Shannon Gleeson

Presents a comparative study of organizational discourses on immigrants in two cornerstone US institutions: labor unions and the US military, both powerful players in setting the terms of immigration debates and policies in the United States.

Examines how local conditions shape immigrants’ access to legal support for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Highlights how, in the absence of federal funding or coordination, local resources and partnerships determine which organizations immigrants can rely on and how effectively those organizations can respond during periods of uncertainty.

Analyzes the over-time employment declines that refugees in the United States face, highlighting three interrelated structural weaknesses in the federal refugee resettlement process that drive these declines: (1) retrenched resettlement funding, (2) a logic of self-sufficiency prioritizing rapid employment in generally undesirable and unstable jobs, and (3) siloed networks of refugee-serving organizations.

Identifies, through an examination of municipal public funding for community-based organizations that serve disadvantaged immigrants in four cities in the Bay Area region of Northern California, the phenomenon of suburban free-riding where suburban officials rely on central city resources to serve immigrants, but do not build and fund partnerships with immigrant organizations in their own jurisdictions.

Reveals how immigration status impacts why and how clients seek legal counsel, the expectations they have for their lawyers, and their eventual sense of satisfaction—or frustration—with their claim.

Highlight the impact of state-employer dynamics on migrant workers with Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Findings reveal that the intertwined coercive and bureaucratic arms of the immigration state together make hiring TPS workers a more risky and costly proposition for employers, thereby exacerbating the job insecurity that TPS workers already face due to an at-will employment regime that offers few protections against firing.

Discusses how social movements are full of contradictions, and an inherent tension often emerges between reformist and radical flanks. Mentions how this becomes especially true as activists attempt to draw connections between varied aims such as opposition to globalization and support for immigrants. Considers the implication of this critical omission.

Examines the official scope and actual coverage of immigrant civil society in seven California cities for four immigrant-origin communities (Indian, Mexican, Portuguese, and Vietnamese) using an official database of registered 501(c)3 organizations and interviews with 160 key informants and organizational leaders. Our findings carry important implications for resource inequalities and advocacy capacity in minority communities, underscoring the need for further research on the vitality of immigrant civil society.

Draws on over 200 in-depth interviews to argue that there is a stark difference between how schools encourage undocumented youth to view themselves as equal members of U.S. society and how undocumented workers are marginalized in the workplace. We find that whereas schools render immigration status irrelevant for undocumented students, undocumented workers must develop a particular set of survival skills that help them live and work successfully in the United States without being detected while also erecting a barrier between themselves and any additional rights they may be afforded.

Examines two cities – San Jose, California, and Houston, Texas – with very different approaches to addressing the exploitation of immigrant workers – both involving the strategic coordination of a range of bureaucratic brokers, but in strikingly different ways. Drawing on the real life accounts of ordinary workers, federal, state, and local government officials, community organizers, and consular staff, Gleeson argues that local political contexts matter for protecting undocumented workers in particular.

Draws on 33 interviews with kitchen staff employed in the mainstream restaurant industry in San Jose, California, and Houston, Texas to argue that workers must consider complex power relationships at work in weighing the advantages of calling in sick, using protective equipment, seeking medical care, or filing a workers’ compensation claim. These decisions implicate direct and opportunity costs – such as risk of job loss and missed opportunities for advancement – and workers consequently leverage their health capital to meet their economic needs, to assert their autonomy at the workplace, and to ultimately reject the stigma of illness and injury.

Uses forty-one interviews with both documented and undocumented Latino restaurant workers in San Jose, California, and Houston, Texas, to identify three common narratives that undocumented workers provide to justify not making claims on workplace protection. These include 1) an ever-present fear of deportation that inhibits any formal confrontation, 2) a particularly pragmatic and short-term understanding of their working life in the United States, which their working conditions temporary and endurable, 3) a sense of belonging in the U.S. based on an extreme work ethic.

Examines the contextual factors driving legal mobilization of workers in the United States through an analysis of national origin discrimination charges under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (2000–2005). Consistent with previous studies, this analysis confirms that high unemployment levels and weak labor protections promote legal mobilization, and that civil society plays a positive role in promoting claims-making, especially in places with a larger vulnerable workforce.