History of Undocumented Domestic Workers in the U.S.

Domestic work is an occupation that is integral to the history of the United States and how it values labor based on gender, race, and class. The history of domestic work in the United States stems from the reinforcement of white supremacy through the exploitation of labor. Prior to the emancipation of Black people, Black women were responsible for all of the domestic roles in a slave-master’s household. According to a census done in 1848, Black women made up 98% of all domestic labor in the United States (Taylor, 2017). These roots in domestic labor have paved the way in how domestic labor is perceived in the United States in later decades.

After the Civil War and the emancipation of Black people in the United States, domestic work remained an industry that was dominated by Black women. One reason that there was a demand for Black labor in domestic work was that it upheld white supremacist notions of domestic work being “dirty work.” It became so that not having to do domestic work was regarded as a status symbol and emphasized ideas of preserving white women’s purity and privilege in society (Taylor, 2017). This was apparent during the Reconstruction period in the South when Black women were discouraged from attending dance halls. The reason dance halls were a source of contention for white people was because white people believed they had a claim over Black women’s bodies and that they wanted to limit the physical exertion the women did to domestic work exclusively (Hunter, 1998). As a result, dance halls became a symbol of resistance against the expectation of white people that Black peoples’ bodies should be used solely for the purpose of wage work (Hunter, 1998). 

Over the next several decades, domestic work continued to preserve the purported racial superiority of white people through economic exploitation. This industry reinforced racial hierarchies which forced women of color to be excluded from protections that other labor industries were granted. An example of this was when domestic workers were excluded from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 which made most wage workers entitled to a minimum wage and overtime. It was not until 2015 that the FLSA was extended to domestic workers that provided “companionship services” (Pandey et al., 2021) which include live-in domestic workers. To this day, domestic work is heavily racialized, with undocumented status joining racial indicators as bases for exploitation (Taylor, 2017). It is no coincidence that domestic workers are among the most devalued laborers in the United States, and it should be a priority among advocates to hold the government accountable for prioritizing the wellbeing and protection of domestic workers in the United States.

Although the context of domestic work in the United States has shifted over the past century, there are still prevailing stigmas and stereotypes around domestic work that stand in between domestic workers and gaining equal protections. One such stigma that has come up in the past year is that domestic workers are a risk to their employers because they are potential transmitters of the COVID-19 virus which led to the firing of many workers (Pandey et al., 2021). This racist and classist belief was present during the Reconstruction period when Black women were discouraged from attending dance halls by their white employers because they were afraid that they would bring back infectious disease (Hunter, 1998). Another such instance is the concept that many undocumented migrants were expected to become live-in employees after the introduction of the pandemic (Pandey et al., 2021). This is a palimpsest to the concept of the “mammy” and how the ideal domestic worker is one who is loyal to their employer regardless of the degree of economic exploitation (Taylor, 2017). The expectation of domestic workers to become live-in workers is rooted in white supremacist power dynamics which makes it crucial for domestic workers to gain protections immediately. When put into the historical context, it is imperative that domestic workers be given priority towards receiving protections and financial support during a global health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

---

Experience of Undocumented Domestic Workers Today

Qualitative research interviews conducted in the United States (U.S.) have revealed anxieties and stress in non-citizens and their families (whether citizens or not) that they will be separated or forced to go back (or for citizen family members, go for the first time) to their family’s country of origin (Brabeck et al., 2011). Stress and anguish from the threat of detention or deportation compounds the stress and trauma of other realities in non-citizens’ lives (poverty, violence, etc.; Brabeck et al., 2011). U.S. government agencies and officials often show no regard to these intersecting stressors to the peril of human life, decency, and respect (Brabeck et al., 2011). Poverty is a major challenge to these families when employers exploit them for their status (Brabeck et al., 2011). Non-citizens face an impossible choice between illegal acts: to let their children (or themselves) struggle and starve in their country of origin or to cross a national border into the U.S. (Brabeck et al., 2011). Policies that make illegal these acts of survival inspire closer examination: who are border agencies “protecting?” How is a culture of deportation, family separation, and continued violence “serving” anyone?

In terms of employment, undocumented workers in the U.S. are at greater risk of unequal treatment due to the country’s capitalist free market coupled with the realities of non-citizenship as both an identity and as an absence of federal protections (Cranford, 2007). Free market competition leads directly to lower wages for vulnerable populations such as undocumented workers because they lack the power to self-advocate (Cranford, 2007). Additionally, undoumented workers are left with no job security and worse working conditions (Cranford, 2007).

As is clear, U.S. policies create barriers for undocumented workers where they should otherwise provide services and support. Despite causing much of the political unrest in Mexico and Central America, the U.S. accepts a very a small percentage of asylum seekers from these countries (Brabeck et al., 2011). In fact, people without papers have inherent rights under the United Nations (UN) Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and under the U.S. Constitution (Frazee, 2018). The UN Refugee Convention of 1951 assures all refugees of the right to identity papers, further problematizing anyone’s status as “undocumented” (UN General Assembly, 1951). The U.S. bears responsibility for ensuring both knowledge and fulfillment of these rights whether they currently accept this responsibility or not.

Barajas-Gonzalez et al. (2021) recommended a reimagining of the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) framework to expand our understanding to include systemic oppressive structures such as the violence of federal policies around immigration rather than just experiences in a young person’s home. The reason for this expansion is that structural challenges for Latinx immigrant families in the U.S. are substantial and oppressive (Barajas-Gonzalez et al., 2021). These challenges include parents’ limited access to social services children’s restricted access to extracurricular programs, which can influence an increase in anxiety and depression, exposure to immigration enforcement leading to restricted activities and stress, and parental deportation, which has similar negative effects as incarceration of a parent in other circumstances (trauma, stigma, reduced income, etc.; Barajas-Gonzalez et al., 2021). The exclusion of immigrant families from macro responses and relief from COVID-19 is a substantial oversight, which we address on our Calls to Action page.

The culture of fear, uncertainty, and increased policing of those who appear to be immigrants (often perceived as having darker skin, Spanish-speaking, etc.) was exacerbated and instigated by the passing of the USA Patriot Act (2001), which tied immigration and national security, leading to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE; Barajas-Gonzalez, 2021). 

Immigration-related ACEs include:

“Deprivation and threat due to systemic marginalization of immigrants” (Barajas-Gonzaelez, 2021, p. 4).

• Precluded access to resources
• Parental work exploitation
• Under-resourced neighborhoods and schools

“Deprivation and threat due to immigration enforcement and policing” (Barajas-Gonzaelez, 2021, p. 5).

• Discrimination and racial profiling
• ICE and police collaborations: implications for youths’ perceptions of police
• ICE raids in communities
• Threat of deportation

“Deprivation and threat due to detention and deportation” (Barajas-Gonzaelez, 2021, p. 6).

• Detention and deportation of a parent/caregiver
• Economic insecurity due to breadwinner being deported
• Detention and deportation of a relative or community member

“Frequency and severity of immigration-related ACEs impacts developmental outcomes” (Barajas-Gonzaelez, 2021, p. 7).

---

Effect of COVID-19 on Undocumented Domestic Workers in New York and the U.S.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, domestic workers are at a heightened risk of being fired, being required to work overtime without proper compensation, not being paid for their labor, and being exposed to unsafe workplace conditions. Institutional racism and xenophobia compound systemic oppression for undocumented domestic workers. These circumstances make it impossible for domestic workers to unionize and get the protections they need to have dependable and non-exploitative work (Pandey et al., 2021). This lack of protections stems from anti-Black racism and sexism targeting the Black women who dominated the domestic work industry post emancipation (Pandey et al., 2021). These intersecting oppressions are evident even today, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, where domestic workers largely do not get any legal protections or government support (Pandey et al., 2021). Despite being considered essential workers, domestic workers’ workplace conditions have gotten worse, not better (Pandey et al., 2021).

Many domestic workers have been pressured to become live-in employees by their employers which makes it difficult to establish boundaries (Pandey et al., 2021). Although nearly half of the US population is considered an “essential worker,” there is no material compensation nor protections to meet the needs of this substantial population (Pandey et al., 2021).

Migrants and non-citizens in the U.S. are more likely to be negatively affected by COVID-19, specifically because they experience barriers to social distancing and are particularly vulnerable to economic hardship (Langellier, 2020). As stated above, non-citizens are already vulnerable when it comes to employment due to lack of bargaining power for higher wages and better working conditions. The physical dangers and health concerns of COVID-19 further exacerbate the potential for harm as undocumented workers fear job loss or deportation. This already vulnerable group is less likely to successfully self-advocate with employers, placing them at heightened risk of exposure and both job-related and COVID-related stress.

At an even further disadvantage, undocumented workers cannot access federal means-tested public assistance programs such as Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (Langellier, 2020; Sönmeza et al., 2020). These undocumented workers take on the added risk of losing employment on top of being more likely to live from paycheck to paycheck (Langellier, 2020). Our overall recommendation is to include migrants and their families in planning responses and relief to COVID-19.

---

Lack of General Federal Support for Undocumented Workers & the Effects of the Excluded Workers Fund

Bureaucracies wield a lot of power and influence when it comes to whether the rights of undocumented immigrants are protected (Gleeson, 2014). Gleeson (2014) found evidence that bureaucratic institutions care more about protecting their name and the legitimacy of their mission statement than investing their time and resources into protecting a vulnerable population like undocumented laborers. We need to challenge how economic relief is distributed to excluded workers. It should not be on the basis of meeting a status quo nor purely legitimizing the mission statement of an organization. As a society we need to practice compassion, empathy, and solidarity when it comes to those who are most affected by COVID-19. We must include rather than exclude them from federal and state unemployment benefits in response to the COVID-19 global crisis. 

The U.S. has shown an excessive failure to meet the needs of undocumented people within their national borders. Control of immigration is often seen as the right of the individual state and leads to rampant failure in nations’ responses and protections of “irregular” immigration (Jakubowski, 2007). Where these rights are lacking, international treaties can be used to secure rights for undocumented workers, though these treaties are not always adopted by all nations (Jakubowski, 2007). In these cases, international trade agreements and private institutions can be used to secure human rights and domestic solutions have not been guaranteed (Jakubowski, 2007). 

Human rights instruments in support of “irregular migrants” include the UN (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Labor Organization (ILO, 1998) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and the UN General Assembly (1990) Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (Migrant Workers Convention). The latter convention was the first to explicitly protect the rights of undocumented workers, asserting that employers hold the fault for illegally employing undocumented workers rather than placing the blame on migrants for existing within foreign borders (Jakubowski, 2007). As of 2007, the Migrant Workers convention has not been ratified by U.S., any EU states, Canada, nor by any receiving states in Asia or the Middle East (Jakubowski, 2007). The convention names “state reporting” as the only enforcement mechanism (Jakubowski, 2007). As previously discussed, because undocumented migrants are so vulnerable, they are less likely to report their employer for fear or threat of deportation (Jakubowski, 2007).

Two additional declarations that name rights of all people, though not specifically for irregular migrants, are the UN International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on Social, Cultural and Economic Rights (ICESCR; Jakubowski, 2007).

Although these human rights instruments are noble, they are insufficient. Migration is inevitable (and human), thus more security at borders is not the answer. In fact, it leads to more human rights violations (Jakubowski, 2007). Higher security and policing cause migrants to hide, be in secret, and thus trafficking and abuse from employers can occur without intervention or protections (Jakubowski, 2007).

---