Click for next page ( 256


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 255
Appendix THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS AMONG MEXICAN MIGRANTS TO THE UNITED STATES: NEW METHODS AND FINDINGS Douglas S. Massey Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania This paper illustrates a new approach to gathering data on Mexico-United States migration. The approach is the ethnosurvey, which combines representative survey sampling with ethnography to generate data on social processes operating at the community level. These data indicate that as migrants accumulate experience in the United States, a variety of social and economic ties are formed that progressively increase the likelihood of U.S. settlement. Over time, migrants collect family members abroad, make new friends, establish formal and informal institutional ties, learn English, and obtain more stable, better-paid jobs. As a result, over time less money is remitted home to Mexico, and more is spent in the United States. These trends are reflected in a steady, cumulative increase in the probability of U.S. settlement. The number of Mexicans settling in the United States in years to come will undoubtedly increase because of the large number of people that began migrating during the 1970s. Of these, many will inevitably become recurrent seasonal migrants, and of them, a sizable share will ultimately settle. INTRODUCTION This paper is both methodological and substantive. On one hand, it describes and illustrates a new approach to gathering data on Mexican immigration to the United States. On the other hand, the example was chosen for more than its heuristic value. Indeed, it concerns a question of central importance in the immigration debate: whether Mexican migrants are sojourners or settlers. That is, are they seasonal laborers who enter the United States for only brief periods and have no interest in staying permanently, or are they immigrants seeking to establish a permanent residence in this country? This question is important because the two views portend very different futures of population growth, labor force expansion, and ethnic change for the United States. This research was conducted under grant HD15166 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, whose support is gratefully acknowledged. 255

OCR for page 255
256 Within the past decade, immigration has once again become a topic of absorbing interest in the United States. As in previous eras of public agitation about this topic, an intense demand for data has arisen, and the sorry state of knowledge in the field has again been exposed. Much of the public debate has focused on the "numbers game": how many immigrants are there, who are they, and where do they live? These are indeed important questions, and the immigration statistics system is ill-equipped to provide timely, reliable answers, especially with the growth of undocumented migration during the 1970s. Most professional attention has therefore focused on designing estimation methods and statistical systems to provide better data on U.S. immigration (Lancaster and Scheuren, 1978; Heer, 1979; Kraly, 1980; Robinson, 1980; Bean et al., 1983; Tienda and Sullivan, 1984; Hill, 1984; Kraly et al., 1984; Goodman, 1984). However, there is more to our poor understanding of immigration than a lack of aggregate-level information. We also have a very limited comprehension of the basic social processes that underlie Mexico-United States migration. In a narrow sense, of course, migration between the two countries is strictly economic. Migrants are motivated primarily by their desire for higher wages and the things they buy. But these basic economic motivations are defined within a social context. Migration changes this social context in systematic ways that fundamentally alter the way its costs and benefits are perceived and that in turn change the nature of the migratory process itself. Migration has a way of feeding back upon itself through a complex social process that is very poorly understood. As the social context of migration gradually changes, so do important characteristics of the migrant stream: how many and what kind of migrants are involved, where they go, what they do, how long they stay, whether they migrate alone or with families. Until we understand the social foundations of migration, we have no basis for anticipating changes in these important parameters of the migration process. This report represents part of a much larger study designed to describe, understand, and ultimately to model the social process of Mexico-United States migration. In undertaking such a study, government statistics are of little use. First, they are too general. Most are gathered through surveys or bureaucratic mechanisms that are not designed to measure international migration per se. They often do not include variables important in the migration process, especially those that operate primarily within the context of small, localized communities. Second, government data on migration are usually cross-sectional and therefore preclude the detailed study of migration as a developmental social process. Third, Mexico-United States migration transcends national boundaries, requiring data on communities of origin and destination as well as on the social networks that link the two. Government statistical bureaus do not provide this kind of information. Finally, in the case of Mexican migration, much of the movement is undocumented, and therefore excluded, or at least underrepresented, in official data. In order to deal with these difficult problems, we developed the ethnosurvey. This method combines intens ive ethnographic study of particular communities with representative survey sampling in order to generate ethnographically informed quantitative data on social processes operating at the local level. Strictly speaking, the ethnosurvey is

OCR for page 255
257 neither ethnography nor sample survey, but a marriage of these two complementary approaches. Quest donna i re design, sampling, and interviewing are shaped by the ethnographic conventions of anthropological research as well as by those of sociological survey sampling. At the same time, the ethnographies are guided and illuminated by quantitative data emanating from the representative sample survey. In design as well as analysis the two approaches inform one another, so that the weaknesses of one become the other's strengths. In the end, the data that emerge have much greater validity than would be provided by either method alone. Obviously, the social process of Mexico-United States migration is a very broad topic, much too broad to be considered comprehensively here. This paper therefore uses ethnosurvey data to focus on one aspect of the migration process that is of considerable interest to social scientists and policy makers alike: the process of integration and settlement in the United States. As mentioned at the outset, an important controversy in the immigration debate is whether Mexican migrants are sojourners or settlers. The prevailing wisdom seems to be that they are primarily sojourners who come to work in the United States on a seasonal basis. They have little or no interest in permanent settlement, and while they may make frequent trips, these are enumerated in months rather than years (Cornelius, 1978:24-28~. On the surface, the empirical evidence seems to bear out this conclusion. Most studies show average trip lengths of between 6 and 12 months (North and Houstoun, 1976; Bustamante, 1978; Cornelius, 1978; Reichert and Massey, 1979; Ranney and Kossoudji, 1983~. However, the theories of Bohning (1972) and Piore (1979) suggest a different perspective: namely that the relative prevalence of sojourners versus settlers is not a fixed characteristic of migrants. Rather it is a variable that changes as the social context of migration changes. While most migrants from Mexico may begin as sojourners, they are increasingly likely to become settlers the more trips they make to the United States and the greater the store of time they build up abroad. Although migrants' interests initially are utilitarian--to achieve a target income and return home as soon as possible--they inevitably acquire social and economic ties binding them to U.S. society, ties that make permanent settlement progressively more likely. While the ideas of Bohning and Piore are provocative, there is little hard empirical evidence to document such a process of integration and settlement among Mexican migrants. On the contrary, the empirical information that exists points to low average durations of stay in the United States. However, to the author's knowledge, no studies have adequately controlled for the cumulative amount of U.S. migrant experience, the crucial factor in the settlement process. If social and economic ties to the United States, and hence the propensity to settle, develop slowly over time, and if there has been a recent and dramatic upswing in Mexican migration, then a high rate of return migration today would not be surprising, even given an underlying crescive settlement process. Because of the recent upswing, most Mexicans migrating today have only been migrants for a few years, so naturally their trips are short and infrequent. However, as these recent migrants age, many will become habitual seasonal migrants and accumulate U.S. experience, and of

OCR for page 255
258 these many will eventually settle in the United States. It is a classic period-cohort situation. This paper uses ethnosurvey data to study the settlement process among migrants from four Mexican communities. It examines the formation of social and economic ties to the United States over time and explores how the social context of migration changes systematically with progressive exposure to U.S. society. Having considered the process of socioeconomic integration, probability models of out-migration and settlement are estimated to confirm basic hypotheses regarding the nature of the migration process and to draw inferences regarding future course of Mexican settlement within the United States. STUDY DESIGN Asking about migration to the United States, most of it undocumented, is a delicate matter that must be approached with care and deliberation (Reichert and Massey, 1979; Cornelius, 1982) . The ethnosurvey provides a vehicle that is wet 1-suited to the task. The teas ic rationale for the ethnosurvey is not , of course, original to this pro ject. Many studies have conducted smal 1-scale surveys within migrant send ing communities (Wiest, 1973; Cornelius, 1978; Dinerman, 1978, 1982; Shadow, 1979; Re ichert, 1981, 1982; Mines, 1981; Roberts, 1982; Pressar, 1982~. However, the current study is different in being wholly designed and implemented by an interdisciplinary team of qualitatively trained anthropologists as well as a quantitatively trained sociologist/demographer. Thus both analytic perspectives were brought to bear in all phases of the study. The questionnaire design represents a compromise between the exigencies of survey research and ethnography. On one hand, a highly structured survey instrument consisting of a battery of closed questions is inappropriate for studying undocumented migration among Mexican campesinos (Cornelius, 1982~. On the other hand, some standardization is required in order to collect the same information on each household. Basically we sought a design that was informal, nonthreatening, and as unobtrusive as possible, one that allowed the interviewer some discretion about how and when to ask sensitive questions, but ultimately yielded a standard set of data. The form we chose was a semistructured interview schedule. The instrument was laid out in a series of tables, or in Spanish cuadros, with household members listed down the side and variables across the top. The interviewer could then solicit the required information in ways that the situation seemed to demand, using his or her judgment as to timing and precise wording. Each cuadro corresponded to a different topic, and was at times separated by questions of a more specialized nature in order to elaborate the theme under examination. The questionnaire was designed in Spanish during August 1982, pretested and modified during September and October of that year, and finally put into the field beginning in November. The questionnaires were applied to households selected in simple random samples of four communities located on the western edge of Mexico's central plateau, one of the most important source regions for Mexican migration to the United States (Samora, 1971; Dagodag, 1975;

OCR for page 255
259 North and Houstoun, 1976; Cornelius, 1978; Jones, 1982; Ranney and Kossoudji, 1983~. Two criteria were employed in selecting the communities. First, we sought towns or cities in which a member of the anthropological research team had prior ethnographic experience. With an established unobtrusive presence in the community and an existing network of trusted informants, the potential level of threat from a study of out-migration could be considerably reduced and the validity of data much enhanced. Second, we wanted to pick four different kinds of communities in order to give the study a comparative focus. Prior studies of Mexican sending communities have mostly been of rural agricultural towns, and we sought to include urban industrial communities in order to broaden our base of generalization. The first of the four communities we selected was the rural community of Altamira,1 a town of roughly 6,100 located in a traditional agricultural region in southern Jalisco. The second was Chamitlan, a somewhat larger rural community of 9,900 located in a more modern commercialized agricultural area not far from the city of Zamora, Michoacan. The third community was Santiago, an industrial town of 9,400 located south of the metropolis of Guadalajara, in the state of Jalisco. Its main source of employment since the turn of the century has been a textile mill, and its population contains virtually no agricultural workers. The last community was San Marcos, an urban barrio of 4,800 people located in a working-class section of Guadalajara itself, Mexico's second largest city. These communities were not selected because they were thought to contain many migrants. Although we knew that all contained some U.S. migrants, with the exception of Chamitlan, which we knew had a long migrant tradition, we had no idea whether they contained many or f ew. Within each of these four communities, a simple random sample of 200 households was drawn. This number was large enough to provide sufficient cases for analysis, yet small enough so that detailed, ethnographically informed interviews could be conducted. Detailed maps showing the location of households in each community were prepared during August 1982, and from these the sampling frames were constructed. Interviewing of sample households began in November 1982 and ended in February 1983, with most being conducted during the months of December and January, the months when most seasonal migrants have returned home from the United States. If a dwelling was unoccupied throughout the month of December, another was randomly selected. Strictly speaking, then, the sample is representative of dwelling units that were occupied during the month of December 1982 in each of the four communities. The interviews were conducted by three Mexican anthropologists,2 who comprised the field unit of the research team, and by assistants whom they trained especially for the project. In Santiago and San Marcos, the assistants were graduate students in sociology from a local university, and in the two rural communities they were local schoolteachers. Obviously, in using an ethnographic approach that does not rely on standardized question wordings, it is absolutely essential that interviewers understand clearly what information is being sought in each of the cuadros. The research team therefore spent long hours going over the questionnaire in painstaking detail, making sure that each person had the same understanding of what information was being sought and why. The anthropological field team in turn placed considerable emphasis on

OCR for page 255
260 training their assistants, repeating the task of going over the questionnaire line by line. Finally, in each community, subsamples of the questionnaires were checked with informants to verify their accuracy and truthfulness, and additional checks for internal consistency were later performed with the aid of a computer. The questionnaire was applied in two phases. In the first phase, basic social and demographic data were collected from people in the household. In the opening question, the head of household was identified, followed by his or her spouse and living children. If a son or daughter was a member of another sample household, this fact was ascertained and recorded. (A person was considered to be in a separate household if he or she was married, maintained a separate house or kitchen, and organized expenses separately.) Finally, other household members were identified and their relationship to the head clarified. In Santiago, relatively few migrants turned up in early interviews conducted within sample households. In order to secure a number of migrants large enough for detailed analyses, an additional 25 migrant households were located and interviewed from outside the sample. In all, the total Mexican sample consists of 5,949 people enumerated in 825 households. Of these people, 4,953 were members of sample households and 1,352 were sons and daughters living in other households outside the sample. The second phase of the questionnaire compiled a complete life history from household heads with migrant experience in the United States. The life history focused on lifetime processes of occupational mobility, migration, resource accumulation, and family formation. If the household head had never been a U.S. migrant but another household member (typically a son) had significant prior experience in the United States, an abbreviated life history (mainly a labor history) was taken. Both groups were also asked a detailed series of questions about their experiences as migrants in the United States. Obviously, studies limited to returned migrants interviewed in their home communities underrepresent, if not exclude, migrants who have settled more permanently in the United States. Therefore, the four community samples were supplemented by an additional 60 interviews conducted among migrant households residing in California, with and without documents, during August and September 1983. Representative random sampling was impossible, so migrants were located using the chain-referral or "snowball" method (Goodman, 1961~. Twenty households each were selected from among out-migrants from Altamira, Chamitlan, and Santiago, yielding a total sample of 367 California-based migrants in 60 households. Of these, 305 were members of sample households and 62 were members of others. A household was eligible for inclusion in the California sample if its head had been in the United States for three continuous years and was born in either Altamira, Chamitlan, or Santiago. Out-migrants from San Marcos were not sought owing to limited time and resources. THE SOCIAL PROCESS OF INTEGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES An important module of the ethnosurvey questionnaire asked migrants about experiences on their most recent trip to the United States. The results

OCR for page 255
261 of this section are based on a special data file construe ted from their responses to these questions. In all, 440 migrants provided information about their last U.S. trip (including 60 migrants from the California sample). Of these, 19 percent were documented, 65 percent were undocumented, and 17 percent were Braceros.3 The median date of their last trip was 1975. Early work on the project indicated that rural/urban origin was an important factor that conditioned key parameters of the migration process (see Mullan, 1984~. Therefore, all data presented in this paper are broken down by this variable. Migrants were considered to be of rural origin if they were from Altamira or Chamitlan or were out-migrants from these towns living in California. They were of urban origin if they were from Santiago or San Marcos or out-migrants from the former. By this definition, 66 percent of the 440 migrants were of rural origin and 34 percent were of urban origin. A common view of Mexican migrants is that they are predominantly young men traveling to the United States without family dependents (Cornelius, 1978: 30~. This is clearly not the case for legal migrants, a majority of whom are women (Massey and Schnabel, 1983a); but perusing the available empirical evidence, it does seem to represent fairly the current status of undocumented Mexican migrants (Massey and Schnabel, 1983b; Passel and Warren, 1983~. However, some community studies suggest that while Mexican migration is indeed a male-led phenomenon, women and children tend eventually to become involved in the migration process (Reichert and Massey, 1980; Mines and Massey, 1985), a result that is consonant with Piore's (1979) theory. According to Piore's view, whether one migrates alone or with family dependents is a function of the years of migrant experience that have been accumulated. On the few first trips, migrants live a spartan existence, often sharing living quarters with other men and sleeping in shifts to save money. They are true homo economics, seeking to maximize short-tenm income before returning home to family and community. They work long hours and have little interest in social activities. According to Piore (1979:55) they are "a group of people divorced from a social setting, operating outside the constraints or inhibitions that it imposes, working totally and exclusively for money." If a migrant makes only one or two trips, there is no particular problem with this way of l if e . The migrant knows it wit 1 end, and he does not def ine himself with respect to the foreign context. The labor may be menial and 1 ife unpleasant, but he wit 1 return home with a good deal of money, and with it he will be able to buy a certain amount of status and prestige. However, satisfaction of the wants that initially led to migration often only creates new wants. The levels of wealth and consumption that migration brings have a way of altering tastes and expectations in a way that lead to more trips (Piore, 1979; Reichert, 1981; Mines, 1981~. As the migrant accumulates time in the United States, his anomie social life becomes increasingly problematic. People are intrinsically social beings, and inevitably home economicus gives way to home socibilis. Ultimately, the migrant becomes enmeshed in a web of social ties within the United States. As the migrant experience begins to lengthen and appear more open-ended, enforced separation from family and loved ones becomes more and more difficult to sustain. Over time, pressure to bring along wives and children grows.

OCR for page 255
262 Table C-1 shows the percentage of migrants with selected family and friendship ties in the United States classified by years of migrant experience. The latter variable refers to the total time a migrant has accumulated in the United States over a lifetime of trips, be they one or several. Looking at the marginals, we see the basis for the common generalization that Mexican migrants are predominantly males traveling without dependents. The vast majority (84 percent of rural migrants and 77 percent of urban migrants) have neither wife nor children with them in the United States. However, considering the marginal distributions alone does not give a true picture of what is going on and, indeed, can be quite misleading. The tendency for migrants to be accompanied by family members clearly increases with time spent in the United States. Consistent with expectations, the percentage with spouses, sons, and daughters rises smoothly, almost monotonically, with U.S. migrant experience, as does the average number of relatives reported to be living in the United States. Among both rural and urban migrants with at least 15 years of U.S. experience, around 43 percent report their spouse to be in the United States, and among rural migrants a majority (54 percent) report having their sons along (among urban migrants the figure is 36 percent). The average number of relatives living in the United States doubles from 10 or 11 among beginning migrants to 23 or 24 among the most experienced. Another thing that naturally happens with the passage of time abroad is the formation of friendship ties with members of the host society. Table C-1 also clearly documents the gradual development of friendly relations between Mexican migrants and members of various U.S. ethnic groups. It is not surprising that, in general, the most prevalent social relations are with Chicanos (native Americans of Mexican descent) and other Latinos (who may themselves be Spanish-speaking immigrants; see the marginal distributions). However, as the amount of time spent in the United States grows, the percentage knowing Anglos (non-Hispanic white Americans) increases quite dramatically, from 11 percent to 63 percent among rural migrants and from 17 percent to 72 percent among urban migrants. Indeed, by the time rural migrants have accumulated 15 years in the United States, they are more likely to be friendly with Anglos than either Chicanos or Latinos. There is also a mild increase in the tendency to be friends with American blacks, in spite of the high degree of residential segregation between the two groups (Massey, 1979) and the apparent disinclination of Mexicans to live near blacks (Lieberson and Carter, 1983; Massey and Mullan, 1984~. In short, if one were to look at the marginals alone, one would mistakenly conclude that there is little social intercourse between Mexican migrants and Americans; but allowing for the crucial role of U.S. experience we find clear evidence of growing social integration over time. The last datum in Table C-1 is the average number of fellow townspeople, or paisanos, migrants reported being in touch with in the United States. Here we find a curious contrast. Among urban migrants the number rose with years of migrant experience, while among those of rural origin it fell slightly but steadily. In fact, this curious anomaly is explained by an important finding that emerges from Table C-2, which reports some other indicators of social integration in the United States.

OCR for page 255
263 An important dimension of the integration process is the movement from transitory seasonal employment to a steadier, more sedentary job in the United States. Among rural Mexican migrants, in particular, this trend involves moving from agricultural to nonagricultural employment. Table C-2 shows a very marked shift in rural migrants' sector of employment with increasing years of migrant experience. Among those with less than a year's experience on their latest U.S. job, 91 percent were farm workers; but after 15 years of migrant experience, this percentage fell to 38 percent. Thus, over time there is a transition from overwhelmingly agricultural to predominantly industrial or service employment. In contrast, urban migrant workers are predominantly nonagricultural no matter what their experience category. However, a sizable plurality of those in the lowest experience class, 40 percent, work in agriculture, even though almost all of these people come from nonagricultural backgrounds in Mexico. This fact suggests the strong tendency for Mexican migrants regardless of their occupation experience interval, there is a rapid shift back to ~ In off 0 0 - _ _ to be channeled into agriculture, (Mullen, 1984~. However, in the next employment more consonant with their Mexican occupational background. These results help to explain contrasting rural-urban patterns in the number of paisanos that migrants report knowing in the United States. Migrant networks from rural communities feed primarily into areas of U.S. agricultural employment. Family and friendship connections are widely used to secure jobs with specific growers at specific times. There is therefore a disproportionate concentration of paisanos or kinsmen in certain farms and fields. When a migrant from a rural area opts for nonagricultural employment, he drifts away from a close connection with this network, leading to a decrease in the intensity of his relations with paisanos. Networks from Mexican urban areas, in contrast, lead directly into U.S. urban areas and associations with nonagricultural employers in particular factories and service establishments. The settlement process for urban migrants thus provides an opportunity to cement friendships with other paisanos living and working in the same U.S. communities, leading to an expansion of friendly relations with other townspeople. A crucial step in the settlement process, particularly from the migrant's point of view, is the acquisition of legal papers. Most Mexican migrants to the United States began going north without documents or as Braceros, depending on the era in which they first left. However, if the accumulation of migrant experience leads to progressive integration and settlement in the United States, then a regularization of status at some point becomes indispensable. Indeed, the "green card" or mica,4 as the migrants call it, is highly sought after, providing security and ready access to most classes of U.S. jobs (see Reichert and Massey, 1979~. It is not surprising, therefore, to find a steady, sharp, virtually monotonic increase in the proportion of migrants having legal papers as the years of U.S. experience accumulate. Only about 2 percent of rural migrants and 14 percent of urban migrants with less than a year of U.S. experience have their green cards. Most of these people acquired documents through a legally resident relative (typically a parent), using the family reunification provisions of U.S. immigration law. However, after 15 years of migrating to the United States, the vast majority of

OCR for page 255
264 migrants have regularized their status--69 percent of those from rural areas and 73 percent of those from urban areas. English language ability is an obvious indicator of acculturation and integration in the United States. Overall, the English ability of the migrants in the sample is quite limited. The average rural migrant barely understands spoken English and cannot speak it at all, while the typical urban migrant's only improvement on this is that he understands it a little better. Nonetheless, there is an obvious improvement in English skills with increasing years of U.S. experience. Naturally, those with less than a year's time in the United States neither speak nor understand English; but after accumulating 15 years in this country, migrants from both areas report that, on average, they understand well and speak at some level of proficiency. A natural concomitant of the accumulation of interpersonal and family ties in the United States is an increase in social ties of a more institutional nature. For example, we saw earlier how the accumulation of U.S. experience was accompanied by a growing presence of wives and children. Many of these children are minors and will therefore be enrolled in U.S. schools. Indeed, the percentage of migrants reporting a child in U.S. schools grows steadily over the years of U.S. experience, from 8 percent to 69 percent among rural migrants and from 13 percent to 53 percent among urban migrants. Another example is membership in informal organizations. The percentage who report an affiliation with a U.S. social club rises from 2 percent in the lowest experience category to 16 percent and 7 percent in the highest rural and urban experience categories, respectively. A particularly important integrative mechanism for urban migrants involves participation in U.S.-based soccer clubs. The percentage reporting membership in an athletic club rises from 16 percent in the lowest to 64 percent in the highest class of U.S. migrant experience. As homo economicus gives way to homo socibilis, migrants become less obsessed with earning money and take more time for recreation and socializing. Among migrants from Santiago, in particular, this takes the form of playing in a hometown soccer league. Every week out Immigrants from Santiago meet in a Los Angeles area park, where they field up to four teams. This institution provides a ready means of keeping in touch with friends and relatives and introducing new settlers to the Santiagueno out-migrant community. It is an important mechanism of social cohesion and community integration within the United States. A topic of widespread interest to many in the United States is the use of social services by Mexican migrants. Without controlling for the duration of U.S. experience, studies generally show low rates of service utilization among immigrants (Avante Systems, 1978; Bustamante, 1977; 1978; Cornelius, 1976; North and Houstoun, 1976; Orange County Task Force, 1978; Van Arsdol et al., 1979; North, 1983~. Among those services that are used by migrants, unemployment compensation and medical facilities seem to be the most common. But when studies have controlled for the length of time an immigrant has been in the United States, a pattern of increasing usage over time has been discovered (Blau, 1984; Simon, 1984~. The service usage data of Table C-2 is generally consistent with this prior research. Looking at the marginal distributions, we find that migrants from the sample communities are quite unlikely to draw on U.S.

OCR for page 255
265 social services. Only 2-6 percent of migrants have ever received food stamps, welfare, or social security. However, some 20 percent have used U. S. . unemployment compensation, and roughly 45 percent have made use of U.S. medical facilities. When we break these figures down by accumulated years of migrant experience, we generally find a pattern of increasing use over the years. Food stamps, welfare, and social security show a low and somewhat erratic rate of service usage between O and 15 years of migrant experience, followed by a sharp jump for migrants with more than 15 years of experience. Nonetheless, even in this last interval the percentage of service users never exceeds 29 percent. The percentages of migrants who have ever received unemployment compensation and medical treatment display a more regular, crescive increase over the course of the migrant careers After 15 years of migrant experience, the vast majority have made use of U.S. medical facilities (80 percent of those from rural areas and 86 percent of those from urban areas), and around half have received U.S. unemployment compensation (56 percent of rural migrants and 50 percent of urban migrants). Of course, migrants not only draw on the U.S. social service system, they also contribute to it, and another dimension of U.S. integration is the payment of taxes. Migrants tend to be employed within the secondary labor market, a class of unstable, marginal jobs in labor intensive enterprises subject to intense competitive pressures. Employers in these fines may try to maintain profits through a variety of tactics: by keeping some or all employees off official books, dealing strictly in cash, not paying taxes, or not conforming to minimum wage legislation. However, over time migrants should experience a formalization of their economic status in the United States, moving into more regularly taxed, better-paid, and more legitimate jobs. Table C-3 presents selected measures of economic integration within the United States by U.S. experience and sector of employment. These data generally support the notion of a gradual regularization of migrants' economic status over time. Those with little U.S. experience are less likely to be paid by check or have taxes withheld from their pay and more likely to earn less than the minimum wage, compared with experienced migrants. But even among those with the least experience the vast majority seem to be in reasonably legitimate job situations: three-quarters report being paid by check and having taxes withheld, although a sizeable plurality, 40 percent, did report earning less than the minimum wage ~ 42 percent in agriculture and 37 percent not in agriculture) . After 15 years as U.S. migrants, however, all were paid by check and nearly all had taxes withheld from their pay. Moreover, among nonagricultural workers, the percentage earning les s than the minimum wage had fallen to 12 percent. Among agricultural workers, however, the percentage earning less than minimum wage falls with up to 15 years of experience but then increases, an apparently anomalous result that deserves special comment. It probably reflects a selection process operating among migrant farm workers. Over time there is a marked shift out of agriculture into service and industrial jobs, leaving a very small number of farm workers in the highe s t expert ence category. The se workers may be negat ive ly se lected for product ivity, with the most product ive workers having long since moved into the better-paid nonagricultural sector. The result probably also reflects sampling variability stemming from the small

OCR for page 255
282 1.0 0.90 - x - cn - U.l _ ~ J z _ _ m J UJ m I O ~ Z _ LL ~ > Z 0.30 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 tu 0.20 , cn ) ~ O 0.10 o ''-7~ G~- Urban Origin - ~1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 YEARS OF U.S. MIGRANT EXPERIENCE FIGURE C-1 Cumulative probability of settlement in the United States by total years of U.S. migrant experience and rural/urban origin. O 1.0 - - 0.90 z 0.80 z o LU m o - m m o CC CL UJ - U] IL - 0.70 0.60 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 1 Rural Origin / ~.\ _j ~ ~'\ ~ Urban Origin _ ~ O ' 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1940- 1 950 1944 1954 1960- 1970- 1980 1964 1974 1982 PERIOD FIGURE C-2 Lifet ime probabil ity of becoming a migrant by period and rura 1 /urban orig in.

OCR for page 255
283 1.0 0.90 0-80 0.70 0-60 0.50 0-40 0.30 0.20 0.10 o _ ' \ ~ \ _ _ Urban Ordain `` ~~~ Urban Origin Ural Origin I` - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NUMBER OF U.S. TRIPS Rural Origin ~ ! \~ | ~ Probability of Ma king an Additional U.S. Trip (1-q Probability of Making x Trips (1x) lx) FIGURE C-3 Probabi ~ ity of making an add it tonal trip to the United States and the probability of making x trips by rural/urban origin.

OCR for page 255
284 TABLE C-1 Interpersonal Ties Vithin the United States by Years of Migrant Experience and Rural/Urban Origin 3 BYaLE[25L3L=~&C ~! Experience Origin and Tie Under 1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15+Total Rural Origin: Family and Home Ties Percentage : Spouse in U.S. 3.6 10.4 18.6 26.0 44.016.3 Son in U.S. 1.7 6.3 - 11.6 40.0 54.214.3 Daughter in U.S. 1.7 5.3 7.0 36.0 45.811.8 Number: . Relatives in U.S. 9.6 9.6 17.2 25.4 30.514.7 Townspeople in U. S. 29.1 23.6 23.3 22.5 22.524.6 Ties with 0.S. groups Pcrc~ta~ge: Chicano friend 14.8 28.9 45.2 58.3 58.334.6 Black friend 7.4 11.1 23.8 8.3 25.013.7 Ang10 friend 11.1 20.0 38.1 33.3 62.526.9 Latino Priced 7.4 -27.8 31~0 20.8 - 54.225.6 Number of migra-nts 66 121 49 27 26289 Urban Origin : Fami ly and Home Ties Percentage: Spouse in U.S. 12.2 21.1 25.0 44.4 42.923.1 Son in U.S. 7.5 21.1 14.3 33.3 35.717.8 Daughter in O.S. 5.0 7.9 17.9 33.3 35.713.9 Number : Relatives in U.S. 11.2 8.9 16.0 14.8 24.913.3 Townspeople in U.S. 25.4 11.0 30.4 27.8 39.323.9 Ties with D.S. groups Percentage: Chicano friend 39.0 52.6 64.3 75.0 85.755.8 Black friend 4.9 18.4 10.7 12.5 35.713.9 A~g10 friend 17.1 31.6 35.7 25.0 71.531.8 Latino friend 29.3 36.8 39.3 25.0 78.638.8 Number of migrants 45 47 32 12 15151

OCR for page 255
285 TABLE C-2 Indicators of Social Integration Within the United States by Years of Migrant Experience and Rural/Urban Origin Origin and Indicator Years of U.S. Migrant Experience Under 1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15+ Total Rural Origin: Percentage: Nonagricultural workers With legal papers English language abilitya Percentage: With child in U.S. schools Member of athletic club Member of social club Percentage ever receiving: Unemployment Food stamps Welfare Social security Medical services Number of migrants Urban Origin: Percentage: Nonagricultural workers With legal papers English language abilitya Percentage: With child in U.S. schools Member of athletic club Member of social club Percentage ever receiving: Unemployment Food stamps Welfare Social security Medical services Number of migrants 9.1 30.6 1.5 5.0 0.1 0.2 46.9 10.2 1.2 7.6 9.1 16.4 6.6 9.5 20.8 1.6 3.4 8.3 44.4 44.4 2.0 37.O 23.1 7.7 12.7 8.6 24.4 40.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 12.0 0.0 2.2 o.o 4.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 4.0 22.2 35.5 69.0 64.0 66 121 49 27 60.0 13.6 0.5 13.3 15.9 2.3 4.9 7.3 2.4 0.0 24.2 45 80.9 25.5 1.2 10.6 25.5 4.3 15.8 2.4 0.0 5.3 34.2 47 65.6 25.0 1.4 21.9 40.6 3.1 25.0 7.1 3.6 7.1 60.7 32 100.0 41.7 1.9 33.3 33.3 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 12 61.5 69.2 2.4 69.2 16.0 16.0 56.0 16.0 12.0 28.0 80.0 26 80.0 73.3 2.6 53.3 64.3 7.1 50.0 14.3 28.6 7.1 85.7 15 32.5 14.6 0.8 18.0 12.7 5.4 20.5 3.8 2.5 4.6 46.0 289 72.9 28.0 1.2 19.9 30.2 3.4 20.2 6.2 4.7 3.9 44.6 151 aEnglish language ability: 0-Doesn't speak or understand English; 1=Doesn't speak but understands some; 2=Doesn't speak but understands well; Bespeaks and understands some; bespeaks and understands well.

OCR for page 255
286 o o c) CQ :^ D 0 U) :) 0 S o cd ~0 C) o o C) ~3 o o C) ~ 0 H ~ o in) 1 Cal m ~ - E~ :D 0 0 C l o lo on 1 Us (D :~ o H o C) 0 a ~ - ~ ~ `0 00 _ 0 ~ ~-a, `0 ~ O-U' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0-U1U'O'- O O~`D' m' e_ a, ~ ~ co ~ _ _ 0 ~ ~ o~ C~ C,) ~ U`= ~o ~ ~ 0 0 In c ~C) u~ ~ ~ ~ a e e 00= u~ln ~c~ 0 0 ~O`O m o a, _ _ _ _ 0 0 m c~ c ~ m _ _ _ ~ C~ G 0 :' ~ ~ O O ~ 0` ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ e ~18 1O ~ ~) O O lO ~0 ~ ~0 C~J ~ J O ~ 0 -0~ 0~ C~- -c0 ~ CiJ-CXJ 0 ~ &: a, ~ o~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ e _ e ~0 u' 0-- ~o' ~ ~ 0~= -~ -0` 0~-~ ~_ e~o P O C) S O C~ 0- ~ ~ O6~C3O U4 ~ e m__= ~c~a, mma, u' b0 - C~ C~O'--0` mmm C ~ ~ ~ C, ~ 0 O ~ O O 0 0` `0 ~ ~0 0 ~ e ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ Vl _ - = 0 o m ~ u~ a, 0 0 ~ ~ ~r ~ m - ~_- ~ 0 U~ 00 44 0 ~ ~ O _t ~ ~ 0 - C) ~ ~ $- ~ a . ~ ~ :, 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ C, 0 ~ O ~ ~ 0' ~0~ - e bQ 0 C) 0 0 t0 0 C) O S S C, C) ~ ~C ~S C, C) ~C, ~ ~ O" ~ 0 O" a 0 ~ ~ ~ O ~ 0 F: D ~ 5:S ~a~ ~ #e 0 ~8= ~ `e ~O'a0 ~ 0 ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - - ;c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C ~ ~ ~ ,Y e ~ C) ~ e, ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ O O o~ ~ 0 P ~ 00 X 0 ~a s ^~= ~ ~ - s ^~= a ~O I. ~.O ~ 0 0 O _I W D ~ C, 0 O O ~ ~ - ~ . ~- O ~ 5: S ~ ~C,' ~ O ~ S ~ ~ ~(D 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= 0 0 0 ~ ~ D ~ ~ 0 ad ,1 ~ ~ D :3 O-- c) ~ ~ o. :~ ~ :a ~ ~ m ~ :a := :~ ~ ~ :, ~ ~ ~C) P. ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ O H ~ ~ t. ~:~; ~

OCR for page 255
287 - C~ U) 0 c) I: ~4 :L o o' or C) rl V) c) o Go. o 0 1 C' m EM 0 X of V) i o 00 Ct Cal EM + - 0 a' 1 U. or _ 0 I: of be Cal 03 Cal ~ A 0 c) C' ~ be So V] l ~ ~-an ~ 0 ~a ~ ~ ~ Cal ~ ~ O ~ Us ~ --_ ~-at m01:'~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -a, ~ c~ o~ ~-~ ~ CO c~ ~0 a' ~n e e e ~ e U~ O0 a' mmO C O O O ~ e e =O O O O O 0` ~ _ ~ _ ~ o,~ ~ ~ ~n 00 0 ee e e ~ ma:'_`o m~o 0 ~`o C~ ~ LO-CO ~ ~o0 ~ 0 0 e~ c~ e e e ee e ~ aoO ~ O O ~o ~cx, ~ cr. ~ _ ~ ~o- i ~ ~cu-a> - ~ ~ mm~ ~--O - C~ O C~- ~ ~ O O~- _ 1~- a, I 00 ~ ~I ~ 0m0 0 0 U~ ~ U~m0 0 0 - 0 0` ~- ~ C~ O) ai-~ oi o~ J ~ ~ ~ -U.~ ~--U~ a~ -c~ 1~ = C\1 = ~1 e ~i O~C~-~U~= ; ~ _ ~ ~ O ~ mm-O m' _ ~00 O e O.e 0 b0 0 h0 S ~S C) ~C) ^ ~ 03 ~j ~. ~ . a, ~ ~ C) ~0 ~ C, es 0 0 o, ~s ~o' o' S ~ ~ ~ ~S C, C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t4p ~ 03 :' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 sq~ ~ a' ~ ~c, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~c, ~ ~ m . 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~j O X - /O ~ ~0 ~ 0 X ~ 0 Pe c - ~= t40 - ~- ~ b4~= b00 - ~- C~ ~ C) C~ ~ o' ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ C' ~ C) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 a. ~ c~ c) ~ - L ~ a. ~ c. C) S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S S `; ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ C, ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O C) ~1 ~ 0 ~: O 0 O 0 ~ C) ~ ~1 C} ~ O O O ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 :3 0 ~ ~O ~ 0 C) ~ ~ Z ~ ~ P4 O ~ 3

OCR for page 255
288 o o c) C: C) rl P. ho :~; to := o of :^ D C. ED 0` l 1 l O C) 0 ~ l X 1~ ~ l ~V] .3 a,~ :~O _ 3:- 3 A: o e `: on -A ~ :^ 0~` o8 ~ ` C ~ C 1~ 0 C ~ 3 L [z3 ~ to ~ a, ~ V] C, ~ ~ e ~ 0 ~o! ~ ~mo ee ~ _ _ a, ~o _ ~ m_ _a, 0 . . . 0 o`_ cr. ~c~ a, ~o _ _ c~ ~ 0 ~ c~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ o~ ~ u, - -e~= ~_ e~ . 0 ~c~ - o c~ ~_ - c~ u~ . _ c~ o` - _ o~ - o== ~ ~ m~ ~a' ~ a' ~ma 0 ~_ ~ c ~o' - ~_ c~ m ~c~ ~ ~ - mu' ~ - ~m ~ o ~u`= - ~ ~o' mc~ - ~ - u, a' o' 0 K o o 0 0 O C) ~ ~5 0 . C, C ~ ~ t, .0 ~D P. O ~ 0 a~ 0 c. ~ ~o e ~0 e ~ ma~ ~ ~ _ mma, 0 ~ - u~ a, a' ~ =`o 0 o, c~ o 0 mm ~ 0 ~ ~ a' - a) ~ ~o ~ mo o' c~ - LO c~ a - u~ _= u~o c~ m c~ _ ~r, 4~ ~ . c~ _ c~ a, ~ _ ~CU ~o o ~o ' _ ~ _~ ~ o _ _= ~ C~ ~ ~a'- c ~ a, :J m - CU - e 0 o. 0 b. O C) 0 20 0 eq 0 :~ ~ '= ~ O ~ ~(D C) 0 0 ~o X ~ O U] :~o _I o~ . :q ~O O O O ~ O :r: ~ ~: e e o . Ln ~o a,~ ~.= ma, ~ ~0 a'_= ~ __ __~ U' . o~ a ~a -~ U, C~ C~= ~_ _ _ m _ so o, . _ C ~ U, w o o o' 0 W C, ~ a0 ~ c) 0 0 D a 0 cs o' 0 - : a. D ~q o p ~0 - 03 C) e . 0 zo

OCR for page 255
289 CQ 3 o o C) CQ C) ^ X i: . :~: o D o C) V) o o .^ of o a. ~ a 1 0 Cal ~ ~ 0 m -: En 0 C, x be rl :~ CQ . 3 o Cal =~- =- ! e O O ao ~I -\0 of ~ ~1 ~) ~J is) if) A 1 _ =`_ _ O O En 1 0~m~ I ~ of 0 a' ~ co L(\ a) LO ~ ~ Its + of ~ ~ eyed ~ Us ~-~ `0 _ ~ 1 I ~ mmm== I e O O- - ~= ~ 1 --~ 0 ~_._ ~o CiJ 1 _ 1 ~0 1 1 1 ~- 1 O 1 ~o ~o ao~o ~ ~ ~ m'\0 ~C~ m\0- CU ~ C ~-C~ U. U. 1 ~J ~1 = ~ 0 `0 0 = ~ ~ ~ a'_ mm _ ~n - m = - CU U. ~ C~ m ~ _ _ l ~- 00 O 0 ~ a' 0 0 ~-a' ~ ~o 0 U~ ~ ~C~ _ LO ao _ e _ . 0 ~O O0 ~O0 ~ O ~t0 . rl e. ~ 0 = 0 0= ~ 00 0 ~ =0 ~ ~' - ~O O ~4 t~ ~D ~ ~ ~ rO ~ D C) - C0 - ~ a~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ P ,1 ~ 0 ~ P 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ C) 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; V] V) ~ O O C) ~ ~ U) ~, ~ ~.. ~ a C) ~ P~ ~ 0 ~bO O O Z :it:

OCR for page 255
290 TABLE C-7 Origin Life Table Analysis of Settlement Probabilities by Rural/Urban Origin and Years of U.S. Number of Experience Migrants Double Decrement Life Table Settled Migrants Censored Migrantsa .. . . N Qx N Qx Rural Origin: o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 So Urban Origin: o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 271 148 99 77 57 50 39 32 27 20 18 15 12 1 1 8 6 150 79 61 48 38 31 28 23 20 18 16 1 1 10 4 2 o 13 13 12 6 1 1 6 5 7 2 3 3 1 3 2 o 14 10 8 6 5 3 2 2 5 1 6 2 .000 .088 .131 .156 .105 .220 .154 .156 .259 .100 .167 .200 .083 .273 .250 .000 .177 .164 .167 .158 .097 .179 .130 .100 .1 1 1 .313 .091 .600 .500 .500 Associated Single Decrement Table for Settlement dX qX 123 36 9 8 1 o o o o o o o o 71 4 3 2 1 o o o o o o o o o o .454 .243 .091 .104 .018 .000 .026 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .473 .051 .049 .042 .026 .000 .000 .000 000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .. 000 .000 1.00 .000 1.00 . 1 00 .900 .124 .776 .128 .649 .069 .580 .128 .452 .070 .382 .060 .322 .083 .239 .024 .215 .036 .179 .036 .143 .012 .131 .036 .095 .024 .071 1.00 .000 1.00 .182 .818 .138 .681 .116 .565 .090 .474 .036 .429 .077 .352 .046 .306 .031 .275 .031 .245 .077 .168 .015 .153 .092 .061 .031 .031 .015 .016 .000 . 1 00 .138 .164 .106 .220 .156 .156 .259 .100 .167 .200 .083 .273 .250 .000 .182 .168 .170 .160 .097 .179 .130 .100 .1 1 1 .313 .091 .600 .500 .500 aObservation occurred before migrant accumulated additional migrant experience.

OCR for page 255
291 ~ ma 0 ~ _= us en -us ~ 0 Cut 05~= - ~1 0= ~1 0 ~J o~l^0 O to: tag ~1 0 Cut 0 ~=0 - ~= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o m~= o ~ c ~cr ~m_ l~-~ ~ U~ 0 lD -J 1O ~0 := ln ~ O ~J C~--C~J- O O O O O O O ~e ~ C~ bO S ~: o ~: C. _ g_X ~_ D 0 x _ a, _ ~ _x ~ o~ X o Z 3X ~_ - o C~X a'~ _`: a~ x `0 _ - U~ ~D 0. :^ _ O 1_~ -`: ~X _ ~ X _ 1 ~_ _X ~: m O L _c: 0e .~: ~0 O - C) ~rl ~ bO m ~ C" O 0 ~ D -I C~ D O C~ ~: CO C. 1 C~ ~ ~ O m L E~ ~ G =0 S ~ - Lf, O ~l U~ ~ ~ U`= ~ 0 mm s t'r)CU -- e e e e e ~ O ~ ~ ~-~ ~ 00 SS ~ ~- O ~ m~ ~ m~ e e ~ S ~ - 0 ~a:, _ ~ u~:= 0 = Oa`~`o~=rm~n Oa' e e e e e e C~ a, C~= O S ~ ~ S C~ O-C~-_ ~ _ e e e e e e a, ~ ~ ~ 0 mm O ~ 0` ~ ~ CO O a~ ~ ~ u~ s e e e e e e e ~ma, ms - S~ O ~-~ ~ O- ~--CU - e e e e e e a' ~ _ ~ a, O``D O `0 ~ - 0 0` ~ ~ ~ ~ S e e e e e e e = O U~O ~- ~I C~J \0 0 ~ ~ CJi O---O-O e e e e e e e 0 - ~ O ~=' e CO - C~ :J ~ ~ nl ~ ~ ao e e ~ U~- ~ -U ~\0 O O O e ~ m ~J J ~ u~ a, O O O O e e e e U, ~ ~ L~ S ~ ~ 00 00 e e ao ms CU ~ ~S 0 ~ ~ L0 U~ e e e m\0 ~ ~ O O O- e e ~ m0 ~ ~- ~ ~ ~-U~ O `0 ~ ~ ~ ~D ~-O ~(U `0 0 \0 ~ LO O ~ CO ~) ~ U~ S ~O ~0 0 t-~ ~ e e e e e e e e ~ e e ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ - ~- = ~-~ a`m m - = _ ~CX) ~- U, ~D - = LO O---O-O O O O O 0 00 e e e e e e e e e ~ C~ - ~`D~ ~U ~S ~- _ ~ <= O LO=)-~ ~= O O ~O ~ ~- O 0~= U`= mm O 0` 0 0 - `D`O e e e e e e X _ X `: bO ~; ~: o l~`o- e-- - c~ S - ~= ~ ~CU O -~--~_ e ~ e e e ~ 0 ~ O O`D - 0 ~ c~ a' 0 ~ ~ cr, O ~ 0 ~ `0 U e e e e e e e ~ -01 -- mm m' ~- O m0 O e~ _ _ _ _ _ e e e e ~C~`O ~0 0 U~ O U~ ~ O - ~ ~ 0` O 0` t~ ~ 1~ 45 t~ C~J e e e e e e e e cu a~a~ 0 00 e ~ 00 O ~t_ O ~0 e e O `0 _ O O- - 1^ ~ CO ~ O ~o 0 r~ - o o - ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ 00 ~`D ko u~ s e - 0 =0 0 s ~ ~ ~ m' ~ ~, ~a' - = O -~ -- ~ - - ~U ~L~ e e e e e e O O O O O O O e e . 03 Ct ~; ~4 O U`O U~O =0 0 - ~J ~J ~ ~1 S D ~ 0 ~0 L~ 0 ~n 0 0 ::) - ~C~ ~ ~ S \0

OCR for page 255
of D cd o l a: ' o Hi o' o, bB o o ~. I ~ j a' 1 S" ~ ~ i _, ' ~ , ~ ' 1 O I 6q - C~ . `: j - : 0 ~ D i E~ j 292 ~ 1 a, bO ~ D E~ a, ~ C) O D ~: b4 m L o ~: C3 oq bn 0 - S; m - =__= ~C~mCO x ~-a~ a~ ~n cn u~ ~ ~ 0- ~ ~1 - - - - O O O - ~ e e e e ~ e e e e o` - 0 ma'-ko LO c~ a~ u~ ~ C~ ~ , --00 0 00 0 0 e e e a e e e e e ! _ ~ J _ ~ _ m o J 0~0~== c~ 1 =~c~. C~ I,,lx~ _ . . . . . . . . u~ mm _ ~ 0 J ~ c~ ~- m~ ~= ~ ~a' x i ~ ~ c~ -~ ~ 0-0 c~ ~ ~-0- ~0 0 0 ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ i l z I 1 ~ ~ _ J-~ 0 0 0 J d5 0 ~n 0 - ~ _-~ m~ 0- e e C~ ~ ='U~O ~ ~ 00 ~ _ 0 c~ J ~ ~o J ~ 0 ~ J c~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e e ~ ~ ~ _~, ~ J ao ~ - 0 a~ a) a~ J- m o co ~ u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --0 0 e e ~e e a - = ~ J o'~ ~o ~ c~ ~ ao C~ ~ C~- - 0 0 ~ ~J l~ ~) 0 0 0 J ~ C~ a`~ 0 ~ ~ mmo~o 0 o`~ ~ m~ ~ - mo ~J ~ _ 0~ = J - - a:) l~-~)~`o ~ J O co __ _ _0 0 -0 0 0 c~ ~-oo- -_ 0 0 e e e e e e e e e ~ -~ ~ ~ ~-- ~- ~m- O 00 ~: J J - ~ ~ O _ ~ ~ O ~ ~J ~ ~0 J ~) C~ z; ~ ln ~ _ _ ~) ~ J ~ ~J O ln _ O-~D-J ~ J ~1 - 0` ~ ~ ~ C~ _ _ _ ~ I ; e ~ ~ _3 i ~ C~ 1' ~ C~ O O O i ~ ~ O J 1 a." ~ -~1 ~)J U~O t~a~ ~ O ~-CXJ t~J ln~ ~CX) CJi O E ~O ~ E ~_ ~_ cq . := ~: ^ O] b~ ~ O CQ ~ 03 00 C. a, a C) C) 00 00 ~ a1 C~ C a :~ 0 ~ ~ P ~ ~ S 0 00 O D D ~ o' :e cd D