Chapter 3 MIGRATION BETWEEN MEXICO and the UNITED STATES

Part II. Chapter 3 MIGRATION BETWEEN MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES (Written 1996)

Over many years, there has been a connection between the Mexican and American labor markets (especially the labor market of California). As of 1980, almost 20% of California's population were "Spanish-origin"; these figures were 15% in San Diego County & 28% in Los Angeles County. The American labor force of 130 million includes three to five million Mexican-born workers who have been in the United States less than ten years. Out of Mexico's labor force of 30 million workers, two to three million rely on the United States labor market for most of their annual earnings. Counting the number of migrants is very difficult. The best estimates are that about 150,000 to 200,000 Mexicans --- legal and illegal --- find jobs in the United States each year and settle. At least 20% of these will ultimately return to Mexico. Between one and three million others work seasonally in the United States and then return to Mexico. One good estimate of the number of illegal immigrants in the United States was 2.0 to 2.3 million as of 1984, of which about half were from Mexico. For San Diego county, the estimated number of illegal immigrants from Mexico was counted at 34,000 in the 1980 census (plus 16,000 illegal immigrants from other countries). The Mexican immigrant population, both legal and illegal, in San Diego county is estimated at between 150,000 and 200,000. Wayne Cornelius grouped the migrants from Mexico into five types. First, there are temporary, undocumented, long-distance migrants who come from the rural communities and small towns of Michoacan, Jalisco, Zacatecas, and Guanajuato. These are young males who work in unskilled positions. They make up to three trips to the United States in their work lifetimes, while retaining their family base in Mexico. Second, there are temporary, legal, long-distance migrants. These are older, married men mostly from the Central Plateau area who left their dependents in Mexico and spend eight or more months working in the United States with a temporary work permit. Third, there are borderland commuter migrants who enter the United States frequently with "shopping cards" (which do not permit employment) and work for short periods. Fourth, there are long-term, long-distance, undocumented migrants, both males and females, who move to the United States with the intention of remaining there. They work in urban occupations and often built-up considerable seniority. Finally, there are permanent legal immigrants who reside in the United States. Many had at least one child born in the United States. Most had started as "illegals"! Over time, the proportion of these latter two groups has risen. Given these vast differences, it is difficult to describe the characteristics of the "typical" migrant. But some characteristics can be noted. (1) Except for the permanent legal immigrants, most used to be males in their 20s. A large number left their wives and children in Mexico and sent them part of their earnings (remittances). They tended to reside with immediate family members in the United States. However, women now constitute a majority of the settled immigrant population from Mexico, a result of the Mexican economic crises of the 1980s and 1990s (which has driven more women and children into the labor force). Women find considerable employment in the United States in child care and Page 2 cleaning as well as low level production jobs in garment firms, Silicon Valley semiconductor manufacturing firms, canneries, and packing houses. (2) The majority were of agricultural origin, although most of them had moved to cities and towns in Mexico before coming to the United States. Although they come from all over Mexico, as late as 1987, about 38% originated from just two Mexican states --- Jalisco and Michoacan. In the 1980s, more migrants came from areas hit hard by the austerity programs; among these migrants, it was more common to find skilled workers. (3) About three-fourths had fewer than eight years of education. (4) The majority had been employed in Mexico before emigrating; contrary to the popular impression, most had NOT been employed in farm occupations. Also contrary to popular impression, (5) they are not even close to the bottom of the income distribution of their home communities. Juan Diez-Canedo Ruiz argues that "they could be considered as underemployed family members in the middle to upper-middle class strata". In the United States, the vast majority of Mexican immigrants live in urban areas. Between one-half and two-thirds have migrated to California, especially the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Usually they live in rented apartments. They are attracted to these areas by the networks of previous immigrants, usually family members, who provide support and information about living arrangements and job opportunities. The first three categories of immigrants experience only temporary stays in the United States; the average stay is about 6 months.

There was a large migration from Mexico early in the twentieth century. One analyst estimated that, between 1910 and 1930, 1.5 million Mexicans emigrated to the United States, at least temporarily. They were "pulled" to the United States by the rising standard of living, especially in the agricultural sector. They were also "pushed" to the United States by the disruptions caused by revolution and rebellion. Most migrants were from the seven central states of Mexico, the area that served as the main battleground between the central government in Mexico City and the revolutionaries. According to one estimate, in these years, 20% of the population of the seven central states and 10% of the entire Mexican population migrated to the United States. About one-third of these people settled in the United States. In the1930s, there was a Great Depression; especially in agricultural work, there was a substantial labor surplus. Mexican immigration slowed considerably while an estimated 400,000 Mexicans were deported. In 1942, the American and Mexican governments agreed to the Bracero program, whereby Mexican nationals would be allowed to work in agriculture in the United States under contract. This program was a response to the wartime shortage of labor in the United States. By the time the program was ended in 1964, about 4.6 million contracts had been issued. Counting repeaters, at least 1 million people had been braceros. At least another 1 million people came to work in the United States illegally, they did so because it was expensive for them to get a permit (i.e., it took considerable bribing!). Initially, bracero contracts were given for labor in cotton picking. As this became mechanized, the contracts shifted to table grapes, lettuce, strawberries, tomatoes, citrus, etc. The employment conditions of the workers were specified in the 1942 agreement, and were to reflect American standards of decency. However, housing, Page 3 sanitation, food, and medical care were all substandard. This, plus the fact that many of the jobs that had been done by the braceros had been eliminated by mechanization, eventually led to the political movement that ended the Bracero program in 1964. However, the demand for farm laborers did not diminish. And the braceros had relatives in Mexico. Many braceros settled in the United States and became a network for their younger relatives. After 1965, the only thing that changed was that the migration was no longer "legal". After 1970, the amount of migration accelerated. The Bracero program had set in motion the socioeconomic forces that led to the illegal immigration of the 1970s and 1980s. In Mexico, it created the expectation that the best way to economic improvement was to migrate to the United States. In the United States, growers made investments on the assumption that this type of cheap labor would always be available. It has been argued that, in the absence of this low-wage labor, family farmers would have been better able to compete in California with the large agri-businesses. California's agriculture might have looked more like that found in Iowa than it currently does.

To explain why so many people migrate from Mexico to the United States, one can examine both the "pull" factors and the"push" factors. Among the "pull" factors are the active recruitment in Mexico by American employers and the networks of family members already in the United States. Studies show that migration in the aggregate has not been closely related to American economic variables such as wage rates or unemployment rates. However, for specific products, there has been a pull factor. As American incomes have risen, the demand for fruit, vegetables, and horticultural products has risen accordingly, These areas have relied heavily on Mexican workers. For example, broccoli requires an average of 52 hours of hired labor per acre, mainly for hand-harvesting. In the 1980s, demand for broccoli rose, requiring an additional 2.1 million hours of hired labor. Yet, it would seem that most of the explanation for illegal migration is to be found on the "push" side. Most of these factors were described in earlier chapters. They include the very high rates of population growth, especially in the rural areas, and the low rates of growth of agricultural productivity in the areas of Mexico that have provided most of the migrants. The origin of the low rates of agricultural productivity growth is found in the land reform, which provided land to peasants in units too small to provide a decent livelihood. Also, the government's investment in agriculture was disproportionately in the north and northwest parts of Mexico, benefiting producers of wheat and export crops, such as strawberries and tomatoes. Government programs did little for the peasants who produced maize and beans on small plots in the south and central parts of Mexico. These are the people who comprise most of the migrants. As an illustration, one researcher interviewed 50 households in a small, Mixtec- speaking village in Oaxaca in the late 1970s. The researcher found that the average plot size was about 1.4 acres, with the average household having 8.8 members. The average maize (corn) harvest provided only 16% of the family's needs. Nearly all of the households in the village had members who were migrants. Those migrating to the Page 4

United States could earn at least ten times what they could earn in Mexico; about 40% of this money was remitted to their families in Mexico. With these remittances, the village had been able to acquire electricity, a water system, a school building, and considerably improved housing. It is not hard to understand why migration to the United States from Mexico accelerated after 1970. Many Americans are concerned about the effects Mexican migrants are having on the American economy. This concern has led to a large number of research studies. These studies show that Mexican migrants generally work in unskilled and semi-skilled jobs for wages at or near the minimum wage. While about one of six do work in agriculture, Mexican migrants can be mostly found holding semi-skilled and unskilled jobs in virtually every sector of the economy. The proportion working in urban jobs and in small businesses has been rising. Commonly, Mexican migrants work as janitors, dishwashers, gardeners, hotel workers, car washers, house cleaners, and so forth. Generally, migrants do not compete with native workers for the same jobs. According to one study, only one or two out of every ten "undocumented" migrants takes a job that could be filled by an unemployed American citizen. This, of course, means "at the prevailing wage". If the migrants had not been available, employers would have to pay higher wages to attract American workers. At these higher wages, many of these jobs would indeed be filled by American nationals. The higher wages would then mean higher costs of production which would result in higher prices for consumers. Therefore, the studies understate the effects on employment in the United States. Since the low wage labor lowers production costs, it makes agriculture more profitable. These profits have been built into the price of the land paid by anyone who bought agricultural land since the low wage labor became available. Ending illegal immigrants would cause a significant fall in land prices for California farmers. If the migrants had not been available, the employers had yet another option --- they could have substituted machinery for workers. Machines are currently available to harvest nearly every fruit and vegetable grown in the United States. However, farm wages have been falling relative to the prices of machinery since 1980, largely due to the presence of illegal immigration. When the Bracero program ended in 1964, growers adopted the mechanical tomato harvester and introduced some new machinery into production of strawberries, lettuce, and some citrus. However, these growers simply lost interest in mechanization as the cheap labor became available. Migrants from Mexico do provide competition for American low-wage labor. This has especially affected Hispanic-Americans. Immigrant workers, especially illegal immigrants, do tend to earn less than American-born workers in the same jobs. The five industries in Southern California that hire most of the low-wage manufacturing workers, including "undocumented" migrants, are apparel, furniture and fixtures, leather goods, lumber and wood products, and textile mill products. In these industries, wage increases were well below the national average, while productivity growth fell. This would indicate that these industries were substituting labor for capital due to the presence of large numbers of unskilled, inexpensive workers. One researcher concluded that the presence of the migrants retarded wage growth among native workers in these industries somewhat; however, all of the effect was on the wages of Hispanic- Page 5

Americans. (For example, some vegetables, such as cauliflower, are now packed in the fields so as to avoid the unionized packing-shed workers, who are largely Hispanic- American.) There is no doubt that the presence of illegal immigration is responsible for the virtual elimination of unions for agricultural workers. (In 1984, farm worker unions had contracts for about 14% of farm workers. By the end of the 1980s, this was down to less than 1%! The same researcher found that the presence of illegal immigrants actually lowered unemployment rates for blacks in Los Angeles: i.e., black workers and Mexican illegal immigrants are complements, not substitutes (ironically, blacks are the most likely group to believe that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from them). Calculating the effects of Mexican migration on employment and wages of American citizens is complicated by several phenomena. First, by their very presence, low-wage Mexican workers may create a demand for their labor. An example here would be domestics. Also, as the study of Los Angeles in the last paragraph indicates, the presence of low-wage labor encouraged the employers to use more low-wage labor and less machinery than they otherwise would have. Second, in the absence of the low-wage Mexican immigrants, many companies would either go out of business or would move elsewhere. One researcher estimated for Los Angeles that, had there been no further immigration from Mexico after 1970, 53,000 manufacturing jobs would have been lost, 12,000 of which were high-paying, non-production jobs, because the businesses would close or leave the area. Thus, major beneficiaries of the existence of low-wage Mexican immigrants are company owners, white-collar workers, and suppliers of raw materials. By the estimate of that researcher, of all of the jobs taken by Mexican immigrants in Los Angeles, about one-fourth would not have existed if the migrants had not come to Los Angeles. Third, the migrants spend part of their incomes in the local area. A researcher found that the effect of removing undocumented" workers from San Diego would be to raise unemployment 0.6% to 1.5% due to the reduction in their consumer expenditures. There is some evidence that, in the restaurant business, the reduction in cost that comes from low-wage labor does get passed along in lower prices to consumers. This would be expected in any highly competitive industry. According to one researcher, between 1967 and 1983 restaurant prices rose more slowly in Los Angeles than in other California cities, despite the fact that per capita income rose faster. This was attributed to the large number of Mexican migrants who allowed production to occur at lower cost. However, one must be careful about this conclusion. Further research is needed.

Besides the effects of Mexican migrants on wages and employment, some have been concerned about the fiscal impact. Mexican migrants do take more money in government spending than they pay in taxes. Several studies, including one done for San Diego County, have shown that Mexican migrants make minimal use of welfare and food stamps. Indeed, only legal immigrants are eligible for these programs. Illegal immigrants only gain access to them at all if they have fake documents. (The 1986 Immigration Reform Act allowed many former illegal immigrants to become legal, allowing them access to welfare and food stamps if they otherwise were qualified.) Although many migrants skimp on health treatments because of lack of ability to pay or Page 6 because of fear of detection, they do make some use of county health facilities. An estimated 11% of children born in San Diego county are children of illegal immigrants. The largest government expenditure on Mexican migrants is for education; this results from the large family size and relative youth of the Mexican migrant population. Due to high drop-out rates, most of these are in elementary school. In 1994, California passed Proposition 187. This denied illegal immigrants access to public schools in California. As of this writing (mid-1996), this proposition is still in the courts under appeal.

Most migrants do have taxes deducted from their wages. Since they rarely file tax returns, they often lose refunds to which they are entitled. And, except for the long-term permanent migrants, they will not collect the social security benefits for which they have paid. The average Mexican immigrant households' taxes have been estimated to be about three-fourths that of all households. There have been estimates of the fiscal deficit. For 1980, it has been estimated that the state of California spent $3204 per Mexican immigrant household in Los Angeles while receiving $1425 in taxes from them. The fiscal deficit was thus $1779 per Mexican immigrant household, compared to $139 for all households in Los Angeles. This difference is explained by the low incomes and large numbers of young children in the Mexican migrant households. One problem is that a great part of the taxes are collected by the federal government while most of the services to immigrants are provided by the state and local governments. (This led Governor Wilson to sue the federal government for the costs of illegal immigrants to the state of California.) In summary, it appears that Mexican migrants do have effects on the labor market, raising wages and opportunities for some while lowering them for others. They may have a small effect on reducing prices. And their presence does generate a fiscal deficit. . Thus far, Mexican immigrants who come to California on a long-term basis seem to be experiencing a pattern similar to other immigrant groups who came to the United States in the past. The first generation improves its income level and occupational status somewhat over time. For men, this means beginning in unskilled jobs and proceeding to semiskilled factory employment. For women, it means starting as domestic service workers and proceeding to factory operative positions. There is a clear ceiling on job status mobility within the first generation. (Temporary "undocumented" migrants experience no upward job mobility.) The second generation has experienced economic mobility in relation to their parents, with higher occupational status and wage levels with each succeeding generation. One study showed that 15% of first-generation Mexican-Americans had white-collar jobs compared to 36.7% for the second generation. The second and succeeding generations are less likely to retain Mexican culture and Spanish monolingualism. While the first generation may have come to work in agriculture, the second generation rarely does this. However, unlike other immigrant groups, Mexican long-term migrants have a low rate of naturalization and a low rate of voting. Page 7

However, Mexican immigrants, like other recent immigrant groups, are likely to do less well in the American labor market than did previous immigrant groups. What is different about the experience of Mexican immigrants is the experience of the third generation. Unlike the previous immigrant groups, the third generation has experienced virtually no occupational gain nor income gain over the second generation. This seems to have resulted because the third generation has experienced no gain in educational attainment over the second generation. Why it has not done so has not yet been well explained. According to one study, because immigrants are concentrated near the bottom of the income distribution, the presence of these migrants in California is responsible for one-third of the increase in inequality in income in California over the past 30 years

Migration from Mexico to the United States also has effects on the Mexican economy. First, by reducing the supply of labor, it may raise wages. This effect, if it exists at all, is likely to be small. One estimate is that wages are 3% to 5% higher in Mexico as a result of emigration. Second, Mexican migrants, especially temporary migrants, remit part of their earnings to their families in Mexico. It has been estimated that between 30% and 40% of the earnings are remitted to Mexico, mostly through normal banking channels (money orders). At an average of $300 per month, these remittances can quadruple the income of a family. In 1990, these remittances were an estimated $3.2 billion, about 1.5% of Mexico's GDP. This was more than the earnings from agricultural exports or from foreign direct investment. As noted earlier, the families have used this money to improve village "infrastructure" (water systems, electricity, etc.) and their housing. In many states, the remittances are greater than the amount the central government invests in that state. Perhaps most important for Mexico has been the loss of some of the most ambitious, entrepreneurial, young members of the Mexican labor force. Especially as a result of the recent economic crises, Mexico has lost some of its better-educated, more skilled people.

NAFTA is likely to have a considerable effect on migration from Mexico to the United States. Most studies show that free trade, especially in agricultural goods, combined with the changes in agriculture in Mexico will displace many Mexican peasants. (Mexico has relied heavily on production of corn, a crop in which it does NOT have a comparative advantage.) One study estimated that the number displaced almost immediately would be about 1.4 million. Of this, more than 40% were expected to migrate to the United States. Other studies have estimated that, over the longer term, 10 to 15 million people will be displaced from Mexican agriculture by early in the next century. Based on these estimates, researchers are predicting a "migration hump" --- an increase in illegal migration to the United States resulting from the passage of NAFTA. Given the changes in Mexican agriculture, migration would increase whether NAFTA were passed or not. The economic crisis of 1994 to 1996 in Mexico certainly added to the migration from Mexico. According to the best estimates, in the near future, NAFTA will create about 100,000 new jobs per year in Mexico. This is not enough to absorb the new entrants into the Page 8

Mexican labor force. However, NAFTA is expected to increase Mexican economic growth overt the long-term. From the vantage point of the year 2010, researchers believe that there should be less migration in that year because NAFTA was passed than there would have been had it not been passed.

While many American businesses and growers support Mexican immigration, a large number of Americans desire to control it. Some are afraid that Mexican migrants will have depressing effects on American wages and employment opportunities. The evidence cited above raises doubts that the effect is very large. Some are afraid of the costs to Americans in higher taxes; the evidence cited above shows that this fear is somewhat more realistic. Others Americans are afraid of the effects on American culture of large concentrations of Mexican migrants. The expressed fear is that, unlike earlier immigrant groups, Mexican migrants are not cut-off from their home culture. Also unlike most immigrant groups, Mexican migrants often express no great desire to integrate into American society. The fear is a divided culture; Quebec is often used as an illustration. The shift of Mexican migrants to urban areas has made them all the more visible. This is especially notable in the North County of San Diego County, where migrants are clearly visible to the more than 1.5 million mostly middle-income and upper-income residents. In April, 1990, Encinitas, with 55,000 residents, declared a "state of emergency" as a result of the problems from 200 to 800 homeless Mexican and Guatemalan migrants. This allowed the city to bulldoze migrant camps, hire security guards, and so forth. These feelings, right or wrong, have led to a number of policies to stop or control Mexican migration. The Bracero Program, described above, was the dominant program from World War II until its end in 1964. Even with this program in effect, about half of Mexican migrants were "undocumented". In 1965, the Immigration Act increased the number of legal immigrants from Latin America; this did not slow down illegal migration at all. The most significant reform came with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. In this act, sanctions are to be applied to employers who knowingly hire illegal migrants. Many of those who were long-term migrants and had been in the United States continuously since January 1,1982 were allowed to apply for legal residence. Approximately 1.2 million people applied for amnesty under this program. In addition, the Special Agricultural Worker program allowed an illegal immigrant to apply for amnesty if he or she had worked in perishable crop agriculture in the United States for at least ninety days in the year ending May 1, 1986. An additional 1.1 million people applied for amnesty under this program, although less actually qualified. This act spawned a new "growth industry" in the creation of forged documents. The SAW part of the Act generated massive fraud. There are about 6 million adult males in rural Mexico; over 1/6 of them applied, claiming that they had worked in American agriculture as illegal immigrants in 1985-1986. As of this writing, the Act has failed to limit the supply of illegal immigrants in those industries that have relied on them. What it has done is to open up mobility opportunities for the newly legalized people. One unintended consequence of the Act has been the proliferation of street-corner immigrant labor markets in many cities. Page 9

Some Americans have advocated tighter controls at the border. Some have argued for using the military as a border patrol. Some advocated building a fence to cover the entire border ---a gigantic Berlin Wall. In response, President Clinton initiated Operation Gatekeeper. The number of people and the amount of equipment in the Border Patrol increased substantially. The number of apprehensions of illegal immigrants has also risen substantially. A triple fence has been built along the border for 12 miles from the ocean. While it is hard to assess the overall effects, these programs have at best only slowed the migration somewhat. Others, including Governor Wilson, argued for a bilaterally negotiated guest worker program, similar to those found in Europe. The Bracero Program was such a program; its experience shows that illegal migration still continues and that the Mexican workers in the United States can still be subject to considerable abuse. Finally, there are some, especially in the Libertarian Party and the Wall Street Journal, who advocate open borders, with controls designed only to keep-out criminals.

As is clear, Mexican migration to the United States has been a source of considerable controversy in the United States. It has also been a source of problems in American foreign relations with Mexico. Mexicans see restrictions on migration as another form of American domination and exclusion. They protested Proposition 187 strongly and have threatened boycotts of San Diego businesses. Given the economic growth now returning to California and the economic situation in Mexico, the only thing that is clear is that the controversy is likely to continue.

LEGAL IMMIGRATION INTO THE UNITED STATES FROM MEXICO

YEAR NUMBER PERCENT OF TOTAL LEGAL IMMIGRATION 1901-10 49,000 0.6% 1911-20 219,000 3.8% 1921-30 459,000 11.2% 1931-40 22,000 4.2% 1941-50 60,000 5.8% 1951-60 299,000 11.9% 1961-70 453,000 13.6% 1971-80 597,000 13.3%

UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS COUNTED IN THE 1980 CENSUS Mexico 1,131,000 55% Other Latin America 452,000 22% Europe 185,000 9% Asia 205,000 10% Other 82,000 4% Total 2,057,000

YEAR INS APPREHENSIONS OF MEXICANS 1981 797,923 1982 795,362 1983 1,076,345 1984 1,104,429 1985 1,218,695