Mexican Migration and Labor:
Transnational Labor and Migration Dynamics in an Era of Neoliberalism
Introduction
This story map is intended to illustrate the dynamics within and between the US and Mexico during the neoliberal era (1984-present), specifically with regards to migration and labor. I chose to focus both on migration and labor because the two issues are highly interlinked, and one cannot be analyzed without the other.
My research explores how policies and economic power dynamics have contributed to high levels of immigration from Mexico – both documented and undocumented – as well as unfair labor dynamics that prioritize US companies. I also explore the role nationalism plays in both country's politics.
These three questions guided my research:
- What role have transnationalism and neoliberal economic trends played in labor processes and immigration rates for Mexican communities?
- How have the two countries reacted to these changes, and what role does nationalism play?
- What roles do gender, family, and reproduction play in labor and migration (and attitudes towards immigrant labor)?
Evolution of the Mexico-US Migration System: Insights from the Mexican Migration Project
By Jorge Durand and Douglas S. Massey. July 21, 2019. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
This source uses data compiled from the Mexican Migration project to chart the changes in legal, undocumented, and temporary migration to and from Mexico and the US between 1900 and 2015. Durand & Massey distinguish between different eras of migration, and what factors in US and Mexican policy create the distinctions.
This graph illustrates the relationship between US policy and economy and migration levels. The article goes into greater depth on all five of these eras, but for the sake of this project I will only focus on the latest three eras.
The Era of Undocumented Circulation (1965-1989)
The year 1965 marks the beginning of the era of Undocumented Circulation, as the Braceros program had completely ended and congress began establishing new caps on the number of visas being issued. Temporary work visas were no longer being issued in large numbers, and residential visas were not widely available, which limited Mexican's choices for legal entry. However, the underlying conditions that pulled workers to the US in the first place weren't changing – more job opportunities and higher wages needed to support the increasing population of young Mexicans during the country's demographic transition – so Mexican migrants began entering the country illegally, primarily through El Paso and San Diego. This increased level of migration reached its peak in 1989 during the Mexican financial crisis, as more migrants came to the US seeking jobs. This era was characterized by moderate levels of return migration (45%), meaning a decent portion of immigrants were returning to Mexico every year, which is why this period is referred to as 'circulation'.
The Era of Militarization and Settlement (1989-2008)
During this era, we see a brief, sharp increase in legal migration, while undocumented migration falls throughout. As the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) came into effect, millions of previously undocumented migrants were naturalized. At the same time, border security increases dramatically and undocumented immigrants began experiencing intense persecution and policing. Militarizing the border deterred some undocumented migrants, but mostly it caused them to take different (and more dangerous) routes in. Migrants had to hire expensive coyotes to smuggle them across the border into southern Arizona.
Because the border crossing was so dangerous and expensive, most migrants did not return to Mexico very frequently, and instead chose to settle. The graph below demonstrates particularly low levels of return migration, hitting a low point of 17%. Those who had families in Mexico often brought their families to the US, while single migrants often married and had children here. As a result, this period is marked by large numbers of mixed-status families and natural-born children of undocumented parents.
Era of Repression and Legal Circulation (2008-Present)
This period was kicked off with the 2008 recession, which caused job losses and decreased incentive for migrants to make the dangerous border crossing into the US. At the same time, the Mexican demographic transition has mostly ended and population stabilized, so there were fewer internal pressures to leave the country. Because of this, undocumented migrant populations fell to essentially zero by 2015. This was also due in part to mass deportations of undocumented immigrants during the Obama administration. During this time, we see a net outflow of Mexican-Americans, and the total population decreases. However, there were still many people who chose to stay and continue living in the US. These people experience intense repression and surveillance, and they often reported feeling trapped in the US. The only exception to this trend are DACA recipients, who are given amnesty from deportation.
Current Situation (as of 2019)
In 2019, there were 11 million undocumented immigrants, which represents the largest population lacking social, civil, and economic rights and protections in US history, larger even than the population of slaves during the Civil War. Undocumented immigrants face a severe lack of healthcare and low wages due to lack of power and fear of being deported. These inequities are due primarily to policies of increased criminalization and persecution enacted during the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.
At the same time, more temporary work visas are issued to allow for the circulation of seasonal migrant workers who are not allowed to bring their families or establish permanent residence in the US.
"We are living in a bipolar age, one characterized by the ongoing repression of undocumented migrants north of the border combined with the ongoing exploitation of legal but temporary migrants who crisscross a heavily militarized border to work in an increasingly integrated North American labor market" (Durand & Massey, 2019).
From Casa Blanca to Tulsa: A Social Transformation Analysis of Mexican Migration in an Era of Neoliberal Globalization
Magdelena Arias Cubas, 2015. Social Transformation and Migration: National and Local Experiences in South Korea, Turkey, Mexico and Australia.
This source analyzes the social transformation of Casa Blanca, a small community in the rural state of Zacatecas, following the populist land redistribution that occurred in the 1970's. It focuses on the lives and sustenance of Casablaqueños, and outside factors that impact their lives, including NAFTA, the Mexican drug war, and militarization of the border.
Zacatecas, the home of Casa Blanca, is a state in the heart of central Mexico, characterized by near constant emigration. The population consists mostly of rural peasants who rely on subsistence agriculture.
Since the 1980's, the US and Mexico have been focused on privatization, import liberalization, and tariff reduction. At the same time, Mexico began reducing subsidies for agriculture. These processes were harmful for small farmers in both countries, but especially for Mexican farmers in rural areas such as Casa Blanca. Large corporate farms began to buy up land, and US imports began to outcompete local Mexican crops. Small farms in the area were decimated. Yet, somehow, communities of Casablaqueños remained, and continued to farm, despite the fact that it was no longer profitable.
The reason people were able to stay in Casa Blanca was, ironically, emigration. As the young men began traveling to Tulsa, Oklahoma, in search of jobs, they sent money back to their relatives in Casa Blanca, which allowed them to scrape by and remain in their homes. The author argues that the persistence of peasants and unprofitable subsistence farming in Casa Blanca created a circular feedback loop in which people had to emigrate to support their families; in other words, emigrants perpetuate the existence of peasants which perpetuate the existence of emigrants.
In 1994, Mexico joined the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was seen as the culmination of all these reform processes. For people in Casa Blanca, this meant the US agricultural industry would have even more power over their lives. After this, emigration from Casa Blanca grew exponentially, because farming became less profitable and families needed more external income to survive. However, the militarization of the border created conditions that did not favor regular return migration, so rural communities like Casa Blanca shrunk and some collapsed all together.
The collapse of subsistence farming at the hands of large corporate farms did not only cause increased emigration. During the neoliberal era, Mexico also saw great increases in the prevalence of violent drug cartels, who were able to recruit young men that otherwise did not have jobs or education. In 2006, President Calderón declared the Mexican 'war on drugs', and began fighting territorial battles with cartels. The unintended result was the creation of more cartels that committed more violent crime, including human trafficking. This made many territories very dangerous, and migration became increasingly risky, decreasing migration rates. However, those who did migrate tended to bring their families and stay, rather than returning home.
"Whether it be through the 250,000 soldiers deserting the army since 1995, alienated by low salaries and tempted by the largesse dispensed by the drug lords; or the growing ranks of mass migrants divorced from their means of subsistence in the countryside and subjected to market dependence; or the uneven development and fragmentation of state space resulting from NAFTA and the globalizing contradictions of capital, neoliberalism has contributed to the recent rise of the drugs cartels in Mexico and the ensuing internecine war." -Adam Morton, 2012
For Whom the Taco Bells Toll: Popular Responses to NAFTA South of the Border
By Matthew C. Gutmann, 2003. Perspectives on Las Americas: A Reader in Culture, History & Representation.
This source focuses on the colonias populares, or urban poor in Mexico, their reactions and perceptions to NAFTA, and how their jobs and livelihoods were impacted by it's passing. It demonstrates that while there are some mixed reactions to the Agreement, the vast majority of urban poor feel abandoned by their government and the nation's elites, and that the country is facing an identity crisis caused by mass cultural Americanization.
In 1992, the first Taco Bell restaurant opened up in Mexican City, much to the dismay of the general population. For most of the urban poor, Taco Bell was too expensive to buy, but this blatant "gringo-ization" of their national foods symbolized a greater threat to their culture.
The 'invasion' of American culture and companies into Mexico has been brought about largely by neoliberal policies such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which Mexico joined in 1986, and NAFTA. Supporters of NAFTA and GATT argue that it has put Mexico on a 'fast track' to modernity, and has allowed it to leap directly from the 3rd world to the 1st world.
The people interviewed by the author expressed strong anti-Americanism and general distrust for American people, culture, and companies. They generally believed that el otro lado – the other side (of the border) – is working to covertly undermine Mexico and corrupt their national identity. This sentiment stems from decades of historical inequities and "arrogantly unequal relations" between the US and Mexico.
Many Mexicans are feeling a cultural identity crisis, and believe Mexico has lost any sense of independence or national autonomy. They believe that their government has aligned itself with a small group of Americanized elites, and and is selling out its people and culture to American companies. As a result, they feel disillusioned with democracy and believe they are unable to make a difference in their lives or in their country.
But NAFTA has had other, more tangible effects as well. Many people have lost their jobs, especially local manufacturers and small business employees. With the influx of cheap American goods and retail, small businesses could no longer compete. More and more people began working at and consuming from American stores.
Most of the people interviewed understood very clearly that these changes were brought about by Mexico joining NAFTA. They also understood that there were some who were benefitting from the trade – elite Mexicans and Americans profited greatly – while mostly everyone else suffered.
"As epitomized by the Free Trade Agreement, domestic elites are selling the country to the highest foreign bidders and making a fortune for themselves in the process." - Matthew Gutmann, 2003.
Immigration Reform and Nativism: The Nationalist Response to the Transnational Challenge.
Leo R. Chavez, 2003. Perspectives on Las Americas: A Reader in Culture, History & Representation.
This source talks in detail about the US response to immigration from Mexico since the 90's, including popular nativist sentiments, bills proposed to reduce immigration, and the effective targeting of women and children.
In 1994, California voted to pass proposition 187, also known as the Save Our State initiative, which was a bill the prevented undocumented immigrants from receiving public services, including welfare, public health care, and public education. It passed with an overwhelmingly white bias – even though white people made up 57% of California's population, they represent 80% of voters, and two thirds of them voted in favor of the proposition. This bill set a new anti-immigrant trend that rolled across the nation, and soon there were a variety of mainstream political candidates running on nativist platforms and preaching the necessity of denying public benefits to immigrants. Importantly, as this rhetoric spread, it became muddy, and people no longer cared to differentiate between undocumented and documented immigrants. They instead intended to target all immigrants, and some politicians even suggested targeting all people of Hispanic descent.
Part of the reason the 'new' immigrants were so threatening to nativists is that these were transnational immigrants, meaning that they maintain social ties with their old country, bring their culture with them, and do not necessarily strive for assimilation. Many nativists feared that Mexican immigrants would soon outnumber native-born citizens and turn the US into a third world country. Their arguments sound very similar to the theory of social evolution, which has long been disproven.
In the aftermath of Prop 187, a variety of anti-immigrant bills were passed or proposed at both the state and national level. Some proposed English-only education, and banned funding for bi-lingual education. Others followed California's lead and denied immigrants welfare, healthcare, and education, including denying pre-natal care to pregnant women. Proponents believed that immigrants were coming to the US in search of free welfare, so that by removing this incentive they would end immigration. Several bills were proposed to restrict chain migration to limit families following after. A constitutional amendment was even proposed to end the automatic naturalization of children born in the country.
All of these bills clearly were designed to attack women, children, and families – the reproductive portion of immigrant population growth. Healthcare, education, and family reunification are all services that are more frequently utilized by women and children, and they are all necessary to build healthy, productive members of society that are capable of social mobility.
The strategy that is notably left out of many of these proposals is labor. The primary reason why Mexican immigrants were traveling to the US during this time was the opportunity to get a high-paying job (high-paying relative to the jobs available in Mexico). And the primary reason they kept getting these jobs was because employers could make them work in harsh environments and pay low wages (low wages compared to the cost of employing non-immigrants). However, policies that attack women and families do nothing to change the underlying factors of desperation and exploitation, and thus they do nothing to stop immigration.
In fact, Save Our State advocates and other anti-immigration proponents generally did not support policies that would restrict the employment of undocumented people or in any way interrupt the profits of corporations that relied on cheap immigrant labor. California Govenor Pete Wilson argued that it would cause "unnecessary disruptions to business". By targeting social services and reproduction of the immigrant family rather than labor and production, these proposals reduce the costs associated with immigrant labor while maintaining the profits of that labor.
"The practical (if not intentional) outcome in denying education and health care to undocumented immigrants is not to pressure them to return to their country of origin but to create a permanent underclass of low-educated, available low-wage workers." - Leo R. Chavez, 2003.
Maquiladora Workers, the Missing Faces in the NAFTA Renegotiation
Kent Paterson, 2017. Americas Program: Alternifos América Latina.
This source explains the maquiladora system of production and the recent labor disputes and union strikes that took place leading up to NAFTA renegotiation. The maquiladora system is a factory production system that is widely used in Mexico, especially in cities along the border. The system was designed in the years following the collapse of the Bracero program, when many young men who previously migrated to the US were out of work. Maquiladoras are factories that purchase raw materials from the US with no tariff costs, with the condition that they resell the products back to the US, also with no tariff costs. This system basically allows the US to outsource its manufacturing and production to Mexico, where minimum wage is much cheaper and there are fewer worker protections. As a result, a large number of US-owned Maquiladoras have sprung up along the border.
This article focuses on the experiences of maquiladora workers in Ciudad Juárez, where there are over 300 maquiladoras, 275,000 plant workers, and the lowest average wages for plant workers of any Mexican city. Many of these workers make as little as 85 pesos, or around $5, per day. Women workers have a particularly hard time, as the burden of childcare often disproportionately falls on them, especially when a marriage or partnership ends.
In recent years, employers have begun 'bumping' their employees, a practice that entails reducing the number of workers so that a job previously done by 10 workers might now be done by only 6 or 7. This cost-cutting practice forces workers to increase their productivity beyond reasonable expectations.
The workers also experience a variety of other harmful working conditions, including poor sanitation, inadequate access to nutrition, and inability to attain reasonable health or social security benefits. There have been multiple policy changes since 1980 that have made it much harder to stay in the social security system, especially for jobs that have as high of turnover rates as the maquiladoras do.
In 2017, Canada, the US and Mexico began renegotiating NAFTA. Many workers rights groups put pressure on them to negotiate for a higher wages in Mexico, which at the time, was considered off the table for President Enrique Peña Nieto. The Mexican minimum wage has been devalued 22% between 1994 and 2017, so working families were struggling more than ever under.
President Trump and many unions in the US were also concerned about the Mexican minimum wage, because manufacturing jobs were being outsourced to Mexico. Other advocates of a higher minimum wage argue that it will improve the US economy, especially in cities like El Paso, where thousands of Mexicans visit every year to shop in US retail stores.
Mexican labor organizers have a different view, however. They see the failure of the Mexican government to negotiate dignified wages during the NAFTA renegotiations as an example of them turning their backs on working people.
In 2015 and 2016, there was a series of labor strikes from the maquiladora plants demanding fair wages, an end to sexual harassment, and independent unionization. In Mexico, everyone has the right to unionize, but the system has been corrupted by pro-government/pro-business unions that can be contracted by companies to represent their workers. These unions collude with companies and prevent true worker representation. Many experts agree that only independent unionization will protect workers.
In order to appease and undermine the strikers, maquiladoras employers issued a few temporary wage increases, fired the lead activists, brought in police, and instilled security checkpoints and "cells" in the factories in order to isolate workers and prevent them from communicating. Unfortunately, many of these strategies worked and the two year labor movement fizzled out.
The stress of working in a maquiladora takes a toll on a person's body and mental health. Many workers, especially young workers, experience spiritual emptiness and addiction to alcohol, drugs, and digital distractions as a result of their workplace environment. Juan Carlos Martinez Prado, a leftist journal editor says "there are two destinies on the border: the maquiladoras or the narco". This is reflected in crime statistics; despite the fact that violent crime has been decreasing in Mexico since 2012, it is still on the rise in border cities, where maquiladoras predominate.
“This is a border of young people. What is the maquiladora industry doing? Disappearing them. Even though you have a place in the factory, you’re still disappeared. It’s the perversity of capitalism on the border. It’s scary.” - Juan Carlos Martinez Prado, 2017.
ICE, a Whistleblower, and Forced Sterilization
Jenn White, 2020. NPR.org.
This source provides background information about immigration detention camps and the practices that led an employee at a camp in Georgia to report ICE's failure to protect against COVID as well as their use of forced hysterectomies and other types of sterilization.
Every year, over 500,000 immigrants are held in detention camps for a period of time, many of whom are legal residents or asylum seekers. The practice of detaining immigrants without any trial has been happening since the 80's, and corresponded with the war on crime and the rise of mass incarceration. In the 90's, the US began using detention as the primary means of immigration enforcement, and several acts were passed to increase the scope of mandatory detention (without a trial or consideration of circumnstances) and legalizing the detention of any non-US citizen. Since 9/11 and the creation of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), we have seen a massive expansion of the detention system with entanglements in local law enforcement agencies and private detention centers. Detention exists for the expressed purpose of deterring migrants and asylum seekers from coming to the US and encouraging them to return or accept deportation.
The US's sprawling detention system is characterized by a lack of oversight and transparency and a profit motive to cut corners and keep costs low. ICE primarily contracts with private detention centers, where 81% of detainees are held, and pays 3.2 billion (taxpayer) dollars a year for this service. This relationship is highly profitable for private detention centers, who get paid for these contracts yet cut costs by overcrowding living spaces, reducing medical care, and not meeting basic standards of living. Additionally, because detention facilities are paid per detainee, they have an incentive to keep people locked up as long as possible.
The US has national standards for detention facilities, but they have no teeth. When inspections do occur, there are no consequences for failure to comply with standards, and as a result nothing changes.
In these facilities, people live in crowded, unsanitary conditions and healthcare is unsafe and often unavailable. This creates the perfect conditions for COVID-19 to spread amongst the population. In her whistleblower allegations against the Georgia detention center, Dawn Wooten explained how this facility was failing to take even basic precautions to prevent the spread of coronavirus. She claimed that they refused to test people, provide masks, or enforce social distancing. Detainees who caught the virus were often deported, and staff were forced to work even when they were sick. Employers retaliated against staff and detainees who complained about this mistreatment. Wooten also claimed that detainees had no access to their own medical records, some of which had been destroyed.
These allegations also included reports of numerous women who endured questionable or forced hysterectomies and other invasive procedures. Jenn White points out that while many of these women may have signed consent forms or verbally agreed, that does not mean they consented to the procedure, as many are illiterate or only speak Indigenous languages and were not provided a translator. Also, they weren't always told what procedures were happening or given full information. Pregnant detainees were also given insufficient pre-natal care, and were often told that they could either give birth in the detention facility or be deported.
Its important to note that the vast majority of people held in these carceral facilities have not committed any crime, and don't need to be there. Most are simply asylum seekers who are merely waiting on an administrative process. Despite this fact, immigrants are denied their liberty and held in high-security facilities, treated like criminals, and given low quality food, housing, and medical care. And now, with COVID, there is additional danger to their lives associated with being in these facilities. They usually don't have access to legal representation, either.
Domestic and international law grants all people the right to seek asylum in another country, and the US has a long standing tradition of taking people in. But in the past few decades, these rights have been eroded, and more and more people have been blocked from accessing the asylum system and placing their claims. They are made to wait in detention for longer, and many people are deported before they are able to make their claims. The Trump administration has particularly targeted families and children, with increased family detention, child detention, and family separation. It is important to note that it's incredibly expensive and unnecessary to house non-criminal immigrants in carceral facilities, and those resources could instead be used to guide and support people through the complicated legal system.
"Theres no need for any of this. All of those people could be released into really well functioning programs that are more affordable, more effective, and more humane, and they make much more sense from a management perspective." -Elizabeth Matherne, Immigration Attorney, 2020.
"Essential" but Expendable: Farmworkers during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Alexis Handal, et. al., 2020. The Michigan Farmworker Project. American Journal of Public Health.
This source details the conditions of farmworkers in Michigan during the pandemic and how this reflects on labor policies that have allowed these sorts of conditions for decades. The researchers conducted 55 interviews with subjects who reported poor sanitiation, crowded housing, limited access to necessities, and worker abuse, among other things. The authors emphasize that these issues have existed for a long time, but they are just now gaining more media attention due to the pandemic.
Only now that their lives (and agricultural profits) are at risk have farmworkers gained widespread recognition for the essential role they play in our food systems and economy. In President Trump's 'Coronavirus Guidance for America,' he stated that agricultural workers have a "special responsibility to maintain their normal work schedule." Yet despite these words, little has been done to protect farmworkers against the dangers that the virus poses to their health.
Many of the workers interviewed have very little access to PPE, work in crowded and unsanitary conditions with poor ventilation, have to use portable bathrooms that aren't cleaned regularly, and have limited access to soap and water for hygiene. Some have to share houses or even beds with people they aren't related to. These conditions increase the risk of spreading COVID-19 and other illnesses. Additionally, frequent exposure to mold and toxic chemicals like pesticides and chlorine increases the risk of severe illness or mortality from COVID-19.
The majority of farmworkers are Latinx, and about half are undocumented. Farmworkers have a variety of identity factors that make it more likely for them to experience labor exploitation and human trafficking, including poverty, lack of educational opportunities, language barriers, lack of access to healthcare, and lack of rights given to citizens. These factors, as well as pre-existing conditions that are common among this population, also make it more likely for them to have bad symptoms of COVID-19.
Farmworkers in the US are excluded from a variety of fair labor laws, including minimum wage and child labor laws. They are paid using a piece-rate system and often have to work 10+ hour days with few breaks and no days off or paid sick leave. They also face unpredictable work schedules, no protective equipment, and severe penalties for mistakes. This leads to a highly stressful environment with unequal power dynamics. Most workers do not feel comfortable reporting symptoms to supervisors or asking for sick time. They also fear job loss and deportation if they report safety violations to the authorities.
US immigration policy also plays an important role in impacting health outcomes for farmworkers. Many fear being detained in ICE detention facilities or deported. Some fear that their homes or communities will be raided by ICE. Others fear backlash from xenophobic hate groups if they complain about their conditions. Employers reenforce these fears by threatening to report them. The authors argue that in order to stop the spread of coronavirus among farmworkers and improve working conditions, the US must change its immigration policy so that workers do not live in constant fear.
"A silent workforce is dangerous during this pandemic because workers may be willing to endure unsafe and unsanitary labor practices." - Alexis Handal, et. al., 2020.
Conclusion and Reflection
My research on this topic was really interesting and I found that this topic was significantly more complex than I had previously realized. As I started researching, it became apparent that international policies, such as NAFTA and various anti-immigration policies were having a big impact on the lives of communities, which is why I decided to focus on the Neoliberal era.
While all of these sources look at the dynamics of migration and labor in the US and Mexico from different perspectives, there are a few trends and key takeaways from the readings:
- Mexican immigration has fallen dramatically in the last few decades, mostly due to their demographic transition, but other immigration from other parts of the world has increased.
- in the financial/trading sense does not translate into an demilitarized border for people or workers. Companies on both sides of the border often exploit labor laws, wages, and immigration policy in order to increase their profits.
- In both the US and Mexico, the conversation about NAFTA and immigration policy is frequently dominated by nationalism. Many poor Mexicans fear losing their national identity to an increasingly Americanized dominant culture. Many Americans fear the loss of jobs, culture, or voting power to immigrants.
- In immigration policy and enforcement, the US specifically targets women, children, and families as a means of preventing immigration, resulting in increasingly marginalized and unhealthy families. Companies also exploit gender hierarchies and family dynamics to reduce their costs.
- NAFTA and other neoliberal policies have had unintended consequences, including the empowering of Mexican drug cartels, low wages for workers, and increased settling of undocumented immigrants.
Other sources:
Adam David Morton, 2012. The War on Drugs in Mexico: a failed state?, Third World Quarterly, 33:9, 1631-1645, DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2012.720837
- Immigration Detention 101, Detention Watch Network. https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/issues/detention-101 .
Image sources: