Social movements—organized efforts by relatively powerless people to change society—can result in legal and policy changes, such as laws protecting same-sex marriage and tax rebates for solar energy. However, movements also change people’s beliefs, values, and everyday behavior. Such changes may help bring about new policies or take place in the absence of new policy, yet we still know little about when and why they occur. In Changing Minds, sociologists Francesca Polletta and Edwin Amenta ask why movements have sometimes had fast and far-reaching cultural influence.

Polletta and Amenta examine the trajectories of U.S. social movements, including the old-age pension movements of the 1930s and 1940s, the Black rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, the women’s movement of the 1970s, right-wing movements in the 1980s and 1990s, and the environmental movement up to the present, to determine when, why, and how social movements change culture. They find that influential movements are featured in the news, but not only in the news. Movement perspectives may appear also in opinion and commentary outlets, on television talk shows and dramas, in movies, stand-up comedy, and viral memes. Popular culture producers remake movement messages as they transmit them, sometimes in ways that make those messages compelling. For example, while the news largely ignored feminists’ challenge to inequality in the home, popular cultural outlets turned “liberation” into a resonant demand for women’s right to self-fulfillment outside the home and within it.  Widespread attention to the movement may lead people to change their minds individually. But more substantial change is likely when companies, schools, and other organizations outside government strive to get out in front of a newly legitimate issue, whether environmental sustainability or racial equity, by adopting movement-supportive norms and practices. Eventually, ideas associated with a movement may become a new common sense—though not always the ideas that the movement intended.

Throughout Changing Minds, Polletta and Amenta provide activists with strategies for getting their message heard and acted on. They suggest how movement actors can get into the news as political players or experts rather than lawbreakers or zealots. They show when it makes sense for activists to work with popular cultural producers and when they should create their own cultural outlets. They explain why the routes to cultural influence have changed and why urging people to take one easy step to save the planet can do more harm than good.

Changing Minds is a fascinating exploration of why and how some social movements have caused profound shifts in society.

FRANCESCA POLLETTA is Chancellor’s Professor of Sociology, University of California, Irvine

EDWIN AMENTA is Professor of Sociology, University of California, Irvine

In the first two decades of the 21st century, more than two million Mexican migrants returned to Mexico from the United States. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of people who returned to Mexico was so large that, for the first time in at least fifty years, more people entered Mexico from the United States than entered the United States from Mexico. Many of these migrants were destined for urban areas, and we know little about how they fare after they return to cities. In The Returned, sociologists Claudia Masferrer, Erin R. Hamilton, and Nicole Denier examine the experiences of returned migrants in Mexico City, one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world.

Masferrer, Hamilton, and Denier draw on interviews with former U.S. migrants living in Mexico City to better understand the experience of return migration to urban areas. Each of the migrants they spoke with lived in the United States for long periods with noncitizen status during the last four decades. During this time, U.S. immigration policy became increasingly focused on restriction and enforcement, which made it difficult for migrants to safely move back and forth across the border for work or to visit family without documentation. The authors find that upon their return, migrants in Mexico City felt disoriented and lost and had difficulty adapting to a massive urban environment where there is little support for returnees. They struggled to translate their work experience from their time in the U.S. to find quality jobs. Additionally, many found their family lives upended as they reunited with or formed families in the U.S.. Some found themselves separated from family members still in the U.S. with no ability to legally visit them. Others brought their families back to Mexico, some of whom were U.S. citizens and had never been to Mexico before. They, too, struggled to adapt and integrate to life in Mexico City.

The authors use the experiences of return migrants to discuss policies and practices that would improve their lives and ease their reintegration. To help with the disorientation they experience, returnees proposed ongoing psychological support with mental health professionals who have knowledge and training in the social and legal issues that return migrants face. Return migrants also advocated for policies to enhance skill matching, job creation, and entrepreneurship, as many felt the occupational skills they developed in the U.S. were undervalued in Mexico. To address family separation, returnees argued for legal and policy reform to accommodate family reunification.

The Returned is an illuminating account of the difficulties faced by return migrants and their families in Mexico City.

CLAUDIA MASFERRER is an associate professor, Centre for Demographic, Urban, and Environmental Studies, El Colegio de México

ERIN R. HAMILTON is a professor of sociology, University of California, Davis

NICOLE DENIER is an associate professor, Department of Sociology, University of Alberta

“Throughout her distinguished career as one of the nation’s preeminent social policy scholars, Jennifer Hochschild has drilled down to the bedrock of society to expose the race- and class-based inequalities that undergird much of American life. Now, in her latest study, Race/Class Conflict and Urban Financial Threat, she takes us through four fascinating case studies in the cities of New York, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Chicago, to explore with precision exactly when, how, and why race and class do—or do not—drive the creation and implementation of major public policy programs, from policing to housing, education to retirement funding. The framework she devises for analyzing these programs not only helps to unlock an important public policy puzzle; it will go a long way toward helping a rising generation of urban leaders to be more aware in shaping a future that will be more just and inclusive for all.”
—HENRY LOUIS GATES JR., Alphonse Fletcher University Professor,Harvard University

“Jennifer Hochschild deserves our admiration for her commitment to combining a passion for justice with rigorous scholarship and a resolutely realistic view of how urban politics works. All these virtues are on display in Race/Class Conflict and Urban Financial Threat. Understanding the relationship between race and class conflicts is hard enough. But understanding both in the context of the financial challenges facing big cities is an enormous contribution to solving problems—and to being honest with each other about the stakes in some of our most divisive public policy battles.”
—E.J. DIONNE JR., W. Averell Harriman Chair and Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution

“Returning inventively to a prior generation’s attention to pluralism in urban settings, this book’s conceptually focused cases of policing, development, pensions, and education illuminate when, how, and why deeply inscribed inequalities of race and class shape policy creation, goals, and implementation. Stressing the importance of variations to substance and location, Race/Class Conflict and Urban Financial Threat powerfully shows that core hierarchies of inequality are not fixed, constant, or always dominant as causes.”
—IRA I. KATZNELSON, Ruggles Professor of Political Science and History,and deputy director, Columbia World Projects, Columbia University

Race and class inequality are at the crux of many policy disputes in American cities. But are they the only factors driving political discord? In Race/Class Conflict and Urban Financial Threat, political scientist Jennifer L. Hochschild examines significant policies in four major American cities to determine when race and class shape city politics, when they do not, and what additional forces have the power to shape urban policy choices.

Hochschild investigates the root causes of disputes in the arenas of policing, development, schooling, and budgeting. She finds that race and class are central to the Stop-Question-Frisk policing policy in New York City and the development of Atlanta’s Beltline. New York’s Stop-Question-Frisk policy was intended to fight crime and keep all New Yorkers safe. In practice, however, young Black and Latino men in low-income neighborhoods were disproportionately stopped by a predominantly White police force. The goal of the Atlanta Beltline, a redevelopment project that includes public parks, new housing, commercial development, and a robust public transit system, is to expand access around the city and keep working-class residents in the city by constructing affordable housing. Instead However, the construction completed thus far has also encouraged gentrification and displacement of, displaced poor, disproportionately Black residents, and has increased the wealth and power of both Black and White city elites.

However, Hochschild finds that race and class inequality are not central to all urban policy disputes. When investigating the issues of charter schools in Los Angeles and Chicago’s pension system she identifies a third driver: financial threat that feels existential to the policy and political actors. In Los Angeles, there is a battle between traditional public schools and independent charter schools. Increasingly, families with sufficient resources are moving out of L.A. to areas with better school districts. Traditional public schools and charter schools must fight for the remaining students and the funding that comes with them, since they fear that there There are not enough students to teach and not enough money to teach them. The school district risks school closures, layoffs, and pension deficits; in this context, race/class conflict fades into the background.

Chicago’s public sector pension debt is at least three times as large as the city’s annual budget and continues to grow. Policy actors agree that the pension system needs to be stably funded. Yet city leaders, fearful of upsetting constituents and jeopardizing their political careers, fail to implement policies strong enough to do so, except by penalizing new workers. Meaningful policy change to rectify the pension deficit continues to get kicked down the line for future policy actors to address. In this context also, race/class conflict fades into the background.

Race/Class Conflict and Urban Financial Threat is a compelling examination of the role that race, class, and political and fiscal threat play in shaping urban policy.

JENNIFER L. HOCHSCHILD is Henry LaBarre Jayne Professor of Government, Professor of African and African American studies, and Professor of Public Policy, Harvard University

“Michael Lens provides an unprecedented systematic overview of economic and social conditions in Black neighborhoods for the past half century. By moving beyond the pathos narrative that has characterized much of the scholarship on Black neighborhoods, Where the Hood At? will help us to understand the Black neighborhood in all its complexity and diversity. Where the Hood At? is a must-read for students of neighborhoods, urban planners and policymakers, and the Black experience.”
—LANCE FREEMAN, James W. Effron University Professor of City and Regional Planning and Sociology, University of Pennsylvania

“Where the Hood At? describes in impressively comprehensive terms how Black neighborhoods in America have evolved over the last half century. Rigorous statistical documentation is clothed with an accessible writing style. This is a welcome study addressing a critical gap in scholarship related to racial segregation, neighborhood effects, and ethnographies of place. It reminds us why Black neighborhoods, not just individuals, are an important locus for analyzing issues of racial equity.”
—GEORGE C. GALSTER, Clarence Hilberry Professor of Urban Affairs and Distinguished Professor, emeritus, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Wayne State University

“Michael Lens has produced a comprehensive profile that describes the trajectory of the Black neighborhood in American cities over five decades. It is a much-needed and authoritative addition to our understanding of the Black neighborhood in American cities. Lens’s work provides ample fodder for policy debates ranging from integration and gentrification to the relative importance of place-based policymaking. We will be relying on Lens’s analysis of the Black neighborhood for a long time to come. Where the Hood At? challenges our assumptions about Black neighborhoods in American cities and their paths over the past fifty years. Just as importantly, the comprehensiveness of Lens’s analysis provides a clear and robust foundation for thinking about the future of these neighborhoods.”
—EDWARD GOETZ, professor and director, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota

Substantial gaps exist between Black Americans and other racial and ethnic groups in the U.S., most glaringly Whites, across virtually all quality-of-life indicators. Despite strong evidence that neighborhood residence affects life outcomes, we lack a comprehensive picture of Black neighborhood conditions and how they have changed over time. In Where the Hood At? urban planning and public policy scholar Michael C. Lens examines the characteristics and trajectories of Black neighborhoods across the U.S. over the fifty years since the Fair Housing Act.

Hip hop music was born out of Black neighborhoods in the 1970s and has evolved alongside them. In Where the Hood At? Lens uses rap’s growth and influence across the country to frame discussions about the development and conditions of Black neighborhoods. Lens finds that social and economic improvement in Black neighborhoods since the 1970s has been slow. However, how well Black neighborhoods are doing varies substantially by region. Overall, Black neighborhoods in the South are doing well and growing quickly. Black neighborhoods in the Midwest and the Rust Belt, on the other hand, are particularly disadvantaged. The welfare of Black neighborhoods is related not only to factors within neighborhoods, such as the unemployment rate, but also to characteristics of the larger metropolitan area, such as overall income inequality. Lens finds that while gentrification is increasingly prevalent, it is growing slowly, and is not
as pressing an issue as public discourse would make it seem. Instead, concentrated disadvantage is by far the most common and pressing problem in Black neighborhoods.

Lens argues that Black neighborhoods represent urban America’s greatest policy failures, and that recent housing policies have only had mild success. He provides several suggestions for policies with the goalof uplifting Black neighborhoods. One radical proposal is enacting policies and programs, such as tax breaks for entrepreneurs or other small business owners, that would encourage Black Americans to move backto the South. Black Americans migrating South would have a better chance at moving to an advantaged Black neighborhood as improving neighborhood location is higher when moving across regions. It would also help Black Americans expand their political and economic power. He also suggests a regional focus for economic development policies, particularly in the Midwest where Black neighborhoods are struggling the most. He also calls for building more affordable housing in Black suburbs. Black poverty is lower in suburbs than in central cities, so increasing housing in Black suburbs would allow Black households to relocate to more advantaged neighborhoods, which research has shown leads to improved life outcomes.

Where the Hood At? is a remarkable and comprehensive account of Black neighborhoods that helps us to better understand the places and conditions that allow them flourish or impedes their advancement.

MICHAEL C. LENS is a professor in the Luskin School of Public Affairs, departments of urban planning and public policy, University of California, Los Angeles.

“Do not underestimate Mexican immigrants, argue Jennifer Van Hook and James Bachmeier, who offer a sweeping account of the 37.4 million Americans of Mexican origin in the United States. Tracing Mexican immigrant families over eight decades and three generations, they go beyond purely optimistic or pessimistic portraits and show how geography mattered. Mexicans in California had access to expanding educational systems during the Industrial Era and nearly closed the educational attainment gap with native-born whites. Those in Texas did not, resulting in ‘Texas-Style Exclusion.’ High per capita investments helped level the playing field for Mexican immigrants of yore. It can do so again.”
—JENNIFER LEE, Julian Clarence Levi Professor of Social Sciences, Columbia University

“Texas-Style Exclusion is a brilliant exemplar of social demography that decisively solves the ‘puzzle’ of Mexican Americans’ third-generation educational delay by documenting how the contours of contemporary educational inequality are entrenched in legacies of discrimination and exclusion experienced by their immigrant parents and grandparents, depending on when they arrived and where they settled. Analyzing eight decades of linked census records and novel archival data about temporal and spatial variations in public school investments, veteran demographers Jennifer Van Hook and James Bachmeier empirically show that early-vintage Mexican Americans who settled in Texas fared considerably worse than their compatriots who settled in California or other regions of the United States. Their pithy tome is a formidable contribution to the literature about U.S. immigration, race relations, education policy, and of course, demography. I am now even more grateful thatmy Mexican immigrant parents left Texas for the Midwest when I was an infant.”
—MARTA TIENDA, Maurice P. During Professor in Demographic Studies and professor of sociology and public affairs, Princeton School of Public and International Affairs

“Texas-Style Exclusion is a game-changer for the troubling puzzle of third-generation stagnation in Mexican American integration. Using unique and powerful cross-generational census data, Jennifer Van Hook and James Bachmeier unravel the different immigration strands that give rise to today’s Mexican American population. In so doing, they reveal the persisting disadvantages due to the racism faced by early waves of Mexican settlers, especially those in Texas, but also the robust intergenerational advance associated with recent waves. History matters!”
—RICHARD ALBA, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Sociology and Africana Studies, The Graduate Center, CUNY

While Americans largely support legal immigration, this support is conditional on the basis that immigrants do not make use of public assistance. Previous generations of immigrants, such as European-origin Industrial Era immigrants, came to the U.S. impoverished, worked hard, and achieved the American Dream seemingly on their own. Mexican immigrants, the nation’s largest contemporary immigrant group, are often viewed with suspicion and are accused of being dependent on the government and refusing to integrate into American society the “right way.” In Texas-Style Exclusion, sociologists Jennifer Van Hook and James D. Bachmeier investigate such claims by comparing how American society has responded to different groups of immigrants over time.

Drawing on census and archival data on the quality of public schooling, Van Hook and Bachmeier find that Industrial Era European immigrants, who were primarily located in the northeastern U.S., benefitted from programs and policies championed by the Americanization and Progressive movements. The Americanization movement sought to help acclimate new arrivals and transform “foreigners” into “Americans” by providing night school programs to promote civic integration and basic education, as well as other services. The Progressive movement, which aimed to improve education, work, and health conditions, sought to expand investment in public schools and make primary and secondary schooling mandatory, which kept working class children in school as opposed to entering the workforce. This access to education allowed for integration and astonishing intergenerational mobility.

Mexican immigrants in the 1920s and 1930s, the majority of whom resided in Texas, had radically different experiences from their European counterparts. Mexicans in Texas were subjected to racism, segregation, labor exploitation, and intentional school failures. This resulted in tremendous generational disadvantage that persists to the current day. Mexicans from this cohort who left Texas for states with strong Americanization and Progressive movements saw improved educational outcomes and integration. Additionally, Mexicans who immigrated after the Civil Rights Movement saw significantly greater inter-generational mobility and educational attainment than earlier cohorts due to the protections provided by civil rights laws. Van Hook and Bachmeier conclude that whether one is optimistic or pessimistic about the integration of Mexican Americans depends on when and where one looks.

Texas-Style Exclusion is an engaging examination of policies and practices that have been glossed over and forgotten that promoted mobility and integration for certain immigrant groups and impeded them for others.

JENNIFER VAN HOOK is Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Demography, Pennsylvania State University

JAMES D. BACHMEIER is an Associate Professor of Sociology, Temple University

“In this sequel to Mexican New York, Robert C. Smith solidifies his reputation as an intimate interpreter of social change over the life course. Dreams Achieved and Denied tells a subtle story about the upward mobility of children of Mexican immigrants striving to keep their side of the immigrant family bargain. This is a must-read to understand the experiences of the largest immigrant group in the United States.”
—David FitzGerald, Gildred Chair in U.S.-Mexican Relations and professor of sociology, University of California, San Diego

“The culmination of a two-decade study of immigrant youngsters, Dreams Achieved and Denied exemplifies the power of research that truly matters. With rigor and passion, Robert C. Smith captures experiences deeply significant to policymakers and to all who care about the multifaceted American journey.”
—Patricia Fernández-Kelly, professor of sociology, Princeton University

“A valuable contribution to contemporary debates of social mobility in the United States, Dreams Achieved and Denied shows in great detail the mechanisms that promote upward mobility and those that tragically curtail it. Based on an impressive longitudinal study, this remarkable book offers a worm’s-eye view into the experiences of adult children of Mexican immigrants pursuing their dreams in New York City. Persuasively argued and rigorously researched, this book is a timely and socially important work that deserves a wide readership.”
—Roberto G. Gonzales, Richard Perry University Professor of Sociology and Education, University of Pennsylvania

U.S.-born Mexicans in New York City have achieved perhaps the biggest single jump in mobility in American immigration history. In 2020, 42 percent of second-generation U.S.-born Mexican men and 49 percent of U.S.-born Mexican women in the city had graduated from college–versus a 13-14-percent second-generation college graduation rate for most other places in recent decades. How did this happen? In Dreams Achieved and Denied, sociologist Robert Courtney Smith (Graduate Center, City University of New York) examines the laws, policies, and individual and family practices that promoted–and inhibited–their social mobility.

For over twenty years, Smith followed the lives and mobility of nearly one hundred children of Mexican immigrants in New York City.  Immigrant-inclusive and mobility-promoting measures here include enabling undocumented people to attend public colleges at in-state tuition rates and the city’s subway and school choice systems, which enabled students to attend better schools or take opportunities outside their neighborhoods.

Smith finds that keeping the immigrant bargain – whereby children of immigrants redeem their parents’ sacrifice by doing well in school, helping their parents and siblings, and becoming “good” people (in their parents’ words) – helped them achieve better adult outcomes and lives. Having mentors, picking academically strong schools and friends, and using second chance mechanisms also promoted mobility. However, lacking legal status blocked mobility, by preventing others from benefiting from these same mobility-promoting policies.

Dreams Achieved and Denied deeply analyzes the historic upward mobility of U.S.-born Mexicans in New York City.

ROBERT COURTNEY SMITH is a professor of sociology, immigration studies and public affairs at the CUNY Graduate Center

“James Gibson tackles one of the most pressing issues in contemporary American politics: the health and likely trajectory of our constitutional democracy. His extensive and careful analysis of the 2020 presidential contest, and its aftermath, lead him to a startling conclusion. By and large, Americans’ faith in their political institutions held steady. Scholars, and anyone concerned about the future of our democracy, should read this fascinating book.”
—VINCENT HUTCHINGS, Hanes Walton Jr. Collegiate Professor, Political Science Department and Department of Afro American and African Studies (by courtesy), University of Michigan

“James Gibson advances a cogent analysis showing that our national political institutions remain robust despite efforts to undermine them during and after the 2020 election. Loaded with critical empirical findings and normative implications, Democracy’s Destruction? is a book one will want to keep handy as we sort through future contentious elections and risks to democratic norms and institutions.”
—BRANDON BARTELS, professor of political science, George Washington University

On January 6, 2021, an angry mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. This assault on America’s democratic system was orchestrated by then President Donald Trump, abetted by his political party, and supported by a vocal minority of the American people. Did denial of the election results and the subsequent insurrection inflict damage on American political institutions? While most pundits and many scholars say yes, they have offered little rigorous evidence for this assertion. In Democracy’s Destruction? political scientist James L. Gibson uses surveys from representative samples of the American population to provide a more informed answer to the question.

Focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court, the presidency, and the U.S. Senate, Gibson reveals that how people assessed the election, the insurrection, and even the second Trump impeachment has little connection to their willingness to view American political institutions as legitimate. Instead, legitimacy is grounded in more general commitments to democratic values and support for the rule of law. On most issues of institutional legitimacy, those who denied the election results and supported the insurrection were not more likely to be alienated from political institutions and to consider them illegitimate.

Democracy’s Destruction? offers rigorous analysis of the effect of the Trump insurrection on the state of U.S. democracy today. While cautioning that Trump and many Republicans may be devising schemes to subvert the next presidential election more effectively, the book attests to the remarkable endurance of American political institutions.

JAMES L. GIBSON is Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Timely, meticulously researched and argued, Reunited deftly weaves the voices of Central American youth migrants into cutting-edge scholarly arguments to produce a compelling account that is inspiring, humane, and powerful. Essential reading for scholars, students, policymakers, and anyone interested in understanding the so-called root causes of Central American migration.”
—CECILIA MENJÍVAR, Dorothy L. Meier Chair in Social Equities and professor of sociology, University of California, Los Angeles

“Reunited captures the full complexity of contemporary Central American migration to the United States, explaining both the structural and historical forces propelling it and the ways in which families are surviving in their midst. This important book humanizes one of the most politically and morally challenging issues of our time.”
—LEAH C. SCHMALZBAUER, Karen and Brian Conway ‘80, P’18 Presidential Teaching Professor of American Studies and Sociology, Amherst College

“Reunited is an essential account of the nefarious effects of inhumane U.S. immigration policy that separates Central American children from their immigrant parents. Ernesto Castañeda and Daniel Jenks offer a nuanced and compelling portrayal of the enduring toll of these separations on child well-being and family ties, as well as the challenges and emotional labor involved in ‘picking up the pieces’ once children migrate to the United States to reunite with their parents, while also suggesting reforms that would aid their integration in U.S. society.”
—CHIARA GALLI, assistant professor, Department of Comparative Human Development, University of Chicago

Over the last dozen years, an increasing number of children from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala began arriving without parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. In many cases, the parents had left for the United States years earlier. In Reunited sociologists Ernesto Castañeda and Daniel Jenks explain the reasons for Central American youth migration, describe the journey, and document how minors experienced separation from their families and their subsequent reunification.

In interviews with migrant youth, their sponsors, and social services practitioners in and around Washington, D.C., Castañeda and Jenks find that these minors migrate on their own for three main reasons: gang violence, lack of educational and economic opportunity, and a longing for family reunification. The authors note that youth who feel comfortable leaving and have feelings of belonging upon arrival integrate quickly and easily while those who experience trauma in their home countries and on their way to the United States face more challenges.

Castañeda and Jenks recount these young migrants’ journey to the U.S. border, detailing the difficulties passing through Mexico, their encounters with U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, and staying in shelters while their sponsorship, placement, and departure are arranged. The authors also describe the tensions the youth face when they reunite with family members they may view as strangers. Despite their biological, emotional, and financial bonds to these relatives, the youth must learn how to relate to new authority figures and decide whether or how to follow their rules.

The experience of migrating can have a lasting effect on the mental health of young migrants. Although Castañeda and Jenks find that Central American youths’ mental health improves after migrating to the United States, they remain at risk of further problems. They are likely to have lived through traumatizing experiences that inhibit their integration. Difficulty integrating, in turn, creates new stressors that exacerbate PTSD, depression, and anxiety. Consequently, schools and social service organizations are crucial, the authors argue, for enhancing youth migrants’ sense of belonging and their integration into their new communities. Bilingual programs, Spanish-speaking PTA groups, message boards, mentoring of immigrant children, and after-school programs for members of reunited families are all helpful in supporting immigrant youth as they learn English, finish high school, apply to college, and find jobs.

Offering a complex exploration of youth migration and family reunification, Reunited provides a moving account of how young Central American migrants make the journey north and ultimately reintegrate with their families in the United States.

ERNESTO CASTAÑEDA is director of the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University.

DANIEL JENKS is a doctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania.

“In Structured Luck, Onoso Imoagene gives us an unparalleled look into the U.S. Diversity Visa Program, revealing its far-reaching effects on the life trajectories of migrants and its role as a catalyst of the migration industry in countries of origin. Through rich interviews and careful institutional analysis in the United States, Nigeria, and Ghana, she offers us a critical assessment of the program’s reputation as a windfall lottery and shows us that luck, in this case, is painstakingly made through strategic responses to policy constraints.”
Natasha Iskander, James Weldon Johnson Professor of Urban Planning and Public Service, New York University

The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program is a lottery that awards winners from underrepresented countries the chance to apply for legal permanent residence in the United States. Most lottery winners think of themselves as lucky, viewing the win as an opportunity to pursue better lives for themselves and their families. In Structured Luck, sociologist Onoso Imoagene uses immigrants’ stories to show how the program’s design often leads to their exploitation in their origin countries, the interruption of their education, and reduced potential once they are in the United States.

Combining ethnographic observation in Africa and interviews with over one hundred immigrants from Ghana and Nigeria, Imoagene demonstrates that the visa program is a process of “structured luck,” from how people hear about the lottery, who registers for it, and who participates in it to the application requirements for the visa. In Ghana and Nigeria, people often learn about the lottery through friends, colleagues, or relatives who persuade them to enter for the perceived benefits of receiving a visa: opportunities for upward mobility, permanent legal status, and the ability to bring along family members. Though anyone can enter the lottery, not everyone who wins obtains a visa. The visa application process requires proof of a high school diploma or artisan skills, a medical exam, a criminal background check, an interview with U.S. consular officers, and payment of fees. Such requirements have led to the growth of visa entrepreneurs, who often charge exorbitant fees to steer immigrants through the process. Visa recipients who were on track to obtain university degrees at home often leave in the middle of their studies for the United States but struggle to continue their education due to high U.S. tuition costs. And though their legal status allows them to escape the demoralizing situations that face the undocumented, these immigrants lack the social support that the government sometimes provides for refugees and other migrants. Ultimately, Imoagene notes, the real winner of the visa lottery is not the immigrants themselves but the United States, which benefits from their relatively higher levels of education. Consequently, she argues, the U.S. must do more to minimize the visa program’s negative consequences.

Structured Luck illuminates the trauma, resilience, and determination of immigrants who come to the United States through the Diversity Visa Program and calls for the United States to develop policies that will better integrate them into society.

ONOSO IMOAGENE is associate professor of social research and public policy at New York University, Abu Dhabi.

“As the Latino population has grown in the United States, it has been racialized along the lines of legality and nationality, compelling middle-class Latinos who ‘look Hispanic’ constantly to have to identify themselves as not being undocumented, unskilled Mexican migrants. This dynamic plays out differently in different regions of the country, depending on the local history of immigration and the actual ethnic and class origins of the region’s Latinos. Irene Browne’s probing analysis of college-educated Dominicans and Mexicans in greater Atlanta is brilliant in revealing the dilemmas, complexities, and burdens that prevailing U.S. stereotypes create for middle-class Latinos of Afro-Caribbean and mestizo origin, especially within a region historically characterized by a rigid Black-White color line. Precarious Privilege reminds us of the need to always look beyond the narrow confines of stigmatized ethnoracial labels to see the true nature of the individuals they purport to describe.”
—DOUGLAS S. MASSEY, Henry G. Bryant Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University

“Since 2005, southern states have been plagued by rising anti-immigrant sentiment and immigration policy restrictionism, racializing the experiences of all Latines as ‘poor,’ ‘undocumented,’ and ‘Mexican.’ In this compelling book, sociologist Irene Browne takes us deep into the lives of middle-class and professional Mexican and Dominican immigrants in Atlanta, Georgia, who simultaneously experience but also marshal class-based identities and resources to resist such stigmatization and prove their worth. Absolutely essential reading for anyone interested in better understanding the U.S. Latine population’s remarkable internal diversity today.”
—HELEN B. MARROW, associate professor of sociology, Tufts University

In recent years crackdowns on immigrant labor and a shrinking job market in California, Arizona, and Texas have pushed Latine immigrants to new destinations, particularly places in the American South. Although many of these immigrants work in manufacturing or food-processing plants, a growing number belong to the professional middle class. These professionals find that despite their privileged social class and regardless of their national origin, many non-Latines assume that they are undocumented working-class Mexicans, the stereotype of the “typical Latine.” In Precarious Privilege, sociologist Irene Browne focuses on how first-generation middle-class Mexican and Dominican immigrants in Atlanta respond to this stigmatizing assumption.

Browne finds that when asked to identify themselves by race, these immigrants either reject racial identities entirely or draw on belief systems from Mexico and the Dominican Republic that emphasize European-indigenous mixed race identities. When branded as typical Latines in the U.S., Mexican middle-class immigrants emphasize their social class or explain that a typical Latine can be middle-class, while Dominicans simply indicate that they are not Mexican. Rather than blame systemic racism, both Mexican and Dominican middle-class immigrants often attribute misperceptions of their identity to non-Latines’ ignorance or to individual Latines’ lack of effort in trying to assimilate.

But these middle-class Latine immigrants do not simply seek to position themselves on par with the U.S.-born white middle class. Instead, they leverage their cosmopolitanism—for example, their multilingualism or their children’s experiences traveling abroad—to engage in what Browne calls “one-up assimilation,” a strategy that aims to position them above the white middle class, who are often monolingual and unaware of the world outside the United States. Middle-class Latines’ cosmopolitanism and valuing of diversity also lead them to have cordial relations with African Americans, but these immigrants do not see themselves as sharing African Americans’ status as oppressed minorities.

Although the stereotype of the typical Latine has made middle-class Latine immigrants susceptible to stigma, they insist that this stigma does not play a significant role in their lives. In many cases, they view the stereotype as a minor issue, feel that opportunities for upward mobility outweigh any negative experiences, or downplay racism by emphasizing their class privilege. Browne observes that while downplaying racism may help middle-class Latine immigrants maintain their dignity, it also perpetuates inequality by reinforcing the lower status of working-class undocumented immigrants. It is thus imperative, Browne argues, to repeal harsh anti-immigration policies, a move that will not only ease the lives of the undocumented but also send a message about who belongs in the country.

Offering a nuanced exploration of how race, social class, and immigration status intersect, Precarious Privilege provides a complex portrait of middle-class Latine immigrants in the United States today.

IRENE BROWNE is associate professor of sociology at Emory University.