Immigration Statistics: A Story of Neglect (1985)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

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

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

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

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;

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

266 number of workers involved. Farm workers were not covered by minimum wage laws until 1966, so migrants whose most recent trip was before this time were excluded. This exclusion plus the natural selection away from agriculture leaves only eight migrant farm workers in the highest experience interval. The last two indicators of economic integration in Table C-3 measure connections between migrants and U.S. economic institutions, namely, banks. The more experience a migrant builds up in the United States, the more likely he is to have opened a U.S. bank account of one kind or another. The percentage of farm workers with a savings or a checking account rises from 0 initially to 15 percent after 15 years. Among nonagricultural workers, the percentage with a checking account rises from 11 percent to 15 percent, and the percentage with a savings account rises from 11 percent to 29 percent. In recognition of the intense interest that has been displayed in the use of public services by undocumented migrants, we present Table C-4 as a short digression from the main theme of the paper. This table cross-classifies use of U.S. social services by legal status and years of migrant experience. Looking at the marginals, we see that, with the exception of medical services, undocumented migrants are quite unlikely to use public services. Only around 2 or 3 percent have ever used food stamps, welfare, or social security, 12 percent have had a child in U.S. schools, and 14 percent have received unemployment compensation. In contrast, 83 percent report taxes being withheld on their latest U.S. job. When these figures are broken down by years of migrant experience, some interesting patterns emerge. The basic findings concerning the use of food stamps, welfare, and social security do not really change. No matter how much time undocumented migrants have accumulated in the United States, they are unlikely to use these services. Therefore the increases reported for migrants in Table C-3 mainly reflect the ongoing process of legalization. The use of unemployment compensation, however, triples, from 10 percent to 33 percent, as one moves from less than a year of migrant experience to more than 15. Over the same length of time, the proportion of migrants with children in U.S. schools quadruples, from 12 to 50 percent. There is also considerable variation in tax withholding across levels of migrant experience. Among undocumented migrants with less than a year of experience, only 68 percent had taxes withheld, but this percentage increases steadily to 100 percent in the highest experience category. Medical services are different from the others in that they may be provided either publicly or privately. It is not surprising to find a marked increase, over time, in the percentage of migrants who report having received medical care in the United States. Sooner or later nearly everyone has need of a doctor. The figures range from 19 percent among those with less than a year in the United States to 78 percent among those with more than 15 years. Overall, the percentage having used medical facilities is 40 percent. However, use does not necessarily imply service at public expense. Our questionnaire also asked undocumented migrants how their U.S. medical bills were paid: 39 percent reported they paid the bills themselves, 34 percent said the service was covered by health insurance, 20 percent said their employer paid, 4 percent said a relative picked up the tab, and 3 percent reported some other arrangement. Of the 105 undocumented migrants who reported

267 receiving medical attention in the United States, not one admitted to receiving treatment at public expense. Our results, therefore, do not suggest the widespread abuse of publicly provided social services by undocumented migrants. The publ service that is most likely to be used by migrants is, understandably, education, which increases monotonically as migrants become more integrated into U.S. society and accumulate family members here. The one public transfer that is illegitimately used by undocumented migrants to any degree at all is unemployment compensation, the usage level of which varies from 10 to 33 percent, depending on experience. But in each experience category, the percentage of tax withholding far exceeds the percentage of service use. Moreover, with respect to service use, the effect of increasing migrant experience tends to be overshadowed by the simultaneous effect of ongoing legalization. Thus a key step in making a more intense use of services is the acquisition of legal papers. But even while legal migrants use social services more intensively than undocumented migrants, in absolute teems the usage is relatively modest, compared with native service-dependent groups (see North, 1983~. In summary, this section has shown how the social context of Mexican migration changes with the accumulation of experience in the United States. As the amount of time spent as a migrant increases, a host of formal and informal social and economic ties to the United States are formed: family members congregate, friendships develop with U.S. natives, a facility with English is acquired, jobs become more stable, clubs are joined, children go to U.S. schools, and institutional connections with banks and government emerge. In short, people begin to think and act like U.S. residents rather than like seasonal commuters. Over time, therefore, we expect a growing probability of settlement within the United States. LC THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS In the early phases of migration to the United States, the migrant's main social frame of reference is the home community, and most of the money that is earned is sent home in the form of remittances or savings. There it is used to enhance the sac ial and economic status of the migrant's family through the purchase of land, housing, businesses, or consumer goods (Reichert, 1981, 1982; Mines, 1981; Pressar, 1982~. A sure sign that the settlement process is under way occurs when a migrant sends less of his earnings back to the home community and begins spending more in the United States. In order to get at this dimension of the settlement process, we asked migrants a detailed series of questions about income, expenses, and work in the United States. Table C-5 presents information on the components of annual U.S. income defined from their responses to these questions, broken down by years of migrant experience and U.S. sector of employment. Each economic sector has two panels of information. The top panel shows the components of gross annual income during the respondent's most recent U.S. trip: hourly wage, hours worked per week, and months worked per year. The second panel shows the average yearly expenses for food and rent in the United States. These were ascertained from migrants' estimates of the amount spent each month, on average, for food and

268 lodging in the United States. These estimates were then multiplied by the average months worked per year from the top panel to give the yearly totals. Disposable income is computed as gross annual income minus annual expenses and is shown underneath the two panels in each employment sector. Since the data refer to the most recent U.S. job, which could have been held in a variety of years, all figures are expressed in 1967 U.S. dollars. Considering first the components of gross annual income, we see a rather steep rise in wages over the years of U.S. migrant experience. In both agricultural and nonagricultural jobs, wages roughly triple as one moves from those with under a year of experience to those with more than 15 years, although wages are consistently higher in the nonagricultural sector. Among farm workers, hours worked per week increase up to a point and then fall abruptly, peaking at about 48 hours among those with 5-9 years of experience before falling to a more conventional 40-hour week thereafter. Months worked per year display exactly the same pattern, rising from 4.1 to 8.4 months between 0-1 and 5-9 years of experience, and falling to 7 months thereafter. Thus, for up to nine years of experience, utilitarian economic motives apparently predominate, as migrants work on maximizing income by working long hours and more months in their U.S. job. After this time they ease up, working fewer hours and months for higher wages. The higher wages are more than enough to offset the shorter work time, so that gross income is maintained or rises steadily as years of U.S. experience accumulate. In the nonagricultural sector, hours worked per week are somewhat erratic. Starting high at 45.1, they fall to 40.8 in the experience interval of 5-9 years, rise to 46.2 years in the interval of 10-14, and then fall back again in the 15+ experience class. Months worked per year, however, are more regular, displaying a steady increase from 6.4 to 9.9 over the range of U.S. experience considered. The increase in months worked combines with a rising wage rate to almost quintuple the annual gross income of nonagricultural workers from the first to the last experience ~nterva . In every experience interval the gross income of nonagricultural workers is considerably larger than that of farm workers. Overall the former exceeds the latter by a factor of 2.8. However, the expenses of nonagricultural workers are also considerably higher, by a factor of 4 on average. Food and lodging for migrant farm workers are often provided or subsidized by growers, while in cities, nonagricultural workers must make their own arrangements. However, even though the latter's expenses are higher, the income differential is not significantly reduced. Instead of exceeding the income of farm workers by a factor of 2.8, taking account of expenses reduces it to 2.4. In both groups, expenses rise steadily with years of accumulated migrant experience. As wives and children join the emigrants in the United States, household expenses naturally rise. Among farm workers, these added expenses produce a decline in disposable income between the experience intervals of 5-9 and 10-14, before recovering at a peak of about $3,000 in the highest interval. Among nonagricultural workers, disposable income does not decline, but it clearly stalls at the same point before peaking at $6,600 in the interval 15+ years.

269 The most important rows in the table, from the viewpoint of our model of settlement, give disposable income as a proportion of gross income. Obviously our measure of disposable income is very crude, since it does not include necessary expenses such as utilities and clothing. Nonethe less, among those just beginning a migrant career, over three-quarters of gross income is "disposable" in both agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. That is, the quantity of money that migrants potentially have available to remit back to their home communities amounts to 77 percent of their gross earnings. Farm workers maintain this level up through 9 years of migrant experience. Beyond this point, it fall s to roughly 63 percent of gross pay as more and more of their earnings are spent on maintaining families resident in the United States. The share of nonagricultural workers' income potentially available for remittance home falls immediately and rapidly from 76 percent in the experience interval 0-1 to 50 percent in the experience interval 10-14, as the cost of maintaining families is much higher in urban areas and its growth over time exceeds the growth of migrants' wages. In the highest experience interval, the share of nonagricultural income that is disposable recovers somewhat, to 59 percent. A more telling indicator of the settlement process is what happens to migrants' disposable incomes. The questionnaire asked migrants to estimate the average amounts they saved and remitted home each month. The residual of these two quantities from disposable income provides an estimate of the amount spent in the United States on things other than food and rent. The percentages of disposable income devoted to each of these three categories--savings, remittances, and spending--are presented in Table C-6. Farm workers begin their careers remitting or sabering all the disposable income they earn in the United States. As the years of U.S. experience add up, however, they save and remit less and less and spend more and more in the United States. After 15 years as a U.S. migrant, they are spending 65 percent of the ir U. S. income in the United States. Nonagricultural workers begin by spending 59 percent of their disposable income. Apparently much more spending is required to establish one's self in a city job, and of course there are many more inducements to spending for recreation and pleasure. However, after one is established in the city, the relative amount spent rather than saved or remitted falls by almost half. In the experience interval 1-4, nonagricultural workers spend only 34 percent of their disposable incomes. However, as with farm workers this quantity rises rapidly and steadily thereafter, to 76 percent in the highest experience interval. These figures provide tangible evidence of a crescive settlement process operating over the course of migrants' careers. The more time spent in the United States, the more U.S.-based family members one acquires, the smaller the relative share of income is disposable, and the smaller the share of disposable income is remitted or saved for return to the home community. However, while this evidence is tangible, it is indirect. Can we produce a more direct measure of settlement propensities among Mexican migrants to the United States? The life histories collected from 421 male household heads with U.S. experience in phase two of the ethnosurvey questionnaire provide us with the data to measure directly the probability of settlement by years of U.S. migrant experience. This information is shown in Table C-7.

270 There are several technical problems underlying the calculations in this table that must be discussed. First, what is settlement? It is a notoriously slippery concept to define with respect to Mexican migrants Even after many years of residence in the United States--complete with a house and car in California--families often make annual trips back to their home communities in Mexico. They may even own land and a house in the community and play a role in local affairs; and if asked, they will swear to their intention to return permanently some day. Many do, others don't. For present purposes, I adopt an arbitrary, yet reasonable, criterion for defining settlement in the United States. A settler is a migrant who has been in the United States for three continuous years. This definition excludes seasonal migrants who work several months in the United States in successive years. It is a far more stringent criterion than most censuses use to define when someone has moved and settled. The number of migrants settling by this definition is classified by years of migrant experience in column 2 of Table C-7. The amount of time continuously spent in the United States was determined from the labor history, which was enumerated in months. Migrants thus had to report a solid block of 36 contiguous months in the United States in order to be defined as settlers. It is possible that some of these settlers actually returned to Mexico for brief visits during this time, but unless the visits were reported in the labor history, the person would still be considered a settler. Obviously, visits of less than one month would not be reported. A second problem concerns right-hand censoring of the data. In the top line of column 4, 123 migrants are listed as having been censored between the first and second experience interval. That is, 123 people began migrating, but did not accumulate more than 2 years of experience before the survey date. Of these people, some are retired migrants who made one or two trips many years ago and will probably never go again. Others are young migrants who migrated fairly recently but had not yet returned for additional trips at the survey date. Since retired migrants are not of interest in the present instance, we lump the two together as censored cases and consider it the second decrement in a double decrement table, given in the column 4 of the table. The Qx functions for a double decrement table defined by settlement and censoring are presented in columns 3 and 5 of Table C-7. Most censoring occurs in the first few experience intervals. The unadjusted probability of not going on to accumulate at least two years of U.S. experience is guise high, about 45 percent, reflecting the combination of censoring and retiring among migrants. The results of greatest interest here are presented in the last three columns of the table, which give the 1x, ndX, and nqx functions for the associated single decrement life table of migrant settlement, computed using formulas given in Pollard et al. (1974~. The nqx column gives the probability of settlement within the interval between x and x+2 years of experience, and the 1x column gives the cumulative probability of not settling after x years of migrant experience. Therefore, the quantity 1-1x gives the cumulative probability of settling after x years, and this value is plotted in Figure C-1. The qx of zero between 0 and 2 years of migrant experience is an artifact of the arbitrary definition of settlement employed. Among

271 migrants of rural origin, the probability of settlement varies from .08 to .27 over the different exposure intervals, but the nqx function displays no characteristic shape over time. Rather, settlement seems to be a steady incremental process occurring throughout the migrant career. Thus the cumulative probability of settling is roughly linear between 2 and 18 years of experience, during which time it rises from .10 to .76, after which it decelerates and begins to approach 1.0 asymptotically. After 30 years of U.S. experience, the probability that a rural migrant has settled is 93 percent. While there are some differences between the rural and urban life tables, the settlement process is essentially the same. Settlement occurs at a somewhat more rapid pace among urban migrants. After 10 years of experience the cumulative probability of U.S. settlement is .53 for urban migrants, compared with .42 for rural migrants. However, from 10 to 24 years, the cumulative probabilities of settlement are quite close and do not depart again until the last experience intervals, when the few urban migrants who still have not settled experience a high probability of doing so. After 30 years in the United States, the chances are 98 percent an urban migrant will have settled. These results provide direct evidence of a settlement process among Mexican migrants to the United States. As migrants accumulate U.S. experience and acquire an increasing number of social and economic ties in this country, the probability of settling becomes ever more likely. Settlement appears to be an incremental process that occurs at a steady, if irregular, pace throughout the migrant career. Over the course of years, the cumulative probability of settling becomes overwhelming. Seemingly the only way to preclude settlement is to stop migrating. However, as we see next, migration has a way of becoming a self-perpetuating enterprise. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES What do all these findings mean for the future of Mexico-United States migration? We have shown that the length of migrants' U. S. . experience is a crucial factor in determining whether they are sojourners or settlers. More to the point, the specification of the problem in terms of this simplistic dichotomy is misleading and inappropriate. Settlement is a part of a continuous social process occurring over the migrant career. As Mexican migrants accumulate time in the United States, social changes occur that make settlement progressively likely. Settlement is a cumulative stochastic process, not a fixed trait of the migrant population. The relative number of sojourners versus settlers at any point in time depends on the number of people who became migrants in the past and the number of those who have gone on to become repeat migrants. These quantities reflect, in turn, the probability of becoming a migrant in different periods, and the probability that those who became migrants went on to become repeat migrants. In order to make discussion more tangible, we estimated the probability of becoming a U.S. migrant by period using an age-period-cohort analysis (Mason et al., 1973, 1976~. Men were selected for analysis because community studies indicate they are leaders in the process of U.S. migration (Reichert and Massey, 1980; Mines, 1981; Mines

272 and Massey, 19853. We employed a discrete-time approach that looked at person-years as units of observation (Fienberg and Mason, 1978; Allison, 1982, 1984~. Beginning at birth, each year of a man's life was coded O if he had never migrated and 1 if he became a migrant for the first time in that year. All years subsequent to the one in which he became a migrant were excluded. Migration probabilities were estimated by using a maximum likelihood logit procedure that regressed this 0 1 variable on dummy variables for age (in five-year intervals), period (measured in five-year intervals from 1940-1982, with the last interval truncated), and birth cohort (in five-year intervals). Unless one makes an a priori restriction on the parameters of this model, it will be underidentified (Fienberg and Mason, 1978~. Since Rodgers (1982) has warned of biases that may result if the identification restriction is arbitrary, we first computed separate life tables for age, period, and cohort and examined them to see what r restrictions might legitimately be made. The age life table indicated that the probability of out-migration was virtually constant below age 15 and above age 40, so the first model we estimated forced the coefficients in the intervals under 15 to equal one another, and likewise for those above 40. When this model was estimated separately for rural and urban areas, none of the cohort coefficients proved significant, so the model was further reduced to a simple age-period analysis.5 Three kinds of censoring are at issue in the estimation of this model. First, there is random censoring on the right-hand side, which means that censoring times vary across individuals. In this case, observation ends at approximately the same time for all people, but it begins at different times (i.e. their various birth dates). The estimation method assumes that censoring time is independent of the likelihood of migration (Allison, 1984~. This assumption may be violated to the extent that people with short censoring times (those born recently) are more likely to migrate (because of recent upturns in the rate of out-migration), leading to underestimates of probabilities of out-migration in recent years. Given the very high migration probabilities estimated by the model for the 1970s (see Table C-8), this bias tends to be conservative, with the exception of the most recent post-1980 period, which displayed a suspicious downturn in the probability of U.S. migrat ion. A second censoring problem occurs because the data consist of retrospective life histories. People who died before the survey date cannot report their experiences for the period under consideration. The implicit assumption, therefore, is that migrants and nonmigrants are equally likely to die. Finally, censoring results because some migrants leave the communities permanently to settle in the United States and are not around to report their experiences to the interviewers. We attempted to compensate for this bias by selecting a purposive sample of out-migrants who had established residences in California. This sample, of course, is not representative of all permanent out-migrants. To the extent that our California sample over- or underrepresents these out-migrants, the probabilities of out-migration will be biased. In general, we feel the sample underrepresents permanent out-migrants, but whether the California sample is included or excluded does not change the conclusions that follow. Excluding the sample puts a lower bound on the probabilities,

273 producing figures slightly below those we report, but the age and period trends are exactly the same. The age-period model predicts the yearly probability of becoming a U.S. migrant given an age and a period. These were converted into estimates Of nqXts for the age-period life table shown in Table C-8. The 1x functions in this table give the probability of remaining a nonmigrant by age x, given the prevailing period rates, so that 1-1x represents the cumulative probability of becoming a migrant by age x. The value of 1-160 can be taken as an indicator of the lifetime probability of becoming a U.S. migrant, and it is plotted by period in Figure C-2. The pattern of out-migration probabilities is very different in rural and urban areas. The lifetime probability of migration in rural areas is quite high in all periods considered. Given the period rates prevailing between 1940 and 1982 in the communities under consideration, the probability is never less than .56 that a man will become a migrant at some point in his life (.51 if the California sample is excluded). In these rural communities, then, migration to the United States is a very common experience among men, one that became ever more common during the 1970s. After reaching an early peak of .70 during the height of the Bracero period in 1950-1954, the lifetime probability of migration falls during 1955-1959 (when Operation Wetback was in full swing to deport undocumented Mexican workers) and 1960-1964. Following the c lose of the Bracero Program in 1964, out-migration probabilities once again take off. By the late 1970s, the chances are 90 percent that a man will go to the United States at some point in his life (84 percent excluding the Cal if ornia sample) . Thus, U. S. migration has become an almost universal experience for men in these rural communities. And compared to the communities studied by Reichert and Massey (1979, 1980) and Mines (1981), the prevalence of out-migration in these rural towns is relatively moderate. The apparent downturn during the early 1980s is probably an art if ac t of the truncated interval and censoring biases. The urban areas d isplay a completely d if ferent temporal pattern of out-migration. The underlying lifetime probability of U.S. migration in these communities seems to be about .30 to .35, substantially lower than in the rural areas. Superimposed on this underlying level are two peaks when the probability reached around .50: 1945-1954 and 1960-1964. These two periods correspond to eras of intensive capital investment in Mexico. In Santiago's textile factory, for example, labor-saving machinery was introduced that displaced a large number of workers, many of whom became U.S. migrants. Thus the time trends, and probably the causes, of U.S. migration are quite different in Mexican rural and urban areas. In rural areas, the dramatic rise in out-migration from 1960 to the present probably reflects the growing acuteness of Mexico's agricultural land shortage (Hewitt de Alcantara, 1976; Russell, 1977~; while in urban areas, periods of likely out-migration reflect labor dislocation brought about by capital substitution in industry. But no matter what the underlying cause, the fact remains that a majority of rural dwellers and a significant plurality of urban dwellers are likely to migrate to the United States at least once in their lives, and among rural areas this likelihood has grown rapidly over the last decade.

274 Given these facts, the obvious question is, how likely are these migrants to go on and become repeat migrants, thereby accumulating U.S. experience? Table C-9 undertakes a double decrement life table analysis of migration progression probabilities, analogous to parity progression ratios in fertility analysis, in order to answer this question. The table begins with all migrants who ever made a trip to the United States. Between each successive trip, it then looks at the number who go on to make an additional trip and the number who do not. The decrement in the process therefore occurs when a migrant fails to make an additional trip. This decrement is subject to censoring biases, however. Many migrants have only recently gone to the United States and will probably do so again, but were observed before the next trip could take place. Other migrants may not have yet returned from their latest U.S. trip. If a migrant had not yet accumulated five years since his most recent U.S. trip, or if he had not yet returned from this trip, the observation was considered to be censored. Migrants who had not made another trip within five years of the last were considered to have "retired." Columns 3 and 5 give the Qx functions associated with these two decrements, censoring and retirement. The associated single decrement table for retirement is given in the last three columns of the table. The nqx column gives the independent probability of retirement between trips x and x+1, so l-nqx gives the likelihood of going on to the next trip. The 1x function in this case represents the cumulative probability of making x trips. The 1x and l-nqx functions are plotted in Figure C-3. Both functions assume one is a migrant in the first place and are therefore conditional probabilities. The probability of making an additional U.S. trip is generally quite high. For those with one trip the likelihood of making a second is .77 in rural areas and .59 in urban areas. Moreover, the likelihood of making an additional trip rises with the number of trips. The more one migrates, the more likely one is to continue migrating. Migration is therefore a self-perpetuating kind of social phenomenon, as many observers have noted (Bohning, 1912; Griffiths, 1979; Piore, 1979; Rhoades, 1979; Wiest, 1979; Reichert 1981, 1982; Mines, 1981; Pressar, 1982~. Specifying the mechanisms by which migration becomes self-feeding is beyond the scope of this paper. This topic will be thoroughly covered in the larger study of which this paper is only a part. For present purposes, it is sufficient to know that the probability of becoming a recurrent seasonal migrant increases the more scrips that are taken. Thus the probability of making x trips falls rapidly over the f lest few trips, but then levels off asymptot ical ly after seven or e ight trips. The probability that a new migrant will go on to make 10 U.S. trips is .22 in rural areas and .08 in urban areas. At this point, we have estimated life tables that summarize three steps in the developmental process of Mexico-United States migration. First is the out-migration step. It is obvious that a vast number of Mexicans, have made at least one U.S. trip over the past 40 years, and that this number grew very rapidly during the 1970s, especially in rural areas. Second is the continuation step. Of those that begin migrating, some proportion will inevitably become regular seasonal migrants, traveling to the United States for wage labor year after year. Third is the settlement step. Of those that become recurrent migrants, another

275 proportion will ultimately develop social and economic ties leading to their permanent settlement in the United States. That most Mexican migrants are now sojourners and not settlers is not surprising given rapid increase in Mexican migration to the United States during the 1970s. However, as these migrant cohorts age and the social process of migration takes its course through these three steps, a growing proportion will become settlers, deeply integrated into the social and economic fabric of U.S. society. The ethnosurvey data thus provide a basis for making informed statements about the relative prevalence of sojourners and settlers among Mexican migrants in years to come. The f igures in Table C-7 give probabilities of settlement by years of accumulated U.S. experience. We presented the data in this way in order to break the settlement process down into its component parts: initial out-migration, continuation, and settlement. However, life tables can just as easily be prepared to compute settlement probabilities by number of calendar years since migration began, combining the continuation and settlement steps into a single table. When this is done, we find that 32 percent of rural migrants and 41 percent of urban migrants settle in the United States within 10 years of their first U.S. trip (tables not shown). To place the issue in perspective, Passel and Warren (1983) estimate that a minimum of 756,000 undocumented Mexicans entered the United States during the 1970s. If we adopt the convenient fiction that all these people were first-time migrants, then the rural probability model predicts that 242,000 will settle in the United States over the next decade. The urban probability model predicts an even higher figure of 310,000. These numbers are not presented as estimates in any sense. They simply illustrate the magnitude of the phenomenon under consideration. The ultimate point is that because of the large number of Mexican migrants who began migrating during the 1970s, the United States must be prepared to integrate growing cohorts of settlers in years to come, even though rates of return migration may now appear to be high. CONCLUSION There are two important lessons to be gleaned from this study. The first is the utility of the ethnosurvey method for gathering data on sensitive topics not easily measured in standard social surveys and for understanding social processes that operate at the community level. The ethnosurvey is not a technique for aggregate statistical estimation. It will not help one estimate the number of undocumented migrants in the United States or the number that are enrolled in U.S. public schools. What the ethnosurvey does provide is a way of understanding and interpreting the social processes that underlie the aggregate statistics. Thus, the various numbers computed from the ethnosurvey data cannot be generalized to the rest of Mexico or even to the population of Mexican migrants. Probabilities of out-migration and settlement may be higher or lower in this or that Mexican community. But while the specific numbers may vary with the particular setting, the social processes they reify do not. In the six migrant communities with which the author has worked, there has been a remarkable consistency in the structure and processes of out-migration. The strength of the

276 ethnosurvey is that it provides hard information so that these processes and structures can be described to others in a cogent and convincing way. The second lesson concerns the nature of the migration process itself. This paper examined only one part of a larger social process, that of integration and settlement within the United States. The ethnosurvey unambiguously shows how socioeconomic connections to the United States are gradually formed by migrants over the years. The growing number of U.S. ties creates conditions favorable to permanent settlement in the United States. Over time there is a regular crescive settlement of migrants out of the seasonal migrant labor force into established U.S. residence. Thus the perceptive observations of Piore (1979) and Bohning (1972) are amply born out by a detailed examination of the data. The settlement process is especially important in understanding migration between Mexico and the United States. Mexican migration clearly took a sharp upswing during the 1970s, a finding fully consonant with aggregate level estimates based on U.S. census data (Passer and Warren, 1983; Passel and Woodrow, 1984~. It is also clear that migration is a self-feeding process. Putting the two findings together, the logic is inescapable. The more people who begin migrating, the more people who will continue to migrate; the more people who continue migrating, the more who will inevitably settle in the United States. Thus any temporary migrant program or inflow of short-tenm undocumented migrants can reasonably be expected to lead to ultimate settlement in significant proportions. And the more people who settle, the heavier use of social services such as schools and medical facilities, the higher the concentration of Hispanics in cities such as Los Angeles and Chicago, and the greater the inst itut tonal support for further migrat ion. A figure of 756,000 undocumented Mexican migrants entering the United States during the 1970s is probably too low for our purposes. First, it is a lower bound since it represents only undocumented Mexican migrants enumerated in the 1980 U.S. census. And even if there were no undercount, it is only an estimate of net Mexican immigration to the United States. The number of people who became U.S. migrants during the 1970s is probably much larger. Thus, the number of people to which our probabilities apply is probably much larger--in the millions. Any way you look at it, a large number of Mexicans will be establishing permanent ties in the United States in years to come, augmenting the already large Hispanic minority in this country. NOTES 1. The community names are all fictitious. 2. The anthropologists are Mexican in the sense that they are affiliated with E1 Colegio de Michoacan in Zamora, Mexico. One is actually Peruvian. 3. The Bracero Program was established in 1942 by joint agreement of the governments of Mexico and the United States. It arranged for the important of agricultural workers into the United States for periods not to exceed six months. At its height in the mid 1950s, several hundred thousand Braceros entered the U.S. for work each year. The

277 4. 5. program ended in 1964, by which time over 4 million Braceros had worked in the United States. INS form I-551 is called a mica in the slang of migrants. It is derived from the verb enmicar, to laminate or cover with plastic, which is what the INS does to the green card when it is issued. Mica thus refers to a plastic coated card. For a thorough review of age-period-cohort effects in demography see Hobcraft et al. (1982~. One of the few examples of cohort effects in migration is Eldridge (1964~. REFERENCES Allison, P.D. 1982 Discrete-time methods for the analysis of event histories. In S. Leinhardt, ea., Sociological Methodology 1982. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1984 ~ . Sage University Paper Series, forthcoming. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. Avante Systems 1978 A Survey of the Undocumented Population in Two Texas Border Areas. San Antonio, Tex.: U.S; Commission on Civil Rights. Bean, F.D., King, A.G., and Passel, J.S. 1983 The number of illegal migrants of Mexican origin in the United States: sex ratio-based estimates for 1980. Demography 20:99-110. Blau, F.D. 1984 The use of transfer payments by immigrants. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 37:222-239. Bohning, W.R. 1972 The Migration of Workers in the United Kingdom and the European Community. London: Oxford University Press. Bustamante, J.A. 1977 Undocumented migration from Mexico: research report. International Migration Review 11:149-77. 1978 Pp. 22-40 in Proceedings of the Brookings-E1 Colegio de Mexico Symposium on Structural Factors in Mexican and Caribbean Basin Migration. Washington, D.C. Cornelius, W.A. 1976 Outmigration from rural Mexican communities. Interdisciplinary Communications Program Occasional Monograph Series 5~2~:1-39. _ Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute. 1978 Mexican Migration to the United States: Causes, Consequences, and U.S. Responses. Migration and Development Monograph c/78-9. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for International Studies. Cornelius, W.A. 1982 Interviewing undocumented immigrants: methodological reflections based on fieldwork in Mexico and the U.S. International Migration Review 16:378-411.

278 Dagodag, W.T. 1975 Source regions and composition of illegal Mexican immigration to California. International Migration Review 9:499-512. Dinerman, I.R. 1978 Patterns of adaptation among households of U.S.-bound migrants from Michoacan, Mexico. International Migration Review 12:485-501. 1982 Migrants and Stay-At-Homes: A Comparative Study of Rural Migration from Michoacan, Mexico. Monographs in U.S.-Mexican Studies No. 5. La Jolla: Program in United States-Mexican Studies, University of California at San Diego. Eldridge, H.T. 1964 A cohort approach to the analysis of migration differentials. Demography 1:212-219. Fienberg, S.F., and Mason, W.M. 1978 Identification and estimation of age-period-cohort models in the analysis of discrete archival data. In K.F. Schuessler, ea., Sociological Methodology 1979. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goodman, L.A. 1961 Snowball sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 32:148-170. , L.W. The Data Collection and Research Program of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, Minneapolis. Griffiths, S. 1979 Emigration and entrepreneurship in a Philippine peasant village. Papers in Anthropology 20~1~:127-144. Heer, D.M. 1979 What is the annual net flow of undocumented Mexican immigrants to the United States? Demography 16:417-23. Hewitt de Alcantara, C. ~ 1976 Modernizing Mexican Agriculture: Socioeconomic Implications of Technical Change, 1940-1970. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Hill, K. 1984 Assessing Stocks and Flows of Migrants. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, Minneapolis. Hobcraft, J., Menken, J.A., and Preston, S.P. 1982 Age, period, and cohort effects in demography: a review. Population Index 48:4-43. Jones, R.C. 1982 Undocumented migration from Mexico: some geographical questions. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 72:77-87. Kraly, E.P. 1980 International Migration Statistics: Definition and Data. Presented at the Committee on National Statistics Conference on Immigration Statistics, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

279 Kraly, E.P., Chervany, N., and Warren, B. 1984 INS Data Sources: Their Strengths and at the Annual Meetings of the --a America, Minneapolis. Lancaster, C., and Scheuren, F.J. 1977 Counting the uncountable i ~ ~ speculations employing 530-535 Shortcomings. Presented Ponulation Association of llegals: some initial statistical capture-recapture techniques. Pp. in Proceedings of the Annual Meetings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section. Lieberson, S., and Carter, D.K. 1983 A model for inferring the voluntary and involuntary causes of residential segregation. Demography 19:511-26. Mason, K.O., Mason, W.M., Winsborough, H.H., and Poole, W.K. 1973. Some methodological issues in cohort analysis of archival data. American Sociological Review 38:242-58. Mason, W.M., Mason, K.O., and Winsborough, H.H. 1976 Reply to Glenn. American Sociological Review 41:904-905. Massey, D.S. 1979 Residential segregation of Spanish Americans in U.S. urbanized areas. Demography 16:553-563. Massey, D.S., and Mullan, B.P. 1984 Processes of Hispanic and Black spatial assimilation. American Journal of Sociology 89:836-73. Massey, D.S., and Schnabel, K.M. 1983a Recent trends in Hispanic immigration to the U.S. International Migration Review 17:212-244. 1983b Background and characteristics of undocumented Hispanic migrants to the United States. Migration Today 11~1~:6-13. Mines, R. 1981 Developing a Community Tradition of Migration: A Field Study in Rural Zacatecas Mexico and Cal if ornia Settlement Areas. Monographs in U.S.-Mexican Studies No. 3. La Jolla: Program in United States-Mexican Studies, University of California at San Diego. Mine s , R., and Massey, D.S. 1985 A comparison of patterns of U.S.-bound migration in two Mexican sending communities. Latin American Research Review 20(January):forthcoming. Mullan, B.P. 1984 Occupational Mobility of Mexican Migrants to the United States. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, Minneapolis. North, D.S. 1983 Impact of legal, illegal, and refugee migrations on U.S. social service programs. Pp. 269-286 in M.M. Kritz, ea., U.S. Immigration and Refugee Policy: Global and Domestic Issues. Lexington, Mass.: Heath. North, D.S., and Houstoun, M.F. 1976 The Characteristics and Role of Illegal Aliens in the U.S. Labor Market: An Exploratory Study. Washington, D.C.: Linton.

280 Orange County Task Force 1978 The Economic Impact of Undocumented Immigrants on Medical Costs, Tax Contributions, and Health Needs of Undocumented Migrants. Report to the Orange County Board of Supervisors, Santa Ana, California. Passel, J.S., and Warren, B. 1983 Estimates of Illegal Aliens from Mexico Counted in the 1980 United States Census. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, Pittsburgh. Passel, J.S., and Woodrow, K.A. 1984 Settlement Patterns of Immigrants: Undocumented Aliens Counted in the 1980 Census by State. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, Minneapolis. Piore, M.J. 1979 Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor and Industrial Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pollard, A.H., Yusuf, F., and Pollard, G.N. 1974 Demographic Techniques. New York: Pergamon. Pressar, P.R. 1982 The role of households in international migration and the case of U.S.-bound migration from the Dominican Republic. International Migration Review 16:342-64. Ranney, S., and Kossoudji, S. 1983 Profiles of temporary Mexican labor migrants in the United States. Population and Development Review 9:475-93. J.S. The migrant syndrome: seasonal U.S. wage labor and rural development in central Mexico. Human Organization 40:56-66. 1982 Social stratification in a Mexican sending community: the effect of migration to the United States. Social Problems 29:422-33. Reichert, J.S., and Massey, D.S. 1979 Patterns of migration from a Mexican sending community: a comparison of legal and illegal migrants. International Migration Review 13:599-623. 1980 History and trends in U.S.-bound migration from a Mexican town. International Migration Review 14:475-91. Rhoades, R.E. 1979 From caves to Main Street: return migration and the transformation of a Spanish village. Papers in Anthropology 20~1~:57-74. Roberts, K.D. 1982 Agrarian structure and labor mobility in rural Mexico. Population and Development Review 8:299-323. Reichert, 1981 Robinson, 1980 Estimating the approximate size of the illegal alien population in the United States by the comparative trend analysis of age-specific death statistics. Demography 17:159-76. Rodgers, W.L. 1982 Estimable functions of age, period, and cohort effects. American Sociological Review 47:774-786. Russell, P. 1977 Mexico in Transition. Austin, Tex.: Colorado River Press.

281 Samora, J. 1971 Los ~ados: The Wetback S tory. Notre Dame, Ind. Univers ity of Not re Dame Pre s s . Shadow, R.D. 19 79 Dif ferent ial out-migrat ion: a comparison of internal and international migration from Villa Guerrero, Jalisco (Mexico). Pp. 67-84 in F. Camara and R. Van Kemper, eds., Migration Across Frontiers: Mexico and the United States. Albany, ~ ~ Institute for Mesoamerican Stitt~;,--S-t-a-t-e University of Simon, J.L. New York at Stony Brook. 1984 Immigrants, taxes, and welfare in the United States. Population and Development Review 10:55-70. Tienda, M., and Sullivan, T. 1984 Integration of Multiple Data Sources in Immigrant Studies. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, Minneapolis. Van Arsdol, M., Moore, J.W., and Beer, D.M. 1979 Non-Apprehended and Anorehended nnd~1'm~nt-d ~ ; Aces ~ ; ~ the Exploratory Study. Washington, muDepartment or Lanor, Manpower Administration. D.C. Wiest, R.E. 1973 Wage-labor migration and the household in a Mexican town. ~ ological Research 29:180-209. 1979 urn migration: a critical commentary. Papers in Anthropology 20(1):167-188.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. ~:~; ~

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

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

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:

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.

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

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