He Came, He Saw, He Stayed. Guest Worker Programmes and the Issue of Non-Return

Critics of guest worker programmes have pointed out that many temporary workers do not return home when their contracts expire and thus end up swelling the ranks of undocumented workers in a host country. This article argues that this outcome is not inevitable. Whether or not guest workers return home or stay behind depends to a large extent on how the guest worker programme is administered. By comparing the US Bracero Program with the Canadian Mexican Agricultural Seasonal Workers' Program, it is shown that three aspects of programme administration account for why so many Braceros stayed in the US illegally, while almost all temporary workers employed in Canada return to Mexico at the end of the season. The three aspects are recruitment policies and procedures, enforcement of employment and housing-related minimum standards, and the size of the programme. It is suggested that the administration of the programme, in turn, reflects various interests that shape the State's position on foreign labour. Whereas in the US the Bracero Program was tailored to meet the needs of agribusinesses, the Canadian state responds to a wider variety of interests, including its own concern with the definition of ideal citizenship, as well as the need to protect domestic workers and the Mexican Government's interest in assisting those who are most needy. Additionally, unlike the US, where braceros were employed mainly in agribusinesses, in Canada Mexicans are brought to work on family farms. While desertion was a frequent phenomenon in the US, the paternalistic relationships that Canada-bound workers develop with their employers make desertion unlikely.     

Migration,development and remittances in rural Mexico

The argument is that remittances to Mexico from migrants in the US contribute to household prosperity and lessen the balance of payments problem. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the incentives and constraints to development and individual economic well-being in rural Mexico. Examination is made of the financial amount of remittances, the use of remittances, the impact on development of remittances, models of migration, and migration historically. The viewpoint is that migration satisfies labor needs in developed countries to the detriment of underdeveloped countries. $2 billion a year are sent by illegal migrants from the US to Mexico. This sum is 4 times the net earning of Mexico's tourist trade. 21.1% of the Mexican population depend in part on money sent from the US. 79% of illegal migrants remitted money to relatives in Jalisco state. 70% of migrant families receive $170/month. In Guadalupe, 73% of families depended on migrant income. In Villa Guerrero, 50% of households depended on migrant income. Migrant income supported 1 out of 5 households in Mexico. Money is usually spent of household subsistence items. Sometimes money is also spent on community religious festivals, marriage ceremonies, and education of children or improved living conditions. Examples are given of money being used for investment in land and livestock. Migration affects community solidarity, and comparative ethic, and the influence on others to migrate. Employment opportunities are not expanded and cottage and community industries are threatened. Land purchases did not result in land improvements. Migration models are deficient. There is a macro/micro dichotomy. The push-and-pull system is not controllable by individual migrants. The migration remittance model is a product of unequal development and a mechanism feeding migration. Mexican migration has occurred since the 1880's; seasonal migration was encouraged. There was coercion to return to Mexico after the economic recession of World War I; the door was firmly closely during the Great Depression of 1929-35. The 1980 estimates of illegal Mexican migrants totaled 2-9 million, which is the largest flow in the world. US industrial presence and Mexican development have reinforced migration flows. Regional and international capitalist requirements govern migration.     

Mexican Migration for Dummies: What Social Workers and the Public Need to Know

SUMMARY

Amid the derisive, post-911 political debate about border control, national security, and “illegal aliens,” nobody, not even immigrant advocates and protesters, is articulating the macro-level, global economic root cause of undocumented labor migration to America. In simple terms, this essay describes how the contradictory policies of an open border for trade (i.e., NAFTA) and a closed border for immigration result in a predictable undocumented migration bridge between the U.S. and Mexico that must be sensibly regulated for the good of neighboring countries that now share formally integrated economies, yet informally integrated populations. Implications for policy and immigrant serving social workers and other human service providers are discussed.     

Mexican Contract Workers and the U.S. Capitalist Agricultural Labor Process: The Formative Era, 1942–1964*

Abstract Rural sociologists have seemingly moved away from an active interest in the plight of migrant farmworkers and the centrality of their labor in the development of U.S. agribusiness. Answering Pfeffer's (1983) call to analyze the different forms of agricultural production, I focus on the key formative period of what I refer to as the U.S. capitalist agricultural labor process. During the United States‐Mexico Bracero Program, 1942–1964, U.S. agribusiness employed a coercive factory regime, introduced mechanization and increased work hazards, and employed a dual wage structure to keep Mexican contract workers at a serious disadvantage to advance their own collective well‐being. This study relies upon archival and oral history research to challenge the existing theoretical approaches to the labor process in capitalist agriculture and provide a theoretical explanation that more closely relates to U.S. post‐war agricultural production.     

Does “Smarter” Lead to Safer? An Assessment of the US Border Accords with Canada and Mexico

The terrorist attacks of September 11 and their immediate aftermath along the US‐Canadian and US‐Mexican borders focused attention on border management strategies in ways previously unimaginable. Suddenly confronted by the fact that existing systems and processes were not particularly effective either at protecting security or facilitating legitimate traffic, the United States, in conjunction with the Canadian and Mexican Governments, demonstrated an uncharacteristic willingness to reconceptualize its approach to physical borders. While initiating a series of internal policy adjustments to secure themselves against terrorist threats, the US, Canadian, and Mexican Governments also signed two bilateral agreements — the 12 December 2001 United States‐Canada Smart Border Declaration and the 22 March 2002 United States‐Mexico Border Partnership Agreement. These agreements represent an important development in the US's relationship with each of its North American neighbours, acknowledging not only the deep economic, social, and cultural ties, but also the new reality that the United States cannot attain the additional security it desires through unilateral actions alone. Thus, while September 11 forced a reassessment of vulnerabilities, it simultaneously provided the United States an opportunity to work more systematically with its contiguous neighbours for security benefits, a realization likely to flow into other areas where the benefits of cooperation eclipse those of unilateralism. This paper analyses the first year of the two border accords, tracking their implementation and evaluating their successes and failures. Most importantly, the paper outlines outstanding challenges, highlights steps that the governments should take to achieve additional border security and efficiency, and draws conclusions regarding factors likely to make their efforts more, or less, successful.     

The politics of immigration reform

The US is the target for international migration, now more than ever. Population growth and economic stragnation in the Third World are increasing the pressures for out-migration, and current immigration law is wholly incapable of responding to the ever increasing flow of illegal immigrants. Border apprehensions of illegal aliens in the US were up 40% during 1983, and total apprehensions reached 1.25 million by the year's end. Recent public opinion polls have disclosed that an overwhelming majority of the American public demands immigration reform, and yet we as a nation have been distinctly unwilling or unable to respond to this clear public sentiment. This paper discusses the politics of the "Simpson-Mazzoli" Immigration Reform and Control Act, previous immigration legislation, current counterproposals for US immigration policy, and the political realities of immigration reform.     

Locational Choices of the Legal and Illegal: The Case of Mexican Agricultural Workers in the U.S.1

This paper examines relationships between legal and illegal farmworker migration from Mexico and state‐level labor market, agricultural, demographic, and public policy variables. The study uses a nationally representative farmworker survey providing direct legal status data. Consistent with previous literature, results indicate that personal and community networks are primary determinants of locational choices. Conversely, border enforcement is negatively related to migration to certain areas. Results are strongest for California migrants and for those with previous migration experience. Potential welfare and education program values are uncorrelated with locations of recent Mexican agricultural workers.     

Immigration reform,American style

This article reviews the background of the proposed Immigration and Reform Act (also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli bill), which seeks to overhaul US immigration law for the first time since 1952. This bill is consistent with President Reagan's hard line on border enforcement and mandates stiff penalties for those who transport illegal aliens for commercial advantage or private profit. It further offers Mexico preferential treatment in immigration (40,000 additional visas/year). It includes an amnesty program to offer legal status to qualified illegal residents. The bill directs the President to develop a secure national worker identification system and would create a large-scale temporary foreign agricultural program for perishable commodities. Agricultural workers' families would not be eligible to accompany them unless they also obtain temporary visas. Foreign temporary workers, employable only in cases where local domestic workers are not available, must be provided with wages and working conditions equal to those prevailing among domestic workers. Stiff penalties are stipulated for employers who fail to abide with the terms of the program. In the author's opinion, this bill fails to appreciate the global character of international migration and its complexity. It relects a fundamental ambivalence about a strictly controlled main gate versus a back door approach to immigration as well as the conflicting images of the US as a nation of immigrants versus the historical reality of American nativism and xenophobia. Needed are comprehensive initiatives whose mutually reinforcing components can address the multiple dimensions of the immigration problem within a framework that does not ignore workers who have contributed to the economic well-being of the US, regardless of their legal status.     

Immigration,Repatriation, and Deportation: The Mexican‐Origin Population in the United States, 1920–1950

Scholars conventionally assert that government authorities forcibly expelled 500,000 persons of Mexican origin from the U.S. in the 1930s, with more than half of those removed U.S. citizens. Estimates using census data indicate substantially lower numbers, limited governmental involvement, fewer citizens, and considerable voluntary departure. Voluntary decisions fit the repatriation strategy that had been common among young Mexican immigrants in the 1920s. Ironically, the 1940s Bracero Program, designed by Mexico and the U.S. to replicate the 1920s pattern of circular migration, led instead to massive illegal immigration and unprecedented levels of deportation.     

Immigration: an international economic perspective

The creation of an effective US immigration policy has been complicated by the diversity of political interests and the absence of reliable statistics to determine the magnitude of the impact on the American economy. Estimates of the number of illegal aliens in the US range from 1 to 12 million. While political biases and complexities and data inadequacies complicate this analysis, some generalizations seem to be confirmed by worldwide experience. There are 2 mutually-supportive, short-run ways to reduce the flow of undocumented workers: 1) to better police US borders and shorelines and 2) to remove the motive for entry by making it illegal for employers to hire workers who are not authorized to work in the US. To give employers an easy defense and to facilitate their compliance with immigration laws, an effective worker identification system should be developed. To avoid the civil liberties, international relations, and human problems associated with mass deportations, illegal immigrants who entered the US before January 1, 1981 and who have been in continuous residence for at least 1 year, should be permitted to remain in the US as permanent resident aliens. The US should not adopt a new guest worker program. The proper sequence of changes in immigration policy is very important. Dealing with illegal immigration is essential; all these measures should be in place before an amnesty is granted. Because it is important to have friendly relations with neighboring countries and because the ultimate solution to illegal immigration is to reduce the wide disparities in employment opportunities between countries, the US should work with other countries to control illegal immigration, but should not link control to energy, trade, or other policies. It is particularly important to discuss immigration control plans with other countries, especially Mexico, and to do everything consistent with US interests to minimize the adverse impact of our immigration policies on our neighbors.     

Mexico and Central America

This article reviews the literature on migration and HIV/AIDS in Mexico and Central America, including Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama. Most migrants travel to the US through Mexico. US-Mexico trade agreements created opportunities for increased risk of HIV transmission. The research literature focuses on Mexico. Most countries, with the exception of Belize and Costa Rica, are sending countries. Human rights of migrants are violated in transit and at destination. Migration policies determine migration processes. The Mexican-born population in the US is about 3% of US population and 8% of Mexico's population. About 22% arrived during 1992-97, and about 500,000 are naturalized US citizens. An additional 11 million have a Mexican ethnic background. Mexican migrants are usually economically active men who had jobs before leaving and were urban people who settled in California, Texas, Illinois, and Arizona. Most Mexican migrants enter illegally. Many return to Mexico. The main paths of HIV transmission are homosexual, heterosexual, and IV-drug-injecting persons. Latino migrants frequently use prostitutes, adopt new sexual practices including anal penetration among men, greater diversity of sexual partners, and use of injectable drugs.     

Migration and Human Rights on the Mexico-Guatemala Border

This paper identifies the protections in place for irregular migrants on the Mexico‐Guatemala border and analyzes Mexican government immigration enforcement policies and levels of compliance with international standards and national law. The history of the Mexico‐Guatemala border region and different types of migration flows into and through the area are also explored, as well as the linkages between migration, trade, security, and US immigration policy. It is argued that the Mexican government has partially complied with international conventions and national laws to protect the human rights of transmigrants in the Guatemalan border region, but that compliance is not complete and that an international response is required to ensure that human rights standards are upheld.     

Aliens in irregular status in the United States: a review of their numbers,characteristics, and role in the U.S. labor market

A general review of international migration to the United States is first presented. The analysis then focuses on aliens in irregular status in the United States, including the size of the illegal alien population, the intention of migrants to stay or to return, migrant characteristics, and the role of migrants in the U.S. labor market. The main concern of the paper is with illegal migration from Mexico. (summary in FRE, SPA)     

Implementation of Congressional intent: a study of amnesty policy and the Immigration and Naturalization Service

Despite the passage of the Immigration and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) the United States Border Patrol arrested about 1 million illegal aliens crossing the border in 1990. This phenomenon suggests that the IRCA has failed to control illegal immigration to the United States. Structural analysis of its implementation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was analyzed. Under an agreement with the INS to process illegal workers, community-based organizations in Arizona and New York became certified Qualified Designated Entities (QDEs). In 1988 the INS carried out a study to measure the impact of IRCA and solicited data from 9 QDEs. Data were obtained from 308 illegal aliens who failed to apply for amnesty and another 286 temporary legal residents. In the New York study information was collected from the QDEs between 1987 and 1989, and also in the summer of 1989 a group of 171 amnesty applicants were surveyed. All QDEs stated that implementation was hampered by excessive documentation, lack of strong family unification provisions, the financial cost of seeking legalization, and a fear of the INS. The Arizona and New York studies indicated that excessive documentation, fear of the INS (46% in New York), and fear of family separation (47% in New York) were the major factors why the targeted people did not come forward. Instead of seeking a proper balance between the written words of IRCA and the intent of Congress, INS developed guidelines that ignored the relevant facts presented by respected QDEs and Latino groups. In reality, INS sought to prevent illegal entry through amnesty offices throughout the United States. The eligibility requirements issued by the INS for amnesty served to limit and constrain participation in that program.     

No going back. Mexican women find opportunity and obstacles in a changing economy

An overview was provided of some of the economic and social changes in Mexico that impact on women. At the Colegio de Postgraduados, an ongoing project will examine women's work roles in an agricultural setting. The Ford Foundation has funded research studies at Mexican universities. One such study will examine women workers in foreign-owned factories producing duty free export goods; another study involves interviews with street vendors in the informal sector. Jose Alonso is a specialist on the Mexican garment industry, teaches at the University of the Americas, and advises at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico. He contends that the process of development can best be understood by examining the informal sector. There is no Mexican tradition of a business class. Scholars at the Colegio de Postgraduados' Center for Rural Development are exploring income generation schemes, and building a master's degree program specializing in gender and rural development. The program would train professionals with an understanding of the needs of rural women and appropriate strategies for improving women's social and economic conditions. Crises have precipitated major shifts in work patterns in Mexico. During the 1980s, inflation and unemployment rapidly increased and income declined to 1970s levels. Mass movement of women into the labor force occurred. For many women, the dual role in long paid work hours and family and domestic care has produced independence with a big price tag. Manufacturing jobs along the free trade border areas have provided work opportunities for women, who hold 70% of the jobs. These jobs have moved from low paid menial tasks to higher skilled and better paid positions with training, but only for some women. There are few unions, and the government Confederation of Mexican Workers does not include women. Notwithstanding working conditions, women confront other problems with housing and the lack of basic amenities such as electricity, tap water, trash collection, and paved roads and walkways. Border areas such as Juarez attract 200 unemployed daily. Unregulated growth will turn these border cities into densely populated areas. About 40% of the economically active population work in the informal sector. Much of the vendor merchandise is illegal contraband, and intricate handicrafts are sold next to electronic games, cosmetics, and silk-screened T shirts. Informal work is also available for women in cottage industries at home. The Agro-Industrial Women's Unit in Buenavista helps to secure agricultural land holdings for women.     

Las Migraciones en el Proceso de Integracion de las Americas: Seminario Internacional (Migration in the Integration Process in the Americas: International Seminar). Conference report

This conference report of the Centro de Estudios Migratorios Latinoamericanos and the Center for Migration Studies pertains to meetings held in August 1992. Summary information on migration movements in Latin America is presented by region and subject. The topic of integration in the Americas was presented by Mr. Lelio Marmora. Other topics and presenters include the new Colombian Migration Policy (Mr. Carlos Adolfo Arenas), the integration policies in Central America (Mr. Pilar Norza of Costa Rica, Raimundo Alvarado of El Salvador, and Luis Armando Gusman of Nicaragua), the Andean Pact agreements (representatives of each country), US immigration policy (Charles B. Keely), the Mexican integration with Latin America and immigration to the US (Jorge Bustamante), migration to Bolivia and Argentina and Chile, and transnationalism in the Caribbean (Professor Andre Corten). Migration policy needs to be tailored specifically to the situation in Latin America, and greater attention needs to be devoted to labor migrants' rights and working conditions. There are still fundamental differences among countries in policies regarding the free circulation of persons across borders. There is a division among those who support migration and those who are realists. National sovereignty issues are solvable because of a common national past and a relatively homogenous population. Another opinion is that Latin America is more diverse than commonly recognized. Capital is protected more in international agreements than is migrant labor. Regional integration for the US does mean immigration from Mexico. The US sees Mexican migration as a policy problem, and Mexico sees migration as a labor opportunity.     

Self‐Employed Mexican Immigrants Residing along the U.S.‐Mexico Border: The Earnings Effect of Working in the U.S. versus Mexico1

This study uses U.S. census data from the year 2000 to analyze the earnings of Mexican immigrants along the U.S.‐Mexico border while accounting for the location in which they work. The empirical results indicate that Mexican entrepreneurs who live in U.S.‐border cities but primarily operate in Mexico accrue a significant earnings premium over their entrepreneurial and salaried counterparts working on the U.S. side of the border, even after controlling for differences in observable characteristics. This work‐location earnings gap widens when focusing on Mexican business owners lacking U.S. citizenship. It follows that policies which reduce trade and labor flows across the U.S.‐Mexico border may inadvertently dampen the entrepreneurial activities of foreign‐born residents in U.S.‐border cities.     

Illegal immigrants in Canada: recent developments

Immigration policies and their management in a country like Canada have long been an interesting and instructive study for other countries. 1) With borders naturally protected by great distance from almost all migrant routes; 2) with a long, undefended border with the US and a further 3000 kilometers to its border on the south; 3) with a parliamentary system capable of comparatively rapid legislative and administrative responses to problems; and 4) with a relatively small legal, and even smaller illegal, population Canada had historically "experimented" with novel, often quite creative, immigration policies and programs to both encourage and control the increases in its population. This paper summarizes what Canada did and is doing in response to am important item of public policy--the entry and presence of illegal migrants. Canada has experimented with 1) discretionary amnesty for long-term illegals with a capacity to be successfully integrated into Canadian life, 2) tighter border controls with the extended use of the visitor's visa, and 3) employer sanctions. To address the problem more substantively, however, requires detailed study and significant change, including legislative change.     

Mexican immigration and the port-of-entry school

The results of an immigrant student census in a California port-of-entry school district are used to describe the educational backgrounds of Mexican immigrant students and to distinguish types of Mexican immigrant students by school entry patterns. Interviews with recently arrived Mexican immigrant parents reveal the educational and occupational expectations they hold for their children in the US. The study findings are used as a basis for raising policy questions and generating research issues. The most notable observation from the study is that the children of Mexican immigrants in La Entrada do not migrate once they are in school. Parents may be migrating back and forth between the US and Mexico, but children once in La Entrada do not leave the school to return to school in Mexico. The study suggests that the parents of immigrant students do not know how the US educational system works but they are interested in helping teachers educate their children.     

The U.S. legalization program: a preliminary final report

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 made 4 types of aliens eligible to receive legalization benefits: 1) those who resided "continuously" in the US since January 1, 1982; 2) those who had worked in the US perishable-crop agriculture for 90 "man-days" in specified time periods (Special Agricultural Workers [SAWS]); 3) those who were in the US since before January 1, 1972; and 4) those classified as Cuban/Haitian entrants and who had been in the US since January 1, 1982. Estimates of the number of aliens eligible for legalization, not including SAWS, ranges from 1.834 million to 2.56 million. Estimates of undercounts of undocumented aliens are 10% for those who entered before 1975 and 37.5% for those who arrived after 1975. Other refinements in the estimates of undocumented aliens include adjustments for 1) ethnic group and location, 2) the growth of the undocumented population between the census date and the legalization eligibility date under IRCA, and 3) emigration and deportation rates. Out of the 1,581,800 applicants entered into the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) computers (from a total of 2.15 million applicants) as of May 20, 1988, 73.7% were Mexican nationals. Only 5 other countries contributed more than 1%: El Salvador (6.5%), Haiti (2.3%), Guatemala (2.2%), the Philippines (1%), and Colombia (1%). The Mexican percentage was unexpectedly high, perhaps because the legalization had been much more successful in the Southwest than anywhere else in the country. Reasons that Mexicans have a higher legalization participation rate than other nationalities include 1) the distant eligibility date; 2) ethnic differences among non-Mexican nationalities; 3) particularly in the northeast, fears of exposing one's illegal status to INS; 4) the difficulty of information reaching ethnic communities, 5) the reluctance of those already undergoing the naturalization process to risk the legalization process; and 6) the reluctance of employees to admit employment of undocumented aliens. In the end, more than 90% of applicants are expected to be granted temporary resident alien status (and about 70% of agricultural workers), for a total of more than 2 million people. Researchers estimate that 2.5 - 3 million more persons remain in an undocumented status in the US.