How Do We Solve Our Problems?  Addressing the Root Causes of Undocumented Immigration Along the U.S./Mexican Border

Abstract:  Following the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, several factors in the United States have led to increased Mexican undocumented immigration. I apply a “push and pull” comparative analysis to examine the United States’ role in driving Mexican people from their land while simultaneously creating incentives to lure them into the United States.  Past scholarship has primarily addressed the Mexican domestic factors that contribute to immigration.  My research examines the U.S. policies that contribute to Mexican immigration during two key periods: the years preceding NAFTA (1986-1994) and the years following NAFTA (1995-2004).  I propose that both NAFTA’s free trade policies along with the U.S. demand for cheap labor have displaced millions of Mexican workers, leaving them little choice but to find work farther North. 

“The catalyst for much of today’s unauthorized Mexican migration for United States employment lies in the United States”

- Mexico/U.S. Binational Migration Study Report

Introduction –The US/Mexican Borderland

The border between the United States and Mexico is the only place in the world where a developed post-industrial country meets a developing country.  (Bandy 200, 900)  In order to understand this unique relationship it is important to address the historical background of migration and economic relations between Mexico and the United States.  After World War II the U.S. and Mexican governments designed the “Brocero Program”, which began in 1942 and lasted until 1964.  The program allowed Mexican workers to legally enter the United States in order to satisfy the U.S. demand for cheap agricultural labor.  Although millions were deported after the Brocero Program ended, the networking foundation was set in place to facilitate the movement for future undocumented immigrants. 

In 1965 the Mexican government created the Program for the Industrialization of the Border (PIF, Programa de Industrializacion Fronteriza) to increase employment.  This program gave birth to the maquiladora (U.S. exporting company).  The Mexican government designated free trade zones along the border where foreign businesses could enjoy full land ownership with exemption from tariffs and taxes.  “The United States supported the industrialization on the Mexican side of the border on the grounds that it would help reduce illegal immigration by providing employment within Mexico.” (Andreas 1994, 232)  Data will show that regardless of increased border industrialization, illegal immigration has steadily increased over the past 30 years.  The industrialization did, however, stimulate movement from southern and central Mexico to the border.  (Andreas 1994, 233)  The Program for the Industrialization of the Border marked the beginning of a lasting cooperative relationship between the U.S. and Mexican economies.    

Seasonal migration continued through the 1970’s and 1980’s during a time when the Mexican economy took a turn for the worst.  Dr. Ian Vasquez, the director for Global Economic Liberty at the CATO institute, says that Mexico’s economic problems were caused by public indebtedness and increased state activity in economic affairs.  (Vasquez 1997, 270)  The oil decline during the 1970’s and 80’s also played a large role.  Mexico had become so dependant on its state-owned oil revenues that when international oil prices fell, the economy also fell.  (Sanchez-Reaza and others 2002, 77)  In 1976, due to the threat of bankruptcy and economic crisis, Mexico received its first loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). 

The IMF’s theory is to provide poor countries with temporary loans in order to ease their transition into the global market economy.  The IMF lends money on the condition that recipient governments undertake certain structural adjustments in order to improve the nation’s economy.  This policy of economic manipulation has helped turn poor countries into loan addicts.  (Vasquez 1997, 269) Over a period of twenty years, the IMF lent money to Mexico on four separate occasions.  During 1976 the IMF along with the U.S. lent Mexico $1.2 billion.  During the 1982 peso crisis the IMF lent Mexico $1.8 billion.  In 1988 the IMF increased its lending to $3.5 billion and finally, the 1994 peso devaluation brought promises of $20 billion from the U.S. and $17.8 billion from the IMF.  (Vasquez 1997, 272)  Given all the attempts to “save” the Mexican economy over the past twenty years, in 1998 the peso was worth only 31% of what it was worth in 1980.  (Canales 2003, 743) 

The large debt loans forced Mexico’s government to implement structural adjustment programs.  The most devastating IMF structural adjustment program to Mexico was the “privatization” of Mexican business.  The idea of privatization was to reduce Mexico’s state-owned enterprises in order to encourage foreign investment.  Reducing the role of the state in the economy reduces the state’s ability to withstand market forces.  (Andreas 1998/99, 602)  Privatization resulted in the vast majority of Mexican farmers no longer having the land on which to continue supporting their families.  The small percentage of wealthy businessmen bought up nearly all the newly available property in order to sell it to large agro-businesses.  The large technologically advanced agro-businesses then industrialized Mexico’s farmland.  As the Mexican poor became poorer, economic polarization grew between the United States and Mexico.  Migration became a decision for many.  “The single most dramatic stimulus to emigration is the liberalization of agriculture”.  (Andreas 1994, 233) 

In 1986, the U.S. responded to increasing illegal immigration by implementing the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).  The IRCA did three things: 1. Imposed sanctions on employers of undocumented immigrants; 2. Granted amnesty to over 2.7 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S.;  3. Increased militarization along the border.  (Eschbach and others 2003)  The IRCA initiated a large scale governmental effort to stop illegal immigration.  This effort would continue through the 1990’s with operations “Hold the Line”, “Safe Guard”, “Gatekeeper”, and “Rio Grande”, all aimed at deterring undocumented immigrants from crossing into the United States.  The first of the aforementioned operations begin in late 1993.

On January 1, 1994 Mexico, the U.S. and Canada signed onto the North American Free Trade Agreement. One of the stipulations of NAFTA was that Mexico had to abolish its pattern of co-operative farming guaranteed by Article 27 of their 1917 constitution.  The increased “privatization” of Mexican business, promoted by NAFTA, will be a primary focus of this paper.  I propose that both NAFTA’s free trade policies along with the U.S. demand for cheap labor have led to increased undocumented immigration from Mexico to the United States.

Literature Review:  Undocumented Immigration

Past scholarship on undocumented immigration has directed most of its attention to the economics of immigration (Binford 2003; Guarnizo 2003; Zimmerman 1995; and Robertson 2004), undocumented settlement patterns (Bernabe 2004; Fussell 2004; and Ludger 2004), the effect of the U.S. Border Patrol on undocumented immigration (Andreas 1998/99; Cornelius 2001; Davila and others 2002; Eschbach and others 2003; Escobar and others 2003; Eschbach and others 1999; Hanson and others 1999; and McC Heyman 1999) and the causes of undocumented immigration (Andreas 1994; Canales 2003; Orrenius 2001; Weintraub 2004; Orrenius and Zavodny 2003; and Marcelli and Cornelius 2001).  Past scholarship has centered around the aforementioned topics with a bulk of the research written on the Border Patrol. 

Scholars have disagreed dramatically about the nature and magnitude of the economic impact of the undocumented workers inside the U.S., some finding no impact on the US economy, others a positive impact. (See for example Binford 2003; Hanson and others, 2002).   Less obvious, however, are effects on the Mexican economy when migrants attempting to cross are trapped at the border due to U.S. Border policies.  This influx in population floods the local labor market and drives wages down.  (Orrenius 2003)  Some studies suggest that the large population build up in the northern areas of Mexico have contributed to the mass number of undocumented immigrants entering the United States.  The National Bureau of Economic Research found that increased Border Patrol had a negative impact on wages for males living along the border inside Mexico.  (Hanson and others 1999, 25)

The focus of more recent scholarship has been aimed at migrant settlement patterns.  Aguilera’s study on undocumented retirement patterns, Fussell’s study on the importance of migration flow sources and Ludger’s study on migration patterns between the U.S. and Mexico were all published in 2004.   The conversations around settlement patterns utilize the assimilation theory that regards, “The way immigrants integrate into the cultural, social, and economic systems in the United States.” (Aguilera 2004, 340)

Contemporary scholarship has also paid much attention to the United States’ failed border policy to deter illegal immigrants.  Research by the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University concludes that in order to reform US policy the government must promote a secure and efficient border, enhance Mexican government efforts to reduce the cost of remitting money to Mexico, and create pilot guest worker programs that allow currently employed unauthorized Mexican workers to obtain legal work permits. 

Overall, scholars agree that the U.S. Border Patrol has had four main effects on undocumented immigration: 1. It has changed migration patterns from crossing at traditionally large urban areas to now crossing at remote and desolate mountainous regions, 2. Increased the financial cost of illegally crossing, which has fueled a lucrative business among the people smugglers or “coyotes”, 3. Caused migrants to remain inside the United States longer, and 4. Increased the number of migrant deaths in the desert.  (Andreas 1998/99; Conrelius 2001; Davila and others 2002; Eschbach and others 2003; Escobar and others 2003; Eschbach and others 1999; and McC Heyman 1999)  Escobar and others propose the question, why is the United States government continuing to fund a program that has proven to fail?  Andreas and McC Heyman suggest that U.S. militarization at the border has less to do with actual deterrence and more to do with managing the image of a protected frontier.  Historically the states’ primary function has been to police its territory and its people.

 Furthermore research shows that the failed Border Patrol policy has resulted in thousands of migrant deaths.  Scholars argue that “Stricter border enforcement has contributed to record number of migrant deaths along the US-Mexico border”. (Cornelius 2001; Eschbach and others 1999) “The most convincing evidence that concentrated border enforcement is largely responsible for the rise in migrant mortality is the change in causes of death among unauthorized border-crossers than can be observed since 1994 (Cornelius 2001, 670)”.   Both Cornelius (2001) and Eschbach et al. (1999) point to the rise in migrant deaths due to hypothermia and dehydration since the inception of Border Patrol.  It is well understood that the U.S. Border Patrol policies are directly correlated with the geographical patterns of illegal immigration.

The political, economic, and humanitarian importance of undocumented immigration at the border and inside the U.S. has led research to address the fundamental root causes of the problem.  Contemporary scholarship explores several factors that explain the phenomenon of increased undocumented immigration into the United States.  These factors can basically be understood by distinguishing between push and pull dynamics, that being, those forces that pull migrants towards the United States and those that push migrants from Mexico.  Push factors include free trade policies (Andreas 1994; Canales 2003; and Orrenius 2001), and the Mexican economy (Weintraub 2004 and Canales 2003).  Pull factors include U.S. laws (Adreas 1998/99; Andreas 1994; Cornelius 2001; and Orrenius 2001), migrant networks (Orrenius 2001; Guarnizo 2003; and Binford 2003), coyote smugglers (Orrenius 2001 and Andreas 1998/99), and the amnesty program of 1986 (Orrenius and Zavodny 2003)

The 1994 NAFTA agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States drastically changed the immigration patterns and border policies of the past.  “As millions of people are uprooted by the increasing integration of the global economy, pressure has mounted on governments to impose more restrictive immigration controls (1994, Andreas).” Research shows that neo-liberal trade policy within Mexico has led to greater job insecurity, a reduction in the number of jobs, and a decrease in wages.  (Canales 2003, 756)  Canales describes Mexico’s entry into the age of globalization by focusing on labor flexibility and contractual deregulation.  He notes that throughout the entire 1990’s a third of the working population within Mexico earned less than the minimum wage established by law.  Due to the economic integration created by NAFTA, the U.S. and Canadian trade policies directly influence wages inside Mexico.  “The pattern of income inequity and insecurity for more than twenty years has made migration a real alternative for many (Canales 2003, 744).”  Since the shift from traditional ejidos (cooperative government owned farms) to privatized farm lands, the competition among the international business community has growth fierce.  In regards to US brokers, Glenhill claims that, “They can now get better quality with highly competitive pricing and, as the case of tomatoes illustrates, find the Mexican growers willing to compromise to avoid being shut out of the market altogether.  Established branches of export agriculture in states like Michoacan have already declined in the face of the emergence of new production zones in states like Guerrero to the south.” (Glenhill 1998, 286)

Andreas attributes the underlying causes of undocumented immigration to the demand for cheap labor inside the U.S. and the capitalistic impact of big business on livelihood within Mexico.  “The single most dramatic stimulus to emigration is the liberalization of agriculture.” (Andreas 1994, 3)   The history of Mexico illustrates the population’s dependence on the land to grow crops.  Cheaper U.S. agriculture has flooded the Mexican market leading towards millions of displaced small- scale farmers.  Andreas views the effects of NAFTA in two parts: 1. The high competition of U.S. and Canadian exports entering Mexico and 2. The influx of U.S. and Canadian owned industries.  The low wages supplied by U.S. owned factories inside Mexico have both sustained poverty and led to workers seeking higher wages in the United States. 

Aside from NAFTA, another push factor that scholars point towards is the Mexican economy.  In his study on the current progress of NAFTA Weintraub reasons that economic recession and joblessness within Mexico can be attributed to government mismanagement and internal political conflict.  “Trade agreements can influence the kinds of jobs that are created, and thus the salaries received, but have little effect on net job loss or creation (Weintraub 2004, 3)”.  Using the Stolper-Samuelson theorem in Robertson’s study on the relative prices inside Mexico in comparison with relative wages, he finds that in fact there is a direct correlation.  Post NAFTA, the prices of goods decreased in the Mexican economy while simultaneously the low-skilled wages followed the same pattern.  Trade agreements between the U.S. and Mexico have a direct effect on the prices and goods flowing between both countries.  Therefore, Robertson challenges Weintraub’s claim that trade agreements do not affect job loss.  A study on Mexican labor in the neo-liberalization era following 1994 exposed a trend showing the increase in wage polarization within Mexico.  The population earning less than minimum wage consistently increased from 1990 through 1997.

Moving into the pull factors we see that many scholars credit U.S. law policies for the growing influx of undocumented immigrants.  One of the first attempts by the U.S. government to regulate movement across the border was called the Brocero Program, which operated from 1942-1964.  The program was designed to match up the U.S. agribusinesses that needed cheap labor with the large Mexico population in need of occupation.  The Brocero program provided 4.5 million individual contracts for temporary employment during its existence.  Andreas examines the Brocero Program pointing out that more migrants from Mexico immigrated during this time than the government had expected.  After the program ended thousands stayed illegally, while many stayed permanently.  “Far from containing migration, the Bracero program helped to entrench it and encourage a symbiotic relationship between migrants and employers (Andreas 1994, 4)”.  Binford (2003), Guarnizo (2003), Bernadbe (2004) and Orrenius (2001) suggest that long term residency of Mexicans inside the United States has led to an intricate web of networks encouraging migration to increase dramatically.  

Scholars agree that migrant networks of family and friends are the most common way in which needed instructions for the process of immigration reaches the potential migrant. (Orrenius 2001, 6)  “The Brocero Program laid the foundation for mass illegal immigration partly through the creation of networks and the dissemination of information pertinent to Mexico-U.S. migration and employment in U.S. labor markets (Orrenius 2001, 6)”.  Furthermore, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) also increased the opportunities for future potential migrants.  Research assessment shows that the impact of IRCA had a reverse effect in its attempt to deter undocumented immigration.  The primary purpose of IRCA was to prevent future undocumented immigration through three main tactics: 1. Granting amnesty to the current undocumented population inside the U.S., 2. Increasing enforcement along the border and 3. Increasing enforcement sanctions on employers of undocumented immigrants.  The program succeeded in granting legal status to nearly 2.7 million undocumented immigrants.  (Eschbach and others 2003) “Almost two decades later, it is clear that IRCA has failed in its primary goal: there are at least eight million undocumented immigrants present in the U.S., most of them working (Passel, Capps, and Fix 2004).  Orrenius and Zavodny conclude in their study of the IRCA that if anything, IRCA reduced the number of undocumented migrants in the short run.  In the long run, IRCA failed to discourage undocumented immigration and in fact had two reverse affects.  The program helped create a stronger migrant network between Mexico and the U.S. while at the same time it discouraged undocumented migrants from returning home.  IRCA also transformed traditional circular migration patterns by militarizing the border area. 

It is important to recognize the methods used by scholars to support the aforementioned data.  In their study on migrant remittances Durand and others sent questionnaires into southern Mexican homes.  In a study on labor migration and the income levels of migrants, Canales used the “Anuario Estadistico de Mexico”, the US Bureau of the Census, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  The two U.S. databases provided statistical information on the ethnic origin and migratory status of the individuals consulted and their socio-demographic character.  The research also includes information on occupation, conditions of employment and other social-labor variables. 

Regarding death count on undocumented immigration Cornelius relied on data from the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Mexican Ministry of Foreign Relations, and Vital Statistics Registries in US Border Counties to support his theory.  It is interesting to note that for Arizona and Texas, there are no migrant death statistics before 1996.  The number of Border Patrol apprehensions helped Cornelius to link trends of migration patterns over the past years.  Here we see the ambiguity of data collected on undocumented immigration, which reflects the nature of their identity.  In reference to statistics on Border Patrol apprehensions a decline in numbers suggests one of two things; either the Border Patrol is deterring more migrants from entering the US or more migrants are slipping through undetected.  As Andreas points out, “Almost every indicator that administration officials point to as a sign of success can also be read as a sign of failure, and almost every indicator that points to failure is either downplayed or interpreted by administration officials as a sign of success.”  (Andreas 1998/99, 596)  Eschbach and others who also did a study on deaths at the border point out the problematic nature of undocumented statistics.  “Information about undocumented migration is scant and uncertain and must be inferred from data sources designed for other purposes.  Migration status is not recorded on death certificates, nor is it systematically noted by officials responsible for the disposition of bodies of deceases migrants.” (Eschbach and others 1999, 432) 

Contemporary scholarship has neglected the use of in-depth interviews to form data on undocumented migrants.  My research will fill this gap through stories told by several migrants coming from predominately the southern most state of Chiapas.  I argue that personal interview data more accurately reflects the experience of migrants in comparison with questionnaires because the majority of the poor indigenous Mexicans cannot read or write.  It is also well understood that inside Mexico many people do not trust the government.  Thus, there is a weakness in research that relies on data taken by government agencies. 

Operationalization of Variables

This study’s formal research question is, After the implementation of NAFTA what factors in the U.S. have led to increased Mexican illegal immigration?  The dependant variable being analyzed in this study is undocumented immigration.  The terms “undocumented migrant”, “illegal immigrant”, and “unauthorized immigrant” will be used synonymously in this paper.  The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) defines unauthorized immigrants as, “foreign-born persons who entered without inspection or who violated the terms of a temporary admission and who have not acquired LPR (lawful permanent residence) or gained temporary protection against removal by applying for an immigration benefit.”  A 2001 INS report will provide data on the annual number of undocumented migrants who entered the U.S. between 1990 and 2004. 

This study explores two independent variables: 1.Economic demands (pull factor); 2. U.S. exports (push factor).  The economic demands will be measured in three parts: (1) Increase in U.S. wages; (2) U.S. policy towards immigrants; (3) Enforcement on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.  Data for the fluctuation in U.S. wages between the years 1993 and 2000 will be provided by the U.S. Department of Labor.  The U.S. policy towards immigrants will be measured by the 1986 Amnesty that granted legal citizenship to nearly 2.7 million undocumented immigrants. (Orrenius and Zavodny 2003, 437)  Employer Sanctions will be measured by using data collected by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.  Employer sanctions refer to the government law restricting U.S. employers from hiring undocumented immigrants. 

The U.S. exports will be measured in two ways: (1) U.S. exports provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; (2) In-depth interviews with migrants.  Data on U.S. exports will be provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  I will specifically focus on the U.S. corn industry.  U.S. corn had the largest impact on the Mexican economy by displacing millions of Mexican farmers.  Ethnographic research will provide translated in-depth migrant interviews.  During the period between February and May 2004 I systematically researched the culture of undocumented migrants along the border in Altar, Sonora.  During that time I spent approximately 20 hours in migrant shelters with both migrants who were about to cross illegally, and migrants who were deported from the United States.  A series of questions were asked on film to 15 participants.  The information collected from the interviews will serve to illustrate Mexico’s job loss due to privatization.  Five basic questions were asked during each interview:

1.         ¿De donde viene y porque salio su casa?

             (Where do you come from and why did you leave home?)  

2.         .¿Qué son sus intenciones para cruzar la frontera?

             (What are your intentions once crossing the border?) 

3.         ¿Que es su meta al llegar y trabajar en otro lado y como va a buscar                                     trabajo?

            (What is your goal upon arriving in the United Status and how are you                                going to find work?) 

4.                  ¿Que piensa ud. sobre el desierto y el camino?

            (What do you think about the desert and the journey?) 

5.                  ¿Si pudiera compartir un mensaje con gente que no sabe la vida migrante, que seria el mensaje?

            (If you could share a message with the people that do not know the   migrant life, what would that message be?)

            This study explores one hypothesis: Both the U.S. free trade policies and the U.S. demand for cheap labor have increased the number of Mexican undocumented immigrants.

   * U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

    *According to a 2002 study done by the Migration Policy Institute, the number of undocumented immigrants inside the U.S. was between 8 and 9 million. This number was increasing by about 500,000 people per year. 

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

and Undocumented Immigration

During the time period between 1986 and 2004 the number of undocumented immigrants crossing into the United States continually increased.  The U.S. policies to stop the massive migration failed (Andreas 1998/99, Davila etc. 2002, Eschbach etc. 2003, Hanson etc. 1999), yet the government continued to follow the same immigration policy.  The government failed because they did not focus any attention to the underlying forces that drive immigration.  The primary reason for Mexican immigration is economic disparity.  It seems logical then, to look at what is steering the economic wheel in Mexico.  The answer is NAFTA.  Overall, the primary goal of NAFTA was to integrate the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian economies by creating a single open market.  NAFTA’s first objective, written in Article 102, was to “eliminate barriers to trade in, and facilitate the cross border movement of, goods and services between the territories of the Parties.”  Under NAFTA’s preamble it reads to “Promote conditions of fair competition in the free trade areas”.  A 2003 report by the Carnegie Endowment found that from 1994 to 2003 Mexico’s agriculture sector lost 1.3 million jobs.  The fundamental issue of NAFTA’s failure is the widening gap between decreasing labor productivity in Mexico and increasing productivity in the United States.  In other words, jobs were being lost in Mexico, while illegal jobs were being created in the United States.  Furthermore, trade liberalization supported by NAFTA inevitably contributes to greater economic polarization between the rich and the poor.  The rural farmers who could not compete in the new open market were left little choice but to pick up stakes and move.  “The failure of NAFTA to fulfill its promise of widespread Mexican prosperity has also meant continued illegal immigration into the United States, of both unskilled and skilled workers.” (Stracke 2003, 29)

U.S. Demand for Cheap Labor ( Pull Factor )

“Higher wages increase the incentive to hire illegal migrants….”  (Entorf 2004, 10) 

  * U.S. Department of Agriculture Statistics. Table 10

Increasing Wages -    Today, many employers are adjusting to high minimum wage standards and global competition by hiring undocumented immigrants.  As minimum wage prices increase (as shown above) the demand for cheaper labor and undocumented labor also increases.  The case of Wal-Mart embodies the adjustment to high minimum wage standards that many other large U.S. businesses are following.  Wal-Mart’s Chief Financial Officer Milt Shipman described his survival strategy for competing in the free market when he said, “We’re rolling back employee’s wages to pass the savings on to you, America’s undereducated lower class”.  ( CNN News website 2003 ) Wal-Mart is currently the world's largest retailer and the largest private employer in the United States ( 1.1 million domestic employees and about 3,500 stores –walmart.com ).  On October 23, 2003, 250 illegal immigrants were arrested in 60 different Wal-Mart stores.  Nine of the undocumented workers sued Wal-Mart for discrimination.  They said they were paid lower wages and offered fewer benefits because they were Mexican.  ( CNN News website 2003 )  The Wal-Mart case helps to explain why a big-business seeks to hire undocumented immigrants.  Wal-Mart is able to offer the lowest and most competitive market prices in part because they use the cheapest labor.  Because no job protection exists the undocumented workers are easily exposable and easily exploitable.  Business owners are able to hire and fire undocumented workers in correspondence with current market demand.  Although most undocumented workers in the U.S. are exploited, the U.S. employers who are currently providing jobs to millions of undocumented immigrants are sending a message of acceptance.  The message is, if you want to work in the United States it will be for below minimum wage, with little to no benefits, under hard working conditions, but if you show up, we’re happy to employ you. 

U.S. Policy Towards Immigrants -   The 1986 IRCA granted amnesty to over 2.7 million undocumented immigrants. (Eschbach and others 2003)  Those who opposed the IRCA argued that a massive amnesty would only encourage future undocumented immigrants by increasing networks and setting a precedent for legalization.  (Orrenius 2003, 438)  The IRCA legalization program demonstrated the U.S.’ desire to keep cheap Mexican labor inside the United States.  In 2004 President Bush announced a guest-worker program that would give legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States.  Shortly after this announcement the number of apprehended illegal immigrants crossing the border dramatically increased.  The National Border Patrol Council said that, “the majority of immigrants detained along the border in the weeks following the president’s announcement told arresting agents they had come seeking amnesty”.  (Hispanic Pub. 2004, 12)  This evidence illustrates the U.S.’ message to all future undocumented migrants that, if you can make into the United States there is a good chance to become legal. 

            The former mayor of Altar, Sonora, a notorious border crossing town, said, “Migrants come here thinking that if they reach the United States, they have a good chance of becoming legal.  Each time President Bush speaks about amnesties the people hear it.  If migrants see a small chance to become a legal U.S. citizen, they will risk it.”    (Garcia 2004)

Employer Sanctions -   Employer sanctions have been statistically non-existent since their creation in 1986.  One of IRCA’s stipulations was an I-9 screening process for the detection of illegal documents.  (Federation for Immigration Reform)  An employer was required to obtain a name, date of birth, and social security number from every employee.  This way, the government would be able to trace any false identification.  Due to the nature of supply and demand economics, the black market had a boom in the “false document making” business.  Migrants simply bought fake documents to circumvent the INS restrictions.  To complement the creation of the fake document business the IRCA also protected the rights of employers if caught hiring illegal immigrants.  Employers would not be held accountable if the illegal aliens used false documents to complete the I-9 screening process.  (Federation for Immigration Reform)  A 1999 INS investigation named “Operation Vanguard” was criticized because the INS did not carry out any raids on the suspected illegal activity of meatpacking companies in Nebraska and Iowa.  An INS official explained, “We don’t want to have a negative impact on the production capabilities of these companies.” (Cornelius 2001, 678) 

            In 1994 the INS further degraded its employer sanctions when it created the “Phoenix Plan”.  Under the “Phoenix Plan” the INS, after reviewing the I-9 files, was required to inform employers they appeared to have illegal aliens on the payroll.  Instead of the INS apprehending the illegal aliens and deporting them from the country, the employers had the opportunity to fire them first.  (Federation for American Immigration Reform)  The illegal aliens were left to find new jobs, using the same documents.  The INS promoted this method of work site enforcement because of its cost efficiency.  The idea was that employers could better cope with the forced separation of numerous employees after being fired.  (Federation for American Immigration Reform)  In theory, the illegal aliens would then go home. “Some employers have publicly complained that their former illegal alien employees have gone to work for their competitors.” (Federation for Immigration Reform)  From 1986 to 1994 less than .5 per cent of U.S. workplaces were inspected.  (Andreas 1994, 5)  As one senior immigration official remarked: “There are 7.2 million employers out there.   In their lifetime, they’re never going to see an immigration officer unless they stand up and scream that they’ve got a factory full of illegal aliens.”  (Andreas 1994, 5) 

It is understood that by legalizing undocumented immigrants the government is expressing a strong desire for their work.  It is also understood that lax government enforcement on employers leads to a higher incentive for those employers to hire undocumented workers.  The aforementioned governmental incentives illustrate a “pull” of migrants towards the United States.  If the government is rewarding the illegal migrants for being in the United States by massive legalization programs, and the employers of undocumented workers are not being punished, there becomes a greater demand for cheaper labor.  A California congressman quoted “We will catch a few (illegal immigrants), round them up, and send them back, but not too many, because then who will do the work?” (Andreas 1994, 234)

U.S. Exports (Push Factor)

Luis Tellez, the former undersecretary for planning in Mexico’s Ministry of Agriculture and Hydraulic Resources, has estimated that one million peasants are likely to leave the land every year, and that as much as fifteen million peasants will leave agriculture in the next decade or two.  (Andreas 1998/99, 603)  The nature of capitalism is that there are winners and there are losers.  Following NAFTA, almost all U.S. exports in food, farmland equipment, and manufactured goods increased.  (U.S. Department of Agriculture)  The U.S. agribusinesses gained while others lost. 

  * U.S. Department of Agriculture

Corn Exports -   U.S. corn provides a good example of how free trade affects rural farmers.  By analyzing the above graph we see that corn exports from the U.S. to Mexico grew dramatically following 1994.  Since 1994 the Mexican price of corn has fallen by half.  The cheap U.S. corn flooded the Mexican economy causing over one million jobs lost.  (Carnegie Endowment 2003)  Instead of Mexican farmers growing crops to feed their families, they grow crops for U.S. agro-businesses to ship back into the United States.  Under NAFTA this all makes sense. 

Corn is just one example of the new capitalistic method of agro-business that is shifting the traditional Mexican farming methods.  (Aguilerap, 2004)  “Changes brought by modernization are uprooting peasants from their lands.  Simultaneously, peasants are losing the possibility of supporting themselves with their own production as traditional crops are replaced by more profitable ones.” (Cabello 2003, 131)  The United States businesses use sophisticated technologies for food processing and packaging, knowledge of food trade and economics, access to information technology, and little governmental intervention to out compete Mexican businesses.  (Chavez 2002, 504)

Tomatoes and sugar are two other sectors of the Mexican agricultural sector that have taken a big hit.  “…U.S. brokers are finding it very easy to spur competition between producers in different regions of Mexico.  They can now get better quality with highly competitive pricing and, as the case of tomatoes illustrates, find the Mexican growers willing to compromise to avoid being shut out of the market altogether.”  In the new global economy traditional sugar growers are being forced to leave their lands.  “Young men in increasing numbers have been going to the United States in search of a better life.” (Antonio and Rich 2003, 104)

In-Depth Interviews -   In the small town of Altar, Sonora, located approximately 1 hour from the United States, dozens of old beat-up vans leave and return every couple of hours.  14 passenger vans, carrying anywhere from 15 to 20 migrants, drive far out into the desert area where only a cattle fence divides Mexico from the United States.  Here thousands of migrants are dropped off as they continue the perilous journey into the Arizonan desert.  Jose Garcia, a government worker for Grupa Beta (an agency designed to provide aid for suffering migrants), said that 1,000 to 1,500 migrants pass from Altar to the border every day.  (Garcia 2004)  Altar is notorious in Mexico for migrants seeking to enter the United States.  Street venders selling U.S. clothing, coyotes, banks, and hostels, line the streets ready for the continuous arrival of migrants from the South.   

            Data collected by a Catholic Church migrant shelter in Altar, CCAMYN, showed that over 90% of the migrants who stayed there during the past year came from Chiapas.  Ramon Aguilar, a farm worker from Chiapas said, “I feel that America has to open up its borders a little.  Not only in terms of exports, but also for work.  If they asked for a free trade agreement, a NAFTA, like you call it, then they should have also included a chapter for work, but no.  There’s no interest on this side, much less on the other side.  There’s no desire from the Mexican government, much less on the part of the United States government.”  He went on to say, “And then there is the corn.  My friends were awaiting the communal warehouses to open.  They waited and waited until they found that the warehouses closed down.  The American corn closed them down… there’s people that have left the coffee plantations for good, because they can’t maintain the crop, they can’t pay to grow it in the shade, they can’t pay the labor needed to cultivate the whole productive process.  It’s the same with cattle.  Our home is becoming a wasteland.  All those areas are becoming complete deserts.  It is an expulsion of manual labor.  And believe me, sincerely believe me, I never thought I’d be like one of my fellow workers that would be thrown off his own land.  Unfortunately, necessity and the circumstances push us.  But we accept it as the crude reality, totally impersonal.  The only thing I ask for is one opportunity.  Just one opportunity to raise the standard of living for my family.”  (Aguilar 2004)

            12 interviewees came from Chiapas, 2 from Veracruz, and 1 from Oaxaca.  All 15 left home because there were no job opportunities.  They all left families behind.  They all were crossing with the intentions of working one or two years and then returning home. Ricardo Gonzalez, from Chiapas, said, “The economy is very bad.  There are no jobs down there.  If there were jobs, I would stay.  But we have to do what we can for our families to survive.”  (Gonzalez 2004)  Another migrant from Chiapas, David de la Cruz Gomez, said, “We are not going to rob any “gringos” or take away their jobs, simply we are going to do our best to make it.  We are only coming temporarily.  We are going for one or two years, because we have family back in Mexico –grand father, father, mother- and as she just said, they and the rest of the people in the south of Chiapas are very poor people. So one comes to help out his family back home.”  (Gomez 2004) David was crossing with his wife and 6 year old son. 

            Pancho Garcia, former mayor of Altar said that, “Migrants are forced to come here.  They don’t want that life, but their given it.  Farmer after farmer will continue to come here until something changes down there, not around here.” 

Conclusion

            Undocumented immigration from Mexico to the United States is the result of economic polarity between a rich country and a poor country.  How does such a large economic difference exist between two countries that have collaborated in a trade agreement to promote fair competition and open market?  Data shows that trade policies have in fact exacerbated the migration problem, and led to thousands of deaths along the U.S./Mexican border.  Data also shows that U.S. businessmen are more then willing to accept cheap Mexican labor and the government promotes this by granting amnesty programs.  The focus on illegal immigration as a law enforcement problem takes attention away from the fact that, Mexico depends on illegal immigration to help its unemployment problem, while the U.S. depends on illegal immigration for cheap labor.  (Andreas 1998/99, 602)  Unless the U.S. government addresses the root causes of immigration, the problem will continue to grow. 

            Understanding the direct effect U.S. business is having on Mexican livelihood will be vital for future research studies.  It is critical that we listen to the stories of those who are leaving their homes in search of a better life.  These stories reveal the truth.

“…well it’s uncontrollable, and the government…I feel they should recognize that the crossing is uncontrollable.  No matter how many trenches, barriers, walls they put up, no matter the fear or embarrassment, no matter how many patrolmen, my people will continue to cross.”    - Ramon Aguilar from Chiapas      

Annotated Bibliography

“1917 Constitution of Mexico (As Amended)”. English Revision 1968. http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html (Accessed November 5, 2004).

- Article 27 guarantees co-operative farming also called “ejidos”.  

Audley, John, Demetrios Papademetriou, Sandra Polaski, and Scott Vaughan. 2003. “NAFTA’s Promise and Reality: Lessons from Mexico for the Hemisphere”.  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  www.ceip.org/pubs  (Accessed November 5, 2004)

- Reports on the effect NAFTA had on Mexico’s agriculture sector.  Annual pollution damages over the last ten years exceed $36 billion. 

Andreas, Peter. 1994. Border Troubles:  Free Trade,, Immigration and Cheap Labour.  The Ecologist 24 (Nov-Dec): 230-235.  InfoTrac OneFile Plus, MIT Press Journals. http://web2.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/604/466/37904267w3/purl=rc2.html (26 September 2004)

- Argues that the U.S. government’s vision of illegal immigration as primarily a law-enforcement problem that requires a law-enforcement solution has failed to address the root causes of illegal immigration resulting in a dramatic increase of undocumented migrants inside the U.S.  The intentions of free trade policies such as NAFTA were to reduce illegal immigration and provide employment within Mexico.  The effects however, have created more job loss and a high influx of emigrants leaving Mexico in search of employment.  The Border Patrol has lead to a greater number of undocumented immigrants remaining inside the U.S. while creating a lucrative business for people smugglers along the border.  Each of these two important factors will help me to explain the U.S.’s influence on illegal immigration. 

Andreas, Peter.  1998/99.  The Escalation of U.S. Immigration Control in the Post-NAFTA Era.  Political Science Quarterly 113 (Winter): 591-616.

- Examines the failed U.S. immigration policies and describes the negative impacts of the Border Patrol on the Mexican economy.  It is also interesting that Andreas suggests that the Border Patrol is merely a front to appear as if our Borders are protected.  In reality he attributes the Border Patrol to doing very little accept contributing to the increasing deaths in the desert each year.  The Border Patrol plays a key role in the patterns and evolution of illegal immigration over the past 10 years.

Aguilar, Ramon. May 6, 2004. Interview. * translated by author and Blanca Niehauss.

- Ramon was deported by the Border Patrol after attempting to cross into the United States through the Arizonan desert.  He talks about why he left home, the situation in Chiapas and his intentions upon arriving in the U.S.

Antonio, Lara and Paul Rich. 2003. Commodity Policy in an Era of Globalization: The Mexican Sugar Industry and Its Problems Under NAFTA. Policy Studies Journal 31 (Issue 1): 101-111.

- “The North American Free Trade Agreement may have been a boon for Mexican industry, but it has been a bust for millions of Mexican farmers.” This study highlights the precarious Mexican sugar industry and its shift after 1994. 

Auilera, Michael Bernabe. 2004. Deciding Where To Retire: Intended Retirement Location Choices of Formerly Undocumented Mexican Migrants. Social Science Quarterly 85 (Issue 2): 340-361

- This article uses transnational theory to explain how transnational relationships, behavior, and context effect retirement location choices of recently legalized immigrants.  The topic of this study is what is important to me.  It reflects what current scholars are writing about.

“Binational Study: Migration Between Mexico and the United States”.  U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform.  March 14, 1998. http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/binational.html (accessed Novemeber 5, 2004)

- Study is very important and was used by most scholars in their own research.  Describes the push and pull factors that contribute to migration.  Push being, rapid population growth since 1970’s, recurring Mexican economic crisis, peso devaluation in 1994 and government privatization programs.  Pull factors being, technological advances, trade trends, labor force, and legislative changes. 

Binford, Leigh. 2003. Migrant Remittances and (Under) Development in Mexico. Critique of Anthropology 23 (September): 305-337.

- Important thesis – “As the Mexican government reduced or eliminated consumer subsidies, refocused credit on capitalist enterprises and privatized state enterprises, remittance incomes became one of the few sources of investment capital for hundreds of thousands of rural households.” (306)  “Subsistence agriculture is in a serious crisis as a consequence of declining state assistance and rising foreign competition.” (312) This will help support my thesis. 

Cabello, Gaspar Real. 2003. The Mexican State and the Agribusiness Model of Development in Globalization Era. Australian Journal of Social Issues 38 (February): 129-139.

- Study defines NAFTA and details the changes brought on by the 1994 free trade agreement.  Important case study of Pilgrims Pride, a U.S. owned poultry business the moved to Mexico in 1998, provides an example of NAFTA’s effects. 

Canales, Alejandro. 2003. Mexican Labour Migration to the United States in the Age of Globalisation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 29 (July): 741-761.

- Canales argues that the U.S. in transition to an information society (from an industrial society) has diversified the demand for low-skill employees, which has given Mexican emigrants new job options.  Mexico’s entry into the globalization age has been based on labor flexibility and contractual deregulation, which have led to the impoverishment of large sections of the population, and to the increased insecurity of employment.  Both these examples relate the push and pull effect of free trade. 

Chavez, Manuel. 2002. The Transformation of Mexican Retailing with NAFTA.  Development Policy Review 20 (Issue 4): 503-513.

- Study gives reasons for why Mexico has an attractive market – proximity, size, purchasing power, rapid urbanization - and why NAFTA fell short in protecting Mexico against foreign industry – little safety nets for small retailers, unclear distinction for “the Rules of the Game” under NAFTA, and inadequate retail standards.

Cornelius, Wayne. 2001. Death at the Border: The Efficacy and “Unintended” Consequences of U.S. Immigration Control Policy. The Center for Comparative Immigration Studies. Working Paper No. 27. Univeristy of California – San Diego. 

- Asks under what conditions do Border Patrol policies effect illegal immigration.  Border Patrol results in; a shift in migration patterns, rise in the cost and physical demand of border crossing, higher rate of undocumented migrants staying inside the United States, and an increased number of migrant deaths.  The effectiveness of the Border Patrol illustrates the misguided attempt of the U.S. government to control illegal immigration.

CNN (Washington). “250 Arrested at Wal-Mart”. CNN Money. October 23, 2003.  http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/23/news/companies/walmart_worker_arrests/?CNN=yes (Accessed November 10, 2004)

- Details the Wal-Mart scandal of 2003 when they were caught employing 250 undocumented immigrants. 

Davila, Alberto, Jose A Pagan and Gokce Soydemir. 2002. The Short-Term and Long-Term Deterrence Effects of INS Border and Interior Enforcement on Undocumented Immigration. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 49 (Issue 4): 459-463.

- This paper analyzes the short-term and long-term effects of the deterrence policy of the Border Patrol from 1983-1997. He concludes that the deterrence policy really has little effect on preventing migrants from entering the US. 

Durand, Jorge, Douglas Massey and Emilio Parrado. 1999. The New Era of Mexican Migration to the United States. The Journal of American History 86 (Issue 2): 518-537.

- Argues that the large numbers of already legalized Mexicans will greatly encourage more migrants to come to the United States.  “Post-IRCA policies in the United States, when combined with political and economic developments occurring under the North American Free Trade Agreement, have had rather unexpected social, economic, and political consequences in promoting a new transnational politics.” (529)

Entorf, Horst and Jochen Moebert. 2004. The Demand for Illegal Migration and Market Outcomes. Intereconomics 39 (Issue 1): 7-11.

- Study illustrates the U.S. incentives to bring cheap labor into the country.  Suggests that increasing minimum wages is a factor that encourages employers to hire undocumented immigrants.

Eschbach, Karl, Jacqueline Hagan and Nestor Rodriguez. 2003. Deaths during Undocumented Migration: Trends and Policy Implications in the New Era of Homeland Security. In Defense of the Alien 26 (April): 37-52.

- This article addresses the question, what factors lead to the failed Border Patrol policy? The authors explore the ability for migrants to attempt illegal crossing several times, the lack of effective deterrence policies by the Border Patrol and the effect militarization along the border has on migrants remaining to stay in the U.S.

Eschbach, Karl, Jaqueline Hagan, Nestor Rodriguez, Ruben Hernandez-Leon and Stanley Bailey. 1999. Death at the Border. International Migration Review 33 (Summer): 430-455. 

- What is the relationship between border enforcement efforts and migrant mortality?  They argue that weather, coyotes, and border patrol lead to a more dangerous border resulting in more migrant deaths.  It is interesting to note the US government’s attempt to use death as a deterrent has failed because the number of people crossing increases year after year. 

Escobar, Agustin, Philip Martin, Peter Schatzer, and Susan Martin. 2003. Mexico-U.S. Migration: Moving the Agenda Forward. International Migration 41 (Issue 2): 125-138.

- Escobar offers strategies for new immigration policies.  He compares US and Mexican goals for solving the problem of illegal immigration.  He details the negative effects of militarizing the border.  Its interesting that the strategies he offers don’t include changing the U.S. foreign policy in regards to our practiced economics in rural Mexico. 

Federation for American Immigration Reform. “Employer Sanctions”.  Immigration Issue Centers. January 2004. http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=1188&c=13 (Accessed November 12, 2004).

- Website describes the IRCA sanctions and their effect on the employers of undocumented immigrants.  Very conservative based organization. 

Fussell, Elizabeth. 2004. Sources of Mexico’s Migration Stream: Rural, Urban, and Border Migrants to the United States. Social Forces 82 (Issue 3): 937-968.

- “Furthermore, the opening of the economy to foreign trade throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s caused many manufacturers and businesses to fail or scale back in the face of foreign competition, thus creating a pool of underemployed urban residents who migrated to smaller cities that hold greater advantages in the global economy or who entered the migration stream to the U.S.” (939) This idea supports my thesis. 

Garcia, Jose.  April 22, 2004.  Interview.  * translated by author and Blanca Niehauss.

- Jose works for Grupa Beta, a governmental group that provides aid for migrants in distress.  He spoke about the large numbers of migrants he sees pass from Altar to the border every day.

Garcia, Pancho. April 5, 2004. Interview.  * translated by author and Blanca Niehauss.

- Pancho was former mayor of Altar, Sonora.  He currently works for a human rights organization.  He explained his experience with the migrants coming to Altar.

Glendhill, John. 1998. The Mexican Contribution to Restructuring the US Capitalism: NAFTA as an Instrument of Flexible Accumulation. Critique of Anthropology 18 (September): 279-296.

- “The signing of the treaty, (NAFTA) on terms that were so disadvantageous that they almost certainly surprised the US negotiating team…” (283)  This paper helps describe the way NAFTA and foreign goods inside Mexico has led to poverty.  (286)

Gomez, David de la Cruz.  May 6, 2004.  Interview. * translated by author and Blanca Niehauss.

- David came from Chiapas to Altar in hopes of crossing into the United States.  He traveled with his wife and 6 year old son.  He talked about their journey and why they left home. 

Guarnizo, Luis. 2003. The Economics of Transitional Living. The International Migration Review 37 (Fall): 666-680.

- Argues against past studies which focus on remittances from the U.S. to Mexico as being the most important economic factor and says that this common method underestimates migrants’ effect on the global level.  This paper helps me to see the focus of contemporary scholarship. 

Hanson, Gordon, Raymond Robertson and Antonio Spilimbergo. 1999. Does Border Enforcement Protect U.S. Workers From Illegal Immigration? NBER Working Paper Series. Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research. 

- This study basically concludes three things: 1. Border enforcement has a minimal deterrent effect on illegal immigration; 2. Illegal immigration from Mexico has a minimal impact on wages in U.S. border areas and 3. Increasing border control leads to a higher number of attempts at illegal entry.  This last conclusion is especially important because it points out the contribution of Border Patrol to illegal immigration, which is counterproductive to its original purpose.  The analysis states that increased border control leads to a population overload along the borderlands, which creates more poverty. 

Hispanic Publishing Corp. “Hoping for Amnesty”. Hispanic 17 (Issue 4): 12.  Academic Search Elite Database.  http://weblinks2.epnet.com/citation.asp... (Accessed October 12, 2004).

- Reports on President Bush’s announcement for amnesty and migrant’s reactions.  The Border Patrol says that apprehensions dramatically increase after amnesty announcement. 

Marcelli, Enrico and Wayne Cornelius. 2001. The Changing Profile of Mexican Migrants to the United States. Latin American Research Review 36 (Issue 3): 105-132.

- This study reveals that the new wave of immigrants coming from Mexico to the U.S. are more likely to, be younger, have more education, be more likely to originate in South Mexico, be more likely to depart from urban areas, and be have a higher proportion of females.  Their main point is that migrant characteristics matter.  He uses the Mexico-US Binational Migration Study which is the first migration research project sponsored by the two governments, conducted by a team of ten Mexican and ten U.S. immigration experts.

McC Heyman, Josiah. 1999. Why Interdiction? Immigration Control at the United States-Mexico Border. Regional Studies 33 (October): 619-621.

- Focuses on the contradiction between the open borders for trade and the closed borders for people movement.  These ideas promote and oppose globalization.  Again this paper details the failed border patrol policies and what can be done to fix them. 

McPheters, Lee and Don Schlagenhauf. 1981. Macroeconomic Determinants of the Flow of Undocumented Aliens in North America. Growth and Change 12 (January): 2-15.

- This study examines the effects of immigration after the Bracero Program ended in 1965, which deported millions of Mexicans working in the United States.  The study seeks to explain illegal immigration through income or wage variables, population, and the rates of unemployment within Mexico.  The conclusion is interesting because it states that as long as conditions of uneven economic development exist in North America, there will be strong economic incentives for the illegal entry of migrants from Mexico.  This seems obvious but it clearly states the root of the problem which must be addressed in order to deter the flow of immigration.  We knew this in 1981, but for some reason all of our foreign economic policies since have created a wider economic gap between US and Mexico while at the same time only concentrating our immigration policies on the US side of the border.  Why would we not create policies that address the root of the problem?

Migration Policy Institute. “Unauthorized Immigration to the United States”. Immigration Facts. October 2003. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/USImmigrationFacts2003.pdf (Accessed November 12, 2004).

- Site estimates the number of undocumented immigrants living in the United States during 2002.

Orrenius, Pia and Madeline Zavodny. 2003. Do Amnesty Programs Reduce Undocumented Immigration? Evidence from IRCA. Demography 40 (August): 437-448.

- This paper argues that mass legalization such as what we saw as a result of the IRCA, only leads to further undocumented immigration in the future.  Mass legalization creates a highly organized web of networks for migrants to easier arrive to the United States.

Orrenius, Pia. 2001. Illegal Immigration and Enforcement Along the U.S. Mexico Border: An Overview. Economic and Financial Review 9 (1rst Quarter): 2-12.  

- Argues that networks, smugglers, wages, capital markets, and immigration policies all effect illegal immigration.  “The underlying determinants of Mexico-US migration, however, are the high wages and job availability in the United States”. (5) This will help support my independent variable claim that U.S. demand for cheap labor effects undocumented immigration.

Pries, Ludger. 2004. Determining the Causes and Durability of Transnational Labour Migration Between Mexico and the United States: Some Empirical Findings. International Migration 42 (Issue 2): 37-40.

- This paper centers on transnational migration from a South Mexican state (Puebla) to New York city.  It is interesting to note that most of the very recent scholarship deals with transnational migration. 

Robertson, Raymond. 2004. Relative Prices and Wage Inequality: Evidence from Mexico. Journal of International Economies 64 (December): 387-409.

- The research concludes that the relative price of goods is in correlation with the relative price of wages.  After NAFTA, the relative price of goods within Mexico fell and therefore the relative wages fell also.  The drop in wages since 1994 can be related to the U.S. exporting into Mexico. 

Sanchez-Reaza, Javier and Andres Rodriguez-Pose. 2002. The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Regional Disparities in Mexico. Growth and Change 33 (Winter): 72-90.

- Explores the history of economic integration between the United States and Mexico from the ISI period to post-NAFTA.  “Trade liberalization and membership of NAFTA are connected to a greater territorial polarization in Mexico, with the states closest to the U.S. market benefiting the most.”

Stracke, Christian. 2003. Mexico – TheSick Man of NAFTA. World Policy Journal 20 (Summer): 29-36.

- “The failure of NAFTA to fulfill its promise of widespread Mexican prosperity has also meant continued illegal immigration into the United States, of both unskilled and skilled workers.” Study reviews Mexico’s internal structural problems including, growing social security crisis, stagnant PEMEX oil growth, and underdeveloped electricity system.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. “NAFTA Agriculture Fact Sheet”. FAS Online. November 7, 2003. http://ffas.usda.gov/itp/Policy/NAFTA/corn.html (Accessed November 14, 2004).

- Site shows the dramatic increase of U.S. corn exports going into Mexico directly following NAFTA 1994.

U.S. Department of Labor Statistics. “Employment and Wages, Annual Averages 2002”. December 18, 2003.  http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn02.htm (Accessed November 14, 2004)

- Site shows the increase in weekly wages for U.S. workers from the time between 1993 and 2000. 

U.S. Department of Justice. “INS Releases Updated Estimates of U.S. Illegal Population”.  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. February 20, 2003.  http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/illegal.htm (Accessed October 16, 2004)

- Data shows the consistent increase in undocumented population living inside the United States.

Vasquez, Ian. 1997. The IMF Through a Mexican Lens. Orbis 41 (Issue 2): 259-277.

- This article examines the IMF structural adjustment programs placed on Mexico between 1976 and 1996.  It is important to note the influence of the programs and their effect on Mexican livelihood.  Privatization has polarized the Mexican economy into those who have and those who do not have. 

Wal-Mart. “Student Research Information”. About Wal-Mart. http://www.walmartstores.com/wmstore/wmstores/Mainabout.jsp... (Accessed November 14, 2004)

-Site provides annual statistics on Wal-Mart.  Describes the growth patterns of domestic Wal-Marts, Sams Clubs, and International Walmart’s. 

Winters, Paul, Alain de Janvry, and Elisabeth Sadoulet. 2001. Family and Community Networks in Mexico-U.S. Migration. Journal of Human Resources 36 (Winter): 159-185.

- This study deals with a household’s decision to migrate. The paper reflects the focus of recent scholarship. 

Weintraub, Sidney. 2004. Ten Years Hence, Is NAFTA Succeeding? Texas Business Review 1 (June): 1-5.

- “In any free trade scenario, there are inevitably winners and losers.” (161) Weintraub argues that the state of the Mexican economy determines job losses or gains, not trade politics.   This is interesting because it argues against what I am trying to prove.  She also writes that the economic recession and jobloss within Mexico during the mid-1990’s can be attributed to governmental mismanagement and internal political conflict.  I do agree with this. 

Yueh-Ting, Lee, Victor Ottati, and Imtiaz Hussain. 2001. Attitudes Toward “Illegal” Immigration Into the United States: California Proposition 187. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 23 (November): 430-444. 

- Argues that in the mid-1990’s Proposition 187 in California, directed primarily toward Mexican immigrants deprived “illegal immigrants of welfare benefits, education, and all but emergency medical care.  This created much prejudice against the Latino population in California especially.  This is interesting because there is a similar bill currently being proposed in Arizona. 

Zimmerman, Joseph F. 1995. Assessing the Costs of Illegal Immigration. National Civic Review 84 (Issue 2): 151-153. 

Zimmerman did a research study on the economic drain and contribution of illegal immigrants on the jails, schools and market place of 7 different states.  He also described the tax input of illegal immigrants in the same seven states. 

Research Design

Research Question: After the implementation of NAFTA what factors in the U.S. have lead to increased Mexican illegal immigration?

Dependant Variable: Mexican illegal immigration. 

Definition:  Mexican illegal immigration is the movement of predominately southern Mexican citizens across the U.S./Mexican border without proper documentation. 

Operationalization of Dependant Variable:  I will measure the number of undocumented immigrants entering the United States by using the U.S. Census Bureau.  The most current Census Bureau estimates reveal there are 10.1 undocumented immigrants in the U.S.  (Costanzo 2001)

Independent Variables:  Economic demands (pull factor); U.S. exports (push factor)

Economic demands: United States demand for cheap labor.  “US policy-makers and pundits have successfully diverted attention from the underlying causes of illegal immigration – notably the demand for cheap labor in the U.S....” (Andreas 1994, 230)

Operationalization:  (1) Fluctuation in U.S. wages;  (2) U.S. policy towards immigrants; (3) Enforcement on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. 

U.S. exports:  “Under NAFTA, moreover, cheaper US agricultural imports are expected to flood into the country.  These processes will displace millions of small-scale farmers and exacerbate rural unemployment.” (Andreas 1994, 233)

Operationalization: (1) U.S. exports provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; (2) In-depth interviews with migrants who told their stories of leaving home because of their inability to compete in the marketplace with foreign goods. 

Case Type and Description: U.S./Mexican Border 1986-2004

Hypothesis: Both the U.S. free trade policies and the demand for cheap labor inside the U.S. have increased the number of Mexican undocumented immigrants.

Findings:

“No God that man has ever worshipped is more ruthless and more hollow than the free market unchecked”

“Left to its own devices, the free market always seeks to work force that is hungry, desperate, and cheap – a work force that is anything but free.”

            - Eric Schlosser