The Characteristics of Migrant Workers from Mexico

A Reaction Essay in Cato Unbound on the issue of immigration from Mexico. This is a reaction to this essay (posted here) by Richard Rodriguez:

Seeing Mexican Immigration Clearly, by Douglas S. Massey, Reaction Essay, Cato Unbound: Richard Rodriguez is an essayist in the humanist tradition and thus comments on the cultural meaning of Mexican immigration and the symbolic importance of Mexicans in American society. As a student of culture myself, I concur with his emphasis on cultural meanings and symbols in the current debate. ...

Despite my appreciation for the cultural ramifications of Mexican immigration, I am a social scientist and ultimately believe that accurate understanding needs to be grounded in empirical reality. In 25 years of research on a variety of public policy issues, I have never seen so much misinformation.... Thanks to the media and political entrepreneurs, Mexican immigrants are routinely portrayed as a tidal wave of human beings fleeing an impoverished, disorganized nation who are desperate to settle in the United States, where they will overwhelm our culture, displace our language, mooch our social services...

This profile, however, bears no discernible relationship to the reality that I know as a social scientist.

Since 1982 I have co-directed a large data-gathering effort known as the Mexican Migration Project. My collaborators and I have conducted representative surveys in communities all over Mexico and the United States, and over the years, we have surveyed 20,000 households and 120,000 individuals... My understanding of Mexican immigration rests on these data, and if anyone thinks I’ve got it all wrong, they are free to download the data, analyze it, and see for themselves.

Mexican immigration is not a tidal wave. The rate of undocumented migration has not increased in over two decades. Neither is Mexico a demographic time bomb; its fertility rate is only slightly above replacement. Although a variety of trans-border population movements have increased, this is to be expected in a North American economy that is increasingly integrated under the terms of a mutually-ratified trade agreement. ... Rates of migration between Mexico and the United States are entirely normal for two countries so closely integrated economically.

Mexico is not impoverished or disorganized. It is a dynamic, one trillion dollar economy and, along with Canada, our largest trading partner. Its per capita income is $10,000, which puts it at the upper tier of middle income countries, not far behind Russia’s per capita income of $11,000. Compared with Russia, however, Mexico has a much better developed infrastructure of highways, ports, railroads, telecommunications, and social services that give it a poverty rate of 18% rather than 40%, as well as a male life expectancy of 73 years rather than 61 years... Unlike Russia, moreover, Mexico is a functioning democracy with open and competitive elections, a separation of powers, and a well-defined party system.

In keeping with these realities, Mexicans are not desperate to settle north of the border. Most migrants are not fleeing poverty so much as seeking social mobility. They typically have a job and income in Mexico and are seeking to finance some economic goal at home—acquiring a home, purchasing land, capitalizing a business, investing in education, smoothing consumption. Left to themselves, the vast majority of migrants will return once they have met their economic goals. From 1965 to 1985, 85% of undocumented entries from Mexico were offset by departures and the net increase in the undocumented population was small. The build-up of enforcement resources at the border has not decreased the entry of migrants so much as discouraged their return home. Since the late 1980s the rate of undocumented out-migration has been halved. Undocumented population growth in the United States stems not from rising in-migration, but from falling out-migration.

To Americans who fear cultural displacement, I say look at what’s happening south of the border. Cultural influences travel in both directions and in an integrated economy they are inevitable. Given the global hegemony of the United States, however, the cultural effects are asymmetric. We influence Mexican culture and society far more than they affect U.S. culture and society. Within Mexico, Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, Toys ‘R Us, and 7-11 are increasingly displacing Mexican outlets. Even Taco Bell is making inroads, and American cultural traditions such as Halloween and Santa Claus now compete with Mexican celebrations such as Day of the Dead and Three Kings Day.

Linguistically, English-speakers certainly have nothing to fear. English is increasingly spoken in Mexico and is viewed as essential for social and economic advancement. ... Within the United States, in contrast, few ... children of immigrants use Spanish rather than English and virtually none of their grandchildren can speak it at all.

Mexican immigrants do not migrate to take advantage of U.S. social services. Their service usage rates are well below those of other immigrant groups and have fallen sharply since the mid-1990s. Undocumented migrants, in particular, are more likely to pay taxes than to use public services... The problem of paying for services to immigrants is serious, but one that is easily solved through federal transfers. Whereas tax revenues accrue disproportionately to the federal government, the costs of immigration are borne locally. ...

The demagogic portrayal of Mexico as a threat to American culture, society, and security has not solved the problems associated with Mexico-U.S. migration; it has only made them worse. Rather than seeking to build a wall between our two countries, we should adopt the stance taken by the European Union when it integrated poor neighbors such as Spain and Portugal in the 1980s and Poland and Hungary today. Rather than seeking to block flows of people that naturally follow from trade and investment within a common market, we should work to make sure these movements occur under circumstances that are beneficial to all concerned, promoting growth in Mexico, minimizing costs to the United States, and protecting the rights of immigrant and native workers.

I think the bottom line is right, the question is not how to build a wall between us which does nothing to stem the economic incentives to migrate, but rather how to integrate the two economies so as to promote growth and enhance economic opportunity within Mexico without imposing substantial costs on U.S. citizens.

Comments

[donna]

"how to integrate the two economies so as to promote growth and enhance economic opportunity within Mexico without imposing substantial costs on U.S. citizens."

Um, isn't that what NAFTA was supposed to do? It's been long enough to see the results of that...

[anne]

Nicely done :) The sense I have echoes Joseph Stiglitz in that NAFTA has been a disappointment for Mexican development "without imposing substantial costs" on Americans. However, changing development objectives for Mexico is politically difficult even when we are urging change and we are not urging.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/06STIG.html?ex=1388725200&en=94b0ef3e8a6b73be&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

January 6, 2004

The Broken Promise of Nafta
By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ

The celebrations of Nafta's 10th anniversary are far more muted than those involved in its creation might have hoped. In the United States, the North American Free Trade Agreement has failed to fulfill the most dire warnings of its opponents and the most fervent expectations of its supporters. In Mexico, however, the treaty remains controversial and even harmful — as do America's efforts to liberalize trade throughout the hemisphere.

There is some good news. In America, the "giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of this country" that Ross Perot predicted never quite materialized. The first six years of Nafta saw unemployment in the United States fall to new lows. (Of course, to most economists there was little basis for Mr. Perot's worries in the first place. Maintaining full employment is the concern of monetary and fiscal policy, not of trade policy.) Nafta has brought some benefits to Mexico as well; it was trade with America, fueled by Nafta — not the bailout of Wall Street lenders — that was responsible for Mexico's quick recovery after the financial crisis of December 1994....

[george]

You are telling me that the average Mexican makes $5 american per hour in Mexico? I wonder why they are willing to accept less than that amount here, when the cost of living is twice that much here?

[lonesome moderate]

Mexico's per capita GDP is $8,000, not $10,000 (the $10,000 is the "purchasing power parity" which you will find in the CIA World Factbook). That works out to about $4 an hour, rather than $5, which is nonetheless a huge improvement since NAFTA passed in 1994. That's an average, though, not a median. Mexico still has a huge gap between rich and poor and now has a big North/South divide as well.

Massey's assertion that strict border controls have in fact made immigration higher than it would be otherwise makes sense. Certainly the continued high levels of immigration don't seem to fit with the economic growth and declining birthrate.

[dryfly]

Linguistically, English-speakers certainly have nothing to fear. English is increasingly spoken in Mexico and is viewed as essential for social and economic advancement.

That I agree with - having known many immigrants here (legal and otherwise) AND having travelled in rural Mexico and although unable to speak Spanish... most people I met could speak English (many had worked in the US at one time or another)... and I was FAR from commercial tourist beaches.

English is growing in Mexico - no doubt about it.

:::::

I think the bottom line is right, the question is not how to build a wall between us which does nothing to stem the economic incentives to migrate, but rather how to integrate the two economies so as to promote growth and enhance economic opportunity within Mexico without imposing substantial costs on U.S. citizens.

The countries are merging as we speak. The only people who don't know it - or refuse to recognize it - are the politicians running the two countries. It's pointless to even fight it.

[IllegalImmigrationIntroduction]

I'm going to guess that most Americans, given the chance, would not favor the merger with Mexico that Massey supports. Will we ever be given a chance to vote on it, or has it already been decided for us?

And, since the latter is most likely true, isn't one of the casualties of massive illegal immigration our ability to decide our own future?

Most of Massey's screed looks good on paper, but it certainly doesn't comport with the reality that I and millions of other Americans have observed. Who to believe?

[lonesome moderate]

In what sense does it not comport with your reality? I didn't see anything in the article that conflicts with my own personal experience.

[Movie Guy]

dryfly - "The countries are merging as we speak. The only people who don't know it - or refuse to recognize it - are the politicians running the two countries. It's pointless to even fight it."

So, it's pointless for the United States of America to have a formal national immigration policy based on U.S. laws?

Why doesn't the USA allow 50,000,000 individuals to enter the USA each year? Or 100,000,000 a year? Or 200,000,000 a year? After all, "it's pointless to even fight it" in your opinion.

I think you're describing something other than rule by law or government.

I lived in nations where immigration was controlled quite well. There didn't seem be any problems on the part of the government to manage their affairs, which is quite unlike the USA in the past two decades where indecision, immaturity, laziness, and ignorance have taken their toll.

I've never seen a nation so willing to surrender its values as is the case with the USA. I returned from abroad to a land of emptyheads and pure laziness among those who forget the importance of what it means to be a nation.

Pointless? Why have any laws at all?

[Movie Guy]

Mark Thoma - "...how to integrate the two economies so as to promote growth and enhance economic opportunity within Mexico without imposing substantial costs on U.S. citizens."

I agree with this goal. Now, how would you do it? What are your ideas?

What would you change in U.S. trade policy to further promote the net growth of Mexico and its citizens?

NAFTA II? What else?

[save_the_rustbelt]

what Movie Guy said - yes

[dryfly]

Pointless? Why have any laws at all?

Movie Guy - it's like passing laws to outlaw gravity.

Or like native american tribes passing laws in say 1650 forbidding white men to come here... a hundred or so years too late. They could've tried.

It's pointless to 'fight it' - all we can do is 'manage it'.

If we want the Mexican gov't to 'help' stop it - maybe make it clear to them that allowing their citizens to come here will drive us to an eventual formal merger of the two political entities called Mexico and the United States... Do they want that? Do they think their status will be better in a combined NAFTA Nation? I sure don't think so.

But I don't think they can stop it either. I think we are way too far along the path to find our way back.

JMHO.

[dryfly]

Also - I've reconciled myself to the eventuality of a US-Mexico merger years ago... But that doesn't mean letting everyone in from everywhere anytime they want to come. Both the US & Mexico have lost the battle on our respective borders... but it's much easier to control immigration from countries we don't border... IF we do it now.

On the other hand if we let 10-20 million Chinese or Indians in illegally like we did Mexicans... then we will have lost the battle there too.

Mexico has become a unique situation due to long established traditions that recently got out of hand. I live as far away from the Mexican border as about anyone yet the town I grew up in near here has about a 25% Mexican-American population... most, and I really mean MOST, have been here on the northern plains for about 4 or 5 generations. They came in the mid to late 1800s to work farms & ranches and stayed - just like the rest of us.

Since then a continuous stream has found its way north every generation - the current wave is larger & spreading out farther but nothing new. Just more of same, way more.

So I think there are differences between Mexico and the ROW. But if we handle the ROW immigrants the same way - we'll be swamped.

But even if we do the things to control it all starting today - I think we are a generation or two too late to stop the running together of Mexico & the US. All we can do now is manage the process - hopefully better than we have.

Again JMHO.

[Movie Guy]

Dryfly,

You have a defeatist, helpless attitude on this one.

We aren't "managing" it. We don't even have workable programs in place.

Compared to other nations, including those with higher levels of tourist travel, the U.S. approach is a joke.

Which other U.S. laws are you willing to concede defeat? And where does it end?

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/world/americas/24mexico.html?ex=1314072000&en=9f6d84142f63f9f2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

August 24, 2006

Violent Civil Unrest Tightens Hold on a Mexican City
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.

OAXACA, Mexico — For three months, civil unrest has gripped this lovely colonial city like a hound with a rabbit, leaving two people dead, crippling the tourist industry and shuttering schools.

The original cause of the strife — a teachers' strike for better pay — has become lost in the escalating violence and the revolutionary demands of the protesters, who now demand that Gov. Ulises Ruiz step down.

The teachers' union has been joined by scores of social organizations, some of them with leftist philosophies.

They have shut down highways, taken over five radio stations, burned more than a dozen buses, blocked off the city's historic square, seized government offices, destroyed the stage for an annual cultural fair and barricaded tourists in their hotels. The state government has lost control of the center of the city, including its own offices, and is working out of improvised quarters with cellphones. Though each side has asked for federal intervention, President Vicente Fox has refused to send in troops. He has dispatched negotiators from the Interior and Labor Ministries, who have been unsuccessful in resolving the conflict.

On the national level, Mexico has been engulfed in a political crisis since the leftist presidential candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, narrowly lost the July 2 election, according to an official tally. He has accused his conservative rival, Felipe Calderón, of fraud and mounted similar protests in Mexico City, taking over the central square.

Though the conflict here started well before the election, it has added to the country's overall angst, feeding fears that left-wing groups will use Mr. López Obrador's movement to foment unrest, with heavy-handed counterattacks by people in power.

Governor Ruiz, of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which long ruled this state with a iron hand, has accused local leaders of Mr. López Obrador's party, the Party of the Democratic Revolution, of taking part in the protests, adding yet another layer of politics to the conflict.

Early on Tuesday, police officers in a convoy that had been sent to clear blocked streets opened fire on a radio station that the protesters had seized. In the gunfire, Lorenzo San Pablo Cervantes, 52, an architect who worked for the state, was killed, the police said. It is unclear whether he was a bystander or was supporting the strikers.

The protesters seized about a dozen radio stations on Monday afternoon after unidentified gunmen destroyed the broadcasting equipment of Channel 9, a public television and radio station the strikers and their allies commandeered early this month to spread their version of events, the authorities said....

[Wheel]

Combining two economies from two completely different parents would not work. I believe the end result could be compared to a relationship of patriarchal power and spousal abuse; the U.S. Symbol of Uncle Sam slapping Mexico’s national symbol, the Virgin de Guadalupe. Not a good marriage, the male would need therapy for too long.