Importantly then, while a tendency for longer-term migration may be observed, particularly among the current migrants, it would seem to exist alongside a continuing flow of short term return migrants. The co-existence of the two flows is verified by Table 6.7, which indicates that similar proportions of both current and return migration flows, which are used here as rough surrogates of longer-term and short-term flows, were initiated within the same time periods, and there is no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the length of time since migration commenced. Thus long-term migration, which
8 Although it is difficult to determine the point at which temporary migration ends and permanent settlement begins, two years would be regarded as long-term or permanent migration according to several definitions adopted in empirical research. For instance, Wayne Cornelius (1991), drawing on Juan Carlos Zazueta and Manuel Garcia y Griego (1982), regards ‘long-stayers’ as those in the US working or looking for work in December, which is when most short-term or seasonal Mexican migrants return to their home communities. Michael Piore (1979) sees migrants in what he terms the ‘settlement phase’ as those who have been joined by family and who have widespread contacts with people and institutions outside the migrant enclave.
may be a relatively recent trend^, has not replaced or displaced short-term movement. In short, the two flows are distinct and parallel.
Table 6.7 Time since the initiation of current and return migrations Years since initiation
of migration
Current migrants (%) Return migrants (%)
1 - 5 43 62
6 - 10 40 21
114- 17 17
Total 100 100
n=30 n=42
= 3.184 with 2 degrees of freedom
Hg: There is no significant difference between current and return migrants in terms of the length of time since migration was initiated
Although there is no significant difference between the length of time since current and return migrations were initiated, there are some differences that may be relevant. It can be seen that the proportion of return migrations fell during the period six to 10 years before the survey, rising again in the most recent period, while the proportion of current migrations remained relatively constant across the two periods. The period 1984-1989 is the one in which IRCA was introduced, and it is thus tempting to equate the institution of this law with the apparent fall in return migration around this time.
The effects of IRCA may thus have been differentiated, having more impact on the group of return migrants, associated above with relatively short-term migrations, than that of current migrants, linked above with longer-term migrations. This may be because the deterrent aspects of IRCA, specifically those dealing with increased control of the border, discouraged frequent crossing and encouraged short-term migrants to prolong their stay to minimise the risks of border-crossing. Migrants who were able to obtain legal documents through IRCA’s family reunification or other legalisation provisions may also have decided to stay in the US longer than they otherwise intended. Whatever the exact impacts of IRCA, its role as a deterrent to short-term migration seems to have been short-lived, as the
9 While it has been claimed in some of the literature (e.g. Cornelius, 1991) that long-term and permanent migration on a large scale is a fairly recent phenomenon, my research does not include time-series data and so is unable to substantiate this.
incidence of return migration rose again in the five years preceding the survey despite the fact that the provisions laid down by IRCA remained in place.
IRCA specifically intended to deter undocumented migration, but as can be seen from Table 6.8, there was no significant difference between the amount of legal and undocumented migration from the study sites in the various time periods, including those since IRCA was introduced. From the results presented here it seems that while IRCA may have had some impact on the length of time migrants from the study communities spent in the US, it did little to deter undocumented migration per se.
Table 6.8 Time since the initiation of legal and undocumented migrations Years since migration Legal migrants (%) Undocumented migrants (%)
1 - 5 58 55
6 - 10 32 28
11 + 11 17
Total 101 100
n=19 n=66
= 0.462 with 2 degrees of freedom
Hq! There is no significant difference between legal and undocumented migration in terms of the length of time since migration was initiated.
Having emphasised the parallel nature of longer-term ‘settler’ and short-term return migration flows, I will now look more directly at return migration. To reiterate, 55 per cent of all migrants from migrant households in the study communities were return migrants. This is in itself an important finding because previous research has suggested that most migrants from urban areas of Mexico become relatively permanent immigrants in the US (Cornelius, 1990a). Return migration is moreover usually associated with independent, generally male, migrants, participating in recurrent seasonal or target migration (Jenkins, 1977; Lowell, 1992; Verduzco, 1990). Leo Chavez (1988) argues that most undocumented migrants living with their families in the US, either because they have formed a family there, or migrated with (or later brought) their family from Mexico, are likely to settle there.
The growth in the permanent settlement of migrant families in the US should not however obscure the fact that family migrations can also be temporary. Sixty per cent of the return
migrants identified in the survey were accompanied in their migration. This figure could, of course, reflect a high proportion of independent migrants migrating with friends or other non-family members, rather than being indicative of family migration. Table 6.9, however, shows the companions of the 60 per cent of return migrants who were accompanied, and it is clear that most were accompanied by immediate family members. This emphasises that US-based studies like those of Chavez, while valuable, tend to ignore the phenomenon of return family migration.
Table 6.9 Companions of all return migrants
Migrated with: Return migrants (%)
Spouse only 8
Spouse and children/children only 36
Parents 44
Others 12
Total 100
n=25
Most migrant families go to the US with the hope of economic advancement. Failure to achieve, or to maintain, the desired level of advancement may stimulate a return movement after a relatively short time, especially if some resources, most importantly, a house, remain in Mexico. Gabriela and her family went to the US in an attempt to ‘get ahead’ financially, leaving their house in the care of Gabriela’s mother. They spent two years in California, with Gabriela working in a restaurant kitchen, and her husband as a labourer in construction, before they felt compelled to return home for economic reasons.
I liked it a lot. Work is easy to get if you’ve got papers - the US is progressing like it is because of hard-working Mexicans doing jobs that North Americans don’t want or that aren’t well-paid enough. But we didn’t have papers, and when my husband lost his job, he couldn’t get another one. We couldn’t live on just what I earned, so we had to come back. I would like to live there if we had security. The children loved it. ( Gabriela, 33 year-old mother o f four.)
Gabriela’s experience also raises the issue of illegal status as a source of instability. From Table 6.10, it can be seen that current migrants, who as shown above tend to have spent longer in the US, have a relatively even division between those with and those without legal documents, compared with return migrants, who were predominantly undocumented.
Table 6,10 Legal status of all current and return migrants
Legal status Current migrants (%) Return migrants (%)
Legal 45 23
Undocumented 55 77
Total 100 100
n=33 n=39
= 4.028 with 1 degree of freedom