plan should be pilot tested in a state containing large immigration populations to alleviate
future issues. The plan would be grandfathered to accommodate immigrant living and
working in the United States.
Since the United States government has not attempted any action of immigration
reform it would be logical for California to be the first state to implement its own
immigration reform. California has been the forerunner for many initiatives that has been
accepted by many states. California should develop a comprehensive immigration plan
for those currently living and working in the California Central Valley. Immigrants
willing to participate would be given a protected status in California preventing any
action from federal immigration.
Employers in the California Central Valley should petition the next President to
bring congress together to finally pass a comprehensive immigration bill. The incoming
President of the United States should be invited to several farms and manufacturing
facilities that are key to the economic well-being of the United States. He would be able
to learn firsthand from Latino immigrants about their struggles with employment in the
California Central Valley. Employers have the monetary and political power to make
changes in immigrant employment once they petition the United States government.
Finally, I would advocate for a website dedicated to improving immigrant
employment in the California Central Valley, This website would be used throughout
California by employers and immigration officials to find employment for Latino
immigrants without the stigma of being deported or harassed. These initiatives would be
a great start to facilitate the issues of Latino immigrant employment in the California
Central Valley.
The goal of this study was to understand Latino immigrant employment in the
California Central Valley. Although many issues surround Latino immigrant
employment, this study focused on the reasons Latino immigrants leave or stay at their
places of employment. The goal of this study was also to discover if immigration and
employment policies affected their search for employment and the obstacles they
encounter while searching for work in the California Central Valley. These questions
have always interested the researcher because of his background as a human resources
professional and because most of his work with the Latino immigrant populations. Much
of the research for this study solidifies the experiences of Latino immigrants with
immigration and employment issues. The California Central Valley continually attracts
Latino immigrants who are searching for employment and a better life for themselves and
their families. Latino immigrants play a vital role in the California Central Valley, and
their contributions cannot be overstated.
The participants of this study volunteered their time to share their experiences.
Many of the participants were fearful but realized that change cannot come without
struggle. Their insights into immigration and employment issues have come with high
cost for themselves and their families. The participant responses brought insights that
surprised the researcher, and their personal stories need to be heard from people who can
make changes to immigration and employment law. This research revealed that Latino
immigrants are willing to work very hard to succeed in this country, and many are proud
to be living and working in the California Central Valley. Latino immigrants want a
better life, and one of the most important ways to attain this goal is to secure employment
in the California Central Valley. Their employment also contributes to the well-being and
economy of the California Central Valley.
This study will add to the body of knowledge addressing Latino immigrant
employment, but there is still much to learn about Latino immigrants’ contributions to the
California Central Valley. This researcher hopes that this study will be used to further the
rights of Latino immigrants and to possibly change the existing immigration and
employment policies.
As a final reflection, this researcher would like to thank the participants of this
study for their fortitude and courage in participating in this study. Their contributions
will one day make a difference for other immigrants with the same struggles. My
research for this study afforded me a deeper understanding of Latino immigrant
employment issues and a deeper appreciation of their efforts in the workplace. The best
part of this study was learning about the contributions that Latino immigrants make on a
daily basis for their families and for the California Central Valley.
