The Center for Global Peace and Conflict Studies
Working Paper Series
Preliminary Report:
Deportation of Salvadorans who
Immigrated to the U.S. as Children
Susan Bibler Coutin
Department of Criminology, Law and Society
University of California, Irvine
Center for Global Peace and Conflict Studies
721 Social Science Tower
University of California
Irvine, CA 92697-5200
www.cgpacs.uci.edu
Preliminary Report:
Artwork: Prismes Électriques,
by Sonia
Terk Delaunay.
“Deportation
of Salvadorans
who © Kathleen Cohen
Immigrated to the U.S. as Children”
September 2008
Susan Bibler Coutin
Department of Criminology, Law and Society
University of California, Irvine
Research conducted in collaboration with
CARECEN Internacional, San Salvador
I. Summary
This report presents preliminary results of research designed to understand the experiences of
Salvadorans who immigrated to the United States as children and who subsequently were deported to
the United States as adults. Individuals who immigrate as children are known as 1.5 generation
migrants, and are of particular interest because their ties to their country of birth may be attenuated,
and yet they may lack full membership rights in the country to which they immigrated. This lack of full
membership rights may, in some cases, result in deportation, and when it does, these individuals are
faced with the prospect of living in a country that they may no longer know, and where they may lack
social support. This report addresses three questions:
 What factors contribute to the deportation of 1.5 generation migrants?
 What challenges do 1.5 generation migrants experience upon being deported?
 What sources of support do these migrants draw on in order to counter the effects of
deportation?
To address these questions, qualitative interviews were conducted in July 2008 with a sample of
41 deportees who emigrated as children or adolescents. In order to arrange these interviews, the
investigator worked with CARECEN Internacional, a San Salvador based non-governmental organization
(NGO) with expertise regarding immigration and immigrants. Multiple points of entry were used to
produce a sample that varied according to geographical location, economic conditions, and prior
experiences in the United States. Interviewees were asked to describe their lives in El Salvador prior to
emigration, their journeys to the United States, their lives in the United States, their efforts to obtain
permanent legal status in the United States, their school and work experiences, any return visits to El
Salvador, how and why they were deported, their experiences in El Salvador after being deported, any
attempts to reenter the United States, and their future plans. All interviews were audio-taped. This
report is based on a preliminary analysis of interview transcripts, as well as on hand-written notes taken
during the interviews.
A preliminary analysis of the interview data obtained in this study suggests that the factors that
contribute to the deportation of 1.5 generation migrants cluster around (1) the social traumas
associated with emigration, (2) youth’s social location in marginalized U.S. communities, (3) a broader
criminalization of many aspects of youth culture, (4) the particular legal (immigration) histories of these
youth, (5) a poor understanding of the relationship between criminal and immigration law, and (6)
pressure to accept plea bargains and to sign removal orders. Exposure to violence in El Salvador,
deprivation during the journey to the United States, and separation from key relatives and caregivers
were traumas that, in some cases, made youth vulnerable to recruitment into delinquent activities.
Youth were also made vulnerable to deportation by their age (youths’ parents frequently were in charge
of applying for immigration status for them), their lack of economic and legal resources, and popular
misconceptions regarding U.S. immigration law and its connections to U.S. criminal law. Post-1996
changes in U.S. immigration laws and policies, such as mandatory detention policies, also made it
difficult for youth to secure or retain legal permanent residency or a temporary legal status in the
United States.
Preliminary results also suggest that, although deportation most likely is a difficult process for all
deportees, the challenges that deportation poses for 1.5 generation migrants, who may have lived much
of their lives outside of their country of origin, are more severe. These challenges are (1) psychological,
(2) emotional, (3) cultural, (4) social, (5) economic, and (6) legal or institutional in nature.
Psychologically, for these immigrants, deportation is much more like exile than a homecoming, as it
separates individuals from family members, possessions, and the place that they consider home. Within
El Salvador, widespread suspicion of deportees, particularly those who are young and male and who
lived many years outside of El Salvador, makes it difficult for 1.5 generation migrants to find work or
develop ties within Salvadoran communities. The risk of being presumed to be gang members by
security guards, police, or even existing gangs within El Salvador is ever present, making daily life a
challenge. Confusion over their legal options in the United States adds to deportees’ sense of
uncertainty.
Finally, the study suggests that sources of support available to deported 1.5 generation migrants
are largely informal rather than formal, as currently there are few formal programs focusing on the
reintegration of deportees within El Salvador. Interviewees reported that they had received emotional,
moral, social, or financial support from relatives in El Salvador or in the United States, families that they
formed in El Salvador, their jobs, their faith, and their connections to particular institutions. Given their
informal nature, current sources of support are insufficient to address the particular needs of 1.5
generation migrants who are deported. Individuals whose family members are not in a position to assist
them, who lack relatives in El Salvador, and who are unemployed have few options. There is therefore a
great need for programs designed to reintegrate deportees, particularly those who emigrated as
children and who lived outside of El Salvador for lengthy periods. It is also important for such programs
to include rather than exclude individuals who have previous criminal convictions within the United
States.
The report makes six recommendations designed to reduce the social hardship experienced by
1.5 generation migrants who are deported: 1. In the United States, develop naturalization campaigns
directed toward naturalizing youth and children. 2. In the United States, launch educational campaigns
and create informational materials in easily understood terms, to be distributed to people facing criminal
charges. 3. In the United States, adopt immigration policies that take into account the particular needs
of 1.5 generation migrants. 4. In El Salvador, launch a public information campaign to counter
stigmatization of deportees. 5. In El Salvador, provide assistance with job placement and with meeting
deportees’ immediate needs, such as food, shelter, and medical and psychological care. 6. In El
Salvador, create and distribute informational resources regarding U.S. immigration and criminal law,
focusing particularly on the consequences of immigrating to the United States illegally after having been
deported, and on any avenues through which deportees might reenter the United States legally.
II. Statement of the Problem
Among the estimated 2.5 million Salvadorans living outside of El Salvador are members of the
so-called 1.5 generation, namely, individuals who emigrated as children and who came of age in their
new country of residence (Andrade-Eekhoff 2003, Portes and Rumbaut 2001). The experiences of
emigrant children differ from those of adults in a number of respects. In the case of children, the
decision about whether and how emigrate is often in the hands of an adult rather than the child himself
or herself. Children frequently experience a dual separation, first from parents who may immigrate
earlier, when children are quite young, and second, from the relative who cared for them before they
emigrate and who may be the only parental figure they can remember (Orellana et al 2001). Children
who are particularly young when they emigrate may not even remember their lives in their country of
origin, and may lack information about the social and historical conditions that shaped their own
family’s trajectories (Zilberg 2004). Due to their young ages, emigrant children acculturate rapidly,
learning English or another language and experiencing a life that in many ways resembles that of their
non-immigrant peers (Gonzales 2008). As many emigrant families reside in low-income neighborhoods,
acculturation may be to the norms of a marginalized subgroup rather than to those of the dominant
culture (Portes & Rumbaut 2001, 2005). In sum, many emigrant children may experience a disjuncture
between their country of birth, to which their ties may be attenuated, and their country of residence,
where they may have numerous social and cultural ties, but where they may not enjoy full membership
rights (Menjívar 2002, Rumbaut 2002). This disjuncture may be exacerbated in the case of children who
immigrate without authorization, and therefore cannot travel legally between countries.
The present study investigates the social, legal, and cultural histories of members of the 1.5
generation of Salvadoran migrants, focusing particularly on the degree to which formal, legal
membership rights coincide with or differ from other forms of belonging. The study focuses on two
groups: (1) 1.5 generation Salvadorans living in Southern California, which is home to a sizeable
Salvadoran population, and (2) 1.5 generation Salvadorans who were deported to El Salvador after
having grown up in the United States and who are still living there. The present report concentrates on
the second group, and presents a preliminary analysis of qualitative interviews that were conducted
with 41 such deportees in El Salvador in July 2008. Future reports and publications will draw on the
entire data set, including interviews with 1.5 generation Salvadorans in Southern California, 1.5
generation Salvadorans in El Salvador, and individuals who work with Salvadoran youth in both El
Salvador and in the United States.
The present report addresses the following questions:



What factors contribute to the deportation of 1.5 generation migrants?
What challenges do 1.5 generation migrants experience upon being deported?
What sources of support do these migrants draw on in order to counter the effects of
deportation?
The report will also present recommendations regarding ways to reduce the hardships associated with
the deportation of 1.5 generation migrants. It should be emphasized that this report is preliminary, that
is, it is based on an initial analysis of data, rather than a complete analysis of all factors and information.
This preliminary report is being prepared due to the timely nature of this topic and the great need for
additional information about the experiences of deportees. It will be followed by more in-depth reports
and publications.
III. Methods of Investigation
As noted above, this preliminary report is based on data collected through interviews that were
conducted in El Salvador with 41 deportees in July 2008. In order to arrange these interviews, the
investigator worked with CARECEN Internacional, a non-governmental organization (NGO) located in San
Salvador with expertise regarding immigration and immigrants. Because deportees are a highly
transient population, the initial goal was to interview 25 1.5 generation migrants who had been
deported. Due to CARECEN Internacional’s extensive community contacts, this initial goal was
exceeded, and interviews were conducted with 41 deportees.
Interviewees were located through key contact people and organizations. In this way,
interviewees were able to approach the interview with confidence. Multiple points of entry were used
to produce a sample that varied according to geographical location, economic conditions, and prior
experiences in the United States. 12 interviewees were located through the San Salvador office of
Homies Unidos, a transnational gang violence prevention organization. Of these twelve, 5 interviewees
were participating in Victory Outreach, a church-based drug and alcohol rehabilitation center. 15
interviewees were recruited through a deportee who worked for a U.S. corporation located in San
Salvador. These interviewees also currently or previously had worked for this corporation. Another 14
individuals were located through a deportee residing in Usulutan. These interviewees generally had a
rural background, and worked in a variety of professions, such as taxi drivers and security guards.
Interviews were conducted in the offices of Homies Unidos and CARECEN Internacional in San Salvador,
and on the grounds of a hotel in Usulutan. All interviews were conducted by Susan Coutin; in some
cases, Katie Dingeman, a UCI graduate student, was also present. Interviewees spoke English, Spanish,
or a mixture of the two languages, as they preferred. Interviews were audio-taped and the San Salvador
interviews have been transcribed in detail from the audio-recordings and from extensive notes that
were taken at the time. The interviews that were conducted in Usulutan have not yet been transcribed,
however extensive notes were taken during the interviews themselves and are available for analysis.
Hand-written notes filled three notebooks, and the transcriptions of the San Salvador interviews
produced 438 single-spaced pages of text.
A life history approach was used during interviews. Interviewees were asked to describe their
lives in El Salvador prior to emigration, their journeys to the United States, their lives in the United
States, their efforts to obtain permanent legal status in the United States, their school and work
experiences, any return visits to El Salvador, how and why they were deported, their experiences in El
Salvador after being deported, any attempts to reenter the United States, and their future plans. In San
Salvador, interviews were conducted one-on-one, and in small groups of two or three. The small group
approach was designed to enhance trust (typically, interviewees were friends or even, in some cases,
relatives) and to promote the exchange of information, as hearing someone else describe an experience
can lead one to recall similar experiences of one’s own. Individual interviews lasted 1.5 hours, and small
group interviews typically lasted 3-4 hours.
In Usulutan, three focus group interviews were conducted with one group of 4 individuals, and
two groups of 5 individuals. These focus group interviews also lasted 3-4 hours. During the San
Salvador interviews, each interviewee was given the opportunity to answer all interview questions.
During the Usulutan interviews, due to the larger group size, some questions (such as, “How did you
learn that you would be deported?”) were posed of all interviewees, whereas other questions (such as
“How does Salvadoran society respond to deportees?”) generated group discussions. Interviewees were
promised anonymity, and were told that they could refuse to answer any question that they preferred
not to discuss. No one refused to answer any question, which is one indication that interviewees felt
comfortable during the interview. Interviewees received a $35 cash payment to compensate them for
their time. Interviewees’ ages at the time of the interview ranged from 22 to 69, with the average age
being 33. All of the deportees who were interviewed for this study were male, so one limitation of the
project is that it does not include the experiences of women who were deported. Contact people who
arranged interviews reported that they approached women, but that women were reluctant to
participate out of fear of exposing their own situations as deportees. It would be useful for future
research to examine the experiences of both male and female deportees.
IV. Characteristics of the Sample
As explained above, the sample of individuals interviewed for this study was obtained through
key community contacts and therefore is not a random sample of deportees. It should not be
considered representative of all deportees, not should it be considered representative of all 1.5
generation migrants who were deported. Nonetheless, a description of the characteristics of this
sample will be useful in identifying some of the traits of emigrant children who are subsequently
deported, as well is in interpreting the preliminary findings that are described below.
Place of residence and origin: Not surprisingly, most interviewees lived in San Salvador (57%) or
Usulutan (34%) with an additional 2 individuals residing in Santa Tecla, and 1 in Santa Ana (7%).
Interviewees’ place of origin was more diverse, though still with a concentration in San Salvador and
Usulutan, the two sites were interviews were conducted.
Table 1
Place of Origin
San Salvador
Usulutan
La Libertad
San Vicente
Santa Ana
Cabañas
Chalatenango
Morazán
San Miguel
Ahuachapan
Number of Interviewees
18
12
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Percentage of Sample
44%
29%
5%
5%
5%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Year of Emigration: Some interviewees were not entirely certain what year they emigrated
from El Salvador, while others remembered the exact date of their departure. The majority of
interviewees, some 66% (27 people), left during the 1980-1992 civil war, while another 10% (4 people)
left in the late 1970s, as the violence that would ultimately become the war was escalating. One
interviewee, an older gentleman whose experiences provided an interesting contrast to other
interviewees, emigrated during the 1960s, while another interviewee emigrated as an infant in 1966,
and another in 1967 at age 4. Only 7 (17%) emigrated between 1993-2000, in the post-war period.
Age at Departure: The average age at departure of the individuals who were interviewed was
10.6 years old. The chart below provides further details.
Table 2
Age at time of emigration:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Number of Interviewees:
1
0
0
4
1
4
2
4
2
0
1
2
12
13
14
15
16
17
25
29
3
3
5
3
1
3
1
1
The 1.5 generation is defined as individuals who emigrated prior to adolescence, that is, at the
age of 13 or younger. 66% (27 people) of the sample meets this definition. Additionally, 12 individuals
or 29% of the sample consisted of individuals who emigrated as adolescents between the ages of 14-17.
2 individuals who emigrated as adults, at the ages of 25 and 29 were also included. These individuals’
experiences provide interesting contrasts with those of the remainder of the sample.
Reasons for emigrating: Interviewees cited three primary reasons for leaving El Salvador: the
war, the economy, and to rejoin family members in the United States. The prevalence of family
reunification as a motive is evidence of children’s participation in the pattern of chain migration,
according to which one family member emigrates first, to be followed by others (Orellana et al 2001).
Additionally, a minority did not know the reason that their families had emigrated, or stated that they
had emigrated out of a desire to broaden their own experiences or to escape gangs or the effects of the
1986 earthquake. These results are summarized in the table below. Note that many interviewees gave
multiple reasons for emigrating, so the percentages do not add up to 100.
Table 3
Reason for Emigrating
War (civil or soccer)
Family reunification
Economy
Gangs
Earthquake
Broaden horizons
Unknown
Number of Interviewees
23
15
10
1
1
1
3
Percentage of sample
56%
37%
24%
2%
2%
2%
7%
Place of residence in the United States: Just as interviewees came from various parts of El
Salvador, so too did they reside in various parts of the United States, with California, New York, Texas,
Washington D.C., and Virginia being common destinations. In this sense, the interview sample is typical
of the Salvadoran population in the United States. Some interviewees moved between multiple
locations in the United States, so the percentages below do not add up to 100.
Table 4
Destination in the US
California
New York
Texas
Virginia/DC
Georgia
Massachusetts (Boston)
North Carolina
Michigan
New Jersey
Las Vegas
Number of Interviewees
21
5
4
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
Percentage of Sample
51%
12%
10%
10%
7%
5%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Immigration Status in the United States: 90% of the interview sample entered the United States
without authorization, whereas 10% entered legally, either with a tourist visa or with a green card
obtained through a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident relative. The majority of the sample
nonetheless had obtained some form of temporary or potentially permanent resident rights in the
United States. Those who held work permits most likely had Temporary Protected Status or a pending
application for political asylum. Significantly, many interviewees did not understand what status they
had or how they had obtained it, stating only that their parents had been in charge of that process. Also
significantly, some interviewees who remained undocumented would likely have been able to qualify for
status through the TPS program of 1990 or 2001, or by applying for asylum as an American Baptist
Churches v. Thornburgh class member. Note further that some might have qualified for U.S. citizenship
had they applied for naturalization prior to developing criminal or immigration difficulties.
Table 5
U.S. Immigration Status
Legal permanent resident
Work Permit recipient
Political asylee
Legal status, but details
unknown
Unclear
undocumented
Number of Interviewees
19
9
2
1
Percentage of Sample
46%
22%
5%
2%
1
9
2%
22%
Year of Return: 5 interviewees had been deported multiple times, so here, I report only the year
of interviewees’ first deportation to El Salvador. As the following table demonstrates, the sample
includes individuals who were recently deported as well as individuals who had lived in El Salvador for
several years following their deportation. Note that the sample does NOT include individuals who were
deported and who then returned (typically, without authorization) to the United States, as such
individuals were not in El Salvador to participate in the study. The experiences of those who were
deported multiple times may nonetheless help to describe the reasoning of individuals who attempted
to return to the United States following a deportation. Note that the majority of interviewees were
deported after 1996, when immigration reforms in the United States expanded the number deportable
offenses, eliminated 212(c) waivers (which stayed deportations based on weighing individuals’ equities
in the United States against the offense that had made them deportable), and, in many cases, mandated
detention without possibility of bail during removal proceedings, including during the appeals process.
Table 6
Year of Deportation
1975
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Number of individuals
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
3
3
3
1
5
1
5
0
11
3
1
Reason for Deportation: Most interviewees were placed in removal proceedings after having
been convicted of a crime. In some cases, the crime was quite serious, such as homicide. Most often,
however, the crime was relatively minor, such as fighting (classified as an assault), drug possession, joyriding (classified as grand theft auto), petty theft (such as stealing car radios), statutory rape (consensual
sex with an under-age girl), gun possession, or driving while intoxicated. Some individuals who were
undocumented were apprehended during a routine traffic stop. Not all interviewees provided details
regarding the crime of which they had been convicted, stating only that they were deported due to a
felony or a crime. Note that some individuals were convicted of multiple offenses, each of which is
recorded below.
Table 7
Reason for Deportation or Apprehension
Drug possession or sales
Felony (details unstated)
Crime (details unstated)
Being undocumented
Auto theft
Driving while Intoxicated
Traffic violation
Homicide
Gun possession
Assault
Statutory rape
Domestic violence
Robbery
Credit card theft
Automobile accident resulting in death
Probation violation
Attempted murder
Workplace raid
Expired work permit
Number of individuals
8
6
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Years Lived Outside of El Salvador and Prevalence of Return Visits: Like interviewees’
age at the time of emigration, the number of years that individuals lived outside of El Salvador is an
important indicator of the depth of the ties that interviewees developed to the United States, and the
degree to which their ties to El Salvador may have become attenuated. The number of years lived
outside of El Salvador ranged from a low of 2 years, in the case of a man who had emigrated as an adult
and been deported two years later, to a high of 41 years in the case of a man who emigrated at the age
of 4 and was deported at the age of 45. The average number of years lived outside of El Salvador was
16.17.
Significantly, only 15 individuals (37%) of the sample visited El Salvador after emigrating and
before being deported. 59% of the sample had never returned to El Salvador between emigrating and
being deported, and 2 individuals did not state whether or not they had returned.
Educational Level: The majority (70.8%) of the sample had a high school or college education.
For comparison, figures are provided for the general male population of El Salvador as well. The sample
has a higher educational level, on average, than the general male population. It is unknown how the
educational level of the general population of deportees compares to that of the sample. As
interviewees were recruited through an individual who worked at a U.S. corporation where fluent
English skills were a job requirement, and as schools are one place that strong English skills are
developed, it is possible that well educated individuals are over-represented in the sample. At the same
time, it is also possible that 1.5 generation migrants typically complete more years of schooling on
average than is common in El Salvador.
Table 8
Educational Level
1st – 3rd grade
4th – 6th grade
7th – 9th grade
High school
Some post-secondary
(college, vocational
school or university)
education
Can read and write
Unstated
Number
of Percentage of Sample
individuals in Sample
1
2
8
20
9
2.4%
4.9%
19.5%
48.8%
22%
Percentage
general
population*
13.8%
19.4%
19.7%
21.9%
14.5%
Not available
1
Not available
2.4%
10.6%
0%
of
male
*Source: Table 9.3: “Escolaridad de una muestra de privados de libertad y de la población masculina
general de El Salvador,” Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano El Salvador 2007-2008: el empleo en uno de
los pueblos más trabajadores del mundo. Programa de las naciones unidas para el desarrollo, San
Salvador, 2008. p. 263.
Occupation in the United States: All interviewees had worked in the United States, and most
had held multiple occupations. The most common occupations were construction-related, but some
interviewees held skilled positions, working as carpenters, real estate agents, or machinists. Overall,
interviewees were concentrated in the blue collar and service industries. Note that in some cases,
multiple occupations were given, so the “number of individuals” column totals more than 41. Please see
the following table for further details.
Table 9
Occupation in the United Number of individuals
States
Construction
5
Carpentry
4
Restaurant worker
3
Gardener
3
Roofing
Dry cleaner
Auto mechanic or parts
distributor
Packing and delivery
Machinist
Drafting
Phone operator
Factory worker
Verizon wireless employee
U.S. Marine
Painting
Welding
Medical center staff
Courier
Satellite installer
Real estate agent
Tire installer
Manufacturing
Cook
Driver
Clerk
Delivery
Various
Machinist
Security guard
Bricklayer
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Occupation in El Salvador: The list of occupations that interviewees held in El Salvador at the
time of the interview presents a striking contrast to their occupations in the United States. First,
interviewees are over-represented in the field of communications, given that recruitment strategies
relied on a contact who worked in a U.S. corporation where English skills were in demand. Additionally,
as contacts used their friendship networks to locate potential interviewees, taxi drivers may also be
over-represented. Second, few interviewees were able to practice the more skilled professional abilities
that some had developed in the United States. Third and most significantly, numerous interviewees,
fully 26.8 % of the sample, were unemployed at the time of the interview, a factor that presents a
significant barrier to successful insertion or reinsertion within El Salvador. It is likely that the individual
who did not state his occupation was also unemployed.
Table 10
Occupation in El Salvador
Communications
Unemployed
Taxi driver
Driver
NGO staff
Retail sales
Security guard
Unstated
Construction
Number of Individuals
17
11
5
2
2
1
1
1
1
Family members in the United States and in El Salvador: Interviewees generally had extensive
and close family ties in the United States. The majority had parents, spouses, children, and siblings in
the United States. In a few cases, individuals stated that their “whole family” was in the United States,
but did not specify which relationships constituted their “whole family.” When children were in the
custody of an ex-spouse, deportation significantly threatened interviewees’ relationships with their
offspring. The expense and legal difficulties associated with visiting across international boundaries
make deportation a significant hardship both for the individual who is deported and for relatives who
remain behind.
Interviewees’ family ties in El Salvador were, on average, less extensive than their family ties in
the United States. Five interviewees had no relatives in El Salvador, while others had only more distant
relatives, such as elderly grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins. In some cases, siblings who resided in
El Salvador had also been deported. A few interviewees had been able to establish their own
households, marrying a woman in El Salvador and having their own children. Such ties are a significant
asset in the process of insertion and reinsertion, though they can increase interviewees’ financial
responsibilities (income from employed spouses can also be an asset, of course).
It is important to note that interviewees were asked “What relatives do you have in the United
States?” and “What relatives do you have in El Salvador?” These open-ended questions allowed them to
decide which relatives to mention. They were not asked, “Do you have a parent in the United States?
And in El Salvador?” or “Do you have cousins in the United States, or in El Salvador?” It is therefore
likely that individuals left out certain relatives (particularly cousins, nieces, and nephews) when
answering these questions.
Table 11
Relationship
Parent
Spouse
Child
Number of individuals with
such a relative in the United
States
24
5
15
Number of individuals with
such a relative in El Salvador
11
12
13
Sibling
Aunt or Uncle
Grandparent
Cousin
Niece or nephew
“Whole family”
None
28
12
3
4
2
2
0
15
8
9
5
0
0
5
Plans for the Future: Interviewees’ plans for the future varied considerably. In many cases,
individuals had multiple plans, such as to work and to start a family. In other cases, individuals were
considering alternatives, such as either opening a store in El Salvador or to returning to the United
States without authorization. Significantly, five individuals stated that they could not plan for the future,
given the uncertainty of their current situation. As the table below indicates, interviewees were people
who had dreams, whether prosaic (starting a family, getting a job) or lofty (studying, starting a business).
Note that despite the criminal convictions of many interviewees, their future plans focused on socially
desirable activities. It is possible that individuals with such plans are more likely to agree to participate
in an interview, or that interviewees were unlikely to mention plans to engage in illicit activities. It is
also possible that, as individuals mature, they “age out” of the delinquent activities that attracted some
of them in their youth.
Table 12
Plans for the Future
Obtain a job, work
Establish a business or ministry in El Salvador
Return to the United States
Study
Advance at work, launch new career
None – can’t plan
Get married, start a family
Become a better parent
Visit family members (esp. children) in US
Recover from drug or alcohol addiction
Buy house in El Salvador
Serve God
Move to Tijuana to be near US family
Help others
Stay out of trouble
Move to Canada
Retire and collect pension
Number of Individuals
12
8
8
7
5
5
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Summary: The 1.5 generation and adolescent immigrants who made up the interview sample
had developed extensive ties to the United States, including, in many cases, temporary or permanent
legal status and primary family relationships (including to children). Their ties to El Salvador had
become attenuated due to prolonged absence and the continued emigration of family members. The
majority completed some high school or even post-secondary years of schooling and had work
experience, in some cases, in skilled professions. Most interviewees were deported for criminal
convictions that stripped them of their legal status; others were deported simply for being
undocumented. In El Salvador, many found it difficult to utilize the educational and occupational skills
that they had developed in the United States. Many were, however, able to put their English skills to
good use. Some interviewees had close family members in El Salvador, while others had only more
distant relatives, or even no relatives. Some interviewees existed in dire conditions, unable to find work
or to plan for the future. Others continued to dream of a better life, in which they could develop
businesses, improve their family relationships, and pursue educational goals.
How did these individuals, who at young ages, re-established themselves in the United States,
end up being deported to their countries of origin? I turn now to the interview material in order address
the questions posed at the outset of this report, namely:



What factors contribute to the deportation of 1.5 generation migrants?
What challenges do 1.5 generation migrants experience upon being deported?
What sources of support do these migrants draw on in order to counter the effects of
deportation?
V. Preliminary Findings:
A. Factors that contribute to deportation: A preliminary analysis of the interview data obtained
in this study suggests that the factors that contribute to the deportation of 1.5 generation migrants
cluster around (1) the social traumas associated with emigration, (2) youth’s social location in
marginalized U.S. communities, (3) a broader criminalization of many aspects of youth culture, (4) the
particular legal (immigration) histories of these youth, (5) a poor understanding of the relationship
between criminal and immigration law, and (6) pressure to accept plea bargains and to sign removal
orders.
(1) Interviewees experienced three primary traumas associated with emigration: (a) exposure
to violence during the Salvadoran civil war; (b) the danger of immigrating without authorization; and (c)
separation from adult caregivers. Interviewees who lived in areas of intense conflict during the civil war
described becoming accustomed, even inured to violence. One interviewee recounted that as a child,
he and his friends used to climb trees to pick mangos in an area that was near a guerrilla hide-out. He
recalled,
We used to see helicopters from the army actually go down. One time we saw an execution
when we were on top of the tree…. They put four guys out onto their knees. They had a bag
[over their heads.] And they just executed them there. And afterwards, they left on the
helicopter, and we got off the tree. We actually went and played with the bodies…. I would look
at the blood spilled, and sometimes we would see guts spilled out. Something that a normal 7year-old kid shouldn’t be watching. But the environment that I was in, it was kind of becoming
normal for me to see that.
Such experiences affected interviewees’ encounters with violence in the United States. Another
interviewee stated that while playing in his apartment in New York, he witnessed a shooting in front of
his front window. He said, “See in El Salvador, before we left to the United States and after I came, my
dad always used to go to the morgue just see dead people…. So I got used to seeing people like that. So
for me, it wasn’t a big thing that somebody killed somebody.”
In addition to the trauma of the Salvadoran civil war, emigrating without authorization was
traumatic. Interviewees reported hiding in small, crowded compartments where air ran short, walking
through deserts with little water, and other life threatening experiences. Some witnessed the death or
dismemberment of traveling companions who fell while attempting to board or disembark from moving
trains. One interviewee, who attempted to reenter the United States after having been deported,
recalled, “I saw people that fell off the train.… You know, and they get chopped up.. This guy was
drunk. Very drunk. We kept telling him, ‘Dude! You can’t be drinking and hopping on the train like that.
Because, you know, if you’re drunk you could fall. You could make a mistake, man.’ He didn’t listen.
Sure enough, he fell off that train…. We were shocked. ‘Wow!’ And then we bought the newspaper the
next day to see if we’d see something, and we sure did. His limbs were everywhere. His head was just
cut off. It was horrible!”
Family separations associated with emigration were also traumatic experiences. Interviewees
typically were left in El Salvador in the care of aunts or grandparents while one or more parent
emigrated to the United States. In some cases, they were so young that they did not remember their
parents. When their parents eventually sent for them, interviewees were then usually separated from
the adult who had been their primary caretaker since their parents’ departure. Reunions with their
biological parents were sometimes joyous and other times painful. One interviewee, who had lived in El
Salvador with his grandmother and the woman he believed to be his mother, described what it was like
to join his father in the United States at the age of 12, “It was hard because me and my dad, we had
never spoken face to face, we had never had any interaction. I didn’t know him, but in pictures.
Because he left when I was three. We didn’t get along at all.” This interviewee’s father eventually
began to charge him for rent and food and then, while the adolescent was still in high school, kicked him
out of the house. To support himself financially, this young man both worked at a young age, and
engaged in petty theft to bring in additional income. In another case, an interviewee fled the
devastation of the 1986 earthquake and the violence of the civil war, leaving his mother in El Salvador
and going to live with a family in Texas at the age of eight. In the U.S., he did not attend school, but
rather stayed home, where he was responsible for household tasks. As this interviewee stated, “It’s not
the same to not be with your family.”
(2) After experiencing these traumas, interviewees, in many cases, found themselves in
marginalized urban communities in the United States. If present, parents had to work long hours,
frequently for low pay, to support family members in the United States. It was therefore more difficult
for parents to monitor children’s activities. One interviewee, who eventually joined a gang,
commented, “My mother didn’t have much communication, because she was working, we were in
school, and when she came home, we were already asleep. She worked a double shift.” In many cases,
gangs were prevalent in the schools that youth attended and in the neighborhoods where they lived.
One interviewee recalled, “We lived in Los Angeles... La Brea and Beverly…. There was a guy [who] beat
me. He always waited for me to get off the bus and began to follow me. I had to run…. It was a Black
area, territory of the Bloods…. That’s when I began to look for the young people who were in gangs. To
protect myself. So they would protect me.” Other interviewees worked hard to negotiate racial and
ethnic tensions without joining gangs. One young man, who lived in the DC area, explained that he was
pressured to join a Salvadoran gang because he was spending time with Dominican and Puerto Rican
youth: “They felt that I was rejecting my home culture and country…. They were like, ‘You’re ashamed
to be Salvadoran.’ And I was like, ‘I’m not ashamed. It’s just that you guys are into your own things, and
I am into my own things. So I can’t hang out with you, because I don’t want to get shot or stabbed
because somebody died I don’t even know.”
(3) It was in the context of these marginalized communities that some interviewees became part
of a youth culture that has been heavily criminalized in the United States. As table 7 demonstrates,
although a few interviewees were deported after having committed serious crimes, such as murder,
many more were deported after becoming involved in drug use, drug dealing, gang banging, petty theft,
joy-riding, drinking, drag racing, or fighting. Such activities have, unfortunately, become part of an
urban youth culture, and have been attacked through stiffened penalties for drug-related offenses,
increased police presence in minority and low-income communities, and the use of anti-gang strategies
such as injunctions. Due to living in these communities, exhibiting certain dress styles, and being young,
male, and members of ethnic and racial minority groups, interviewees may have faced a greater
likelihood of being apprehended and charged for such offenses than would middle class youth or older
adults. Some of the offenses that appear to be quite serious, such as assault with a deadly weapon,
appear less serious when interviewees narrate their version of how the offense occurred. For instance,
one interviewee who faced this particular charge recounted, “What actually happened was that I asked
him [the victim] for a cigarette. This guy, I knew him for a long time. He asked me for a cigarette and he
said, ‘You know what? I don’t like you, f----ing cholos!’ And then he pushed me. And that’s when I hit
him back and I beat him down. And then the bottle broke.” It is important to note, as well, that some
interviewees were deported simply for being undocumented.
(4) Another factor contributing to deportation was interviewees’ poor understanding of U.S.
immigration laws. Although 75% of the sample had obtained some form of temporary or permanent
legal status in the United States prior to deportation, in most cases, decisions about applying for legal
status were made by interviewees’ parents rather than by interviewees themselves. In some cases,
interviewees who had become legal permanent residents could have submitted applications for
naturalization, and in others, those who were undocumented could have applied for temporary
protected status or another program. Interviewees were sometimes unable to explain how they had
acquired legal permanent residency or a work permit, saying only that they had been young at the time
and that their parents had handled the application process. Some interviewees mistakenly believed that
if they were under 18 when their parents naturalized, they automatically became U.S. citizens. One
interviewee, who had been adopted by his stepfather, a U.S. citizen, told me that, “I was American….
Believing from the age of 5 years that I was a citizen. And that when I was adopted at age 8, that was
it…. My relatives said that after I had been adopted, I was a citizen.” Furthermore, as legal status is less
important to the daily lives of children than adults, numerous interviewees stated that they assumed
that they, like their peers, were members of U.S. society (Gonzales 2008). One interviewee commented,
“I felt normal,” while another stated, “I had basically felt like any other kid in the United States that was
going there. I had went through school there, went through what they went through – girlfriend, going
to the movies, parties, school dances, getting involved with school… The only difference was that I
wasn’t born there.” Interviewees’ inattention to and lack of knowledge regarding U.S. immigration law
contributes to deportation in that interviewees may have missed opportunities to naturalize or
regularize their status, they may not have understood the limitations of the statuses that they held, and
they may have believed themselves to have rights that they in fact lacked.
(5) A poor understanding of immigration law became particularly problematic for individuals
who faced criminal charges, and who were pressured to accept plea bargains without fully realizing their
immigration consequences. Those interviewees who were arrested often had inadequate economic
resources to hire private attorneys, and instead relied on public defenders made available to them at
state expense. Most if not all interviewees who were convicted of criminal charges plead guilty, in some
cases, despite believing themselves to be innocent. Interviewees recounted that their attorneys advised
them to accept the plea bargain, as it would result in a lesser charge, probation, or shorter prison
sentence than would going to trial. Few reportedly understood that in pleading guilty, they were also
risking being deported. In many instances, the charges and sentences did not seem severe –
misdemeanors, gun possession, probation – so they did not think that they could face deportation as a
consequence. Those who were legal permanent residents believed that they had papers and therefore
could not be deported. Judicial warnings about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea
apparently were either not delivered or were delivered in a manner that interviewees did not fully
understand. In a few cases, interviewees did understand that a guilty plea would lead to deportation,
but also felt that, given the charges that they were facing, they had no alternative.
(6) The final factor contributing to deportation was interviewees’ experiences after being
detained by U.S. immigration authorities. Some interviewees were detained after completing prison
sentences, and were transferred directly to detention centers on their release dates. Others were
apprehended during routine traffic stops or at workplace raids. Still others turned themselves in to
immigration authorities voluntarily, after receiving a notice to present themselves for an interview at an
immigration office. Once detained, interviewees discovered that immigration proceedings differed from
criminal ones. They had no right to a state appointed attorney, and most also lacked the right to be
released on bail during removal proceedings. Those who attempted to fight their cases were
discouraged by reports from immigration officials and fellow detainees that the case would last from 3-6
years and would result in deportation anyway. Detention practices such as frequent transfers to
detention centers in other parts of the country, lack of bail bond, and phones from which it was difficult
to place or receive calls made it difficult for detainees to remain in contact with immigration attorneys.
Some detainees encountered abuses. Numerous interviewees reported that when they were first
detained, they presented their legal permanent residence card to immigration officials, only to have
officials destroy the card in front of them. Other interviewees reported verbal abuses such as insults.
One interviewee described suffering physical abuse when he refused to meet with the Salvadoran
consulate to ascertain his nationality. This interviewee recounted, “They give you a little jump suit,
elastic waistband, it fell to my ankles, I was shackled hands and feet, and they kept me in that condition,
naked, for at least an hour. Then when a major finally came in, he didn’t have no feelings for me, ‘You
know what? You’re gonna go or you’re gonna go.’ And I’m like, ‘I promise you, I’m gonna go. But let
me pull my pants up.’ ‘Okay.’ ‘Now, put your shoes on.’ ‘No, I’m not going.” Boom! And they twisted
me in a knot. It was an experience. Traumatizing.” This beating allegedly left him with injuries that
required hospitalization. In many cases interviewees who wanted to fight against removal gave up,
reasoning that they could sign their deportation papers and continue to fight the case from El Salvador.
In sum, the traumatic conditions that were common within 1.5 generation youths’ immigration
experiences contributed to youths’ social locations in the United States, which in turn, placed youth at
greater risk of developing criminal records and of being subjected to deportation. Exposure to violence
in El Salvador, deprivation during the journey to the United States, and separation from key relatives
and caregivers were traumas that, in some cases, made youth vulnerable to recruitment into delinquent
activities. Youth were also made vulnerable to deportation by their age (youths’ parents frequently
were in charge of applying for immigration status for them), their location in marginalized communities,
their lack of economic and legal resources, and popular misconceptions regarding immigration law and
its connections to criminal law. Post-1996 changes in U.S. immigration laws and policies, such as
mandatory detention policies, also made it difficult for youth to secure or retain legal permanent
residency or a temporary legal status in the United States.
B. Challenges Upon being Deported: Although deportation most likely is a difficult process for
all deportees, the challenges that deportation poses for 1.5 generation migrants, who may have lived
much of their lives outside of their country of origin, are more severe. These challenges are (1)
psychological, (2) emotional, (3) cultural, (4) social, (5) economic, and (6) legal or institutional in nature.
(1) Psychologically, to be deported from a country that one may have come to regard as one’s
own is a harsh blow and deeply humiliating. To many, it is a form of intense and almost unfathomable
rejection given prior experiences that suggested some degree of membership and inclusion (Zilberg
2004). One interviewee described this rejection as follows: “[In the United States,] I was ready to serve
my country, I was a registered voter … my whole life was over there, my wife, my kids, I was a total
American. I was American in my heart, my mind. And for them to just uproot me, and just throw me
[out.] I’ve been banished from my country.” Another commented that upon being deported, “I felt
alone, abandoned, destroyed.” Deportation interrupts individuals’ on-going plans and relationships,
catapulting them into a different reality. One young man, who was on probation for a drug charge, had a
wife and child in the U.S. and had just secured a job as a medical assistant. One day, when he attended
a routine appointment with his probation officer, he was taken into custody by immigration officials and
placed in deportation proceedings. He related, “I lost everything. My car just got thrown in the
streets…. All the stuff in the house, my brother had to just throw it away because he had to move into a
small room. I had achieved so many things. They just basically got torn up.” Deportation is therefore
yet another trauma in the lives of individuals who may already have experienced civil war, family
separation, and exposure to a sometimes violent youth culture. More than one interviewee reported
thoughts of suicide. One man related that upon being deported, “I came emotionally broken. I had no
desire to keep living,” while another stated, “One of the hardest things that happened to me personally
was that I went through an emotional breakdown, depression. Which was an obstacle. And I haven’t
overcome it yet.”
(2) These psychological effects are compounded by the emotional consequences of seemingly
permanent separation from family members. As detailed in Table 11, numerous interviewees had
parents, children, and siblings in the United States. Denied visas to enter the United States legally,
interviewees could only see relatives who were willing and able to travel to El Salvador. Family
members who had only temporary legal status in the United States could not travel to El Salvador for
such visits. Individuals with health or financial problems had difficulty making this trip as well.
Deportees who were separated from U.S. citizen children experienced particular hardship, as they were
dependant on their children’s mothers (who may not have been Salvadoran) for access (even over the
telephone) to their children. Thus, the family separations that were occasioned by the Salvadoran civil
war and by emigration are being repeated within a new generation. Young children’s pleas for their
parents’ return to the United States were particularly difficult for interviewees. One related, “I could
hear my little daughter [in the U.S.] tell me, ‘Daddy, when you coming back?’ And I’d be like, ‘I’m
coming back soon.’ That breaks your heart and your feeling, and you get all soft and sentimental. And I
want to get all my stuff and just get out of here.” Uncertainty over when or whether reunions could
take place made it difficult for some interviewees to develop long-term plans in El Salvador. As one man
commented, “At some point, I need to know what to do. Should I go back home [to the United States]?
Should I stay here and work?” Of course, deportation also facilitated reunions with relatives in El
Salvador. In some cases, these reunions were joyous, such as when one interviewee rejoined his mother
after a 12-year separation, and she told him, “The best thing that could have happened in my life is for
you to have come!” In other cases, relatives in El Salvador greeted interviewees with suspicion, fearing
that they would commit crimes or further strain scarce family resources.
(3) Culturally, interviewees who had grown up in the United States felt somewhat foreign in
their land of birth. As noted above, interviewees’ average age at the time of emigration was 10.6 years,
and the average number of years that interviewees lived outside of El Salvador was 16.2. Only 37% of
interviewees had visited El Salvador after emigrating and before being deported. As a result, many
arrived in El Salvador with little knowledge of the country, having become acclimated to life in the
United States. One interviewee pointed out “I became adapted to US culture because I went to school
and every day they taught us U.S history, I pledged allegiance to the flag.” Interviews revealed that
some individuals, who had left at young ages, were uninformed about basic facts such as when the
Salvadoran civil war began or how the Salvadoran school system worked. Interviewees conveyed stories
about being ridiculed for eating pupusas with a fork and knife, or speaking Spanish laden with U.S. or
Mexican terms, or misunderstanding Salvadoran sayings. Some interviewees spoke only minimal
Spanish, and, in group interviews that were conducted primarily in Spanish, needed translation.
Numerous interviewees referred to the United States, rather than El Salvador, as “back home.” As one
interviewee stated, “I just feel like I don’t belong [here].” To contend with this sense of cultural
alienation, some interviewees attempted to recreate U.S. culture within El Salvador, speaking English
with co-workers, friends, and family members. With great longing, one interviewee commented that he
tried to make his life in El Salvador like that in the United States “as much as I can. For example, at the
house, it’s totally 100% English…. And sometimes, I don’t know if you remember, there’s a lot of
helicopters at night [in Los Angeles.] So right here, sometimes when one passes by, I just close my eyes
and I feel the breeze at night. I could picture I’m [there]. I miss the whole thing a lot.” Another
interviewee reported, “Even when I dream, I dream in English! … And I wake up, at first, when I got
here, there used to be so much time that I would dream that I was over there, and then I’d wake up, and
[realize], ‘Damn! But I’m over here.’”
Of course, for interviewees who had emigrated as adolescents or as young adults, readjustment
to Salvadoran culture was less difficult. Interviewees particularly appreciated the fact that, in El
Salvador, they did not fear that they would be deported. One interviewee, who had emigrated at the
age of 25 and had lived in the United States for twelve years, explained, “Because one is in one’s own
country, one has more freedom to do what seems appropriate to one. And in the United States, one is
under a law, and one has to obey it well…. Many people say that here they have liberty because they
are in their own country. There [in the U.S.], one is afraid that one could be deported.”
(4) Socially, deported 1.5 generation migrants encounter discrimination from other Salvadorans.
Interviewees insisted that other Salvadorans could identify them as deportees, by their manner of
dressing, speaking, and walking. Interviewees’ abilities to reinsert themselves within Salvadoran society
were hindered by what they described as a continual rejection and discrimination on the part of others
who apparently assumed that because they had been deported, they were criminals, delinquents, or at
the very least, outsiders. One interviewee recounted, “People don’t look at me like I belong here. They
look at me like I’m a stranger. [They say] ‘This guy can’t even speak Spanish…. He ain’t Salvadoran, he’s
gringo…. He was born here, but that don’t mean he’s from here.” Interviewees described boarding a
bus, only to have other riders grab their purses and look away in fear. Tattoos were a particular source
of discrimination. In the United States, it is common for individuals to obtain tattoos as a matter of
fashion and self expression. In El Salvador, interviewees discovered that their tattoos were taken as an
indication of criminality and gang membership, even if the tattoos were not gang related. Interviewees
reported that because of their tattoos, they were subjected to beatings and worse. One interviewee
stated, “If you are tattooed, one thinks you are a thief, that you are going to steal something.” Another
interviewee described the murder of a friend who had also been deported:
The last guy got killed last month. He was calling me, ‘Hey, dude, come to my house, I’m having
a cook-out, I have some beers.” And I was like, “I can’t, my mother is coming and I have to go
pick her up…” I didn’t go and he got killed with some other friend of mine, that night, just
because he had tattoos. He used to be in a gang over there [in the U.S.], but not here [in El
Salvador], because he had a “13” here [tattooed on his arm], and MS [Mara Salvatrucha] wanted
him to take it off and be done with them. He said, ‘I’m straight, I’m not doing anything.” He was
drunk and got into a confrontation. They found him dead in seven sheets. Cut up in the face. It
was horrible.
Knowing fellow deportees who had been killed made interviewees particularly fearful.
(5) Job security is critical to successful reinsertion, yet employment proved elusive for numerous
interviewees. As indicated in Table 10, 27% of interviewees were unemployed, while others were
employed in low-income or insecure professions, such as taxi driving or construction. Unemployed
interviewees who also lacked relatives (and thus social support) within El Salvador suffered from
extreme poverty. One such individual described his circumstances: “I don’t know anybody in this
country. No friends. No family, no support. I live in the streets. I’m homeless. If I could keep my
clothes clean it’s because some guy is helping me out where I can wash my clothes and shower. But
other than that, I don’t have a place of my own. I’m going through an extreme and exceptional
hardship.” Unemployed and underemployed interviewees, who typically had considerable work
experience in the United States, asserted that when potential employers learned that they had been
deported or saw their tattoos, they were rejected. One interviewee stated, “The hardest thing is that
one can’t work if one has tattoos. And everyone makes you raise your shirt [to check for tattoos].”
Interviewees who were employed also complained of discrimination in the workplace. For example,
despite having received awards for the quality of his work, one interviewee was fired when his employer
learned of his tattoos. Other interviewees reported that they were passed over for promotions while
co-workers who were not deportees were able to advance. At the other extreme, 18 interviewees who
spoke fluent English had been able to secure relatively well-paying jobs in companies where knowledge
of English was a job requirement.
(6) Interviewees experienced legal and institutional challenges that contributed to a sense of
uncertainty regarding their futures. These challenges took three forms. First, in El Salvador,
interviewees feared that they would be mistreated by Salvadoran authorities. For example, one
interviewee commented, “I’m concerned here about the police. See over here [in El Salvador], we’re
not normal. Once they pull up the shirts and look at the tattoos, all that comes to mind is, ‘Let’s take
him to jail. Let’s get rid of him.’ They’re going to kill you or put a charge that you go to prison for five
years.” Interviewees reported that they were regularly stopped, questioned, and searched by
Salvadoran police. One individual said that he had been detained and investigated for 72 hours, just for
having a tattoo. Such police actions are not surprising, given anti-gang and mano dura laws that
prioritized the apprehension and prosecution of gang members. In some instances, however, police
actions reportedly went further. One ex-gang member reported that he was beaten by the police, and
that when he denounced the beating, he received a death threat:
I’ve always dressed like this [baggy clothes]. With a shaved head. They [the police] said, ‘You’re
a gang member.” I said, ‘Yes, but I don’t get involved in problems.” “What gang are you from?”
“I’m from such-and-such gang.” They took me to a room. They beat me! Here, I have a hole [in
my body]. They broke my clavicle bone. So there, there was a guy who was an ex-gang
member, and he worked in the area of health. He took me for an x-ray. And I went to the police
station with the x-ray to complain. That night, they came to my house, with their faces covered,
and they told me that if I sued them, they would kill my whole family. I burned it [the x-ray].
To avoid further problems, this individual moved to another city within El Salvador.
Second, interviewees who encountered legal difficulties in El Salvador sometimes reported that
they did not understand how the Salvadoran legal system worked. One interviewee stated that he had
been falsely accused of kidnapping, but that he did not know how best to defend himself against these
charges. Fearing that it would just be his word against that of the officer’s, he obtained $3,000 from a
relative in the United States in order to hire an attorney. He recounted:
I don’t know who to believe. Those fools inside the jail, they told me, “Don’t worry, man. Why
you gonna pay a lawyer? You’re gonna get out, you’re gonna get out. The judge is gonna let
you out!” But then again, what if they didn’t? What if I believe these fools and then I go before
the judge and “You’re going to Mariona [prison]. For eight years.” Once they sentence you,
that’s it. There’s no appeal. And plus, the people from here, once they know you’re from the
United States, “Oh, he’s got money! Let’s charge him this.” They don’t charge people what a
normal Salvadoran citizen from here would pay. So they charged my mom $3,000.
This individual was riddled with doubt. Should he have bothered to hire an attorney? Was it wise to
have pled guilty in exchange for receiving a conditional release? After this incident, when stopped and
questioned by the police, was it better to admit to the kidnapping charge and risk being presumed guilty
of something else? Or to state that he had never been arrested and risk being caught in a lie? This
interviewee’s prior knowledge of U.S. law did not prove helpful in his encounter with the Salvadoran
criminal justice system.
Third, interviewees were confused about their legal options in attempting to return to the
United States. Interviewees reported that they had been deported for particular periods of time – five
years, ten years, twenty years – but that their paperwork stated that they could never return to the
United States. Some interviewees hoped that at the conclusion of the 5-20 year period, a relative in the
United States could petition for them and they could re-enter the country legally. Interviewees also
spoke of being able to apply for a pardon for criminal convictions in the United States, but were unsure
how to do so, how much such a pardon would cost, whether or not an application for pardon was likely
to be approved, and whether they should seek a pardon themselves or ask relatives in the United States
to apply on their behalf. Some interviewees had considered (or even attempted) returning to the
United States without authorization, but feared that if they did so and were caught, they would be
incarcerated prior to being deported once again. If not caught, they feared having to live with the
continual threat of incarceration and deportation, and with no hope of being able to legalize, given their
record of having been previously deported. A strong desire to rejoin relatives in the United States
coupled with the near impossibility of doing so legally contributed to depression and uncertainty. One
interviewee weighed his options as follows: “I have many reasons to go back, but I’m not going to risk it.
Which one’s better for my family? Having me in jail [if apprehended for reentry]? Having them stress
more, knowing that something might happen to me? Or me being out here free, knowing that I’m
alright and I’m not going to risk getting another 97 months [of prison time] just because I went back?”
Fearing prison in the United States, this interviewee had decided to remain in El Salvador, at least for
the time being.
In sum, deportation is a devastating experience for 1.5 generation migrants, and for those who
migrated as adolescents and then lived many years in the United States. Psychologically, deportation is
much more like exile than a homecoming, as it separates individuals from family members, possessions,
and the place that they consider home. Widespread suspicion of deportees, particularly those who are
young and male and who lived many years outside of El Salvador, makes it difficult for 1.5 generation
migrants to find work or develop ties within Salvadoran communities. The risk of being presumed to be
gang members by security guards, police, or even existing gangs within El Salvador is ever present,
making daily life a challenge. Confusion over their legal options in the United States adds to deportees’
sense of uncertainty.
C. Strengths and sources of support: Fortunately, interviewees also encountered some support
in their efforts to readjust to life in El Salvador. These sources of support were largely informal rather
than formal, as currently there are few formal programs focusing on the reintegration of deportees
within El Salvador.1 Interviewees reported that they had received emotional, moral, social, or financial
support from relatives in El Salvador or in the United States, from families that they formed in El
Salvador, and from their jobs, their faith, and their connections to particular institutions.
As discussed above, on average, interviewees’ family ties were more extensive in the United
States than in El Salvador. Interviewees who appeared to have achieved the greatest stability within El
Salvador generally received some support, whether moral or financial, from relatives in the United
States. To reduce their exposure to individuals and situations that threatened their security, some
interviewees attempted to travel by car rather than by bus, and to rent homes or apartments in more
upscale neighborhoods. Doing so often required more resources than were available to them in El
Salvador. In some cases, interviewees’ U.S. relatives were able to help them with rent or other
expenses, and parents, aunts or uncles from the United States sometimes traveled to El Salvador to
receive deportees at the airport and to help them get situated. One interviewee reported, “I don’t have
any family over here. When I got deported, my mom came over here and she got me a house,” while
another recounted, “I have a mother who said, ‘Let’s buy a house in a secure area.’” Individuals whose
U.S. relatives were able to visit them regularly also benefited psychologically and emotionally. In other
cases, U.S. relatives provided emotional and moral support, but from a distance. Two interviewees, who
were brothers, told me, “It’s a good thing that our family has done, from the States? They’re there for
moral support, but not financially. Maybe because we told them, ‘You know what? We got into this
ourselves, we’re going to get out of it ourselves.’ We think that way. Even though they would love to
help [financially]. [But] we know they are going through struggles over there.” Of course, in some
cases, interviewees had become estranged from relatives in the United States, and were not able to turn
to these relatives for assistance. And in other cases, U.S. relatives lacked resources to provide financial
assistance.
Relatives in El Salvador were also a source of support for numerous interviewees. These family
members provided such assistance as meeting interviewees at the airport, offering them housing, and
explaining how to do things in El Salvador. One interviewee described his arrival as follows: “The only
family I had here is my father’s side of the family. We had never talked to them. My parents had
arranged for us to live with one of my mom’s sisters…. We knew that my aunt was picking us up, but we
didn’t know how she looked.” Another interviewee recounted that when he was deported, he was met
both by his relatives from the U.S. and his relatives in El Salvador, who taught him the proper way to eat
pupusas:
I stepped off the plane and everything. I saw my aunts, and my mom was here. And my brother
was here. They were all like, “What do you want to eat? It’s up to you.” … So I’m like, “Let’s eat
some pupusas.” I hadn’t ate pupusas in years! So we went to the restaurant, … and they bring
out the pupusas and everything. And I seen my cousin and my aunt, they’re grabbing them with
their hands, right? And my brother’s next to me. And I’m like, “Say, brother, where’re the
utensils at? The forks and knives.” And he’s like, “Naw, fool! …You eat pupusas with your
One program, Bienvenidos a Casa or “Welcome Home,” which is run by the Salvadoran government, the
Fundación para el Desarrollo Integral (FUNDI), and other organizations, used to provide assistance with
transportation, temporary housing and job training, but currently focuses primarily on receiving deportees at the
Salvadoran airport (López 2006, Valle 2006).
1
hands!” …So I started eating them with my hands, but I kind of felt awkward, because I was so
used to eating with a fork, and stuff.
Relatives in El Salvador also provided housing and meals, either temporarily or permanently. In some
cases, relatives took steps to help integrate interviewees, such as buying them their own furniture or
urging them to overcome depression by going out. Interviewees generally did not mention receiving
monetary support or job assistance from relatives in El Salvador.
Another source of familial support, according to some interviewees, was finding spouses in El
Salvador and starting their own families. In some cases, interviewees married women who had also
lived in the United States, and who therefore understood interviewees’ experiences. Spouses also
provided connections to in-laws, thus extending interviewees’ networks of potential family support.
Having spouses and children in El Salvador enhanced interviewees’ sense of stability, and gave them
renewed motivation to develop themselves personally and professionally. One interviewee stated, “I’m
looking forward to transitioning to something, either in the company where I’m at currently, or maybe a
different company that can provide what I need. I mean, the long term, just look out for my daughter,
try to give her the best that she deserves, and if I get a piece of that, I’m willing to get it. But she comes
before me. And her mom.”
Jobs were a key source of support for those interviewees who had secure employment. An
interviewee described how obtaining a job had improved his and his siblings’ lives: “Once I started
working, boom! We moved out. Got a nice place. Got a car…. [Before that] there were times we didn’t
eat. You see us now, we are a little chunky, with meat. You see us then, we were skinny.” In addition
to providing financial stability, employment gave some interviewees an increased sense of self-worth.
One interviewee remarked, “Here [in El Salvador], one thing that I appreciate is the place where I’m
working right now. I’ve been looking for other jobs, and there is no place for me in other jobs.” Another
individual, who was able to secure jobs for some of his friends with his current employer, commented, “I
thank God for the job that I have. Because I can do good things for people, change people’s lives.”
Interviewees who worked in English-speaking settings also appreciated the way that their work
environment recreated something of the lives that they had known in the United States.
Numerous interviewees mentioned that their faith aided them in dealing with the impact of
deportation. One individual described how his faith prevented him from committing suicide:
I don’t have a country over there [in the United States], I come over here [to El Salvador], I’m
not even accepted, right? And it was like, I was hating everything. I actually wanted to kill
myself. I thought suicide…. It was to a point where I was in this apartment, 4 th level, and I said,
“I’m out of money…. I’m going to sell my clothes, and as soon as my clothes is gone, I’m
jumping!” That’s what I thought! And I sold my clothes. And then I just felt the Lord talk to me
and said, “Sit down. I’m going to get you out of here soon.”
Some interviewees were receiving assistance from a faith-based drug and alcohol rehabilitation center.
Others had developed a commitment to studying and developing their own ministries. Such activities
also provided crucial support.
Finally, some interviewees had connections to non-governmental organizations that assisted
deportees. In particular, the interviewees whom I met through Homies Unidos, a non-governmental
organization focusing on gang violence prevention, stressed the assistance that they had received from
that organization. In some cases, they had obtained employment through the organization, in other
cases, they had received moral support, friendship, information about how to avoid involvement in or
persecution from gangs in El Salvador, training, education, and assistance with procedures such as
applying for a drivers license in El Salvador.
In sum, the primary sources of support that interviewees mentioned during interviews were
their families, employers, religion, and connections to particular institutions. Given their informal
nature, current sources of support are insufficient to address the particular needs of 1.5 generation
migrants who are deported. Individuals whose family members are not in a position to assist them, who
lack or have become estranged from relatives, and who are unemployed have few options. It would be
useful to develop programs designed to reintegrate deportees, particularly those who emigrated as
children and who lived outside of El Salvador for lengthy periods. It would also be useful for such
programs to address the needs of individuals who were convicted of crimes and who desire to renounce
the activities that resulted in their convictions.
VI. Recommendations to Reduce the Social Hardship Experienced by 1.5 Generation Migrants who are
Deported:
1. In the United States, develop naturalization campaigns directed toward naturalizing youth
and children. Organizations in the United States that promote naturalization can
develop campaigns that emphasize the importance of naturalizing children and young
people. 1.5 generation migrants who undergo naturalization are no longer deportable.
2. In the United States, launch educational campaigns and create informational materials in
easily understood terms, to be distributed to people facing criminal charges. By the time
individuals are in removal proceedings due to having been convicted of crimes, it is
often too late to challenge the removal. It is important for noncitizens who are facing
criminal charges to be informed in a meaningful way of the potential immigration
consequences of particular convictions. Greater legal assistance for such individuals
could also help individuals avoid convictions that would result in deportation.
3. In the United States, adopt immigration policies that take into account the particular needs of
1.5 generation migrants. Given that 1.5 generation migrants have extensive ties within
the United States, it would be useful to create or restore a proceeding that would weigh
the potential harm caused by removal against the severity of a criminal conviction. As
mandatory detention reduces individuals’ abilities to pursue legal remedies, it is also
recommended that access to bail bond be restored for individuals who are facing
lengthy proceedings. Finally, it is recommended that provisions to facilitate family
visitation and reunification be created, to reduce the impact of deportation on family
ties, particularly on those between parents and children.
4. In El Salvador, launch a public information campaign to counter stigmatization of deportees.
Given the extensive stigmatization encountered by deportees within El Salvador, it is
recommended that a public information campaign in El Salvador be launched. Such a
campaign could use personal histories to acquaint the Salvadoran public with deportees’
circumstances and to put a human face on the issue of deportation. This campaign
could also highlight the educational and professional abilities that 1.5 generation
migrants who are deported bring to El Salvador.
5. In El Salvador, provide assistance with job placement and with meeting deportees’ immediate
needs, such as food, shelter, and medical and psychological care. One component of the
public information campaign could be directed to potential employers in industries in
which 1.5 generation migrants’ professional and educational skills are particularly
relevant. Additionally, it is recommended that programs assist 1.5 generation migrants
in evaluating their employment skills, and obtaining references and educational and
professional records. Finally, as access to social support is uneven, it is important to
assist 1.5 generation and other deportees in meeting their immediate needs for food,
shelter, and medical and psychological care.
6. In El Salvador, create and distribute informational resources regarding U.S. immigration and
criminal law, focusing particularly on the consequences of immigrating to the United
States illegally after having been deported, and on any avenues through which deportees
might reenter the United States legally. Given 1.5 generation migrants’ uncertainty
regarding the possibility of immigrating to the United States legally, it is recommended
that informational resources, such as a pamphlet or website, be created. These
resources could provide 1.5 generation migrants (and other deportees) with a more
realistic understanding of U.S. immigration law, their rights in the United States, and the
consequences of returning without legal status.
VII.
Conclusion:
Not all migrants and not all deportees are the same. This report directs attention to the
particular experiences of individuals who immigrated from El Salvador to the United States when they
were children, and who subsequently were deported. As children, these migrants were frequently
dependent on parents and other caregivers to make decisions about whether or not to migrate, how to
migrate, where to live, whether to stay in the United States or return to El Salvador, and whether or not
to apply for temporary protected status, legal permanent residency, or naturalization in the United
States. Most interviewees left El Salvador during or just after the Salvadoran civil war, and therefore
many were exposed to violence at young ages. Youth also in many cases experienced separation from
parents and other caregivers and the difficulty of traveling to and living in the United States without
authorization. In the United States, these youth participated in school and eventually work experiences
that gave them a sense of belonging in the United States. Most interviewees also acquired temporary or
permanent legal status in the United States. Interviewees became deportable either due to being
undocumented, failing to renew or reapply for a particular status or being convicted of crimes that
stripped them of their legal status. A lack of information about U.S. immigration law and its connections
to U.S. criminal contributed to these youth finding themselves in removal proceedings. Upon returning
to El Salvador, youth experienced depression, additional family separations, stigmatization, cultural
alienation, and economic difficulties. Some were able to draw on forms of social support, particularly
from family members, employers, religious institutions, or NGOs. These forms of support are informal,
however, and are not available to all deportees.
Addressing the forms of social hardship encountered by 1.5 generation migrants who are
deported requires action in both the United States and in El Salvador. This report concludes with
recommendations designed to reduce the likelihood that 1.5 generation migrants will be subject to
deportation, and to address the social, cultural, economic, psychological, and legal needs of those who
are deported. Migrants, youth, and deportees are all groups that experience some degree of social
exclusion, due to their legal status, their age, or deportation and its associated stigma. 1.5 generation
migrants who are deported are members of all three of these groups. Addressing the needs of this
population is therefore a high priority, and would give greater recognition to the impact of transnational
migration on children and youth.
Acknowledgements:
This research would not have been possible without the collaboration of CARECEN
Internacional, and the efforts of Luis Perdomo in particular. Jesus Aguilar supported this collaboration
from the outset, and Tony Azucar and Samuel also helped with arrangements for interviews. Homies
Unidos also generously provided contacts and allowed interviews to take place at its offices. The author
is grateful to Luis Romero and Edgar Ramirez for their assistance. Miguel Arévalo provided information
and other assistance. Katie Dingeman accompanied the author on some interviews and assisted with
note-taking. The author is also indebted to the individuals in San Salvador and Usulutan who helped to
schedule and arrange interviews, but who will remain anonymous for reasons of confidentiality.
Additionally, the author is grateful to everyone who participated in the interviews. This research was
supported through funds from the National Science Foundation’s Law and Social Sciences Program,
Award #SES-0518011
References:
Andrade-Eekhoff, Katharine. 2003. Mitos y realidades: el impacto económico de la migración en los
hogares rurales. San Salvador: FLACSO Programa El Salvador.
Gonzales, Roberto G. 2008. Born in the Shadows: The Uncertain Futures of the Children of Unauthorized
Mexican Migrants. University of California, Irvine, unpublished dissertation, Department of
Sociology.
López, Keny. 2006. “Repatriados sin recibir dinero para pasajes.” La Prensa Gráfica, July 11.
Menjívar, Cecilia. 2002. “Living in two worlds? Guatemalan-origin Children in the United States and
emerging Transnationalism.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 28(3):531-552.
Orellana, Marjorie Faulstich, Barrie Thorne, Anna Chee, and Wan Shun Eva Lam. 2001. “Transnational
Childhoods: The Participation of Children in Processes of Family Migration.” Social Problems
48(4):572-591.
Portes, Alejandro and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second
Generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Portes, Alejandro and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 2005. “Introduction: The Second Generation and the
Children of Immigrants Longitudianl Study.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(6):983-999.
Rumbaut, Rubén G. 2002. “Severed or Sustained Attachments? Language, Identity and Imagined
Communities in the Post-Immigrant Generation.” In The Changing Face of Home: The
Transnational Lives of the Second Generation, Peggy Levitt and Mary C. Waterds, eds., pp. 4395.. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Valle, Adriana. 2006. “Bienvenidos a Casa bajo una nueva administración.” La Prensa Gráfica.
Zilberg, Elana. 2004. “Fools Banished from the Kingdom: Remapping Geographies of Gang Violence
between the Americas (Los Angeles and San Salvador).” American Quarterly 56(3):759-779.