The following paper will argue that US policy, beginning formally in the 1990’s with the creation of NAFTA, has been instrumental in not only helping to pry Mexican migrants from their home, but also to keep them as an exploited labour pool once they arrive in the US. Historical labour demand between the two countries established the pull that guided them into the US and their businesses, with immigration policies that would help to construct the desperate migrants into a stigmatized racial group, able to be taken advantage of by the various US industries able to exploit their labour.
Before NAFTA was created, Mexico was in a particularly vulnerable position economically. This all started when Mexico began to see massive profits from its new oil industries, due to the spike in world market prices in the 1970’s (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007). The government, with its now high credit rating, took on many loans from foreign lenders in its efforts to grow its industries (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007). A few years later oil prices began to decline, and this added to Mexico’s trade imbalances and budget deficits that had been greatly increasing since the new loans were taken on (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007). This caused many investors to dump their holdings of Mexican currency, which brought a dramatic devaluation to it (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007). With its money now nearly worthless, Mexico’s government was unable to repay the loans it had received and from this weakened position it began discussions with the IMF, and the World Bank, among other foreign capitalists and creditors (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007). These discussions led to the liberalizing of the Mexican economy and eventually into NAFTA legislation (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007).
The consequence of liberalization was the elimination of the subsidies that had aided many small farmers, causing mass exodus from the land and in their place came mechanized, multinational agricultural corporations (González & Fernandez, 2002). Once NAFTA was in place the manufacturing scattered around Mexico was largely dismantled with only the foreign owned Maquiladoras able to work with the new policies involved (González & Fernandez, 2002). These foreign owned export-oriented factories offered reduced wages and much less stability than the past manufacturing sector in Mexico had with its unions (González & Fernandez, 2002).
Prominent migration theorist Sassia Sasken (1990) posits that these export manufacturing zones, controlled largely by foreign corporations, act as magnets for internal migration within periphery countries. Than once these rural migrants are working in the factories they become westernized, and further migration into the core country becomes a much more viable option (Sassen, 1990). This has been the case for Mexico’s Maquiladora region as well, as it has acted as both an initial pull variable by drawing many unemployed rural migrants to their factories, but than pushed them into the US when many were unable to sustain employment (Davila & Saenz, 1990).
Though NAFTA and Maquildoras were indeed significant in their contributions to increased migration to the US for many unauthorized Mexicans, such migration has been happening for decades (Roberts, Frank, & Lozano-Ascencio, 1999). It is largely attributable to the United States’ manipulation of the Mexican economy and political sphere (Roberts, Frank, & Lozano-Ascencio, 1999). American employers had been joining forces with the US government to attract Mexican labour throughout the twentieth century with resulting immigration patterns that were highly predictable (Roberts, Frank, & Lozano-Ascencio, 1999). It was largely only in the 1980’s that the public reacted to it negatively with media and political frenzy, culminating in the restrictive policies and increased enforcement that took place during the 1990’s and onwards (Roberts, Frank, & Lozano-Ascencio, 1999).
American employers have for a long time now realized the potential of hiring undocumented immigrants. After the end of the Bracero Program in 1964, many businesses continued to search out Mexicans to work informally within their operations (Hing, 2004). With the constant threat of deportation, employers were able to reduce wages and coerce the workers to accept dangerous tasks and burdening work schedules (Hing, 2004). This hiring trend of US employers has not waned, as landscaping, construction, food processing, agriculture, and hospitality industries continue to rely on a steady stream of undocumented Mexican migrants (Whitaker, 2009). Many contempary US employers view recent immigrants as more hardworking, compliant and dependable than native born Americans, and as such unauthorized immigrants are often seen as more favourable for new hires (Karjanen, 2008). Further, because 1990’s brought with it greater liberalization of the US economy through the flexibilization of industries, firms increasingly sought out labourers to fill the many unwanted positions in the unskilled labour market by the native born population (Latapi &́ Janssen, 2006). These positions became disliked through the ever increasing precarious terms and conditions that defined them (Latapi &́ Janssen, 2006).
Mexico’s reliance on the US for trade and employment, with the U.S. becoming virtually the only serious trading partner Mexico has, has caused the US government’s policies to hold great sway over Mexico’s citizens (Whitaker, 2009). This reliance, coupled with the long history of labour opportunities in the US for Mexican migrants, legal or otherwise, has made the US both a magnet for the desperate labourers of Mexico, as well as an increasingly dangerous situation once they embark on migration through the reinforcement of their shared border areas (Whitaker, 2009). The increased militarization of borders and strengthened anti-immigration policies, beginning largely in the 1990’s, has made many undocumented migrants remain in the US for fear of being detained by authorities trying to cross the border (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007). As well, the increased costs of hiring the services now necessary to shepherd migrants across the militarized border has caused many migrants to remain in the US longer than they had planned, to recoup the increasing costs of getting into the US (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007).
Now that these migrants have made a new permanent home in the US, some are forced to encounter the dangers of border crossing when deported from various new laws enacted by states (Harris, 2010). Arizona recently passed legislation that would encourage police officers to request immigration documents from anyone who appeared to be a possible “illegal” immigrant (Harris, 2010). These harsh anti-immigration laws are making it increasingly dangerous for migrants, as they face either potential death crossing the Sonora desert, or from the drug cartels, intertwined with the coyotes, which offer their services to cross through the border zones of Arizona (Harris, 2010). The “illegals” that are caught and deported back into Mexico will often take these risks as many have established lives and have families waiting for them in the US (Harris, 2010).
While it is clear that the border and immigration policies were not effective in stopping the flow of unauthorized migrants from Mexico, they were, however, very effective in conditioning the migrants and the markets in which they sought work. These conditions have made it increasingly difficult for migrants to find common ground among those affected, in efforts to join together and have greater power through solidified numbers (Gledhill, 1998). Sassen (1990) shows that the policing of borders and accompanying policies for undocumented immigration, constructing them as criminals, is a method for states to placate the native born with the image that their jobs are safe, while providing capitalists with a steady supply of cheap, exploitable, labour.
Even for those who obtain work legally, as part of guest worker programs, their rights are suspended and they are left in a legal limbo while they remain on US soil, allowing them to be exploited through poor treatment, wages, and dangerous work environments (Arnold, 2011). Some argue that by withholding access to the legal means of defense, whether through judicial or political pathways, it will only force people to seek illegal or underground methods, leading to potentially volatile or otherwise disruptive activities, such as the Los Angeles riots in 1992 or the many protests that occur from immigration reforms (Gomez, 2003).
There is approximately just over 6 million undocumented Mexican labourers in the US, who make up approximately 25% of all agricultural employment, 17% of all home and office cleaning services, and 14% of all construction employment (Segal, 2008). Though the presence of Mexican migrants has been shown to put downward pressure on wages in the sectors they primarily work in, this phenomena seems to be largely contained, as most Americans are shown to be unaffected by this force (Wise, 2006). One study, documenting labourers in Los Angeles, found that nearly half of all Mexicans were earning less than $300 in weekly wages, with yearly median earnings dramatically less than any other immigrant group (Segal, 2008). The average wages obtained by migrants has been shown to be shrinking over the past few decades, and now averages US$7.20 per hour (Wise, 2006). These findings are consistent with other studies that show that throughout the US Mexicans as an immigrant group receive the lowest median wages of any such group (Wise, 2006).
The suppression of Mexican wages is only one of the many detriments migrants face in the US. There are now studies that point to the potential health dangers posed on second-generation immigrants, as they take on feelings ascribed them as of belonging to a lower class than other Americans (Viruell-Fuentes, 2007). These feelings are from discrimination they face as they engage more thoroughly, and at younger ages, than their parents (Viruell-Fuentes, 2007). The study also contends that because first generation immigrants faced discrimination as adults, they were able to better cope with it than their children (Viruell-Fuentes, 2007). With time, these psychological stresses will have a negative effect on their health from the cumulative process of “othering” through the stigmatizing racial positions they are cast under (Viruell-Fuentes, 2007).
Recent findings show that undocumented migration from Mexico into the US has come to a near halt (Cave, 2011). This is attributed to a few factors. To begin with, the overall group of possible migrants has been greatly reduced as the birth rate of Mexican women has dropped dramatically through the adoption of birth control (Cave, 2011). The increasing dangers involved in crossing the border, with the high costs and entanglement with drug cartels has also had an effect (Cave, 2011). However, it is the increased educational and employment opportunities that are suspected of playing a large part in the decreased migration pattern (Cave, 2011). The greater expansion of legal migration to the US, as well as higher acceptance rates from visa applicants is also helping to curb the need for undocumented migration (Cave, 2011).
There are others, however, who point to a potential danger with migration that is actually happening in the opposite direction – from the US to Mexico (Cave, 2012). From 2005 to 2010, 1.4 million Mexicans migrated back to home country, 300,000 of which were American born children (Cave, 2012). The worry is that as the majority of these children say they plan on returning to the US when they reach adulthood (Cave, 2012). This is cited as a potential dilemma as schools in Mexico are said to be unprepared to handle the influx of American children into the Mexican school system (Cave, 2012). This poses a possible disadvantage for the children once they become adults and reenter the U.S. as legal citizens, as they will likely be imbued with reduced skill levels compared with that of other Americans, and will also likely encounter social problems from their cultural switch as children (Cave, 2012). The integration of these American children into Mexican culture is reported as being further exacerbated, as many are prejudiced against by both other Mexicans as well as a school system known to make the switch difficult (Cave, 2012).
Conclusion
The US government has been instrumental, whether intentional or not, in orchestrating both the push and pull of Mexican migration with its policies and their application. NAFTA was the force that pushed Mexican migrants from their home, while the subsequent immigration policies and their various forms of implementation ensured that the migrants were kept in a state of helplessness once they were pulled into the US. These policies have time and again benefitted US businesses at the expense of exploited Mexicans, who have had little option but to seek out better livelihoods in a new country that, once reached, continues its control over them, keeping them vulnerable and divided, so as to sustain their population as an ever cheaper and submissive pool of labour. The Mexican immigrants have faced suppressed wages and poor working conditions because of the immigration policies set forth by the US government, and have been created and kept as a stigmatized racial group by the native born society in which they now find themselves, which has caused tremendous psychological strain, especially for their children who, despite being legalized through their birth, potentially bare the greatest burden. Many migrants have also faced, and continue to face, great physical risk, as their border crossing has been made extremely dangerous because of US implementations. Despite recent studies showing this migration has stopped, their clearly still remains a large population of unauthorized Mexican immigrants who continue to face exploitation and harassment because of US policies and their enforcement.
References
Arnold, K. (2011). Economic prerogative and its political consequences: The migrant labor and border industrial regimes. Constellations, 18 (3), 455-473. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8675.2011.00645.x
Cave, D. (2011, July 6). Better Lives for Mexicans Cut Allure of Going North. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html?hp
Cave, D. (2012, June 18). American Children, Now Struggling to Adjust to Life in Mexico. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/world/americas/american-born-children-struggle-to-adjust-in-mexico.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
Davila, A., & Saenz, R. (1990). The effect of Maquiladora employment on the monthly flow of Mexican undocumented immigration to the U.S., 1978-1982. International Migration Review, 24 (1), 96-107.
Fernández-Kelly, P., & Massey, D. S. (2007). Borders for whom? the role of NAFTA in Mexico-U.S. migration. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610 (1), 98-118.
Gledhill, J. (1998). The mexican contribution to restructuring US capitalism. Critique of Anthropology, 18 (3), 279-296. doi:10.1177/0308275X9801800304
Gomez, A. (2003). Politics without borders or postmodern nationality. Latin American Perspectives, 30 (2), 274-294.
González, G. G., & Fernandez, R. (2002). Empire and the origins of twentieth-century migration from Mexico to the united states. Pacific Historical Review, 71 (1), 19-57.
Harris, P. (2010, May 2nd). Mexico's migrants gaze north – and no 'racist' law will stop them. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/02/immigration-border-illegal-racism
Hing, B. (2004). Defining America through immigration policy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2004.
Karjanen, D. (2008). Gender, race, and nationality in the making of Mexican migrant labor in the United States. Latin American Perspectives, 35 (1), 51-63. doi:10.1177/0094582X07310957
Latapi, A., &́ Janssen, E. (2006). Migration, the diaspora and development: The case of Mexico. International Institute for Labour Studies, Discussion paper 167.
Roberts, B. R., Frank, R., & Lozano-Ascencio, F. (1999). Transnational migrant communities and Mexican migration to the US. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 22 (2), 238-266.
Sassen, S (1990). “The Use of Foreign Workers” in The Mobility of Labor and Capital: A Study in International Investment and Labour Flow, pp. 12-54. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Segal, U. A. (2008). Mexican migration to the United States: A focus on Missouri. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 6 (3), 451-462. doi:10.1080/15362940802371937
Viruell-Fuentes, E. A. (2007). Beyond acculturation: Immigration, discrimination, and health research among Mexicans in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 65 (7), 1524-1535.
Whitaker, J. (2009). Mexican Deaths in the Arizona Desert: The Culpability of Migrants, Humanitarian Workers, Governments, and Businesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 88 (2), 365-376.
Wise, R. (2006). Migration and imperialism. Latin American Perspectives, 33 (2), 33-45. doi:10.1177/0094582X05286083
No comments:
Post a Comment