6. The context of return
6.4. The case of Mexico City
In comparison with the context in Huaquechula, participants unsurprisingly described Mexico City’s economy as more dynamic. However, interestingly, this dynamism did not always translate into a better financial situation or wellbeing for participants. Return migrants reported facing various barriers to earning their living. Overall, access to jobs, particularly to well-paid jobs, was identified as challenging. The reason behind this was that Mexico City’s overpopulation results in a high labour supply and consequently a much more exclusive job market. In the simple words of Lulú (MC, 23), who came back to be reunified with her mother who was deported,
This place [Mexico City] is tricky, one thinks ‘this is one of the biggest cities in the world, there will be many jobs out there…’ and yes there are, but because it is pretty packed the salaries go down. In the end, they [employers] know if you do not take it [the job], they will find someone else. So, to find a well-paid job is very hard, you need very good qualifications […] My mom got one [a job] because of her networks; if it had not been for that, I am not sure she could have managed [to get a job]. When you do not have [education] certificates, it [being able to find a job] depends more on who you know, and your luck.
As Lulú highlights, participants often identified the inability to fulfil the education requirements, but also age, physical appearance, place of origin and gender were
mentioned as reasons for being excluded from employment104. This exclusion is not experienced by returnees as part of the typical inequalities faced by Mexicans; a return migrant will always compare these experiences with those from the USA and therefore often become aggravated. For example, Rebeca (H, 33) mentioned, “To find a job here [in Mexico] is hard. There [the USA] you are undocumented, do not speak the language, you have no education or experience, and still you have better chances to develop. It all depends on your willingness to work. Here there is a lot of discrimination for not having studies, for being a woman, for your age, for coming from a town or a small village.”
For those who did not possess a university degree but a good command of the English language, the booming call centre industry is ready to recruit them regardless of their age or physical appearance, offering them a salary similar to that of a non-migrant with a graduate diploma. This is an interesting situation where the private sector has capitalised on the skills and bicultural, bilingual heritage of returnees and offers an option for all those who would not fit into the image and requirements that a conservative business world such as the Mexican one imposes (Anderson 2015). Furthermore, a small number of participants, like Carlos (MC, 35), Luis (MC, 32) and Nadia (MC, 35), who completed their graduate and post-graduate education abroad, were able to access what they considered to be well-paid jobs. Due to the exclusionary employment system and/or due to the nature of their return (and their limited ability to prepare for it), people in Mexico City were less able to develop businesses, and therefore many were self-employed providing informal services. This will be further explored in the next chapter.
Regarding access to government (institutional) support, the main obstacles identified by key informants to the implementation of the PEM in this site were limited funds and changes in the responsible authorities of SEDEREC which had led to a high staff turnover and disruption of services. Beyond that, the change in the organisation’s management had brought changes in the vision and understanding of their work, as well as a less pro-active role in the policy making arena. Regarding other programmes and institutions created specifically for migrants, less than half of the returnees interviewed had knowledge of at least one service, but in comparison with Huaquechula, almost all participants have had access to them. Within the programmes, very few participants mentioned Pograma Paisano and PRIM; the most mentioned was the local DAHMF (Office for migrants’ affairs).
104 Particularly the discrimination due to gender and age was widely discussed in the focus group
Regarding the services provided directly by the DAHMF, these are focused on supporting functional needs such as access to documentation and development of new enterprises (self-employment). From what participants described, some of the limitations of the service delivery were, on the one hand, migrants’ lack information of their existence; and on the other, the requirements and procedures to access the DAHMF programmes were identified as unclear and often problematic. As an example, the DAHMF provides individual and group grants for migrants who want to develop or improve a small enterprise. In order to obtain this grant, migrants (returnees and immigrants) are requested to present their project in a specific format and fulfil a very detailed list of requirements, including having arrived in the country within the last year and proof of their residence in the USA. Additionally, key informants highlighted that the funds available are significantly reduced. For 2015, the DAHMF allocated 75 grants to support small individual enterprises and 35 for group projects. This number also includes immigrants. According to a local NGO calculation, less than one percent of the return population in Mexico City has access to this particular fund.
Return migrants in Mexico City reported having better access to programmes and institutions in vital areas for (re)integration, in comparison with returnees living in Huaquechula. The reasons identified were diverse. Firstly, there is a wider range of services provided by the local government; secondly, more participants had access to employment, therefore they also had better access to social protection; and thirdly, SEDEREC’s (re)integration policy stresses the importance of promoting migrants’ equal access to city services. As a result, participants who had access to DAHMF report improved access to the wider network of service provision. Beyond Seguro Popular and access to basic education, some other services provided by the local government were the job-seeking allowance, the food and transportation subsidy for the senior population, and loans for house improvement; social protection schemes (ISSSTE105 and IMSS106) provided by employers and education institutions; and bursaries and scholarships for higher education provided by various education institutions. While the adequacy of services in this case is also problematic, in many cases participants mentioned that having access to them has had a positive impact on their wellbeing by helping them to make ends meet, overcome a crisis, improve their
105 ISSSTE is the health and social services institution for the federal government employees. 106 IMSS is the health and social services institution for employees of the private sector. It is also
available for some students enrolled in higher education. It receives funding from federal government, workers and employers.
health or ensure sustainable access to education for their children. In the words of Eduardo (MC, 65):
These programmes have been useful, especially in terms of health. I have a hearing problem you know? It certainly has been a bit of a problem. You need to devote a lot of time, especially in the beginning you must run several errands – go here and there. But in the end the cost of the [hearing] device has been less than having bought it in a regular shop; I have paid around one-third of the regular price. If I haven’t had this support I would not be able to be independent, most probably I would be sitting at home.
Some participants reported having received services from NGOs to help them to deal with more functional needs, such as applying for a grant from the DAHMF. While I was able to identify some traces of returnees’ self-organisation and participation in different spaces where they were extremely vocal about their needs and the changes required to public policy, key informants said that these processes were facing great contextual ans structural constraints,
Some of the [social] consequences of the migration movement are: uprooting, disorganisation, demobilisation, individualisation. Particularly this group [returnees] come from a very ‘American’ experience, an experience of individual development, of individual success [...] Also many come with a very critical view of Mexico and Mexicans and undoubtedly, from their hometowns. Additionally, they feel very pessimistic and negative about their future. If you add to all these aspects, the stress as consequence of their return process per se, they [returnees] become totally unwilling to get organised. It is a totally different story to other types of marginalisation and oppression where the answer is activation, in this case it is the opposite, the answer has been of deactivation and that is the big problem, returnees are very depoliticised, very disorganised. In our case, we started supporting a group of young people but it became a very complex process. The demand of the guys was very clear, “I did not come to get organised, I did not come to do politics, I want my certificate and to continue with my life” […] The same happens with the other group, people organise themselves temporarily and then they disappear. People are hoping to return to the USA or are in the pursuit of survival, they are not in a position to organise themselves. In order to do this, they need full access to their rights, to have their basic needs covered [...] Particularly, in Mexico City, migrants are looking for information to get access to services and that’s it. People do not stay with us for more than a couple of months.
When referring to the socio-cultural environment in Mexico City affecting migrants’ (re)integration, people often highlighted its negative aspects, such as being chaotic, busy, insecure and exclusive. Some of the few social aspects described as positive were the lack of a cohesive environment and the familiarity for those returning from a big urban centre such as Los Angeles. With regard to the lack of cohesiveness provided by a massive city
like Mexico, many considered it to be helpful to preserve their anonymity as return migrants, especially deportees. Contrary to the case of people returning to Huaquechula where many felt exposed to social scrutiny, in Mexico City some people felt they had the opportunity to keep some of their experiences or, at least some of the details, to themselves. In the words of Hector (MC, 25):
Things in Mexico City can be easier, it is easier to go unnoticed over here, and when you have closer interactions you can opt to talk about your return or not, and if you do, you can pretty up the experience a little bit. Over there [mother’s town] everyone knows when, why and how you came back so they point at you, “you went to the USA and came back empty handed? How dare you?!”
While Mexico City has made certain progress towards becoming a more inclusive city, for example the creation of some relevant policies and institutions to promote the (re)integration of returnees, there are mainstream dynamics within the society that returnees considered as discriminatory. In addition to the exclusion of adults of a certain age and people with basic education from the formal employment sector, return migrants also highlighted aspects such as feeling rejected for identifying themselves as bi-cultural or for their (Americanised) physical appearance. In the case of Mexico City, the conflictual relationship between returnees and non-migrants oscillates (as noted earlier) between admiration and contempt, and between trust and mistrust. In the words of Damián (MC, 23), while he has received comments such as “wow! You know lots of places, your life has been amazing!”, he has also been criticised and bullied for being pocho107. In his own words, “[…] when I express that I feel more American than Mexican not everyone understands it […] some people judge me, they criticise me, they think I am being arrogant and a traitor”. Additionally, other participants like Natalia (MC, 28) described her experience of what she called a “discriminatory judgement”. In the following quote, she highlights how some negative perceptions of the physical appearance of return migrants may lead to prejudice, discrimination and even criminalisation by individuals, organisations, or institutions, and this may reduce their (re)integration opportunities. This is the case even if access is legally guaranteed, such as in domains such as housing, education, health care, and the labour market. From Natalia’s experience we can conclude that, despite the change in policies to
107 Some of my participants were often called pocho or pocha in their interactions with non-migrants
back in Mexico. This term is often used in a derogatory way implying that a person is pretending to be an American, feels superior, and/or has lost his/her culture.
make Mexico City a more multi- and intercultural place at a policy level, the social environment that return migrants face is far from ideal,
Unfortunately, we [Mexicans] are very prejudiced and conservative. I know people who think, “oh my God! he has a tattoo, he must be a [drug] dealer or at least he uses drugs”, or “he has a [tattoo of a] tear over here [under the eye], he must had been in a gang and who knows, maybe he killed someone!” For many people returnees are terrible people just because they have a tattoo, they [non-migrants] exclude you… you become marginal. You come from a being a minority in the USA to become a minority here too. It is the destiny of those who leave, you leave to become a minority forever.
6.5. Conclusion
Throughout this chapter we have explored how contextual aspects at a macro level, such as governmental policies and the socio-economic contexts (e.g. economic opportunities, access to institutional support and sociocultural environment in the places of return) deeply affect returnees’ opportunities for (re)integration. While returnees’ (re)integration process in Mexico, like any other integration process, is the result of the interaction between the migrant group and the receiving society, through this chapter it has become evident that in this case the contextual aspects of the receiving society – especially its governmental structure and socio-economic situation – present an extremely adverse scenario which poses significant structural constraints that are difficult to overcome by returnees, or any other migrant group. Firstly, the historical analysis of how public policies developed revealed that progress in this area has happened mainly during very recent and highly politicised times. This has led to the creation of important gaps between political discourses (such as the eloquent discourse of Enrique Peña Nieto), policy frameworks, the actual policies and how they are implemented at the ground level. The conflictual relation between these arenas highlights how the Mexican government is trapped between its political commitments at national and international levels, and its real agenda and capacity to deliver adequate services for returnees. Participants highlighted that these gaps materialise through the existing tensions between what the national policies prescribe, and the absence of financial and other resources needed to implement them at a local level. Two positive aspects that have arisen through the recent development of diverse migration policies (e.g. National migration law, Law of interculturality, assistance to migrants and human mobility, PND) are the participation of diverse stakeholders in its development and implementation, and the creation of an integrated agenda representing real demands and needs of returnees. From this analysis we can conclude that there are also significant differences between the two field localities.
While Mexico City has developed its local migration law and institution, which has led to the ability to develop a sectorial plan (where returnees are incorporated) and get a (reduced) budget allocated, Huaquechula has not made any major steps to develop a system to support returnees’ (re)integration. Therefore, a far more multilevel governance is needed in practice to improve migrants’ real opportunities of (re)integration regardless of their place of return. In response to the new migration restrictions in the USA under the current administration, the Mexican government is making new strides towards improving the conditions in which the reception and (re)integration of deportees happen in Mexico. It will be necessary to do further research in this regard to learn more about how these efforts materialise into better opportunities for deportees and other returnees’ (re)integration. Secondly, the analysis of the contextual environment at a structural level helped us to have a more detailed account of how access (or lack thereof) to institutions affects returnees’ experiences. Additionally, analysing the socio-economic and cultural accounts of participants’ (re)integration helped us to better understand the environment into which returnees arrive. In the case of access to institutional support, it was observed that while participants, in a general sense, had access to governmental services, some of these have proved to be inadequate to their specific needs as returnees. Three main aspects to highlight in relation to their access to institutions are, firstly, that returnees in Huaquechula face obstacles to access key services (e.g. the conditional cash transfer programme Prospera) due to their new and presumed improved financial status. In Mexico City, due to its better policy framework, returnees can access a wider range of services which are very relevant for people in a vulnerable situation such as the elderly, single mothers or those with health concerns. A third aspect to highlight is the relevance of non-governmental organisations in meeting some of returnees’ material needs, but particularly their psychosocial ones, which are largely overlooked in the governmental sector.
Another contextual aspect the returnees identified as key for their (re)integration was the available economic opportunities upon return. Unfortunately, returnees soon realise that the highly unequal economic system that forced them to migrate in the first place remains a major structural constrain upon their return. Other relevant structural constraints identified by participants are, for the rural site, its stagnant economy and lack of work opportunities. For the urban site, participants mentioned great inequalities and the exclusionary systems preventing them from accessing employment. This in turn pushed them to join the millions working in the informal sector. Some interviewees identified aspects that facilitated their
(re)integration process, such as their ability to invest in small scale-businesses (mainly in Huaquchula) and to transfer their skills (in the urban area).
As for the sociocultural environment in the places of return, in a general sense, participants felt that the more ‘American’ they behaved, the more obstacles they faced to be included as part of Mexican society. In the case of Huaquechula, as a traditional society, returnees described that they had to meet the requirements of coming back healthy, wealthy and ‘well behaved’. As for the returnees from Mexico City, while a mega city like this would give them more room to escape social scrutiny, when trying to establish more intimate relationships they felt unwelcome and their socio-cultural differences made them feel ostracised. In general, we can say that while there have been significant improvements in the policy arena, the general social environment, including the empty promises, poor and inadequate public services, widespread unemployment and inequalities, and conservative society, still puts returnees in a similar position to any other immigrant and makes them feel that Mexico is an ‘arid land’ to fulfil their aspirations of a better life.