Emigration in the Last 30 Years in Mexico, Cuba and El Salvador - Case Study Example

Emigration in the last 30 years in Mexico, Cuba and El Salvador Introduction In the post communist world, emigration has been described as the “massive movement of human beings across international borders.” (Zolberg and Benda 2001,1) This massive movement of human beings has become particularly problematic for the United States and other stable democracies. (Zolberg and Benda 2001,1) Reports indicate that Mexico is most notorious for out-migration, with emigrants by and large ending up in the US. (Center for Immigration Studies, 2005) Likewise, out-migration from Cuba has been a problem for democratic countries, particularly the US since Fidel Castro took office more than 40 years ago. (Wasem, 2006) Similar trends are manifested by El Salvador. Despite the end of its civil war approximately 15 years ago, El Salvadorians continue to leave El Salvador in record numbers. (Snyder, 2007) This paper examines the emigration trends in Mexico, Cuba and El Salvador over the last thirty years and will analyse both its causes and the consequences for these countries and the countries to which they emigrate. Mexico Overview The rate of out-migration from Mexico over the last few decades has been extending to such an extent that in recent years it has been described as explosive. (Cornelius, Borger, Sawyer, Keyes, Appleby, Parks, Lozada and Hicken, 2008) In general the US is home to approximately 35 million legal and illegal immigrants, 2.7 times larger than any other country worldwide. (United Nations, 2002) The difficulty for the US is the large numbers of Mexican immigrants arriving in the US with no legal immigration status as well as low education. (Bean, Brown and Rumbaut, 2004) Emigration in Mexico is characterized by urban migration in the sense that the waning labour demands have forced Mexicans out of the rural areas and into Mexican cities and to the US. Over the last thirty years this trend has intensified so that migration from rural Mexico to urban Mexico, increased by 182 percent from 1980 to 1994, and even more by 352 percent from 1980 and 2002. Out-migration to the US increased by 92 percent from 1980 to 1994 and by 452 percent from 1980 to 2002. (Yunez-Naude and Taylor, 2006) The astonishing growth in Mexican emigration over the last 30 years, can be demonstrated by analysis. Up to 1970, Mexico’s share of the US population was merely 1.5 percent. By 2005, the population in the US grew to reflect 10.2 percent. (Hatton and Williamson, 2005) From 1979-1989 Emigration into urban Mexico and into the US from Mexico is a hybrid of a weakening labor demand with a parallel surge in labor supply. (Hanson and Splimbergo, 1999) These trends surged as of 1979 because during the decade of the 60s and 70s, Mexico’s economy sustained satisfactory progress and stagnated in the 1980s. Making matters worse, Mexico suffered a number of currency crisis which left the GDP unchanged by the year 2000. (Orienius and Zavodny, 2005) During much of the time from 1979 onward, wages declined with the result that emigration from Mexico and urbanization rose significantly. (Orienius and Zavodny, 2005) Added to this, was the baby boom of the 1960s and 1970s meant that more young Mexicans were entering the labor market at the beginning of 1980 and 1990. Hanson and McIntosh (2008) maintain that population growth, as well as a growth in labor supply contribute significantly to the emigration of Mexicans between 1975 and 2000. Coinciding with the flow of Mexican migrants into the US is the economic growth experienced in Texas, which borders Mexico. Personal income in the state of Texas from 1979-1989 matched the personal income of the entire country. The population growth in Texas also bypassed the rate of population growth throughout the entire US. (Gilmer, 2005) The economic growth in Texas and the population growth indicates that Mexican migrants, wishing to obtain improved standards of living, migrated to Texas and other border states during the period from 1979-1989. From 1989-1999 Migration from Mexico to the US continued to soar during this period and show no signs of abating. With the introduction of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Canada and Mexico in 1994, it was largely perceived that the agreement would improve the economic situation in Mexico and discourage Mexican emigration. However, it can be argued that NAFTA had the reverse effect. (Portes, 2006) Prior to the passage of NAFTA, Mexicans previously only migrated from five Mexican states. Following NAFTA, Mexicans now emigrate from virtually all states and municipalities. The migration rate is so high that a number of Mexican towns and villages are currently described as ghost towns. (Portes, 2006) This is because, despite the free trade agreement with Canada and the US, Mexican employees continued to offer relatively poor wages and job opportunities in rural areas continued to be dismal. (Portes, 2006) From 1999-2009 Ten years following the implementation of NAFTA, Mexico’s economic situation continued to be “anemic.” (Portes, 2006) Mexico’s economic growth in 2000 averaged less than 2 per cent per capita, lower than in previous years where the economic growth averaged 3.5 percent per annum. (Portes, 2006) Unemployment from 1999 continues to slide so that the rate of unemployment in Mexico is higher than it was prior to NAFTA. In fact, unemployment after NAFTA grew by 10 percent in Mexico. (Portes, 2006) The result was and continues to be an explosion in immigration from Mexico. The US even passed the Secure Fence Act 2006 which authorizes the construction of 700 mile fences along Mexico’s border with cities in states such as Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico. (Secure Fence Act 2006) The difficulty for the US lays in the fact that many of the Mexican emigrants come to the US with very little prospects of contributing productively to American society. (Bean, Brown and Rumbaut, 2004) On average , the Mexican male emigrant in the US in the year 2000, only completed an education of up to 8.8 years, with Mexican women immigrants slightly lower at 8.7. (Bean, Brown and Rumbaut, 2004) These statistics are low when compared to African Americans who completed educational levels in 2000 at levels at least 50 percent higher. (US Bureau of Census, 1998-2000) Mexican immigrants, for the most part, start off with a disadvantage, as many enter the US without legal status. According to Passel, Van Hook and Bean (2004), between 1995 and 2000, over four fifths of the Mexican immigrants entering the US were unauthorized entrants. What has changed over the last fifteen years is the tendency of Mexican immigrants to repatriate to Mexico. (Freeman and Bean, 1997) Previously the immigration trend in Mexico indicated that Mexicans only migrated on circular or on a temporary basis with every intention of returning home. However, as more and more Mexicans began immigrating, the tendency to remain away from Mexico on a permanent basis developed over the last decade or so. (Bean, Brown and Rumbaut, 2004) To this end, greater numbers of Mexicans have become naturalized abroad, particularly in the US. (Bean, Brown and Rumbaut, 2004) This in and off itself speaks to the level of tolerance toward Mexican immigrants. It also indicates that by permitting even the unauthorized Mexican immigrants to become naturalized means that they may participate in educational attainment and seek higher paying wages, with the result that they pay taxes, thereby becoming productive members of American society. In fact research findings indicate that educational gains over the last 15 or so years among Mexican immigrants have increased. (Smith 2003) Portes (2008) maintains that Mexican immigrants typically come to the US for two reasons. The US is geographically convenient and there is a labor market for unauthorised immigrants in the US in “labor intensive industries.” (Portes, 2008, 26) Industries such as agriculture, construction, low-tech manufacturing and services have been increasingly strong and growing over the last fifteen years. (Portes, 2007, 26) The fact remains: “Declining domestic fertility leads to slower labor-force growth; an increasingly educated American workforce is reluctant to accept menial jobs; and industry desires cheaper workers.” (Portes, 2007, 26) In other words, it is not entirely true that illegal Mexican migrants take jobs away from Americans. As Portes (2007) states, Americans have over the last decade or so, become increasingly disinclined to take on the more humble jobs. For instance, in North Carolina, each year approximately 150,000 agricultural laborers are required at harvest time. (Portes, 2007, 26) A few years back, there were 6,000 jobs reserved for US laborers at US9.2 per hour. However, only 120 Americans applied for those jobs and only 25 reported for work and “none finished the harvest.” (Portes, 2007, 26) This incident of “unreliable native-born fieldworkers” is quite common throughout the US. (Portes, 2007, 26) Although many Mexican migrant workers send a large portion of their earnings home and do not pay taxes there are benefits for the American economy as well. Certainly Mexico benefits from the influx of US dollars from migrant workers abroad and the US suffers harm to the extent that it loses out on income tax and the fact that US dollars leave the country with no return value. However, the larger picture is of more significance. If immigrant workers did not take the lower wage jobs in the labor intensive industries, these employers would be forced to raise their hourly wages to such an extent that they would be able to lure Americans. (Portes, 2007, 26) If US companies were forced to raised wages, the price of services and products would have to be raised to accommodate these wages and the increased prices would ultimately trickle down to the consumer. (Portes, 2007, 26) Cuba Overview The Cuban out-migration experience has been quite different from that of the Mexicans in that Cubans typically leave Cuba seeking political refuge abroad. (Kanellos, Padilla and Esteva-Fabregat, 1994, 49) Unlike Mexican out-migration into the US, Cubans enter as exiles and are thereby “institutionalized by both the United States and the Cuban governments.” (Kanellos, Padilla and Esteva-Fabregat, 1994, 49) Out-migration officially began in the last years of the Spanish colonial years and the war for independence in 1868. However, mass out-migration started in 1959 with the over-throw of Cuba’s then dictator Fulgencio Balstia. (Kanellos, Padilla and Esteva-Fabregat, 1994, 50) From 1979-1989 Fidel Castro took office in 1959, Cuban emigration to the US remained relatively high until 1975 when it dropped significantly and continued to until until 1980. (Kanellos, Padilla and Esteva-Fabregat, 1994, 51) In 1979, the number of Cuban emigrants to the US was only 2,644. However, the following year, 1980, those numbers increased to 122, 061, a marked increase on the year before. (Kanellos, Padilla and Esteva-Fabregat, 1994, 51) There fact, is internal political and economic factors alone, did not drive Cuban emigration and the US response to it. The political and economic factors from the Cuban revolution to the 1990s occurred during the Cold War, a time when the US was committed to eradicating Communism and saw Cuban exiles as a means of weakening the Communist regime in Cuba. (Kanellos, Padilla and Esteva-Fabregat, 1994, 51) Castro’s decision to permit “wholesale immigration from Cuba to the US” in 1980 accounts for the large increase in Cuban immigrants to the US over the previous years. (Anderson, 2006) However, economic factors were as motivating as an oppressive regime to move Cuban out-migration to the US, since 1980. (Pedraza, 1995) Like Mexicans, economic conditions given way to “a deteriorating standard of living” gave Cubans the incentive to migrate to the US hoping to obtain a better life. (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) The difference between Cuban and other immigrants entering the US is that the Cubans did not suffer the kind of disadvantages and hardships. (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) For instance, upon arrival in the US, Cubans are provided with financial assistance under the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, 1962. (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) Moreover, Congress passed the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act in 1966 which provided for Cubans to obtain permanent residence in the US within one year of arrival without having to leave the US. (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) In addition, unlike asylum seekers who have to provide proof of fear of persecution on human rights grounds, Cubans could obtain permanent residence without having to prove the same. (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) This favourable treatment gave way to an influx of 750,000 “first-generation” Cuban immigrants into the US from 1959-1990. (Pedraza, 1995) However, (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) the immigrants arrived in inconsistent numbers because a lot depended on the Cuban government’s desire to permit emigrants to leave. (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) From 1989-1999 The collapse of the Eastern Bloc had serious consequences for Cuba’s economy because, ever since 1960 Cuba had become almost entirely dependent upon trade with the USSR and its allies. (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) In 1994, the economic crisis was so severe that Cubans began taking immeasurable risks to leave the county, often escaping on un-seaworthy vessels and rafts. (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) In 1994, Castro announced that all efforts to restrain defecting Cubans would be called off. The result was a large influx of Cuban exiles to the US, so much so that, then US President Bill Clinton, announced a change in migration policies toward Cubans. Cubans entering the US by raft would not be permitted automatically enter the US, but rather they would be captured, taken to refugee facilities and repatriated to Cuba. (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) Despite Clinton’s announcement, Cubans continued to enter the US via rafts with the result that the US and Cuba struck an accord under the Cuban Migration Agreement 1994. (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) Under the agreement the US would permit 20,000 Cuban immigrants annually and Cuba would take measures to ensure that Cubans did not leave the island on dangerous sea craft. The result was exile restrictions by Cuba with respect to sea departures and the number of rafts leaving Cuba destined for the US declined dramatically. (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) A new tide of anti-immigration followed in 1994 with Florida taking a position against mass immigration from Cuba. (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) When President Clinton allowed 10,000 Cuban immigrants released from a refugee facility and into the US, Florida Governor Lawton Chiles filed a US1 billion suit against the federal government for the cost to Florida in admitting illegal immigrants. (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) Although the suit was dismissed, Chiles maintained that it: “raised awareness of the extraordinary impact of illegal immigration on border states like Florida.” (Travieso-Diaz, M. 1998) From 1999-2009 Ultimately, in 1995, the US released all of the 21,000 Cuba refugees held in refugee facilities into mainstream America. Thereafter it adapted a policy whereby all Cubans intercepted at sea would be repatriated to Cuba, and those who managed to make it safely to shore would be granted status under the Migration and Refugee Act 1962. The US has also kept its promise to admit 20,000 Cuban immigrants annually and in addition the US admits other Cubans who qualify for next-of-kin visas, visas for political asylum, lottery visas and Cubans who form part of a household of those granted visas.(Schneider, 2008) El Salvador Overview The 2005 Yearbook of Immigrant Statistics list El Salvador among the top ten countries forming part of the US foreign born population. (Homeland Security, 2005) In 2000 there were approximately 765,000 immigrants in the US from El Salvador with 899,000 in 2004. It is projected that by the year 2010 that number will increase to 1,100,000. Salvadorians, like Mexicans typically end up on the West Coast when migrating from their respective homelands. For example, Salvadorians comprise the largest population of illegal immigrants from Central America in Houston, Texas. Migration to Houston commenced in the late 1970s and Salvadorians became: “the first undocumented Central Americans to establish a noticeable presence in the city.”(Rodriguez, 9) From 1979-1989 During the 1970s, El Salvador underwent a spate of landlessness, poverty and a significant increase in unemployment. Making matters worse, organizations formed guerrilla groups for the purpose of obtaining social justice. In 1981, a civil war erupted when Farabundo Marti of the National Liberation Front led the left wing against the incumbent government. The government had become notorious for violently victimizing any opposition. Up the early 1980s immigration and emigration in El Salvador was rather dismal with a majority of El Salvadorians migrating to Honduras in search of improved economic conditions. (Bean and Tienda, 1987, 137-177) The US provided for temporary asylum for thousands of Salvadorians under the Carter Administration, but the Regan administration returned those immigrants to El Salvador in 1981. Out of the estimated 1 million Salvadorians in the US during 1988, more than half were illegal. (Bean and Tienda, 1987, 137-177) Like Mexico, poor economic conditions in El Salvador gave way to migration from rural areas to urban areas. (Bean and Tienda, 1987, 137-177) Moreover, political unrest and the civil war displaced a number of Salvadorians from their home with the result that many sought refuge around the globe, primarily in the US. Despite the reversal of the temporary asylum for Salvadorians in 1981, out-migration continues to the present with the result that Salvadorians are among America’s top ten immigrants. Over the last thirty years, migration from El Savlador continues to be static and unchanging. Salvadorians continue to look outward for improved economic opportunities with no significant changes in trends, save and except for marked increases annually. From 1989-1999 The only observable trend with respect to emigration from El Salvador during the decade from 1989 to 1999 is a growth rate as noted in the overview. As more and more El Salvadorians find their way across the border to the US, the way is paved for relatives and friends back in El Salvador to leave home. This, and growing economic decline accounts for the growth in the El Salvadorian population abroad. The evidence suggests that the poverty line in El Salvador as in many other Latin American countries is divided so that there is an unequal distribution of wealth. This trend showed no sign of abating in the decade of the 1990s and out-ward migration continued, despite some economic recovery during the 1990s. (Szekely, 2001) A majority of the current population of Salvadorans abroad fled the civil war and aftermath conditions during 1980-1992. From 1999-2009 Salvadorians typically gain access to the US via Mexico. In 2003, Mexican authorities detained over 13,700 illegal immigrants from El Salvador. During the year 2001, immigration out of El Salvador increased following a the earthquakes in that region during January and February of that year. As a result, over 50,000 Salvadorians lost their jobs. Even so, the US has strengthened its borders to all immigrants, particularly since the September 11 terror attacks. Notwithstanding immigration from El Salvador continues to soar. (Barrera) Conclusion Over the last thirty years, out-migration from Cuba, Mexico and El Salvador has continued to increase. In each case, out-migration started as an attempt to escape poor economic conditions which have grown progressively worse over the years. As a result, immigration has intensified. For El Salvador and Cuba, economic conditions were not the only reasons for out-migration. Political structures were just as much to blame for out-migration. El Salvador, however, experienced earthquakes which only added to the economic difficulties. So, although El Salvador, unlike Mexico, experienced a period of economic recovery, the earthquakes set the country back four year. (Barrera) Unless and until, these political and economic conditions improve, immigrants will continue to risk life and limb by immigrating abroad. Bibliography Anderson, S. “The Debate Over Immigration’s Impact on US Workers and the Economy.” National Foundation for American Policy, July, 2006. Barrera, S. “Emigration From El Salvador: Exporting Hope.” (n.d.) Available online at: http://www.thewitness.org/agw/barrera031904.html Retrieved March 22, 2009. Bean, F.; Brown, S. and Rumbaut, R. “Mexican Immigrant Political and Economic Incorporation.” The Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San Diego, Working Paper, 113, April, 2004. Bean, F. And Tienda, Marta. The Hispanic Population of the United States. Russell Sage Foundation, 1987. Center for Immigration Studies. “Immigrants at Mid-Decade: A Snapshot of America’s Foreign-Born Population in 2005. (Dec. 2005) Available online at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405.html Retrieved March 16, 2009. Cornelius, W; Borger, S.; Sawyer, A.; Keyes, D.; Appleby, C.; Parks, K.; Lozada, G. And Hicken, J. “Controlling Unauthorized Immigration From Mexico: The Failure of ‘Prevention Through Deterrence’ and the Need for Comprehensive Reform.” Center for Comparative Immigration Studies: Immigration Policy Center, June 10, 2008. Freeman, G.P. and Bean, F.D. “Mexico and US Worldwide Immigration Policy.” 21-45 Cited in Bean, F.D.; de la Garza, R.; Roberts, B. and Weintraub, S. (eds) At the Crossroads: Mexican Migration and US Policy. Lanham, MD, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1997. Gilmer, R. “The Face of Texas, Jobs, People, Business, Change.” Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, (October 2005) Available online at: http://www.dallasfed.org/research/pubs/fotexas/fotexas_gilmer.html Retrieved March 22, 2009. Hanson, G. And McIntosh. “The Great Mexican Emigration.” NBER Working Paper No. W13675. Homeland Security. (2005) 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: Office of Immigration Statistics. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2005/OIS_2005_Yearbook.pdf Retrieved March 22, 2009. Orrenius, P. M. and Zavodny. “Self-Selection Among Undocumented Immigrants from Mexico.” Journal of Development Economics, (2005) 78(1), 215-240. Padilla, F.; Kanellos, N. and Esteva-Fabregat. Handbook of Hispanic Cultures in the United States. Arte Publico Press, 1994. Passel, J.’ Van Hook, J. and Bean, F. “Estimates of the Leal and Unauthorized Foreign-Born Population for the United States and Selected States, Based on Census, 2000.” Report for the US Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., Sabre Systems, Inc. Pedrazza, S. “Cuba’s Refugees: Manifold Migrations.” Cuban Transitions, (1995) 5, 311. Portes, A. “The Fence to Nowhere.” The American Prospect. (Oct. 2007) 26-29. Portes, A. “NAFTA and Mexican Immigration.” Available online at: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:fGrXpkeURvgJ:cmd.princeton.edu/papers/NAFTA%2520and%2520Mexican%2520Immigration.pdf+NAFTA+and+mexican+emigration&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Retrieved March 22, 2009. Rogriguez, N. “Undocumented Central Americans in Houston: Diverse Populations.” International Migration Review. 21(1) 1987, 4-26. Schneider, M. “Foriegn Assistance in the Americas”. Testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. September, 16, 2008. Secure Fence Act 2006. Smith, J.P. “Assimilation Across Latino Generations” American Economic Review, 93(2), 2003, 315-319. Snyder, T. “To Slow Immigration From El Salvador, Understand its Causes.” The Baltimore Sun, January 11, 2007. Szejektm M. “The 1990s in Latin America: Another Decade of Persistent Inequality , but with Somewhat Lower Poverty.” Inter-American Development Bank, 2001. Travieso-Diaz, M. “Cuban Immigration: Challenges and Opportunities.” Cuba In Transition, 1998, 65-83. United Nations. International Migration Report 2002. New York: United Nations Press, 2002. US Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce. “(1998-2002) Current Population Survey: Annual Demographic Files (Computer Files).” Washington: US Government Printing Office, 2002. Wasem, R. “Cuban Migration Policy and Issues.” CRS Report for Congress, Order Code, RS20468, January 19, 2006. Yunez-Naude, A. and Taylor “The Effects of NAFTA and Domestic Reforms in the Agricultura of Mexico.” Region et Development, 2006, 23. Zolberg, A. and Benda, P. Global Refuges: Problems and Solutions. Berghahn Brooks, 2001. Read More