The Continuities and Changes Between Migration Patterns in North America From 16071898

• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC8297609

Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 Jul 22.

Published in final edited form as:

PMCID: PMC8297609

NIHMSID: NIHMS1716400

Continuities and Changes in the Processes of Mexican Migration and Return

Abstract

This article examines continuities and changes in the prevalence and determinants of first migration and return between Mexico and the United States. Results show a dramatic decline over time in the likelihood of migrants' making a first trip. The empirical design distinguishes processes affecting migrating cohorts from those emanating from period conditions, paying particular attention to changes in educational selectivity and the legal status of the flows. The definition of cohort and period corresponds roughly to changes in U.S. migration policy and the American economy. We find that the likelihood of return migration also declined in conjunction with period conditions that are related to border enforcement. The drop in the likelihood of return was particularly sharp for undocumented migrants, and over time return flows increasingly consist of documented migrants. The implications of these findings for immigration policy in the United States and for the incorporation of returnees in Mexico are discussed.

Keywords: immigration, return migration, selectivity, legal status, cohort, period

Despite being a prominent feature of migration flows, return migration has not received the detailed attention it deserves. This lack of attention is applicable both to historical European flows to the Americas, as well as to contemporary migration from Latin America to the United States and other foreign destinations. Understanding the dynamics of departure and return is important for at least two reasons: who stays and who returns affects the selectivity of the foreign-born population in destination countries as well as the composition and characteristics of the nonmigrant population in origin countries (Campos-Vasquez and Lara 2012); and changes in selectivity of departure and return influence the size and nature of the association between migration and development (Parrado and Gutierrez 2016).

In this article, we investigate patterns and trends in the probability of departure and return among migrants from Mexico to the United States since 1990. We do not seek to elaborate on all elements that affect departure and return, as this would require a detailed analysis of connections to social and economic processes such as family formation and the acquisition of legal documents. Instead, the objective of this article is to investigate differences by cohort according to years of arrival to the United States and period according to years of residence in the United States and their association with changes in U.S. migration policies and economic conditions in the United States and Mexico. This work benefits from the 30 years of data collection by the Mexican Migration Project (MMP), which allows us to track changes in the likelihood of departure and return among Mexican migrants to the United States over time. Our conclusions are relevant to current debates about immigration policy in the United States and the effect of return migration on Mexico.

Migration and Return: The Mexico-United States Case

The popular image of the migrant as a person who decides to leave his/her place of origin to settle permanently in a destination is a simplistic and erroneous version of international migration (Massey and Riosmena 2010). The integration of migration within a life course perspective—the foundation of the MMP's design and data collection strategy—has been the basis for an ongoing reconceptualization of migration as a social process (Massey 1987). Viewing migration as a process implies that it occurs in a series of steps associated with decisions to depart, return, migrate again, and then settle or return once more, which are themselves connected to other events in the life course. Together, diverse sequences of life events and migratory decisions create a variety of different migration trajectories over time. In viewing migration as a process embedded within the life course, decisions about departing, returning, and settling are seen as intertwined events that together determine the composition of foreign-born populations within countries of destination and the characteristics of nonmigrants and returnees in countries of origin.

Research on historical immigration to the United States has highlighted the importance of return migration during the earlier era of European mass migration. Estimates indicate that of the 30 million Europeans who left for the United States between 1850 and 1913, a third eventually returned to their countries of origin. Newly available microdata enable assessments of the selectivity of who among the immigrants settled and who returned. In the case of Norwegians, for example, results show that returnees had lower skilled occupations in the United States than those who settled (Abramitzky, Boustan, and Eriksson 2014). This socioeconomic contrast between nonmigrants and migrants prevailed before the latter departed, which suggests that returnees were negatively selected both coming and going. Upon return, however, former migrants moved into higher skilled occupations than nonmigrants, which suggests that experience in the United States allowed them to accumulate human or financial capital, which upon returning to Norway translated into better occupations.

In addition to research on the socioeconomic implications of selective migration for origin and receiving contexts, another area that has received considerable attention is the influence of selective processes of departure and return on migrants' health and mortality. Studies in the United States have found the children born to Mexican immigrant women are healthier according to various measures compared to children born to native U.S. mothers of the same socioeconomic status (Acevedo-Garcia, Soobader, and Berkman 2007; Giuntella 2016). One explanation attributes the difference to the positive health selection of Mexican immigrants. Studies also show that immigrants have lower mortality rates than natives, controlling for age (Sorlie et al. 1993). In addition to positive selectivity into migration on the basis of health, selective return migration by migrants when they become ill is another possible explanation for observed immigrant-native mortality differentials (see Palloni and Arias 2004).

In the case of Mexico-U.S. migration, however, the topic that arguably has attracted the most attention is the connection between migrant selectivity and socioeconomic development in origin countries (Parrado and Gutierrez 2016). Studies have highlighted the importance of temporary migration for the accumulation of capital, the formation of small businesses, and the funding of investments in housing and property (Durand, Parrado, and Massey 1996; Massey and Parrado 1994). Scholars argue that instead of being a decision to move away permanently to take advantage of higher foreign wages over their working lives, international migrants are often motivated by a desire to move abroad temporarily to accumulate capital to invest in socioeconomic mobility at home (Massey and Riosmena 2010). Instead of failure, this perspective sees return migration as an indication of success in achieving a particular migratory objective (Cuecuecha and Rendon 2012; Gitter, Gitter, and Southgate 2008).

Many studies have documented a direct association between return migration and social mobility. Studies using the MMP data have consistently shown that the accumulation of migratory experience and financial capital in the United States facilitates business formation in origin communities (Durand, Parrado, and Massey 1996; Massey and Parrado 1994). Contrary to perspectives that view labor migration as promoting economic dependence, evidence suggests that limitations on economic development are due more to the productive structure of the Mexican economy than to migration itself. In fact, studies show that communities with better economic opportunities facilitate return migration, since stronger economies create a more favorable environment for investment (Lindstrom 1996).

Analyses more closely related to this article's goals have connected the experience of return migration to immigration policy shifts (Durand, Massey and Parrado 1999). Return migration is currently most prevalent among documented migrants, who have authorization to move back and forth across the border (Massey, Durand and Pren 2015). Among the undocumented, cross-border movement is restricted by the costs and risks of undocumented entry. In the case of Mexican migration, U.S. policies over time curtailed what previously had been a fluid circular flow of migrants and turned it into a permanent and settled population of U.S. residents (Massey, Durand, and Pren 2016).

In addition to these findings based on MMP data, Mexican Census data also indicate that the number and characteristics of returnees have changed over time (Parrado and Gutierrez 2016; Masferrer and Roberts 2012). Deportations and economic crises have accelerated processes of return migration and created greater heterogeneity in the population of returnees. In earlier periods when the border was relatively open, returnees tended to be successful migrants who had achieved their remittance and saving goals and were returning home to manage their assets and investments. During the Great Recession and into the current era of mass deportation, returnees are increasingly failed migrants who arrive home without resources owing to departures tied to job loss or forced removal. Unlike the successful migrants who return with resources accumulated in the United States, these migrants find it difficult to reintegrate successfully into local labor markets.

Building on this research, here we examine trends in the likelihood of taking and returning from a first trip to the United States. To a certain extent, the literature generates conflicting expectations about how processes of migration and return have evolved over time. On one hand, the growing persecution of immigrants in the United States and the rising tide of deportations suggest that return migration should be accelerating. Indeed, since 2000 more than 2.7 million Mexicans have been deported from the U.S. back to Mexico (Baker 2017). On the other hand, the militarization of the border since the early1990s has reduced the circularity of undocumented migration back and forth across the border, increasingly restricting crossings to those few who have legal permission to come and go (Massey 2013).

These two scenarios are not necessarily incompatible as they might reflect differences in migration patterns by period and cohort, topics which have been extensively discussed in the sociological literature. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between periods and cohorts using the well-known Lexis diagram. In this case the X axis indicates calendar years of departure and the Y axis indicates years accumulated in the United States. Immigrants who arrived in the United States between 1990 through 1995, for example, constitute the 1990–95 cohort of new U.S. immigrants. As they spend time in the United States (indicated by the diagonal lines) members of the cohort are exposed successively to different period conditions (indicated by perpendicular lines demarcating the periods 1996–01, 2002–07, and 2008–16). Those who departed between 1996 and 2001 belong to a different cohort, however (those who left 1996–2001). Since they arrived later they accumulate less total time in the United States and experience a different set of period conditions compared to the earlier cohort.

Lexis Diagram - Cohort and Period

The years used to define the cohorts and periods in Figure 1 correspond to changes in U.S. migration policies and economic conditions (as well as changing social and economic circumstances in Mexico). The years 1990 through 1995 bracket the early portion of 1990s economic boom and precede changes in immigration policies that intensified the persecution of migrants. The period from 1996 to 2001 corresponds to the peak of the U.S. economic boom and the intensification of U.S. immigration enforcement efforts, both along the border and in the U.S. interior. The years from 2002 through 2007 coincide with the marked acceleration in the number of deportations in the wake of the September 11 attacks as well as economic dislocations stemming from the dot-com recession and the subsequent recovery of the housing boom. Finally, the period 2008–2016 covers the aftermath of the Great Recession triggered by the housing bust and coincides with a further acceleration of deportations under President Obama.

Here we focus on the first U.S. trip and examine trends in the likelihood of departure and return. In addition to period and cohort indicators, our multivariate analysis includes controls for education, age, years spent in the United States, age at migration, household position, education, legal status, and gender. Data from the MMP are restricted to communities surveyed after 1990 and to migratory events observed between the ages of 15 and 45, drawing on the project's PERSFILE to create a file of person years observed from age 15 to 45, the date of the survey, or the first trip, whichever came first.

Using this person-year file we estimate a series of discrete-time regression models to predict whether a first U.S. trip is undertaken in a given person year. We then construct a separate person-year file to follow each migrant from the point of initial U.S. entry up to the year of return or the survey date and use it to estimate the likelihood of returning to Mexico within a given person year. These models are estimated separately by cohort and period to analyze changes in the processes of departure and return.

First Trip Probabilities by Age, Period, and Cohort

Figure 2 shows the cumulative probability of taking a first trip to the United States by age and period to reveal very clear patterns that confirm what has been described in prior studies. The cumulative probability of migrating by age 40 stands at 12 percent during the period 1990–95 and then increases sharply during the period 1996–01 when the cumulative probability by age 40 reaches 30 percent. The end of the 1990s witnessed the climax of a huge economic boom in the United States and was also a time in which Mexican labor displacements triggered by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA; enacted in 1994) became more visible (Fernández-Kelly and Massey 2007) and when more punitive policies toward immigrants were enacted (Massey, Durand, and Pren 2015). The likelihood of first migration decreases during the period 2002–07 when the cumulative probability of initial departure drops back to around 20 percent owing to the rise in the costs and risks of unauthorized border-crossing. It then falls further in the wake of the Great Recession, reaching an all-time low of just 6 percent during the period 2008–16. Together, the recession, the militarization of the border, and the aging of the Mexican population effectively ended circular migration back-and forth to the United States after 2008 (Massey, Durand, and Pren 2016).

Cumulative probability of migrating by period

Table 1 presents coefficients for a set of discrete-time logistic regression models estimated to predict the likelihood of departure while controlling for the socioeconomic indicators mentioned earlier. The first model includes person years from all periods and consistent with the foregoing descriptive results, the coefficients show that compared to the 1990–1995 period, the probability of migrating increased in the 1996–01 period (coefficient = 0.101), decreased in the 2002–07 period (coefficient = −0.290), and then further declined in the 2008–16 period (coefficient = −1.120).

Table 1:

Coefficients from discrete-time logistic regression models predicting first trip

		Period
		1990-1995	1996-2001	2002-2007	2008-2016
Baseline
Age (log)	21.903 ** (1.088)	20.059 ** (1.657)	21.770 ** (1.747)	37.010 ** (4.146)	37.665 ** (5.622)
Age (log sq.)	−3.619 ** (0.174)	−3.357 ** (0.267)	−3.575 ** (0.281)	−6.078 ** (0.673)	−6.063 ** (0.881)
Period (ref: 1990-1995)
1996-2001	0.101 ** (0.032)
2002-2007	−0.290 ** (0.045)
2008-2016	−1.447 ** (0.083)
Age at entry into risk	0.005 (0.004)	0.008 (0.006)	0.001 (0.007)	0.092 ** (0.023)	0.149 ** (0.036)
Household head	0.106 ** (0.032)	0.029 (0.049)	0.120 ** (0.048)	0.279 ** (0.077)	0.285 (0.181)
Female	−1.120 ** (0.030)	−0.945 ** (0.044)	−1.225 ** (0.047)	−1.301 ** (0.077)	−1.449 ** (0.172)
Education (ref <6 years)
6-8	0.165 ** (0.043)	0.222 ** (0.061)	0.145 ** (0.069)	0.051 (0.118)	−0.367 (0.307)
9-11	0.132 ** (0.045)	0.214 ** (0.064)	0.066 (0.069)	0.021 (0.118)	−0.104 (0.281)
12+	−0.520 ** (0.050)	−0.397 ** (0.072)	−0.565 ** (0.077)	−0.731 ** (0.129)	−0.848 ** (0.293)
Constant	−36.726 ** (1.716)	−33.702 ** (2.589)	−36.520 ** (2.754)	−61.292 ** (6.638)	−65.276 ** (9.124)
N	716,088	249,077	227,374	140,081	99,556

Turning to the characteristics of migrants, we see that those who leave tend to be household heads (coefficient = 0.106) and males (female coefficient = −1.120) with intermediate levels of education, as opposed to lower levels of education (with respective coefficients of 0.165 and 0.132 for 6–8 and 9–11 years of schooling relative to the 0–5 category). In contrast, those with high levels of schooling are quite unlikely to migrate northward (coefficient −0.520 for those with 12+ years of schooling). These results are consistent with the earlier descriptive results by period and what we know about the selectivity of migration.

Table 1 also reports coefficients of the same model estimated separately by period. The results are comparable to those that would be obtained if models had been specified by adding interactions between period and socioeconomic indicators in the original model. Changes in the size and statistical significance of the coefficients indicate shifts in the determinants and selectivity of migration in different periods. Several patterns are important to highlight. The first is the growing importance over time of age at entry into the population at risk of migration. Although this indicator is mostly a statistical control for the specification of the model, the results suggest that the composition of the migrant cohorts to the United States is increasingly older (consistent with the findings of Massey, Durand, and Pren 2016). Such a pattern is also consistent with an expanding trend toward family reunification, which is a hypothesis to be investigated in future work.

The results also show that in recent years the migratory outflow has become increasingly male-dominated, with the female coefficient rising from −0.945 to −1.449 from 1990–95 to 2008–16. Perhaps the most interesting change is that observed in coefficients that capture the pattern of educational selectivity. The high likelihood of migration observed for those in the middle of the educational distribution observed earlier is clearly evident among those departing during the period 1990–1995 and to a lesser degree among those who migrated in 1996–01. This selectivity disappears in the periods 2002–2007 and 2008–2016, however, and the negative selection of those with more than 12 years of education simultaneously increases, with the coefficient rising from −0.731 in 2002–07 to −0.848 in 2008–16.

These findings suggest migration during the 1990s was undertaken strategically, as an investment in capital formation with the goal of achieving socioeconomic mobility, a prospect that was especially attractive to those who lacked advanced education and thus faced restricted opportunities for upward social mobility in Mexico; but after 2001 migration becomes disassociated with such an investment strategy and selectivity as those with mid-level educational attainment declines. The reduced flow of migrants in recent years suggests that migration increasingly stems from other considerations, such as family reunification, rather than serving as a strategic investment project to finance socioeconomic mobility. It is important to keep these patterns in mind for the discussion of the return from the first trip.

First Trip Return Probabilities by Age, Period, and Cohort

Figure 3 plots the cumulative probability of returning to Mexico by cohort and duration of time spent in the United States. Two patterns are worth highlighting. The first is that returning from a first trip is extremely common as trip duration increases. For the oldest cohorts that left before 2002, the probability of return migration reaches 50 percent after 10 years in the United States. Even in the most recent cohort that migrated between 2008 and 2016, the cumulative probability of return reaches 35 percent after five years north of the border, patterns that are consistent with very fluid migration flows that involve much coming and going.

Cumulative probability of returning to Mexico by migration cohort

Interestingly, the cumulative probability of return does not vary by cohort. The descriptive pattern is basically the same for all cohorts. Thus the increasing number of returnees to Mexico does not necessarily indicate a change in the return process, but is simply a result of the tremendous growth in the number of migrants entering (and settling) during the 1990s. The cohort analysis reveals patterns that are more or less constant, or at least change slowly over time. However, patterns of cohort migration do not say much about how changes in period conditions affect the likelihood of return migration. Although the cumulative probability of return migration may not change by cohort, members of the different entry cohorts nonetheless experience different period conditions while in the United States as shown in Figure 4, which plots the cumulative probability of return migration by period and years spent in the United States.

Cumulative probability of return by period

The emerging pattern reveals a clear association between the probability of returning and period. The cumulative probability of return migration decreases between the periods 1990–1995 and 2002–2007. Thus cumulative probability of returning after 10 years spent in the United States drops from 55 percent during 1990–1995 to around 48 percent in 2002–2007. Although we have relatively few years of observation for the most recent period (2008–2016), the cumulative probability graph seems to be following the same trajectory to reach 48 percent by year ten. This result is consistent with the view that the militarization of the border acts as an obstacle to fluid migration flows.

Table 2 shows coefficients for ordinary least square (OLS) linear probability models estimated to predict the likelihood of returning within any person year by period and cohort. The difference between the results by cohort and period generally replicate the descriptive results outlined above. The probability of return does not change by cohort but does change by period. Model 3 shows that the likelihood of return is reduced in the period 1996–2001 (coefficient = −0.012) and especially in the period 2002–2007 (coefficient = −0.015). The years 2008 to 2016 continue to show a negative trend compared to the 1990–1995 period, but the effect is not statistically significant. Interestingly, the effects of other variables do not change meaningfully depending on whether the controls are by cohort or period. In general, the probability of return migration is much greater for household heads and males. The models do not show significant differences by educational attainment, which is consistent with the view that return moves are more closely tied to experiences that occur in the United States than to initial investments in human capital in Mexico.

Table 2:

Coefficients from linear probability OLS regression models predicting first return by cohort or period^a

	By cohort		By period
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Baseline
Years in U.S. (log)	−0.046 ** (0.002)	−0.046 ** (0.002)	−0.045 ** (0.002)	−0.045 ** (0.002)
Cohort (ref: 1990-1995)
1996-2001	−0.003 (0.003)	0.006 (0.007)
2002-2007	−0.011 (0.007)	0.023 (0.015)
2008-2016	−0.009 (0.014)	0.039 (0.039)
Period (ref: 1990-1995)
1996-2001			−0.012 ** (0.006)	−0.001 (0.010)
2002-2007			−0.015 ** (0.006)	0.017 (0.012)
2008-2016			−0.003 (0.007)	0.041 ** (0.012)
Age at first trip	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)
Household head	0.143 ** (0.007)	0.143 ** (0.007)	0.143 ** (0.007)	0.143 ** (0.007)
Female	−0.008 ** (0.003)	−0.008 ** (0.003)	−0.008 ** (0.003)	−0.008 ** (0.003)
Education (ref <6 years)
6-8	−0.002 (0.006)	−0.002 (0.006)	−0.003 (0.006)	−0.002 (0.006)
9-11	0.000 (0.006)	0.000 (0.006)	−0.001 (0.006)	0.000 (0.006)
12+	0.001 (0.007)	0.001 (0.007)	0.000 (0.007)	0.001 (0.007)
Undocumented	0.023 ** (0.004)	0.031 ** (0.005)	0.022 ** (0.004)	0.047 ** (0.011)
Undocumented*Cohort/Period
1996-2001		−0.011 (0.008)		−0.014 (0.012)
2002-2007		−0.039 ** (0.016)		−0.039 ** (0.013)
2008-2016		−0.059 * (0.041)		−0.053 ** (0.013)
Constant	0.102 ** (0.011)	0.095 ** (0.011)	0.109 ** (0.011)	0.088 ** (0.013)
N	34,292

Models 1 and 3 reveal that the likelihood of return is considerably greater for undocumented migrants, raising the probability of return migration by 0.023 compared to documented migrants in model 1 and by 0.022 in model 3. However, interaction terms in models 2 and 4 show that this proclivity for return migration prevails mainly during the 1990–1995 period. Both cohort and period estimates show the likelihood of return among undocumented migrants to decline consistently over time, though period indicators appear to capture the process with greater precision. While in the years between 1990 and 1995 undocumented status boosted the probability of return by 0.047 over that observed for documented migrants (see model 4), during later periods the differential tendency for undocumented migrants to return home steadily disappeared as indicated by the interaction terms, which rise from −0.014 in 1996–2001 to −0.039 in 2002–2007 to −0.053 in 2008–2016. Thus the probability of return for undocumented migrants consistently declines in tandem with period-specific increases in the border enforcement effort. At the same time, the relative likelihood of return migration has been increasing among documented migrants. As compared to their peers in 1990–1995, documented migrants have a 0.041 higher likelihood of return in 2008–2016.

Conclusion and Discussion

The 30 years of data collected by the MMP constitute an invaluable source of reliable data not only to reconstruct migration as a social process unfolding over the life course, but also to capture migration changes during different historical, socioeconomic, and policy contexts. In this study, we used the wealth of data compiled by the MMP to investigate changes in the probability of departing and returning from first U.S. trips taken in different historical periods. We focus on the years after 1990 and define periods based on the migration policies and economic conditions prevailing in the United States during different eras. The results of our analysis yield several conclusions.

Taken together, our findings underscore how U.S. immigration policies, and particularly the militarization of the border, had little effect on the odds of leaving Mexico for the United States, which are determined primarily by conditions prevailing in the binational economy. Compared to the period 1990–95, the probability of migration increased dramatically during 1996–2001 despite increased border enforcement and the growing criminalization of labor migration. During the 1990s, it was the U.S. economic boom, labor demand in the United States, and the displacement of agrarian workers in Mexico that most predicted migration patterns. Although these effects largely disappeared during the period 2002–07, the probability of migrating did not decrease radically until the Great Recession of 2007. At this point, crossing the border ceased to be a widespread practice and became more limited. The proposal to continue the construction of a wall along the border from Mexico to the United States may have symbolic importance for President Trump's Republican base, but it has little to do with the actual degree of migratory traffic at the border today.

At the same time, migrant selectivity has evolved. Changes in the association between education and first departure suggest that migration to the United States is no longer a reasonable investment strategy either for upward social mobility in Mexico or advancement in the United States. Migration now appears to be associated with other determinants, such as those stemming from rising rates of deportation and from a growing trend toward family reunification north of the border, or perhaps owing to other factors not yet explored. Once again, current attacks on family reunification provisions in U.S. immigration law are not in line with the current realities of Mexico-U.S. migration.

In studying return trips to Mexico, we sought to disentangle two observed patterns that at first glance would seem contradictory. The increasing volume of returnees to Mexico from the United States appears to be in tension with the growing tendency for migrants to settle and remain in the United States. Our analysis shows that differentiating cohort and period effects helps to resolve the apparent contradiction. Analyzing the data from the perspective of cohorts suggests that return rates from the United States to Mexico have neither increased nor decreased, implying that increases in the number of returned migrants is mostly a function of the increase in the size of the cohorts that settled during the 1990s. Analyzing the data by period, however, indicates that the militarization of the border did affect the likelihood of return migration, which fell significantly during periods after 1996 compared to 1990–95.

Nonetheless, these overall trends mask a significant change in the composition of return migration since the 1990s. Consistent with the view that increased border enforcement interrupted the historical circularity of Mexican migration to the United States, we find that the likelihood of return migration has dropped sharply across both period and cohort, especially for undocumented migrants. Compared to earlier periods, return migration today is very unlikely among undocumented migrants and return migration increasingly appears to be an option primarily available to documented migrants. Paradoxically, legalizing the undocumented population of the United States would likely restore fluidity to Mexican migration and actually prompt an acceleration of migration back to Mexico. Together, our results suggest that looking at Mexico-U.S. migration as a natural byproduct of economic conditions prevailing on both sides of the border is likely to produce policies more in line with the underlying reality of contemporary migration, yielding more fluidity, greater circulation, and less harm for migrants and their families.

Biography

•

Emilio Parrado is the Dorothy Swaine Thomas Professor of Sociology and chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. His research focuses on Latinos in the United States, particularly issues of immigrant adaptation and new settlement areas, the determinants and consequences of international migration for health and family outcomes in sending and receiving regions, and the social demography of societal change in Latin America.

Angie N. Ocampo is a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. Her research examines the incorporation experiences of Latino immigrants in the United States, focusing on their integration into the racial hierarchy, race relations between Latinos and other groups, and how other groups socially accept Latinos.

References

• Abramitzky Ran, Boustan Leah P., and Eriksson Katherine. 2014. A nation of immigrants: Assimilation and economic outcomes in the age of mass migration. Journal of Political Economy 122 (3): 467–506. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Acevedo-Garcia Dolores, Soobader Mah-J., and Berkman Lisa F.. 2007. Low birthweight among U.S. Hispanic/Latino subgroups: The effect of maternal foreign-born status and education. Social Science & Medicine 65 (12): 2503–2516. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Baker Bryan. 2017. Immigrant enforcement actions: 2016. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. [Google Scholar]
• Campos-Vazquez Raymundo M., and Lara Jaime. 2012. Self-selection patterns among return migrants: Mexico 1990-2010. IZA Journal of Migration 1 (1): 1–8. [Google Scholar]
• Cuecuecha Alfredo, and Rendon Silvio. 2012. Mexicans in and out of the United States: Facts on job search and international migration. In Migration and remittances from Mexico: Trends, impacts, and new challenges, eds. Cuecuecha Alfredo and Pederzini Carla, 119–42. Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books. [Google Scholar]
• Durand Jorge, Massey Douglas S., and Parrado Emilio A.. 1999. The new era of Mexican migration to the United States. Journal of American History 86 (2): 518–36. [Google Scholar]
• Durand Jorge, Parrado Emilio A., and Massey Douglas S.. 1996. Migradollars and development: A reconsideration of the Mexican ease. The International Migration Review 30 (2): 423–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fernández-Kelly Patricia, and Massey Douglas S.. 2007. Borders for whom? The role of NAFTA in Mexico-U.S. migration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 610: 98–119. [Google Scholar]
• Gitter Seth R., Gitter Robert J., and Southgate Douglas. 2008. The impact of return migration to Mexico. Estudios Económicos 23 (45): 3–23. [Google Scholar]
• Giuntella Osea. 2016. The Hispanic health paradox: New evidence from longitudinal data on second and third-generation birth outcomes. SSM - Population Health 2:84–89. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lindstrom David P. 1996. Economic opportunity in Mexico and return migration from the United States. Demography 33 (3): 357–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Masferrer Claudia, and Roberts Bryan R.. 2012. Going back home? Changing demography and geography of Mexican return migration. Population Research and Policy Review 31 (4): 465–96. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S. 1987. Understanding Mexican migration to the United States. American Journal of Sociology 92 (6): 1372–1403. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S. 2013. "America's Immigration Policy Fiasco: Learning from Past Mistakes." Daedalus 142(3):5–15. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S., Durand Jorge, and Pren Karen A.. 2015. Border enforcement and return migration by documented and undocumented Mexicans. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41(7): 1015–40. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S., Durand Jorge, and Pren Karen A.. 2016. Why border enforcement backfired. American Journal of Sociology 121 (5): 1557–1600. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S., and Parrado Emilio. 1994. Migradollars: The remittances and savings of Mexican migrants to the USA. Population Research and Policy Review 13 (1): 3–30. [Google Scholar]
• Massey Douglas S., and Riosmena Fernando. 2010. Undocumented migration from Latin America in an era of rising U.S. enforcement. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 630 (1): 294–321. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Palloni Alberto, and Arias Elizabeth. 2004. Paradox lost: Explaining the Hispanic adult mortality advantage. Demography 41(3): 385–415. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Parrado Emilio A., and Gutierrez Edith Y.. 2016. The changing nature of return migration to Mexico, 1990-2010: Implications for labor market incorporation and development. Sociology of Development 2 (2): 93–118. [Google Scholar]
• Sorlie Paul D, Backlund Eric, Norman Johnson NJ, and Eugene Rogot. 1993. Mortality by Hispanic status in the United States." Journal of the American Medical Association 20:2464–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

morrisbabrivin43.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8297609/

Share this post