Mexico-California MigrationAlisa Garni & Arpi MillerKansas State University/University of California, Los Angeles

Photo available at: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/US-Mexico-Border-Issues/

(AFP/Getty Images/File/John Moore)

AP photo by Guillermo Arias: (top 2 photos available athttp://www.daylife.com/source/AP_Photo)

(AP Photo/Dario Lopez-Mills)

Relevant Nodal Points/Policy and Plans

• Variable nexus between different policy spheres and aspects of migration project– Policies: Federal, state, & local

• Questions of implementation– Anticipation and enforcement!

– Migration project (actual & anticipated): • Initial trip • Circular migration• Settlement

Relevant nodal points/Migrant response

• Response to different policies varied:– personal circumstances – migration goals – stage within the migration project– social context

• Local social, economic, political environment and urban infrastructure affects actual nodal points

Actual nodal points?

• Three kinds of response to policy:– Ignoring policy no change in behavior but

exposure to risk• Initial migration, driving and working without

permission

– Slight modification in behavior• Driving new routes (police harassment)

– Significant modification in behavior• Life changing decisions to move, delay migration

(or return), change jobs, etc.

Types of Policies

Overall: Federal policy significant; however, in absence of favorable federal reform, state and local policies become more salient

State-level enforcement of federal policy

From left to right: California Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger with Cabinet Secretary Dan Dunmoyer and U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff at the 26th Border Governors Conference (August 2008); Gov. Schwarzenegger delivers a presentation at same conference. Photos and news story from REUTERS. Available at: http://www.daylife.com/search/photos/all/3?q=U.S.+Mexico+border

Local level policies:

– State level denial of access to identity documents

– State/municipal level “crack downs” on landlords, employers

– Police harassment

• Restrictive policies greatest impact– Prompted both moderate and significant

modifications in behavior

• Expansionary policy?– Hiring practices– News about local rights in other states—

draw– Anticipation of federal reform

Policy Characteristics: Restrictive vs. Expansionary

Information?• Sources:

– Family, social networks– Spanish language media broadcasts/news– Churches and other social services

• Content:– Federal policy/questions of reform– “Bad neighborhoods”– Police checkpoints– Employment information– Goods and services (e.g., housing,

transportation)– Obtaining identification documents

Networks

• Social networks (broader than kinship) were most significant

• Professional networks significant in initial trip, also assisted migrants in overcoming obstacles to living and working in U.S.– Exposure to risk, exploitation

Typology of the Mexico-California Case

Unauthorized migrants embedded in a historically well-developed migratory pattern

Migrant Typologies

• High-skilled• Family reunification• Asylum/refugee (gender cases)• Temporary visa carriers• Unauthorized

Typology of Unauthorized Migrant

• Leaders/followers– Pioneers in family; later migrants reuniting

• Lone/Accompanied– Qualitative differences for lone vs. family based

• Gender– Differences in networks, access to jobs, transport

• More/less entrenched in U.S. society– Deeply invested, newly arrived

Conclusions• After arrival, state/local level policies and

practices increasingly affect migrant routines, options, decisions, and quality of life.

• Mediating factors between policy and behavior– Local context (including infrastructure)– Degree of investment– Personal characteristics

Conclusions (cont.)

• Restrictive policies frequently fail to dissuade migrants in pursuing projects forced to adapt, potentially suffer physical and mental strain, economic hardship and social isolation.

• Need to better understand the geographical and political realities of a migrant destination, as well as the diverse and particular situations of the migrants within it

Emergent research questions

1. What is the relationship between the local context in which a policy is encountered and the efficacy of that policy (manifest vs. latent function)?

1. What is the relationship between unauthorized migrants’ degree of investment in host context and the way in which a policy is experienced?

Tentative Hypotheses1. Inverse relationship between

extensiveness of local infrastructure (formal and informal) and the degree to which migrants are affected by restrictive policies (though risk remains)

1. The more invested unauthorized migrants are in the host context, the more deeply they will be affected by restrictive policies, but the less likely they will be to modify their behavior