reir-dirair242421r2Jr2n242424242424242/r2Jrair2irdirdirordor2Jordmr2Jr2i
CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF AGRICULTURAL LABOR " MIGRATION FROM THE MIXTECA OF OAXACA TO . CALIFORNIA
by James Stuart and Michael Kearney
Working Papers in U.S.-Mexican Studies, 28 1981
Program in United States-Mexican Studies University of California, San Diego 0-060 La Jolla, California 92093 raorairdirerairarer2irdorairdor2Jrairdworairdr-dordor2Joreir2Jr21 PUBUCATIONS OF THE PROGRAM IN UNITED STATES-MEXICAN STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
edited by Wayne A. Cornelius and Jorge G. Castro
r WORKING PAPERS IN U.S.-MEXICAN STUDIES
No. 1: Immigration and U.S.-Mexican Relations, edited by Wayne A. Cornelius. $4.00
No. 2: Interviewing Undocumented Immigrants: Methodological Reflections Based on Fieldwork in Mexico and the United States, by Wayne A. Cornelius. $2.50
No. 3: American in the Era of Limits: Nativist Reactions to the 'New' Immigration, by Wayne A. Cornelius. $3.00 No. 4: Mexican Immigration: Changing Terms of the Debate in the United States and Mexico, by Ann L. Craig. $2.50
No. 5: Mexican Migration to the United States: The Limits of Government Intervention, by Wayne A. Cornelius. $2.00
No. 6: The Future of Mexican Immigrants in California: A New Perspective for Public Po/icy, by Wayne A. Cornelius. $3.50 No. 7: Legalizing the Flow of Temporary Migrant Workers from Mexico: A Policy Proposal, by Wayne A. Cornelius. $2.50
No. 8: Immigration, Mexican Development Policy, and the Future of U.S.-Mexican Relations, by Wayne A. Cornelius. $3.00
No. 9: U.S. Trade Policy Toward Mexico: Are There Reasons to Expect Special Treatment? by Olga Pellicer de Brody. $2.50
No. 10: U.S. Concerns Regarding Mexico's Oil and Gas: Evolution of the Debate, 1977-1980, by Olga Pellicer de Brody. $2.50 No. 11: The Importation of Mexican Contract Laborers to the United States, 1942-1964: Antecedents, Operation and Legacy, by Manuel Garcia y Griego. $3.50 Restaurant Industries in Los No. 12: Hispanic Workers in the Garment and I Angeles County, by Sheldon L. Maram, with the assistance of Stuart Long and Dennis Berg. $4.00
No. 13: The United States Congress and the Making of U.S. Policy Toward Mexico, by Donald L. Wyman. $3.50
(Continued on inside back cover) CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF AGRICULTURAL LABOR MIGRATION
FROM THE MIXTECA OF OAXACA TO CALIFORNIA
by
JAMES STUART MICHAEL KEARNEY Sangamon State University University of California, Springfield, Illinois Riverside
WORKING PAPERS IN U.S.-MEXICAN STUDIES, 28
Program in United States-Mexican Studies University of California, San Diego
1981 Publication of this paper is made possible, in part, by a generous grant from the Rosenberg Foundation of San Francisco, California. The paper was presented at the Binational Consultation on U.S.-Mexican Agricultural Rela- tions held February 25-27, 1981 in San Diego, California and sponsored by the Program in U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California, San Diego. CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF AGRICULTURAL LABOR MIGRATION
FROM THE MIXTECA OF OAXACA TO CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
This paper discusses the patterns of migratory agricultural
labor originating in San JerOhimo Progreso, a Mixtec speaking village 1 in Oaxaca. Local peasant agriculture provides less than half of
the staples consumed in the village and opportunities for cash income
are woefully insufficient to fully supplement agricultural income:
These conditions are the primary proximate causes of heavy circular
migration from San Jerbnimo. Migrant workers from San Jeronimo seek
employment mainly in vegetable and cotton fields of Northwest Mexico,
and tree crops and tomatoes in California. In both the United States
and in Mexico they are near the bottom of the workforce with regard to
wages, employment stability, rate of unemployment, benefits, working 2 conditions, upward mobility, desirability of jobs, and prestige.
As compared with case studies of other sending communities in Mexico,
1 We wish to thank Linda Garro, Lorenzo Martinez, Roberto Perez, and Jim Young for their assistance in collecting some of the data on which this paper is based. Carole Nagengast and Richard Mines made helpful comments on a preliminary draft. Funding for this research was provided by a Population and Development Grant from the Ford and Rocke- feller Foundations, and by the College of Humanities and Social Sciences 4 at the University of California, Riverside. Released time for Stuart was made possibly by the Center for Policy Studies, Sangamon State University, Springfield, Illinois. 2 By these criteria San Jeronimo migrants may be considered as being in lower level of the secondary part of the "segmented labor mar- ket," See Bonacich (1972, 1976); Cain (1976); Doeringer and Piore (1971). Due to their undocumented status in the United States, it is also rea- sonable to regard them as part of a "tertiary" labor marker. See also Fisher (1953). -2-
migrants from San Jer6nimo appear to be among the least affluent and
most exploited. Such communities and their patterns of migration are
not well represented in the literature on Mexican migration.
As has been pointed out by many authors, there are two basic
types of agriculture in Mexico. There is first large scale commercial
production which is essentially an extension of North American agri-
business south of the border. The second consists of small subsistence
peasant holding which for the most part are in marginal lands that
are not under capitalist production. It is on these lands that the 3 peasantry renews itself. San Jer6nimo is such a community. It is
with regard to the predicted decline of such communities that both
orthodox economic and classic Marxist developmental theories are in
crisis. These communities throughout Mexico are neither being economic-
ally developed out of backwardness nor are they being displaced by
commercial agriculture (Kearney 1980). Instead, as the data in this
paper describe, it appears that part-time employment in commercial agri-
culture is perpetuating a semi-peasantry in a condition of underdevelopment.
It is therefore problematical whether San JerOnimo migrants are
more appropriately characterized as peasant-workers or worker-peasants.
Either way they share fundamental economic and social features of the
84 percent of Mexican campesinos designated as "infrasubsistence" by
the Mexican government. As noted above, San Jer6nimo migrants seek
3 See Buroway (1976:1051-1057) for the useful distinction he makes between the "maintenance" versus the "renewal" of a labor force, which are spatially separated in the case of lone male migration. Maintenance occurs at the place of work, renewal in the home community. employment predominantly in commercial agriculture. The material pre- sented herein describes the strategies of different types of households . as they participate in these two disparate but interrelated forms of livelihood. The effects of this migration on the development of the community are discussed below. These household and community data also help us to understand, at a macro level, how an inadequate peasant agrarian system articulates -- via migratory wage-labor -- with com- mercial agriculture.
This type of articulation is referred to elsewhere as "functional dualism" (de Janvry and GarramOn 1977) and as such is a variant of the "modes of production" analyses which are appearing in developmental 4 literature. A central issue which the functional dualist concept con- fronts is the persistence of the Latin American peasantry. In Mexico, three conditions are involved in this situation: (1) land scarcity, i.e., excess rural population, given present peasant productivity, (2) extensive marginal lands in which, for commercial agriculture, costs would exceed profits, and (3) large seasonal labor markets in commercial agriculture on both sides of the border. We can begin dis- cussion of how San Jer6nimo fits into this scheme by examining some of its general physical, social, and economic features.
4 For an application of this perspective to Mexican migratory labor see Buroway (1976); see also Foster-Carter (1973), Petras (1980), and Wolpe (1972). For extensive debate re the articulation of the Mexican peasantry see past issues of the journal of Historia y Sociedad. -4-
THE COMMUNITY
San Jeronimo is in the Mixteca region of Oaxaca, near the , border with the state of Guerrero. The Mixteca is an area of rugged mountains, eroded soils, and an impoversihed and largely indigenous rural population (Cook and Borah 1968; Butterworth 1969; Ravicz 1965).
Rainfall in the area occurs almost entirely during the summer months and averages roughly 80 cm per year. Native vegetation is a temperate forest of pine and oak though little forest remains except at altitudes over 2,500 meters.
The village is at an elevation of 2,000 meters in a small basin on the side of a ridge above a tributary of the Rio Mixteco. Its popu- lation is approximately 1,450 persons, most of whom reside in the town center. Data from a random sample of 50 households consisting of 433 individuals, approximately one-third of the population, indicate that virtually all members of the population speak Mixtec as a first language, and that 46 percent are monolingual Mixtec speakers. The median age of the surveyed population is 15 years, and 26 percent of the surveyed population is 5 years of age or younger. Though no specific data on population growth are available, it is clear that the birth rate is high.
Opportunities for making a living in San JerOnimo are severly limited (see below). The typically small land holdings and low agri- cultural yields preclude most households from satisfying their needs through farming. The median household land holding is approximately _5_
5 0.6 hectares, while the average land holding is approximately 1.2 hectares. TABLE 1 shows the amount of land used by households in the survey. Though these land holdings are small, the area that can be cultivated in any given year is smaller. Much land is on steep and badly eroded hillsides and cannot be cultivated for more than two years without being fallowed. The median amount of land reportedly cultivated by households in 1977 was only 0.4 hectares and the average was 0.7 hectares. Though there is a gross inequality in holdings (20 percent of the population own 65 percent of the land, while another 20 percent own only 1 percent), the low yields obtained do not make redistribution of land a promising solution to village problems.
Based on an average household of 8.8 members and estimated daily maize consumption of 0.4 kilogram per person, average household maize needs are about 1,280 kilograms per year, while average reported maize harvest per household was only about 210 kilograms in 1977.
From reported yields and areas planted, a hectare of maize can be expected to produce an average of only about 300 kilograms of shelled grain, one-fourth of the Mexican national average (Wellhausen 1976:87).
Thus an average household requires slightly more than. 4 hectares of land to produce yearly maize requirements. Only one household planted 4 or more hectares in 1977, and only four of the 50 surveyed households have access to that amount of land or more.
5 Land holding are measured in terms of the amount of seed required to plant a field, rather than by surface area directly. One maquila is a volume measure equal to five liters, and our estimates based on the spacing of plants, number of seeds planted in each spot, and the number of maize seed per maquila, give an average area equivalent of approximately 0.3 hectares per maquila. -6-
TABLE 1
LAND OWNED BY HOUSEHOLDS
• Land owned Number of Percentage of (hectares) households households
0.0 - 0.5 20 40
0.5 -.1.0 11 22
1.0 - 2.0 10 20
2.0 - 3.0 4 8
3.0 - 4.0 1 2
4.0 - 5.0 2 4
5.0 - 6.0 1 2
6.0 -11.0 0 0
11.0 -12.0 1 2
50 100
Other opportunities for making a living in San JerOnimo are
equally bleak. No full-time and precious little part-time wage labor
is available in the village or vicinity. Wage-labor working in the
fields of others is scarce and pays only 30 to 50 pesos ($1.35-2.25) a
day, and occasional work cutting and selling firewood, or bringing timbers
down from the surrounding mountains is not a steady source of income.
The only dependable source of cash income comes from weaving unfinished
hats from local palm. These hats are sold to buyers who resell them to _7_
hat factories. The weavers receive 2.50 pesos ($0.11) per hat and two hats are about the maximum that a person can make in a day.
Only as a comerciante (a combination store-owner, truck-owner, moneylender) can one live without working outside of the community, and both the quantity of capital needed to begin such a business and the competition from existing comerciantes makes this a limited alterna- tive. At present, the community contains nine major comerciantes and the market appears to be saturated.
MIGRATION: THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE
Given the limited opportunities for making a living in San
Jertonimo the immediate causes of migration are clear. For most house- holds migration is the only alternative to starvation. Most of the migrants from San JerOnimo are in effect "economic refugees," practicing what Cornelius (1978:29) refers to as "crisis-induced, income-maintenance" migration.
Of the 50 households surveyed, 41 contained one or more members who worked outside the community as migrant laborers during 1977.
Forty-seven households contained members who had been -migrants during the prior three years, and only three households were entirely composed of non-migrants. Eighty-five percent of males 15 years old or older have worked outside the community, 55 percent of the women and girls 15 or older have been migrants, and 34 percent of the children under 15 also have migrated. Women and children normally accompany their male rela- -8-
tives, but except while working in Sinaloa (see below), only males are wage earners. Even so, 53 percent of the surveyed population for whom migration information was available (422 persons) had been migrants during their lifetimes. TABLE 2 provides migration data for the'sur- veyed population over 15 years old. No women migrants to the United
States appeared in the San Jer6nimo survey. However, since the survey we have encountered about 14 San Jerbnimo women in California, about half of them working as orange pickers with their husbands. The ar- rival of women to California is recent, possibly the beginning of a
trend.
Migration Destinations
For the people of San Jerrinimo, migration in search of work re-
quires long distance travel. Previously villagers, the first of whom
began to work as migrant laborers in the 1920s, were employed as sugar-
cane cutters in the nearby states oF. Veracruz and Puebla. But in recent
years increased mechanization, low wages, and heavy competition for
jobs have made those nearby destinations less available and less at-
tractive. The most common destinations today are the CuliacSn Valley
of Sinaloa; Northern Baja California (especially Tijuana); Nogales,
Sonora; and the United States (mainly Southern and Central California).
Culiac&n, the closest destination to San JerOnimo is roughly 1,2000 miles,
while Riverside, California, a common United States destination, is
about 2,300 miles away. TABLE 3 gives the final migration destinations
of 81 male workers 10 years of age or older who were migrant workers
in 1977. TABLE 2
MIGRATION BY AGE AND SEX
MALES (N = 111) . FEMALES (N = 115) Never Mexico U.S. Never Mexico U.S. Age Migrated only migrant Migrated only migrant
15 - 19 4 12 4 10 10 0
20 - 29 2 10 15 11 21 0
30 - 39 3 14 6 6 II 0
40 - 49 0 8 4 9 10 0
50 - 50 3 7 4 4 4 0
60 - 99 5 8 2 12 7 0
Totals 17 59 35 52 7 0 15% 53% 32% 45% 55% 0
TABLE 3
MIGRATION DESTINATIONS OF MALES TEN YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER (1977)
Other Mexico United States CuliacAn Tijuana Nogales Age destinations (mainly Calif.)
10 - 19 6 6 5 2 5
20 - 29 5 4 2 0 14
30 - 39 6 1 0 2 5
40 - 49 3 2 2 0 1
50 - 59 3 1 1 0 1
60 - 99 2 1 1 0 0
Totals 25 15 11 4 26 -10-
TABLE 3 shows the United States to have been the most common migration destination for workers in 1977, with Culiacgn a close second.
When the ages of migrants to various areas is considered, a different pattern emerges. For boys and young men 10 to 19 years old, only five of 24 came to the United States, while for the next age group, the
20 to 29 year olds, 14 out of 25 entered the United States. In older age groups the percentage entering the United States generally decreases with age, while the percentage going to Culiacgn increases. The reasons for this shift are suggested by our analysis of how migration desti- nations are selected.
MIGRATION DECISIONS
In the absence of other viable alternatives, it is meaningless to talk of a household's decision whether or not to send some of its members outside the community to work. The focus of decisions is where to go, who to send, and when to send them, decisions that most house- holds must make every year.
There are four major alternatives from which a household can choose: (1) one or more males can be sent to the CuliaCan area of Sinaloa;
(2) most or all of the household can go to Sinaloa; (3) household males may go to Tijuana or Nogales hoping to find work in the urban setting, but expecting to cross the border and work in the United States; or (4) most of the household can to go Tijuana or other border cities and reside there while male members search for work locally or across the border. -11-
Over the years individual households may pursue each of these alterna- tives or combine several. However, at various stages of family develop- ment the variables to be considered differ, as do the likely outcomes of household migration decisions.
Option One: Culiacgm Alone
If one or more household males go to the CuliacAn area, they can generally expect to find fairly regular employment. After arriving in Culiacgn, migrants are usually placed in labor camps and signed up to work in the tomato fields. Invididuals of either sex over 13 or 14 can work, and daily wages are 110 to 130 pesos ($4.95-5.85) per day. Mi- grants can expect work from four to six days per week, depending on the weather and the number of others seeking work. Living conditions in the labor camps are abysmal, but advantages for unencumbered men in Culiacgn include fairly regular work, relatively low-cost medical care, and lower travel cost than to other migration destinations. It is also possible to work in CuliacLi without knowing Spanish. The disadvantages are that wages are low, sickness from unsanitary drinking water and pesticides is common, one is away from one's family and unable to help them in case of emergencies, and it is difficult to send money back to the village.
This alternative is most attractive to households with few members capable of working and whose able-bodied men are disinclined to work in the United States because of limited Spanish speaking ability, inexperience at crossing the border, advanced age, or difficulty in borrowing money for transportation. A typical case is that of the -12-
household of ASV, age 35. His wife is approximately 30, and he has three sons, aged 12, 8, and 4, and a daughter of 18 months. Only ASV and his
12 year old son speak Spanish, and neither speaks it well. The family lives in a brick house valued at approximately 10,000 peses ($450), with a tile roof and a dirt floor. The family, like all others in San JerOnimo, cooks over a wood fire on a hearth on the floor. They sleep on palm mats on the floor, and have only one chair, and no beds or tables. They own a hillside plot of approximately 2 maquilas (0.6 hectares, see Note 5) which was not cultivated in 1977, and another 2 maquilas near their house in town. Their 1977 harvest was about 200 kilograms of maize, and the family lives from day-to-day on borrowed money. Money is borrowed, at an interest rate of 10 percent per month, from a local comerciante.
The household produces an average of 12 palm hats per week, which sell for 30 pesos. They own one pig, and must rent oxen to plow for planting and cultivation. In 1977, ASV went alone to work in Culiacan and spent
Eive months there. He has not migrated often in the past, has never been to the United States, and his limited Spanish speaking abilities pre- clude that alternative. It is unclear how his family survives in years when ASV does not migrate.
Another case is that of ERR's household. ERR is 40, his wife is
35 and they have three sons, 18, 8, and 6, and two daughters, aged 10 and 6. Only the older son speaks Spanish. Their house, valued 1,500 pesos ($67), has walls of upright sticks and woven brush, a shingle roof and a dirt floor. They sleep on palm mats and have no other furniture.
They own approximately 1 maquila of hillside land and 2 liters (roughly
0.1 ha) of land next to the house. Their total of 0.4 hectares produced -13-
approximately 100 kilograms of maize in 1977. ERR and his son work cutting
firewood and selling it in Silacoayapan, the municipio (township) center
about 3 hours away, transporting it on a burro borrowed from ERR's
brother. The household also makes and sells 12 hats a week. ERR and his
18 year old son migrated to Culiacn in 1977, and the son was there again
in August of 1978. The two men spend five or six months each year in
Culiacgn.
The cost of transportation to CuliacAn, roughly 700 to 800 pesos
($30-35) each way including food, combined with the low wages and the
hardship of family separation, makes sending lone men there an unat-
tractive option. It is primarily the alternative of those who cannot
afford transportation for more family members, who have limited knowledge
of Spanish, and have neither relatives able to look after their children
while the wife migrates with her husband nor children old enough to earn
wages themselves.
Option Two: Culiacan Together
The second alternative, sending several family members to Culiacgn,
is a more common one. If there are several family members who can work,
taking the entire family has the advantage of producing more income,
eliminating the need to send money back to the village and avoiding much
of the worry caused by family separation'. The low wages, high cost of
transportation and the likelihood of sickness are still disadvantages, • but disadvantages which can be more easily borne when the family is
together. This alternative is common among older families with several -14-
members capable of working, and among young families in which a man and wife migrate to Culiacgn together, leaving their children with grand- parents or other family members.
An example of this migration pattern is the 16-member household of JBZ, aged 55, his wife 52, three married sons, 30, 28, and 21 and their wives, a daughter aged 24 and her husband, a daughter 16, and
5 grandchildren under 8. They live in an adobe house with a tile roof and dirt floor, own a manual sewing machine and three chairs, and sleep on mates on the floor. The household owns 2 maquilas of land on the hillsides and plants about a half liter of maize adjacent to the house,
In 1977, they harvested only a few ears of maize for eating on the cob.
The hillside fields produced no grain, only fodder for animal feed.
Nine of the household members make hats, selling about 18 per week, and the men and boys work as laborers in town when possible. Most household income comes from CuliaeLn. In 1977, for example, LBZ, his sons 30 and
28, his elder daughter and her husband and three children went to
Culiacgn for about three months. All members of the household who went to Culiacsan, except the children, speak at least some Spanish.
Another example is that of IP's household. The household includes
IP, age 36, his wife 35, sons ages 17, 8 and 6, and daughters ages 16,
14, 12 and 4. The household lives in a stone house with a tile roof and a dirt floor, has a table and several chairs, and a single electric light.
IP first became a migrant at the age of 14 and worked four times in
Veracruz, five times in Culiacgn, lived with his family in Tijuana from
1969 to 1977, and has been in the United States 11 times, the last time -15-
with his son, then 15 years old. The family owns no land in San Jergnimo except for the plot the house stands on. In 1977, IP decided to "retire" from his life in Tijuana and his career as an agricultural worker in the
United States because of the hardships it had caused him and his family.
With five household members capable of working in CuliacAn, he can ex- pect to make up to 600 pesos ($27) per day, which is more than he can make working alone in California. In 1978, the family spent approxi- mately six months in CuliacIn and the remainder of the year in San
Jer6nimo. After his son marries and brings his wife into the household, 6 the son will probably begin working on his own in the United States.
With several family members of working age, migration to Culiacn is a viable option. Though wages are low, the chances of finding steady work for several months are good, and family income compares favorably with wages earned by a single migrant in the United States. For many households a yearly trip to Culiacgn is seen primarily as a means of household maintenance rather than as a source of savings. After finishing the maize harvest in January, these households regularly depart for Culiacgn and remain there until April or May, returning to begin planting. Though they may return with no savings, the family has managed to eat for four or five months without using maize stored from the harvest, and has bought clothing. The stored maize remains to sustain them through the planting and weeding seasons, and some family membezs may return to Culiacgn between the weeding and harvest and remit earnings to those who remain behind.
6 Recently, migrants passing through Riverside told us that this young man died in convulsions in Culiacgn several weeks previously, ap- parently of pesticide poisoning. -16-
Option Three: Migration to the United States Alone
The third option available to families in San JerOnimo is sending
one or more male household members to work in the United States. Wages
are higher and "with luck" a worker can accumulate considerable savings.
Higher wages are, however, virtually the only advantage to working in
the United States, and there are many disadvantages. The first of
these is the cost of transportation. A potential border crosser re-
quires roughly 1,500 pesos ($67) for the trip from the village to Tijuana,
and an additional 20 dollars for possible expenses in California before
finding work. Unlike many undocumented migrants, the people of San
Jertnimo seldom pay professional smugglers to get them into the United
States. The most common means of entry is on foot. Groups of up to
six men, led by an experienced villager who knows the trails, cross the
international frontier in the mountainous area between Tijuana and Tecate.
After crossing the border, the group walks from four to ten days until
reaching known ranches or other stopping places in the counties of San
Diego or Riverside. From there calls are made to employers or labor
contractors until one is found who is willing to come and get them. The
ride normally costs 40 to 50 dollars each.
Once the potential workers have arrived in the Riverside area,
steady work is not assured. During the past two years work has been
difficult to find because of poor orange crops, and most workers have
had to move on to Central California where more work was available. But a. presently (January 1981), due to a bumper navel orange crop, labor con-
tractors are short of workers. -17-
Living conditions for migrants in the Riverside area are variable.
At some locations there is no housing and workers simply sleep in the
groves, often putting together tiny shacks or lean-tos. At one local ranch housing is limited to abandoned buses stripped of their seats, while another provides housing in a large packing shed furnished with a stove and refrigerator. The least satisfactory housing conditions, in the view of San Jer6nimo migrants, are found within the urban areas.
One example is an extremely dilapidated two bedroom house located in a largely Chicano neighborhood. Up to 30 undocumented workers from various parts of Mexico live there during the picking season. Each migrant is charged a rent of 1 dollar per day, and must constantly watch for both the Immigration authorities and for local gangs who prey on the "illegals." Migrants are frequently robbed in urban neighborhoods and in 1976, while living in this house, one worker from San JerOnimo was murdered and another wounded by assailants with a shotgun.
When work is available earnings range to over 300 dollars per week, though such high wages are uncommon. The average weekly wages received by San Jerbnimo migrants in Riverside during the winter of
1979, as recorded from 18 check stubs, was $110.68, with average earnings after deductions (workmen's compensation, Social Security, local taxes and working equipment) of $99.93. This average is atypical since it in- cludes the wages of two workers employed Under a United Farm Workers contract (a rare occurrence) and another who was available to work only for one day of the week. Average non-union wages for migrants available to work all week long were $84.73, and average earnings after deductions -18--
were $76.01 (medi4 $80 and $74.30 respectively).
TABLE 4 provides an idealized budget for a San Jer6nimo migrant working in the Riverside area. It is based on average non-union weekly earnings as calcualted from check stubs of men from San Jer6nimb working in Riverside orange groves and living in an urban neighborhood during the winter and early spring of 1979. Expenses are estimated from discussions with various workers. The budget assumes that the migrant borrows 2,000 pesos ($90) from moneylenders in San Jerbnimo for three months, and pays the going rate of 10 percent per month. The loan provides 1,500 pesos ($67.50) for transportation to Tijuana, and 500 pesos ($22.50) for transportation from southern Riverside County to the place of work. The budget also assumes that the migrant obtains work in Riverside for three months, and is extremely conservative with his earnings, spending nothing on entertainment or presents for his family, and is not robbed. None of these assumptions is likely to be valid in specific cases, thus the idealized budget is somewhat optimistic in the amount available for, remittance to the village.
A remittance of 274 dollars, the amount assumed to be left after expenses, is sufficient to buy approximately 1,200 kilograms of maize at the 1979 price in San Jerbnimo, 17 pesos per maquila (approximately
5.15 pesos or $.23 per kilogram, see Note 5). Twelve hundred kilograms of maize is slightly less than the amount required for human consumption during one year for a household of average size (9 persons). The re- maining household consumption would have to be provided through other income. -19-
TABLE 4
IDEALIZED BUDGET FOR MIGRANTS WORKING IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Expenses
Loan for transportation from San Jerbnimo to Riverside° $ 90 Interest on Loan 27 Clothing bought in California 30 Rent for 3 months @ $1/day 90 Food for 3 months @ $3/day 270 Transportation to and from work @ $1/working day 72 Deductions from wagesc 94. d Bribe to Mexican border officials 3 Return to San Jeronimo 67
TOTAL EXPENSES $ 743 TOTAL EARNINGS @ $80.73/week for 3 months $1017
TOTAL POTENTIAL REMITTANCE TO SAN JERoNIMO $ 274
a Includes $67.50 for transportation and food from San Jertinimo to Tijuana, and $22.50 for expenses after crossing the border until work is found. b Current interest rates are 10% c Average deductions recorded from check stubs for non-union em- ployment was 10.3% including worken's compensation, social security, local taxes, and work equipment (gloves, clippers, fruit carrying bags). Various employers make deductions for different things; not all deduc- tions are taken from each check. Social security was deducted from 15 of the 18 recorded check stubs. None of the workers have valid social security cards.
d en migrants return to Tijuana, border officials frequently de- mand money from them. On times when we have accompanied workers from San Jerbnimo crossing the border to Tijuana, the border officials have settled for $3 to $5. Migrants report that more money may be demanded when they return on foot without a foreigner present. -20-
Though the idealized budget provides only a meager income, the
alternative of working in California is attractive. It would be even
more attractive if migrants could reasonably expect to find work rapidly
and work steadily as assumed in the budget. Unfortunately for undocu-
mented migrants, the difficulty in finding steady work and the chance
of apprehension make work in the United States less certain. The
chance of being robbed on the Mexican side while attempting to cross
the border is great, and the robbers, who are often Mexican police,
may also detain potential border crossers in jail until their companions
can pay "bail" for their release. If apprehended by United States Im-
migration authorities after crossing the border and repatriated, the
migrant is faced with the expense of living in Tijuana until crossing
successfully. Continued attempts to cross the border until successful
are necessary since migrants seldom have sufficient funds for return
fare to San JerOnimo.
Once in the United States the walk to southern Riverside County
is another source of danger and uncertainty. Though no one from San
JerOnimo has died making this trip, they frequently run short of food
and water and several have been injured crossing the snow-covered
mountains of eastern San Diego County during the winter months. Migrants from other areas have been less fortunate; the bodies of 11 migrants who
died of exposure or thirst were found in southern California deserts
in 1978 (The Enterprise, Riverside, California, June 22, 1979).
After walking from four to ten days the migrants reach north-
eastern San Diego County or southern Riverside County. Experienced
border crossers have found a number of havens where local residents -21-
will allow them to sleep, place telephone calls requesting rides, and often feed them and sometimes give them a few days work.
Once a migrant arrives in Riverside he has little mobility to look for a job. Unless steady work is available at the point reached on foot he must pay for rides to other areas until work is found. While employed, the migrant faces the constant chance of appre- hension by immigration officers. Though migrants from San Jerbnimo have little fear of physical harm from Immigration authorities ("They only hit you if you run") or hostility toward them, apprehension is an eco- nomic catastrophe, requiring a return trip across the border and the loss of many days of work.
The following case, taken from a migration history interview with IPZ, illustrates some of these problems. IPZ left San Jeronimo for Tijuana in April of 1975. After resting a few days he crossed the border with two companions and walked to Riverside County in four days.
Food and water ran out on the third day. In sourthern Riverside County they found a chicken ranch where workers gave them eggs and they bought
bread. There they got a ride to a town further north where they found a family with a small ranch. They worked for 15 days, receiving 10 dollars per day each and food. Afterwards they were given a ride to eastern Los Angeles County, but there were already too many workers and only three days work per week was available at 4 dollar per day and food. Unable to find steady work, they paid 30 dollars each for a ride
to Fresno, where they found work thinning cotton for $2.40 per hour.
Food and lodging there cost 85 dollars a month each, plus 2 dollars
per day for transportation to and from the fields. IPZ remained for -22-
two months before returning to Tijuana to see if there was any word from his family. There was no word, and he decided to recross the border and work in northern San Diego County. At the border he was caught by Mexican police and forced to pay 5 dollars for his re- lease. After crossing he was apprehended by the Immigration authori-
ties and returned to Tijuana. A few days later he tried again, but
was again caught by the Mexican police, who demanded 5 dollars from
each man. Only IPZ had money so the group was taken to jail where he
was relieved of 20 dollars and released. The police offered to return
them to the border where they could try to cross again, but without money for a ride in California IPZ had to return to a friend's house in
Tijuana, muy triste (very sad). After borrowing money to cross again,
he was successful and reached northern San Diego County where he found
work picking tomatoes at 2 dollars per hour. IPZ worked there for 20
days and was caught and sent back to Tijuana. He returned without
difficulty and remained there picking tomatoes for 2/12 months before
returning to San Jerbnimo, seven months after his departure. During
the seven months IPZ worked approximately 100 days at an average of
$16.50 per day before deductions. Earnings for an average week were
55 dollars.
Option Four: Living in Tijuana
One way of ameliorating the hardships of working in the United
States is to establish a temporary residence in Tijuana where family option members stay while husbands and sons work in California. This contact, has the advantages of permitting families to remain in closer -23-
eases the problem of sending remittances, and allows workers to make repeated entries into the United States without the expenses of return- ing to San Jer6nimo. The major disadvantages are the poor living condi- tions in the Tijuana shanty towns, the difficulties women and children, mostly monolingual Mixtec speakers, encounter in the city, the high cost of living, and the difficulty of maintaining contact with the
home community. This option is most attractive to households without land in San Jeronimo, or with close relatives to care for their land
and house. Establishing a residence in Tijuana is easier for those
with close relatives already there, though most families in San Jeronimo find have these ties. Relatives, friends or corppadres can be used to
housing and support the family until work is found.
Of the 50 households surveyed in San Jeronimo in 1978, twelve some (24 percent) included women and children who lived in Tijuana at
time during their lives. In addition, approximately 35 households of 1978. from San Jer6nimo were living in Tijuana during the summer average Twenty-two of these were surveyed and it was found that the members of length of time they had been Tijuana was 3.8 years. The
one household had resided in Tijuana for 12 years. in Tijuana The approximately 300 people from San Jer6nimo living to the currently reside in two neighborhoods in the hills and ravines lies on south of the city center. The largest of these settlements wash. A dirt both sides of a steep canyon that descends into a dry floor of the wash road, impassable after heavy rains, runs along the adjacent hills and and small trucks enter this and nearby canyons. The secondhand lumber canyons are densely covered with small houses made of -24-
and sheet metal linked by steep, rocky trails. Most house sites have
been dug from the hillside, and retaining walls of discarded automobile ... tires hold the soil in place and discourage slides. All land that can
be leveled is occupied by houses or their tiny yards.
The houses range in size from about 8 by 10, to 10 by 30 feet.
Nineteen of the 22 houses have dirt floors. There is no running water
in the community and average monthly expenditure for water is 10 dollars.
Seventeen of the 22 houses have electricity, usually a single bulb, 13
have radios and 11 have televisions. Two households have refrigerators
and most have small kerosene stoves, though 3 cook over hearths on the
floor. The average household size is 9.1 individuals, and the medium
household age is 11 years. Twenty-six percent of the surveyed popula-
tion of 210 individuals is five years of age or younger, and only one
individual is over 50.
Most of the San JerOnimo households in Tijuana are dependent on
wages earned in the United States for their support. Only 7 of the 48
census males 15 and older, earn the majority of their incomes in Tijuana,
and 4 more depend primarily on agricultural work in Baja California. Of
the remaining 37 men and boys, 2 are equally dependent on agricultural
work in Baja California and in the United States, and the remaining
35 earn most of ther incomes working in California.
_ Those who have been fortunate enough to find regular employment
in Tijuana work primarily as laborers for the municipal water company. _ The remaining Mextec men in the urban area remain unemployed or cut
lawns, and work at other odd jobs while not in the United States. Ap-
proximately one-half of the women spend a few days each week selling -25-
chewing gum or costume jewelry on the streets of central Tijuana. They
usually clear under 1 dollar per day, and are occassionally harrassed
and jailed by local police. When arrested, they are released after their families pay appropriate "bail."
While in the United States the San Jerbnimo migrants living in
Tijuana face the same problems and hardships as those who migrate
directly from the village, though the relative nearness of their families makes communication easier. Like the migrants direct from the home vil- lage, almost all work as temporary agricultural laborers.
San Jer6nimo migrants residing in Tijuana generally view their stay there as temporary: only one of the 22 household heads plans to become a permanent resident. While expectations of returning to the home community are common among migrants of many nationalities, there is reason to believe that the overwhelming majority of Mixtecs in
Tijuana seriously intend to return to the home village. Eighteen per- cent of the households presently living in San Jeronimo have lived in
Tijuana at some time in the past, and many families currently there have built substantial houses in the village with migrant work earnings.
None has made more than a minimal investment in housing in Tijuana, most continue to meet thier obligations in the San Jerbnimo.cargo system of civil and religious offices (see below), and we have discovered no cases of marriage between people from San JerOnimo and mestizos in
Tijuana. Further, it is only in the Mixteca that their native language is common, whereas Spanish is spoken between family members in only one of the 22 households surveyed in Tijuana. -26-
MIGRATION AND THE COMMUNITY
The impact of wage labor migration on the village of San Jeronimo
is overwhelming. Without the possibility of migration earnings the
village could not exist as a viable community at its present population.
With current land holdings, and our estimate that a minimum of 4 hec-
tares are required to produce a household's minimal nutritional needs,
approximately only 250 persons could be locally supported where 1,450
now live. Without the possibility of temporary agricultural wage- ••••
labor migration, over 80 percent of the present population would have
been forced to become permanent migrants in Mexican cities or simply
would not have survived. Migration's most significant effect is that
it has prevented such disastrous change. Yet at the same time, wage-
labor migration does not seem to be contributing to positive changes
which will ameliorate its immediate causes. In the following para-
graphs we examine the social and economic consequences of migration for
the community. Strdi a distinction between the "social" and "economic"
is, of course, only an expository convenience, since they are intimately
interrelated.
Social Change
Without recourse to migration, traditional village structures
could not have survived. It is ironic that because it is heavily de-
pendent on outside wages, San Jerbnimo still has most of the cultural
and social characteristics which Wolf (1957) sees typifying a "closed
corporate peasant community." There is first of all the communal -27-
charter of the village -- a heritage of the colonial period -- which
grants it a formal corporate status. Membership in the community is
almost exclusively by birth, and rarely by in-marriage, i.e., the com-
munity is highly endogamous. Internal village autonomy is maintained
to a high degree by the persistence of an administrative hierarchy
of non-salaried officials whose functions mesh with a cycle of reli-
gious festivals. Participation in this civil-religious complex is a
41, sign of and to a great extent a requirement of community membership.
Absence from the community for extended periods threatens membership
status, and the partial security it affords. Therefore, migrants who
are living out of the village for long periods typically return home
to make an appearance at important events, financially sponsor and make
contributions to civil and religious fiestas, and pay substitutes to ful-
fill civil office for which they have been chosen. These various ways
in which migrants validate their community membership serve to re- 7 enforce the traditional cultural and social features of the community.
Economic Change
Not all impact of migration has been conservative however; mi-
gration has had consequences for the development of .community infra-
structure, distribution of wealth, standard of living, receptivity to
technological innovation, and villagers' awareness of the degree of
their poverty.
7 It can be expected that migrants from Mexican collective agrarian communities (ejidos) take comparable actions to ensure that they do not lose their membership. -28-
Ten years ago San Jer6nimo could not be entered by wheeled vehicle, had no electricity, nor public water system. The recent acquisition of electricity, a water system (begun in 1976 and still not functioning in early 1981), a new school building and more teachers, are indirect results of migration. The road into San JerOnimo was built so that trucks, bought principally with migrant earnings, could enter, bringing goods to be purchased with money made in Culiacgn and the United States. The road, though impassable during much of the rainy season, provided access and evidence of community ambition, which led to the building of a new school, the entry of electric lines, and to the water system.
Distribution of wealth in the community is also affected by mi- gration. In terms of expendable, as opposed to productive, wealth, all able-bodied community members are on roughly an equal footing.
Wage-labor migration is open to all since virtually any family can borrow sufficient money to send one of its members to CuliacAn, and virtually all households (94 percent of those surveyed) have received migrant earnings. In terms of productive wealth, migration has had the opposite effect. It has led to gross inequalities in opportunity to make a living locally. Households that became comerciantes early by buying trucks, opening stores and becoming moneylenders have a near monopoly on the ultimate dispersement of money entering the community.
Whether buying food, transporting building materials for a new house, buying beer and soft drinks for a fiesta, or borrowing money to travel to the north, village residents must turn to the comerciantes. Interest on loans alone, at a rate of 10 percent per month, channels a significant -29-
portion of migrant income into the hands of a few families. These
comerciantes in turn spend little of this money in San Jerbnimo and
thus are conduits through which migrant earnings leave the community.
The single most important local condition shaping the impact
of expenditures earned from migration is that opportunities for pro-
ductive investment are lacking. Land is extremely scarce in the com-
munity, and is seldom available for purchase. Land in bordering com-
munities is expensive, though its value is difficult to document be-
cause of the infrequency of sales. Community members think productive
land sells for considerably more now than in recent years. Investment
in livestock is not economical because the severity of the dry season
and scarcity of pasturage causes high animal mortality. No other in-
vestment options are known.
With opportunities for productive expenditure essentially
lacking, migration earnings go mainly for subsistence needs, consumer
goods, and especially for improved housing (see below). The impact of
migration on standard of living is difficult to document in the absence
of comparative figures from earlier periods, but the community's de-
pendence on outside earnings for basic necessities indicates that mi-
gration is crucial for household maintenance. Specific aspects of the
present standard of living directly attributable to migration include
• improved housing, dietary change, and adoption of Western, and particu-
larly North American clothing.
According to informants, the most common type of village house
twenty years ago was the traditional round or rectangular house with
brush or upright pole walls, and a thatch roof. Since that time the -30-
face of the community has been transformed by dozens of new cement
block and adobe brick houses. These newer houses are much larger
than traditional houses, and range from approximately 2/12 by 8 meters,
to multi-room two story houses. Virtually all these new houses have
been built with migrant earnings. This heavy investment of migrant
earnings in housing in the absence of productive investment opportuni-
ties is consistent with patterns reported for Philipine, Portuguese,
Spanish, Caribbean, and other Mexican communities (see Wiest 1979:172;
Feindt and Browning 1972), and some communities in China, Yugoslavia,
and Pakistan (see Swanson 1979:48).
It is incorrect to see this heavy investment in housing as
simply an expressed preference for consumption. Instead, it is a
second choice made in the absence of productive investment possibili-
ties. Furthermore, a well-built house, in addition to being more com-
fortable is also a form of old age security. The thinking here, ex-
pressed to us by many informants, is that not only will one have the
house to live in themselves when too old to migrate, but that it will
be an inheritance for their children, inducing them to support the
parents. This strategy is given urgency by two other considerations.
First there is the early "retirement" age of migrants going to the
United States. Work histories and intensive interviewing about job preferences indicate that after about age forty, one is "too used up" to work effectively in the tree and vegetable crops in which the people 8 of San Jeronimo are concentrated. Second, there is an awareness of
8 Migrants frequently compare the physical rigors of piecework orange picking to sugarcane cutting as the most onerous and debilitating agricultural work they have engage in. Added to this is the stress of border crossing, job seeking, and the living-working conditions described above -31-
the precariousness of work and residence in California. Even several families who have been in Tijuana and California for up to eight years, with children in local schools, maintain houses in the village and validate their community membership in the manners described above. (We discovered the California families after the surveys.) Apart from a certain expressed nostalgia for the peace and beauty of the Mixteca, these long-term migrants talk about their homes in the village as their final residences when they are either deported permanently or simply too old to work.
Changes in food habits result both directly from migration ex- periences, and indirectly from the construction of the road into the village. The most significant direct result of migration on food habits is the use of refined wheat flour for tortilla making. Eighteen of 25 household questioned consumed flour tortillas during some portion of 9 the year. Though less nutritious than corn, flour tortillas can be made more quickly and, during some times of the year, flour is less expensive than maize. Other migration related dietary changes in- clude increased consumption of beer, soft drinks (to the obvious detri- ment of children's teeth), and tropical fruits and vegetables produced at lower elevations. The consumption of these latter items has added
important sources of vitamins to the diet!
9 A question concerning use of flour for tortillas was added to the survey approximately halfway through the interviews. -32-
MIGRATION AND THE UNITED STATES
few in number, Though the migrants from San Jeronimo, relatively United States, examination of make little Impact on the economy of the the general issue of undocumented their limited impact sheds light on Based on the idealized budget Mexican workers in the United States. approxtmstely 60 percent of presented in TABLE 4, we estimate that States and 40 percent goes to migrant earnings remains in the United in the United States, a considerable Mexico. Of the 60 percent remaining to governmental agencies for portion (10-12 percent) goes directly compensation. Of the total Social Security, local taxes and workmen's check stubs of Mixtec migrants $1,992.25 in earnings reported on 18 was deducted for workmen's compensa- working in Riverside County, $15.82 $4.15 for local taxes. An addi- tion, $113.42 for Social Security and dues and working equipment. In tional $61.16 was deducted for union governmental agencies, no migrant contrast to their contributions to social security or workmen's from San Jer6nimo questioned has received who was treated at the county hospital compensation, though we know of one was processed through the county for a gunshot wound, and another who
morgue following the same incident.
Undocumented Workers and U.S. Policy
on United States population growth, The effects of illegal migration funds, and violation of the human unemployment, alleged drain on tax policy. for United States immigration rights of migrants have implication of (1) expanding the yearly quota Policy recommendations include: European-type Mexico, (2) the creation of a permanent resident aliens from -33-
guest worker program for Mexican workers, (3) the continuation of the status quo, (4) a United States-Mexico common market with open borders, and (5) a reduction of the number of undocumented workers currently in the United States and a restriction in the number crossing the border.
The present research suggests some implications of these recommenda- tions, especially the last one.
Macroeconomic effects of closing the "safety valve" of Mexican migration to the United States have been discussed elsewhere. This case study of migration from San JerOnimo allows an examination of some of the microeconomic effects, and provides a perspective on potential migration policy unobtainable through analysis of macroeconomic data.
In the remaining paragraphs we address the following questions: (1)
What alternatives are the people of San Jerninimo and similar villages likely to follow if entry into the United States is restricted? (2)
What repercussions will these alternatives have on the community?
If the people of San JerOnimo and similar communities are unable
to enter the United States, their opportunities for making a living will be greatly limited. The only remaining alternative, of those currently followed, will be seasonal migration to Culiac6n. Without
the possibility of entering the United States, moving to Tijuana will no longer be feasible, since most Mixtec households there are dependent on United States sources of income. During the past three years
slightly less than half of the households surveyed in San JerOnimo
(22 of 50) have received income from United States wages, and most
of the San Jerbnimo households currently in Tijuana depend on work in -34-
the United States.
For households dependent on income remitted and brought back from
the United States, a lowered standard of living will result. They will
be forced to depend on Culiacgn for income, requiring more household
members to migrate, or requiring that men spend longer periods of time
there. This increase in migration to Culiacgn and to other Mexican
migration destinations will significantly increase competition for
jobs and the already high levels of unemployment.
For those households living in Tijuana, the elimination of income
from the United States will have devastating effect. Only about 23
percent of the Mixtec men in Tijuana (11 of the 48 surveyed individuals)
are currently able to earn a living in Mexico, and with increased compe-
tition from workers unable to cross the border, and the concomittant de-
pression of Tijuana's economy, even fewer will be able to find work
locally. The majority of the Tijuana Mixtec households will be without
any way of earning a living. Without income few will have enough money
to return to San Jertnimo. These households, and thousands like them,
will remain in Tijuana, requiring massive expenditures by the Mexican
government for their subsistence or removal. The magnitude of this
problem is impossible to ascertain, since no one knows what percentage
of the overall Tijuana population of over 850,000 is dependent on
illegal migration for their income. Some estimate that only 25 percent
of the city's labor force finds employment within Mexico (In These Times,
July 5, 1978). Even at a lower figure it is conceivable that as many as 10,000 Tijuanan families would be left without means of supporting -35-
themselves if illegal migration were stopped. Similar conditions can be expected to occur in other Mexican border cities: Mexicali, Nogales,
JuA'rez.
Without the "safety valve" of temporary migration to the United
States, it can be expected that permanent migration to the cities of central Mexico will increase from already high rates, as both rural villagers and residents of the border area are forced to seek new sources of income. For the people of San Jerbnimo, the most likely destination is Mexico City, already the destination of moony from the
Mixteca (Butterworth 1962, 1969).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Compared with other sending communities in Mexico, San Jerbnimo is among the poorer. Village agriculture produces less than 20 percent of the staples consumed and, given present economic resources and tech- nology, appears incapable of doing better. Said differently, about 80 percent of the food consumed within San JerOnimo is provided from ex- ternal income. Therefore, for most households recurrent migration is not a choice among other options, but a necessity. Over 90 percent of village families are dependent on migration for significant portions of their income, and the primary motivation for migration for most of them is simply survival. Households without sufficient land to support themselves locally, over 90 percent of those surveyed, have four al- ternatives: (1) sons and husbands of these families may work seasonally in northern Mexico; (2) the whole household may migrate seasonally to northern Mexico; (3) men may enter and work in the United States without -36-
visas; or (4) the whole household may migrate to border cities like
Tijuana and remain there while their men work in the United States.
Young men and women from 20 to 30 are increasingly choosing work in the United States over work in Mexico, and this pattern is likely to continue, with greater village dependence on income from the United
States likely in years to come.
Migration to the United States is not, however, a source of high earnings or great potential wealth. A small sample of workers in southern California was found to earn an average of only about 85 dol- lars a week. After deductions from wages, and living and transporta- tion expenses, it is estimated that only about 25 percent of total income earned in the United States is available to be remitted for family use.
First priority for that portion of these earnings left over after spending for basic necessities is given to improved housing and consumer goods. Aside from the opening of a few small stores and the purchase of a few trucks, there is almost no investment of migrant earnings in productive enterprises. As a result, migration is not significantly contributing to long-term economic development. Instead, it is a pallativei for unemployment, land shortage, lack of credit, and all the other typical conditions of rural stagnation. Many of the pre- sumed benefits of migration such as introduction of new skills, tech- nological innovations, equalization of income, and decreased land rents have not resulted. Instead migration seems to have furthered wealth differentiation, and aggravated inflation of land and consumer prices. -37-
But it is clear that in the absence of migration, all other things being equal, far worse consequences would have occurred.
In sum, the effects of migration on the socioeconomic development of the community are contradictory. On the positive side it is clear that migration is essential for the maintenance of the population at anywhere near its present level and standard of living, low as it is.
But at the same time the community has become dangerously dependent on migration. It is "dependent" not only in the neo-marxist sense of the term, but also in the sense of narcotics addiction. Just as the addict "needs" narcotics, so does San Jer6nimo need a constant in- fusion of migrant earnings to survive. It is locked into a migratory pattern which "produces the need for more migration" (Wiest 1979:175).
The migrants of San JerOnimo lead fragmented lives -- part worker, part peasant -- for which they have no immediate alternatives. From a larger perspective, the flow of this migrant labor from the village inextricably links its economy with commercial agriculture in Mexico and California. If migrants from San Jerclnimo and similar villages are for whatever reasons prevented from working in California commercial agriculture, they will be forced to support themselves by temporary or permanent migration within Mexico. This would increase Mexican agri- cultural and urban unemployment, and could lead to massive social dis- orgniazation. In addition, prevention of migration to the United States would have disastrous effects on the border cities. Thousands of families mainly dependent on United States earnings for thier livelihood would be without means of supporting themselves. Mexico, and possibly the United
States, would be forced to provide support for these families and to fi- nance their resettlement in other areas. -38-
REFERENCES
Bonacich, Edna. "A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: The Split Labor Market." American Sociological Review 37 (1972): 547-599.
"Advanced Capitalism and Black-White Race Relations in the United States: A Split Labor Market Interpretation." American Sociological Review 41 (1976): 34-51.
Buroway, Michael. "The Functions and Reporduction of Migrant Labor: Compara- tive Material from Southern Africa and the United States." American Journal of Sociology 81 (1976): 1050-1087.
Butterworth, Douglas. "A Study of the Urbanization Process Among Mixteca Migrants From Tilantongo in Mexico City." America Indigena 22 (1962): 257-274.
"Factors in Out-Migration From a Rural Mexican Community," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1969.
Cain, Glen G. "The Challenge of Segmented Labor Market Theories to Orthodox Theory: A Survey." Journal of Economic Literature 14 (1976): 1215- 1257.
Cook, Sherburne F. and Woodrow Borah. The Population of the Mixteca Alta, 1520-1960. Ibero-Americana, No. 50. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.
Cornelius, Wayne A. Mexican Migration to the United States: Causes, Con- sequences, and U.S. Responses. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Inter- national Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1978. de Janvry, Alain and CarlOs Carramon. "The Dynamics of Rural Poverty in Latin America." The Journal of Peasant Studies 4 (1971): 206-216.
Doeringer, Peter and Michael Piore. Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1971.
Feindt, Waltraub and H. L. Browning. "Return Migration: Its Significance in an Industrial Metropolis and an Agricultural Town in Mexico." International Migration Review 6 (1972): 158-165.
Fisher, Lloyd. The Harvest Labor Market in California. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953.
Foster-Carter, Alden. "The Modes of Production Controversy." New Left Review 107 (1973): 47-74. -39-
Kearney, Michael. "Agribusiness and the Demise or the Rise of the Peasantry." Latin American Perspectives Vol. 8, No. 4 (1980): 115-124.
Petras, Elizabeth McLean. "Towards a Theory of International Migration: The New Division of Labor." In Sourcebook on the New Immigration. R. Bryce-Laporte, ed. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1980.
Ravicz, Robert. Organizaci6n social de los mixtecos. Mexico, D.F.: Insti- tuto Nacional Indigenista, 1965.
Swanson, Jon. "The Consequences of Imigration for Economic Development: A Review of the Literature." Papers in Anthropology 20 (1979): 39-56.
Wellhausen, Edwin J. "The Agriculture of Mexico." Scientific American 235 (1976): 128-150.
Wiest, Raymond E. "Anthropological Perspectives on Return Migration: A Critical Commentary." Papers in Anthropology 20 (1979): 167-186. .
Wolf, Eric R. "Closed Corporate Peasant Communities in Mesoamerica and Central Java." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13 (1957): 1-18.
Wolpe, Harold. "Capitalism and Cheap Labour-Power in South Africa: From Segregation to Apartheid." Economy and Society 1 (1972): 425-456. No. 14: Origins and Formulation of U.S. Trade Policy Toward The Third World: The Case of the Generalized System of Preferences and Mexico, by Elena Bilbao-Gonzalez. $3.00 No. 15: The Receding Frontier: Aspects of the Internationalization of U.S.-Mexican Agriculture and Their Implications for Bilateral Relations in the 1980s, by Steven E. Sanderson. $3.00 • No. 16: The Evolution of U.S.-Mexican Agricultural Relations: The Changing Roles of the Mexican State and Mexican Agricultural Producers, by David Mares. $3.00 • No. 17: El Uso de la tierra agricola en Mexico (The Use of Agricultural Land in Mexico), by David Barkin. $3.00 No. 18: Desarrollo agrario y cambio demogr6fico en tres regiones de Mexico (Agricultural Development and Demographic Change in Three Regions of Mexico), by Agustin Porras. $3.00 No. 19: State Policies, State Penetration, and Ecology: A Comparative Analysis of Uneven Development and Underdevelopment in Mexico's Micro Agrarian Regions, by Manuel L. Carlos. $3.00
No. 20: Official Interpretations of Rural Underdevelopment: Mexico in the 1970s, by Merilee S. Grindle. $3.00
No. 21: Agricultural Development and Rural Employment: A Mexican Dilemma, by August Schumacher. $3.00 No. 22: El Sistema Alimentario Mexican°(SAM): Elementos de un programa de producciOn acelerada de alimentos basicos en Mexico(The Mexican Food System: Elements of a Program of Accelerated Production of Basic Foodstuffs in Mexico), by Cassio LuiseIli. $3.00 No. 23: Statecraft and Agriculture in Mexico, 1980-1982: Domestic and Foreign Policy Considerations in the Making of Mexican Agricultural Policy, by John J. Bailey and John E. Link. $3.00 No. 24: Development Policymaking in Mexico: The Sistema Alimentario Mexican°(SAM), by Michael R. Redclift. $3.00 No. 25: Desarrollo rural y participacion campesina: La experiencia de la FundaciOn Mexicana para el Desarrollo Rural (Rural Development and Peasant Participation: The Experience of the Mexican Foundation for Rural Development), by Miguel A. Ugalde. $3.00 No.26: La sindicalizaciOn de trabAjadores agricolas en Mexico: La experiencia de la ConfederaciOn Nacional Cam pesina (CNC)(The Unionization of Agricultural Workers in Mexico: The Experience of the National Peasant Confederation), by Heladio Ramirez Lopez. $3.00 No. 27: Organizing Mexican Undocumented Farm Workers on Both Sides of the Border, by Guadalupe L. Sanchez and Jestis Romo. $3.00 No. 28: Causes and Effects of Agricultural Labor Migration from the Mixteca of Oaxaca to California, by James Stuart and Michael Kearney. $3.00 (Continued on back cover) No. 29: The Bracero in Orange County, California: A Work Force for Economic Transition, by Lisbeth Haas. $3.00
No. 30: Agrarian Structure and Labor Migration in Rural Mexico, by Kenneth D. Roberts. $3.00
No. 31: Chicano Political Elite Perceptions of the Undocumented Worker: An Empirical Analysis, by Rodolfo 0. de la Garza. $2.50 No. 32: The Report of the U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy: A Critical Analysis, by Thomas D. Cordi, Manuel Garcia y Griego, John E. Huerta, Gerald P. Lopez, Vilma S. Martinez, Carl E. Schwarz, and Barbara Strickland. $3.50
No. 33: Chicanos, Mexicanos, and the Emerging Border Community, by Manuel L. Carlos, Arturo Gandara, and Ctsar Sereseres. $3.50
No. 34: The Influence of Local Economic Interests on U.S. Policy Toward Mexico: The San Diego Tuna Industry and Its Role in U.S.-Mexico Conflicts over Marine Resources, by Federico Salas. $3.00
No.35: Political Participation, Public Investment, and Support for the System: A Comparative Study of Rural Communities in Mexico, by Carlos Salinas. $3.00 MONOGRAPHS IN U.S.-MEXICAN STUDIES
No. 1: Mexican and Caribbean Migration to the United States: The State of Current Knowledge and Priorities for Future Research, by Wayne A. Cornelius. $7.00
No. 2: Approaches to the Estimation of Deportable Mexicans in the United States: Conjecture or Empirical Measurement? by Manuel Garcia y Griego and Carlos H. Zazueta. $5.00 No. 3: Developing a Community Tradition of Migration: A Field Study in Rural Zacatecas, Mexico, and California Settlement Areas, by Richard Mines. $6.00
No. 4: Undocumented Mexicans in Two Los Angeles Communities: A Social and Economic Profile, by Victor Quiroz Garcia. $5.00 No. 5: Migrants and Stay-at-Homes: A Comparative Study of Rural Migration from Michoacan, Mexico, by Ina R. Dinerman. $5.00
No. 6: Mechanization and Mexican Labor in California Agriculture, by David Runsten and Phillip LeVeen. $5.00
No. 7: La industria maquiladora en Mexico: Bibliografia, directorio e investigaciones recientes (Border Assembly Industry in Mexico: Bibliography, Directory, and Recent Research), by Jorge Carrillo V. and Alberto Hernandez H. $6.00
No. 8: U.S.-Mexican Agricultural Relations: A Binational Consultation, edited by Wayne A. Cornelius and Jorge G. Castro. $6.00
TO ORDER ANY OF THE ABOVE PUBLICATIONS: Orders must be prepaid. Checks should be made payable to U.C. Regents. All prices include postage. Orders should be sent to: Publications Coordinator, Program in U.S.-Mexican Studies, Q-060, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, California 920931 U.S.A.