Path toward Family
Reunification:
Structural Constraints on Filipina
Live-In Caregivers in Montreal
Kazue Takamura
Postdoctoral Fellow
School of Social Work
McGill University
Contents of the presentation
 Objectives of the study and literature review
 Problems with the literature
 The argument: a long-term, structural perspective
 Analytical framework: types of constraints
 Why mothers’ migration matters
 Background
Female labor migration from the Philippines
Live-In Caregiver Program
 Structural Constraints on the path toward family
reunification and its long term impact on social mobility
 Conclusion
Aim of the study
- To analyze the structural constraints on the
migration trajectory of female migrants and
families in a long-term perspective
- The path toward family reunification of
Filipina live-in caregivers
- Canada’s Live-In Caregiver Program: a
unique and crucial pathway to family
reunification because of the opportunity to
gain residency
Problem with the literature on
female labor migration
Literature is divided into Separation and Settlement
Experience of separation (during the labor migration)
• Impact of female migration on families: emotional ties,
conjugal relations, left-behind children, transnational
mothering
(Ho 1999; Schmalzbauer 2004; Asis et al. 2004; Scalabrini Migration Center 2004;
Parrenas 2005; Yeoh and Lam2007; Dreby 2007, 2010)
Experience of settlement (after reunification)
• Psychological implication of family separation among
immigrant youth
(Smith et al. 2004; Rousseau et al. 2009; Suarez-Orozco et al. 2002, 2011)
• Intergenerational struggles after the reunification,
educational adaptation of newly-arrived children
(Cohen 2000; Allen 2004; Pratt 2004, 2009; Caro 2008; Foner 2009; Menjivar and Abrego
2009; Pineda 2010; Corak 2011)
• Economic Integration, labor participation
(Kelly 2006, 2010; Castoguay 2009; Goldring and Landolt 2012)
A long-term, structural perspective
• Problem: discontinuity between separation and
reunification literature
• My argument : it is necessary to have a long-term,
structural perspective on female labor migration and
families
• Focus of my study = To understand how initial
constraints on female labor migration affect the family
reunification process and social mobility of immigrant
families
Structural Constraints on female
labor migration
Political
Constraints
Female
labor
migration
Economic
Constraints
Social Constraints
Types of constraints on the path
toward family reunification
Political constraints
- Immigration process
- Precarious legal status
Economic constraints
- Financial burden (family reunification expense,
financial pressure from home)
Social constraints
- Family challenges (conjugal relations,
inadmissible children)
- Resource problem (limited access to information
and services)
Why mothers’ migration matters?
-Gender: The impact of female migration on family
significantly differs from that of male migration.
Especially significant is the negative consequence of mothers’
migration on children.
-Transnational mothering: persistent expectation of
mothering by left-behind families and mothers’ attempt to
maintain emotional care from afar.
-Child factor: Experience of migrant mothers significantly
differs from that of female migrants without children. This is
particularly evident during the path toward permanent
residency, including the immigration process, family
relations, and socio-economic mobility after the LCP.
Growing female migration from
the Philippines
- Estimated 10 million Filipinos work and live abroad
(=10% of the total population of the Philippines)
- Growing female migrant workers
- Major destinations : Middle Eastern countries, Hong
Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Canada
- Female migration =“care work” including
nurses, nannies, domestic helpers
- Low-paid, temporary condition
- Pull factor to Canada: Live-In Caregiver Program
(directly affects the demography of Canada= rapid
growth of Tagalog speaking population)
Major overseas work destinations
from the Philippines in 2010
300,000
250,000
HK
South Korea Singapore
28,794
2,305
6,447
28,237
368
4,692
Taiwan
Middle East
27,845
245,264
18,181
123,822
Canada
9,737
7,400
200,000
total
150,000
female
100,000
50,000
0
HK
South Korea
Singapore
Taiwan
Middle East
Canada
Philippines Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) http://www.poea.gov.ph/
Push and pull factors of female
migration from the Philippines
Push factors (Philippines)
-Chronic poverty and high unemployment rate
-Accumulation of foreign debt due to the Marcos regime since 1980s
-The structural adjustment program (SAP) introduced by IMF: pay debt
by earning foreign currency through remittances, by cutting social
welfare expenditure.
-Consequence of SAP: rising living cost (taxation of goods), lack of
welfare, unstable labor market (lower wage in public sector)
- Labor export policy which is highly facilitated by the state is the only
solution for the country to pay debt.
Pull factors (global labor market and immigration policies)
Labor-receiving states favor recruiting temporary rather than
permanent form of migration = to increase flexibility of the labor
markets.
Thus, what is created by both push and pull factors is: disposable
cheap labor.
Canada’s Live-In Caregiver
Program
- Live-In Caregiver Program (LCP) was introduced in
1992. It aims to meet the demand for private (livein) care for children and the elderly.
- History of Canada’s caregiver program since 1960s
- Nearly 90 percent of the live-in caregivers are
females from the Philippines.
- LCP is a unique temporary foreign worker program
which allows applicants to apply for Permanent
Residency in Canada after the completion of a 24
month live-in requirement.
- Majority of live-in caregivers are college-educated.
Temporary foreign worker program
(low-skilled category)
Types of program
Path for permanent
residency
Number of workers
registered under the
program (2010)
Live-in Caregiver
Program (1992-)
(Foreign Domestic
Movement 1981-1992)
Yes (after completing a
24 month live-in
working condition
within four years)
35,006 (2010)
11,997 (2002)
Seasonal Agricultural
Worker Program (1966-)
No (temporary work for
a maximum 8 months)
23,930 (2010)
18,588 (2002)
Pilot Program for
Occupations Requiring
Lower Levels of Formal
Training (2002-)
No (temporary work for
a maximum of 24
months)
28,930 (2010)
1,304 (2002)
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2011) Canada Facts and
Figures: Immigration Overview Permanent and Temporary Residents 2010
Number of entries under temporary
foreign worker program
30,000
25,000
20,000
live-in caregivers
15,000
seasonal agricultural
worker
Low skilled pilot
program
10,000
5,000
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2011) Canada Facts and Figures: Immigration Overview
Permanent and Temporary Residents 2010
Major source countries of foreign workers
(present as of December 1 of every year)
60,000
50,000
40,000
Philippines
United States
30,000
Mexico
China
20,000
10,000
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
The numbers include both low-skilled and high skilled workers. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2011)
Canada Facts and Figures: Immigration Overview Permanent and Temporary Residents 2010
Permanent residency under the Live-In
Caregiver Program (LCP)
- Between 1993 and 2009, 52,493 former live-in
caregivers obtained PR.
- 90 percent are from the Philippines.
- 65 percent of former caregivers claimed to be
single.
- More than half of sponsored dependents are
children: 17,792 out of a total of 30,028.
- De facto divorce: one-third of married live-in
caregivers do not sponsor their spouses for PR.
(Kelly et al. 2011. “Profile of live-in caregiver immigrants to Canada 1993-2009”)
Major source countries of permanent
residents in Canada
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
Philippines
India
20,000
China
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2012) Canada Facts and Figures: Immigration Overview Permanent and
Temporary Residents 2011
Permanent residents (landed) under
LCP and Filipino permanent residents
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
LCP total
20,000
Filipino PR
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2012) Canada Facts and Figures: Immigration Overview
Permanent and Temporary Residents 2011
Main issues related to the LCP
Abusive live-in working conditions
- Due to the 24 month live-in requirement
(Langevin 2000; Oxman-Martinez et al. 2004)
Precarious legal status (Langevin and Belleau 2000; Choudry et al. 2009)
-Work permit under a specific employer’s name
-Slow legal process upon changing employers (takes at least 3
months)
-Fraudulent employers and brokers upon arrival (no initial
employment for several months)
-Time limit (3 years before April 2010, current 4 years)
-Limited labor protection (workers’ compensation)
Deskilling (Kelly 2006, 2010) :
-Cycle of low-paid employment
-Labor participation after the LCP (Castonguay 2009; Torres et al. 2012)
Missing issues: Post-LCP experience, especially the family
reunification process
Steps for family reunification
Stage 1: Live-in Caregiver Program = mandatory condition
for applying a PR
-24 month live-in requirement within 4 years (*3 years before
April 2010)
Stage 2: Waiting period for PR (up to 4 years or more)
-PR application process for self and family members
-Obtain an open work permit
-Transition from “live-in” to “live-out”
Stage 3: Eventual Family Reunification
-Arrival of the family
-New living adjustment for the family
Constraints on the path toward family
reunification
Political constraints
-Immigration process (a)
-Precarious legal status(c)
Social constraints
- Family challenges (b)
- Resource problem (e)
Economic constraints
- Financial burden (d)
Definition of “family” under Canada’s
immigration policy
According to the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations part 1(Division 3), the definition of “family
member” in respect of a person means:
- the spouse or common-law partner of the person;
- a dependent child of the person or of the person’s
spouse or common-law partner; and
- a dependent child of a dependent child referred to
above
a) Immigration process (political)
- Time limit under the LCP: difficulty in meeting
the 24 month live-in requirement within the
time limit, therefore many can not apply for PR
- Slow immigration process of permanent
residency application (up to 4 years)
- Complicated application process of PR (only
available online, a long list of document
requirements)
- Atypical family = slower process
(over-aged children, pregnant children, sick or
handicapped children)
b) Family challenges (social)
PR application = Inclusion and exclusion of family
members
- Children’s age (age limit at 22)
- Continuous full-time schooling requirement if child is
older than 22
- Health condition of the family members
(sick or handicapped family members)
- Marriage and pregnancy of the children
(married children are no longer dependents)
- Broken conjugal relations (one-third of married
caregivers were not joined by husbands)
b) Background of family challenges
Prolonged family separation
- Average years of family separation of Filipina
live-in caregivers in Canada = 7 years
- Factors of prolonged family separation =
economic conditions in the Philippines;
immigration policies in receiving countries
- Outcomes: broken conjugal relations, delaying
children’s school integration, problematic
mother-child relations, social mobility of
children
b) Family challenges: divorce
 High separation rate among Filipina live-in
caregivers
 Absence of divorce law in the Philippines
 Possibility of filing divorce in Canada
 Statutory declaration: 1) Evidence of separated
spouse living with another partner, or 2)
Income tax returns showing status as separated.
 Complicated case: custody issue of children
(separated husband refuses to permit children to
come to Canada)
 Rise of single mother households among Filipino
families in Canada
c) Precarious legal status
-After completing a 24 month live-in working
requirement, a caregiver can apply for an
open work permit which has no restriction
in terms of types of employment.
-This condition is supposed to release
caregivers from legal constraint under one
specific job category and one specific
employer.
c)Precarious legal status (political)
Issues before obtaining an open work
permit
- Slow process to issue an open work
permit (up to 18 months)
- Until open work permit is issued,
caregiver must continuously work as
caregiver
- If one finds a job other than caregiver, it
is technically illegal. This condition
denies worker’s health care coverage.
C)Legal status and social mobility
After obtaining an open work permit
Constraints
- A work permit could be open with regard to
employers, but this does not guarantee a better and
stable employment.
- Foreign professionals must do further schooling in
order to practice their professions in Canada.
- Open work permit only allows 6 months schooling
which is not enough for qualifying degrees in Canada.
Outcomes = low social mobility
- Continuous low-paid jobs and often multiple jobs in
order to meet financial obligation.
Legal status of migrants at the point of entry has a longterm impact on economic incorporation into the host
society (Goldring and Landolt 2012).
d) Financial burden (economic)
(a) Continuous low-paid employment due to the initial
status as a live-in caregiver
(b) Financial commitment during the waiting time
- Continuous remittances to support children
- Financial support to extended family members
(c) Expensive family reunification expense
- Immigration fees
- Airfare for the family members
- Housing, furniture, winter clothes for children, and other
necessary expenses for the new life
Cost for family reunification
An example of a female caregiver who has three children plus husband
[The processing fee upon submitting the application]
-principal applicant
$550
-3 children (under age 22 )
$150*3
-spouse
$550
sub-total
$1,550
[The right of permanent residence fee after the application is approved]
-principal applicant
$490
-spouse
$490
sub-total
$980
Health exam fees
$100*4 persons*2 times =$800
(valid for a year)
Passport
$25 (950peso)*4 persons = $100
Airfare
$1,400*4 persons= $5,600
Travel tax (in the Philippines) $45(1,620peso)*1+35(1,350peso)*3=$150
Total cost for family reunification $9,180
*Standard wage of a live-in caregiver in Quebec $9.90/hour
Annual income $19,404 (before tax) = 40hours*49 weeks
Citizenship and Immigration Canada(www.cic.gc.ca), Department of Foreign Affaires Philippines
(http://passport.com.ph/passport-fees)
e) Resource problem (social)
Social isolation and marginalization process during
the LCP; language barrier (in Quebec)
Limited access to accurate information and
potential resources (for permanent residency,
upgrading skills, and job opportunities)
-Delaying or damaging the reunification (PR)
process
-Difficulty in moving beyond the low-income sector
*Advocacy organizations (PINAY, AAFQ, IWC) provide
workshops, legal clinics, and French classes.
Impact of female labor migration on
social mobility of children
Female migration for temporary work
Prolonged family separation
Age of the child at arrival
Difficulties in adapting to the school setting (teenage
children)
Higher rate of high-school drop-out (25%) among children
who arrived in Canada after the age of 13 (Corak 2011)
Cycle of low-paid employment, therefore lower socioeconomic mobility
Summary
A) Slow immigration process: causing longer family
separation
B) Family challenges: prolonged family separation =
broken conjugal relations (=single mother
households), inadmissible children (sick or overaged children), delaying children’s social
integration
C) Legal issues: precarious legal status = difficulty in
qualifying one’s professional skills, therefore
remain low-paid
D) Financial burden: continuous remittances,
expensive family reunification cost
E) Resource problem: isolation during the LCP =
lack of access to information and potential services
Distinct character of the recent
Filipino migration to Canada
-Concentration of Filipina in the LCP = No other countries
than the Philippines provide college educated female
workers for low-skilled jobs in global labor market
-Shift in the migration pattern: from the professionals in
the 1960s and 70s to the low-skilled sector since 1980s
-Female driven migration
-Length of separation
Therefore, separation and reunification due to
mothers’ labor migration is currently experienced
disproportionally by Filipino families in Canada
*comparison with Caribbean female labor migration
in the 1960s and 70s (Henry 1994)
Conclusion
- A long-term, structural perspective on female labor
migration and family.
-The initial precarious legal status as well as the
prolonged family separation – the major outcomes of
female labor migration -negatively shape the social
mobility of immigrant youth and families in the long
run.
-Slow immigration process for PR application as well as
resource and financial constraints should be addressed
by government and civil society.
Impact of female labor migration on
families
New life in a host country
-Temporary status
-Lower social mobility
-Low-paid work
-Cycle of low-paid
employment
-Abusive working condition
-Family relations
(a)
(b)
(a) Family reunification
or (b)continuous family
separation
Affecting family members
(marital relationship,
left-behind children)
-continuous remittances
(financial pressure)
Prolonged family separation
References (1)
Allen, Dawn. 2004. Language, identity, and integration: Immigrant youth
‘made in Quebec’, Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of Education, McGill
University.
Asis, Maruja Milagros; Shirlena Huang; and Brenda Yeoh. 2004. “When
the Light of the Home is Abroad: Unskilled Female Migration and the
Filipino Family.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 25(2): 198-215.
Caro, Josie Fely. 2008. The Educational Experiences of Filipino Youth in
Quebec in the Context of Global Migration. Department of Educational and
Counseling Psychology, MA thesis, McGill University.
Castonguay, Marie-Hélène. 2009. Insertion socioprofessionnelle des aides
familiales résidantes. Québec: Immigration et Communautés culturelles
Quebec.
Choudry, Aziz; Jill Hanley; Steve Jordon; Erik Shragge; and Martha
Stiegman. 2009. Fight Back: Workplace Justice for Immigrants. Winnipeg,
Manitoba: Fernwood Publishing.
Cohen, R. (2000). "Mom Is a Stranger': The Negative Impact of Immigration
Politics on the Family Life of Filipina Domestic Workers". Canadian Ethnic
Studies, 32, 76-88.
Corak, Miles. 2011. Age at Immigration and the Education Outcomes of
Children. Analytical Studies, Research Paper Series, Statistics Canada.
References (2)
Dreby, Joanna. 2007. Children and Power in Mexican Transnational
Families. Journal of Marriage and Family 69: 1050-1064.
Foner, Nancy (ed.) 2009. Across Generations: Immigrant Families in
America. New York University Press.
Goldring, Luin, and Patricia Landolt. 2012. “ The Impact of Precarious
Legal Status on Immigrants’ Economic Outcomes.” IRPP(Institute for
Research on Public Policy) Study, No.35 (Oct 2012).
Henry, Frances. 1994. The Caribbean Diaspora in Toronto: Learning to
Live with Racism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Ho, Christine. 1999. “Caribbean Transnationalism as a Gendered
Process.” Latin American Perspectives 26(5): 34-54.
Kelly, Phillip. 2006. Filipinos in Canada: Economic Dimensions of
Immigration and Settlement. CERIS Working paper No.48.
Kelly, Philip; Stella Park; Conely de Leon; and Jeff Priest. 2011.
“Profile of Live-in Caregiver Immigrants to Canada, 1993-1999.” Toronto
Immigration Employment Data Initiative Analytical Report 18.
Langevin, Louise and Belleau, Marie-Claire. 2000. Trafficking in
Women in Canada: A Critical Analysis of the Legal Framework Governing
Immigrant Live-in Caregivers and Mail-Order Brides. Status of Women,
Canada.
References (3)
Menjivar, Cecilia and Leisy Abrego. 2009. Parents and Children across
Border: Legal Instability and Intergenerational Relations in Guatemalan
and Salvadoran Families. In Across Generations: Immigrant Families in
America, edited by Nancy Foner. New York University Press : pp.160-189.
Oxman-Martinez, Jacqueline; Hanley, Jill; and Cheung, Leslie. 2004.
“Another Look at the Live-in Caregivers Program: An Analysis of an Action
Research Survey Conducted by PINAY, the Quebec Filipino Women’s
Association with the Centre for Applied Family Studies.” Montréal, QC:
QMIC-IM.
Parrenas, Rhacel Salazar.2005. Children of Global Migration :
Transnational Families and Gendered Woes. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Pineda, Stephanie June. 2010. Doing it for the Families. Educational
Experiences of First-Generation Female Filipino Teens in Public Schools in
Montreal. Department of Master Thesis, Integrated Studies in Education.
McGill University.
Pratt, Geraldine. 2004. “Between Homes: Displacement and Belonging
for Second-Generation Filipino-Canadian Youths.” BC Studies no.140:41-68.
Pratt, Geraldine. 2009. “Circulating Sadness: Witnessing Filipina
Mothers’ Stories of Family Separation. “Gender, Place and Culture 16(1): 322.
References (4)
Rousseau, Cecile, GhaydaHassan, TobyMeasham, NicolasMoreau,
MyrnaLashley, Thelma Castro, Caminee Blake, and
GeorgesMcKenzie. 2009. “From the family universe to the outside
world: Family relations, school attitude, and perception of racism in
Caribbean and Filipino adolescents.” Health and Place 15: 751-760.
Scalabrini Migration Center. 2004. Hearts Apart: Migration in the
Eyes of Filipino Children. The Philippines, Scalabrini Migration Centre.
Schmalzbauer, Leah. 2004. Searching for Wages and Mothering from
Afar: The Case of Honduran Transnational Families. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 66: 1317-1331.
Smith, A., Lalonde, R. N., & Johnson, S. 2004. Serial Migration and its
Implications for the Parent-Child Relationship: A Retrospective
Analysis of the Experiences of the Children of Caribbean Immigrants.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10.
Suarez-Orozco, Carloa; Irena L.G. Todorova; and Josephine Louie.
2002. Making up for lost time: The experience of separation and
reunification among immigrant families. Family Process 41(4): 625643.
References (5)
Suarez-Orozco, Carloa; Hee Jin Bang; and Ha Yeon Kim. 2011. I felt like
my heart was staying behind: Psychological Implications of Family
Separations and Reunifications for Immigrant Youth. Journal of Adolescent
Research 26(2): 222-257
Torres, Sara; Denis Spitzer; Karen Huges; Jacquline Oxman-Martinez;
and Jill Hanley. 2012. From Temporary Worker to Resident: The LCP and
Its Impact through an Intersectional Lens. In edited by Patti Tamara
Lenard and Christine Straehle, Legislated Inequality: Temporary Labor
Migration in Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Yeoh, Brenda and Theodora Lam. 2007. “The Costs of (Im)Mobility :
Children Left Behind And Children Who Migrate with a Parents.”
Perspectives on Gender and Migration. Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific. United Nations Publication. pp.120-149.