Tempered Dreams

Abstract

This research study explores the experience of first-generation immigrants of Mexican origin living in Denver, CO. Seven Mexican immigrants described their experiences through an in-depth interview process. The data were analyzed using a constant comparative method. The process described by the participants reflects ambivalence about living in the United States. This ambivalence stems from a conflict between their beliefs that the United States is the land of opportunity and their experiences of being unable to access opportunities because of their identity as immigrants—regardless of immigration status.

Throughout the history of the United States, immigrants have believed that the United States is the land of opportunity—a glorious place where working hard enough leads to better opportunities and enhances the ability to provide for one’s family and secure a stable, flourishing financial future (Gerstle, 2000; Kaun, 2008). Unfortunately, for many immigrants, upon arriving to the United States, they are met with the realization that life is not quite what they had imagined. Doors are shut and the opportunities are not as abundant or equally distributed as portrayed in the American media. Consequently, immigrants (especially Mexican immigrants) experience poverty and restricted opportunities (Chaudry & Fortuny, 2010a, 2010b; Fortuny, Capps, Simms, & Chaudry, 2009; Fortuny, Hernandez, Chaudry, & Urban, 2010; Salazar et al., 2008), while simultaneously believing that their quality of life is better in the United States than in their country of origin.

Contemporary History and Growth Within the U.S. Immigrant Population

In 1965, immigration legislation ended the national origin quotas of the past and opened the door for increased authorized immigration to the United States (Johnson, 2009; Stern, Fader, & Katz, 2007). Subsequently, there was an increase in authorized and unauthorized immigration (specifically from Latin America and Asia), which contributed to the changing ethnic makeup of the U.S. population (Passel, 2011). The Mexican immigrant population comprises a large percentage (28%) of the foreign-born population (41 million) and more than half of the Latino immigrant population (Grieco et al., 2012; Lopez, Passel & Rohal, 2015). The 2013 American Community Survey estimated that 11.6 million Mexican immigrants are living in the United States (Zong & Batalova, 2015); an estimated 5.6 million of whom are unauthorized (Krogstad & Passel, 2015).

U.S. immigration policies and practices, as well as the southern border control initiatives of the 1990s, negatively impacted Latin American immigrants, particularly Mexicans; following their implementation, there was a sharp increase in the cost of professional smugglers, border violence, and risk of injury and death for immigrants attempting to cross the border (Andreas, 2009; Cornelius, 2007; Hinkes, 2008; Salazar et al., 2009; Massey, Durand, & Malone, 2002; Salazar et al., 2008). The number of deaths at the border doubled from the mid-1990s to 2005; death tolls were estimated at 254 and 472, respectively (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2006). Consequently, return migration (immigrants returning to their country of origin) decreased and unauthorized immigrants became much more likely to extend their stay or permanently settle in the United States (Andreas, 2009; Cornelius, 2007; Massey et al., 2002).

These same immigration policies and practices interrupted traditional settlement patterns in California and Texas (Card & Lewis, 2007). Instead, Mexican immigrants began to spread throughout the United States to southeastern, northwestern, and mountain states like Colorado. In fact, the growth in Denver’s, CO, population in the 1990s (approximately 19%) is largely attributed to the growth in the Latino population in the United States, many of who emigrated from Mexico (Brookings Institute, 2003).

Although the number of Latinos, including Mexicans, entering the United States continued to grow in the 1990s and 2000s, in recent years (e.g., 2007–2014), the number of Mexicans entering the United States has declined (Durand, 2016). In fact, recent reports indicate that for the first time in years, the number of Mexicans leaving the country has surpassed the number of Mexicans entering the country (Gonzalez-Barrera, 2015). Even so, the Latino immigrant population, more specifically the Mexican immigrant population, comprises a large percentage of the immigrant community.

Mexican Immigrant Demographic Information

The Mexican immigrant population comprises not only a large percentage of the total foreign-born population but also the largest percentage of the unauthorized immigrant population in the United States (Pew Hispanic Center, 2011a, 2011b). The most recent reports indicate that as of 2014, the unauthorized immigrant population reached approximately 11.3 million and that this number has remained fairly stable for the past 5 years (Krogstad & Passel, 2015; Passel & Cohn, 2015). Past estimates indicate that, within the unauthorized immigrant population, there were an estimated 6.5 million (58%) Mexican immigrants, 2.6 million (23%) immigrants from other parts of Latin American (not from Mexico), 1.3 million (11%) Asian immigrants, 500,000 (4%) European and Canadian immigrants, and 400,000 (4%) African immigrants (Passel & Cohn, 2009). These demographics are fairly consistent in more recent reports (Zong & Batalova, 2015) with the exception of the Mexican unauthorized immigrant population, which dropped to 5.9 million (52%) in 2012 (Passel, 2015) and 5.6 million in 2014 (Krogstad & Passel, 2015).

Numerous books and articles have been written addressing changing immigration trends in the United States (i.e., the dramatic increase and widening settling distribution of Mexican immigrants; Andreas, 2009; Chavez, 2008; Cornelius & Lewis, 2007; Massey, 2008; Massey et al., 2002; Portes & Rumbaut, 2006; Romo & Mogollon-Lopez, 2016). That said, there still exists a gap in the literature surrounding the Mexican immigrant experience that aims to give voice to Mexican immigrants living in the United States through qualitative methodology.

The participants of this study represent first-generation Mexican immigrants living in Denver, CO, and a small portion of the U.S. immigrant population. Qualitative research methods were utilized to provide a forum for Mexican immigrants to describe their own experiences. These immigrant stories allow for a beginning understanding of the multiple layers of context and culture of Mexican immigrants as well as the intersection between today’s U.S. American sociopolitical perspectives and the experience of Mexican immigrants.

Recognizing that the portrayal of Mexican immigrants is often one dimensional, particularly in public discourse and in the media, the authors work to provide multiple levels of context to more accurately portray the participants as multidimensional humans who view the United States through their past and present experiences as well as their hopes for the future. This is a unique approach and contribution to existing literature. It not only aims to give voice to the Mexican immigrants through qualitative research methods but also acknowledges the importance of placing their experiences within the appropriate historical and social context. Additionally, this approach acknowledges the inherent biases of individuals and the increased likelihood for misunderstandings and misinterpretations when one’s experiences are not understood within the appropriate context.

The authors recognize the barriers many people without firsthand experience with the Mexican immigrant community face as they attempt to understand the experiences of Mexican immigrants. To address this, the authors take the unique approach of contextualizing the rich interview data by including facts, background information, and other relevant extant literature regarding the experiences described by participants. This supporting information is vital to present a fuller picture of the varying experiences described by the participants. It also allows for readers not familiar with the different circumstances of life in Mexico compared to life in the United States to access necessary information to better understand and digest the narratives shared by the participants in this study. This strategy is particularly important for social work practitioners who are outsiders not only to the Latino immigrant community but specifically to the diverse Mexican immigrant community.

Method

Sampling and Recruitment

Prior to beginning data collection, the researchers received approval from the University Institutional Review Board in 2011. The nature of the increase in immigration policy enforcement, immigration raids, immigrant detention, and deportation necessitated the use of a key gatekeeper within the Mexican immigrant community who introduced the study to community members. Ultimately, a purposive snowball sample of seven Mexican immigrants was obtained for this study. To do this, a key gatekeeper contacted Mexican immigrants to tell them about the study and ask whether they would be willing to participate. This created a sense of trust that the research would not result in negative immigration documentation consequences for the participants. From there, participants contacted the first author directly to learn more about the study and schedule an interview. Participants also contacted persons they thought might be interested in the study and invited them to participate.

It is important to note that the first author met with and interviewed each participant for this study. At the time of the interviews, she had 5 years of experience working with and participating in the local Mexican immigrant community. Therefore, various participants had experience with the first author in the past or at least had seen or heard of her prior to making contact for the interview. This prior knowledge of the researcher appeared to create increased levels of trust. This is particularly important as the first author identifies as an outsider (e.g., a white, U.S.-born citizen) who can be a barrier to recruitment and instill a sense of fear in potential participants given the culture of anti-immigrant sentiment, immigration raids, detentions, and deportations in Colorado.

The participants, all of whom have been given pseudonyms to protect their identities, emigrated from a variety of states and municipalities in Mexico, including Guanajuato, Zacatecas, Mexico City, Jalisco, and Tamaulipas. The demographics of the participants included more women (five) than men (two). Their ages ranged from 27 to 54. All of the participants were native Spanish speakers. The participant’s educational achievement varied. Three of the subjects had less than a high school education (Camila, Rogelio, and Isabel), one was a high school graduate (Yudith), one attended some college (Karla), and two participants had the equivalent of college or graduate degrees (Alvaro and Isabel). This sample of immigrants represented different types of U.S. immigration statuses including asylum seekers, authorized immigrants, and unauthorized immigrants. At the time of the interviews, two of the participants were unauthorized and five were authorized. However, five of the seven participants had experienced life in the United States as an unauthorized immigrant at some point in their lives. Participants had lived in the Denver metro area from as little as 5 years to nearly 40 years.

Procedures and data collection

Participants were eligible to participate in the study if they were a first-generation Mexican immigrants, 18 years of age or older, and living in the greater Denver metro area. Participants contacted and met the first author in one of three locations: their home, the researcher’s home, or another private location of their choosing. Two of the seven participants interviewed were a heterosexual couple who emigrated together. They chose to complete their interview together. Of the six interviews, five occurred in the homes of participants and one was held at the researcher’s home. Five interviews were in Spanish and one interview was in English.

Prior to beginning the interviews, participants signed an informed consent form by which they consented to participate in the interview, be audio-recorded, and be contacted after the interview for clarification and follow-up questions. Each interview began with one formal interview question: “How has it been for you to emigrate from Mexico and live in Denver, Colorado?” Participants were then encouraged to guide the direction of the conversation. There were no other formal interview questions or probes. Instead, on occasion, the formal interview question was restated, and appropriate follow-up and/or probing questions (e.g., tell me more, can you expand a bit, what was that like for you, etc.) were asked to encourage further dialogue and expansion of participants’ ideas.

The researcher spent 2–4 hr with each participant. Although the official audio-taped interviews lasted between 45 min and 2 hr, the additional time spent with participants allowed for further discussion and member checking. The preliminary conversation with participants prior to the audio-taped interviews was key in developing the necessary rapport to create a safe environment for participants to share their stories. In these conversations, the researcher addressed her status as an outsider, as well as her interest in this topic (the Mexican immigrant experience), and allowed for time for participants to ask questions or discuss any concerns. The researcher and each participant continued their conversations after the audio-recorder was turned off. These follow-up conversations gave participants the ability to speak without being recorded and for the researcher to member check. The researcher wrote field notes to capture conversations that were not audio-recorded. Additionally, the researcher contacted participants during the data analysis process to confirm or clarify themes and findings.

As five of the six interviews took place in Spanish, they needed to be both transcribed and translated. To do this, the primary investigator transcribed the interviews in Spanish and then translated them into English. Since Spanish is the researcher’s second language, the researcher also reviewed each Spanish transcript and translated English transcript with a native (Mexican) Spanish speaker to ensure that the translations were accurate.

Positionality of the authors

As previously stated, the researcher and first author of this study is a white, U.S.-born citizen and an outsider to the Mexican immigrant community. At the time of the interviews, the first author had over 5 years of experience working as a social work clinician with the local Spanish-speaking community and additional international social work experience in Mexico. Even so, it is necessary to acknowledge that her social location and outsider perspective can create misunderstandings. In addition, the second author of this study is a Xicana with decades of community-based research and practice in partnership with the Latino community. Although offering a divergent perspective given her different life experiences than the first author, she too is an outsider in the Mexican immigrant community. Given these outsider roles, the authors participated in ongoing individual and group critical self-reflection regarding their experiences and how it impacts their interpretation of the data. Although impossible to completely bracket bias and preconceived notions, the self-reflection and discussions between the authors helped them to gain awareness and address their differences. In addition, given the social locations of the authors, the member checks following each interview were crucial to verifying the authors’ understanding of the data and increasing the trustworthiness of the findings.

Analysis

Given the gap in the literature regarding the experience of Mexican immigrants in their country of origin and when living in the United States, a constant comparative method of data analysis often associated with grounded theory was used for the purposes of data analysis (Patton, 2002). This allowed for the development of a conceptual framework to understand the experiences of the participants. This was achieved through systematic analysis rather than by relying on preconceived ideas or existing theories to analyze the data or by simply describing the data (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1992; Glaser & Holton, 2004; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Atlas-ti (version 6) was utilized for data management. There were three cycles of coding: precoding cycle, first cycle, and second cycle (Saldana, 2009). In vivo coding was used in the precoding cycle. In vivo coding uses the actual words of participants as codes instead of codes created by the researcher (Saldana, 2009). In vivo coding allowed the researchers to become familiar with the data and recognize emerging themes using the participants’ own words. Using participants’ own words also allowed the researchers to remain open and not force the data into preconceived codes (Glaser, 1992).

In the next cycle of coding, the researchers coded line by line (Glaser & Holton, 2004) using gerunds (Charmaz, 2006). Through line-by-line coding, the researchers were able to discover additional themes and phenomena and ultimately uncover the core variable or central phenomenon of ambivalence (Glaser, 1992; Glaser & Holton, 2004).

Finally, the researchers began focused or selective coding using the most frequently used codes to “sift” through the data related to the core variable, ambivalence (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1992; Glaser & Holton, 2004). The researchers then reviewed the data and focused codes and began to create networks, connecting and creating links between the most common codes used by participants for the purpose of theoretical elaboration (Glaser & Holton, 2004). The process of connecting and uncovering relationships between the various concepts allowed for the emergence of our conceptual framework around the respondents’ ambivalence about life in the United States.

Results

Four overarching themes relating to the core variable of ambivalence were identified through the analysis of participant interviews. These themes reflect the imagined and real lives of Mexicans living in the United States. Participants described (1) experiences and conditions in Mexico, (2) real opportunities of the United States, (3) restricted opportunities of the United States, and (4) love of the United States. Together, the themes compose a conceptual framework that elucidates the ambivalence in the lives of Mexican immigrants living in the United States. It allows for a better understanding of how the perception of the hardships in one’s home country—particularly the lack of economic opportunities and security—appears to positively influence the perception of the United States, even when immigrants are faced with hardships, prejudice, and discriminatory practices. These four themes describe the actual experiences/concepts of the interviewees which, when tied together, create the conceptual framework that allows for a better understanding of the Mexican immigrant experience.

Acknowledging the importance of placing one’s experience within the appropriate historical and social context, the rich interview data are contextualized by including facts, background information, and other relevant extant literature regarding the experiences described by participants. This information provides a fuller picture of the varying experiences described by the participants. This is particularly important for social work practitioners who are outsiders not only to the immigrant community but specifically to the Mexican immigrant community. Unfortunately, the portrayal of Mexican immigrants is often one dimensional. Without understanding the larger picture (e.g., providing additional information about life Mexico) and putting the participants’ narratives into larger context, readers are at greater risk for misinterpreting the words of the participants. It is the authors’ hope that by providing additional context to the participants’ narratives regarding their experiences in Mexico, readers not familiar with the Mexican immigrant community will gain an increased understanding of how immigrants’ lives prior to moving to the United States impact the way they experience the United States.

Experiences and Conditions in Mexico

Lack of opportunities in Mexico, the first theme, described the forces that influenced participants’ decisions to migrate to the United States. These forces included physical danger, a lack of educational opportunities, and a lack of financial opportunities. These findings are congruent with United States and Mexican media reports (Burstein, 2007; Cantu, Shaiq, & Urdanivia, 2007; Cable News Network, US Edition, Wire Staff, 2010; Staudt & Campbell, 2008; Tegel, 2012; World Bank, 2012)

Many Mexicans lack the economic and educational opportunities to thrive in their homeland. Since the 1990s, Mexico has experienced an increase in the gap between the rich and the poor (Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, 2011), increased feminization of poverty (Barndt, 2001), the weakening of their agricultural sector (Cantu et al., 2007), decreasing wages (Cantu, et al., 2007), an increase in the cost of living (food staples like corn and other goods; Cantu, et al., 2007), and an increase in drug trafficking and violence at the border (Andreas, 2009). The increasingly difficult living conditions in Mexico have been the catalyst for many Mexicans to migrate and permanently settle in the United States (Andreas, 2009; Burstein, 2007; Cantu et al., 2007; Gaytan, Lucio, Shaiq, & Urdanivia, 2007). Both a lack of sufficient infrastructure and the repercussions of transnational policies have contributed to the current state in Mexico and Mexicans’ subsequent decision to migrate to the United States in search of better opportunities (Andreas, 2009).

Both the North American Free Trade Agreement and the “War on Drugs” negatively affected and continue to affect Mexicans, particularly at the Northern border (Andreas, 2009). Throughout the 1990s, femicides and violence against women, organized crime, drug trafficking, and police corruption in industrial towns increased (Andreas, 2009; Staudt & Campbell, 2008). Nearly 50,000 people have been killed in Mexico since President Felipe Calderon began the War on Drugs in 2006 (World Bank, 2012). In 2010 alone, over 15,000 people were killed in Mexico due to drug-related violence (World Bank, 2012).

Rogelio described Ciudad Juarez as extremely dangerous. He stated, “It is very bad. There is a lot of delinquency, theft, and murders. Sometimes, for nothing more than 10 pesos or 20 pesos, they knife someone.” He explained that because of high crime rates in Ciudad Juarez, many assumptions about basic safety that are taken for granted in the United States do not exist for those living in Ciudad Juarez. Rogelio stated, “It is dangerous. One can’t walk around like here. You just go to the store, protecting your wallet, because whoever passes by, [will] grab you [and your wallet] and go.” International news outlets have focused attention on Ciudad Juarez, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua, because of high rates of organized crime, police corruption, and femicides (Cable News Network, US Edition, Wire Staff, 2010; Staudt & Campbell, 2008; Tegel, 2012).

Although border towns like Ciudad Juarez gain the most attention for violence, participants made it clear that danger is not limited to border cities and states. Yudith stated, “In Mexico City, well, there is a lot, I don’t know, well, they steal and kill.” Rogelio, on the other hand, highlighted the corruption that is widespread in Mexico. This has been clearly documented in the literature and international news (Andreas, 2009; Cable News Network, US Edition, Wire Staff, 2010). Rogelio explained, “The police themselves sometimes rob a person. There is no law there; there is no law like here [in the U.S.].” He also explained that this type of corruption within the Mexican police force has led to widespread distrust and fear of the police.

Corruption and danger are not limited to the police force but also rife in the government and among officials. Alvaro explained that the danger for him in Mexico became so great after he shared his concerns regarding the Mexican government in a nationally circulated Mexican publication that he was forced to flee the country for his safety. He stated, “friends in an embassy…indicated…that it would be best…to leave Mexico. Yes, our lives could be in danger and that was the reason for which I emigrated.” Luckily, Alvaro and his wife were able to flee the dangerous situation in Mexico with the appropriate visa required by the United States.

The fear experienced by Mexican immigrants in their native land is not forgotten when they immigrate to the United States. In fact, participants cited their fear of violence in Mexico as a reason for not wanting to return to their homeland. Camila stated, “But what worries me is how it is there [in Mexico]—the violence.” Isabel shared a similar sentiment. She said,

I am afraid to go back to my country. I want to stay here. It is very unsafe [in Mexico] with what is happening now in my country. [There is] a lot of violence and drugs. I am afraid to take my children there. I don’t want to go back; I want to stay here.

Collectively, the participants described a life in Mexico that is fraught with everyday experiences of danger, constant fear, and lack of access to a fair legal system. This combination of factors leaves many Mexicans—particularly poor Mexicans—little choice but to seek safety for themselves and their children through immigration to the United States.

Lack of infrastructure in rural towns in Mexico often translates into limited educational opportunities. Camila stated, “There aren’t opportunities [in Mexico] that there are here [in the U.S.]…I always liked to study and everything, and in Mexico I didn’t have an opportunity.” This is not an uncommon experience for students in Mexico. Approximately a decade ago, it was estimated that for every 100 students who enroll in the first grade in Mexico, just 68 will complete secondary school and 35 will graduate from high school (Santibañez, Vernez, & Razquin, 2005). More recent estimates indicate more positive outcomes, estimating that nearly half (49%) of Mexican youth will graduate high school (Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, 2013). Even with this improvement, there continues to be more educational opportunities for Mexicans in the United States compared to those in Mexico, particularly rural Mexico.

In addition to a lack of educational opportunities, participants described a lack of job opportunities and extreme poverty in Mexico. Camila stated, “At least you have the opportunity to get a job here [in the U.S.] and in Mexico no.” Participants noted that it is not only is it difficult to find work in Mexico, but the jobs that are available often require heavy labor for less than a living wage, particularly for those with little education. Rogelio explained, “[In Mexico the work] is very difficult and heavier, because there is a lot of sun, sun and dirt and [you] are not well protected [from the environment and the elements].”

Although the work in Mexico can be more physically demanding compared to work in the United States, workers are paid much less for their labor. Rogelio reported “Here [in the U.S.], what one makes in one day is what one would make there [in Mexico] in one week. That is 1,000 pesos (approximately $90 U.S. dollars in 2007) there [in Mexico] for a week’s work. And here [in the U.S.] 100 dollars, well, [I can earn it] in 1 day.” Karla echoed this sentiment. She stated, “In Mexico I was paid a little, they pay very little. They pay, if you work for a week [in Mexico], here [in the U.S.] you make it in a day, what you make with 40 hours of work there [in Mexico], here [in the U.S.] you make it in a day.”

The lack of available work and poor pay contribute to the high poverty rates in Mexico. Camila attributed her impoverished situation to being born into a family who lived in a rural part of Mexico, with little opportunity to make a living wage. She explained that her situation was so dire that her family often went without any food. Camila stated, “At the time that I was born, there was a crisis. We were farmers and were from a culture where we don’t know how to live and my mom says, ‘my daughter [mi hija], when you were born,’ she told me, ‘you grew up on just cinnamon and not a bottle, nothing.’ She says I sucked on cinnamon from a wet rag. And I ask her, ‘Mom, how could I live like that?’ It is a mystery. Who could live without eating? My mom says ‘no my daughter, sometimes when we had to, it was just chili—and when you were little, that is what we gave you [to eat].’”

Camila experienced food insufficiency as an outcome from the vicious cycle of rural poverty where the sole profession of the family was farming. She stated, “You live like animals there [in rural Mexico] and then, there isn’t anybody to help you, nobody, nobody.” Growing up in such extreme poverty is hard to forget and can have a lifelong effect (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Hill & Sandfort, 1995; Power, Manor, & Matthews, 1999). Camila explained, “When I remember, I want to cry because of how the people are…well, like in Africa and in those countries where the people die of hunger. We were like that.”

High poverty rates and food insufficiency affect the entire family, especially the children. Rogelio, a father, explained, “In Mexico, poor kids [pobrecitos], it gets really cold and sometimes they don’t have coats, good coats for the cold…sometimes the kids walk around without shoes.” Similarly, Karla stated, “In Mexico, you have money, but you don’t have enough to buy the groceries, like here in the United States, here you can buy yourself, well, if you work, even just a little, a few hours, you know you make more than you make in Mexico.” Of course, if it is difficult for many to buy the basic household staples in Mexico, it is even more difficult to buy something special to celebrate a birthday or other occasion. Rogelio stated, “In Mexico, if I want a cake, if I want a bicycle, I want this or that, I can’t because there is no money. And then if one wants, even a coke, one doesn’t have money even 5 pesos, 10 pesos.” This extreme poverty described by participants is widespread. A large percentage of the people living in Mexico are severely economically disadvantaged (Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, 2011). For example, it is estimated that as of 2010, nearly 12 million Mexicans (or 10% of the population) lived in extreme poverty (an income of $53 U.S. dollars per month) and 52 million Mexicans—nearly half of the entire population—lived in poverty (an income of $76 U.S. dollars per month; World Bank, 2012).

Real Opportunities of the United States

Within the second theme, Real opportunities of the United States, participants described finding a secure environment, educational opportunities, and occupational and financial opportunities. Participants’ awareness of the lack of opportunities in their country of origin seemed to bring a more acute awareness of the opportunities in the United States for both themselves and their children. Camila explained, “I know that here [in the U.S.] there are opportunities that do not exist in Mexico.” Isabel stated that the United States allows them “to give a better life to our kids and have more opportunities that our countries don’t have.”

The safety and security provided by life in the United States was highly valued by the participants. Isabel noted, “U.S. provides a lot of safety…I feel safe, protected. I feel safe in this country.” Similarly, Emilia stated, “We have more security [in the U.S.], for sure the police are very effective, that there is not so much corruption…all of this is good,” Such comments demonstrate a stark contrast to the participants’ feelings about the dangers of living in Mexico.

Another important opportunity available to Mexican immigrants living in the United States is education. Camila remarked that she was not just grateful for the opportunities she is afforded by living in the United States but also for the educational success and opportunities of her U.S. citizen daughter who not only graduated high school but also received a full scholarship to a private university. She stated, “For me, the U.S. was great because on the one hand I have had many opportunities, but more than anything, my daughter, the eldest, because of her grades, didn’t have to pay, she was at [a private university].”

The opportunity to work in the United States was frequently discussed by respondents. Despite low wage jobs or times in which participants were not paid for their work, they felt, as Camila described, that they “have the opportunity to get a job here [in the U.S.], at least, and in Mexico no.” This ability to work allows for the opportunity to buy material items that would have not been possible in Mexico. Rogelio stated, “Here [in the U.S.] there is everything and [you] can have it, a cake, a bicycle, if [you] want one thing or something—[you] can go and buy and eat anything.” Camila also pointed out the opportunities in the United States allowing for people to finance bigger items that would be impossible to buy in Mexico. She stated, “There were opportunities here to have things, a house.”

Restricted Opportunities of the United States

Within the third theme, Restricted opportunities in the United States, participants described ways in which opportunities are not available to them—not just because they are unauthorized immigrants, but because they are Mexican immigrants. All participants reported restricted opportunities regardless of their immigrant status (authorized or unauthorized). For instance, two participants with college degrees and the proper work visas experienced limited opportunities because of their nationality, English language ability, and immigrant status. Emilia explained, “What happens is that, one arrives to a different country, where now you don’t have sometimes the same rights, yes, where many times you don’t have the same opportunities, where they don’t speak your language, they don’t understand you.” Emilia’s husband, Alvaro, shared, “we both had or have University studies, [and were unable] to practice our craft, something we had developed our entire lives. It was very difficult—to have to come [to the U.S.] and, all of a sudden…to have to grab a shovel, that I had never grabbed in my life and dig a hole in the ground [for work], it was tremendous. It was drastic. Yes, it was traumatic; it was very difficult to come here. It was very, very, very difficult.”

Equally noted in the interviews are the imagined opportunities that do not come to fruition because of the barriers specific to unauthorized immigrants. For instance, Camila stated, “I know there are many people that…have given a lot here [in the U.S.], and you [an unauthorized immigrant] don’t have the right to anything; I have lost many rights and I am going to lose [money contributed to social security]. I worked for 30 years, they took all my money for my social security…and I am not going to [receive social security]. I did my taxes when I could do them, yes, I did, but I am not going to have the opportunity [to be credited for the contribution to social security] because, from now until I fix [my papers], I think that everything [from my tax contribution] will be erased.” This experience is not uncommon. Although many unauthorized immigrants have worked and paid into social security for years, they will not be able to access these benefits. In fact, unauthorized immigrants are estimated to generate $6–7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and another $1.5 billion in Medicare tax that is unclaimed each year (Porter, 2005).

The knowledge that unauthorized immigrants are often not granted a pathway toward citizenship despite the contributions they make to the United States is disheartening for many. Camila, an unauthorized immigrant who has lived in the United States for nearly 40 years, said “There are many people here that have spent their entire life here [in the U.S.], because for me it is like a lifetime, I have lived more [years] here than in Mexico. And you don’t have the opportunity [to gain legal immigrant status]…and for me, it saddens me because in my case, with everything that I have [given]…I still do not have the rights to be here.” Alvaro shared a concern for his fellow country men and women in similar situations to Camila. He said, “We know many Hispanic people that suffer every day due to their migratory status. It is incredible, what is it called, the way that the state of Colorado has handled the situation has brought about a complete and total anti-immigrant climate in the state.”

The imagined opportunity to gain an education in the United States was very apparent in the interviews. Isabel shared, “Like when you are a teenager and you are [unauthorized], you can stay only to high school. They don’t give you an opportunity. A lot of Spanish [unauthorized Latino] people, they think when they are done with high school they don’t have more opportunities, so they think about being married…it kind of stops your dreams right there.” Isabel also spoke of the educational limitations that many unauthorized immigrants living in the United States face today. She stated, “The only reason I can’t do more, is because when I was here, I was [unauthorized]. The only thing they let me study was in high school.”

Although Camila noted that the opportunity to learn English as a huge benefit of moving to the United States, she revealed her ambivalence when she said, “It was just to work, to work. There wasn’t time; there wasn’t an opportunity to study English.” In this way, she acknowledges that having the opportunity to learn English is hampered by her need to work, so that she cannot avail herself of the opportunity to attend English classes.

Love of the United States

The final theme, Love of the United States, highlights the ambivalence in the life of Mexicans in the United States, especially when it is contrasted against the previous theme, Restricted opportunities. Despite the many difficulties Mexican immigrants face in the United States, the participants still reported a love for the United States, and a desire to stay in this country. Isabel affirmed, “We love America.” She also appeared to have a great love for the state of Colorado, “I love Colorado, I like to live here. Colorado gave me a lot of opportunities.”

Although Mexican immigrant participants—particularly unauthorized immigrants—recognized the many blocked opportunities in the United States, they continue to be fond of the United States and grateful for the opportunities available to them and their U.S. citizen children. Yudith stated, “This country, it is a country of opportunities; it gives you many things. I already proved it, so I am very, very content here with my, my children. I would like my children to study, for my children have a good career. I would like to work hard and to make a life.”

While most participants acknowledge some of the drawbacks to life in the United States, all of the participants were able to point out the positive aspects as well. Rogelio stated, “There is so much, and here in this country, well there is law and everything is normal, good. It is a pretty and good country.” Likewise, although one couple who was interviewed noted the many trials and tribulations they have experienced since they have moved to the United States, they also noted that, after going through some initial difficulties, they have come to really love the United States. Alvaro shared, “I have felt much more integrated here. So much so, we are thinking very seriously about changing our immigration status [from]…legal residents to citizens of the United States. Why? Because we have found opportunities; because we have found an ordered country. Because we have found things that we like now, and things with which we are happy.”

Discussion

After arriving and living in the United States, respondents stated that they had encountered opportunities; however, they stated that these were restricted. That being said, participants also acknowledged that unauthorized immigrants were further restricted from the financial, occupational, educational, and security benefits of the United States in comparison to their authorized counterparts. The experience of restricted opportunities for both authorized and unauthorized immigrants in the face of their widely held belief in the United States as the land of opportunity created a dynamic of ambivalence.

The participants’ vibrant descriptions of life’s difficulties in Mexico provide a context for their motivation to live in the United States, albeit a life in the shadows. The extreme poverty and restricted opportunities in Mexico that have become even more restricted as a result of international economic policies propel immigrants to seek a better life for themselves and their children (Dettlaff, 2012). The immigrants in this qualitative study balance their experiences of severe poverty or danger in Mexico, their personal experience of increased wealth (even as some continue to live in poverty in the United States) or safety, and their frustration about their inability to fully participate in the social and economic life of the United States. Findings support the work of Ogbu (1991), highlighting a dual frame where participants compare their present situation in the United States to their experiences in Mexico. This enables them to have a positive outlook and love of the United States, even as they face challenges.

The participants also described the availability of opportunities for children of immigrants which appears to positively impact their view of the United States despite the present challenges they face. Even so, participants described the differing opportunities for children of immigrants based on their U.S. citizen and immigrant status. On the one hand, educational opportunities complete with scholarships were available for one daughter (a first-generation U.S. citizen); on the other, a son who was unauthorized—and subsequently deported from the United States—faced barriers to accessing education and vocational training. These combinations of experiences for the respondents and their children create a situation of ambivalence, as they seek to fulfill dreams tempered by international politics, Mexican and United States’ national immigration policies and practices, structural oppression, and an anti-immigrant sentiment. Ultimately, one aspect of the experience of Mexican immigrants living in Denver is that of looking toward the American dream, yet living a life that is riddled with lost opportunities that deter that dream.

Conclusion

This article addresses the factors that impact immigrant incorporation into the United States. It provides a small glimpse into the Mexican immigrant experience and the challenges Mexican immigrants face in the United States by exploring two drastically different events: the experience of restricted opportunity based on ethnic identity and immigration status and the belief that the United States is a great country and a land of opportunity. The ambivalence that emerged in the analysis of the qualitative data elucidates the complexity of the situation faced by many Mexican immigrants on a daily basis. These immigrants come to the United States in search of a better life. Although they might find more opportunities in the United States than in their country of origin, they also often face harsh realities such as blocked opportunities, discrimination, and an anti-immigrant sentiment.

The American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (2017) names 12 grand challenges for social work. One of these challenges is to “achieve equal opportunity and justice.” Addressing this challenge, this article addresses the experiences of Mexican immigrants, a historically disenfranchised groups. This article examines their experiences and uses the participants’ narratives to present a better understanding of why Mexican immigrants have to come to United States the way their past and present experiences impact their view of the opportunities and barriers they face in the United States, so that social workers can learn better ways to support them.

Unfortunately, the current direction of the Trump administration appears to only be escalating the anti-immigrant sentiment and barriers that face Mexican immigrants. Mr. Trump consistently groups Mexican immigrants together, as he describes them as criminals, rapists, and drug smugglers (Fang, 2015). This sentiment coupled by anti-immigrant policy that is currently being promoted (e.g., further fortifying the Southern border by building a wall, blaming Mexico and immigrants for the economic problems that face the United States, etc.). Future research should investigate the way that this intense wave of xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiment, and restrictive policies and practices impact the dual frame of immigrants; their view of life in the United States; and their social–emotional, academic, and occupational outcomes.

Continued research in this area is paramount, as it can provide a necessary foundation for intervention development and informed policy advocacy as well as community education and advocacy. Future research should also focus on the effects of the current immigration system not only on immigrants and those living in immigrant families but also on Latino U.S. citizens affected by current immigration policies and practices.