The cross-border family separated by policy

The phone is the central object in many of these families. The parent calls every evening at a fixed time, or the parent records a voice note that the child plays at breakfast, or the family uses video at bedtime so the absent parent can say goodnight. The phone is reliable in a way the parent's body cannot be. It also flattens the parent into voice, image, and text, which is not a parent. Children develop relationships with this flattened version that are real and that they sometimes prefer, in adolescence, to the eventual three-dimensional return of the parent. The phone parent is more controllable, more predictable, easier to argue with from a distance. The flesh parent who arrives later is more demanding. This is one of the unexpected sorrows of reunification.

The money sent each month is also a message. It says I am working, I am thinking of you, I am holding the future. The amount varies and the variation is read by the family on the other end. A smaller amount one month means trouble. A larger amount means a windfall. The parent calibrates the sending against a complex set of pressures: the child's school fees, the grandmother's medicine, the cousin's wedding, the parent's own rent in the receiving country. The message embedded in the money is rarely articulated; it is performed, and the family on the other end performs the reception. This grammar of remittance is one of the under-studied languages of contemporary parenthood. It is taught nowhere and practiced everywhere.

The interview is the gate. The parent prepares for it for years and the child prepares for it for months and the officer decides in twenty minutes. The officer asks questions designed to detect fraud, which from the family's perspective are questions designed to disprove their love. What is your father's birthday. What was the name of your dog when you lived together. What color were the walls of the house. The child has to know answers that demonstrate intimacy, and the intimacy itself has been damaged by the years apart, so the preparation includes restoring small facts of family memory in advance of the interview that prove a closeness that the policy has been actively eroding. The cruelty of this is not accidental.

A relative dies in the home country and the parent cannot attend the funeral, because to leave the receiving country is to risk being unable to return. The parent grieves at distance, in a city that does not know the relative, surrounded by colleagues who do not know how to grieve with them. The child at home attends the funeral and watches the absent parent attend it on a phone screen propped against the wall of the funeral parlor. Both parties are present and both are absent. The grief is incomplete in a way the family will carry. Many parents who could not attend a parent's funeral describe this as the heaviest single moment of their migration, and they are usually right about that.

The parent abroad sometimes forms a new partnership. The family at home learns about it, sometimes through hints, sometimes through the appearance of a half-sibling in a photograph. The negotiation that follows is delicate and often goes badly. The original family experiences the new partnership as a betrayal of the project they thought they were collectively building. The parent abroad experiences the original family's reaction as a refusal to grant them a life. Both are right. There is no clean resolution. The families that survive this often do so because the parent abroad is honest, early, and continues to remit and to maintain communication. The families that do not survive it usually had insufficient honesty from one or both sides.

In many cross-border families, the eldest child at home takes on parenting tasks for younger siblings. They walk the small ones to school, they check the homework, they enforce the bedtime. They are children doing adult work, often before they are ready, and they are often praised for it in ways that lock them into the role beyond when it should have ended. When the family reunifies, the eldest sometimes finds that the absent parent wants to resume the parenting role and does not know how to step aside or to acknowledge what the eldest did. This is one of the quiet conflicts of post-reunification life. It can be repaired with conscious work, and often is not.

The child's papers are often the central pivot. A child with documents in the receiving country can be reunited; a child without cannot, except through extraordinary measures. A child born in the receiving country has different status from a child brought later. The legal categorization of a child decides where the child can live, what school they can attend, whether they can travel, whether they can work later. Parents become experts in these categories because they have to. They also discover that the categories sometimes change retroactively, or are applied unevenly, or are subject to discretionary decisions that depend on which officer sees the file. The parent's relationship to the law is therefore unstable in a way that parents in stable status do not have to live with.

Some children are educated partly in the sending country and partly in the receiving country. They arrive at the receiving school with foundations that do not match the curriculum, with a different alphabet sometimes, with a different mathematics sequence, with a different idea of what school is. Teachers in the receiving school often misread these children, marking them as behind when they are differently educated, or marking them as advanced in ways that turn out to be brittle. The parent has to advocate, in a language the parent is still acquiring, against an institutional inertia that does not have a category for the child's actual situation. Some parents do this well. Most do it imperfectly. The child carries the costs of the imperfection forward.

The child who entered without papers reaches sixteen, seventeen, eighteen and discovers what their status means in practice. They cannot apply for the jobs their classmates apply for. They cannot drive in many places. They cannot get the financial aid for college. Their friends who arrived in similar circumstances but with papers move into adulthood and they do not, or do so along a parallel track that closes off most of the futures the school encouraged them to imagine. Roberto Gonzales has documented this transition with care; it is one of the most underdiscussed political wounds of the current arrangement. The parents who brought these children, often years earlier, did not know this gate was coming. They learn about it with the child, in the same week the child does, and they grieve the futures together.

The parent is removed. The children remain, with the other parent if there is one, or with a relative, or in foster care. The household reorganizes around the absence. Visits to the country of removal are sometimes possible and sometimes not. The deported parent communicates by phone and learns the new geography of being a parent from the country they were taken to. Some of these parents continue to parent effectively across the new distance. Some do not, because the conditions of their return are too hard, or because the receiving country prevents the children from visiting, or because they form new lives that do not have room for the children left behind. Each of these outcomes is the outcome of a policy choice. Each is described by the receiving country as the parent's personal failure. The mismatch between the structural cause and the individual blame is one of the durable injustices of the contemporary system.

The family is together again. The first year is harder than the brochures imply. The child who was twelve in the photograph is now sixteen in the apartment, and is angry, and is not fluent in the receiving country's language, and misses the grandmother who raised them. The parent who fought for seven years to bring the child is exhausted and was hoping for gratitude. The receiving country provides almost no support for the work of family reintegration; the assumption is that being a family is automatic. It is not. Families that survive the first year often do so because at least one adult in the household had the resources to seek counseling or to find a community of other reunified families. Families that do not, sometimes do not survive at all; the reunified child returns to the country of origin, having concluded that the reunion was a mistake.

When the grandmother who raised the child dies, the family discovers what she was. She was the constant when the parent was the visitor. She was the one who knew the child's school friends and the names of the teachers and the small medical history. The parent inherits, after her death, a relationship with the child that the grandmother had been mediating for them in ways neither parent nor child had quite recognized. The grief of losing the grandmother is therefore double: the loss of the woman herself, and the loss of the translator. The parent who took her presence for granted, and many did, finds themselves trying to parent a child they do not know as well as they thought they did. This is one of the most common and least discussed transitions in the cross-border family.

The cross-border family does not exist by accident. It exists because policies were chosen, and the policies were chosen because they served interests that did not include the family. Naming this is the first political move available to the families themselves and to those who would stand with them. The second move is to insist on family-reunification policies that are faster, more humane, less expensive, less arbitrary. The third move is to recognize remittance economies for what they are, which is a transfer of care work from sending countries to receiving countries, accomplished by separating the worker from their own children. None of these moves is currently on the agenda of any major receiving country at the scale that would matter. The families continue to be parented across borders, and the parents continue to revise, daily, what parenthood can be when the geography of love has been set by people who do not love anyone in your house.

1. Dreby, Joanna. Divided by Borders: Mexican Migrants and Their Children. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010. 2. Gonzales, Roberto G. Lives in Limbo: Undocumented and Coming of Age in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2015. 3. Menjívar, Cecilia. Fragmented Ties: Salvadoran Immigrant Networks in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. 4. Menjívar, Cecilia. Enduring Violence: Ladina Women's Lives in Guatemala. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. 5. Shah, Sonia. The Next Great Migration: The Beauty and Terror of Life on the Move. New York: Bloomsbury, 2020. 6. Vince, Gaia. Nomad Century: How Climate Migration Will Reshape Our World. New York: Flatiron Books, 2022. 7. Press, Eyal. Dirty Work: Essential Jobs and the Hidden Toll of Inequality in America. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2021. 8. Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. 9. Abu-Lughod, Lila. Do Muslim Women Need Saving? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013. 10. Enloe, Cynthia. Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women's Lives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. 11. Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf, 1999. 12. de Waal, Alex. Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2018.