ABSTRACT
This chapter draws on in-depth interviews with 43 Mexican-origin adults living in the San Francisco Bay area who were interviewed during the immigration protests of 2006 and in follow-up interviews conducted with a subset of respondents in 2008. As Roberto G. Gonzales and Nando Sigona underscore in their introduction, international migration reveals how the egalitarian promise of citizenship in liberal democracies exists within circumscribed boundaries. In nineteenth-century America, women were citizens, but could not vote. Conversely, white male immigrants who declared their intention to acquire citizenship through naturalization could vote in over half of United States and territories. The implications are troubling since they suggest that when individuals acquire legal status, and even citizenship, the prevalence of illegality in the community might, if not silence people, then likely muffle their voices. Unfortunately, non-citizens are constrained by their exclusion from electoral politics and the possibility of deportation. Despite their citizenship acts, elected officials have few incentives to respond to non-citizens.
