This article was downloaded by: [Peter Mascini]On: 11 June 2014, At: 08:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Ethnic and Migration StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjms20

Trajectories of Economic Integration ofAmnestied Immigrants in RotterdamMasja van Meeteren, Peter Mascini & Devorah van den BergPublished online: 09 Jun 2014.

To cite this article: Masja van Meeteren, Peter Mascini & Devorah van den Berg (2014): Trajectoriesof Economic Integration of Amnestied Immigrants in Rotterdam, Journal of Ethnic and MigrationStudies, DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2014.924846

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.924846

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Trajectories of Economic Integration ofAmnestied Immigrants in RotterdamMasja van Meeteren, Peter Mascini andDevorah van den Berg

Drawing on 15 in-depth interviews with immigrants who were legalised through a one-off collective amnesty issued by the Dutch government in 2007, this article proposes atentative typology of three types of immigrants in terms of their economic integration(self-sufficient, dependent, and isolated) and the trajectories that led to these differences.An analysis of immigrants’ characteristics and experiences before and after legalisationsuggests that these are closely related. The three trajectories consist of differentinteractions between immigrants’ access to and mobilisation of cultural, economic andsocial capital, their psychological and psychosomatic problems, and their attributionstyles. Our findings show how interactions between these factors reinforced economicintegration (in case of self-sufficient immigrants), undermined it (in case of isolatedimmigrants), or resulted in mixed outcomes (in case of dependent immigrants). As such,this study contributes to our understanding of how different factors previously found to beassociated with the economic integration of amnestied immigrants relate to each other.

Keywords: Economic Integration; Amnesty; Attribution Theory; Immigration; Forms ofCapital

Introduction

Governments of countries such as Belgium, Greece, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands andthe USA have issued one-off collective amnesties in which illegal immigrants orimmigrants with a vulnerable legal status were legalised under specific conditions(Sunderhaus 2007). Such mass legalisation programmes are not confined toMediterranean states, as is sometimes assumed, but are widespread among developedmigration-receiving countries (Sciortino 2012). Over the last 30 years, more than

Masja van Meeteren is Assistant Professor of Criminology at Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands. PeterMascini is Professor of Empirical Legal Studies and Associate Professor of Sociology at Erasmus UniversityRotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Devorah van den Berg is Tutor of Sociology at Erasmus UniversityRotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Correspondence to: Masja van Meeteren, Leiden University, Leiden,The Netherlands. E-mail: m.j.van.meeteren@law.leidenuniv.nl

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.924846

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

8 million immigrants in the European Union and the USA have been regularised bymeans of 34 mass regularisations (Duman 2014). Whereas most amnesties primarilyconcerned one type of legalisation, such as illegal labour migration flows (southernEurope and France), humanitarian reasons (most of western Europe), rejected asylumseekers (the Netherlands), or family reasons (France) (Baldwin-Edwards andKraler 2009), others combined the legalisation of different types of immigrants(Belgium, USA).

In part, states legalise immigrants through such collective amnesties ‘to put an endto the social exclusion and marginality that characterises [this] population’ (Sciortino2012, 369). However, as ‘the consequences of regularisation remain inadequatelyexplored’ (Sciortino 2012, 370), it is uncertain whether or not collective amnesties infact improve the economic status of the immigrants involved, and, more importantly,for what reasons.

Existing research indicates that, overall, amnesty is indeed associated with betterpay, higher job status, increased job mobility and better returns on qualifications(Massey and Donato 1993; Tienda and Singer 1995; Powers and Seltzer 1998;Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark 2002; Orrenius and Zavodny 2004). After legalisation,immigrants allegedly are better able to acquire cultural capital in terms of education,language skills, and job competences. Moreover, amnesty would enable immigrants touse their cultural capital more effectively as it makes them less vulnerable toexploitation and less dependent on their own ethnic community (Cobb-Clark andKossoudji 2000). Some researchers furthermore state that immigrants who speak thelanguage of the settlement country earn a significantly higher wage premium afteramnesty (see e.g., Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark 2002; but see Amuedo-Dorantes andBansak 2011 for contrary indications).

However, other studies have shown that amnesty does not involve upward socialmobility for all immigrants involved (Hagan 1994; Powers, Seltzer, and Shi 1998;Glytsos 2005). For example, Amuedo-Dorantes and Bansak (2011, 467) claim that‘amnesty may have improved labour market efficiency by increasing transparency, jobmobility, and the quality of job matches for some, while also reducing labour marketparticipation for others’. Marx, Corluy, and Verbist (2008) distinguish successful, hybridand failing trajectories of integration among regularised immigrants. Thus, althoughamnesties are shown to improve the economic status of immigrants at a general level,outcomes vary considerably between immigrants. How these differences in economicintegration after collective amnesties come about is less well understood, however.

The aim of this research is to analyse the trajectories leading to differences ineconomic integration among a particular group of amnestied immigrants: asylumseekers and rejected asylum seekers who were legalised during the one-off collectiveamnesty in the Netherlands in 2007 and who live in Rotterdam. Through in-depthinterviews with 15 of these immigrants, we examined how their economic integrationdiffers and what mechanisms contributed to these differences. We not only focusedon their current situation, but also took into account experiences that took placebefore their legalisation, on the assumption that these experiences might continue to

2 M. van Meeteren et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

affect their lives thereafter. Our central research question is: which ideal-typicaltrajectories of integration can be distinguished among amnestied immigrants living inRotterdam and which mechanisms play a role in shaping these different trajectories?

Amnestied Asylum Seekers in the Netherlands: Interviews and Analysis

Immigrants who had applied for asylum prior to April 2001 and who were able toprove that they had stayed in the Netherlands even though their asylum request wasrejected, or who had not been rejected yet, were able to apply for the amnesty.1 Thethird author conducted fifteen in-depth interviews with immigrants who werelegalised through this amnesty. The interviews took place in 2010; roughly two-and-a-half to three years after legalisation.

For the selection of the respondents, 65 paper files of amnestied immigrants wererandomly handpicked from a cabinet containing the files of 2556 amnestiedimmigrants in the municipal archive in Rotterdam. These files mention their dateof birth, country of origin, address and telephone number. The only eligibilityrequirements were that the immigrants had to be of adult age at the time of theamnesty and had to be younger than forty-five at the time of the interview(thus excluding people with limited chances of success on the labour market due toa more advanced age), and that the file contained an address and telephone numberso that potential respondents could be reached. These 65 amnestied immigrants werethen sent a letter explaining our research, along with an indication that they couldexpect a phone call to schedule an appointment. Fifteen immigrants agreed to beinterviewed. Eight refused and others proved difficult to reach.2 The interviews lastedbetween one and two-and-a-half hours. Some interviews took place at therespondent’s own home, others at their work place or at our university. All interviewswere recorded and transcribed verbatim.

The interviews were semi-structured by means of a topic list and open-endedquestions, leaving ample room for respondents to share ‘their story’, which we knewfrom prior research would be important (Marx, Corluy, and Verbist 2008). Duringthe interviews, respondents talked about their lives in the country of origin and theirexperiences in the Netherlands, both before and after legalisation. In terms ofeconomic integration we asked them to describe how they make a living. The topicsregarding possible mechanisms shaping their varying patterns of economic integra-tion were derived from a literature review on factors that allegedly contribute orinhibit economic integration. The literature has repeatedly shown that different formsof capital (social, cultural and economic) are related to amnestied migrants’ chancesof economic integration (Cobb-Clark and Kossoudji 2000; Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark2002; Marx, Corluy, and Verbist 2008; Amuedo-Dorantes and Bansak 2011; VanMeeteren 2014; Van Meeteren, Engbersen, and Van San 2009). However, researchfindings do not always point in the same direction and an understanding of howthese relations are shaped by different underlying mechanisms is still lacking.Attempting to uncover some of the mechanisms shaping such relations, we therefore

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

asked respondents to tell us about their social network, their experiences with jobs,education, and money issues, and to reflect on the role these have played in theirintegration trajectories.

Furthermore, our respondents travelled to the Netherlands to seek asylum, fleeingconflict areas, which may have left marks on their lives. Previous research hasestablished that many asylum seekers struggle with negative experiences, unresolvedemotions, and traumas (Al-Ali, Black, and Koser 2001; Bloch 2008; Mascini, Fermin,and Snick 2012), which may affect their economic integration (De Vroome and VanTubergen 2010). In addition, research shows that immigrants’ aspirations and theirintegration processes are intertwined (Van Meeteren 2014). Respondents were,therefore, explicitly asked how they had perceived the periods before and after theirlegalisation, particularly with regard to their aspirations, hopes and anxieties, andhow they handled these. Finally, given that the lives of our respondents not onlyinvolve experiences in the Netherlands, transnational contacts and orientations werediscussed as well (Mascini, Fermin, and Snick 2012).

Respondents differed with respect to age, educational level, gender, country oforigin, and residence status preceding legalisation. Five respondents were female and tenwere male, and their length of stay varied from nine to seventeen years (see Table 1).Eight respondents originated from Africa, four from Asia, two from Europe, and onefrom Latin America. Furthermore, seven respondents had an illegal residence status aftertheir asylum application had been rejected, and eight respondents had not yet beenrejected or granted asylum.

We analysed the data using grounded theory methods. The aim of this theory is ‘toform analytical categories—typologies—by constant comparison of differences andcommonalities between observations and cases yielding ‘a “meaningful” picture,abetted by apt illustrations that enable one to grasp the reference in terms of one’sown experience’ (Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2006, 38). One of its core principles isthat data collection and analysis are not separate phases in the research process, buttake place simultaneously (Charmaz 2006; Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2006). While theresearch process was unfolding we gradually became aware that economic integrationoutcomes were not so much shaped by the respondents’ aspirations as by theirdivergent attribution styles. From the stories our respondents told us, it appeared thatthe decisions respondents made, both before and after legalisation, were inextricablyintertwined with the different ways in which respondents attribute responsibility fortheir economic achievements. Attribution theory focuses on the attribution of events,achievements and positions to specific causes and on the effects thereof on people’smotivations for behaviour (Heider 1958). While the element of attribution styles wasnot initially part of our research focus, we gradually became aware of its role as weinductively compared the different stories our respondents told us.

We suspect that we had not yet reached saturation after the data collection processwas completed. However, for practical reasons it was not possible to interview morerespondents. This means that our findings have an exploratory character, so thatgeneral conclusions based on our findings must be treated with caution (an issue to

4 M. van Meeteren et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

Table 1. Main background characteristics of respondents.

Resp. Gender AgeCountryof origin Civil status

Yearof

arrival

Statusbefore

legalisationEducational levelcountry of origina

Educational levelat time interviewa

Economicintegration

Tumaco Male 22 Columbia Single 1993 Illegal None Post-secondary vocationaltraining

Self-supporting

Sétif Male 41 Algeria Married,children

1995 Illegal Primary school Primary school Self-supporting

Koidu Male 30 SierraLeone

Single 2001 Asylum None Upper secondary school Self-supporting

Gjilani Male 31 Yugoslavia Married,children

1993 Asylum Primary school Upper secondary school Self-supporting

Enugu Male 29 Nigeria Single 1998 Illegal Higher education Higher education DependentAnlu Female 25 China Single parent 2000 Asylum Low education Upper secondary school Self-supportingKankan Female 29 Guinea Single parent 1997 Asylum None Lower secondary school IsolatedChangshu Male 30 China Single 1998 Illegal Low education Lower secondary school Self-supportingSodoké Male 36 Togo Single 2000 Illegal Higher education Higher education DependentNyala Female 36 Sudan Married,

children2000 Asylum Higher education Higher education Isolated

Sari Female 33 Iran Partner 1998 Asylum Lower secondaryschool

Postgraduate tertiaryeducation

Self-supporting

Rijeka Female 36 Yugoslavia Single parent 1999 Illegal Lower secondaryschool

Lower secondary school Isolated

Kenema Male 35 SierraLeone

Single 2000 Asylum Higher education Higher education Dependent

Izmir Male 32 Turkey Single 2001 Illegal Higher education Higher education DependentKhartoum Male 45 Sudan Married,

children1997 Asylum Higher education Higher education Dependent

aThis concerns highest education followed, they did not necessarily obtain a diploma (yet).

Journalof

Ethnicand

Migration

Studies5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

which we will return in the concluding section). Nevertheless, our constant comparisonmethod did yield insight into three types of economic integration with correspondingideal-typical integration trajectories, as we shall discuss next.

Self-supporting, Dependent, and Isolated Immigrants

Although our respondents were all granted amnesty in 2007, they substantiallydiffered in their economic integration two-and-a-half to three years after theirlegalisation. We examined their economic integration by questioning them abouttheir economic self-reliance—the ways in which they sustain themselves—and theways in which they participate in society through work and education. As a result, wewere able to differentiate three categories of amnestied immigrants in terms of theirextent of economic integration (see Table 1).

We have coined the first category (seven respondents) self-supporting immigrants.They hold permanent jobs or are enrolled in education. The work they do iscomparable to the work they did prior to legalisation. As a result, they feel that theamnesty has not changed much. Self-supporting immigrants have deliberately chosennot to join any programme offered to them by the municipality. As Sétif 3 said: ‘They[the municipality] offered me a job at [city cleaning agency]. (…) That is not a realjob and it has no future. (…) That is why I looked for a job myself’.

We designated the second category (five respondents) dependent immigrants. Likethe self-supporting immigrants, they have work or are enrolled in education. How-ever, in contrast to self-supporting immigrants, they did not achieve this on their ownbut were assisted by the municipality; they participate in temporary reintegrationprogrammes, which mean that their jobs and trainings are subsidised. They feel thatthey still need government support in order to participate in the labour market or toattend school. Izmir, for example, remarked: ‘to find a suitable job is still not easy.(…) I cannot do that yet. For this I need help’. The programmes they participate inare temporary, they are usually paid the minimum wage, and they receive all kinds ofbenefits for rent and care. They underestimated the obligations that come with a legalstatus, and have or have had problems paying their taxes or insurance premiums. Asa result, they manage to get by financially but still have debts. Dependent immigrantsare thus not self-reliant like the self-supporting immigrants are.

We have coined the third category (three respondents) isolated immigrants. Theyneither participate through work or education, nor are economically self-reliant.They live on social benefits and their financial situation is weak. Kankan explainedthat it is difficult to get by because of the monthly sum of money that is taken fromhis account to pay off his debts. Like the dependent immigrants, they have problemswith the new obligations they face as legal citizens. They have low incomes and debts,and they sometimes neglect to pay bills. As a result, they lack control of theirfinancial situation and do not manage to save any money.

All in all, self-supporting immigrants have become self-reliant and activelyparticipate in society through work or education; dependent immigrants are not

6 M. van Meeteren et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

self-reliant but participate through government-sponsored work or education; andisolated immigrants neither have work nor are enrolled in education, and have notbecome self-reliant (see Table 2).

This raises the question of how these differences in economic integration can beunderstood. Which trajectories led up to these differences? The next sections dealwith this question.

Forms of Capital

Extant research has pointed at the role of different forms of capital in immigrantintegration processes (Portes 1998; Briggs-De Souza 1998; Van Meeteren, Engbersen,and Van San 2009). In our research, Bourdieu’s (1986) forms of capital appeared toplay a role as well. We have adopted his framework distinguishing cultural, economicand social capital, and studied how these affected the integration of our respondents.

Cultural Capital

To analyse how ‘incorporated’ cultural capital—long-lasting dispositions of the mindand body—possibly benefited our respondents, we asked them about their educa-tional level, profession, work experience, and language skills (see also Van Meeteren,Engbersen, and Van San 2009).

The self-supporting immigrants had low levels of education when they arrived inthe Netherlands. However, prior to legalisation all but one followed education in theNetherlands, ranging from vocational training to education at the academic level.Four of the self-supporting immigrants were under eighteen when they arrived. Theywere provided with the opportunity to enrol in education and were granted ascholarship by the Dutch government. The other immigrants, who were older thaneighteen when they arrived, paid for their own education or received a grant from theFoundation for Refugee Students, after putting a lot of effort into getting one.Through their studies they also learned the Dutch language.

Self-supporting immigrants furthermore sought to improve their job competences.Some respondents did internships as part of their studies in the Netherlands, whichallowed them to participate in the formal economy and to gain relevant workexperience. Those who did not have this possibility worked in the informal economy.Their motivation to work was to avoid economic dependency. Tumaco and hisparents, for example, considered the option of turning to organisations that help

Table 2. Three types of economic integration of amnesties immigrants.

Self-reliance Participation

Self-supporting + +Dependent − +Isolated − −

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

those in need but chose to work instead, because they ‘did not want to beg for help’.Self-supporting immigrants who were still in the asylum procedure were eligible forsocial benefits. Nevertheless, they chose to work because they wanted to make someextra money and, more importantly on their own account, to invest in theirknowledge and skills. As Gjilani explained:

I went to work four days a week, although actually you did not have the right to work.I did some sort of internship with my old boss. I could work there and learn things,which was better than to sit at home (…) For me it was especially about learning. Tolearn the trade and to know how it works. (…) This way I could gain some experience,like learning how to associate with customers. When I received my papers I could startmy own business right away.

Changshu also explained how the job competences he acquired before legalisationhelped him get his present job:

Because I used to work in Chinese restaurants, searching for a job is a bit easier, becauseyou have learned almost everything already. I have worked in the kitchen for years.I had to cut and cook every day. Now I am a chef. Therefore, finding work is not sodifficult for me anymore.

Because self-supporting immigrants acquired cultural capital prior to legalisation,they were able to find a job when they were legalised without assistance from the localgovernment. They managed to move up from insecure jobs to more secure jobs andsome got jobs that better matched their qualifications.

In comparison to self-supporting immigrants, dependent immigrants did not workin the Netherlands before they were legalised, or only occasionally. They felt that theywere overqualified for the jobs that were available to them and feared that working onthe informal labour market could reduce their chances of obtaining a legal status(see also Van Meeteren 2014). Sodoké said: ‘You could always work somewhere, butthen you had the chance of getting caught. And what kind of work could you do?Nothing noteworthy’.

Dependent migrants brought more cultural capital with them from their country oforigin than self-supporting immigrants did. They were better educated and they heldbetter positions. However, prior to their legalisation they were not enrolled ineducation in the Netherlands apart from taking a language course in the asylumcentre. They were all older than eighteen when they arrived in the Netherlands. Forthis reason the government did not sponsor education for them. Unlike someself-supporting immigrants who managed to fund their education on their own,dependent immigrants did not work, and therefore, did not have the money to payfor their education. In addition, they did not apply for scholarships as did some of theself-supporting immigrants.

After their legalisation, dependent immigrants encountered the problem that theirdiplomas from their country of origin and their work experience were not

8 M. van Meeteren et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

acknowledged on the Dutch labour market (see also Friedberg 2000; Lamba 2003;Zimmermann, Zimmerman, and Constant 2007). For their diplomas and experienceto be recognised they required additional education. Prior to legalisation, they werenot able to gain access to education due to a lack of finances, of government support,or of an awareness of other possibilities. After legalisation, they found that themunicipality refused to fund the education of their choice. Those who wanted tostudy wished to do so at the same level as they did in their country of origin, in orderto live up to their potential. Izmir explained: ‘When I do something for many hoursper week I want to spend my time usefully. Then I really want to learn something’.However, such programmes for the highly-skilled tend to take relatively long. Thereintegration schemes that the municipality prefers to work with, involve short-termprogrammes focusing on low-skilled or medium-skilled labour, allowing relativelyswift entry into the labour market. As dependent migrants do not yet have thefinancial means to pay for the education they prefer, this implies that although someof the dependent immigrants have university degrees from their country of origin,they participate in lower-level reintegration programmes. Hence, since dependentimmigrants are unable to use the cultural capital they had acquired in their country oforigin and because they had acquired little additional education or work experiencebefore they received amnesty, they believe they still need assistance in finding work.

The isolated immigrants came to the Netherlands with divergent educational levels.One of them was seventeen when she arrived, which is why she could study for a fewmonths. As she did not have the money to fund this study herself, she quit uponturning eighteen. The other two did not want to follow any education.

In contrast to the dependent immigrants, these isolated immigrants indicated thatthey wanted to work prior to legalisation. Unlike the self-supporting immigrants whoprimarily wanted to work in order to educate themselves, the motives of the isolatedimmigrants were purely financial. Nevertheless, they either had not worked at all oronly very little. Rijeka said this was because she was ‘busy with surviving’, and theother respondents indicated they had little opportunities to find work. Althoughisolated immigrants had not gained access to additional cultural capital in theNetherlands prior to legalisation, this does not add much to our understanding ofwhy isolated immigrants hardly participate in society and are not self-reliant today.As we shall see later on, their lack of social capital, their psychological problems, andtheir attribution style inhibit economic integration.

Economic Capital

Self-supporting immigrants did not have any debts before they were legalised becausethey had always tried to prevent this by working. In contrast, both the dependent andthe isolated immigrants had debts before they were legalised and they were often stillindebted at the time of the interview. The difference between the dependent and theisolated immigrants is that the debts functioned as an incentive to participate in areintegration programme for the dependent immigrants only:

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

My asylum application was denied six years ago. I had to borrow money then. It wasvery hard for us. (…) And now I have to repay everything. (…) By enrolling in thisprogramme I can pay off my debts. (Sodoké)

As we shall see further on, isolated immigrants have other problems that make itdifficult for them even to register for a reintegration programme.

Social Capital

Social capital mobilised through migrant networks often helps immigrants to settledown in a destination country. Migrant networks composed of family or communitymembers facilitate the integration of newcomers by providing information about thenew society and by offering assistance, for example, with housing and employment(Massey et al. 2005). However, all of our respondents came to the Netherlandswithout knowing anyone there, arriving alone or with their parents and/or siblings.While they all started in the Netherlands without a social network, throughout theirstay the three types of immigrants built up different ideal-typical social networks.4

Prior to legalisation, self-supporting immigrants managed to build relatively largeand heterogeneous social networks from which they could mobilise both socialsupport and social leverage. Social support helps people ‘get by’ or to cope, whilesocial leverage helps people to ‘get ahead’. In other words, social support ensures thatmigrants’ basic needs are met, whereas networks that provide social leverage can helppeople enter the labour market (Briggs-De Souza 1998). Actively participating insociety, self-supporting immigrants received support from people they met at work orschool, in sport clubs or on the street. As Gjilani described: ‘every morning they [therespondent’s mother and his Dutch neighbour] bumped into each other in thesubway and then they got to know each other. (…) Then they [the neighbours]visited us for a few times and drank coffee with us. They asked how we were doingand gave us a lot of things, like clothes’.

Self-supporting immigrants also managed to mobilise social leverage before theywere legalised. For example, Tumaco explained that at the tennis club where he was abar tender and gave tennis lessons, people also helped him to get jobs in domesticwork. After their legalisation, self-supporting immigrants still use the social leveragethey accumulated prior to legalisation to find work. Sétif said, for example:‘Acquaintances of friends of mine pointed this job out to me. They know the bossof the restaurant’. And Anlu met a Dutch woman, through a friend of hers, who waswilling to babysit her child. This enabled her to work during the weekends.

Self-supporting immigrants indicate they still have many friends with differentethnic backgrounds and they emphasise that they also have many contacts withDutch natives. Their extended and open social networks continue to facilitate entry tothe labour market. Furthermore, through their activities on the labour market, theirsocial network continues to grow, which offers new opportunities in terms of socialleverage. Sari illustrates: ‘In the workplace you get to know a lot of people, yourcolleagues, you make new friends in a different field. (…). I am a member of the

10 M. van Meeteren et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

running team of [the company where the respondent works] and we train regularlyand participate in competitions. (…) It is not that my social network is multiplied byfour, but being a part of this team offers diverse opportunities [for her professionalfuture]’.

Prior to legalisation, dependent immigrants built social networks consistingprimarily of fellow countrymen they met at the asylum centre and by joiningassociations focusing on their country of origin. Khartoum indicated that he lookedfor fellow countrymen when he was in an asylum centre because ‘when you are in anasylum centre, you are excluded from the surrounding areas (…) To meet peopleI became a member of a Sudanese association in the Netherlands (…) Every fourweeks we have a meeting and then we talk about all sort of things, like bringing upchildren’. Kenema said, it gave him support, especially by being able to talk about hisproblems. As dependent immigrants did not work or go to school and stayed longerin the asylum centre, they did not build a social network beyond these fellowcountrymen, like the self-supporting immigrants did. Dependent immigrants onlyparticipated in close-knit networks of people who had a weak position on the labourmarket. Hence, their networks could not provide social leverage prior to legalisation,but they did offer emotional support. As discussed below, the emotional supportobtained from these networks appeared decisive in dealing with the psychologicalproblems that these immigrants often encounter. In addition to emotional support,their networks provided social support and assistance relating to food, clothes, andhousing. Those who had an illegal status prior to legalisation combined social supportfrom churches and organisations that assist immigrants with support from theirpersonal networks. Those who were still in the asylum procedure at the time oflegalisation received support from the Dutch authorities.

At the time of the current research, dependent migrants’ social networks still didnot extend beyond close ties with people sharing their weak labour market position.Their networks had become less homogeneous than before – now that theyparticipate in reintegration programmes – but unlike the self-supporting immigrants,they lack ‘weak’ ties to actors that could offer opportunities on the labour market(Granovetter 1973). Tellingly, dependent immigrants still do not have ties to peoplein the profession that they themselves practised in their origin country.

Prior to legalisation, isolated immigrants spent a lot of their time in and aroundasylum centres, where opportunities for building social networks offering support orleverage are not readily available. They indicated that, as a result, they hardlyaccumulated any form of social capital before they were legalised. This lack of socialcapital seems to have inhibited their labour market participation prior to legalisation.Unlike dependent immigrants, who did not want to work prior to legalisation,isolated immigrants wanted to work but felt unable to do so. For example, theystruggled with the question of how to combine work with family, indicating that theydid not know anyone who could babysit their children. In turn, their limited socialnetworks and their lack of economic participation prior to legalisation partly explainwhy they were not able to mobilise social capital thereafter.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

Not all isolated immigrants were always socially isolated, though. Rijeka indicatedthat prior to legalisation she combined social support from organisations that assistimmigrants with support through her network, like the dependent immigrants did.She came into contact with a Yugoslav social network through the Dutch Council ofRefugees. Rijeka said: ‘I slept ten days in the house of one Yugoslav family and then afew months in the house of another family. (…) I lived in ten different houses of tendifferent Yugoslav people’. However, after a while Rijeka distanced herself from herfellow countrymen because ‘people gossiped and I did not like that (…) Peoplehelped each other less and less and I had a lot of bad experiences’. Because she movedaway from other Yugoslav people and because ‘it is hard to make new friends’, hersocial network has become very limited.

Like Rijeka, isolated immigrants’ lack of a social network has to do with theirtrouble trusting other people (compare Coleman 1988; Portes 1998). As Kankan said:‘I do have contacts, but only at a distance (…) Maybe it is not because of the peoplebut because of me, I think I have kept myself at a distance for all those years’. Isolatedimmigrants’ lack of social ties in general isolates them and makes it difficult toactively participate in society. They hope to participate more, but also feel afraid andincapable of doing so. In turn, their lack of participation reinforces their isolation.

Psychological and Psychosomatic Problems

Many respondents suffered psychological or psychosomatic problems before theywere legalised. However, the origin of these problems differed between the types ofimmigrants.

Some self-supporting immigrants indicated that they experienced these problemsbecause of the uncertainty and tediousness inherent to the lengthy asylum procedure.So once they were legalised, their psychological complaints disappeared. Sari said:‘I had many psychological problems. (…) Then the amnesty came. It arrived just intime I think’. When asked how she recovered she said: ‘It was because of the amnesty.(…) For me it was something that really helped me out’.

Several dependent immigrants had also experienced psychological problemsbecause of the wearisome asylum procedure. Others suffered from traumatisingexperiences in their country of origin as well. Apart from the help they sometimesreceived from professional psychologists, dependent immigrants indicated that theymanaged to deal with their problems because they received emotional support fromfellow countrymen. This support enabled them to talk regularly about what they hadbeen through in their country of origin and about their situation in the Netherlands,which helped them to cope with their problems. As Kenema explained: ‘When I camehere I had many things in my head about the war. (…) I found it difficult to get thesethings out of my head. So I talked about it with fellow countrymen. And that helped’.

Like the others, isolated immigrants had psychological problems before they werelegalised, but unlike the others, they still suffered from these after legalisation. They

12 M. van Meeteren et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

also experienced stress because of their uncertain legal status; however, the isolatedimmigrants indicated that the amnesty has actually added to their stress:

I felt a lot of tension because I did not have a residence permit. You see that otherpeople are deported and because of this I felt tension. (…). Suddenly there was theamnesty. I had been depressed for years. With the amnesty everything suddenlyhappened which made it very busy in my head. That is why I fell ill. I still see apsychologist regularly. (Kankan)

The mental problems experienced by the isolated immigrants appear to go hand inhand with physical problems, such as headaches, spinal pain, neck pain, andinsomnia. All these problems make it difficult for them to make friends and toparticipate on the labour market. Rijeka said, she was happy to receive amnesty afterher war experiences, having been pushed around with procedures and having lived inthe streets for two-and-a-half years. However, she said: ‘I have lost my health. This isthe price I had to pay. Because of these problems I cannot work’.

The psychological stress of self-supporting immigrants was relieved through theamnesty. Dependent immigrants were able to cope with their mental issues by talkingto fellow countrymen before and after amnesty. Isolated immigrants lacked suchsocial capital all along, making it harder for them to overcome their psychologicalproblems. For them, the amnesty actually added to their psychological problems,making it more difficult for them to acquire forms of capital and to participate on thelabour market.

Attributing Responsibility for Economic Achievements

From the stories our respondents told us, it appears that the decisions respondentsmade throughout their trajectory (both before and after legalisation) on whether ornot to acquire specific forms of capital are inextricably linked to the different waysin which respondents attribute responsibility for their economic achievements. Inaddition, respondents’ divergent abilities to overcome psychological problems aresimilarly interwoven with their divergent attribution styles.

Three dimensions of attribution can be distinguished: locus, stability, and controll-ability (Weiner 1992). The attribution of the locus of causality can vary betweeninternal (dispositional) and external (situational) factors (Heider 1958). In case ofinternal attribution, causality is ascribed to factors within the subject self, while incase of external attribution it is ascribed to other actors or external powers. Further-more, the cause of events, social positions and achievements can be attributed eitherto stable or to fluctuating factors (Pintrich and Schunk 2002). Finally, the attributionof causes can vary in the extent to which a subject believes to personally controlevents, positions, and achievements (Weiner 1992). The combination of attributinglocus, stability and controllability is called an attribution style.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

Self-supporting Immigrants

Self-supporting immigrants are satisfied with their current positions. Setif indicatedthat he is satisfied with his job and the increased number of hours he works. He hasall he wants and is optimistic about the future. Self-supporting immigrants attributetheir successful economic integration to themselves. Koidu said: ‘You have to thinklike this, I have to do everything for myself, I am responsible for myself. (…) Who isgoing to pay my rent if I do not work? (…) You have to arrange everything yourself’.Not only do self-supporting immigrants attribute their position in society to internalfactors, they also attribute it to a stable factor; their own skills and perseverance. AsSari remarked, ‘I know now that if I work hard I can make things happen’. Pointingat internal factors makes self-supporting immigrants feel they are in control of theirown lives. Sétif: ‘I have always kept control of everything myself’. When asked aboutsocial support he replied: ‘I have not used any at the time, not now and not in thefuture. I take care of myself’. Self-supporting immigrants look down on those who, intheir eyes, do not take responsibility for their own lives. For example, Gjilaniremarked that he does not understand that people who still do not speak Dutch aftermany years nevertheless expect assistance.

Prior to legalisation, self-supporting immigrants were dissatisfied about theirsituation, and they thought that the government imposed barriers to their success.Nevertheless, they felt that they were responsible for their own lives and tried to makethe most of it. Koidu said: ‘There I was in the asylum seeker centre without moneyand everything. No matter how poor you are, you have to do something and smileand everything will be easier […] A lot of things happened and I was not happy withthat, but I had the choice to stay or leave and by deciding to leave (the asylum seekercentre) I could make a living for myself. I had the chance to work hard and dosomething and I could live like a “normal” Dutchman’. Because of their focus on theirown responsibility, self-supporting immigrants did not want to amass debts, found itimportant to acquire cultural capital, and actively sought to meet new people. Afterthey received amnesty, they felt completely in control, which relieved theirpsychological stress.

People who attribute their position to internal and stable factors under theircontrol usually feel confident and proud (Weiner 1992). Self-supporting immigrantsalso feel proud and have confidence in themselves and in their futures. Weiner claimsthat people make more effort to achieve success when they feel they might wellsucceed. This is probably why self-supporting immigrants continue to actively strivefor a better position. As such, they have created and continue to create favourableconditions for their own economic integration.

Dependent Immigrants

Unlike self-supporting immigrants, dependent immigrants attribute their currentposition to external factors. They feel the national government, the municipality andemployers are responsible for it. They claim that these actors constrained their

14 M. van Meeteren et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

possibilities and consequently impeded their economic integration. As Enuguexplained: ‘Here in the Netherlands it is difficult to exercise your own plans becausethe municipality always has a plan or whatever. I want to enrol in higher educationbut that is refused. Because of this I am limited. You feel you are in a situation thatyou cannot change’.

Dependent immigrants feel that because their educational levels are not transfer-able to the Dutch situation, they cannot shape their lives here. Khartoum said, heliked working as a geologist in his country of origin; ‘back then I could still determinethings in my own life’. They feel they need help from others because they cannot relyon their own competences. It is others who shape their lives and their future,according to them. Tellingly, when asked about his future Sodoké replied: ‘In thefuture? I do not know what kind of help I can expect’. This means that dependentimmigrants attribute their position to external as well as unstable factors; otherpeople’s help, or the lack of it. Although they are happy that they can work and gainexperience; thanks to the amnesty, they are not satisfied with what they have achievedso far. According to Izmir:

Honestly, the municipality had not offered me proper assistance. I have not really beenoffered the possibility to go to school. They immediately forced me to work or else mywelfare benefits would be stopped. I honestly would like to have had a better job and togo to school (…). I can do more.

Dependent immigrants feel they are unable to change their situation because of theunresponsiveness of the municipality. This attribution style makes them adopt a wait-and-see attitude—both before and after legalisation—which reconciles them with thefact that they are unable to benefit from the considerable amount of cultural capitalthey brought from their country of origin. Our findings suggest that they started toadopt this attribution style already before legalisation, as they pinned all their hopeson receiving legal papers and hence passively waited for an external actor (the DutchGovernment) to change their fates, instead of taking matters into their own hands,like the self-supporting immigrants did.

Isolated Immigrants

Like the self-supporting immigrants, isolated immigrants attribute their situation toan internal factor; they feel they themselves are responsible for their current position.However, unlike the self-supporting immigrants who have faith in their owncapacities, isolated immigrants feel they lack relevant capacities or they believe thattheir competences have eroded over time. Kankan said:

I am in arrears with regard to education. That is why I wonder what I can do. Can I stilllearn? I would like to, but still I have doubts. Fifteen years ago I really had the courageto study and to do things. I would like to try, but can I do it? Since I have my doubtsabout it, it is hard to start again.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

Isolated immigrants feel they have to overcome their psychological and physicalbarriers before they can enter the labour market. Because they have not worked for solong they have become insecure about their own capacities:

I would like to work but I cannot. When I applied for papers in 2001, I could easilywork. If I had had the possibility to work then I would have worked for ten years now.I would have been socially involved then (…). I hope to be able to work in the future.I am trying my best but it is not easy. I need time physically and mentally. I do notknow if I can do it either. (Rijeka)

The attribution style shown by isolated immigrants can be called ‘learned helplessness’(Seligman 1975). Such an attribution style decreases self-confidence, increases thechance of depression (Peterson and Seligman 1984), and makes it difficult to motivateoneself (Weiner 1992). By attributing their own situation, which they perceive asundesirable, to internal and stable factors (a lack of skills), they create the conditions fortheir current situation to persist. As a result of their negative attribution style, obtainingamnesty has added to their psychological stress because it has created even moreresponsibilities they feel they cannot cope with. In this situation, isolated immigrants arehardly inclined to invest in themselves or to build new relationships, which is why theconditions for economic integration remain unfavourable.

Conclusion and Discussion

We have seen that roughly two-and-a-half to three years after legalisation, amnestiedimmigrants in Rotterdam differ with regard to their economic integration. Differentmutually reinforcing mechanisms have shaped divergent trajectories that seem to lieat the basis of these three different types (see Table 3).

Table 3. Integration trajectories of the three types of migrants.

Cultural capitalEconomiccapital

Socialcapital

Psychologicalproblems

Attributionstyle

Self-supporting

Job competencesand education insettlementcountry

No debts Socialsupportand socialleverage

Manageablebecause ofamnesty

Internal,stable,manageable

Dependent Job competencesand education incountry of origin

Debts reason forchoosinggovernmentprogramme

Socialsupport

Manageablebecause ofsocial support

External,unstable,unmanageable

Isolated Lack of culturalcapital

Debtsunresolved

Lack ofsocialcapital

Still coping Internal,stable,unmanageable

16 M. van Meeteren et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

We have found self-supporting immigrants to be satisfied with their economicpositions and proud to have achieved economic self-reliance. They have deliberativelysought to acquire cultural, economic, and social capital prior to legalisation. Theseefforts were fed by their positive attribution style, the results of which contribute tomaintaining a positive attribution style today. This means self-supporting immigrantsseem to have entered a virtuous circle in which their efforts to gain different forms ofcapital and their belief that they are themselves responsible for their position aremutually reinforcing in such a way that it improves economic integration. Theopposite applies to isolated immigrants. Both before and after legalisation, they havenot gained access to different forms of capital because they struggle withpsychological and psychosomatic problems and lack of self-confidence. In turn, theirlack of different forms of capital strengthens their belief that their economicintegration depends on internal factors which they deem undesirable and uncontrol-lable, at the same time.

Dependent immigrants have gone through a mixed trajectory. On the one hand,they have been able to overcome their psychological problems by deriving emotionalsupport from their networks both before and after legalisation. On the other hand,their attribution style made them adopt a wait-and-see attitude, which has resulted ina lack of investments in different forms of capital in the Netherlands prior tolegalisation. As a result, they have not acquired the social leverage and the culturalcapital needed to obtain their sought-after social position in the Netherlands. Theywant to work and study in the Netherlands at a similar level as in their country oforigin, but fail to do so because their qualifications and competences are notrecognised, because they have not invested in obtaining new ones, and because thegovernment does not provide opportunities for them to catch up. This strengthenstheir conviction that their economic position depends on external forces they havelittle control over.

For three reasons, we can only draw tentative conclusions from the typology wehave constructed here. First, our findings are grounded in a limited number ofinterviews with amnestied asylum seekers, who have a relatively long length of stayand who are located in a specific policy setting. This means that research conductedamong immigrants with other migration motives or in other contexts may yielddifferent distributions over the three categories and probably additional trajectories aswell, as some of the mechanisms that shape the trajectories may be specific to asylumseekers. For example, it is conceivable that psychological problems play a lessprominent role for immigrants with other migration motives (see Connor 2010;Mascini, Fermin, and Snick 2012). Furthermore, the economic integration ofdependent immigrants might turn out less favourable in countries where thegovernment does not provide reintegration programmes, or, conversely, morefavourable in countries like the United States, where immigrants can convert theirhome country qualifications more easily (Ghorashi 2001). In such other contexts,some of the mechanisms that were identified in our specific context may not to comeinto play at all.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

Second, although we were able to show how different forms of capital, psychologicaland psychosomatic problems, and attribution styles together played a role in theintegration trajectories of our respondents, we were unable to systematically analysehow immigrants’ background characteristics (e.g., age, gender, country of origin, andresidence status prior to legalisation) relate to these different trajectories, given thelimited number of interviews. However, we did find some indications that integrationtrajectories are linked to background characteristics (see Table 1). For instance, ourfindings suggest that particularly mothers are impeded by a lack of social contacts(who could act as babysitter, for example) in their route to economic independence.Therefore, a systematic inquiry into how background characteristics such as genderand age intersect with the different integration trajectories would be a welcomeaddition to our study.

Third, because of the modest number of interviews, it is possible that our analysishas not fully reached theoretical saturation. This might mean that our typologyrequires further contextualisation in certain respects. As an example, the literatureshows that highly-skilled Iranian immigrants have managed to acquire relatively higheconomic positions in the Netherlands (Dagevos and Dourleijn 2011). This suggeststhat a lack of recognition of diplomas and work experience does not necessarilyimpede the economic integration of highly-skilled immigrants. It is only when highlevels of cultural capital acquired in the country of origin combine with limited andhomogeneous social networks and a specific attribution style that this cultural capitalfails to contribute to economic integration. This may imply that our typology needsfurther refinement and contextualisation.

However, despite these limitations, we believe that our findings contribute to theliterature in at least one important way. Previous studies have demonstrated thatdifferent forms of capital and psychological problems are related to amnestiedimmigrants’ economic integration (see, for example, Cobb-Clark and Kossoudji 2000;Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark 2002; Marx, Corluy, and Verbist 2008; Amuedo-Dorantesand Bansak 2011). We have shown that integration outcomes may be related toattribution styles as well. More importantly though, by uncovering some of theunderlying mechanisms we have shown how these factors (forms of capital,psychological problems, and attribution styles) interact and are mutually reinforcing.Psychological well-being and the attribution of one’s position to internal, stable andmanageable factors seem to give immigrants the required strength and confidence togain access to the different forms of capital that can help their economic integration.In turn, having access to different forms of capital apparently contributes topsychological well-being and the conviction that one can influence one’s own fate.Conversely, immigrants with psychological problems, a negative attribution style, andlimited access to different forms of capital seem to be caught in a vicious circleimpeding their economic integration. Our findings, therefore, contribute to under-standing how differences in the economic integration of amnestied immigrants comeabout.

18 M. van Meeteren et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

Our findings are also significant for policy-makers. First, some of our respondentsindicated that their country of origin diplomas were not recognised, and that theywere denied the opportunity to follow education in the Netherlands in line with theirprior studies. This contributed to their passive attribution style. Policy makers couldconsider making it easier for immigrants to gain access to education trajectories thatconnect to the knowledge and skills that they bring with them from their country oforigin, thus possibly fostering a more positive attribution style as well. Second, otherrespondents told us that psychological problems impeded their economic integration,and that talking to fellow countrymen about these problems resulted in havinglimited social networks, which restricted their access to the labour market. Havingbetter access to professional psychological help might help some immigrants avoidbecoming dependent on small social networks for emotional support, which offer fewopportunities for upward mobility. Third, some respondents indicated that easieraccess to child day-care would have facilitated their entry to the labour market.

Overall, understanding the origin of immigrants’ different attribution styles andhow these can be influenced is important for policy-makers, as it can help them tohelp immigrants take control of their own lives. Therefore, an important question forfuture research is where differences in attribution styles come from and how theyrelate to the personal experiences of immigrants. On the one hand, immigrants’traumatic experiences may foster a negative attribution style, just as impediments toconvert cultural capital from the country of origin may induce a passive attributionstyle. On the other hand, it is not unlikely that immigrants who have undergonesimilar experiences will show different attribution styles. Future research could try todisentangle the causes and effects of attribution styles by selecting respondents basedon their attribution style and studying how they handle different experiences, and byselecting respondents in specific contexts and studying how these contexts impacttheir attribution styles.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and the editor for their constructivecomments. In addition, we thank the members of research group Citizenship, Migration and theCity (CIMIC) for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. Finally, we are gratefulto Toine Wentink at the social services department of the municipality of Rotterdam for his help ingathering the data.

Notes

[1] By June 2009, 27,700 persons had been legalised (Van Meeteren 2014), of which 2556 livedin the city of Rotterdam. Of those, about 900 immigrants did not have legal residence priorto the amnesty.

[2] We were not able to reach all potential respondents as some telephone numbers were nolonger in use or because potential respondents had moved house. Hence, we cannot ascertainif and how our sample is biased. We do know, however, that 63% of immigrants amnestiedin Rotterdam is male, and that 41% is single, 10% is single parent, and 23% lives with apartner and children. In terms of country of origin and education, our sample does not

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

strongly deviate from the population of amnestied immigrants in Rotterdam either.(See www.bds.rotterdam.nl/dsresource?objectid=191931)

[3] Respondent names are fictitious. Each respondent is named after a city in his or her countryof origin (not necessarily the city they come from themselves).

[4] While the social networks of immigrants are not necessarily limited to the settlementcountry, we dispense with a discussion of their transnational networks as these did notappear to play an important role in our respondents’ lives. Many did not have familymembers or friends in the country of origin anymore or they were unable to maintaincontact with them, due to difficult circumstances. Only two respondents indicated that theywere socially involved with their country of origin through humanitarian projects. None ofthe respondents sent remittances. All respondents felt that their lives took place in theNetherlands and they saw their origin country only as a possible holiday destination.Kenema summarised this common attitude as follows: ‘We are here and this is our countrynow. We have become Dutch people’.

References

Al-Ali, N., R. Black, and K. Koser. 2001 “Refugees and Transnationalism: The Experience ofBosnians and Eritreans in Europe.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27 (4): 615–634.doi:10.1080/13691830120090412.

Amuedo-Dorantes, C., and C. Bansak. 2011 “The Impact of Amnesty on Labor Market Outcomes:A Panel Study Using the Legalized Population Survey.” Industrial Relations 50 (3): 443–471.

Baldwin-Edwards, M., and A. Kraler. 2009. Regularisations in Europe. Amsterdam: AmsterdamUniversity Press.

Bloch, A. 2008. “Zimbabweans in Britain: Transnational Activities and Capabilities.” Journal ofEthnic and Migration Studies 34 (2): 287–305. doi:10.1080/13691830701823822.

Bourdieu, P. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology ofEducation, edited by J. G. Richardson, 241–258. New York: Greenwood.

Briggs-De Souza, X. 1998. “Brown Kids in White Suburbs: Housing Mobility and the Many Faces ofSocial Capital.” Housing Policy Debate 9 (1): 177–220. doi:10.1080/10511482.1998.9521290.

Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis.London: Sage.

Cobb-Clark, D. A., and S. A. Kossoudji. 2000. “IRCA’s Impact in the Occupational Concentrationand Mobility of Newly-Legalized Mexican Men.” Journal of Population Economics 13 (1):1381–1398.

Coleman, J. S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal ofSociology 94: 9495–9120. doi:10.1086/229033.

Connor, P. 2010. “Explaining the Refugee Gap: Economic Outcomes of Refugees versus OtherImmigrants.” Journal of Refugee Studies 23 (3): 377–397. doi:10.1093/jrs/feq025.

Dagevos, J., and E. Dourleijn, eds. 2011. Vluchtelingengroepen in Nederland: Over de integratie vanAfghaanse, Iraakse, Iraanse en Somalische migranten [Refugees in the Netherlands: About theIntegration of Afghan, Iraqi, Iranian and Somalian Migrants]. Den Haag: Sociaal en CultureelPlanbureau.

De Vroome, T., and F. Van Tubergen. 2010. “The Employment Experience of Refugees inthe Netherlands.” International Migration Review 44 (2): 376–403. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2010.00810.x.

Duman, Y. 2014. “Reducing the Fog? Immigrant Regularization and the State.” Politics & Policy 42(2): 187–220. doi:10.1111/polp.12065.

Friedberg, R. 2000. “You Can’t Take It With You? Immigrant Assimilation and the Portability ofHuman Capital.” Journal of Labour Economics 18 (2): 221–251. doi:10.1086/209957.

20 M. van Meeteren et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

Ghorashi, H. 2001. Ways to Survive, Battles to Win: Iranian Women Exiles in the Netherlands andthe US. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.

Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. [1967] 2006. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies forQualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

Glytsos, N. P. 2005. “Stepping from Illegality to Legality and Advancing towards Integration: TheCase of Immigrants in Greece.” International Migration Review 39 (4): 819–840. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2005.tb00290.x.

Granovetter, M. S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78 (6):1360–1380. doi:10.1086/225469.

Hagan, J. M. 1994. Deciding to be Legal: A Maya Community in Houston. Philadelphia, PA: TempleUniversity Press.

Heider, F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.Kossoudji, S. A., and D. A. Cobb-Clark. 2002. “Coming out of the Shadows: Learning about

Legal Status and Wages from the Legalized Population.” Journal of Labour Economics 20 (3):598–628. doi:10.1086/339611.

Lamba, N. K. 2003. “The Employment Experience of Canadian Refugees: Measuring the Impact ofHuman and Social Capital on Quality of Employment.” The Canadian Review of Sociologyand Anthropology 40 (1): 45–64. doi:10.1111/j.1755-618X.2003.tb00235.x.

Marx, I., V. Corluy, and G. Verbist. 2008. Before and After: De sociaal-economische positive vanpersonen die geregulariseerd werden in uitvoering van de wet van 22 december 1999 [Beforeand After: The Socio-Economic Position of Persons Amnestied Immigrants during theImplementation of the Act of 22 December 1999]. Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen.

Mascini, P., A. Fermin, and H. Snick. 2012. “Transnationalism of Burundian Refugees in theNetherlands: The Importance of Migration Motives.” International Journal of PopulationResearch. 2012. doi:10.1155/2012/962327.

Massey, D. S., and K. Donato. 1993. “Effect of the Immigration Reform and Control Act on theWages of Mexican Migrants.” Social Science Quarterly 74 (3): 523–541.

Massey, D., A. Arango, G. Hugo, A. Kouaouci, A. Pellegrino, and J. E. Taylor. 2005. Worlds inMotion: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Orrenius, P. M., and M. Zavodny. 2004. What Are the Consequences of an Amnesty forUndocumented Immigrants? Working Paper. Atlanta: Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

Peterson, C., and M. E. P. Seligman. 1984. “Causal Explanations as a Risk Factor Depression:Theory and Evidence.” Psychological Review 91 (3): 347–374. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.347.

Pintrich, P. R., and D. H. Schunk. 2002. Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, andApplications. Merrill, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Portes, A. 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.” Annual Reviewof Sociology 24: 1–24. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1.

Powers, M. G., and W. Seltzer. 1998. “Occupational Status and Mobility among UndocumentedImmigrants by Gender.” International Migration Review 32 (1): 21–55. doi:10.2307/2547559.

Powers, M. G., W. Seltzer, and J. Shi. 1998. “Gender Differences in the Occupational Status ofUndocumented Immigrants in the United States: Experience before and after Legalization.”International Migration Review 32 (4): 1015–1046. doi:10.2307/2547670.

Sciortino, G. 2012. “The Regulation of Undocumented Migration.” In An Introduction toInternational Migration Studies, edited by M. Martiniello and J. Rath, 351–378. Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press.

Seligman, M. E. P. 1975. Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Francisco, CA:W. H. Freeman.

Sunderhaus, S. 2007. “Regularization Programs for Undocumented Migrants.” Migration Letters 4(1): 65–76.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4

Tienda, M., and A. Singer. 1995. “Wage Mobility of Undocumented Workers in the United States.”International Migration Review 29 (1): 112–138. doi:10.2307/2546999.

Van Meeteren, M. 2014. Irregular Migrants in Belgium and the Netherlands: Aspirations andIncorporation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Van Meeteren, M., G. Engbersen, and M. Van San. 2009. “Striving for a Better Position: Aspirationsand the Role of Economic, Cultural and Social Capital for Irregular Immigrants in Belgium.”International Migration Review 43 (4): 916–944. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00788.x.

Weiner, B. 1992. Human Motivation: Metaphors, Theories, and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Zimmermann, L., K. F. Zimmerman, and A. Constant. 2007. “‘Ethnic Self-Identification of First

Generation Immigrants.” International Migration Review 41 (3): 769–781. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2007.00093.x.

22 M. van Meeteren et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pete

r M

asci

ni]

at 0

8:19

11

June

201

4