"More United States immigrants
claim Mexico as their homeland
than any other national group...
What sets Mexico apart as the
primary source of immigrants?
v
AN HISTORICAL (INTER) DEPENDENCY:
Mexican Migration to the United States
M A T T H E W
L O N G S T A N D I N G
T R A V E L
F R O M
E C O N O M I C
O U S
T I O N
I N C E N T I V E S
M E X I C O
S U R V I V A L .
O F F I C I A L S T O
O F
W O R K E R S
S T A T E S
T I N U E D
M I G R A T I O N
T H E
O F
I S S U E .
A N D
T W O
C A U S E S
L A T E S T
T H E
T H E
O F
IS
T H E
T H E S E
C U R B
U N I T E D
T W E E N
T O
A
T H E S E
U N I T E D
K E Y
F A C E T
T O
T H E
S E V E R A L
H A V E
F U R T H E R
T H I S
E C O N O M I C
P O L I C I E S ,
IN
T H E
H A V E
S T A T E S
I N C E N T I V E S
M E X I C O .
A N D
M I G R A T I O N
I M M I G RATI O N
N A T I O N S .
T H I S
F O R
P A P E R
IN
E X I S T
T H E
S E A R C H
U N I T E D
P O L I C I E S
AS
A M E R I C A N
H I G H E R
IN
C O N T R I B U T E D
A
AN
G R O W I N G
I N - D E P T H
I N V E S T I G A T E S
F R E E
T R A D E
T O
W A G E S
G O A L
O F
F A C T , T H E
R E L A T I O N S H I P
H A V E
E N T R E N C H E D
I N D I V I D U A L S
S T A T E D
S T A T E S .
H I S T O R I C A L
S E R V E S
O F
D E S P I T E T H E
D E P E N D E N C Y A N D
N O R T H
E N C O U R A G E D
H A M I L T O N
A N D
VARI-
M IG RA-
B E T W E E N
T O
T H E
T H E
C O N -
D E P E N D E N C Y
B E -
E X A M I N A T I O N
O F
W H A T
E F F E C T
A G R E E M E N T ,
H A S
T H E
O N
Dependency is a historical process as much as it is an eco-
INTRODUCTION
More United States immigrants claim Mexico as their
homeland than any other national group. As of March
2002, 30 percent of all immigrants residing i n the United
States and 57 percent of all Latin American immigrants, or
9.8 million people, hailed from Mexico.' What sets Mexico
apart as the primary source of immigrants? Historical immigration trends, policies, and practices have been conducive to the flow of peoples into the United States since
the late 19* century. Further, migrant networks supported
by both American and Mexican policies have perpetuated
immigration. Over time the flow of peoples also created a
dependency within Mexico and the United States on m i grant wages and labor.
I n terms of policy, the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) further evinces
the existing dependent relationship between the two
nations.
Mexico as a dependent of the United States. The dependency between the United States and Mexico originally took
root i n the underdevelopment caused by diseases and
Spanish colonial structure. Colonially-subjugated Mexico
divided land according to the hacienda system i n which a
single ruling family profited from the labor of medieros, or
sharecroppers, andjornaleros, or day laborers.
VH
The ruling
family typically "consumed the surplus . . . produced by the
jornaleros and medieros, rather than investing it i n machinery.'^
111
The byproduct of the ruling family's absorption of
profits was a lack of capital, which i n turn encouraged
capital-poor ruling families to "superexploit the peons or
else
try
to
get
encroachment."
lx
more
land
by
means
such
as
The exploitation at the hands of colonial
Spain, coupled with malnutrition, slavery, and "repeated
Dependency theory locates the relationship between the developed and prosperous core and the underdeveloped and
impoverished periphery; it involves the exchange of resources between the two, at times an exchange between a
"superordinate" and "subordinate" unit." According to
Christopher Chase-Dunn, dependency is born out of three
related features and behaviors i n the interactions between
the periphery and the core, namely, "exploitation, structural
distortion, and suppression of autonomous policies." '
1 1
That is, the core embarks on exploitative measures which
include "decapitalization, unequal exchange, and subordination to external controls i n a competitive system."
1N
Furthermore, the core disfigures the economy of the periphery by relegating it to a "specialization i n raw material
production (low differentiation); outward-oriented infrastructure (low integration); [and] the creation of resource
patterns which retard economic development" because of
the influence on the periphery of multinational corporations controlled by the core.
v
Finally, the core realizes its
dependency by forming "a political situation which retards
development by linking elites i n the periphery to the interests of the core."
nomic reality, and accordingly, the history of Mexican politics, economics, and society relating to migration portray
vi
epidemics of smallpox, typhoid, measles, and tuberculosis," reduced the population of native Indians from between 15 and 20 million to one million by 1620, where it remained until the 2 0 " century.
1
x
Mexican independence exposed the political unpreparedness of the nation after colonialism. Alexander Monto
writes that members of the politically-inexperienced Creole
class assumed control of the Mexican government from
Spain, although "seldom did a president serve even a year
of his term," as the country was rocked by instability and
conflict. At the same time, the United States acquired land
close to Mexico with the Louisiana Purchase, made claims
on Texas, annexed the Oregon Territory, and attempted to
purchase California/ Monto continues, "many people i n
1
Mexico even favored a U.S. takeover of the whole country"
because of economic stagnation and political volatility. The
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo i n 1848, which gave the
United States land "from Texas and Colorado west to
California," only served to produce "a persisting legacy of
bitterness" over the lost territory/ I n the shadow of this
bitterness and national underdevelopment rose President
Benito Juarez, whose 1857 Reform embarked on a U.S.-
ELEMENTS
::
SPRING
07
supported reconstruction of the economic and governmen-
certainly a U.S. economic satellite. Labor export soon be-
tal infrastructure. Juarez's successor, Porfirio Diaz, has-
came a major element of that economic dependency."
xv
tened Mexican advancement through increasing American
economic, social, and political ties within the country, thus
The Mexican Revolution and the Cristiada,
heightening Mexican dependency. Although Juarez's pro-
curred from 1910-1929, both contributed to increased m i -
xvl
which oc-
grams offered some modernization i n Mexico, it was not
gration, although there were still fluctuations owing to
until Diaz's implementation of the Porfiriato that Mexico
American foreign policy and the economy, especially dur-
modernized through the provision of "huge foreign con-
ing the Great Depression, which exposed the interrelated-
cessions for mining, railroad, telephone, and electric devel-
ness of Mexico and the United States. Specifically, Monto
opment, often favoring U.S. companies."™
discerns that the period of the Mexican Revolution and the
1
ensuing Cristiada "with the destruction of haciendas and
crops, impressments and looting, and declining agricultural production" made migration desirable to many
Mexicans.
However, movement of people between
xvu
Mexico and the United States was occurring free from any
form of governmental regulation until 1917, when the passing of the Immigration Act i n the United States "required
that every immigrant who was over 16-years-old be literate
i n at least one language and pay an $8.00 tax upon
entry."
xvm
With the passage of the Immigration Act and
subsequent acts throughout the 20th century, Mexican migration became officially illegal. Sanderson writes that the
presence of undocumented migration was regulated by
border patrols, yet there were also efforts among "employers of Mexican migrants . . . to exempt their employees
from the new rule."
xlx
The roots of latter-day labor depend-
ency can be seen i n such efforts and i n the discontinuation
of the Immigration Act during World War I i n order to comDuring Diaz's government, "push" factors i n Mexico and
pensate for the absence of men i n the United States.
"pull" factors i n the United States worked together to in-
Accordingly, Sanderson writes that "the border remained
crease Mexican migration across the border. Diaz's per-
essentially unpatrolled and the tradition of migration was
mission for hacienda expansions through the annexation of
already well established."'
smaller neighboring communities displaced peasants.
American economic recession led to resentment of m i -
During the late 1800s, the American demand for labor i n
grants, which bred violence towards Mexican workers and
the southwestern portion of the country offered an employ-
temporarily halted migration. Economic prosperity dimin-
ment opportunity to many Mexicans across the border pri-
ished such acts of violence i n the later 1920s; migration
marily for "railroads (particularly construction and mainte-
reestablished itself only to have the Great Depression ren-
nance),
labor."
X1V
agriculture, and
general,
unskilled manual
The flow of migrants into the southwestern
x
During the early 1920s, the
der Mexican migrants unneeded, again causing migration
rates to drop.
XX1
United States was so vital to the American economy that, by
the turn of the century, "Mexico under Porfirio Diaz was
AN
HISTORICAL
(l NTER) D E P E N D E N C Y i
MEXICAN
The American Great Depression, World War I I , and the
MIGRATION
TO THE U N I T E D
STATES
post-war era coincided with the establishment of the ejido
gram, however, undocumented migration still occurred to
land tenure system, which created the need for migration
such an extent that, as Demetrios Papademetriou points
remittances. The communal ejido system granted formerly
out, "the United States deported more than three million
hacienda lands to groups of medieros, or sharecroppers, to
work.
xxu
Ejidos "created a demand for capital by giving poor
Mexicans between 1950 and 1955 without seriously impeding the ability of U.S. farmers to employ Mexican labor."
xxx
campesinos access to land but not the credit required to en-
A dependency can be seen i n the presence of legalized and
gage i n production."™
undocumented migration into the United States through
11
Monto concurs, specifically with
respect to the purchasing of agricultural equipment as
the bracero program.
"single-share steel plows were often bought with migrant
earnings."
Massey notes, further, that Mexicans hailing
Nonetheless, the discontinuation of the bracero program i n
from regions with an ejido system, as opposed to those lack-
1966 seemed to hint at a diminished need for Mexican
ing the ejido system were more likely to seek labor i n the
labor i n the United States. I n actuality, it was the result of
United States, namely to gain access to credit through re-
political pressure i n the United States and increased illegal
XX1V
mittances. Thus, Mexico's labor and capital demands
immigration. The laborer cap of the bracero program was
sought supply from the resuscitated post-World War I I
insufficient to meet the demand for Mexican labor.
XXX1
economy of the United States, which increased migratory
Moreover, Monto claims that "some growers were said to
flows and the ensuing transfer of capital i n the form of
prefer illegal migrants (also called "wetbacks") as they
remittances.
would work for lower pay."
XXX11
Thus, American agricul-
tural advocacy groups supported the discontinuation of the
American and Mexican governments cooperated i n legis-
legalized worker program i n favor of illegal migrant work-
lating the placement of Mexican workers i n the American
ers who would hold wages at very low levels. Although "the
economy by adopting the bracero program i n 1942, through
Mexican government continued to back the program as an
which "more than a half-million Mexican workers were mi-
outlet for surplus labor and a source of income," the U.S.
grating per year."
xxv
It was structured so that "each laborer
(only males) would work under a specific contract that
guaranteed certain rights such as food and housing, medical care, specified pay, and a return home at the end of the
[working period]," which was capped at 90 days and restricted primarily to agricultural labor.
XXV1
Furthermore,
the bracero program required that the Mexican government
assign laborer quotas to regions throughout the country,
the largest of which were assigned "to the West-Central
states of Mexico, where rural economic conditions were
among the poorest and from which many of the previous
migrants had come." " This bilateral program advanced
xxv
the "circular and recurrent flow [of laborers] which was
mainly constituted by young rural men from western
Mexico."
xxvm
For the Mexico ejido system, however, the
benefits of the bracero program were approximately $200
million, which was transferred to Mexico from migrant
labor from just 1942 to I 9 4 7 _
XX1X
Outside the bracero pro-
yielded to internal pressures from "the press, the unions,
and Congress" and eliminated the hracero p r o g r a m .
xxxm
Although the flow of migrant laborers continued beyond
1966, this mechanism of Mexican-American dependency
was rendered illegal.
T H E S H I F T F R O M I N T E R D E P E N D E N C Y TO
DEPENDENCY
The end of the hracero program marked the beginning of
the policy of economic liberalization which shifted Mexico
towards the status of dependency, as it began to enact policies that favored foreign investment over economic sovereignty and development. Such programs increased unemployment, as foreign capital tended to push peasantry out
of agriculture along with situating people i n the raw
material production, which Chase-Dunn refers to as the
border's
maquiladoras.
This
economic liberalization
widened the gap between the rich and the poor, tying richer
elites closer to the interests of the United States than to the
interests of peripheral Mexico. Legislation i n the United
States, NAFTA being the most recent and salient example,
exacerbated such dependencies by fully opening Mexico up
to foreign investment, industry, and economic control.
Overall, NAFTA removed autonomy from the Mexican
economy, yet the historical process found its momentum i n
post-hracero Mexico.
borers as part of a dependent relationship between the
United States and Mexico, it is important to enumerate the
concept of migration networks, whose role became more
prominent following the discontinuation of the hracero program. The World Institute for Development Economics
Research of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER)
sought to define migrant networks as "a set of economic,
social, political, and cultural ties or dependencies linking
,xxxlv
Broadly speaking,
migrant networks are the means through which resources
such as information flow. Migrant networks influence a
potential migrant's "length of stay and capacity to settle and
integrate i n countries of destination."
AN
HISTORICAL
transfer of remittances,... business links or ideas, support
for local charitable initiatives, or pressure for political and
social r e f o r m . '
,xxxvl
Moreover, the theory put forth by UNU-
WIDER indicates that migrant networks can "generate a
self-perpetuating dynamic of continued migration flows,
regardless of attempts to limit quotas."
xxxvil
They consti-
tute social capital, making migration more secure i n a variety of dimensions. As Douglas Massey writes, "Among
people considering a trip to the United States, ties to current or former U.S. migrants represent a valuable social
asset since these connections can be used to acquire information and assistance that reduce the cost and risks of entering the United States and raise the odds of getting a good
Before continuing to assess the migration of Mexican la-
sending and receiving countries.'
generators of "positive externalities" which include "the
xxxv
They serve as
( I N T E R) D E P EN D EN CY I M E X I C A N
U.S. j o b . "
xxxviii
Migration networks facilitate migration through the security they provide, and, as Zahniser identifies, they "lower
the costs of migration,.. . reduce the risks associated with
migration, . . . may provide the migrant with valuable job
contacts,... [and] may make life i n the United States more
appealing to the migrant. "
XXX1X
Migrant networks can take
the form of a familial tradition, such as housing communities within the U.S. whose residents have the same regional
Mexican background, one migrant helping another simply
because they share a common hometown, or the presence
of coyotes whose transportation assistance is contracted by
migrants willing to cross the border.
MIGRATION
TO THE
UNITED
STATES
:l
Observing the re-
suits of survey and population data, Massey writes that mi-
of Mexico into a dynamic growth pole for the whole north-
grations increased "in response to variation i n the quantity
ern border, and possibly the whole country."
of social capital at a man's disposal."
view is proposed by Elizabeth Fussell, who writes that dur-
xl1
Specifically, the like-
x l v
A related
lihood of illegal migration increases i f one's parents have
ing the 1970s and early 1980s, the border economy, the
migrated and doubles i f a prospective migrant has two m i -
locus of maquiladora industry, was actually "more closely
grant siblings.
Migration trends are, therefore, self-
tied with the U.S. economy than with the Mexican econ-
sustaining, as numerous scholars posit that the social cap-
omy." A sign of the growing dependency, any type of reces-
ital created by migrant networks facilitates more migration.
sion i n the U.S. would significantly hurt Mexico.
Papademetriou points out that there was a multiplier effect
establishment of maquiladoras was, therefore, i n accor-
x , n
xlvi
The
as some workers left their seasonal labor through the
dance with the government's economic aim to give "prior-
brace.ro program i n order to establish permanent employ-
ity to the industrial sector at the expense of the peasantry"
ment and residency. Looking back, then, the initial move-
in order to attract U.S. investment and commercial devel-
ments of people into the United States for economic sur-
opment i n the border r e g i o n .
vival
established
a
myriad
xlvu
of migration networks
comprising a self-propelling migration juggernaut.
xlm
The United States considered the maquiladoras to be part of
the interdependency agreement since they were "a way of
Following the discontinuation of the brace.ro program, a
using cheap Mexican labor without having to negotiate
forward-thinking
with U.S. unions" or employ illegal i m m i g r a n t s .
Mexican
government
introduced
xlvm
For
maquiladoras, factories for assembling and processing
Mexico, the policy goal was that foreign investment
manufactured goods, i n the northern Mexico border re-
through the maquiladora, the "instrument necessary to in-
gion. Kathryn Kopinak writes that the Mexican govern-
crease the competitiveness of Mexican industry," would
ment fully "intended to provide jobs lost through the U.S.
globally integrate the Mexican economy.
cancellation of the bracero program" with the passing of the
1982 currency crisis, when Mexico "was obliged to open its
xllx
Following the
Border Industrialization Program, "which allowed U.S.
economy
components to be assembled i n other countries and then
maquiladoras became more than a unique aspect of the
re-exported back to the United States without being taxed
northern border; rather, they became part of Mexico's re-
on re-entry. "
x l l v
Although the immediate goal of the
and
engage
in
austerity
measures,"
the
sponse to "a policy of structural adjustment and changes i n
maquiladoras was to off-set the lost labor opportunities of-
production and policy."
fered by the bracero program, the Mexican government's
"greater liberalization of the economy, . . . a major change
long-term goal was "to change the isolated northern border
i n the functioning of the labor market," and also to enact "a
1
Specifically Mexico wanted
policy of openness to the outside [through] the encouragement of export substitution and the promotion of various
forms of international subcontracting."'
After 1982, the
"A sign of the growing maquiladoras were promoted not only as a means of economic development along the border, but also as agriculdependency, any type oftural and industrial advancements.
recession in the U.S. would Rather than meeting the economic needs of the United
States and Mexico, the maquiladoras increased unemploysignificantly hurt Mexico." ment i n Mexico. They "increased the distance between rich
1
and poor, to the p o i n t . . . of putting Mexico i n the runner-
up spot i n the hemisphere." " The strategy of attracting for-
for capital by providing farm families with access to land
eign investment and building maquiladoras further "led to
but not the capital needed to begin or expand agricultural
a rise i n job insecurity, cutbacks i n real wages, polarization
production."
1
of industrial employment, [and] more underemployment
and
informal
employment."'
U.S.
111
technology
in
iv11
The structure of Mexican development
strategies and the resulting unemployment gave rise to migration just as colonialism resulted i n underdevelopment.
maquiladoras, as well as i n other industrializing programs
i n agriculture and manufacturing, affected migration, such
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) i n 1986
that Bustamente writes, "When such foreign technology
continued the existing dependency between Mexico and
was utilized i n a country like Mexico . . . a displacement of
the United States by permanently establishing the resi-
labor power was produced that could not be absorbed by
dency of over two million Mexican nationals. " The U.S.'s
other sectors and that ended up emigrating to the United
immigration control legislation specifically "provided for
States."
the legalization of unauthorized immigrants who could
llv
lvi
show they had been resident i n the United States since
After the 1982 industrial shift i n Mexico, the "needs" of
January 1,1982, or had worked i n U.S. agriculture."
Mexico and the United States were met by undocumented
I RCA also permitted "amnesty recipients to sponsor the
migrations and remittances. Massey draws on his own sta-
undocumented migration of their friends and relatives. "
tistical evidence to show that "an increase i n the rate of U.S.
However, as Chavez and Whiteford write, the fault i n the
llx
The
lx
employment growth tends to be followed by an increase i n
I RCA i n controlling immigration rests i n its belief that a
the likelihood of illegal migration. "
unilateral policy can solve a bilateral issue.
Iv
He also points out the
1x1
The legaliza-
fallacy i n assigning migration to the unemployment and
tion of undocumented migrants only propelled migration
poor wages resulting from industrialization and structural
forward since, owing to newfound legalization, it created
adjustment since "high levels of industrial development
significantly more secure social capital. Migration became
and wages" raise the likelihood of illegal migration to the
more viable and attractive i n the long-run due to the effects
United States.
Migration to meet the needs i n both devel-
of the legalization by the I RCA, and Massey determined
oping and under-developing parts of the Mexican economy
that the probability of undocumented migration to the
Ivi
began with the ejidos, which, as discussed, "create[d] a need
United States increased by 55 percent i f a family member
was among those legalized by the I R C A .
lxn
The benefits provided by remittances are another facet of
Mexican dependency on the United States.
Popularly
termed "migradollars," remittances are the U.S. wages sent
back to Mexico from migrant workers which have "become
critical resources for the sustenance of homes and families
i n rural and urban Mexico." " I n fact, remittances from
Ixi
migration constitute a "survival strategy" for Mexican families facing the "restructuring pressures" brought about by
economic policies such as those enacted i n 1982 and the industrialization of the maquiladoras )
X K
As the opening of
the economy made "employment more precarious, with a
general reduction i n wages," m i n i m u m wages specifically
experienced "an uninterrupted tendency to fall steadily"
AN
HISTORICAL
(iNTER)DEPENDENCY!
MEXICAN
MIGRATION
TO THE U N I T E D
STATES
.. by 1991, Mexicans accounted for 47.7 percent
of the 1.13 million detained along the US.-Mexico
border, a figure which does not even include
those who made it across."
I n light of industrialization and this economic
Provisions within NAFTA express a plan to promote trade
stagnation, remittances made migration "a more attractive
and international investment within Mexico and among its
over t i m e .
lxv
option than working i n new industrial zones or i n cities i n
partners i n order to effect sound and vibrant economic de-
the Mexican countryside."
velopment. Monto summarized the primary provisions of
lxvi
The statistics regarding m i -
gration show that typical remittances were "2.4 times the
NAFTA as removing all or most tariffs, opening govern-
official m i n i m u m wage, which is two-thirds of the average
ment contracts "to firms of free-trade partners," imposing
working income i n Mexico," meaning that migrants earn
"no new discriminatory measures on investment," and
"as much money as one-third of the resident population" of
eliminating "Mexico's limits on foreign investment." ™
Mexico.
lxvn
Since such remittances "are largely spent on
1
1
Such a policy promotes economic development through
current consumption," however, the remittances become
the
an indication of dependency. Despite this, even illegal m i -
American, and now Canadian economies, and thus fits
gration is an economic form of survival. ™
within the pattern of development salient i n the 1982 re-
1
11
liberalization and
integration of the Mexican,
structuring of the economy through promotion of industriWith migration providing such benefits i n the form of mi-
alization and the maquiladoras.
gradollars, it is no surprise that by 1991, Mexicans ac-
tion of economic growth and employment will then make
counted for 47.7 percent of the 1.13 million detained along
each NAFTA country more competitive.
lxxm
Overall, this promolxxiv
the U.S.-Mexico border, a figure which does not even include those who made it across.
lxix
The ulterior motive of
The prevailing view prior to and during the initial phases of
NAFTA, i n conjunction with the agreement's economic de-
NAFTA's inception held that migration would be stifled
velopment benefits, was to prevent such migration. Such
and rendered less economically viable. Contrary to the ob-
aims led Mexico's President Salinas to declare, amidst the
servations of Massey, Schott and Hufbauer postulated that
early 1990s hammering out of NAFTA, his desire to escape
NAFTA would best control immigration by allowing "eco-
the labor dependency and its associated benefits: "We want
nomic prosperity i n Mexico to ameliorate the flow of i m m i -
to export goods, not people."
grants over the next several decades."
lxx
Similarly, President George
H.W. Bush declared i n 1991, "We share the concerns ex-
lxxv
However, Joyce
Vialet averred that NAFTA might engender an initial in-
pressed by some i n Congress and the private sector that a
crease i n migrations i n the short r u n owing to the agree-
NAFTA not lead to increased immigration of foreign work-
ment's "potential for displacing Mexican agricultural work-
ers."
ers." ™
lxxi
Although NAFTA is exclusively a trade agreement,
migration was clearly an objective i n its adoption.
1
1
Similarly, Hinojosa-Ojeda and Robinson wrote
that "complete liberalization i n Mexican agriculture will
greatly increase the speed of out-migration from rural
areas." ™'
1
11
Cognizant of the effects of migrant networks,
the long-standing roots of migration and migrant remit-
to the United States every year; roughly 60 percent of them
are undocumented. "
lxxx111
tances, and the need for capital among Mexican people,
Vialet predicted that "conditions for continued large-scale
Migration is thus integral to Mexico's dependency today, as
migration from Mexico are already i n place."
That is,
the exportation of labor comprises a cause, an effect, and a
NAFTA will only serve to continue encouraging the migra-
central mechanism of that dependency. It is the result of
tory flow of Mexicans into the U.S.
many factors: underdevelopment, capital restrictions i n the
NAFTA-era Mexico has verified that the agreement not only
mates, unemployment, the pull of social capital, and the de-
fails to alleviate, but also heightens economic pressures
sire to establish a new life i n the United States. The histor-
while further exposing the dependency on the United
ical, political, and economic policies of both Mexico and the
lxxviil
ejido system, the lure of remittances, poor economic cli-
States. Liberalization of the economic system resulted i n
U.S. have prolonged the dependency on Mexican labor
the purchase of 85 percent of Mexican banks by interna-
through the inertia of migration networks. NAFTA is no
tional banks with investors whose principal aim was found
exception: owing to external influences such as agricultural
to be "in taking deposits and making high-interest-rate con-
subsidies, high population growth, and poor productivity
sumer loans [rather] than i n developing Mexico's internal
growth, it might even be considered the most dependency-
economy."
fostering policy i n the history of migrational Mexico-U.S.
lxxlx
Moreover, Mexico has experienced poor
productivity, as Christian Stracke points out that "productivity has declined . . . whereas productivity i n the United
States—already a developed nation with presumably fewer
opportunities for easy gains i n this area—has risen by a
third since 1990."
lxxx
According to Stracke, central to this
decline i n productivity growth is the fact that "the labor
force rose by over 230 percent, [while] GDP rose by just
220 percent," although such statistics do not show the
"brain drain" or the loss of educated and skilled laborers;
currently, 20 percent of Mexican immigration to the U.S.
are
educated.
Faux adds that the curtailing of farm
subsidies within Mexico by $1.5 billion, while at the same
time the U.S. increased its agricultural subsidies, has been
doubly detrimental. Thus, the United States' '"comparative
advantage' enabled U.S. agribusiness to blow thousands of
Mexican farmers out of their own markets. "'
XXX1
As earlier,
the locus of industry is i n both northern Mexico's
maquiladoras along the Mexico-U.S. border, where the
"low-value-added operations that depend on cheap labor"
and i n other regions i n Mexico, which are enclaves of industry that polarize the economy and engender a hinterland of few or simply low-value-added j o b s .
lxxxn
Migration
has continued accordingly i n Mexico, motivated by such a
poor economic outlook that a "half-million Mexicans come
AN
HISTORICAL
(iNTER)DEPENDENCY:
MEXICAN
economic policy.
ENDNOTES
i . Passel
i i . Chase-Dunn (212)
i i i . Chase-Dunn (213)
iv. Chase-Dunn (213)
v. Chase-Dunn (214)
vi. Chase-Dunn (215)
vii. Monto (36-38)
viii. Monto (39)
ix. Monto (39)
x. Monto (26)
xi. Monto (27)
xii. Monto (27)
xiii. Monto (28)
xiv. Sanderson (292)
xv. Monto (9)
xvi. The Cristiada was a rebellion agaist the anti-Catholic
Mexican government.
xvii. Monto (39)
xviii. Sanderson (292)
xvix. Sanderson (292)
xx. Sanderson (293)
xxi. Sanderson (294)
xxii. Massey et al (954); Monto (40)
xxiii. Massey et al (954)
xxiv. Monto (48)
xxv. Papademetriou (44)
xxvi. Monto (56)
xxvii. Monto (56)
MIGRATION
TO THE
UNITED
STATES
xxviii. Canales
xxix. Monto (57)
xxx. Papademetriou (44)
xxxi. Monto (57)
xxxii. Monto (57)
xxxiii. Monto (58)
xxxiv. Boswell and Crisp (16)
xxxv. Boswell and Crisp (16)
xxxvi. Boswell and Crisp (16)
xxxvii. Boswell and Crisp (17)
xxxviii. Massey et al (951)
xxxix. Zahniser (10-11)
xl. Zahniser (3-4)
xli. Massey et al (965)
xlii. Massey et al (965)
xliii. Papademetriou (45)
xliv. Kopinak (7-8)
xlv. Kopinak (8)
xlvi. Fussell
xlvii. Bustamente (270)
xlviii. Kopinak (8)
xlix. Kopinak (16)
1. Canales; Fussell
l i . Canales
Hi. Bustamente (8)
l i i i i . Canales
liv. Bustamente (271)
lv Massey et al (962)
lvi. Massey et al (961)
lvii. Massey et al (962)
lviii. Papademetriou (45)
lix. Papademetriou
lx. Massey et al (991)
lxi. Chavez and Whiteford (26)
lxii. Massey et al (968)
lxiii. Conway and Cohen
lxiv. Conway and Cohen
lxv. Canales
lxvi. Canales
lxvii. Canales
lxviii. Conway and Cohen
lxix. Monto (207)
lxx. Vialet
lxxi. Vialet
lxxii. Monto (208)
lxxiii. Monto (210-11)
lxxiv. Vialet
lxxv. Hufbauer and Schott
lxxvi. Vialet
lxxvii. Hinojosa-Ojeda and Robinson
lxxviii. Vialet
lxxix. Faux
lxxx. Stracke
lxxxi. Faux
lxxxii. Stracke
lxxxiii. Faux
REFERENCES
Boswell, Christina and Jeff Crisp. 2004. "Poverty, International
Migration and Asylum." Policy Paper from the
UNU-WIDER
Conference on Poverty, International Migration, and Asylum.
Helsinki, Finland: U N U World Institute for Development
Economics Research.
Bustamente, Jorge A. 1983. "Mexican Migration: The Political
Dynamic o f Perceptions." U.S.-Mexico Relations: Economic and
Social Aspects. Clark W. Reynolds and Carlos Tello (eds.).
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Canales, Alejandro I . 2003 "Mexican Labour Migration to the
United States i n the Age o f Globalization." Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies, 29(4), pp. 741-62, July.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher. 2000. "The Effects o f International
Economic Dependence on Development and Inequality: A
Cross-National Study." From Modernization to Globalization:
Perspectives on Development and Social Change. J. Timmons
Roberts and A m y Hite (eds.). Maiden, Massachusetts: Blackwell
Publishing, pp. 210-28.
Chavez, Manuel and Scott Whiteford. 1996. "Beyond the
Market: Political and Socioeconomic Dimensions of NAFTA for
Mexico." Policy Choices: Free Trade Among Nations, eds. Karen
Roberts and Mark I . Wilson. East Lansing: Michigan State
University Press.
Conway, Dennis and Jeffrey H . Cohen. 1998. "Consequences o f
Migration and Remittances for Mexican Transnational
Communities." Economic Geography, 74(1), pp. 26-45, January.
Faux, Jeff. 2003. "How NAFTA Failed Mexico: Immigration is
Not a Development Policy." The American Prospect, 14(7), pp. 3538, July-August.
Fussell, Elizabeth. 2004. "Sources o f Mexico's Migration
Stream: Rural, Urban, and Border Migrants to the United
States." Social Forces, 82(3), pp. 937-68, March.
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raul and Sherman Robinson. 1992. "Labor
Issues i n a North American Free Trade Area. NAFTA:
Assessing the Impact." The Brookings Institution, pp. 97-98.
Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott. 1992. "North
American Free Trade: Issues and Recommendations." Institute
for International Economics, p. 129.
ELEM ENTS
SPRING
07
Kopinak, Kathryn. 1996. Desert Capitalism: Maquiladoras inNorth America's Western Industrial Corridor. Tuscon, Arizona:
The University o f Arizona Press.
Massey, Douglas S. and Kristin E. Espinosa. 1997. "What's
Driving Mexico-U.S. Migration? A Theoretical, Empirical, and
Policy Analysis." The American Journal of Sociology, 102(4), PP939-99.
Monto, Alexander. 1994. The Roots of Mexican Labor Migration.
Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Papademetriou, Demetrios G. 2003. "The Shifting Expectations
of Free Trade and Migration." Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, pp. 39-59, November.
Passel, Jeffrey S. 2004. "Mexican Immigration to the U.S.: The
Latest Estimates." Migration Policy Institute. 21 A p r i l 2 0 0 6 <http: //www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm? I D=
2o8>.
Sanderson, Warren C. 1983. "The Problems o f Planning for the
Expected: Demographic Shocks and Policy Paralysis." U.S.Mexico Relations: Economic and Social Aspects. Clark W. Reynolds
and Carlos Tello (eds.). Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.
Stracke, Christian. 2003. "Mexico - The Sick Man o f NAFTA."
World Policy Journal, XX(2).
Vialet, Joyce C. 1993. "The North American Free Trade
Agreement and Immigration." Migration World Magazine, 21(23), pp. 23-27, March-June.
Zahniser, Steven S. 1999. Transnational Business and Corporate
Culture: Problems and Opportunities Series. Stuart Bruchey (ed.).
Mexican Migration to the United States: The Role of Migration
Networks and Human Capital Accumulation. New York: Garland
Publishing.
AN
HISTORICAL (iNTER)DEPENDENCY: MEXICAN
M I G R A T I O N TO THE
UNITED
STATES