A New Mexico-US Migration Cycle?
Published in La Jornada
(Mexico) on 1 February 2014
by Ana María Aragonés (link to original)
(Mexico) on 1 February 2014
by Ana María Aragonés (link to original)
Translated from
by Laura L. Messer.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
A preliminary study was just published about reverse migration flows in the state of Jalisco, entitled "The U.S./Mexico Cycle: The End of an Era." The analysis was done in this state because it was considered one of the places of greatest reverse migration according to the Census of Population and Housing, as well as being the most dynamic in Mexico, with an economy oriented toward export and that, in principle, would facilitate the productive reintegration of returning migrants in comparison with other places, according to the investigators.
Some of the results attract attention: Among these, notably 89 percent of respondents returned to the country voluntarily, and the three most important reasons for their return were homesickness for their country of origin (29.1 percent), not finding work in the U.S. (11.3 percent), and family reasons (5 percent). The time they had remained in the neighboring nation was between one and five years; therefore, they were migrants of short duration. Some impreciseness exists in these figures, as it is unknown exactly what happened with 31.8 percent of the sample, which apparently did not respond, a figure that in itself is greater than the 29.1 percent who returned because of homesickness. The low number of deported persons is noteworthy (11 percent), when the Obama administration itself has produced the greatest increase in deportations.
Another figure that jumps off the page is that 54 percent of respondents indicate they are going to remain in Mexico permanently, given that the principal adversities they face in their return to Mexico are low and insufficient salaries and the bad labor conditions in the country, which were practically the same things that provoked their departure for the United States. Nearly half of respondents declared that the income they are drawing now is very low, as low as before leaving. It would have been extremely useful to learn the motives for why they do not desire to migrate again.
Another interesting phenomenon that usually accompanies reverse migration is that these workers bring capital with them, which they invest in their communities of origin, by which means they become self-employed. However, 80 percent of those who returned did not make any investment, and only 19 percent invested in any type of project related to a micro-enterprise, which require very low initial costs of operation, such as retail of clothing and shoes, and sales of meals or street food. Within this group, the self-employed are found inserted in the informal sector of the economy, working in conditions of extreme vulnerability.
It is notable that the educational profile of these migrants shows basic levels of instruction; the majority were undocumented and worked in low-wage occupations in the United States. Upon asking them if they had received any training or certification in that country, 85.5 percent responded no. Only 8.2 percent had received certified training, and, of those, very few had managed to apply this knowledge to the Mexican labor market. This is very suggestive data, as it clearly calls into question a widespread proposition in the sense that migrants are able to employ themselves in Mexico in better labor conditions when they return.
This is some of the data that shows a new era of migration is being initiated between Mexico and the United States, also taking into account that the return of migrants is higher than ever before. However, it is difficult to accept this hypothesis, as the structural causes that could provoke such a situation remain unexplained. On the other hand, how is it possible to talk about a new migratory era if, according to the data from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography, it is observed that the net migration rate indicates more people leave the country than enter? The second trimester of 2010 registered the departure of 12.7 migrants for every 10,000 residents. For the same trimester of 2012, it went to -27.6. That is to say, Mexico continues expelling more migrants than those who return to the country and the explanation is simple: The U.S. is beginning to show signs of recovery as its unemployment rate has diminished (from 9.6 percent in 2010 to 7.4 percent in 2013). As a consequence, the migratory flows will respond once more.
How interesting it would be to be able to accept that Mexico finally faces a new migratory era, but unfortunately, the data do not support this thesis. The reality is that the economic model adopted by Mexico has not been able to generate the jobs necessary to absorb the quite valuable demographic bonus the country boasts: Reforms come, reforms go and the labor market continues in frank deterioration.
Some of the results attract attention: Among these, notably 89 percent of respondents returned to the country voluntarily, and the three most important reasons for their return were homesickness for their country of origin (29.1 percent), not finding work in the U.S. (11.3 percent), and family reasons (5 percent). The time they had remained in the neighboring nation was between one and five years; therefore, they were migrants of short duration. Some impreciseness exists in these figures, as it is unknown exactly what happened with 31.8 percent of the sample, which apparently did not respond, a figure that in itself is greater than the 29.1 percent who returned because of homesickness. The low number of deported persons is noteworthy (11 percent), when the Obama administration itself has produced the greatest increase in deportations.
Another figure that jumps off the page is that 54 percent of respondents indicate they are going to remain in Mexico permanently, given that the principal adversities they face in their return to Mexico are low and insufficient salaries and the bad labor conditions in the country, which were practically the same things that provoked their departure for the United States. Nearly half of respondents declared that the income they are drawing now is very low, as low as before leaving. It would have been extremely useful to learn the motives for why they do not desire to migrate again.
Another interesting phenomenon that usually accompanies reverse migration is that these workers bring capital with them, which they invest in their communities of origin, by which means they become self-employed. However, 80 percent of those who returned did not make any investment, and only 19 percent invested in any type of project related to a micro-enterprise, which require very low initial costs of operation, such as retail of clothing and shoes, and sales of meals or street food. Within this group, the self-employed are found inserted in the informal sector of the economy, working in conditions of extreme vulnerability.
It is notable that the educational profile of these migrants shows basic levels of instruction; the majority were undocumented and worked in low-wage occupations in the United States. Upon asking them if they had received any training or certification in that country, 85.5 percent responded no. Only 8.2 percent had received certified training, and, of those, very few had managed to apply this knowledge to the Mexican labor market. This is very suggestive data, as it clearly calls into question a widespread proposition in the sense that migrants are able to employ themselves in Mexico in better labor conditions when they return.
This is some of the data that shows a new era of migration is being initiated between Mexico and the United States, also taking into account that the return of migrants is higher than ever before. However, it is difficult to accept this hypothesis, as the structural causes that could provoke such a situation remain unexplained. On the other hand, how is it possible to talk about a new migratory era if, according to the data from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography, it is observed that the net migration rate indicates more people leave the country than enter? The second trimester of 2010 registered the departure of 12.7 migrants for every 10,000 residents. For the same trimester of 2012, it went to -27.6. That is to say, Mexico continues expelling more migrants than those who return to the country and the explanation is simple: The U.S. is beginning to show signs of recovery as its unemployment rate has diminished (from 9.6 percent in 2010 to 7.4 percent in 2013). As a consequence, the migratory flows will respond once more.
How interesting it would be to be able to accept that Mexico finally faces a new migratory era, but unfortunately, the data do not support this thesis. The reality is that the economic model adopted by Mexico has not been able to generate the jobs necessary to absorb the quite valuable demographic bonus the country boasts: Reforms come, reforms go and the labor market continues in frank deterioration.
Next article![]( "US Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen: A Woman as a Hawk")
