Temporary and permanent return

‘Return mobilities’ include various types of ‘home’ visits, temporary stays and more permanent returns (King and Christou 2011). As mentioned in Chapter 4, almost two-thirds of my research participants interrupted their stay in the USA. This means that they travelled to Mexico at least once within those years living abroad. Participants had various ‘temporary

returns’: for many men these were occasional returns described as breaks from their “boring and tiring” lives as migrants. Some others returned for a specific family duty such as providing care for an ill relative or attending the funeral of a loved one. In the case of women, some of them returned to Mexico temporarily to give birth and/or leave their children under their parents’ care so that they could go back to their full-time work without the need to pay for childcare. As these returns had a very specific purpose, all participants quickly went back to continue with their lives in the USA. While they were few, some participants clearly stated that their visits had the purpose of assessing the situation back ‘home’ as part of their return preparations. During these visits, migrants could see the living conditions of their family, how the remittances that they were sending were being used, and the changes occurring in their communities. These trips proved to be extremely informative and helped migrants to make decisions regarding their continued migration and/or return. Additionally, these return practices brought new experiences, feeding the ‘return imaginaries’75 _{and discourses of a} continuous inner dialogue regarding a potential more permanent return (Lulle 2014). As an example, Hugo’s (H, 47) migration journey lasted for 22 years, of which he lived 13 in the USA and eight in Mexico. When I asked him about his multiple trips, he elaborated:

Since the plan was always to come back to Mexico with my family, I was never interested in making a life there [USA]. I always had small goals… like milestones. For example, first I finished the house, then I was saving to buy a car but my son got ill and the money went to his treatment, after that I bought the car […] finally I built a small chapel for the town….These [visits] helped me to stay connected with my family and community, be aware of my family needs and have a sense of achievement… every time I visited I could see the results of my work, this gave me motivation to go back [to the USA] and work harder than the previous year.

Some other participants had longer stays in Mexico, in some cases these temporary returns were initially considered permanent. For example, Hernan (H, 37) returned to Huaquechula after two years of living in the USA, and described his first experience as “quite disappointing” and was not interested in going back. Three years passed, Hernan got married and they had a baby. Faced with his gendered responsibilities recently acquired, such as the need to build a house for his family, he decided to re-migrate. This time, Hernan stayed in the USA for six years. Hernan’s situation was similar to that of others who

75 _{These migration imaginaries can powerfully influence integration patterns, including a reluctance}

considered being in Mexico ‘permanently’ until a new pressing need motivated them to re- migrate, thereby becoming a temporary returnee (Kuschminder 2017:18).

Conversely, many others initially considered their return as ‘temporary’ but circumstances meant that they became permanent. As an example, Elba (MC, 23) was an outstanding student in the USA who, due to her remarkable performance, was awarded a scholarship which would enable her to pay the tuition fees and living expenses during her university education. Elba could not believe that her “dream had come true” but her elation was brief as the university requested that she regularise her status. After consulting with a lawyer, Elba did not think twice and, after 11 years of living in the USA, she decided to return to Mexico to apply for a student visa. Once in Mexico, she did not manage to fulfil all the visa requirements and her application was consequently denied. Faced with this situation, Elba ‘decided’ to stay and try to continue with her education in Mexico.

When participants were asked whether or not they planned to remain in Mexico, 11 people mentioned that they were back on a temporary basis, 30 said that they were back to stay permanently and 19 others were still unsure. A common comment was that people were no longer eager to return to the USA undocumented, either because of the risks of crossing the Mexico-USA border or being unable to cover the coyote (smuggler) fees. For example Juan (MC, 53) said,

Taking into account how things are at the [Mexico-USA] border nowadays, it is better to stay still [remain in Mexico]. The last time I heard, they [smugglers] were asking for 7000 [USD] for someone to get to Chicago. Imagine that! How would I pay that amount for each one [four] of us? If I had that money I would rather start a business here in Mexico.

Lastly, some of those who were in a ‘wait and see’ mood revealed that they were evaluating their options: either to relocate within Mexico, plan to get a USA visa (the most commonly mentioned way was to wait to be sponsored by their US-born children) or to travel to other countries such as Brazil, China, Germany and Spain. While this aspect will be further analysed in Chapter 7, it is evident that for many of the participants, their return did not necessarily mean that they had reached the end of their migration cycle.