comments welcome

Indigenous Mexican Migrant Civil Society in the US

Jonathan Fox Latin American and Latino Studies Department University of California, Santa Cruz www.lals.ucsc.edu [email protected]

To be presented at the Latin American Studies Association Las Vegas, Nevada, October 6-9, 2004 submitted July 30, 2004

Introduction 1

This essay explores the diversity within Mexican migrant civil society in the US. Multiple collective identities sustain distinct but sometimes overlapping translocal, regional, religious, civic, class-based and ethnic organizations. The point of departure is that our analytical frameworks need to catch up with this increasingly dense and diverse world of social actors.

Both Mexican migrant and Mexican indigenous collective identities complicate widely held ideas about race, ethnicity and national identity. Though these three concepts are often used interchangeably when discussing in the United States, race, ethnicity and national identity are not synonyms. If they are analytically distinct, where and when does one leave off and the other begin? When migrant and indigenous identities overlap, as in the case of indigenous Mexican migrants, these conceptual puzzles are sharpened. A comparative and hemispheric approach suggests that it is useful to look at the specific experiences and identities of indigenous Mexican migrants in the US through lenses that draw both from frameworks that focus on processes of racialization and from those that emphasize the social construction of collective identities based on ethnicity, region or religion.

1 Some sections of the paper draw from Fox and Rivera-Salgado (2004). Thanks to Olga Nájera-Ramírez, director of UCSC’s Chicano-Latino Research Center, Sylvia Escárcega of DePaul University, María Dolores París Pombo of the UAM-Xochimilco and Martha García Ortega of El Colegio de la Frontera Norte for their editorial comments. I am also grateful to participants in the “Workshop on race and ethnicity: What do we learn about the concepts of race and ethnicity when they are considered from a hemispheric perspective?” Chicano-Latino Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz, December 10, 2003 and to participants in seminars held subsequently at the University of Chicago and the University of Oregon. The research was made possible thanks to grants from the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. The author has sole responsibility for what follows.

The essay is organized around a series of conceptual questions that emerged from the convergence between two long-term parallel UC Santa Cruz projects. The first is a faculty working group known as Hemispheric Dialogues, which tries to facilitate intellectual exchange by making conceptual assumptions explicit. 2 The second is an action-research partnership with the Oaxacan Indigenous Binational Front. 3 The essay concludes by stepping back to explore different dimensions of Mexican migrant civil society more generally through three concepts: transnationalism vs. long-distance nationalisms, parallel vs. simultaneous binationality, and the role of cross-border counterparts.

Background trends:

Mexican migrants in the United States are still widely assumed to be an ethnically homogeneous population. 4 Historically, most Mexican migrants did share many common characteristics, coming primarily from rural communities in the central-western part of the country. Over the last two decades, however, the Mexican migrant population has diversified dramatically -- ethnically, socially and geographically (both in terms of where they come from and where they go). 5

The history of indigenous migration to the US dates at least to the Bracero program, though their ethnic identity was largely invisible to outsiders. 6 Until recently, however, most indigenous migrants went to large cities or agribusiness jobs within . Their relative share of the overall cross-border migrant population began to grow in the early 1980s, as Oaxacans who had migrated to northwestern Mexico began crossing the US border (Varese and Escárcega 2004). The indigenous proportion of the

2 The other principal investigators in this project are Sonia Alvarez, Manuel Pastor, Juan Poblete, and Patricia Zavella. On cross-disciplinary conceptual translation within the field of immigration studies, see Morawska (2003). On Hemispheric Dialogues, see www.lals.ucsc.edu/hemispheric_dialogues/. 3 This partnership made possible the conference that led to the recent collection Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States. See www.lals.ucsc.edu/conference. For overviews of the FIOB, see Domínguez Santos (1994a, 1994b) Fox and Rivera- Salgado (2004), Hernández Díaz (2002), Martínez Saldaña (2004), Ramírez Romero (2004), Rivera-Salgado (2002), Velasco (2002) and www.laneta,apc.org/fiob. 4 For example, one recent discussion of “multiethnic Mexicans” refers exclusively to children of Mexican/white intermarriages (Jiménez 2003). 5 For details on recent trends, see the state-of-the-art articles in “Special Issue on US- Mexico Migration,” Migration Information Source, March, 2004, including very helpful maps of the county-by-county distribution of the Mexican-born population in the U.S (www.migrationinformation.org). Notably, however, this overview does not mention the changing ethnic profile of Mexican migrants. 6 Martha García’s history of Nahua experiences traces indigenous Mexican migration back even further, noting that Manuel Gamio’s classic study of migrants documented people of “Mesoamerican” origin, though without further ethnic specification (2003).

2 Mexican migrant population has since grown significantly, most notably in both urban and rural California and increasingly in Texas, New York, New Jersey, Florida, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington.

At least since the Salinas presidency (1988-1994), the Mexican government’s rural development strategy has been based on the assumption that a large proportion of the rural poor would leave their homes and move either to the cities or to the United States (Fox 1994b). The government abandoned support for family farming and peasant agriculture became a target of welfare policy rather than production support -- a shift that weakened the economic base of indigenous communities. 7 This process has been exacerbated by subsidized US corn imports and the ongoing collapse of the international price of coffee, which is the principal cash crop for many of Mexico’s indigenous farmers. 8 These trends reflect a combination of both long-term structural changes and the systematic political under-representation of peasants and indigenous peoples in the national policy process.

Both in the United States and in Mexico, indigenous migrants are subordinated both as migrants and as indigenous people – economically, socially and politically. Economically, they work in ethnically segmented labor markets that relegate them to the bottom rungs. In the social sphere, in addition to the well-known set of obstacles that confront cross-border migrants, especially those without documentation, they also face entrenched racist attitudes and discrimination -- from other Mexicans as well as from the dominant society in the United States. Systematic language discrimination by public authorities aggravates human rights violations in both countries. 9 Like other Mexican migrants, in the civic-political arena, most indigenous migrants are excluded from full citizenship rights in either country. At the same time, also like other migrants, indigenous Mexicans bring with them a wide range of experiences with collective action for community development, social justice and political democratization, and these

7 The government’s widely-hailed flagship social program, first known as Progresa, was launched in 1997 and is now called . The primarily rural program provides individual family transfer payments to more than four million means-tested very low- income mothers, conditioned on their monitored participation in official local health activities and their children’s school attendance. In contrast to its predecessor, the National Solidarity Program, no job creation or community-wide activities are involved. For officially-sponsored evaluations, see www.oportunidades.gob.mx. For a gender analysis of Progresa, see Luccisano (2002). Few field-based independent analyses of Oportunidades exist and there has been little substantive national public debate over its strengths and limitations (with the notable exception of economist and current federal congressperson Julio Boltvinik’s 2004 commentaries in La Jornada). 8 On Mexican agriculture and trade, see Cornelius (2002), Nadal (2000), Oxfam (2002, 2003). 9 Together with UCSC researcher Emma Estrada Lukin, the author is currently coordinating a follow-up field study of indigenous Mexican language interpreters and the institutional obstacles to language access to public services in California, with a focus on health care.

3 repertoires influence their decisions about who to work with and how to build their own organizations in the United States.

Conceptual dilemmas:

How does contemporary Mexican migration pose challenges to concepts of racial, ethnic and national identities?

First, what do these three concepts have in common? They all refer to ways of understanding and expressing collective identity, and all refer in some way to shared ancestry, yet each one highlights a different dimension of the identity that is shared. For migrants to the US, Mexican-ness is simultaneously national, racial and ethnic, but which is which, when and why? These concepts clearly overlap, but are also presumably somehow distinct -- the challenge is to identify those distinctions with greater precision. Bringing together both intellectual frameworks and lessons from practice from both the US and Latin America can help to address this conceptual challenge.

In the arena of Mexico’s dominant national political culture, both indigenous peoples and cross-border migrants have long been seen, especially by political elites, as less than full citizens – a powerful historical legacy that only began to change substantially in the mid-1990s. For migrants, Mexico’s current president dramatically changed the official discourse, describing them as “heroes” rather than as traitors or pochos. He even claims all US citizens of Mexican descent as members of the national diaspora, blurring longstanding distinctions between Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. 10

In practice, however, in Mexico political rights are still systematically denied to both migrants and indigenous people. Changes in official political discourse notwithstanding, even a quick review of the dominant mass media shows that they also remain culturally excluded from the national imaginary. While indigenous Mexicans can access “full Mexican-ness” to the degree that they give up their language and commitment to ethnic autonomy, migrants are still widely seen by many as watering down their Mexicanidad through exposure to US and Mexican-American culture. 11 This is one reason why the long-promised right to vote abroad for migrants continues to be stuck on the political back burner – Mexican citizens in the U.S. are still seen by influential elite political actors as too vulnerable to manipulation by US interests to be trusted with the right to vote. 12 For both migrants and indigenous people, less than full

10 For a historical overview of these changes, see Durand (2004). 11 A recent national poll asked “En su opinión, el hecho de que haya millones de mexicanos trabajando en los Estados Unidos, enriquece o perjudica: La cultura de Mexico?” Of the respondents, 50% said that migration undermines Mexican culture, 23% said that it enriches Mexican culture, and 27% said neither or no opinion (Consulta Mitovsky, 2004, p. 5) 12 In practice, only a minority of each political party’s leadership actively supports migrants’ right to vote. On migrants’ right to vote campaigns, including a discussion of

4 command of the Spanish language is another powerful mechanism for exclusion from full membership in the national polity and imaginary -- note the common analogous phrases “they don’t even speak English” (in the US) and “they don’t even speak Spanish” (among Mexicans, in reference to indigenous people). In other words, for Mexicans, both ethnic identity and migration remain in tension with the dominant approach to national identity. 13

By the 1990s, for first generation Mexican migrants, national origin tended to persist as a primary collective identity, more than US-based constructs of Latinidad or Hispanidad. Especially in regions with a large critical mass of first generation migrants, it is possible for Mexican migrants to reject, modify or postpone acceptance of more nationally rooted US ethnic identities such as Chicano or Mexican-American. 14 In turn, migrants’ cross-border political or civic commitments are perceived by some US Latino opinion-makers who emphasize incorporation into the US electoral system as the most promising path to equality as at best a distraction and at worst a threat to US Latinos’ past gains in terms of acceptance by the mainstream. 15

In spite of the pull of national identity, Mexicans migrants also find themselves inserted into a US racial hierarchy that assigns them to a racial category. In other words, migrants’ subjectively national Mexican-ness is widely treated as a racial identity in the

the little-known official Mexican distinction between nationality and citizenship, see Castañeda (2003) and Martínez Saldaña and Ross Pineda (2002). The Mexican government itself estimates that between 2.5 and 3.5 million migrants in the US hold valid Mexican voter registration documents (Underscretary of Gobernación Francisco José Paoli, cited in Garduño 2004). 13 Keep in mind as well that racially different immigrants to Mexico have difficulty being accepted as fully Mexican, even well after the first generation. This would hold for Mexicans of Chinese, Japanese, Jewish and Arab descent (the latter are sometimes generically referred to as “turcos”). For a vivid example, the 1998 election for governor of produced an unusual political slogan. The leading opposition candidate (of the Party of the Democratic Revolution) began his political career with the Zapotec organization COCEI, while the PRI candidate was of Arab descent. The PRD candidate’s campaign launched the catchy slogan “vota por el de aqui, no por el Iraqui.” 14 New cultural convergences are also emerging, as in the case of the San Diego County Oaxacan migrant organization COCIO, which collaborates each year with the Chicano student organization MEChA at California State University, San Marcos, to produce a major Oaxacan dance and music festival, one of four “Guelaguetzas” organized each year by Oaxacans in California (Fox and Rivera-Salgado 2004, Fried 2004). 15 For example, noted political scientist Rodolfo de la Garza once predicted that migrant voting in the US in Mexican elections would provoke a xenophobic backlash against US Latinos (“The implications of all this are frightening” – quoted in Dillon 1998). More recently, however, he finds that binational civic organizations are not a threat because they can encourage greater incorporation into the US, thanks to assimilation of US democratic values (De la Garza and Haman 2003). The implication is that migrants do not bring such values with them. For a related approach, see Leiken (2000).

5 US. 16 Racialization refers to the ascription, imposition or appropriation of racial meanings to social relations, practices and groups that had previously been unclassified or classified differently (Omi and Winant 1986). De Genova and Ramos-Zayas make strong claims about the applicability of the racialization approach in their analysis of Mexican and Puerto Rican identities in Chicago: “Rather than taking at face value differences that might otherwise be glossed as “cultural,” ethnic” or “national” between these two Latino groups, we consider these distinctions as they serve the ends of juxtaposing the two – as groups – within a wider social framework that relates them to whiteness and Blackness, as well as to one another in ways that are mutually exclusive and often opposed” (2003: 15-16). They refer to the “ongoing reconfiguration of “Latinos” as a racial formation in the US.”

The racialization of Mexican migrants is closely linked to their locations in the labor market, which in turn are linked to labor process, language use and only loosely connected to phenotype. “Mexican work” is widely understood in US popular culture as the kind that even low-income Americans won’t do, at least for the wages offered. 17 For example, as a Mexican poultry industry worker put it, describing a white North American on the same production line:

“He works like a Mexican…. Look, we’re all Mexicans here [in the plant]. Screwed- over Mexicans [Pointing to Li, an older woman on our line who is from Laos, he continues] Look, even she is Mexican. Pure.”… As the analyst noted, this is “almost the same as saying “yes, we are all workers here.” It is not exactly the same, of course. Mexican does not simply mean worker—any kind of worker—but one who is doing what is socially defined as the worst kind of work” (Striffler 2002: 312).

Among Mexican migrant workers, ethnic difference also interacts closely with the changing division of labor. Notably, indigenous Mexicans currently make up between 10 and 15% of California’s farm labor force, and their share is projected to reach 20% by 2010 (Kissam 2003). 18

16 A fuller understanding of the specific dynamics of how racialization processes affect Mexicans would require more systematic cross-regional comparison within the United States. The main difference in these class-race dynamics is between those regions with historically rooted biracial caste-like hierarchies rooted in conquest, as in the case of much of California and the Southwest, versus the multi-racial social orders facing Mexicans in the Midwest, New York or the South. On the historical processes of racialization of Mexicans in California, see Almaguer (1994), Mechaca (2001) and Pitti (2003), among others. For a comparison of regionally distinct racialized class hierarchies in the US and their impacts on citizenship, see Glenn (2002). On Mexicans and contemporary racial profiling, see Aguirre (2004). 17 For example, this stereotype was a strong point of agreement among both white and black panelists on the HBO late-night talk show “Tough Crowd” (Feb 16, 2004) 18 On ethnic segmentation within the Mexican migrant labor force in the US, see Krissman (1996, 2002), López and Runsten (2004), Nagengast and Kearney (1990), Stephen (2004) and Zabin (1992a, 1992b, 1997) and Zabin et al (1993).

6

In response, some Mexican migrants adapt and identify with US processes of racial formation -- especially those who grew up in the US -- but in widely varying ways. To take two extreme examples, some young people respond to the imposed racialization process with alienated forms of both individualized and collective action, often in response to schooling processes that systematically disrespect them and their heritage. Valenzuela’s vivid ethnographic study of power relations in a Houston high school reveals the functioning and power of institutionalized disrespect (1999). She calls this process “subtractive schooling,” a concept that synthesizes the combined denigration of the cultural resources that migrants bring with them, the discrimination against Spanish as a second-class language, and the institutionally-reinforced deepening of divisions between first-generation and US-born youth. 19 This process, which in effect expels a large fraction of the high school population, is in turn reinforced by the intensely racialized prison-industrial complex (a process now referred to as the “school-to-prison pipeline”). 20

To take a completely different example of adaptation to the US racial formation process, organized migrants have also come together to seek a more prominent place in the public sphere through the 2003 cross-country Immigrant Worker Freedom Rides. This initiative was led in part by the broadest multi-racial set of US civil society organizations -- the trade union movement -- a role made possible in turn by the growing voice and clout of Latino labor leaders. 21 Here a multi-racial coalition of migrants of many nationalities explicitly reached out to diverse US constituencies by taking on the historical mantle of the “master frame” of the African-American civil rights movement. California’s Oaxacan migrant umbrella organization, the FOCOICA, was officially represented on the ride. 22 In several areas of new Mexican settlement in the US, the Freedom Ride permitted migrant organizations to become public actors for the first time. 23 Old habits die hard, however, and some Mexican migrant bus riders were frustrated with their trade union handlers’ “mania for control,” as one reporter put it. This

19 See also Escárcega’s ethnographic study of mestizo migrant youth, which finds that nationalist ideology leads them to see Mexican-Americans as ethnically different (2004). 20 See Wald and Losen (2003) and an ongoing research project at www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu. 21 Most of the recent union organizing victories among private sector workers in the US involve Latino and other immigrant workers. See Delgado (1993), Milkman (2000) and Ruiz Cameron (2000), among others. For a report on the largest recent strike victory in California, see Johnston (2004a). A recent survey found that bilingual Latino workers were more willing to participate in union activities than white, black or non-Spanish- speaking Latino workers (Mellor, Kath and Bulger 2003). 22 The two returning Oaxacan migrant representatives on the ride were honored with a photo on the front page of the Los Angeles-based El Oaxaqueño newspaper, Oct, 18, 2003, 4(116). 23 See, for example, the reports from Nashville (Miller 2004) and Reyes (2003a, 2003b).

7 frustration actually erupted at one point into a brief “rebellion” by migrant riders against the coordinators of one of the buses (Ehrenreich 2003). 24

In contrast to these two kinds of adaptation to US racial legacies, other migrant organizations deploy Mexican national identities as primary. Shortly after the Freedom Ride, the Asociación Tepeyac -- a New York-based, Jesuit-led Mexican membership organization – led its own mass traveling collective action for immigrant rights. Tepeyac’s second annual relay Torch Run traveled through several of Mexico’s “sending” regions and arrived in New York City’s Saint Patrick’s Cathedral on December 12 (“Antorcha Guadalupana Mex-NY”). 25 Along the way, the runners – “Mensajeros por la Dignidad de un Pueblo Dividido por la Frontera” -- prayed to the Virgin for the right to permanent legal residency. Their repertoire is focused on resonating culturally with Mexican migrants, and it works.

Tepeyac’s main strategy for forging collective identity is based around the combined ethno-national and spiritual symbolism of the Virgen de Guadalupe, together with an explicit effort to build a shared identity as undocumented workers. Their New York City social base is organized in neighborhood Comités Guadalupanos. Their use of this symbolism clearly has class and implicitly racial implications, and the torch run draws on a pre-Hispanic legacy, but at the same time Tepeyac does not pursue a strategy of reaching out in culturally specific ways to today’s indigenous Mexicans in the organization. Some indigenous Mexicans do participate, but as Guadalupanos rather than as Mixtecos or as . 26 Tepeyac does not follow the hometown-based approach to migrant organizing, and the organization’s approach suggests that hometown associations are seen as exclusionary (of those not from specific communities). 27 At the same time, Tepeyac’s approach implicitly assumes that Mexico is a religiously and ethnically homogeneous nation. Their discourse also tries to subsume Mexican-Americans; like Mexico’s president, the Asociación Tepeyac claims as Mexican everyone in the US of Mexican ancestry – the mirror image of the once-dominant Mexican approach that

24 A participant confirmed this account and also used the term “rebellion.” S/he was especially turned off by the bus ride organizers’ general pushiness, their lack of facility with Spanish, and their orders to prohibit Mexican flags while encouraging the display of US flags (interview, Los Angeles, May 21, 2004) 25 For details, see www.tepeyac.org, Rivera Sánchez (2004) and Galvez (2003). 26 Indeed, one analytical puzzle is why Mixteco migrants from Oaxaca identify ethnically in California, while Mixtecos from in New York apparently do not. The word Mixteca refers to a region that covers contiguous parts of the states of Oaxaca, Puebla and , while the term Mixteco refers to the main indigenous ethno-linguistic group in that region (also know as ñu savi, “the people of the rain”). For example, the name of one Brooklyn-based Latino immigrant rights group is Mixteca Organization, a term that draws on their Puebla regional identity without reference to indigenous identity (www.mixteca.org). 27 See Rivera Sánchez (2004). On Puebla hometown associations in the New York area, see the documentary video, The Sixth Section (www.sixthsection.com), as well as López Angel (2003) and Smith (1995).

8 rejected emigrants as ‘instant Mexican-Americans.’ In contrast to the Immigrant Worker Freedom Riders, however, Tepeyac does not emphasize cross-sectoral coalitions with migrant organizations of other nationalities, nor with potential US allies such as trade unions. Notably, they did not participate in the major final Freedom Ride rally in Queens, even though it took place on their “home turf.” 28 Their principal US partner is the New York Diocese of the Catholic Church, whose leadership took the initiative that led Tepeyac to form in the first place – and whose suggestion provoked the first binational Torch Run.

Both the Freedom Ride and Tepeyac’s Torch Run brought organized migrants into the public sphere, both crossed vast territories in the process, both were organized from below but counted on institutional allies in the U.S. Yet they followed different strategies to broaden their bases – one ventured from west to east, while the other traveled from south to north. The Freedom Ride framed migrants as the most recent wave in the long history struggle against social exclusion in the US, building a multi-racial class identity as immigrant workers, while Tepeyac looked across the border to build a shared identity as Mexicans fighting for dignity and recognition as Mexicans.

More generally, when one looks at the inter-action between race, ethnicity and national identity among those Mexican migrants who engage in sustained collective action as Mexicans, it turns out that most emphasize their primary identification with other collective identities. In the case of Tepeyac, this identity is strongly faith-based. Most often, however, these additional identities are territorial and subnational, based on their communities, regions or states of origin in Mexico, as can be seen in widely- observed growth of migrant hometown associations and their . 29 In other words, migrants’ shared Mexican-ness, whether understood primarily in national, ethnic or racial terms, is necessary but not sufficient to explain how and why they turn collective

28 Personal communication with local observers, Nov. 2003. Tepeyac’s alliance strategy in the US has also led them to reject the guest worker proposal supported by the UFW (not surprisingly, since it offers nothing to urban workers) and instead support a Republican proposal for the Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act. Tepeyac’s strategy also involved participating in a recent Mexican migrant voting rights conference led by a binational Mexican Republican, though Tepeyac leader Joel Magallan was quoted as leaving in disgust (Najar 2004a). In contrast to past Mexican migrant voting rights efforts (see Martínez Saldaña and Ross 2002), this gathering was dominated by successful business leaders. The meeting was held at the elite MGM Hotel in Las Vegas – explicitly in order to distance their approach from grassroots groups that meet in schools and other low cost public spaces (Najar 2004b). 29 The literature on Mexican migrant hometown associations and their federations is large and growing. See, among others, Bada (2001, 2003), de la Garza and Haman (2003), Espinosa (1999), Goldring (1998, 2002), Leiken (2000), López Castro (2003), López, Escala-Rabadán and Hinojosa (2001), Moctezuma Longoria (2003a, 2003b), Orozco with LaPointe (2004), Orozco et al (2003), Smith, R. (1995, 1998. 2003), Smith, M. P. (2003), Rivera-Salgado (2002), Rivera-Salgado and Escala Rabadán (2004) and Zabin and Escala Rabadán (1998).

9 identities into collective action. The shared identities that inspire collective action show that they pursue a wide range of ways of being Mexican (just like Mexicans in Mexico).

Márquez’s study of Mexican American membership organizations made a similar point about ethnically-based collective action (2003). He finds that the historic Mexican- American and Latino membership organizations that attempted to be all-encompassing are less relevant than they once were, and instead compares four very politically, socially and culturally different Mexican-American organizations whose members come together around more specific class, gender and transformative projects. In conceptual terms, to explain these patterns of collective action, since identities and interests are mutually constituitive, one must explain how these more specific collective identities interact in synergy with more specifically shared interests.

One could go further and argue that the widespread patterns of Mexican migrant collective identity formation and collective action, based on cross-border, translocal, regional and ethnic identities constitute a form of resistance to racialization, reminiscent of the mutualistas in the early 20th century. This would contrast with more structuralist approaches that would suggest not only that racialization is imposed by structural and historical factors in the US, but that the process is all-powerful as well. Widespread patterns of cross-border Mexican migrant collective action suggest a conceptual question for analytical frameworks that emphasize the imposition of racialization: where does agency fit in? 30 In other words, racialization is negotiated and resisted as well as imposed.

Nation-states are also key players in migrants’ collective identity formation process. In the US, the state’s embedded legacies of past struggles for racial justice shape the terrain on which migrant campaigns for rights unfold. The US census, whose influence resonates throughout the rest of the state apparatus and its levers of influence in society, explicitly defines Latinos/Hispanics as an ethnic group and not as a race – leading to the classic official caveat “Hispanics can be of any race.” 31 The questions of self-identification are asked separately, and recent studies have found that the order of the questions influences the responses. Given the limited US census choices for racial self- identification, which do not include anything approximately mestizo, it turns out that as many as half of Latinos answer the race question with “other,” thereby creating their own de facto racial category. 32

The official census distinction between race and ethnicity makes it possible to begin to look for self-identified indigenous Latin American migrants. They have a choice when responding to the US census: they can identify as both ethnically as Latinos and racially as American Indians. In the 2000 census, many did just that – possibly to some degree in response to efforts by indigenous migrant organizations to encourage self-

30 On the interaction between racialization processes and citizenship status among Latinos, see De Genova and Ramos-Zayas (2003). 31 See Rodriguez (2000) and Yanow (2003). 32 See Crece and Ramirez (2003), Navarro (2003) and Tofoya (2003).

10 identification . As a result, the 2000 census found that in California native peoples from Latin America, primarily Mexico and Guatemala, now constitute the majority of Native Americans in the state, counting over 150,000 people -- in spite of the well-known and persistent problem of undercounting migrants. 33 Note that this combined ethnic-racial category is limited to those who indicated Native American as their one race. 34 Population estimates by community media, such as the Los Angeles-based binational newspaper El Oaxaqueño, run much higher.

Mexican government strategies also directly influence collective identity formation among migrants in the US. State governments have been at least as active as the federal government in their efforts to reach out and create institutional channels for usually dialog with their respective diasporas. The US political sociology concept of “political opportunity structures” is helpful for understanding both how migrants choose to organize and who they ally with in the US. After more than a decade of efforts by home states to encourage (trans)local clubs to form home state association, a growing literature shows how the strategies pursued by Mexican governments, plural, in the US influence the pathways that many organized Mexican migrants take. 35 In some cases these home state migrant federations become consolidated civil society counterparts to state governments in Mexico (as in ), in others they remain subordinate (as in and ), in other cases one sees both scenarios unfold (Oaxaca), while others remain open-ended (Michoacan). 36 .

33 For detailed analysis of “Hispanic American Indians” in California, see Huizar and Cerda (2004). On the ways in which the census undercounts indigenous migrants in California, see Kissam and Jacobs (2004) 34 While the overwhelming majority of those who identified as both Latino and Native American are Latin American migrants, some are descendents of those California tribal peoples who tried to survive genocide by going underground and assimilating into Spanish-speaking Mexican communities, as in the case of the formerly coastal Chumash people in the Bakersfield area (presentation by Chumash elder Louise Apodaca, “American Indian Symposium: The Rights of Migrant and Non-Migrant Indigenous Peoples,” Fresno, CA, July 11, 2004) 35 On Mexican government migrant organizing initiatives, see, among others, Goldring (2002), González Gutiérrez (1993, 1997), Guarnizo (1998), Leiken (2000), Levitt and Dehesa (2003), Rivera-Salgado and Escala Rabadán (2004), M. P. Smith (2003) and R. Smith (2003) 36 Much more cross-state comparative analysis is needed to draw more solid conclusions (cross-state refers here to different states in both countries). Addressing change over time is also critical. The California-based Zacatecas organizations started out under strong official influence and gained autonomy over time. In contrast, the California-based Oaxacan organizations began divided over how to relate to the state government, eventually came together under the umbrella of a pluralistic, civic federation (FOCOICA). Broad-based member groups distanced themselves from the FOCOICA because of its president’s open support for the ruling party in Oaxaca during the runup to the 2004 governor’s election.

11 What patterns emerge when we analyze indigenous Mexican migrants though the both US ethnic and Latin American studies conceptual lenses?

Indigenous peoples are usually conceptualized in the US as constituting a race, while in Latin America they tend to be seen as ethnic groups. 37 This poses a puzzle, raising questions about how the concepts of race and ethnicity are defined and applied. Where does ethnicity leave off and race begin? Given that they often overlap, both conceptually and in practice, can they be disentangled? Are indigenous peoples distinct from other Mexicans racially, ethnically, or both? To ask the question a different way – is Mexican society multi-racial, multi-ethnic, or both? The answer to both is both.

Few indigenous peoples in Mexico identify as nationalities -- in contrast to some other Latin American countries (e.g., Ecuador) – and in contrast to the US. 38 Though US-style reservations are widely viewed with anathema in Mexico, they do rest on a limited degree of territorial sovereignty, self-governance and at least nominal recognition of people-hood that does not currently exist in Mexico. The Mexican government officially recognizes that indigenous people are ethnically distinct and that Mexico is a multi-cultural society, but it does not recognize them as distinct peoples. 39 At the same time, for native peoples in both countries, patriotism has long been a powerful force. In Mexico, across the political spectrum, indigenous peoples’ organizations claim the national flag and the nationalist legacy of the as their own, as highlighted by the EZLN’s official reverence for both sets of symbols, not to mention the name of the National Indigenous . 40

In Mexico, the concept of race is widely associated with the post-revolutionary revindication of mestizo identity embodied in the Raza Cósmica. This powerful discursive strategy challenged the Europhilic white skin privilege associated with the pre- revolutionary regime, but at the same time promoted an ethnically homogenized view of Mexican collective identity. 41 In this view, Mexican-ness required full cultural assimilation for indigenous peoples, and monolingual castellanización was required for anyone who wanted access to formal education, at least until the late 1970s – including

37 For example, the Mexican census does not collect data on race, and defines indigenousness primarily in terms of language use. On Afro-Mexican identity formation, see Lewis (2000). An Afro-Mexican organization, Mexico Negro, recently called for the census to take race into account (Graves 2004). 38 For example, the only Mexican indigenous organization that uses the term “nation” in its name in this way is the small Nación Purépecha (in contrast to the Mexican sense of nation in the name of the EZLN). 39 On Mexico’s first constitutional reforms to recognize indigenous rights, promoted “from above” by President Salinas in preparation for the Quincentenary, see Hindley (1996). 40 For a comparison of how Zapata’s legacy influenced local political identities in and Oaxaca, see Stephen (2002). 41 On the relationship between Mexican state policy and science in the definition of race, see Stern (2003).

12 boarding schools not so different from those infamous in . In other words, this view promoted racial equality in theory while denying ethnic equality in practice. The regime’s proposed bargain was class-based “inclusion” as Mexican peasants in exchange for giving up their autonomy, both in terms of their rights to sustain indigenous identities and in terms of freedom of association more generally. 42

In Latin America, indigenous identity is less strictly bound to lineage and perceived phenotype than in the US, not unlike the more flexible way in which blackness is understood in the region. In Latin America, indigenous peoples have long been defined primarily by such criteria as community membership, language use and what are presented as ancestral collective traditions. Some of these traditions may, upon closer inspection, turn out be mechanisms of control by authoritarian local elites, backed up by the national government – as Rus showed in the case of ritualized alcohol consumption in highland Chiapas (1994). In contrast to the US, indigeneity in Latin America is rarely defined in tribal terms – except by outsiders to refer to some lowland Amazonian populations that have had little or no Western contact, and to refer to some Mexican indigenous groups close to the US border. 43 Yet as Wade’s work implies, the processes of the social construction of race in Latin America are not so contingent as to elide all differences between racial and ethnic identity (1997). 44

The Ecuadorian experience with building ’s most consolidated national indigenous movement holds important lessons for understanding the transition from localized to broader pan-ethnic and racial identities. Pallares’ recent study unpacks subtle interactions between racial, ethnic and class-based identities, explaining change over time through factors both internal and external to local/regional movements that choose to come together nationally while retaining their autonomy (2003). She documents with precision the actual mechanisms of racial domination and the ways in which they provoked social actors to shift from class and ethnically-based organizations and discourses to broader racial and pan-ethnic forms of mobilization. Most other accounts of Ecuador’s indigenous movement, in contrast, do not problematize the ethnic diversity within the indigenous population, and the related challenges posed to the construction of a national, pan-ethnic movement. This approach, including her extensive documentation of the struggle for “respect” at both the micro and macro-political levels, shows the degree to which Ecuador’s indigenous movement has been an anti-racist civil rights movement -- rather than, for example, an ethnically separatist force. This experience is a powerful example of the how the concept of racialization can resonate

42 On the relationship between national and ethnic identities in Mexico, see Gutiérrez (1999). On the construction of “campesino” as a Mexican social category in the early 20th century, see Boyer (2003). On the political conflict over freedom of association in rural Mexico, see Fox (1994a). 43 In Mexico the , for example, or the O’Odham peoples, who live on both sides of the border, use the term tribe. 44 See also Wade’s comparative discussion of debates over mestizaje (2004).

13 across a wide range of social contexts, while taking agency fully into account through a focus on the interaction between practices of oppression and resistance. 45

Shifting back to US-based intellectual traditions for understanding Mexican indigeneity, classic approaches to Chicano identity also have difficulty with the concept of a multi-ethnic Mexico. Those that recognize the indigenous side of mestizaje tend to homogenize indigenous identity through the implicitly nationalist lens of Aztec/Nahua/Mexica ethno-racial roots. For many other Mexican indigenous people, however, the Aztecs were foreigners, and often oppressors. Nahuas are also far from a majority – while numerically they constitute the largest single ethno-linguistic group among Mexico’s indigenous peoples, they represent at most one quarter of the one in ten Mexicans who meet the government’s narrow definition of ethnic identity. For reasons not well understood, Nahuas represent a substantially smaller fraction of the indigenous migrant population in the U.S., which is predominantly composed of Zapotecs and from Oaxaca and Purépechas from Michoacan -- three of the peoples with the longest trajectory of migration to the US. 46

In the dominant US view, in contrast to Mexico, even partial indigenous heritage is enough to confer minority racial status, though formal, government-regulated tribal membership is contingent on narrower definitions of lineage (often highly-gendered). Most tribes use a definition of blood quantum for determining membership, sometimes with different rules for men and women members who marry non-members. When tribal membership is contested, race can trump shared culture and history – as in the debate about excluding mixed indigenous/black peoples from tribal membership in Oklahoma. 47 More recently, narrow economic interests can also divide tribes. In California, the official leadership of some “gaming tribes” is expelling hundreds of longstanding members in order to increase the income from gambling for those who remain. In official discourse

45 See also Colloredo-Mansfeld (1998). 46 On Nahua migrants, see García Ortega (2002, 2003). For comparison of Zapotec and migration patterns, see López and Runsten (2004) and studies in Varese and Escárcega (2004). For more on specifically Zapotec migration to the US, see also Hulshof (1991) and Klaver (1997). US migration is also growing among Mayans (Burke 1994), Hñahñus, also known as Otomís (Schmidt and de los Angeles Crummet 2004), (Johnston 2004b) and Mixtecos from Guerrero, among other groups. On Purépecha migrants to the US, see Anderson (2004), Ayala and Mines (2002) and Martinez (2001). For reasons not well understood, in spite of their long history of migration to the US and two decades of extensive civic mobilization and ethnic politicization in their home region, very few Purépecha migrant organizations have emerged in the US, either as hometown associations or as specifically ethnic. For an overview of migration from Michoacan, see López Castro (2003), as well as Bada (2001) and Espinosa (1999) on Michoacan migrant associations. 47 See Glaberson (2001). For broader context, see Garroutte (2003), among others.

14 they are “disenrolled.” 48 Like members of federally unrecognized tribes, they are “undocumented” US Native Americans.

Historically, US-born Native Americans were denied US citizenship until 1924, ostensibly because of their tribal membership (Hull 1985: 13). This marked the first time that they could vote in national elections. 49 Indigenous migrants were treated differently, however. As part of the more general policy that excluded non-white immigrants from the right to become naturalized US citizens, this racial political exclusion was extended to Mexican migrants who appeared to be indigenous. Indigenous Mexicans were only allowed to become US citizens after the 1940 Nationality Act allowed non-white immigrants to naturalize (Hull 1985 and Padilla 1973, cited in Menchaca 2001: 282-285).

More specifically, how do the concepts of race, ethnicity, community and nationality relate to the social construction of indigenous Mexican migrant identity?

Indigenous ethnic identity has long been seen in Latin America as socially and culturally contingent. For decades, indigenous people who move to the cities and appear to leave behind collective cultural practices, language use and community membership have long been seen as having changed their ethnic identity. While no longer ethnically defined by others as indigenous, they are often still openly racialized by dominant systems of oppression, though the processes and mechanisms vary greatly from country to country. These processes are perhaps most clear-cut in the case of cholos in Andean countries, but they affect urban Indians in as well. 50

At the same time, many urban Indians in Mexico – like indigenous migrants in the US -- continue to maintain ties with their communities of origin. This raises the question

48 See DeArmond (2003). Because the official structures of tribal governance created by the US federal government did not require the construction of judicial systems, disenrolled members have limited legal recourse (interview, Prof. Renya Ramirez, UC Santa Cruz, Fresno, CA, July 10, 2004). For the most recent court decision, see AP (2004). 49 Note that “there was strong negative reaction to this act in many key Indigenous communities because it implied the end to "sovereign" status asserted by those groups. For example, the highly political Iroquois stated through Tuscarora Chief Clinton Rickard: “The Citizenship Act did pass in 1924 despite our strong opposition. By its provisions all Indians were automatically made U.S. citizens whether they wanted to be so or not. This was a violation of our sovereignty. Our citizenship was in our own nations. We had a great attachment to our style of government. We wished to remain treaty Indians and reserve our ancient rights [cited in Lyons, 1992, p. 326]” (personal communication, Prof. John Brown Childs, Sociology Dept., UC Santa Cruz, June 12, 2004). 50 On urban Indians in Mexico City, see Gobierno del Distrito Federal (2000) and Yanes (2002). On urban indigenous migrants in Latin America more generally, see Altamirano and Hirabayashi (1997)

15 of whether and how indigenous Mexican migration to the US is qualitatively different from longstanding patterns of migration to Mexico’s cities. Migrants in the US often earn more money than migrants who work elsewhere in Mexico, and are therefore able to contribute more to community development investments back home – yet visiting home personally is often more difficult. For some nationalist approaches, migrating to the US continues to represent a fundamental break – as in the case of a recent Zapatista commander’s declaration: "Don't let yourself be deceived, stay here and fight for your country, for the motherland that gave birth to you ... you don't have to leave" (AP 2003). Indeed, in 2003, for the first time, first-hand accounts from Zapatista communities reported that some Mayan youth were beginning to leave for the US.

Until relatively recently, the primary basis of indigenous collective identity in Mexico was highly localized. Most Mexican indigenous people identified primarily with their home community, and to varying degrees with their home region, and only rarely with their broader ethno-linguistic group. Community membership has long been internally regulated in most indigenous rural areas, and the rights of membership are usually contingent on compliance with high levels of mandatory service and material contributions. Some communities are making membership requirements more flexible, in response to migration (Kearney and Besserer 2004), while many others hold firm and literally expel those who do not comply through a process that some members call “civic death” (Mutersbaugh 2002). The longstanding central role of community in defining ethnicity is summed up in the ambiguity inherent in the dual meaning of the term “pueblo,” which in Mexico is used to refer both to community (as in village) and to (a) people. This dual meaning of “pueblo” was crucial to allowing both the government and indigenous movement negotiators to agree on the text of the 1996 San Andrés Accords on Indigenous Rights and Culture, which remains a key reference point for the ongoing political struggle for full recognition of Mexico’s indigenous peoples. 51

Over the past two decades, cycles of collective action and conflict, combined with coalitions with other social actors, have encouraged the consolidation of “scaled up” regional and civic-political indigenous identities (Fox 1996). It is not an exaggeration to state that the principal form of organized indigenous self-representation in Mexico is through regional social, civic and economic mass membership organizations (in contrast to organizations of national scope, or those that define themselves as primarily political in the electoral sense, or primarily cultural). “Regional” here refers to a substantial number of communities, sometimes including several or many municipalities – in contrast to the classic pattern of participation, which was bound to one community. In many cases, the membership of these regional organizations predominantly draws from a shared ethno- linguistic group, but their explicit collective identity and immediate goals are usually primarily civic, socio-economic or both (rather than primarily ethnic). Some do identify publicly as indigenous, and some draw from diverse ethnic groups (in some cases bringing together indigenous people and mestizos, in other cases combining different

51 On the San Andrés Accords, see Hernández and Vera (1998) and the documents translated in the spring, 1999 issue of Cultural Survival Quarterly.

16 neighboring or territorially integrated indigenous peoples, depending on the composition of the region).

The process of the social construction of broader ethnic and pan-ethnic Mexican indigenous identity is where the racialization approach, emphasizing shared experiences of racially based oppression, is most clearly relevant. Carole Nagengast and Michael Kearney pioneered the analysis that showed how Oaxacan migration and the shared experience of ethno-racial discrimination in northwestern Mexico and in California drove the process of “scaling up” previously localized to broader Mixtec, Zapotec and pan- ethnic Oaxacan indigenous identities (1990). 52 These migrants’ collective identities are powerfully shaped influenced by their shared class locations. Many -- though not all -- work in ethnically segmented seasonal agricultural wage labor, both in Mexico and the US -- bringing class and culturally-based of oppression together in forms that some would consider classically subaltern. This shared experience helped to overcome perceived conflicts of interest inherited from longstanding inter-village rivalries back home (these widespread conflicts were and are very convenient for regional and state elites). For indigenous farmworkers, language and cultural differences with their bosses are key bases of ethnic discrimination, but they are also oppressed based on physical characteristics associated with specifically racial differences. 53 For example, height became a widespread basis for contemptuous treatment, as summed up in the widespread derogatory diminuitive “oaxaquitos.” 54 This specific term, by homogenizing Oaxaca’s ethnic differences, also racializes. 55

At the same time, some Oaxacan cultural and civic leaders also describe themselves in terms of a positive shared racial identity. As one commentator put it, regarding “nuestra esencia y nuestro origin… Que significa nacer en Oaxaca? Que nos hace una raza única? Que tipo de enfoque tengo sobre la vida? Será acaso que ser

52 See also Kearney (1988, 1995, 2000, 2001), Nagengast, Stavenhagen and Kearney (1992) and Zabin et al (1993), among others. 53 Consider the dual meaning of the term “stature” here. 54 Ethnic slurs used against indigenous migrants from Guerrero include: “nacos, güancos, huarachudos, montañeros, piojosos, indios pata rajada, calzonudos, comaleros, sombrerudos, sin razón, paisanitos, indio bajado a tamborazos de la Montaña, Metlatontos (de Metlatónoc), Tlapanacos (Tlapanecos), son de Tlapa de me conformo (Tlapa de Comonfort), tu no savi, tu sí savi (tu no sabes tu si sabes), mixtequillo, indiorante (ignorante), paisa, mixterco (mixteco terco)” (cited in García Leyva 2003). 55 Keep in mind that, historically, popular attitudes towards indigenous people in northern Mexico (when Oaxacans migrated to work) and the conquest of the “frontier” were in many ways more similar to those widely associated with the 19th century US West than with those one associates with central Mexico. The government populated the frontier with “military colonies,” and the Yaqui were not militarily defeated until the end of the 19th century, followed by mass relocation and enslavement. On the native peoples of northern Mexico, see the resources at the “Unidad de Información y Documentación de los Pueblos Nativos del Noroeste Mexicano” at www.geocities.com/pueblosnativos/index.htm

17 oaxaqueño es una tareta de presentación de la cual nunca nos separamos, que la vivimos y experimentamos en nuestra sangre, mente y espíritu, sin importer el lugar en donde estamos?” (Moscoso Paniagua 2004: 10, emphasis added)

The relevance of this approach to identity formation, which associates the transition from localized to broader indigenous identities with migration, racial oppression and resistance, is confirmed by the actual trajectory of the Oaxacan Indigenous Binational Front. 56 The organization was first called the “Mixteco-Zapoteco Binational Front” and then changed its name to “Oaxacan” to reflect the inclusion of , Mixes, Triquis and other Oaxacan ethnic groups. Most recently, this inclusionary approach has attracted non-Oaxacan indigenous migrants to the organization, especially in , provoking an incipient internal debate over whether to drop the regional term “Oaxacan” from its name (Fox and Rivera 2004).

It is not only national rural-to-urban and trans-border migration that have raised questions about the degree to which indigenous-ness depends on once-rigid notions of localized community membership, shared language and ancestral territory. The most well-known case of indigenous mobilization in Mexico emerged from a process of rural- to-rural migration. The core region of the Zapatista rebellion, the Cañadas, is inhabited primarily by migrants from other regions of Chiapas and their families, going back at most two generations. Liberation theology ideas that drew heavily on the Exodus are central to their cultural and political history. Before leaving the highlands to settle in the Cañadas and the lowland forest, these communities also had extensive prior experience with seasonal migration for wage labor, where they joined an ethnic mix as farmworkers. It is not a coincidence that their sense of indigenous identity is profoundly multi-ethnic, with ethnically distinct base organizations united under a multi-ethnic, though exclusively indigenous command structure (primarily Tzetzal, , Chol and Tojolobal). 57 They have also produced an explicitly racial solidarity discourse, in which leaders speak of the shared interests, in spite of differing ideologies, of people who are the “color de la tierra” (EZLN 2001). This definition of shared interests is made more complex by their other shared identities – recently Zapatistas also appealed to Mexican factory workers as “hermanos de nosotros.” 58

In this sense both the EZLN and FIOB can be seen as multi-ethnic organizations that first emerged in communities of settled migrants. In the EZLN case the migration went south, in the FIOB case the migration went north, but both experiences and understandings of indigenous-ness can only be explained with reference to their (albeit very different) migration processes. In addition to emerging from migrant communities,

56 As one of the FIOB’s founders put it, “…existe mucho racismo por parte de los propios connacionales, ellos nos dicen “oaxaquita” o “oaxaco,” en terminos despectivos. Nosotros decimos oaxaqueño, pues, y binacional porque estamos en ambos paises,” cited in Hernández Díaz (2002: 278) 57 See Leyva Solano and Ascencio Franco (1996). 58 “Los trabajadores y productores somos los mas pobres y explotados.” (emphasis added) Comandante Felipe, La Jornada, 30 Nov., 2003, p. 15.

18 in both cases a small number of leftist activists also played key roles early on in terms of encouraging the scaling up of previously localized collective identities. 59 The political trajectories of the two organizations came together briefly in the late 1990s, most notably when the FIOB organized polling stations in the US part of the Mexican national civic referendum that called both for recognition of indigenous rights in Mexico and for the right for migrants to vote in Mexican elections (Rivera Salgado 2002). They share the political goal of self-determination and autonomy, but their strategies differ dramatically. The FIOB works to create autonomous spaces, community-based empowerment and self- representation “within the system,” both in the US and in Mexico, while the EZLN remains firmly planted outside the system, conditioning their incorporation on more radical institutional change while creating a parallel system of local governance. 60

How does the social construction of migrant civil society lead us to rethink the concepts of territory and transnational communities?

In Latin America, as in other regions of the world, classic definitions of indigenous rights, especially those involving demands for autonomy and self- determination, are closely linked to the concept of territory, which includes but is broader than (agrarian) land rights. Land rights are limited to individuals, families, groups or communities, whereas territories are associated with the broader concept of peoplehood – and therefore is a foundation of ethnic identity. 61 The ethnohistorical basis for claims to both land and territory is clearly distinct from demands for rights that are based on, for example, redressing racial injustice. Claims based on the need to challenge racial inequality are not as dependent on proving that specific territories are (implicitly exclusive) ancestral homelands. In South America the latter kinds of claims have proven more “winnable,” perhaps because of their more limited spillover effects. 62

59 On the left-wing roots of one of the FIOB’s founders, Arturo Pimentel, see López Mercado (1998: 181). On the FIOB’s decision to expel him for authoritarian abuses of power, see Domínguez Santos (2004a). 60 For example, the EZLN does not participate in elections, whereas the FIOB actively participates in local and state level electoral politics, in coalition with the PRD. The FIOB candidate, Romualdo Juan Gutiérrez Cortés, won in the Juxtlahuaca state congressional district in 2000. This was only the second time that an opposition candidate had won a majority seat (after the COCEI in the Isthmus). While the EZLN has created its own municipal governance structure, the FIOB works within Oaxaca’s unusual system of customary law to encourage broader participation and accountability within existing municipalities. 61 For a theoretical discussion of “peoplehood,” see Smith (2003). 62 See Wade (1997) for a review of the literature on race and ethnicity in Latin America informed by his own field research on Afro-Colombians. Basing land claims on ancestral domain rather than broader concepts of rights can be a two-edged sword, as the experience of ethnohistorically-based rural Afro-Latin American land rights shows. In countries where indigenous rights have been legally codified, such as Colombia and Brazil, afrodescendientes (as many rural Afro-Colombians prefer to be called) have been able to build on these gains and make legally viable claims to recover the rights to

19

In this context, the accelerating spread of longer-term, longer-distance out- migration throughout Mexico’s indigenous regions raises serious questions about the longstanding link between ethnic identity and the territorial basis of peoplehood. Increasingly, many of the pueblo in question no longer live in their homeland, sometimes for generations. Indeed, neither the FIOB nor much of the EZLN can base their claims to rights on ancestral domain. Instead, both use broader multi and pan-ethnic discourses to make claims based on race, class and human rights.

In their redefinition of the relationship between peoplehood and territory, Oaxacan indigenous migrants have gone further and have socially constructed the cross- border public space known as “Oaxacalifornia.” In the process, they deploy the term paisano in what could be called a kind of “situational territorial identity” with a distinctively indigenous character. As the FIOB’s Oaxaca coordinator put it:

“La palabra paisano tiene interpretaciones que se pueden dar en niveles. En primer lugar, la interpretación mas inmediata que tenemos… va pegada al contexto en el que se pronuncie. Si nosotros estamos en una comunidad determinada, dices paisano como parte de esa comunidad. Así que, significa un nexo de hermandad muy cercana en donde es una palabra muy distinguida para la persona, con un grado de honrabilidad muy marcado…. [E]ste término ha sido parte de la cultura de los pueblos, porque con esa palabra sentimos que fomentamos la identidad como pueblos indígenas. De alli que… la necesidad de emigrar a otros lugares que están fuera de la comunidad nos lleva a encontrar a personas que después de una charla que son de la region… Bueno, en este lugar no solamente confluyen personas de una región determinada sino incluso de otros estados. Pues, se hace el ejericio de este concepto para distinguirnos y hermanarnos más. Entonces es una palabra que refleja la identidad como hermanos. 63

Here we see how the meaning of the term paisano varies depending on the context, as the shared collective identity of community of origin “scales up” to shared region of origin in course of the migration process. At the same time, its territorial meaning turns out to be inseparable from its ethnic character, serving both to bring indigenous Oaxacans together and to distinguish them from Mexicans from other states. Beyond the region, regional identity becomes an ethnic identity.

To frame this process of redefining the territorial basis of identity and membership, it is worth exploring the range and limits of several concepts that anthropologists and sociologists have used to describe cross-border migrant identities that become the basis for collective action. The nascent process through which migrants are

community lands. At the same time, this process has not reached the majority of rural Afro-Latin Americans, and they remain implicitly excluded from such openings. On these “ethnic territories,” see Ng’weno (2002). 63 Interview, Romualdo Juan Gutiérrez Cortés, Huajuapan de León, Oaxaca, May, 2000

20 creating their own public spaces and cross-border membership organizations is built on the foundation of what are increasingly referred to as “transnational communities,” a concept that refers to groups of migrants whose daily lives, work and social relationships extend across national borders. 64 The existence of transnational communities is necessary but not sufficient to be able to speak of an emerging migrant civil society, which also involves the construction of both public spaces and representative social and civic organizations. Transnational communities are grounded by the combination of their sustained cross-border relationships with the sustained reproduction of their cultural legacy in the United States, as in the notable example of the four different annual Oaxacan Guelaguetza dance and music festivals organized in different parts of California.

To describe cases where migrant collective action has transformed the public sphere in the U.S., some analysts use the concept of “cultural citizenship.” This term “names a range of social practices which, taken together, claim and establish a distinct social space for Latinos in this country” [the U.S.] and serves as “a vehicle to better understand community formation… It involves the right to retain difference, while also attaining membership in society” (Flores and Benmayor (1997: 1). 65 This process may or may not be linked to membership in a territorially-based community, either in the home country or the U.S. Instead it may be driven by other kinds of shared collective identities, such as racialized and gendered class identities as Latina or Latino workers. The idea of cultural citizenship is complementary to but quite distinct from the notion of transnational community, which both focuses on a specific kind of collective identity and emphasizes sustained binational community membership.

A third way of conceptualizing migrants as social actors sees them as constructing a de facto form of what one could call “translocal community citizenship.” This term refers to the process through which indigenous migrants are becoming active members both of their communities of settlement and their communities of origin. 66 Like the idea of transnational community, translocal community citizenship refers to the cross-border extension of the boundaries of an existing social sphere, but the term “citizenship” differs from “community” in at least two ways. First, it involves much more precise criteria for determining membership rights and obligations. Second, it refers explicitly to membership in a public sphere. The idea of “translocal community citizenship” therefore

64 For an overview of the literature on Mexican transnational communities, see Fletcher and Margold (2003). See also, among others, Besserer (1999a, 1999b, 2003, forthcoming), Fitzgerald (2000), Moctezeuma Longoria (2003a, 2003b, 2004), Roberts et al (1999), Smith (2003). For a useful state-of-the-art review of migrant transnationalism more generally, see the fall, 2003 thematic issue of International Migration Review, among others.” For a counterpoint, see the polemical critique of the study of transnationalism in Waldinger and Fitzgerald (2004). The logic of their argument relies heavily on a definition of the term that differs sharply from the rest of the literature. 65 See also Rocco (2004). 66 In some cases this process could be called “dual community citizenship,” but since many migrant communities are “multi-local,” or “multi-sited,” it is more inclusive to use a more open-ended term.

21 involves much more explicit boundaries of membership in the public affairs of a community that is geographically dispersed, or “deterritorialized.”

Like cultural citizenship, the term “community citizenship” refers to a socially constructed sense of membership, often built through collective action, but it differs in at least three ways. First, community “citizenship” incorporates the term that is actually used by the social actors themselves to name their own experience of membership. In indigenous communities throughout rural Mexico, a member in good standing -- one who fulfills specific obligations and therefore can exercise specific rights – is called a “citizen” of that community (often but not always male). 67 Note that this use of the term “citizen” for full membership in local indigenous communities appears to predate the widespread usage of the term by national and international civil society organizations. 68

In contrast, it is not clear whether the idea of cultural citizenship has been appropriated by those it refers to. Second, the idea of translocal community specifies the public space within which membership is exercised, whereas “cultural citizenship” is deliberately open-ended as to the arena of inclusion (local, regional or national? Territorial or sectoral?). Third, the concept of cultural citizenship focuses, quite appropriately given its goals, on the contested process of negotiating new terms of incorporation into US society, in contrast to the emphasis embedded in the idea of translocal community citizenship on the challenge of sustaining binational membership in a cross-border community.

The concept of translocal community citizenship has its own limits as well. It does not capture the broader, rights-based perspective that transcends membership in specific territorially-based (or “deterriorialized”) communities, such as the broad-based migrant movement for Mexican voting rights abroad, or the FIOB’s emphasis on pan-

67 On gender and Oaxaca indigenous community membership, both in migration and communities of origin, see Maldonado and Artia (2004), Sánchez (forthcoming) Velasco (2002, 2004) and Velásquez (2004), among others. 68 For examples of the use of the term “citizen,” in Oaxacan indigenous communities, see Maldonado and Artia (2004) and Robles (2004). In Nahua communities in Guerrero, see García Ortega (2002), and in Hñahñu communities, see Schmidt and de los Angeles Crummet (2004). What may well be the most precise written set of local governance norms in a Mexican indigenous community, produced as the result of four years of public discussion in San Juan Tabaá, includes a specific discussion of the terms of engagement with migrants. They stress the distinctions between “comuneros ausentes (activos en cooperación)” vs. “ausentes definitivos.” Their governance structure officially includes participation in “organizaciones de paisanos” in Oaxaca, Mexico City and Los Angeles as a form of community membership, though sustaining full citizenship still required paying annual taxes and, eventually, leadership service. In contrast, “ausentes definitivos” (“paisanos que están totalmente olvidados de su comunidad de origen”) risk losing their property and must pay 34 days of the local minimum wage in order to visit the community. See the “Estatuto comunitario de San Juan Tabaá, Villa Alta,” published in Hora Cero, Suplemento Especial, June 20, 2001.

22 ethnic collective identities and indigenous and human rights. These collective identities are shared beyond specific communities. The idea of translocal is also limited insofar as it does not capture the frequently multi-level process of engagement between migrant membership organizations and the Mexican state at national and state as well as local levels.

These different concepts for describing migrants as social actors are all complementary and reflect important dimensions of that process, each one refer to social processes of migrant identity and organization that may overlap but are distinct, both in theory and in practice. At the same time, they do not capture the full range of migrant collective identities. The broader idea of “migrant civil society” provides an umbrella concept for describing diverse patterns of collective action, including membership organizations, public interest groups, community media, cultural organizations and faith- based organizations. 69

In this context, one analytical puzzle that emerges is why, in spite of the challenges posed by migration, some communities, within some ethnic groups, manage to sustain themselves as a group and create their own public spaces as organized migrants more than others. Note, for example, the case of Nahua migrants to the United States. Though they represent the largest indigenous group in Mexico, and some have been coming since the Bracero program, their migrants have not sustained visible membership organizations in the United States. Yet they have demonstrated the capacity for cross- border collective action. Nahua transnational communities from the Alto Balsas region of the state of Guerrero supported a pioneering and successful campaign in defense of their villages against a planned hydroelectric dam in 1991 (García Ortega 2002, Good 1992). Coinciding with the Quincentenary, their sense of peoplehood as Nahuas was defined by this sense of shared Alto Balsas regional identity. Here territory and ancestral domain were clearly central, yet the migrant contributions to the campaign also demonstrated their full sense of shared membership in a Nahua identity and region that both were socially constructed largely in response to this dramatic external threat. 70 As suggested

69 For further conceptual discussion of issues of membership in transnational political communities, see Fox (2004). 70 The dam project threatened to displace an estimated 40,000 people in the Alto Balsas valley, damage a critical ecosystem and flood a major new archaeological site. Local communities drew on existing cross-village social ties and marketing networks to quickly build a cohesive regional movement, gaining national and international leverage in the context of the pending 500 year anniversary of the Conquest. Migrants not only contributed funds, drawing on their traditional quota system for village fiestas, they were involved in campaign strategy and tactics as well. Migrants brought video cameras to tape the movement’s mass direct actions in state known for intense repression. This tactic not only served to inform paisanos in the US, it also pioneered what became the Mexican indigenous movement’s now widespread use of video to deter police violence. Migrant protests in California also drew the attention of Spanish language television, which led to the first TV coverage of the Alto Balsas movement within Mexico itself (though limited to cable). See García (2002) and Good (1992).

23 above, this experience shares with the Chiapas rebellion and the creation of Oaxacalifornia the close link between collective (pan) ethnic identity and socially constructed regional identities.

Can we ground the concept of migrant civil society in terms of the construction of binationality?

Indigenous migrant civil society is emerging as one arena within the broader world of Mexican migrant civil society more generally – an arena that includes territorial, civic, religious and class-based membership organizations, among others. 71 But where does migrant civil society fit? Is it the US “branch” of Mexican civil society, the Mexican branch of US civil society, or both? The examples mentioned here suggest that the answer varies depending on which organization one is looking at. Some are primarily engaged with Mexico and Mexican civil society, whereas others are focused primarily on building alliances in the US, including with US organizations and migrants of other nationalities – while some manage to look both “backwards and forwards” at the same time, as suggested by the title of De la Garza and Hazan’s study (2003). Zavella’s ethnographic notion of “peripheral vision” also resonates with this dynamic (2004). This process can be framed as the construction of binationality, the capacity to participate as a member of two different national societies.

Binational civil society initiatives have a long history among Mexicans in the United States. Not long after the US conquest of California, local committees in San Jose organized to support Benito Juárez’s defense of national sovereignty (Pitti 2003). Juárez himself, along with many other national political leaders, spent time in exile in the US – though not all worked in a factory like he did (Martínez Saldaña 2004). Anarcho- sindicalist intellectual and political leader Ricardo Flores Magón pioneered Mexican political binationality, first by helping to launch the Mexican revolution, and then by helping to lead what became the Mexican wing of the US radical left from exile in Los Angeles (MacLachlan 1991). His binational newspaper resonated widely among Mexicans in both countries and helped to inspire a little-known 1915 multi-racial rebellion against state government-sponsored terror campaigns in Texas, on the border (Sandos 1992; Johnson 2003). Flores Magón’s legacy continues to resonate among both Chicano and Mexican grassroots organizers. 72 Yet the political space available for

71 Notably, Mexican political party-based identities have not sunk deep roots in migrant civil society. For analyses of the early phase of efforts to launch the Party of the Democratic Revolution in California, see Dresser (1993) and Martínez Saldaña (1993). B the late 1990s the PRD lacked any significant organizational presence in the US. Organizing Mexicans in the US was never a priority for the PRD leadership, as symbolized by their tendency to assign liaison to migrants to the party’s department of “international relations” rather than to its department of “organization.” 72 For example, a relatively new radical coalition in Oaxaca bears him name (CIPO- RFM), and “magonista” continues to refer to a homegrown Mexican radical tradition. In terms of binationality, however, one could argue that for Flores Magón’s followers in

24 migrant civil society binationality has ebbed and flowed over the decades. The rest of this broader framing section will explore three concepts that will help to clarify the process of the constructing Mexican civil society binationality: long-distance nationalism, parallel vs simultaneous binationality, and cross-border counterparts.

What looks like binational participation may be more precisely understood as “long- distance nationalism”

The organized social, civic and political participation by migrants, often embedded in transnational communities, provides perhaps the strongest set of cases for both conceptually clarifying and empirically documenting processes of binational citizenship. As David Fitzgerald has pointed out, however, much of the literature on transnationalism conflates two distinct forms of nationalism: “(1) the trans-state long- distance nationalism of identification with a ‘nation’ despite physical absence from the homeland and (2) the dual nationalism of political identification with two distinct ‘nations.’” 73 While some may participate in both, they are analytically distinct projects. Long-distance nationalists are not necessarily dual nationalists. Fitzgerald describes them as “extraterritorial citizens” (2000). 74

In the US context, for example, Latino rights activists debate whether migrant cross-border organizing will contribute to the fight for empowerment in the US or not. Until recently, there was a notable disconnect between US Latino political representatives and migrant transnational organizations, such as home-town clubs and their federations. For example, during 1994 campaign against California’s infamous anti-immigrant ballot initiative, Prop. 187, Mexican migrant and US Latino organizations had little contact, even if their offices were across the street from one another (Zabin and Escala Rabadán 1998). Recently, however, migrant hometown federations worked closely with US civil

Mexico his history has tended to end with his exile to the US, while for those with whom he resonates in the US, his history tends to begin with his arrival. 73 See Fitzgerald (2004), who draws on Andersen (1998). Fitzgerald goes on to note that what sometimes looks like transnational collective identities may be more precisely understood as translocal identities and the national element should not be assumed, though his additional claim that localistic cross-border identities often inhibit national identifications appears to be overstated. In practice, however, migrants’ transnational and translocal identities are often closely intertwined (Castañeda 2003, 2004). For example, note the case of the annual Easter festival in Jeréz, Zacatecas. The combination of regionally specific customs with the intense involvement of migrants who return regularly would appear to be a clear case of translocal, as distinct from transnational identity. Nevertheless, it turns out that both US and Mexican national flags were prominently displayed, and crowds joyfully burned effigies of both national presidents as part of the mass celebration (Moctezuma Longoria 2004: 37). 74 M. P. Smith (2003) also uses this term. See also his discussion of the concept of translocal (2001).

25 rights organizations and trade unions in Los Angeles to campaign and lobby for undocumented migrants’ right to drivers’ licenses. 75

Historically (and to some degree still) dominant national political cultures in both societies have obliged migrants to choose one or the other political frame of reference, but migrant social and civic actors are increasingly constructing both the practice and the right to binationality. This process is unfolding on multiple levels as well as across borders, as local and state governments turn out to have greater flexibility and responsiveness vis-a-vis migrant civil society. 76 One of the most notable examples involves the matrículas consulares. While their increased distribution was a Mexican federal initiative, local and state governments in the US have widely accepted them, as have many influential private sector actors, most notably banks interested in a larger share of the remittance business. The issue of access to drivers’ licenses for undocumented workers is also a state government responsibility. Anti-immigrant activists consider these pragmatic measures by US state and local governments to be forms of ‘para-legalization.’ As long as the enforcement of immigration laws remains an almost exclusively federal responsibility, drivers’ licenses and acceptance of consular IDs do constitute a form of subnational paralegalization, which is why they are on the cutting edge of the immigrant rights agenda.

The construction of binational civil society takes two main forms: parallel or simultaneous

Binational civil society, insofar as it involves organization in or involving more than one nation (not state) can follow very different paths in terms of how or whether to relate to civil society organizations of the country of settlement. Parallel binational participation refers here to those who are active in more than one civic, social or political community as individuals, but the organizations that express their multiple identities do not themselves come together. That is, individuals may have multiple identities, but the different organizations they participate in do not. For example, indigenous Mexican farmworkers in Oregon engage in parallel binational organizing when they participate both in a mainly US-focused farmworker union, and in a mainly Mexico-focused hometown association that has multiple branches throughout the US (Stephen 2004). The same people defend their class and migrant interests through one organization, and their ethnic and translocal identities through another. Yet the two kinds of organizations do not come together. In contrast, simultaneous binational organizing refers to collective actions that in themselves do cross borders between “nations” and are engaged both with Mexican and with US civil society – as in the case of those migrant federations working in coalition to influence the California state government on drivers’ licenses, or in-state tuition for undocumented students. In the case of the Oaxacan Indigenous Binational

75 On migrant political coalitions in Southern California, see Rivera-Salgado and Escala Rabadán (2004), as well as Seif (2003) and Varsanyi (2004). 76 For useful comparative discussions of this process, see BaubĘck (2003) and Østergaard-Neilsen (2003). The idea of “multi-layered citizenship” is also relevant here, Yuval-Davis (1999).

26 Front, for example, migrants use the same organization to fight for rights vis-à-vis states and to build civil society alliances both in Mexico and the US. This would be an example of simultaneous binational participation, as distinct from parallel involvement. 77

The concept of counterparts poses questions about cross-border balance within migrant civil society

On the one hand, migrant civil society appears to be the paradigm case for binational citizenship, including both the possibility of binational political rights and a common sense of membership in a shared political community. On the other hand, relationships between migrant organization and civil society in the home country may or may not be balanced. Organized migrant civil society may or may not overlap or engage with organized civil society back home. The concept of counterparts raises the sometimes uncomfortable question: to what degree are migrant organizations engaged in balanced partnerships with counterparts in their countries of origin? In the Mexican context, many migrant organizations have won recognition as interlocutors with national and local governments, as they leverage and administer community development matching funds, but relatively few migrant organizations actually constitute the US-based branch of an organized social actor based in both countries. For example, the Zacatecan federations in the US are the largest and most consolidated Mexican migrant groups in the US, but their civil society partnerships in their home state are incipient at best. 78 Indeed, civil society in some high out-migration communities can be quite thin. Migrants who send remittances may use that power to try to tell family members in their home country how they should vote, which risks reproducing classic patterns of clientelism. 79 In contrast, some of the Oaxacan migrant organizations, many of which are based on regional and ethnic identities as well as hometowns, have organized branches not only in California and Oaxaca, but also in Baja California in between – the political space that together constitutes the imagined community of “Oaxacalifornia.” The concept of counterparts is also very relevant for understanding the full array of intersections between US and Mexican civil societies, if one looks beyond the migrant community to analyze cross- border ties among environmentalists, trade unions, farmers or civil rights organizations (Brooks and Fox 2002).

Conclusions

The collective practices that are beginning to constitute a specifically indigenous Mexican migrant civil society show us a new side of what otherwise is an unrelentingly

77 On “simultaneity” and “transnational social fields,” see also Levitt and Glick Schiller (2004). 78 See Goldring (1998, 2002) and Smith (2003). For one of the few examples of a bottom- up counterpart organization, note the experience of the Fundación para el Desarrollo Integral del Sur de Zacatecas (Macías Durán 2003) 79 Goldring is one of the few analysts to address the contradictions of cross-border remittance politics (1998, 2002, 2003). See Fitzgerald on related issues of cross-border patronage within a California trade union local (2004).

27 devastating process for Mexico’s indigenous communities – their abrupt insertion into globalized capitalism through international migration in search of wage labor. In spite of their dispersion throughout different points along the migrants’ paths, at least some indigenous communities manage to sustain the social and cultural networks that give them cohesion and continuity – both locally in their US settlements and transnationally. Their migratory experience has both broadened and transformed previously localized identities into ethnic, pan-ethnic and racial identities, while also questioning widely-held homogenous understandings of Mexican national identity. At the same time, “long- distance membership” in home communities, as well as the construction of new kinds of organizations not based on ties to the land raises unanswered questions about the classic close association between land, territory and indigenous identity. Within Mexico, the ongoing national debate over how institutions and social actors could or should build indigenous autonomy has yet to fully grapple with this dilemma.

Mexican migrants and indigenous peoples both pursue self-representation through multiple strategies, coalitions and repertoires. Both groups also share the experience of having long been widely perceived by others as faceless masses – both in Mexico and in the US – at least until some put masks on. Until recently, both migrants and indigenous peoples were seen as victims or as threats, but not as actors. Both groups are now in the midst of a long-term process of building their capacities for self-representation in their respective domains. Indigenous Mexican migrants are no exception. Do their organizations represent the indigenous wing of a broader migrant civil society that would otherwise leave them out? Do they represent the migrant wing of the broader national indigenous movement that would otherwise leave them out? Yes, and yes, but most of all they represent themselves, both indigenous and migrants.

References:

Aguirre Jr., Adalberto, “Profiling Mexican American Identity,” American Behavioral Scientist, 47(7), March, 2004

Almaguer, Tomas, Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California, Berkeley: University of California, 1994

Altamirano, Teófilo and Lane Ryo Hirabayashi (eds.), Migrants, Regional Identities and Latin American Cities, Washington, D.C: Society for Latin American Anthropology, American Anthropology Association, 1997

Anderson, Benedict, The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia and the World, London: Verso, 1998

Anderson, Warren, “P’urépecha Migration into the U.S. Rural Midwest: History and Current Trends,” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by

28 Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/Center for US-Mexican Studies, 2004

Associated Press, “Zapatistas Call on Mexicans Not to Emigrate, Avoid Drugs, Alcohol,” Dec. 5, 2003

------“California Judge Says Courts May Decide Tribal Disputes,” New York Times, July 25, 2004

Bada, Xochitl, “Collective Remittances, Culture and National Identity: The Reconstruction of Identities among Michoacano Hometown Associations in the Chicago Area.” Masters’ thesis in the Social Sciences, University of Chicago. 2001

------. “Mexican Hometown Associations,” Citizen Action in the Americas, no.5, March, 2003, at www.americaspolicy.org

Bauböck, Rainer, “Towards a Political Theory of Migrant Transnationalism,” International Migration Review, 37(3), Fall, 2003, pp. 700-723

Besserer, Federico, Moisés Cruz: Historia de un Transmigrante. Culiacán: Universidad Autónoma de /Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Iztapalapa, 1999a

-----. “Estudios transnacionales y ciudadanía transnacional.” In Fronteras Fragmentadas, edited by Gail Mummert. Zamora: El Colegio de Michoacán/CIDEM, 1999b

------. “Contesting Community: Cultural Struggles of a Mixtec Transnational Community.” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Anthropology Department, 2003

------Topografìas transnacionales: Hacia una geografía de las comunidades transnacionales de origen mixteco. Mexico: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Unidad Iztapalapa - Plaza y Valdés, 2004, forthcoming.

Boyer, Christopher, Becoming Campesinos: Politics, Identity and Agrarian Struggle in Postrevolutionary Michoacan, 1920-1935, Stanford: Stanford University Press

Brooks, David and Jonathan Fox, eds., Cross-Border Dialogues: US-Mexico Social Movement Networking, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for US- Mexican Studies, 2002

Burke, Garance, “Yucatecos and Chiapanecos in San Francisco: Mayan Immigrants Form New Communities,” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/Center for US-Mexican Studies, 2004

Castañeda, Alejandra, “The Politics of Citizenship: Mexican Migrants in the U.S.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz, Anthropology Department, 2003

29

----- “Roads to Citizenship: Mexican Migrants in the United States,” Latino Studies, 2(1), 2004, pp. 70-89

Colloredo-Mansfeld, Rudi,” “’Dirty Indians,’ Radical Indígenas, and the Political Economy of Social Difference in Modern Ecuador,” Bulletin of Latin American Research, 17(2), 1998, pp. 185-205

Consulta Mitovsky, “Acuerdo Migratorio: Un Acercamiento: Encuesta Nacional en Viviendas,” January, 2004, www.consulta.com.mx

Cornelius, Wayne, “Impacts of NAFTA on Mexico-U.S. Migration,” in NAFTA in the New Millenium, edited by Edward Chambers and Peter H. Smith, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for US-Mexican Studies and University of Alberta Press, 2002

Crece, Arthur R, and Roberto R. Ramirez, “Analysis of General Hispanic Responses in Census 2000.” Population Division Working Paper Series, no. 27. Washington, D.C.: Population Division of U.S. Census Bureau, 2003

DeArmond, Michelle, “Tribe: Some 400 Members Are Trying to Stop an Effort to Remove Them from the Group,” Bay Area Indian Calendar, Feb 25, 2003

De Genova, Nicolas and Ana Y. Ramos-Zayas, Latino Crossings: Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and the Politics of Race and Citizenship, New York: Routledge, 2003

De la Garza, Rodolfo and Myriam Hazan. Looking Backward, Moving Forward: Mexican Organizations in the US as Agents of Incorporation and Dissociation, Claremont: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, 2003, www.trpi.org .

Dillon, Sam, “Mexico Weighs Voting by its Emigrants in US,” New York Times, Dec. 7, 1998

Domínguez Santos, Rufino, “The FIOB Experience, Internal Crisis and Future Challenges.” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/Center for US-Mexican Studies, 2004a

------“Migración y organización de los indígenas oaxaqueños,“ in Stefano Varese and Sylvia Escárcega, eds., La Ruta Mixteca: El impacto etnopolítico de la migración transnacional en los pueblos indígenas de México, Mexico City: UNAM, 2004b, forthcoming

30 Dresser, Denise, “Exporting Conflict: Transboundary Consequences of Mexican Politics,” In The California-Mexico Connection, edited by Abraham Lowenthal and Katrina Burgess, Berkeley: University of California, 1993

Durand, Jorge, “From Traitors to Heroes: 100 Years of Mexican Migration Policies,” Migration Information Source, March 1, 2004 (www.migrationinformation.org)

Ehrenreich, Ben, “Si, Se Puede! L.A.’s New Freedom Riders Take Their Quest for Immigrant Equality on the Road,” LA Weekly, Oct, 24-30, 2003

Escárcega, Sylvia, “Las políticas de identidad entre migrantes jovenes mexicanos en California,” in Stefano Varese and Sylvia Escárcega, eds., La Ruta Mixteca: El impacto etnopolítico de la migración transnacional en los pueblos indígenas de México, Mexico City: UNAM, 2004, forthcoming

Espinosa, Victor, The Illinois Federation of Michoacan Clubs: The Chicago-Michoacán Project Report, Chicago: Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights, Sept., 1999

EZLN, La marcha del color de la tierra: Comunicados, carts y mensaje del Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, del 2 de diciembre del 200 al 2 de abril, del 2001, Mexico City: Rizoma, 2001

Fitzgerald, David, Negotiating Extra-Territorial Citizenship: Mexican Migration and the Transnational Politics of Community, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, Monograph 2.

------“Beyond ‘Transnationalism’: Mexican Hometown Politics at an American Labor Union,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(2), March 2004, pp. 228-247

Fletcher, Peri, and Jane Margold. “Transnational Communities,” Rural Mexico Research Review, vol. 1. 2003 < http://www.reap.ucdavis.edu/rural_review.html>

Flores, William V. and Rina Benmayor, “Constructing Cultural Citizenship,” In Latino Cultural Citizenship: Claiming Identity, Space, and Rights, edited by William V. Flores and Rina Benmayor. Boston: Beacon Press, 1997

Fox, Jonathan, “The Difficult Transition from Clientelism to Citizenship: Lessons from Mexico," World Politics, 46(2), January 1994a

----- “The Politics of Mexico's New Peasant Economy.” In The Politics of Economic Restructuring: State-Society Relations and Regime Change in Mexico, edited by Maria Lorena Cook, Kevin J. Middlebrook and Juan Molinar, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for U.S.- Mexican Studies, 1994b

31 ----- "How Does Civil Society Thicken? The Political Construction of Social Capital in Rural Mexico," World Development, 24(6) June, 1996, pp. 1089-1104

----- “Lessons from Mexico-US Civil Society Coalitions,” In Cross-Border Dialogues: US-Mexico Social Movement Networking, edited by David Brooks and Jonathan Fox, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for US-Mexican Studies, 2002

----- “Unpacking ‘Transnational Citizenship’” Latin American and Latino Studies Department, UC Santa Cruz, unpublished manuscript, 2004

Fox, Jonathan and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, “Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants,” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/Center for US-Mexican Studies, 2004

Fried, David, “Thousands Show Up for Oaxacan Festival at CSUSM,” North County Times, July 11, 2004

Galvez, Alyshia, "'I Too Was an Immigrant': The Transformation of Affinities and Identity through Time in a Mexican Migrant Devotional Organization in the South Bronx”, presented at the American Anthropology Association, November, 2003

García Leyva, Jaime, “Por los caminos del sur indígena,” Ojarasca (La Jornada), No. 79, November, 2003

García Ortega, Martha, "Nómadas, viajeros y migrantes: La comunidad sin límites de la región Nahua del Alto Balsas, Guerrero," Masters Thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 2002

------“Braceros indígenas: La experiencia de los nahuas del Alto Balsas, Guerrero,” Colegio de la Frontera Norte, , 2003. unpublished ms.

Garduño, Roberto. “Votarán en 2006 unos 200 mil mexicanos en EU: Paoli,” La Jornada, January 31, 2004, p. 15

Garrouette. Eva Marie, Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America, Berkeley: University of California, 2003

Glaberson, William, “Who Is a Seminole, and Who Gets to Decide?” New York Times, Jan 29, 2001

Glenn, Evelyn Nakano, Unequal Freedom: How Race and Gender Shaped American Citizenship and Labor, Cambridge: Harvard University, 2002

Gobierno del Distrito Federal, Memoria de los encuentros sobre presencia indígena en la Ciudad de Mexico. Mexico: GDF, Dirección General de Equidad y Desarrollo, 2000

32

Goldring, Luin, “From Market Membership to Transnational Citizenship? The Changing Politicization of Transnational Social Spaces,” L’Ordinaire Latino-Americaine, 173-174, July-Dec., 1998 (also published as UCSC Chicano-Latino Research Center Working Paper, 1998, No. 23)

---- “The Mexican State and Transmigrant Organizations: Negotiating the Boundaries of Membership and Participation,” Latin American Research Review, 37(3), 2002

Gómez Mena, Carolina, “Renuncío la directora del programa de jornaleros agrícolas de Sedeso,” La Jornada, January 31, 2004

González Gutiérrez, Carlos, “The Mexican Diaspora in California: The Limits and Possibilities of the Mexican Government,” In The California-Mexico Connection, edited by Abraham Lowenthal and Katrina Burgess, Berkeley: University of California, 1993, pp. 221-233

----- “Decentralized Diplomacy: The Role of Consular Offices in Mexico’s Relations with its Diaspora,” In Bridging the Border: Transforming Mexico-US Relations, edited by Rodolfo de la Garza and J. Velásquez, Lanham: Rowman and Littlfield, 1997, pp. 49- 68

Good, Catherine, “’Making the Struggle, One Big One’: Nahuatl Resistance to the San Juan Dam, Mexico,” Presented to the Agrarian Studies Colloquium, Yale University, October 30, 1992

Graves, Rachel, “Forgotten Culture - Ignored by Society, Black Mexicans Deny Their History,” Houston Chronicle, July 3, 2004

Gutiérrez, Natividad, Nationalist Myths and Ethnic Identities: Indigenous Intellectuals and the Mexican State, Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1999

Hernández Díaz, Jorge, “Representaciones híbridas: La participación de los mixtecos migrantes en el proceso electoral,” in Dilemas de la democracia en México: Los actores sociales ante la representación política, edited by Aline Hemond and David Recondo, Mexico: Instituto Federal Electoral/Centro Francés de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos, 2002

Hernández Navarro, Luis and Ramon Vera, eds.. Los Acuerdos de San Andrés, Mexico: Era, 1998

Hindley, Jane, 1996 “Towards a Pluricultural Nation: The Limits of Indigenismo and the Reform of Article 4”, in Dismantling the Mexican State?, edited by Rob Aitken, et al, London: Macmillan, 1996, pp. 225–243

33 Huizar Murillo, Javier and Isidro Cerda, “Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the 2000 US Census: “Hispanic American Indians, ” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/Center for US- Mexican Studies, 2004

Hull, Elizabeth, Without Justice for All: The Constitutional Rights of Aliens, Westport: Greenwood, 1985

Hulshof, Marije, Zapotec Moves, Networks and Remittances of U.S.-Bound Migrants from Oaxaca, Mexico, Amsterdam: Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap, 1991

Jiménez, Tomás, “Multiethnic Mexican Americans in Demographic and Ethnographic Perspectives,” In Crossing Lines: Race and Mixed Race Across the Geohistorical Divide, edited by Marc Coronado, Rudy Guevarra, Jr., Jeffrey Moniz and Laura Furlan Szanto, Santa Barbara: University of California, Santa Barbara, Multiethnic Student Outreach, 2003

Johnson. Benjamin Heber, Revolution in Texas, New Haven: Yale University, 2003

Johnston, Paul, “The Emergence of Transnational Citizenship among Mexican Immigrants in California,” In Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices, edited by T. Alexander and Douglas Klusmeyer, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2001

------“Outflanking Power, Reframing Unionism: The Basic Strike of 1999-2001,” Labor Studies Journal, 28(4), Winter, 2004a

------“The Blossoming of Transnational Citizenship: A California Town Defends Indigenous Immigrants” In Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, eds., Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/Center for US-Mexican Studies, 2004b

Kearney, Michael, “Mixtec Political Consciousness: From Passive to Active Resistance.” In Rural Revolt in Mexico and U.S. Intervention, edited by Daniel Nugent. La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, 1988

------. “The Effects of Transnational Culture, Economy, and Migration on Mixtec Identity in Oaxacalifornia.” In The Bubbling Cauldron: Race, Ethnicity, and the Urban Crisis, edited by Michael Peter Smith and Joe R. Feagin. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995

------. “Transnational Oaxacan Indigenous Identity: The Case of Mixtecs and Zapotecs,” Identities, 2000, 7(2), pp. 173-195.

34 ------“Struggle and Difference: The Jiujitsu of Transnational Indigenous Resistance and Domination.” In History in Person: Enduring Struggles and Identities in Practice, edited by D. Holland and J. Lave, Santa Fe, NM: School of American and Research Press, 2001

Kearney, Michael and Federico Besserer, “Oaxacan Municipal Governance in Transnational Context,” ,” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/Center for US-Mexican Studies. 2004

Kissam, Ed, “Trends in the Ethnic Composition of the California Farm Labor Force,” Memo to the Agricultural Worker Health Initiative Policy Advisory Group, July 1, 2003

Kissam, Ed and Ilene J. Jacobs, “Practical Research Strategies for Mexican Indigenous Communities in California Seeking to Assert Their Own Identity,” ,” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera- Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/Center for US-Mexican Studies. 2004

Klaver, Jeanine, From the Land of the Sun to the City of Angeles: The Migration Process of Zapotec Indians from Oaxaca, Mexico to Los Angeles, California, Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical Studies, 1997

Krissman, Fred, “Californian Agribusiness and Mexican Farm Workers, 1942–1992.” University of California, Santa Barbara, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1996

------“Apples and Oranges? Recruiting Indigenous Mexicans to Divide Farm Labor Markets in the Western U.S.” Presented at the conference “Mexican Indigenous Migrants in the US: Building Bridges between Researchers and Community Leaders,” University of California, Santa Cruz, October, 2002

Leiken, Robert, The Melting Border: Mexico and Mexican Communities in the United States, Washington DC: Center for Equal Opportunity, 2000

Lewis, Laura A., “Blacks, Black Indians, Afromexicans: The Dynamics of Race, Nation and Identity in a Mexican Moreno Community (Guerrero)” American Ethnologist, 27(4), pp. 898-926

Levitt, Peggy and Rafael de la Dehesa (2003) “Transnational Migration and the Redefinition of the State: Variations and Explanations,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 26(4), July, pp. 587-611

Levitt, Peggy and Nina Glick-Schiller, “Conceptualizing Simultaneity: Theorizing Society form a Transnational Social Field Perspective,” International Migration Review, forthcoming

35

Leyva Solano, Xochitl and Gabriel Ascencio Franco, Lacandonia el fila del agua, Mexico City: CIESAS/UNAM/UCAEC/FCE, 1996

López Castro, Gustavo, ed., Diáspora Michoacana, Zamora: El Colegio de Michoacán/Gobierno de Michoacán, 2003

López, Felipe, Luis Escala-Rabadan and Raúl Hinojosa, “Migrant Associations, Remittances and Regional Development between Los Angeles and Oaxaca, Mexico,” Research Report, University of California, Los Angeles, North American Integration and Development Center, May, 2001

López Mercado, Alejandro, “La defensa de los derechos colectivos de los pueblos indígenas en Mexico. Los casos del FIOB, la UCIHJ y la Comunidad de Santa Ana Zirosto,” Cuadernos Agrarios, 16, 1998, pp. 174-198

Luccisano, Lucy, “Mexican Anti-Poverty Programs and the Making of “Responsible” Poor Citizens (1995-2000),” York University, Sociology Dept. Ph.D. Dissertation, 2002

Lyon, Oren, et al, eds., Exiled in the Land of the Free: Democracy, Indian Nations, and the U.S. Constitution, Clear Light Publishers, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1992

Macías Durán, Julian, “El desarrollo regional en el sur del estado de Zacatecas y los nuevos actores socials al inicio del siglo XXI,” Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, Tesis de Maestría en Economía Regional, otoño, 2003

MacLachlan, Colin, Anarchism and the Mexican Revolution: The Political Trials of Ricardo Flores Magon in the United States, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991

Maldonado, Benjamin, Constructing Identities in Mexican American Political Organizations: Choosing Issues, Taking Sides, Austin: University of Texas, 2003

Maldonado, Centolia and Patricia Artía, “Now We Are Awake”: Women’s Political Participation in the Oaxacan Indigenous Binational Front,” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/Center for US-Mexican Studies. 2004

Martines, Ruben, Crossing Over, New York: Henry Holt, 2001

Martínez Saldaña, Jesús and Raúl Ross Pineda, “Suffrage for Mexicans Residing Abroad,” In Cross-Border Dialogues: US-Mexico Social Movement Networking, edited by David Brooks and Jonathan Fox, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for US-Mexican Studies, 2002

36 Martínez Saldaña, Jesús, “At the Periphery of Democracy: The Binational Politics of Mexican Immigrants in Silicon Valley,” University of California, Berkeley, Ethnic Studies Department, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1993

------“Building the Future: The FIOB and Civic Participation of Mexican Immigrants in Fresno, California,” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/Center for US-Mexican Studies. 2004

Mechaca, Martha, Recovering History, Constructing Race: The Indian, Black and White Roots of Mexican Americans, Austin: University of Texas, 2001

Mellor, Steven, Lisa Kath and Carrie Bulger, “Binigualism: Relationships with Willingness to Participate in Union Activities, Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), Feb, 2003

Milkman, Ruth, ed. Organizing Immigrants: The Challenge for Unions in Contemporary California, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000

Miller, Spring, “A Report from Nashville on the Immigrant Worker Freedom Ride,” Enlaces News, January, 2004

Moctezuma Longoria, Miguel, “The Migrant Club El Remolino: A Binational Community Experience,” In Confronting Globalization: Economic Integration and Popular Resistance in Mexico, edited by Timothy Wise, Hilda Salazar and Laura Carlsen, West Hartford, Conn: Kumarian, 2003a

------. “Territorialidad de los clubes de zacatecanos en Estados Unidos,” Migracion y Desarrollo, No. 1, Oct., 2003b

------“Simbolismo de un encuentro donde los ausentes de Jerez, Zacatecas se hacen presentes,” MX Sin Fronteras, No. 5, May, 2004, pp. 34- 37

Morawska, Ewa, “Disciplinary Agendas and Analytic Strategies of Research on Immigrant Transnaltionalsim: Challenges of Interdisciplinary Knowledge,” International Migration Review, 37(3), Fall, 2003, pp. 611-640

Moscoso Paniagua, Pepe, “Reviviendo mis recuerdos,” El Oaxaqueño, June 26, 2004, p. 10

Mutersbaugh, Ted, “Migration, Common Property and Communal Labor: Cultural Politics and Agency in a Mexican Village,” Political Geography, 21, June, 2002

37 Nadal, Alejandro. 2000. “The Environmental and Social Impacts of Economic Liberalization on Corn Production in Mexico,” Oxford: Oxfam, Great Britain and World Wide Fund for Nature

Nagengast, Carole and Michael Kearney. “Mixtec Ethnicity: Social Identity, Political Consciousness and Political Activism,” Latin American Research Review, 25(2), 1990

Nagengast, Carole, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, and Michael Kearney, Human Rights and Indigenous Workers: The Mixtecs in Mexico and the United States. Center for U.S.- Mexican Studies, Univ. of California, San Diego, 1992

Najar, Alberto, “Cero, calificación de migrantes a Fox,” La Jornada, January 30, 2004, p. 14

Navarro, Mireya, “Going Beyond Black and White, Hispanics in Census Pick "Other" “ New York Times, November 9, 2003

Ng’weno, Bettina Amilie, “The State in Question: Afro-Colombians, Ethnic Territories and Governing in the Andes,” Johns Hopkins University, Anthropology Dept., Ph.D. Dissertation, August, 2002

Omi, Michael and Howard Winant, Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1980s, New York: Routledge, 1986

Orozco, Graciela, Esther Gonzalez y Roger Díaz de Cossío, Las Organizaciones Mexicano-Americanas, Hispanas y Mexicanas en Estados Unidos. Segunda Edición y aumentada. Mexico: Centro de Estudios Migratorios y Fundación Solidaridad Mexicano- Americana, 2003

Orozco, Manuel with Michelle LaPointe, “Mexican Hometown Associations and Development Opportunities,” Journal of International Affairs, 57(2), Spring, 2004

Østergaard-Neilsen, Eva, “The Politics of Migrants Transnational Political Practices” International Migration Review, 37(3), Fall, 2003, pp. 760-786

Oxfam, Mugged: Poverty in Your Coffee Cup, Boston: Oxfam America, 2002

------, “Dumping Without Borders: How US Agricultural Policies and Destroying the Livelihoods of Mexican Corn Farmers,” Oxfam Briefing Paper, 50, Oxfam-International, August, 2003

Pallares, Amalia, From Peasant Struggles to Indian Resistance: The Ecuadorian Andes in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002

Pitti, Stephen, The Devil in Silicon Valley, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003

38

Ramírez Romero, Silvia J. La reconstrucción de la identidad política del Frente Indígena Oaxaqueño Binacional. Serie Antropología Social, No. 91. México: Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003

Reyes, Teofilo, “Chicago Immigrant Workers ‘Get on the Bus’ for Freedom Rides,” Labor Notes, October, 2003a

------“Rallies Across the Country Greet Immigrant Worker Freedom Riders,” Labor Notes, November, 2003b www.labornotes.org

Rivera-Salgado, Gaspar, “Binational Grass-Roots Organizations and the Experience of Indigenous Migrants.” In Cross-Border Dialogues: U.S.-Mexico Social Movement Networking, edited by David Brooks and Jonathan Fox. La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, 2002

Rivera-Salgado, Gaspar and Luis Escala Rabadán, “Collective Identity and Organizational Strategies among Indigenous and Mestizo Mexican Migrants,” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies & Center for US-Mexican Studies, 2004

Rivera Sánchez, Liliana, ”Expressions of Identity and Belonging: Mexican Immigrants in New York” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/Center for US-Mexican Studies, 2004

Robles, Sergio, “Migration and Return in the Sierra Juárez,” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/Center for US-Mexican Studies, 2004

Rocco, Raymond, “Transforming Citizenship: Membership, Strategies of Containment and the Public Sphere in Latino Communities,” Latino Studies, 2(4-5), 2004, pp. 4-25

Rodríguez, Clara E., Changing Race: Latinos, the Census, and the History of Ethnicity in the United States, New York: New York University, 2000

Ruiz Cameron, Christopher David, “Forming More Perfect Unions: What Organizing Success Among Latino Workers in Southern California Means for the Future of the American Labor Movement,” Labor Studies Journal, 25(1), Spring, 2000

Rus, Jan, “The ‘Comunidad Revolucionaria Internacional:’ The Subversion of Native Government in Highland Chiapas, 1936-1968,” In Everyday Forms of State Formation: Revolution and the Negotiation of Rule in Modern Mexico, edited by Gilbert Joseph and Daniel Nugent, Durham: Duke, 1994

39

Sánchez G., Martha Judith. “Comunidades sin límites territoriales: fortalecimiento y redefinición de identidades étnicas y genéricas de la migración de mexicanos hacia Estados Unidos.” In Simposio sobre la Emigración Latinoamericana, 2002. Osaka: Japan Center for Area Studies, fdrthcoming

Sandos, James, Rebellion in the Borderlands: Anarchism and the Plan of San Diego, 1904-1923, Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1992

Santiago Márquez, Gustavo, Filemón López, Yolanda Cruz, Ulises García, Guillermo Delgado-P., and Alejandrina Ricárdez,“Cross-Border Indigenous Organizations: Lessons from the Past, Challenges for the Future,” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/Center for US- Mexican Studies, 2004

Schmidt, Ella and María de los Angeles Crummet, “Heritage Recreated: Hidalguenses in the U.S. and Mexico,” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/Center for US-Mexican Studies, 2004

Seif, Hinda, ““?Estado de Oro” or “Jaula de Oro?” Undocumented Mexican Workers, the Drivers License and Subnational Illegalization in California,” Center for Comparative Immigration Studies Working Paper, No. 86, October, 2003 www.ccis- ucsd.org/publications

Smith, Michael Peter, Transnational Urbanism: Locating Globalization, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2001

----- “Transnationalism, the State and the Extraterritorial Citizen,” Politics and Society, 31(4), Dec., 2003, pp. 467-502

Smith, Robert, "Los Ausentes Siempre Presentes: The Imagining, Making and Politics of a Transnational Migrant Community Between Ticuani, Puebla, Mexico and New York City." Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, Political Science Department, 1995

----- “Transnational Localities: Communities, Technologies and the Politics of Membership within the Context of Mexico-US Migration,” In Encuentros Antropológicos: Power, Identity and Mobility in Mexican Society, edited by Valentina Napolitano and Xochitl Leyva Solano, London: University of London, Institute of Latin American Studies, 1998

------“Migrant Membership as an Instituted Process: Transnationalization, the State and the Extra-Territorial Conduct of Mexican Politics,” International Migration Review, 37(2), Summer, 2003

40 Smith, Rogers, Stories of Peoplehood: The Politics and Morals of Political Membership, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2003

Stephen, Lynn, “Globalization, The State, And The Creation Of Flexible Indigenous Workers: Mixtec Farmworkers, in Oregon,” Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, 30(2-3), Summer-Fall, 2001, pp. 189-214

----- ¡Zapata Lives! Histories and Cultural Politics in Southern Mexico, Berkeley: University of California, 2002

------“Cultural Citizenship and Labor Rights for Oregon Farmworkers: The Case of Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Nordeste (PCUN),” Human Organization, 62(1), Spring, 2003

----- “Mixtec Farmworkers in Oregon: Linking Labor and Ethnicity through Farmworker Unions and Hometown Associations,” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies & Center for US- Mexican Studies, 2004

Stern, Alexandra Minna, “From Mestizophilia to Biotypology: Racialization and Science in Mexico, 1920-1960,” In Race and Nation in Modern Latin America, edited by Nancy Appelbaum, Anne S. Macpherson and Karin Alejandra Rosenblatt, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2003, pp. 187-210

Striffler, Steven, “Inside a Poultry Processing Plant: An Ethnographic Portrait,” Labor History, 43(3), 2002

Tafoya, Sonya M., “Latinos and Racial Identification in California,” California Counts, 4(4), May, 2003

Urrutia, Alonso, “Analiza Gobernación el impacto social de las radios comunitarias, “ La Jornada, Nov. 26, 2003

Valenzuela, Angela, Subtractive Schooling: US-Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring, Albany: SUNY Press, 1999

Varese, Stefano and Sylvia Escárcega, eds., La Ruta Mixteca: El impacto etnopolítico de la migración ransnacional en los pueblos indígenas de México, Mexico City: UNAM, 2004, forthcoming

Varsanyi, Monica Weiler, “Stretching the Boundaries of Citizenship in the City: Undocumented Migrants and Political Mobilization in Los Angeles,” University of California, Los Angeles, Geography Dept., Ph.D. Dissertation, 2004

41 Velasco Ortiz, Laura, El regreso de la comunidad: migración indígena y agentes étnicos (Los mixtecos en la frontera Mexico–Estados Unidos), Mexico: El Colegio de México/El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, 2002

------“Organizational Experiences and Female Participation among Indigenous Oaxaqueños in Baja California,” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies & Center for US-Mexican Studies, 2004

Velásquez, María Cristina, “Migrant Communities, Gender, and Political Power in Oaxaca,” In Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies & Center for US-Mexican Studies, 2004

Yanes, Rizo, Pablo, “Urbanización de los pueblos indígenas y la etnicización de la ciudad,” presented at Seminario Permanente “Ciudad, Pueblos Indígenas y Etnicidad,” July 9, 2002, at http://www.equidad.df.gob.mx.

Yanow, Dvora, Constructing “Race” and “Ethnicity” in America: Category-Making in Public Policy and Administration, Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2003

Yuval-Davis, Nira, “The ‘Multi-Layered Citizen:’ Citizenship in the Age of Globalization,” International Feminist Journal of Politics, 1(1), June, 1999, pp. 119-136

Wade, Peter, Race and Ethnicity in Latin America, London: Pluto Press, 1997

----- “Images of Latin American Mestizaje and the Politics of Comparison,” Bulletin of Latin American Research, 23(3), 2004, pp. 355-366

Wald, Johanna and Daniel Losen, “”Defining and Redirecting a School-to-Prison Pipeline,” New Directions for Youth Development,” No. 99, Fall, 2003

Waldinger, Roger and David Fitzgerald, “Transnationalism in Question “ American Journal of Sociology, 109(5), 2004, pp. 1177-1195

Zabin, Carol, ed. “Mixtec Migrant Farm Workers in California Agriculture,” Davis: California Institute of Rural Studies, Working Paper No. 9, January. 1992a

------, ed. Migración oaxaqueña e los campos agrícolas de California. La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. 1992b

------. "U.S.-Mexico Economic Integration: Labor Relations and the Organization of Work in California and Baja California Agriculture," Economic Geography 73(3), July, 1997

42 Zabin, Carol and Luis Escala Rabadán, “Mexican Hometown Associations and Mexican Immigrant Political Empowerment in Los Angeles,” Aspen Institute Working Paper Series, (Nonprofit Sector Research Fund) Winter, 1998

Zabin, Carol, Michael Kearney, Anna García, David Runsten, and Carole Nagengast, Mixtec Migrants in California Agriculture: A New Cycle of Poverty, Davis: California Institute of Rural Studies, 1993

Zavella, Patricia, “Hemispheric Shifts, Missed Conversations: Conceptual Approaches on Recent Mexican Migration, Gender and Identity,” presented at: “Reflections on the Future: Hemispheric Dialogues on the Interactions of Latina/o-Chicana/o-Latin American Studies,” Chicano/Latino Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz, Feb., 2004

43