Decision-making processes

Decision-making is the process of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the values and preferences of the decision-maker. This process is considered as mainly cognitive, resulting in a final choice which may or may not prompt action. As we have seen in this chapter, interviewees’ decisions to return were in many cases confined to extremely constrained alternatives. Due to the circumstances faced, some participants’ final decisions to go back to Mexico were driven more by an obligation or necessity, than by free will. Despite this process being considered a cognitive one, my empirical evidence has shown us that, in many cases, respondents made their decisions based on assumptions, values, emotions and what they considered their moral duty, rather than objective information. Many participants’ decisions were made, in the best-case scenarios, out of love or hope, but in many others, out of frustration, fear or desperation. For example, Tony (H, 37) had the opportunity to hire a lawyer (financed by the gang he was a member of) and start a legal process to try to stop his removal from the USA. The lawyer told him that he had a fair chance of obtaining the ‘pardon’ from the judge, as he had spent the last 22 years of his life in the USA and his entire family, including his three children, were US citizens. However, when he realised that he might have to stay in prision for at least another couple of years, he decided to sign his ‘voluntary departure’ to secure his freedom and return to a country that he did not know. Tony’s decision was driven by despair and was based more on the need to be ‘out’ of prision rather than a desire to be back in Mexico.

As we have learnt from his previous excerpts, Luis’ undocumented status heavily influenced his (and that of many other participants) life in the USA, and later his decision to return. Like Luis, the narrations of many other respondents demonstrated the way in which being undocumented made them feel that their return was a definite and irreversible process:

This decision was not taken fast, I thought about it thoroughly and one day I told my parents, “I am going back to Mexico.” I guess they did not believe me because it took me around two more years to finally come back. During that time, I continued working and saved money, finally came the day I bought my [plane] ticket, and then they believed me. […] It was a decision taken consciously; I knew that if I was leaving the ‘States’, I would be unable to go back for at least 10 years. I took everything; I took [school] transcripts, my licence, all my documents… my life there was reduced to what I could bring in my suitcase.

As Luis highlights, on the one hand, many participants mentioned that it would be almost impossible for them to re-enter the USA as documented migrants because they were unable to meet visa requirements, such as proving financial liquidity or having a permanent job in Mexico. Similarly, other participants were afraid that while their visa applications were processed, they could be identified as having lived in the USA without the correct documentation and therefore be banned from entering the country. For those removed or with a ‘voluntary departure’, almost all of them had been restricted from applying for a USA visa for five to ten years and others were banned for life. On the other hand, as mentioned previously by Juan (MC, 53), going back to the USA without documents incurs a significant risk and requires a substantial financial investment.

Luis’ quote also highlights the role of others in the decision-making process of return. Participants were often encouraged or discouraged, and in many cases both, by their relatives, friends, and others. People in Mexico would often encourage the return of their loved ones, arguing that they were very much missed and, in the cases of migrants who were not doing so well (e.g. were ill or drinking too much), friends and family were worried about their wellbeing. However, this was not always the case: people back in Mexico would often discourage migrants’ return due to the impact that the lack of remittances would have on the family’s economy. Discouragement also came from people who were to stay in the USA: they expressed concerns about the socio-economic context in Mexico, as well as the future separation from returnees. Participants mentioned on several occasions that their relatives’ support of their decision to return, or lack thereof, rendered decision-making an even more convoluted process. For example, Mariana (H, 35) decided to return due to her mother’s illness but was not well supported in this decision by those closest to her:

It was hard! I am a nurse and I wanted to be here for my mum, I knew no one would take care of her better than me but my husband did not want to come back so I told him many times “if you want, you can stay.” In the end, I am glad he did not [stay], he realised that we had enough [savings], so we could try to make our lives back in Mexico. My brother [living in the USA] also discouraged me many times, saying that

the situation here [in Huaquechula] was too bad and I would regret my decision. I was afraid that things could go wrong [back in Mexico] and I would be blamed for it…

As Mariana’s narrative shows, the decision to return can result in the separation of families and loved ones. Sometimes this separation would be temporary due to a ‘stepped return’, yet in many cases it would be permanent; affecting family structure and wellbeing in the long term. The vast majority of participants mentioned that their return separated them from their loved ones. Significant people left in the USA were members of their nuclear families (e.g. parents, siblings, spouses, children and grandchildren), as well as extended relatives and friends. Overall, these returns, in all their diversity and complexity, often leave in their wake complicated transnational kinship arrangements, particularly between elderly parents, siblings, spouses and children in need of care.

Once the decision was made (for those who could decide), preparing the return also required time to gather the information needed, mobilise resources and prepare emotionally. Cassarino (2004:271, 2008) argues that the propensity of migrants to be able to (re)integrate and become actors of change and development depends on, among other things, their return preparedness, which includes their willingness to return and ability to mobilise their resources. While there were various degrees of autonomy and willingness to return present in the narratives of my informants, two-thirds of my sample mentioned being able to prepare their return. Return preparation time was variable: a few mentioned that they had only several days to prepare, and a few others, like Luis, were able to spend years preparing. The most common answer was that participants had between one and three months to prepare. Some of the steps that returnees took to prepare their return were: to sell their assets, select important things to bring back with them (e.g. clothes, education certificates, electronics, work tools or equipment), say goodbye to friends and colleagues, and mobilise financial resources. As we will see in Chapter 7, despite the fact that people mentioned being prepared to return, in many cases, once they were back in Mexico, they realised that they had disproportionate expectations, did not have enough or accurate information, and/or had not taken the required identity and education documentation with them. Moreover, while returnees’ decisions were very much influenced by their emotions, they had not considered the emotional implications of their move to Mexico.