|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. 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 256
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 257
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 258
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 259
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 260
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 261
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 262
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 263
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 264
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 265
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 282
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 283
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 284
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 285
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 286
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 287
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 288
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 289
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 290
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 291
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 292
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
Representative terms from entire chapter:
mexican migrants
