Returnees’ characteristics

As mentioned earlier in this thesis, there is a lack of accurate statistics that capture the sociodemographic profiles of Mexican migrants returning from the USA. Therefore, I requested support from my research participants to assist me to identify the most relevant characteristics of those who most commonly return. Regarding the gender distribution, there was a general consensus amongst participants that the majority of returnees are male. Moreover, participants agreed with Nadia’s impression that men are more commonly removed from the USA than women.

This finding is corroborated by various authors who confirm that Mexican men tend to return in greater numbers than women. According to Golash-Boza and Hondagneu-Sotelo (2013), at least since the early 1990s, Latino and Caribbean men have been the targets of deportation policy. Between 1993 and 2011, the total number of deportations increased on average ninefold but when looking at ethnic groups Mexican deportations increased 10-fold and Central American 12-fold. EMIF data collected during 2010 reflected that fully 89 per cent of Mexicans who were repatriated from the USA were men. According to these authors, some of the causes of this gendered racial removal policy include the male joblessness

74 _{Many of these reasons for return were presented by women due to the roles that they feel have}

since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, the immigrant portrayed as a ‘criminal alien’ since the War on Terror, and the continued criminalisation of Black and Latino men by police authorities. Despite the fact that official estimates of numbers of returnees have increased by more than 200 percent from 2000 to 2010, the number of female returnees decreased by seven percent over the same period (Gandini et al. 2015:76; Masferrer and Roberts 2012; Massey et al. 2015; Ravuri 2014; Reyes 2001; Velasco and Coubes 2013; Waddell and Fontenla 2015).

In relation to age, two-thirds of my participants returned as adults between the ages of 25 and 42 (see Figure 7). This finding corresponds with the majority of my interviewees reporting that they emigrated at a young age and spent an average of 13 years in the USA. We can also see an anticipated difference in age at return between the sites: people returning to Huaquechula were more homogeneous in terms of age, with the majority returning between the ages of 31 to 42, while in the case of returnees in Mexico City, we can see a wider spectrum of age (see Figure 7). While the majority of participants returned between the ages of 19 and 36, there are those who returned at a young age (13 to 18) or as seniors (61+). Dustman and his colleagues concluded that return is more likely among those who emigrate when they are older (Dustman et al. 1996). While it is the case for some of my respondents, later in this chapter we will see how, in the Mexican case, aspects such as gendered life course and structural constraints on both sides of the border, are the main factors that trigger return.

Figure 7. Participants' age at the time of return Age H MC 13 to 18 0 2 19 to 24 1 6 25 to 30 5 6 31 to 36 12 6 37 to 42 7 4 43 to 48 2 1 49 to 54 1 1 55 to 60 2 1 61+ 0 3

For almost two-thirds of my participants, their marital status and family circumstances had changed upon return. The main change was that they went from being unmarried to having a relationship and, for some, a separation from their spouses. As for the third of my participants who did not change their marital status, the majority had left Mexico as children and were unmarried at the time of the interview. Those who migrated at an advanced age (and were married with children), remained married at the time of the interview. When looking at the intersection between marital status and gender, one can identify that there is a larger presence of unmarried and separated men, compared with women.

Additionally, half of the sample had children during the time of their migration experience in the USA. This finding is closely related to the age factor discussed earlier; it is to be expected that a group of participants who emigrated at an early stage in their life would marry and/or have children during the subsequent years. At the time of the interview, participants had a combined total of 128 children, more than half of whom were born in Mexico (73), and the remainder of whom were born in in the USA. I will analyse this aspect in greater detail later in this chapter, however I will highlight here that at the time of the interview, many of those children born in the USA were still living in the USA separated from their parents (mainly fathers). Accordingly, an aspect that became highly relevant for participants during the return decision-making process was family unity or separation. These findings related to age and change in marital status/family circumstances echo what has been written by other authors who acknowledge that two of the characteristics of current Mexican return flows are that: 1) there is a significant presence of young, male adults (including those from the 1.5 generation) in a productive and reproductive age, and children (US-born) (Gandini et al. 2015; González-Barrera 2015; Rivera-Sánchez 2011); and 2) families have mixed immigration status and are being separated by the current USA immigration policies, which is problematic and impacts all family members differently (Hagan et al. 2008; Medina 2016; Rodríguez and Hagan 2004).

With regard to level of education and occupation, as mentioned in the last chapter, only some participants managed to study while in the USA. While returnees living in the urban site report higher levels of education (including English proficiency) upon return, research shows that overall, when compared with the Mexican population living in the USA, returnees are relatively less educated. The highest return rates are among people with less than high school levels of education (Gandini et al. 2015:84). Regarding occupation, as aforementioned, the majority of participants worked in the service sector (as cooks,

gardeners, housekeepers and in childcare), the construction sector or in factories. Fewer participants managed to establish their own businesses, became students, had a professional job or decided to join a gang. In this regard, we can also identify a higher level of professional and gang experience in the urban site compared with the rural site, where most participants had experience in services (mainly working in restaurants). As we will see in the following sections, these aspects will be closely intertwined with participants’ motivations and the nature of their return, which would later shape their (re)integration experiences.