Keywords

The big news of the National Census of 2010 has been the demographic growth of Latinos in the United States, and much of it has occurred in nonmetropolitan areas (US Census, 2010). In fact, since 1990, a significant number of Latino families have settled in what are termed “new destination areas ” or “emerging immigrant communities ” (Alba et al., 2010). These communities, 90 % of which are in the South or Midwest, saw a large influx of Latino immigrants that shifted the local landscapes, impacting schools, race relations, community services, and work environments (Lichter, Parisi, Taquino, & Grice, 2010). Strikingly, one-third of recent Mexican immigrants have settled outside of traditional gateway states, and more than one in every five lives in rural towns (Lichter et al., 2010; Singer, 2004). While the experiences of Latino adults in these rural, emerging immigrant communities have been documented (e.g., Marrow, 2011; Millard, Chapa, & Burillo, 2004), few scholars have considered the intersection of minority status, rurality, and emerging immigrant destinations in terms of its implications for the development of Latino children. Given the need for a specific theoretical model to guide this research, this chapter will tackle the intersection of Latino ethnicity and rural location through a revision of the Integrative Model (Garcia Coll et al., 1996).

Integrative Model of Ethnic Minority Child Development

In 1996, a multidisciplinary team of authors developed a conceptual model for the study of child development, integrating the essential factors necessary for understanding positive development in ethnic minority populations (Garcia Coll et al., 1996). The model posited the central salience of social positional factors (e.g., race, social class, ethnicity) that indirectly influence the developmental pathways of children of color through experiences of racism and oppression that lead to segregated contexts creating both promoting and inhibiting environments. In response to these experiences, adaptive cultural resources are utilized by youth, their families, and communities to directly influence developmental outcomes in youth. The adaptive cultural resources then also interact with individual and familial factors to predict developmental outcomes. At the time, the model was informed by the available research on ethnic minority youth and their families, much of which had been conducted in urban settings. Although the model likely operates similarly for Latino youth in rural, emerging immigrant communities, we posit key modifications to this model that are necessary to best characterize the contextual factors that impact developmental outcomes for Latino youth in this specific context (see Fig. 3.1). The chapter will consider each aspect of the Integrative Model as it relates to the experiences of rural Latino families in emerging immigrant communities, emphasizing new theoretical considerations. Due to space limitations, we will not extensively define key terms but instead point the reader to the original paper.

Fig. 3.1
figure 1

Modified integrative model of ethnic minority child development in rural contexts

Full size image

While the focus of our chapter is on rural, new destination Latino communities, it is important to note how these likely differ from rural communities in established Latino areas. The established areas are mostly located in the Southwest and in particular along the US–Mexico border. Those communities tend to be high-minority (mostly Latino) and high-poverty and have the benefit of multiple generations of Latinos that have lived in the area for centuries. Many of the factors noted in our discussion and modified model for new emerging communities will also apply in established contexts (e.g., nativity status, undocumented status), but social position variables and segregation will likely operate differently in established communities given the surrounding context.

Social Positional Factors

A key tenet of the Integrative Model is the pervasive, profound effects of social position variables in determining the daily experiences of youth of color, thereby indirectly impacting developmental outcomes. Social position is a byproduct of social stratification , whereby societies sort individuals into a hierarchy of groups with differential relative worth, utility, and importance. These social positions impact development not only through the effects of segregation, access to social capital, and limitations on social mobility but also through propagation of a hierarchical belief system about the relative value of self and others based on one’s position (Garcia Coll et al., 1996). The original model considered the effects of race, social class, ethnicity, and gender as social position variables, and we will address both race and social class specific to rural Latinos; we also propose three new social position variables that are highly relevant for Latinos in rural contexts: foreigner status, undocumented status, and migrant farmworker status.

Race

While the concept of race holds no scientific merit, race functions as a social stratification variable in current US society. For Latinos, racial categorization has a complicated history: Latinos were once considered their own racial group (Rodriguez, 2000), but now, according to the US Census, “Latino” is conceptualized as an ethnicity, and Latinos can endorse any racial category. Since the instantiation of this system, it has become clear that a substantial number of Latinos consider themselves as distinct from either white or black. In the 2010 Census, 36.8 % of Latinos categorized themselves as “Some Other Race,” making this category the third largest racial grouping in the United States (US Census, 2010). The majority of Latinos (53.0 %) classified themselves as “White,” and only 2.5 % classified themselves as “Black.” While this data is at a national level, it illustrates the difficulty in understanding where Latinos fit in terms of racial categories in the United States, a difficulty that is particularly salient in rural communities that have been socialized to define race across black–white lines or have limited contact with other racial groups (e.g., Marrow, 2011; Millard, Chapa, & McConnell, 2004). In fact, in the New Immigrant Survey, Latino immigrants living in the South compared to those in the Southwest demonstrated differential endorsement of racial categories, illustrating the impact of regional context on racial self-categorization (Frank, Akresh, & Lu, 2010).

The process of racial categorization, in terms of both self-identity and racial categories ascribed by others in these rural communities, has important implications for developmental outcomes, as racial categories are associated with privilege. Underscoring the social stratification inherent in the classification of race, Latinos who select “White” as their race compared to “Some Other Race” tend to have higher levels of education, are more likely to be employed, have lower levels of poverty, and tend to earn more (Tafoya, 2007). Indeed, Latinos who view themselves as having more in common with whites tend to identify themselves as “White,” while Latinos who view themselves as having more common experiences with blacks tend to view themselves as “Some Other Race” (Garcia Coll & Marks, 2009; Stokes-Brown, 2012), perhaps because being black is stigmatized.

Racial self-categorization is also impacted by phenotype, especially skin color. Darker skinned Latinos are less likely to identify as “White” and more likely to identify as “Some Other Race” (Frank et al., 2010; Stokes-Brown, 2012). Skin tone impacts education, economic opportunities, and social mobility for Latinos. In a recent analysis of the New Immigrant Study, for newly legalized Mexican immigrants across the United States, skin color predicted economic outcomes, including home ownership and occupational status (Dávila, Mora, & Stockly, 2011). However, this association may be due in part to the privilege associated with lighter skin tone in Latin American countries, which leads these individuals to have greater social and human capital to aid in their adaptation to the United States and facilitate social mobility. Thus, unpacking the effects of race for Latinos in the United States will have to be considered in light of experiences in the countries of origin. For example, the Mexican narrative of “mestizaje” (mixed racial heritage) may play a role in the lack of a salient racial identity for Mexican immigrants (Flores & Telles, 2012).

Racial self-categorization is complex for Latinos in rural, emerging communities, as it is influenced by the historical context of both the United States and Latin America, the racial makeup of the community in question, phenotype, and socioeconomic factors. How Latinos are viewed by the communities in question, as well as how they view themselves in racial terms, will influence their experiences of discrimination, race relations, social mobility, school integration, and a host of other variables that play critical roles in development (e.g., Lippard & Gallagher, 2011; Marrow, 2011); thus, developmental scientists need to more carefully consider both how Latinos understand themselves racially as well as how they are viewed by members of these rural communities.

Social Class

Given the higher levels of poverty and disadvantage experienced in rural communities (Lichter & Johnson, 2007), the role of social class in the lives of Latino youth in rural, emerging immigrant communities is particularly important to understand. Nationally, the poverty rate among rural Latinos is 27.6 % (Housing Assistance Council, 2012). The majority of work examining rurality in child development has indeed focused on the role of poverty and economic disadvantage, but few studies have included Latino youth.

The role of social class for Latinos in these rural, emerging immigrant communities is also complex. Some initial studies suggested that Latino immigrants in these communities were actually afforded somewhat better economic opportunities than Latinos in other areas (e.g., the Southwest; traditional destinations) due to increased job security and lower cost of living (Crowley, Lichter, & Qian, 2006). In rural communities across the nation, employment in low-skill, low-wage jobs (e.g., meat processing, textiles, manufacturing) provided Latinos with an opportunity to provide economic stability to their families, as evidenced by higher rates of home ownership compared to Latinos in metropolitan areas (Capps, Koball, & Kandel, 2010; Crowley et al., 2006). However, one recent study did find more poverty for immigrant Latinos in new destination, rural areas compared to metropolitan areas (Kandel, Henderson, Koball, & Capps, 2011). Thus, the protective effect of these communities has not been clearly established, particularly in new immigrant communities.

The effect of poverty on Latino immigrants in these rural, emerging communities may be mitigated by Latino immigrants’ cognitive frame. First, given the relatively high level of poverty in these rural areas, Latinos in these settings may experience a smaller discrepancy between their social position and that of other residents, leading to less perceived disadvantage (Marrow, 2011). Second, Latino immigrants may be protected from economic stress due to their dual frame of reference, which allows them to view their current economic status in the United States as a vast improvement compared to their poverty level in their country of origin (Marrow, 2011).

Despite these apparent buffers against economic stress, social class remains a barrier for Latinos in these communities. Often the jobs available to Latinos are those of the lowest status, which have been rejected by native-born groups and provide little opportunity for upward social mobility and integration into the larger rural community (Lichter, 2012). Moreover, risk may be differentially experienced by parents and their children. Parents, armed with immigrant optimism and a dual frame of reference, may feel content with their economic integration into these communities, but their children may not benefit equally. Little is known about the social mobility of these rural Latino youth, but qualitative work suggests that they desire jobs of higher status than their parents have and hold high educational and occupational aspirations (Gonzalez, Stein, Shannonhouse, & Prinstein, 2012), a difference that is also found in urban immigrant communities (Garcia Coll & Marks, 2009). Unfortunately, these same youth do not possess the requisite knowledge of how to access higher education to achieve their aspirations, making the actualization of these goals less likely and placing them at risk for negative mental health outcomes (Gonzalez et al., 2012; Gonzales, Súarez-Orozco, & Dedios, 2013).

Another risk associated with social class for Latinos comes from the interracial tensions that are associated with an influx of new workers who are perceived as threatening the economic landscape of these rural communities (Crowley & Lichter, 2009). Immigrant Latinos are perceived to be “taking jobs” from native-born US Americans, and these perceptions can fuel negative racial interactions. Local rural populations may be more tolerant of Latino immigrants as long as they occupy lower status positions in their communities, but as Latinos integrate and show more upward mobility, there may be less tolerance of Latinos who are perceived as foreign and as a threat to traditional “American” life (Lichter, 2012).

Foreigner Status

Rural towns have been characterized as “middle America ,” symbolizing the essence of US American culture (Millard, Chapa, & Burillo, 2004). As such, most of these rural contexts outside of the Southwest had limited contact with foreign-born populations prior to 1990, and the large influx of immigrants was primarily understood by the receiving communities as an influx of foreigners regardless of other social positional variables (e.g., race, social status) (Marrow, 2011; Millard, Chapa, & Burillo, 2004). Foreign-born status, with its accompanying limited English proficiency and lack of knowledge of the US system, serves as an important social position variable in these environments where local people have lived for multiple generations and whose very identity is tied to these locations (Lacy & Odem, 2009). The strong sense of community among people in these rural settings makes it hard for even a native-born outsider to integrate into the community, and this barrier is only more salient for those who are foreign-born. Moreover, the fear of the loss of English and the use of Spanish serves as a salient perceived threat to the local “American” way of life, which further distances foreign- and native-born populations (Lacy & Odem, 2009).

Thus, race, social status, and foreigner status all interact to create a potent social position al variable in these rural, emerging communities. Future developmental research should carefully consider the relative and joint impact of these three factors, but given that there is less variability in nativity status and social class among Latinos in emerging immigrant communities (Winders, 2009), it will be difficult to discern how they differentially predict child outcomes. Researchers should consider their findings regarding nativity in these communities in conjunction with other social position factors, especially when children may be native-born with foreign-born parents.

Migrant/Farmworker Status

According to the National Center for Farmworker Health, in 2012, there were more than three million migrant and seasonal workers in the United States (62 % Mexican origin). A large portion of these farmworkers (42 %) were classified as migrants, traveling 75 miles within the previous year to obtain seasonal farmwork (Delgado, 2013). Although migrant Latinos continue to be prevalent in rural communities, it is important to note that an increase in other types of employment (e.g., manufacturing) have also pushed Latinos to settle in these communities (Lichter, 2012).

The life of a Latino migrant farmworker is often filled with uncertainty surrounding job security and living arrangements, exposure to life-threatening working conditions and pesticides, and contact with a system that systematically disenfranchises Latino families to create a state of simultaneous dependency and exploitation (Salazar, Napolitano, Scherer, & McCauley, 2004). Latino migrant youth and their families experience limited upward mobility due to low pay, language barriers, segregation, and institutional exploitation of their weakened social position as either foreign-born or undocumented immigrants (Magaña & Hovey, 2003). Some of the most disadvantaged migrant families live in segregated farmworker camps and trailer sites isolated from the broader community. Many also suffer work-related health problems with little to no legal access to health care. According to a non-profit organization for migrant farmworkers (Migrant Health Promotion Salud, 2014), agriculture is one of the most accident-prone industries in the country, and farmworkers tend to have more frequent health problems than the general public. In many families, the combination of low wages, family need, and a lack of day-care options compels parents to send their children to work in the fields at young ages. Migrant Latino youth working in the fields also face the challenge of performing farmwork typically assigned to adults, and they do so equipped with inadequate training and equipment (Parra-Cardona, Bulock, Imig, Villarruel, & Gold, 2006). Lack of social empowerment leads Latino youth to be reluctant to demand that their employers uphold proper work standards: youths know they could easily be fired and replaced, or they may fear threats of deportation for either themselves or their families (Salazar et al., 2004).

Undocumented Status

Mexican migrants have been working in the US agricultural industry for several decades (González, 1994; Gamboa, 1990). However, growing efforts to fortify the US–Mexico border have made border crossings much more difficult, costly, and dangerous. These efforts to restrict entry have had the unintended consequence of transforming circular migratory flows into permanent US settlement and dispersing migrants and their families across the country (Massey, Durand, & Molone, 2002). During the 1990s and the first decade of the twenty-first century, increasing numbers of undocumented migrants created permanent homes in the United States (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994). Seeking jobs and lower costs of living, many settled in rural new destination areas (Light, 2006).

As the pool of undocumented children has grown, so has the public attention to their plight. An emerging body of research has brought attention to their untenable circumstances and promoted an understanding of how undocumented status intervenes in their coming-of-age trajectories (e.g., Abrego, 2006; Gonzales, 2010; Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008). This research has provided important insight into the ways in which the narrowing of legal options flattens future aspirations and expectations among youth (Abrego, 2006; Gonzales, 2011; Súarez-Orozco, Yoshikawa, Teranishi, & Suárez-Orozco, 2011). While this research on undocumented young people has shed important light on their largely urban experiences, a substantial portion of these young people is growing up in nonmetropolitan areas that lack adequate resources to support educational pursuits (Gonzales & Ruiz, 2014). Studying the experiences of undocumented youth in rural settings provides an important lens for understanding how immigration status is mediated by place. Current research points to three acute and overlapping disadvantages: early exposure to the legal limitations of unauthorized life, limited opportunities for educational assistance, and poor community infrastructure (Gonzales & Ruiz, 2014).

Previous studies of undocumented youth have found that the most significant barriers to pursuing higher education are cost and legal restrictions on financial aid and work (Conger & Chellman, 2013; Flores, 2010). However, the elements of rural environments provide additional disadvantages. Apart from the associated health risks with agricultural work discussed above, because many rural young people enter into agricultural work at early ages, they much earlier confront the constraints related to their own immigration status. Due to large-scale, visible immigration raids in the fields and factories, the risk of deportation has lasting and traumatic effects. The interplay between early awareness of legal limitations and heightened perceptions of danger of deportation fuels ongoing fear and insecurity which keep undocumented young people from envisioning themselves as part of the larger community with access to critical health, education, and employment resources.

Social Stratification Mechanisms

The social position variables outlined above impact child development through various mechanisms that were suggested in the original Integrative Model: racism, discrimination, prejudice, and oppression. We argue that the context of reception for rural immigrants is another mechanism that needs to be considered.

Racism

In the original model, racism was the main mechanism of social stratification based solely on racialized constructions and the enactment of an ideology that posits the superiority of certain races (Garcia Coll et al., 1996). Given the above discussion of the difficulties in the racial classification of Latinos, how racism operates in these contexts for Latinos is also complicated.

The racialized experiences of Latinos in rural, emerging communities are largely dependent on the racial composition of the community and how Latinos align themselves and are aligned by others in terms of race relations (e.g., Marrow, 2011; Winders, 2009). For example, in a rural sample in North Carolina, immigrant Latinos reported more positive racial relations in majority-white communities compared with communities that had more substantial black populations (Marrow, 2011). Black communities have tended to respond more negatively to the influx of a work force that is perceived as competitive and threatening to their economic livelihood and as not contributing to their community (i.e., not paying taxes) (Marrow, 2011; Torres, Popke, & Hapke, 2006). This tension is further fueled by white employers and landlords who are viewed as favoring Latinos over blacks (Torres et al., 2006). Additionally, many Latino immigrants distanced themselves culturally from African Americans who were viewed as more different from Latinos than white Americans were (McClain et al., 2006). Although the racial tensions between blacks and Latino immigrants may be apparent, it is important to acknowledge the long legacy of institutional racism that sets up these two nonwhite communities to fight for limited resources (Jackson, 2011).

In contrast, in majority-white communities, the economic threat posed by Latinos was less salient overall, leading to ambivalent racial relations in which poor whites exhibited more negative reactions to Latinos compared to higher SES whites (Marrow, 2011). Thus, class structure appears to be an important determinant of the experience of race in emerging immigrant, rural communities in the South, one that is further complicated by the introduction of a new “racial” group that does not fit clearly into the existing racial categories.

How racism operates for Latinos in these rural communities may look very different than the history of racism against African Americans, particularly in the South where the social structure is only beginning to respond to the influx of Latinos. It may also be that race is not the most salient characteristic that serves to disadvantage Latinos in these contexts; rather, it is the intersection of race with other positional variables (e.g., foreigner status, documentation status) that leads Latinos to experience institutional and educational racism (Lacy & Odem, 2009). Nevertheless, as noted above, skin color does predict economic outcomes for Latinos suggesting that racial characteristics play a role in disadvantaging Latino families.

Prejudice and the Context of Reception

Prejudice is defined as preconceived notions or judgments about a group based on social position variables (Garcia Coll et al., 1996). For Latinos in rural emerging communities, prejudice against them may be rooted in xenophobic attitudes that influence the context of reception. Current anti-immigrant attitudes were fueled by large waves of immigration during the economic boom and by the subsequent great recession, which was particularly salient in rural communities where Latino immigrants had started to become a significant portion of the population (Carr, Lichter, & Kefalas, 2012; Diaz, Saenz, & Kwan, 2011; Massey, 2008). Some in these communities feared that the immigrant population would bring crime, economic competition, and tax burdens and would resist integration by refusing to learn English or assimilate to “American” culture (Fennelly, 2008; Lacy & Odem, 2009). However, these beliefs were not widespread, and many whites and blacks in these communities reported positive attitudes toward new Latino immigrants due to beliefs about their economic contribution and their role in reviving rural communities (Griffith, 2008). Xenophobia is particularly problematic for undocumented Latinos as they are viewed as taking from the United States in terms of social services and not contributing to its infrastructure through taxes (Lacy & Odem, 2009).

Discrimination

Given the discussion on race relations and xenophobia, it is not surprising that in sociological work Latino adult immigrants in new destination rural communities report experiences of discrimination (e.g., Dalla, Ellis, & Cramer, 2005; Marrow, 2011; Torres et al., 2006). These experiences are reported in all aspects of life, including workplace, housing, school, government offices, obtaining medical care, at restaurants/stores, and in the community (Dalla et al., 2005; Marrow, 2011; Torres et al., 2006). Importantly, Latinos in these communities attribute these discriminatory acts to the various social positional variables noted above: race/ethnicity, social class, immigrant status, and documentation status (Dalla et al., 2005; Torres et al., 2006). Discrimination has been found to have different effects depending on nativity, type of receiving community, and generation (parent vs. child) which might reflect either actual differences in discrimination or differences in how the discrimination is interpreted. For example, a recent study examining foreigner-based discrimination among immigrant and second-generation college students suggests this may be the case (Armenta et al., 2013). This type of discrimination was associated with negative psychological outcomes only for second-generation youth and not for immigrant youth, indicating that immigrants may be better prepared for this type of discrimination perhaps because they feel it is expected as a foreigner. In a similar fashion, discrimination may differentially impact immigrant parents and their second-generation youth. Other work finds that Latino youth in rural emerging communities report more discrimination than those in established urban settings or urban emerging contexts (Potochnick et al., 2012). In one of our datasets in rural North Carolina, 80 % of Latino youth reported at least one act of peer discrimination , and this perception strongly predicted depressive symptoms, perceived barriers to college, and school belonging (Gonzales et al., 2013; Stein, Gonzalez, Cupito, Kiang, & Supple, 2013); however, mothers in this same sample reported much lower levels of discrimination. Thus, discrimination needs to be considered from both the parental and youth level in these contexts as these experiences may uniquely predict developmental outcomes.

Sociological research with adults in rural, emerging immigrant communities suggests that discrimination against Latinos comes from both white and black US Americans (e.g., Marrow, 2011). Other work suggests that nonimmigrant Latinos also discriminate against newly arrived or undocumented Latinos (Diaz et al., 2011). Consistent with this finding, in one of our pilot studies (Stein), Latino youth in a rural, emerging immigrant context reported being discriminated against equally by white, black, and Latino peers. It is unclear whether the psychological and educational impact of discrimination would differ depending on the race or nationality of the perpetrator. It is possible that discrimination by those in positions of power may be more threatening to social mobility (e.g., job discrimination), and discrimination from same ethnic peers may be more threatening to psychological well-being.

Oppression

Due to Congressional gridlock, the inability to overhaul federal immigration policy has compelled states and municipalities to manufacture their own responses to what they perceive as immigration-related problems (Olivas, 2007). While some localities have provided opportunities for undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses and to receive in-state tuition at public universities, others have attempted to criminalize unauthorized presence and to exclude undocumented immigrants from public universities. This “uneven geography” of enforcement and access demonstrates that where one resides within the United States dramatically shapes a multitude of experiences based on local impediments and opportunities (Coleman, 2012).

Over the past decade, the number of detentions and deportations in the United States has soared. There have been more removals between 2004 and 2014 than during the previous 110 years combined. Despite a stated policy of prioritizing criminals, the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) has focused on meeting annual deportation quotas by removing low-priority immigrants. These efforts have been achieved through the increased integration between immigration officials and local law enforcement. Swept up in these efforts were immigrants driving without licenses, making improper lane changes, or reporting crimes to the police, as well as those who were victims of theft and traffic accidents. While the fear of deportation is widespread among undocumented populations in metropolitan areas, high-profile immigration raids at rural meatpacking and poultry plants as well as enforcement efforts in large farming communities have elevated levels of fear among rural Latino populations.

Menjívar and Abrego (2012) argue that heightened immigration enforcement efforts inflict a “legal violence” upon individuals and families (see also Gonzales & Chavez, 2012). Through the cumulative effects of raids, apprehensions, detention, and deportation, this violence is manifested in poorer physical, economic, emotional, and psychological well-being among immigrants. It is not merely the actions themselves that affect immigrants but also the ongoing threat of such actions. These public policies are mobilized despite the fact that there is scientific evidence that pro-immigration policies are conducive to better educational outcomes for the children of immigrants, posing less cost to the state (Filindra, Blanding, & Garcia Coll, 2011).

Segregation

In the original theoretical model, segregation was theorized to mediate between social position variables and child outcomes because of its impact on the child’s ongoing transactions with the environment (Garcia Coll et al., 1996). Residential, economic, social, and psychological segregations are just as powerful in rural, emerging immigrant communities. The basic tenet is that these different types of segregation limit the access to critical developmental resources that affect all aspects of family life and therefore the children’s life outcomes.

Residential

Residential segregation is evident in rural communities throughout the United States, and this segregation is heightened in emerging immigrant communities (Lichter, 2012). In these communities, residential segregation is less dependent on economic factors than in established communities, where integration is more likely with increased income; instead, such segregation is more likely if there is a larger black population, more poverty, and more foreign-born residents (Lichter, Parisi, & Taquino, 2012). Thus, residential segregation is more likely when there is more “threat” to white culture because of a large minority or foreign population. Economic segregation also plays a role, as Latino residential segregation is more likely to occur in contexts with a higher percentage of low-wage jobs (Lichter et al., 2012). At the same time, Latino immigration is revitalizing rural communities by replacing the dwindling white native-born populations who are leaving economically deprived communities (Lichter, 2012), resulting in a community that will eventually be majority minority. If this pattern continues, Latinos in new destinations will start to resemble Latinos in established rural communities that are high-poverty and high-minority and will be segregated from other ethnic groups. Residential segregation also leads interactions between Latinos and nonwhites to occur primarily in more formalized contexts (e.g., teacher–parent), thus limiting other types of interethnic contact, and this lack of contact may have important implications for psychological segregation (Lichter, 2012).

Economic

As noted above, Latinos in emerging immigrant, rural communities experience economic segregation, as they are likely to be employed in lower social class jobs that further their isolation and limit their upward social mobility (Jensen, 2006; Pruitt, 2007). Latinos in these contexts are not likely to experience economic advancement (Jensen, 2006), suggesting that the prejudices about the type of work fit for Latinos impacts their opportunity for economic integration. Moreover, these prejudices get transmitted to their second-generation children in school contexts, as will be discussed below.

Social/Psychological

Economic and residential segregation foster social and psychological segregation (sense of being marginalized; emotional distance between groups) which is further exacerbated by limited English proficiency, cultural differences, and experiences of discrimination (e.g., Marrow, 2011; Millard, Chapa, & McConnell, 2004). Latino children have fewer barriers to cross-ethnic contact and integration than their parents, as they have better English language skills, quickly learn mainstream US cultural norms, and attend schools with white and black youth. Nevertheless, due to experiences of discrimination and exposure to prejudice and racism, rural Latino youth may continue to experience psychological segregation even in racially integrated schools, and this may be especially the case for undocumented youth who have real barriers to integration.

Promoting/Inhibiting Environments

Social position al variables directly influence child outcomes when they become actualized in the contextual environments of children (Garcia Coll et al., 1996). Inhibiting environments may undermine the development of Latino youth due to the lack of resources but also due to exposure to incongruent expectations, goals, and values between the social context and Latino families. Promoting environments have the resources to support development and are congruent with child and family expectations, goals, and values. We will focus on the contexts of school, neighborhood, and access to health care.

School

Over the last three decades, the convergence of two trends has given scholars and policy makers cause for concern: as Latinos are becoming the nation’s largest ethnic minority group and the fastest growing segment of its school-age population, their educational progress has flattened (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Latino children in rural areas face additional challenges. Compared to their urban counterparts, rural students are poorer, more geographically isolated, and less likely to have parents with college degrees (Graves, 2011). They are also more likely than urban youth to attend inadequate schools (Lichter & Johnson, 2007) and often lack access to advanced high school courses (Irvin, Meece, Byun, Farmer, & Hutchins, 2011). Rural minority youth often lack trust in the teachers in their lives. Research suggests that rural students from minority backgrounds perceive their teachers to be perpetrators of racial discrimination and unable to effectively teach to their needs (Hondo, Gardiner, & Sapien, 2008; Pizarro, 2005).

Particular challenges for migrant youth hinder their educational success. Because of limited educational attainment and social capital within migrant families, the absence of critical services, classes, and other resources leaves migrant children at a distinct disadvantage in securing the information and resources needed to finish high school and to make successful postsecondary transitions. In addition, multiple family moves lead children to constantly change schools; this disruption, coupled with the fact that schools are often overcrowded and lack appropriate language and relocation support systems, curbs children’s ability to obtain a consistent education (Gibson & Bejinez, 2002). Migrant children are also expected to help their parents by working at early ages. These youth often report feeling too tired after working in the fields to be able to be successful in school (Salazar et al., 2004).

The research on undocumented immigrant students’ educational experiences has drawn strong connections between school structure (i.e., mechanisms that facilitate access to school resources such as caring teachers, helpful counselors, and information about college) and educational success (Abrego, 2008; Gonzales, 2010). These findings support more general research on disadvantaged populations, suggesting that the presence of school or community-based mentors, supplemental educational programs, and positive support networks can effectively mitigate the negative effects of weak school structures (Portes & Fernandez-Kelly, 2008; Smith, 2008; Zhou, 2008).

Neighborhood

In these rural, new destination communities, segregated trailer parks and apartment complexes constitute the residential settings of Latinos (Marrow, 2011). While ethnic enclaves have been associated with some positive developmental outcomes in metropolitan communities (e.g., Kulis, Marsiglia, Sicotte, & Nieri, 2007), how these may function in rural, emerging immigrant communities remains to be tested. While it is likely that rural “ethnic enclaves” engender some of the same positive effects (e.g., social integration, sense of community), because residents tend to be immigrants with limited English proficiency and low levels of education, youth in these enclaves may experience additional risks (Pfeffer & Parra, 2009). For example, in one of our studies in a rural Southern community, a Latino adolescent male noted that while he wanted to grow up to be a psychologist, he was unsure of this aspiration as he had “never met a Hispanic doctor” and questioned their very existence. Thus, segregation in these communities in conjunction with the lack of a middle-class, professional Latino community may mitigate some of the positive effects of ethnic enclaves.

Health-Care Environment

A myriad of individual and systemic factors serve as barriers to health care for Latinos in rural communities (Cristancho, Garces, Peters, & Mueller, 2008). While some of these factors are true for other ethnic minority groups in the rural settings (e.g., issues with transportation, issues with discrimination), the communication barrier due to limited English proficiency on the part of the patients and the lack of skilled interpreters or Spanish-speaking services on the part of the provider lead to one of the largest barriers to health care (Cristancho et al., 2008). This barrier is coupled with the systemic factors of limited insurance coverage, lack of eligibility for public health assistance, and the high costs of health care, resulting in lower health-care access in these communities.

Adaptive Culture

Adaptive culture promotes positive developmental outcomes in youth in the face of these social stratification mechanisms. Adaptive culture is conceptualized to be a result of the interaction of a group’s collective history (cultural, political, and economic) and current contextual demands present in the surrounding environment; this interaction leads to cultural strategies to cope with these stressors (Garcia Coll et al., 1996).

Latinos in rural, emerging immigrant communities are currently developing strategies to adapt and survive in the United States. As noted in the original model (Garcia Coll et al., 1996), traditional and cultural legacies serve as a foundation for cultural adaptations and strategies. For Latinos in rural emerging immigrant settings, these adaptations likely emanate from their country of origin as they have limited knowledge of the strategies of other Latinos in the United States. For example, in many of these communities, Latinos hold traditional celebrations from their country of origin. Given that many of the residents in these communities are recent immigrants, the stronger ties to their country of origin provide a protective effect as the families are still steeped in cultural practices and have a dual frame of reference. However, because Latinos in these communities lack the same cultural resources located in established communities, they have to build the infrastructure to support community-wide events, yet building this infrastructure may also serve to foster community attachment and engagement. Economic and political histories as well as migration and acculturation patterns serve as another foundation for adaptive cultural strategies. For many Latino immigrants, the intersection of the economic and migration histories influences their current adaptation and integration into the community (Dalla et al., 2005). In addition, the political activities associated with the Dreamer movement are a good example of the adaptive cultural strategies enacted by these communities that are influenced by migration and political history.

Although past migration into rural communities tended to be due to seasonal farmwork resulting in temporary residence, many immigrants are now establishing themselves for the longer term by bringing their families (Jensen, 2006). Temporary workers who are primarily male and alone do not see themselves as building a life in the United States, but many immigrants are now choosing to remain in emerging immigrant, rural communities particularly to provide their children better opportunities (Dalla et al., 2005). This belief then fuels the establishment of community networks and resources. However, many adult immigrants remain ambivalent about their integration into the United States, as noted by one participant who stated that “my heart remains in Mexico” (p. 179) (Dalla et al., 2005).

Child Characteristics

As noted in the original model, children are not passive recipients of their contextual experiences and social positional factors; instead, characteristics of the child influence their environments and how these factors influence developmental outcomes (Garcia Coll et al., 1996). These processes likely operate in a similar fashion for Latino youth in new destination, rural communities, and thus we will not discuss them at length but refer the reader to the original article. However, as discussed above, both child nativity and undocumented status of the child are important to consider in future work as these can differ from the family status.

Family

The original model argued that minority families may demonstrate unique characteristics that can affect family processes (Garcia Coll et al., 1996). First, there is a greater reliance on extended kin in minority families. While some extended families immigrate together and can continue this pattern in rural communities, many families may experience a significant sense of loss when family members are left behind in the country of origin (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008). Moreover, this loss can lead to parenting disruptions as families need to navigate new familial roles resulting from the loss of extended kin and from the integration of women into the immigrant workforce (Helms, Supple, & Proulx, 2011). Additionally, the expectations that children stay close to their parents or live in the parental home until marriage may have implications for Latino children’s pursuit of higher education in these rural communities (Gonzalez et al., 2012).

Expectations regarding family roles are evident in the family values, beliefs, and goals that dictate the pattern of family cohesion, obligations, and support, which has been termed familism (Sabogal, Marín, Otero-Sabogal, Marín, & Perez-Stable, 1987). Familism translates to positive developmental outcomes in emerging immigrant communities as it is associated with fewer depressive symptoms and better school adaptation among youth (Stein et al., 2013). In addition, cultural values exalting the virtue of hard work as well as certain aspects of familism have been shown to safeguard Latino adolescents against negative outcomes associated with migrant farmwork, because youth holding these values derive a great deal of pride and a sense of belonging from working hard in order to help provide for their families (Parra-Cardona et al., 2006).

An important area for further inquiry will be to understand how racial and ethnic socialization occurs in rural, emerging immigrant contexts, as the majority of work examining these processes has been conducted in either established areas or urban areas (e.g., Hughes et al., 2006). Socialization in these communities will be influenced by the racial composition of the community as described above, as well as by racial tensions, experiences of discrimination, and prejudice toward Latino residents. Because many of these families are newly immigrated, socialization processes may differ as families will not have access to established cultural resources and a history of coping with discrimination and racism.

Conclusions

The current chapter addressed the theoretically important constructs that developmental scientists need to take into account when conducting research in rural, emerging immigrant destinations. In particular, researchers should consider the multilayered impact of social positional variables and how they operate in these contexts. Consistent with the Integrative Model, we propose that race, social class, immigrant status, documentation status, and migrant status, in addition to gender and ethnicity, influence the developmental trajectories of Latino youth in these communities through experiences of racism, prejudice, oppression, xenophobia, and discrimination. In these rural populations, which do not benefit from the historical legacy of Latino communities in the Northeast and Southwest, Latino youth and their families are more isolated and do not have access to a higher SES, more acculturated Latino community. Thus, racial and ethnic segregation place these families at heightened risk. These risks are evident in the multiple environments that these youth inhabit. Nevertheless, the cultural and familial assets in their families may serve to offset the risk they face and promote developmental competencies in these youth. Empirical work is needed to more closely examine the experiences of Latino youth in these contexts and to test the predictions of the current model.