Massey Theories of International Migration a Review and Appraisal Summary

• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC4933523

Migrat Lett. Author manuscript; bachelor in PMC 2016 Sep ane.

Published in concluding edited form every bit:

PMCID: PMC4933523

NIHMSID: NIHMS769053

A Missing Element in Migration Theories

Douglas S. Massey

Office of Population Research, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544

Abstract

From the mid-1950s through the mid1980s, migration between United mexican states and the United States constituted a stable organization whose contours were shaped by social and economic conditions well-theorized past prevailing models of migration. Information technology evolved as a generally circular move of male person workers going to a handful of U.S. states in response to changing atmospheric condition of labor supply and demand north and south of the border, relative wages prevailing in each nation, market failures and structural economic changes in United mexican states, and the expansion of migrant networks following processes specified past neoclassical economics, segmented labor market theory, the new economics of labor migration, social capital theory, earth systems theory, and theoretical models of land behavior. After 1986, notwithstanding, the migration system was radically transformed, with the internet rate of migration increasing sharply as motion shifted from a circular period of male workers going a limited ready of destinations to a nationwide population of settled families. This transformation stemmed from a dynamic process that occurred in the public loonshit to bring about an unprecedented militarization of the Mexico-U.Due south. edge, and not because of shifts in social, economic, or political factors specified in prevailing theories. In this paper I draw on earlier work to draw that dynamic process and demonstrate its consequences, underscoring the need for greater theoretical attention to the cocky-interested actions of politicians, pundits, and bureaucrats who benefit from the social construction and political manufacture of immigration crises when none really be.

In the 1990s, at the behest of Massimo Livi-Bacci, so President of the International Union for the Scientific Written report of Population, I agreed to chair an interdisciplinary, international committee of migration scholars for the IUSSP. The commission'due south charge was to develop a unified theoretical framework for the study of international migration by identifying the key propositions derived from prevailing migration theories and then to assess them against empirical testify from international migration systems around the globe. The ultimate goal was to encourage researchers from dissimilar nations and disciplines to speak a common theoretical language, thereby enabling them to test hypotheses of common involvement using comparable information and methods. The commission consisted of Joaquin Arango, a sociologist from Espana who was familiar with migration in Europe; Graeme Hugo, a geographer from Australia with cognition of Asia and the Pacific; Ali Kouaouci, a social demographer from Algeria who covered Africa and the Middle East; Adela Pellegrino, a historical demographer from Uruguay with expertise in Latin America; and J. Edward Taylor an economist from the United states of america who, similar me, did field enquiry in Mexico and knew the North American migration arrangement well, just besides had published widely on issues of migration and evolution around the world..

Every bit professional committees go, the IUSSP Committee on Southward-Northward Migration was rather productive. During 1991 and 1992 we met twice each year in Liege, Belgium (where the IUSSP was and then headquartered). Each committee fellow member presented the theoretical models he or she idea merited serious consideration and identified an empirical literature fir the committee to review. We so assigned tasks of reading, reviewing, and writing to committee members and began to publish our findings in 1993, when we offered an initial survey of the panorama of theories prevailing across disciplines circa 1990 (Massey et al. 1993). This commodity was followed a year later past an assessment of how the theories performed when practical to explain patterns and processes of international migration inside Due north America, the region where empirical inquiry was and so most arable (Massey et al. 1994).

While other commission members worked to assemble citations and sources and write capacity for the final book, Edward Taylor took the lead in putting together two boosted manufactures reviewing theory and research on international migration and economic evolution, ane focused on work at the community level (Taylor et al. 1996a) and the other focused at the national level (Taylor et al. 1996b), both of which later became book chapters. Writing on the book was completed in late 1997 and information technology was published in 1998 as Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium (Massey et al. 1998).

In those days, no cocky-respecting IUSSP committee could fail to organize an international workshop of some sort, so the final deed of the committee was to issue a phone call for papers and organize a small-scale conference to present enquiry findings relevant to the committee's integrated theoretical vision. The workshop convened in May of 1997 in Barcelona, Spain, and ultimately produced the edited volume International Migration: Prospects and Policies in a Global Market place (Massey and Taylor 2004). In this book, a various set of authors explored the contours of migration patterns and policies in the globalizing economy of the belatedly 20^thursday century.

In hindsight, I call up the committee essentially met its goals and fulfilled its charge quite well. The original theoretical review article (Massey et al. 1993), every bit well equally the more than comprehensive book (Massey et al. 1998) accept found their way into syllabi and curricula throughout the earth. As a issue, migration researchers today more often than not announced to be familiar with the leading theoretical frameworks coming from unlike disciplines and are increasingly addressing questions of common interest using similar methodologies. As the book was in production, however, I personally came to believe that the committee had overlooked a key thespian in the process of international migration: namely, the state—the organ responsible for the formulation and implementation of immigration policy.

A key difference between the outset circular of globalization (between 1820 and 1920) and the second round (1970-present) was the degree of involvement of national governments in managing international population flows (Williamson 2004). Prior to the First World War, a system of passports and visas did non exist and no country imposed quantitative limits on the entry of immigrants. Today, of course, passports are required for all international travel outside of migration unions such every bit the Schengen Zone, visas are required for near passports around the globe, and all countries impose both quantitative and qualitative limitations on entry for permanent settlement. Thus nation states today necessarily play a role in determining the number and characteristics of immigrants flowing from land to state, apart from the social and economic factors covered in the theories reviewed by the IUSSP Commission.

Given this realization, I took information technology upon myself to undertake a review of theories and inquiry on the office of states in formulating immigration policies and the probable effects of their attempts at implementation. The review, which I viewed as a compliment to the committee's book and papers, was published equally an article in the Population and Development Review (Massey 1999). Information technology identified three wide sets of variables equally key determinants of clearing policy conception: macroeconomic conditions such as employment and wages, the relative size of the immigrant menstruum, and the ideological context of the time, with the actual effect of these policies being contingent on the chapters and efficacy of the country seeking to implement them (Massey 1999).

THEORIZING INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

The end upshot of all of the foregoing work was a comprehensive framework that theorized five features of international migration (Massey 2013): (1) the structural forces in sending nations that create a mobile population prone to migration; (two) the structural forces in receiving nations that generate a persistent need for migrant workers; (three) the motivations of the people who answer to these structural forces past moving beyond borders; (4) the social structures and organizations that arise in the class of globalization to perpetuate flows of people over time and across infinite; (5) and the policies that governments implement in response to these forces and how they function in practise to shape the numbers and characteristics of the migrants who enter and exit a country.

The principal frameworks theorizing the creation of migrant-prone populations in sending countries are globe systems theory in sociology (Portes and Walton 1981; Sassen 1988) and institutional theory in economic science (North 1990). Both perspectives posit that migrants originate in the structural transformation of societies brought almost by the cosmos and expansion of markets in the grade of economic development (Massey 1988). The transition from a control or subsistence economy to a market system typically entails a massive restructuring of social institutions and cultural practices, and in the course of these transformations people are displaced from traditional livelihoods in subsistence farming (as peasant agriculture gives way to commercialized farming) and state enterprises (equally land-dominated sectors are privatized in former command economies).

The generation of a persistent demand for low-wage immigrant workers in mail-industrial societies is theorized nether the rubric of segmented labor marketplace theory. Originally developed by Piore (1979) as dual labor market theory, this perspective traces the persistent demand for immigrant workers to the duality between labor (a variable factor of product) and capital (a stock-still gene of product), which yields a majuscule-intensive sector to satisfy constant demand and a labor-intensive sector to adjust variable demand associated with economical cycles that fluctuate over time. The resulting segmented labor market construction is reinforced by hierarchically-structured occupational structures, which create motivational problems at the bottom of the pyramid (where people are unwilling to work hard or remain long in low condition jobs they can't escape) and structural aggrandizement (where raising wages at the bottom generates up pressures on wages throughout the job hierarchy). Under these circumstances, employers take a hard time recruiting and keeping native workers at profitable wages and seek strange laborers instead, either prevailing upon governments to establish formal guest worker programs or engaging in private recruitment efforts. Portes and Bach (1985) later on augmented Piore'south dual labor market theory by pointing out that indigenous communities under certain circumstances tin generate their own demand for immigrants and may, if the correct conditions prevail, go vertically integrated in ways that generate a long-term need for additional immigrant workers, thereby creating ethnic enclaves as a third potential labor marketplace sector..

The motives of those who respond to the foregoing structural forces are theorized both by neoclassical economics and the new economics of labor migration. The old holds that people move to maximize lifetime earnings. Individuals assess the money they tin can expect to earn by working locally and compare information technology to what they conceptualize earning at diverse destinations, both domestic and international. Then they project future income streams at unlike locations over their working lives (subject to a fourth dimension-varying discount factor typically modeled equally a negative exponential) and subtract out the expected costs of migration, yielding an judge of expected net lifetime earnings at different destinations. In theory, people migrate to the location offers the highest lifetime returns for their labor then that in the amass labor flows from low- to high-wage areas until an equilibrium is reached (Todaro and Maruszko 1986).

Rather than maximizing income, the new economic science of labor migration argues that people utilise international labor migration to manage economical take chances and overcome missing, failed, or inefficient markets for capital, credit, and insurance at places of origin (Stark 1991). In contrast to the permanent migration hypothesized by neoclassical economics, the new economic epitome predicts circular movement and the repatriation of earnings in the grade of remittances or savings. It as well recognizes that people are embedded with households and therefore may engage in collective rather than private controlling. Rather than moving abroad permanently, people movement abroad temporarily to diversify household incomes and accumulate greenbacks they cannot save or borrow at home, and and so return home with the means to solve specific household economic bug originally prompted them to move.

Although neoclassical theory is by and large thought to predict permanent migration, Dustmann and Görlach (2015) have recently shown that the neoclassical model of Todaro and Maruszko (1987) is simply a special case of a more than general model of migrant decision-making. In their theoretical conception, wage differentials establish the principal determinant of migration only under certain restrictive conditions, such as when preferences for consumption in both countries are identical; when national currencies practise non differ in purchasing ability; and when at that place is no skill accumulation abroad. They demonstrate that departures from these conditions lead to a variety of theoretically expected rationales for workers to prefer temporary over permanent international migration fifty-fifty under neoclassical assumptions.

Globalization inevitably entails the move of people across international borders, either as bearers of labor or human being majuscule, and the principal model articulated to describe the formation and elaboration of social structures during the course of migration itself is social capital theory (Massey et al. 1998). The commencement migrants to motility away have no social ties to depict upon for assistance, and for them migration is costly, risky, and daunting, especially if it involves inbound another country without documents. As out-migration progresses, however, a social infrastructure arises and often develops a powerful momentum to yield a cocky-perpetuating process known every bit cumulative causation (Massey 1990; Massey and Zenteno 1999).

Pioneer migrants are inevitably linked to non-migrants in their home communities through networks of reciprocal obligation based on shared understandings of kinship and friendship and non-migrants draw upon network ties to facilitate departure, migration, entry, employment, housing, and mobility at points of foreign destination, substantially reducing the costs and risks of international motility. In one case the number of network connections in an origin area reaches a critical level, migration becomes self-perpetuating because migration itself creates the social structure necessary to sustain information technology, specially in rural areas where interpersonal networks are dumbo and social ties strong (Flores-Yeffal 2012). The cumulative causation of migration through network expansion tends to exist much weaker or inoperative in urban settings (Fussell and Massey 2004).

According to the theory of the state outlined in my review, policies affecting immigration grow out of a political process in which competing interests collaborate within bureaucratic, legislative, judicial, and public arenas to influence the flow and characteristics of immigrants (Massey 1999). In general, this competition of interests is posited to generate permissive immigration policies during periods of economic expansion and restrictive policies during periods of contraction. In most theoretical renderings, the critical actors are workers and employers, with politicians and regime actors playing a mediating role in balancing the competing interests. During nail times unemployment rates fall and wages ascent and employers entrance hall the government for more than migrant workers, whereas during times of bust workers press demands through their legislators to restrict clearing; and public officials are basically hypothesized to alternating dorsum and along to satisfy the virtually vocal and demanding constituency at any point in time.

In addition to economic conditions, immigration policy is sensitive to the relative number of immigrants involved, with the politics of immigration becoming more conflictive and tending toward restriction equally the volume of clearing rises (Massey 1999). Immigration policies are besides associated with broader ideological currents in guild, tending toward restriction during periods of social conformity and conservatism and tilting toward expansion during periods of openness and liberalism. Policies are too shaped necessarily by geopolitical considerations, peculiarly those dealing with refugees and aviary seekers.

Finally, whatsoever the direction specific national policies ultimately have—restrictive or permissive—an boosted consideration is the ability of the state to enforce them. In my paper, I argued that state capacity varies along a continuum from low to high depending on the efficiency of the nation's bureaucracy, the strength of constitutionally embedded rights, the caste of judicial independence in enforcing those rates, and the relative need for entry the country and the strength of its tradition of immigration. Thus the ability to enforce policy is strong in Gulf countries such every bit Saudi arabia and Kuwait, which do non take a tradition of immigration and are dominated by absolute monarchies that offer no constitutional rights that are administered by rigid, citizen-run bureaucracies that answer to no contained judicial dominance. In dissimilarity the ability to enforce policy is more limited in liberal democracies which take ramble rights, contained judiciaries, competitive elections, and lengthened and inefficient bureaucracies, especially in nations such equally the United States which have a stiff historical tradition of immigration and immigrant rights, as we shall see.

THE MISSING Chemical element AND United mexican states-U.Due south. MIGRATION

Since 1982 I take worked with my colleague Jorge Durand of the University of Guadalajara to build the Mexican Migration Project (MMP), which annually gathers information on international migration from representative samples of communities located throughout United mexican states, along with network samples of branch communities in the United States (encounter Durand and Massey 2004). Although small migration streams to Canada have recently emerged (Massey and Brown 2011), the overwhelming bulk Mexican migrants go to the U.s.a. as part of a tradition that dates dorsum to the turn of the xx^thursday Century (Cardoso 1980; Massey et al. 1987; Durand and Massey 1995).

Over the years, we have analyzed these data drawing heavily on the composite framework described above to report the dynamics of United mexican states-U.S. migration, seeking to connect variation in migration probabilities to variations over fourth dimension in wage rates, labor demand, interest rates, and structural economic changes, changing stocks of human and social capital on both sides of the edge, and policy-relevant variables such every bit U.S. enforcement efforts and access to legal visas (Massey and Espinosa 1997; Massey, Durand, and Pren 2014). The accumulated inquiry literature based on MMP information suggests that all of the theoretical perspectives contribute something to the understanding of Mexico-U.Due south. migration, though the relative importance of unlike theoretical perspectives appears to vary across time (Garip 2012) and from place to place (Durand and Massey 2003).

From 1942 to 1965 Mexican migration generally behaved as expected nether prevailing theories of international migration, being initiated past a government sponsored labor recruitment program (segmented labor market theory), growing every bit lawmakers increased access to temporary workers at the behest of employers (state theory), expanding also because of the elaboration of migrant networks (social capital theory), and fluctuating with respect to changing conditions of labor supply and demand on both sides of the edge (neoclassical economic science) too geographic and temporal variation in access to markets for capital, credit and insurance (the new economics of labor migration) and the structural transformation of the Mexican economy nether neoliberalism (earth systems theory). During this time, migration was overwhelmingly round, with male migrants moving back and forth to solve economical issues at dwelling house (in keeping with predictions derived from the new economics of labor migration and the contempo reformulation of neoclassical economics).

In 1965, nevertheless, U.Southward. clearing police was reformed and the invitee worker plan was eliminated, in both cases for ideological reasons (consistent with state theory). In the context of a burgeoning ceremonious rights movement the invitee worker program came to exist seen equally racially discriminatory and exploitive while immigration quotas imposed in the 1920s were perceived as intolerably racist. The internet effect of both actions was to reduce opportunities for legal entry from Mexico quite dramatically. As a outcome, after 1965 migration occurred under undocumented auspices given the existence of well-adult networks connecting migrants to employers (social capital letter theory), the continuation of stiff demand in North American labor markets (segmented labor market theory), the persistence of a large binational wage gap (neoclassical economic science), and the growing integration of the Mexican and U.S. economies (world systems theory).

From 1965 through 1985, migration notwithstanding remained overwhelming circular, with male migrants moving back and forth to employers in traditional destination areas in tandem with fluctuating economical circumstances due north and south of the edge, repatriating earnings to family members at home, and participating well-developed migrant networks. Outset in 1986 and accelerating through the 1990s, however, this stable design of migration shifted markedly. Apportionment turned to settlement every bit rates of return migration plummeted, migrants began flowing to new rather than traditional destination areas, and as men stayed away longer women and children increasingly joined them north of the edge. In short, between 1986 and 2006 Mexican migration shifted from a circular flow of male workers going to a few states into a apace growing settled population of families in 50 states.

However, this shift did non occur because of changes in labor need, relative wages, cross-border integration, migrant networks, or because of a changed ideology or a new political balance between employers and works. Rather the driving force was the beliefs of self- interested bureaucrats, politicians, and pundits who sought to mobilize political and textile resources for their own do good irrespective of what effects their deportment had on immigration itself. The cease result was the creation of cocky-perpetuating cycle of ascension enforcement and increased border apprehensions that resulted in the militarization of the border in a style that was largely disconnected from the processes hypothesized by prevailing theories of international migration.

The actions taken by actors in the federal bureaucracy did non emerge in response to the competing demands of workers, employers, and ordinary citizens, so much equally the want to accumulate power and resources. Although the self-interested deportment of politicians and bureaucrats have been described and documented historically (encounter Calavita 1992), heretofore they take not been properly theorized. The key to understanding opportunistic actions taken past actors in and outside of government lies in the transformed context of decision-making before and later on 1965. Although little had changed in practical terms before and afterwards this date (roughly the same number of migrants were migrating from the same regions of Mexico to the same places in the United States), the state of affairs had inverse dramatically in symbolic terms for later 1965 the vast majority of Mexican migrants were "illegal" and thus by definition "criminals" and "lawbreakers."

The ascension of illegal migration created an opening for political entrepreneurs to cultivate a new politics of fear, framing Latino immigration as a grave threat to the nation (Santa Anna 2002; Abrajano and Hajnal 2015), creating a new meme in American public soapbox that Chavez (2008) has chosen the "Latino Threat Narrative" in the U.S. media. His coding of cover stories in leading weekly news magazines showed that negative depictions of immigrants and immigration increased over fourth dimension (Chavez 2001); and Massey and Pren (2012a) likewise institute that newspaper mentions of Mexican clearing as a crisis, overflowing, or invasion rose in tandem with border apprehensions from 1965 to 1979, pushing public opinion in a more conservative and anti-immigrant management and creating pressure for always more restrictive immigration and border policies (Massey and Pren 2012b; Valentino, Brader, and Jardina 2012).

By framing them equally aliens, lawbreakers, and criminals, the Latino Threat Narrative distinguished undocumented migrants from mainstream Americans by a well-defined social boundary. Fear, of class, is a well-established tool for political mobilization and resource acquisition (Robin 2006; Gardner 2008) and across history it has proved difficult for humans to resist the temptation to cultivate fear and loathing of outsiders in club to accomplish cocky-serving goals. In the United States, three prominent categories of social actors succumbed to the temptation for "othering" in response to rising illegal migration after 1965: bureaucrats, politicians, and pundits.

The bureaucratic accuse was led in 1976 by the Commissioner of the U.Due south. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Leonard F. Chapman, who published an commodity in Reader'due south Digest entitled "Illegal Aliens: Time to Telephone call a Halt!", warning Americans that a new "silent invasion" was threatening the nation:

When I became commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in 1973, we were out-manned, nether-budgeted, and confronted by a growing, silent invasion of illegal aliens. Despite our best efforts, the problem---critical then---at present threatens to become a national disaster. Terminal twelvemonth, an independent study deputed by the INS estimated that there are 8 1000000 illegal aliens in the United states. At least 250,000 to 500,000 more arrive each twelvemonth. Together they are milking the U.S. taxpayer of $13 billion annually past taking away jobs from legal residents and forcing them into unemployment; by illegally acquiring welfare benefits and public services; past fugitive taxes (Chapman 1976: 188–189).

Chapman went on to argue for the passage of restrictive immigration legislation in Congress that was "desperately needed to assist u.s. bring the illegal alien threat under control" because "the understaffed [Immigration] Service vitally needs some budget increases." Although the numbers were never justified and no "independent study" was ever released, they were useful in defining illegal migrants as a concrete threat ("taking away jobs and milking the taxpayer") and morally suspect (welfare abusers and tax cheats), following the archetype logic of intergroup threat theory (Stephan and Renfro 2002; Stephan, Ybarra, and Morrison 2015).

The most prominent politician contributing to the Latino Threat Narrative was President Ronald Reagan, who in 1985 declared undocumented migration to exist "a threat to national security" and warned that "terrorists and subversives [are] just two days driving time from [the edge crossing at] Harlingen, Texas" and that Communist agents were fix "to feed on the anger and frustration of contempo Cardinal and South American immigrants who will not realize their own version of the American dream" (Massey, Durand, and Malone 2002:87). More recently, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa Canton, Arizona became his state'south almost population politician by was taking forceful activity "on illegal clearing, drugs and everything else that threatens America" (Arpaio and Sherman 2008).

Pundits made their contributions to the Latino Threat Narrative in lodge to sell books and boost media ratings. On his television program, Lou Dobbs (2006) nightly told Americans that the "invasion of illegal aliens" was function of a broader "war on the center class" hatched by liberal elites. Political commentator Patrick Buchanan (2007), meanwhile, alleged that illegal migration was part of an "Aztlan Plot" hatched by Mexicans to recapture lands lost in 1848 while academic pundit and policy advisor Samuel Huntington (2004) portrayed Latino immigrants every bit a threat to America's national identity, alarm that "the persistent arrival of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and 2 languages…. The United States ignores this challenge at its peril."

None of the foregoing pronouncements was based on any noun understanding of the realities of undocumented migration. At best they were distortions designed to cultivate fear amongst native built-in white Americans for self-interested purposes of boosting ratings, selling air-time, and hawking books. Every bit a result, even though the actual flow of undocumented migrants had stabilized past the tardily 1970s and was no longer rising (Massey and Pren 2012b), the Latino Threat Narrative kept gaining traction to generate a ascent moral panic about illegal aliens that produced a self-perpetuating increase in resource dedicated to border enforcement (Flores-Yeffal, Vidales, and Plemons 2011). Over time, every bit more Border Patrol Officers were hired and given more equipment and resources, they naturally apprehended more migrants and the ascent number of border apprehensions was so taken equally self-evident proof of the ongoing "conflicting invasion," justifying agency requests for still more enforcement resources and ultimately yielding a self-feeding cycle of enforcement, apprehensions, more enforcement, more apprehensions, and still more enforcement.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE LATINO THREAT NARRATIVE

While not grounded in reality, the social construction of the Latino Threat Narrative had profound consequences for the Mexico-U.S. migration system. Figure 1 draws on official data to show the annual budget of U.S. Border Patrol from 1970 to 2010 in abiding, inflation-adapted U.Southward. dollars. From 1970 through 1985 in real terms the budget fluctuated around a value of $300 million with no trend upward or downwards. Withe the Passage of the Immigration Reform and Command Human action (IRCA) in 1986, however, the upkeep began to increase, accelerating during the 1990s with the launching ii intensive edge enforcement efforts at the two busiest crossing points—Performance Occludent in El Paso, Texas in 1993 and Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego, California in 1994 (Massey, Durand, and Malone 2002). Border enforcement accelerated again afterward the passage of the 2001 United states PATRIOT Human action and in 2010 the budget stood at $3.viii billion, nearly 13 times its pre-1986 level.

Border Patrol budget in millions of 2013 dollars

The massive increment in edge enforcement and the early concentration of Border Patrol resources in two particular sectors had far-reaching consequences on the behavior of undocumented migrants and the migratory outcomes they could expect at the border, which I document here using information from the Mexican Migration Projection (Durand and Massey 2004). Since 1982 the MMP has conducted random household surveys in selected communities throughout Mexico and compiled network samples of households from those aforementioned communities in the United States. The accuracy and representativeness of the MMP information have been validated past systematic comparisons with data from nationally representative samples (Massey and Zenteno 2000; Massey and Capoferro 2004) and are publicly available from at the project website (http://mmp.opr.princeton.edu/), which contains complete documentation on sample design, questionnaires, and data files. Here I make use of the MMP143 database, which includes surveys of undocumented migrants originating in 143 Mexican communities.

The militarization of the border kickoff in 1986 with the passage of IRCA, and especially the launching of Operation Occludent and Functioning Gatekeeper in 1993 and 1994, diverted flows of undocumented migrants away from well-traveled routes in the urbanized areas of San Diego and El Paso into unpopulated desert territory between these ii sectors. Figure ii illustrates the geographic diversion that occurred by graphing the probability that undocumented migrants crossed the edge at a traditional location (El Paso or San Diego) from 1970 to 2010. While the likelihood fluctuated between 0.69 and 0.77 from 1970 through 1989, thereafter information technology roughshod dramatically to achieve just 0.25 in 2010. Once diverted abroad from traditional destinations in states such equally California, migrants continued on to new destinations throughout the United States. Thus, whereas 63% of Mexicans who arrived in the U.s.a. 1985–1990 went to California, by 1995–2000 the figure had dropped to 28% and new destination areas in the south and midwest came to house the about apace growing Mexican populations (Massey and Capoferro 2008).

Probability of border crossing at a traditional location 1970–2010

Effigy 3 documents the rising costs of border crossing associated with this shift by plotting the average fee paid (in 2010 U.Due south. dollars) to a "coyote" to be smuggled across the edge from 1970 to 2010. Whereas the cost fluctuated betwixt $500 and $700 between 1970 and 1989, thereafter it underwent a sustained increment that culminated in an boilerplate price of $2,700 in 2010, a 450% increment over the average before 1989. Figure 4 documents the increased risks faced by undocumented migrants crossings shifted into more hostile terrain at isolated segments of the border by showing the number of border deaths from 1985 (when estimates first go available) to 2010. From 1985 to 1993, the number of deaths actually barbarous, going from 147 in the former yr to 67 in the latter. Thereafter, deaths along the border proliferated, steadily climbing to summit at almost 500 in 2005.

Coyote costs paid for undocumented edge crossing 1970–2010

Migrant deaths along the Mexico-U.Southward. Border 1985–2010

Although rise border enforcement may have had strong effects on the costs, risks, and locations of undocumented border crossing, Figure 5 reveals that it had little effect on the likelihood of existence defenseless while attempting an unauthorized entry. The solid line shows the probability of existence apprehended on a kickoff undocumented trip to the United States from 1970 to 2010. Every bit tin can be seen, the likelihood of getting caught has remained relatively abiding despite the massive increase in border enforcement over the by three decades. During the early 1970s the probability of apprehension on any given attempt varied effectually 0.forty before declining to around 0.21 in 1989 and then rising back up to around 0.twoscore in 2010. Whatever the likelihood of apprehension on any single try, the dotted line at the top of the figure shows the probability of ultimately achieving entry over a series of attempts is and has always been extremely high, beingness 0.95 or greater from 1970 through 2008.

Probabilities of apprehension on first attempt and likehood of eventual entry 1970–2010

To this point, I accept shown that the build-up in edge enforcement after 1986 (depicted in Figure ane) was associated with a sharp drop in the likelihood of crossing the border at traditional, relatively safe urban locations (Figure 2) producing sharp increases in the costs (Figure iii) and risks (Figure iv) of unauthorized entry but had no effect on the likelihood of apprehension or the odds of ultimately achieving entry (Figure 5). These enforcement-induced shifts in outcomes along the border shifted the context of migrant decision-making, however. Whereas before 1986 undocumented migrants knew they could reliably proceeds entry to the United States at modest price and low chance, afterward they could nonetheless reliably be assured of successful entry but at much greater cost and higher risk to life and limb. Equally a result, conditions at the edge still favored parting for the U.s. without documents to gain access to high-paying U.S. jobs, but they no longer favored regularly circulating back and forth. Under these circumstances, once a successful entry had been achieved migrants increasingly tended to crouch downward and remain north of the border rather than returning to face even greater costs and risks next time.

Figures 6 and ​ seven show the outcome that these shifting incentives had on migrant decision-making past plotting, respectively, the likelihood of leaving and returning from a starting time undocumented trip to the U.s. betwixt 1970 and 2010. Despite considerable year-to-year volatility in that location is no discernable tendency in the probability of leaving United mexican states without documents from 1970 to 2000, despite the exponential increase in enforcement. In dissimilarity, the likelihood of a return trip fell steadily after1986 when it stood at 0.46 to reach 0.29 in 2000 before dropping to nada in 2010.

Probability of first undocumented migration 1970–2010

Probability of render within 12 months of first undocumented trip

With undocumented departures continuing at historical rates but returns to Mexico falling rapidly from 1986 to 2000, the net rate of undocumented migration rose and undocumented population growth accelerated. Co-ordinate to the best demographic estimates, the size of the undocumented population increased from 1.9 one thousand thousand in 1988 to viii.five million in 2000, rising by an average of around 550,000 persons per year (Wasem 2011) After 2000, the rate of growth decelerated and the population peaked at 12 meg in 2008. This deceleration corresponds to a steady decline in the likelihood of taking a first undocumented trip from 0.011 to 0.002 betwixt 1999 and 2008. Then with the onset of the Great Recession the undocumented population fell to xi million by 2009, where it has roughly remained ever since, reflecting the fact that probabilities of undocumented departure and return had both roughshod to around zero in 2010, equally shown in Figures half dozen and ​ vii.

Decision

In the end, changes in U.S. immigration and border policies enacted start in 1986 transformed what had been a circular period of male person workers going to 3 states (California, Texas, and Illinois) into a settled population of families living in 50 states while doubling the cyberspace rate of undocumented migration and markedly accelerating undocumented population growth. This transformation occurred non because of shifts in the social and economic variables specified in the theories reviewed by Massey et al. (1998) or because of country actions hypothesized past the theories considered in Massey (1999), but because of actions taken by self-serving bureaucrats, politicians, and pundits who gained ability and resources by manufacturing an clearing crunch where none existed.

Although in practical terms little had changed in the United mexican states-U.S. migration system after 1965, by curtailing opportunities for legal entry Congress in that year brought most the rise of illegal migration and created a golden opportunity for entrepreneurial agents to create a Latino Threat Narrative centered on the fact that Mexican migrants were "illegal" and thus by definition "criminals" and "lawbreakers" who constituted a grave threat to American gild. The propagation of this threat narrative, in turn, drove forward a self-perpetuating cycle of increased border enforcement and ascent apprehensions. Fifty-fifty though the volume of undocumented migration had leveled off and stabilized past the belatedly 1970s, additional edge enforcement efforts produced more than apprehensions, which were taken as self-evident proof of the standing illegal invasion and the demand for more enforcement resource, which produced fifty-fifty more than apprehensions to justify the still more than resources for enforcement.

The end result of this dynamic bicycle was a moral panic centered on the trope of illegality and the border as a barrier betwixt American social club and the threats this illegality carried. In the process, pundits sold books, garnered college media ratings, and increased earnings while politicians mobilized voters to gain power and officials within the clearing bureaucracy accumulated a treasure trove of resources. The massive expansion of the clearing enforcement system, in turn, created a multitude of jobs that made public sector unions happy and increased the profits of firms such as the Corrections Corporation of American and the Geo Group, which built and operated immigration detention facilities. Local police force enforcement agencies jumped on the bandwagon when congress created a special program to provide them with new resources to assist in clearing enforcement.

In brusque, the Latino Threat Narrative was manufactured and sustained by an expanding set of self-interested actors who benefitted from the perpetuation of an immigration crunch, which drove an unprecedented militarization of the edge that radically transformed a long-standing migration organisation from a circularity to settlement. Although the graphs presented here only correspond associations, recent work by Massey, Durand, and Pren (2016) using instrumental variable regressions confirm that rising border enforcement was indeed the causal factor driving the geographic diversification of immigrant destinations and the shift from sojourning to settlement among Mexican migrants.

These same regressions besides signal that undocumented migration came to an stop in 2008 and is unlikely to render, non because of border enforcement or to changed economical circumstances merely equally a outcome of Mexico's demographic transition from a fertility rate from 7.ii children per woman in 1965 to just two.three children per woman today, barely above replacement level. Every bit a outcome, over the past two decades the rate of labor force growth has fallen and Mexico has get an crumbling society, with the historic period of those exposed to the risk of U.S. migration rising rapidly beyond the upper terminate of the migrant-decumbent age range. If international migration is not initiated between the ages of 15 and 30, information technology is unlikely to begin later, and in their study Massey, Durand, and Pren (2016) found that the boilerplate age of Mexicans in the labor force but lacking prior migratory experience steadily rose steadily from 23.iv in 1972 to 45.9 in 2010. As a result, net migration from Mexico–non just undocumented migration but migration in general–now hovers around zero (Passel, Cohn, and Gonzalez-Barrera 2012).

The transformation of Mexican immigration from circularity to settlement and its geographic spread throughout the Us between 1986 and 2008 has transformed the social demography of the United States, increasing the percentage of Latinos to 17.three% and making them past far the largest minority group in the United States. Moreover, no matter what the future of Mexican migration might be, this transformation is already built into the demographic structure of the United States for in 2012 for the start time less than half of all U.S. births were to non-Hispanic whites while a quarter were Latino (Passel, Livingston, and Cohn 2012). This remarkable transformation arose from a dynamic sociopolitical process that was completely untheorized by prevailing models of international migration but which in ii decades will yet turn the U.s. into a "minority-majority" nation in which European origin whites no longer predominate.

REFERENCES

• Abrajano Marisa, Hajnal Zoltan 50. White Backlash: Clearing, Race, and American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Printing; 2015. Abrajano and Hajnal 2015. [Google Scholar]
• Arpaio Joe, Sherman Len. Joe's Law: America'due south Toughest Sheriff Takes on Illegal Clearing, Drugs and Everything Else That Threatens America. New York: AMACOM Books; 2008. [Google Scholar]
• Buchanan Patrick J. State of Emergency: The Third Earth Invasion and Conquest of America. New York: Thomas Dunne Books; 2006. [Google Scholar]
• Calavita Kitty. Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Clearing, and the I.N.S. New York: Routledge; 1992. [Google Scholar]
• Chapman Leonard F. Illegal Aliens: Time to Phone call a Halt! Reader's Digest. 1976 October;:188–192. [Google Scholar]
• Cardoso Lawrence. Mexican Emigration to the United states of america 1897–1931. Tucson: Academy of Arizona Press; 1980. [Google Scholar]
• Chavez Leo R. Covering Clearing: Population Images and the Politics of the Nation. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
• Chavez Leo R. The Latino Threat: Amalgam Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
• Dobbs Lou. War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Involvement Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back. New York: Viking; 2006. [Google Scholar]
• Durand Jorge, Massey Douglas S. Miracles on the Border: Retablos of Mexican Migrants to the United states. Tucson: Academy of Arizona Printing; 1995. [Google Scholar]
• Durand Jorge, Massey Douglas South. Clandestinos: Migración México-Estados Unidos en los Albores del Siglo XXI. México, D.F.: Editorial Porrua; 2003. [Google Scholar]
• Durand Jorge, Massey Douglas S. Crossing the Border: Research from the Mexican Migration Projection. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2004. [Google Scholar]
• Dustmann Christian, Görlach Joseph-Simon. The Economics of Temporary Migrations. Periodical of Economical Literature. 2015 forthcoming. Pre-publication version available at: http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_03_15.pdf. [Google Scholar]
• Flores-Yeffal Nadia Y. Migration-Trust Networks: Social Cohesion in Mexican US-Bound Emigration. College Station: Texas A&M University; 2012. [Google Scholar]
• Flores-Yeffal Nadia Y, Vidales Guadalupe, Plemons Apr. The Latino Cyber-Moral Panic Process in the U.s.. Information, Advice, and Society. 2011;fourteen:568–489. [Google Scholar]
• Fussell Elizabeth, Massey Douglas Due south. The Limits to Cumulative Causation: International Migration from Mexican Urban Areas. Census. 2004;41:151–171. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gardner Daniel. The Science of Fear: Why We Fearfulness the Things Nosotros Shouldn't--and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger. New York: Dutton; 2008. [Google Scholar]
• Garip Filiz. Discovering Diverse Mechanisms of Migration: The Mexico-U.S. Stream from 1970 to 2000. Population and Evolution Review. 2012;38(3):393–433. [Google Scholar]
• Huntington Samuel P. The Hispanic challenge. Foreign Policy. 2004 Mar-Apr;:1–12. Accessed vi/15/eleven at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2495. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas South. International Migration and Economic Development in Comparative Perspective. Population and Development Review. 1988;14:383–414. 1988. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S. Social Structure, Household Strategies, and the Cumulative Causation of Migration. Population Index. 1990;56:iii–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas Southward. International Migration at the Dawn of the Twenty-Showtime Century: The Role of the State. Population and Development Review. 25:303–323. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S. Edifice a Comprehensive Model of International Migration. Eastern Journal of European Studies. 2013;3(two):9–35. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S, Alarcón Rafael, Durand Jorge, González Humberto. Render to Aztlan: The Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1987. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas South, Arango Joaquín, Hugo Graeme, Kouaouci Ali, Pellegrino Adela, Taylor J Edward. Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisement. Population and Evolution Review. 1993;19:431–466. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S, Arango Joaquín, Hugo Graeme, Kouaouci Ali, Pellegrino Adela, Taylor J Edward. An Evaluation of International Migration Theory: The North American Case. Population and Development Review. 1994;20:699–752. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S, Arango Joaquín, Hugo Graeme, Kouaouci Ali, Pellegrino Adela, Taylor J Edward. Worlds in Motion: International Migration at the End of the Millennium. Oxford: Oxford University Printing; 1998. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S, Brown Amelia E. New Migration Streams between Mexico and Canada. Migraciones Internactionales. 2011;6(1):119–144. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas South, Capoferro Chiarra. Measuring Undocumented Migration. International Migration Review. 2004;38:1075–1102. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas Southward, Capoferro Chiarra. The Geographic Diversification of U.S. Immigration. In: Massey Douglas S., editor. New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of American Immigration. New York: Russell Sage; 2008. pp. 25–fifty. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S, Durand Jorge, Malone Nolan J. Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Age of Economic Integration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas Southward, Durand Jorge, Pren Karen A. Explaining Undocumented Migration. International Migration Review. 2014;48:1028–1061. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S, Durand Jorge, Pren Karen A. Why Border Enforcement Backfired. American Journal of Sociology. 2016 forthcoming. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S, Espinosa Kristin Eastward. What'southward Driving Mexico-U.Southward. Migration? A Theoretical, Empirical and Policy Analysis. American Journal of Folklore. 1997;102:939–999. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S, Pren Karen A. Origins of the New Latino Underclass. Race and Social Problems. 2012a;4(1):v–17. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas Southward, Pren Karen A. Unintended Consequences of Us Immigration Policy: Explaining the Post-1965 Surge from Latin America. Population and Development Review. 2012b;38:1–29. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas Southward, Taylor J Edward. International Migration: Prospects and Policies in a Global Market place. Oxford: Oxford Academy Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S, Zenteno René. The Dynamics of Mass Migration. Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 1999;96(viii):5328–5335. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S, Zenteno René. A Validation of the Ethnosurvey: The Instance of Mexico-U.S. Migration. International Migration Review. 2000;34:765–792. [Google Scholar]
• Northward Douglass S. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
• Passel Jeffrey South, Cohn D'Vera, Gonzalez-Barrera Ana. Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Aught-and Perhaps Less. Washington, DC: Pew Inquiry Center; 2012. http://world wide web.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-possibly-less/ [Google Scholar]
• Passel Jeffrey Due south, Livingston Gretchen Grand, Cohn D'Vera. Explaining Why Minority Births Now Outnumber White Births. Washington, DC: Pew Inquiry Centre; 2012. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-at present-outnumber-white-births/ [Google Scholar]
• Piore Michael J. Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor in Industrial Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1979. [Google Scholar]
• Portes Alejandro, Bach Robert L. Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1985. [Google Scholar]
• Portes Alejandro, Walton John. Labor, Course, and the International System. New York: Academic Press; 1981. [Google Scholar]
• Robin Corey. Fear: The History of a Political Idea. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
• Santa Ana Otto. Chocolate-brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin: University of Texas Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Sassen Saskia. The Mobility of Labor and Capital: A Written report in International Investment and Labor Flow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988. [Google Scholar]
• Stark Oded. The Migration of Labor. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell; 1991. [Google Scholar]
• Stephan Walter G, Renfro Lausane. The Role of Threat in Intergroup Relations. In: Mackie DM, Smith ER, editors. From Prejudice to Intergroup Emotions: Differentiated Reactions to Social Groups. New York: Psychology Press; 2002. pp. 191–207. [Google Scholar]
• Stephan Walter 1000, Ybarra Oscar, Morrison Kimberly Rios. Intergroup Threat Theory. In: Nelson T, editor. Handbook of Prejudice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2015. [Google Scholar]
• Taylor J Edward, Arango Joaquin, Massey Douglas S, Hugo Graeme, Kouaouci Ali, Pellegrino Adela. International Migration and National Development. Population Alphabetize. 62:181–212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Taylor J Edward, Arango Joaquin, Massey Douglas South, Hugo Graeme, Kouaouci Ali, Pellegrino Adela. International Migration and Customs Evolution. Population Index. 1996;63:397–418. [Google Scholar]
• Todaro Michael P, Maruszko L. Illegal Migration and U.Due south. Immigration Reform: A Conceptual Framework. Population and Development Review. 1986;13:101–114. [Google Scholar]
• Valentino Nicholas A, Brader Ted, Jardina Ashley East. Clearing Opposition Amid U.S. Whites: General Ethnocentrism or Media Priming of Attitudes Almost Latinos? Political Psychology. 2013;34:149–166. [Google Scholar]
• Wasem Ruth E. Unauthorized Aliens Residing in the U.s.a.: Estimates Since 1986. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service; 2011. [Google Scholar]
• Williamson Jeffrey G. The Political Economy of Globe Mass Migration: Comparing Two Global Centuries. Washington, DC: AEI Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]

abramsveng1947.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933523/

Share this post