Full Text:

Introduction

Migration between Mexico and the United States is more than a recent political conflict – this is a phenomenon that has defined 20th-century policy in both countries. Although movement between Mexico and the US has been evident since the Mexican-American War in the mid-19th century, the beginning of the 1900s marks the beginning of a century-long development of newfound border policies, heightened racism, and a transformation of the identity of the Mexican. During political and economic turmoil in the 1910s, thousands of Mexican families made the journey to escape instability, rooting themselves in Southwestern American society. Their intentions were clear: this exodus was temporary. Most of the hundreds of thousands had the full intention to return to Mexico when opportunities arose, and both the government and the economy recovered. This mass movement, however, paved the path for a century-long pattern of migration. The established pattern was soon disrupted during the Great Depression, when repatriation campaigns in the 1930s forced hundreds of thousands of Mexicans back across the border, a mix of immigrants and Mexican-Americans. By the 1940s, the pattern shifted once more, with the implementation of the Bracero Program, which recruited migrants to work in the US, filling the slots abandoned by Anglos joining the war effort and thus helping to stabilize the American economy. This program lasted for 22 years, until, once again, policies shifted in both Mexico and the US. This time, immigration enforcement fell solely into the hands of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which, after quotas were abandoned, cracked down on a perceived “infestation” of “illegal aliens.” These mass deportations were publicized, broadcasting to a general American audience a negative portrayal of the Mexican immigrant.

These oscillating policy transformations did more than control labor and influence policy, however. Throughout this century of migration, the migrant identity has been drastically reshaped, influencing the way migrants perceived themselves. In the mass exodus of Mexicans, a population of Mexican-American Chicanos emerged, those identifying with the cultural norms of both countries. Furthermore, the oscillating policies in the US influenced Mexican nationalism. At times, nationalism was reinforced, whereas at other times, many worried about a loss of Mexicanidad. Beyond the questions of cultural identity, mass migration influenced gender roles and restructured Mexican society, much to the protest of many who chose to stay in Mexico. In general, Mexican-American immigration policy functionally redefined culture and society for Mexicans on either side of the border.

This paper aims to assess the impact of immigration policies on the identity of Mexicans in both countries. This paper engages with a range of literature and scholarship that analyzes these transformations from various perspectives. Work from Douglas Monroy, Deborah Cohen, and David Fitzgerald highlights how migration has reinforced both nationalism and a Mexican identity; Laura Gutiérrez and multiple Mexican newspaper articles illustrate governmental problems and perceptions of cultural loss; finally, Adam Goodman underscores the intense racism faced by Mexicans in the US, while Miroslava Chávez-García and David Fitzgerald deal with the cultural disparities and societal transformations back in Mexico. Together, these literary works will help evaluate the transformation of the Mexican immigrant, their way of life, and their self-perception.

Reinforced Mexican Nationalism

We begin by delving into the pre-1930s – the first wave of Mexican immigrants, who sought out a life of opportunity in the US.

Mexican immigrants first arrived in the United States with the hope of making money and improving their lives, lives that had been displaced by the revolution in the early 20th century. However, arriving Mexicans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries fell victim to the marginalization of immigrants in the United States. They lived on minimum wage and soon became misrepresented as a low working-class group of people with little else to offer. President Theodore Roosevelt, seen as a hero by Americans, sought to preserve the Spanish history of Los Angeles, but hoped to suppress the contemporary struggles for hierarchical autonomy reflected in the Mexicans’ uprisings and strikes. The Mexican community became a group looked down upon by other Los Angeles residents.[1]

Mexicans in Los Angeles endured severely poor living conditions. They were crammed into small living quarters with minimal amenities and often shared these quarters with several other families. These tenements were unhygienic and cramped, resulting in a proliferation of diseases. Misogyny was ubiquitous at the time, a parallel to the rest of contemporary American society. The traditional practice of patriarchy was adopted for the households: men went to work and earned menial wages, though few men could ever hold a job for long. Women were expected to stay home and tend to the home.[2]

Life in the United States varied significantly from the norms in Mexico. People became isolated and lonely, a phenomenon that hardly ever occurred in Latin America, where the cultural norm was to surround oneself with loved ones. Many men, dubbed by Monroy as sólos, experienced this feeling of loneliness. These men were drifters, men who constantly searched for a permanent place of employment but never found it. This employment search divided men from their connections to family and friends, establishing a new cultural norm among Mexicans living in the United States. That being said, the Mexican community strived to maintain their Mexican identities, preserving their culture in their homes, their stories, and their food. Stories such as La Llorona helped to preserve Mexican beliefs and values, and cooking helped to retain a sense of home.

An overarching theme in the exodus to the United States was the misery present in the lives of most laborers. A majority of Mexican immigrants consisted of individuals escaping poverty in Mexico during the revolution, only to endure similar conditions in the United States. A divide between the rich Mexicans and poor Mexicans traveled across the border as well, creating two distinct populations of immigrants: the intellectuals and elite, and the poor laborers labeled as a “nuisance”. Disease killed many of the young, and money was difficult to come by. Eventually, after establishing their place in California, Mexicans began to do better for themselves, contributing to both the lower and middle classes. During this time, they felt it was imperative to maintain a sense of Mexican nationalism, since most immigrants intended to return home when tensions eased. Therefore, Mexicans in the United States never really became “American”, but rather stayed as “Mexicans in America”. Although that division certainly existed and is best seen in some consulate, Monroy points to Mexican nationalism being reinforced abroad for a few reasons. For one, the low quality of life that Mexicans had in the US was in large part due to discriminatory labor practices that gave Anglo workers higher wages and an easier path to promotion. These discriminatory labor practices brought Mexican migrants together because they gave them a shared struggle. School segregation also reinforced the sentiment that Mexicans, even when born in the US, were not truly American. The formation of mutual aid clubs was the primary space in which a common Mexican identity was forged. Motivated by their shared nationality and economic necessity, mutual aid clubs helped redistribute wealth among their members to uplift members going through a tough time. It is also important to note that prior to the Mexican Revolution, a Mexican identity did not really exist, as people identified primarily with their states or regions within states. Their arrival in the US and shared experience of discrimination by Anglos helped forge a united Mexican identity that overcame regionalism as the new Revolutionary Government began to do the same South of the border.

By the 1920s and 1930s, hundreds of thousands of Mexican men, women, and children made their way across the border, all with common hopes and dreams. However, the goals of these migrants were forced to be altered. Geopolitical turmoil and Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor forced the US to join WWII efforts by 1942, prompting the departure of most men from the workforce. This sudden absence of workers in many of the US’s major industries spurred the beginnings of the Bracero Program.

The Bracero Program, a 22-year-long program initially intended to last until World War II ended, was a means of productivity for both the Americans as well as the Mexicans[3]. With the American government seeking to stabilize the country’s economy amid the Great Depression and the outbreak of geopolitical disputes, policymakers turned to Mexico as a neighboring ally to address labor shortages caused by the draft in the US. As for Mexico, the Bracero Program offered a chance to strengthen national unity, aligning the unstable country with a common goal of producing hardworking trabajadores. So, beginning in 1942, millions of Mexicans, chiefly men, were deployed to the US for contractually temporary work. These workers helped fill the voids left by the American working class, stabilizing the US economy.

There were many different aspects to the Bracero Program that opposing sides found either attractive or unappealing. For example, a significant number of Mexican men who chose to leave their country to seek work in the United States in pursuit of better economic prospects that were not available in Mexico. The Bracero Program represented a historic shift in the Mexican government's sentiment regarding the exodus to the US. Just 20 years earlier, the government deplored the mass immigration of Mexicans following the cataclysmic effects of the Mexican Revolution. The Mexican government even acted on this sentiment when it had collaborated with the US government to bring more Mexicans to Mexico during the mass repatriations of the 1930s. However, with the Bracero Program, the government finally perceived it as beneficial because the Mexican government approved of its citizens moving to the US temporarily for work (35).

            There were benefits to the program for all three parties: the US, Mexico, and the workers themselves. The program was launched in 1942, the year that began US intervention in World War II (22). Blue-collar workers and laborers constituted a majority of the American army, leaving growers in southwestern states without a labor force to assist in the cultivation of specialty crops, a problem that was especially apparent in California (25). A steady flow of contracted Mexican migrant workers mitigated the effects of a low American labor supply and stabilized food prices in a time of economic uncertainty. Furthermore, there was a shift in grower narratives during this time period, highlighting that growers exploited this era to develop themselves into a more influential societal faction. At the same time, Americans began to stigmatize farmworkers, namely immigrants from the South, wrongly perceiving them as lazy and uneducated. Ultimately, farm owners and growers alike benefited from bracero employment in an exploitative fashion.

Additionally, the move to send Mexican men over to the US was a diplomatically and internally strategic move by the Mexican government. Primarily, this program was viewed as a bilateral war effort and helped strengthen US-Mexico relations, which were strained following Mexican president Lazaro Cardenas’s nationalization of various US-owned industries in Mexico, including oil, in the 1930s. As Cohen highlighted, the braceros were “Mexico’s contribution to the war effort.” Moreover, the program benefited Mexico domestically. Men were sent on contracts, meaning that they were expected to return to Mexico rather than stay in the US indefinitely. This system had the potential to foster economic growth in Mexico, as returning braceros brought back modernized economic solutions because they were trained in the latest farm technology when working in the US (31). The Bracero Program also curtailed poverty in Mexico as it provided an avenue for a large part of its lower-class population to attain economic mobility in the US.

Although braceros were often subject to exploitation and poor treatment, they experienced a multitude of benefits not observed in Mexico. Most significant was their increase in wages, which was the primary drive for most braceros to cross the border (24). Moreover, braceros advanced themselves by laboring in industrialized and modernized settings. These settings offered braceros the opportunity to return to Mexico and help modernize their country. This aspect was also supported by the Mexican government, which allocated a portion of braceros’ salaries to fund the development of modernized farm equipment (31). Cohen's findings build on reasons for migration in the 1920s; in both cases, migration was viewed as a temporary action, demonstrating a theme in immigration patterns from the early to mid-20th century between the US and Mexico.

The Bracero Program fostered institutionalized Mexican nationalism. State-led identity building revolutionized internal Mexican policy. By framing millions of Mexican migrants as ambassadors for Mexican labor, government officials showcased the importance of Mexican culture and work ethics, while constructing a key relationship with the US. At the same time, however, the key labor policy divided the Mexican population. While a great number of Mexicans crossed the border under the Bracero Program, there were also those who stayed back, tending to the recovering domestic economy. This divide of populations not only separated millions of families, but it also created a disparity of cultures and societal views. Mexicans settling in the United States adopted American customs and, upon returning, were seen as outsiders by fellow members of the community. One of the most prevalent examples of this effect of the Bracero Program and other migrations was the response in the Jalisciense town of Arandas.[4]

When speaking about Arandas, it is vital to emphasize ambivalence. Vignettes in David Fitzgerald’s A Nation of Emigrants: How Mexico Manages its Migrations include celebrations in the town, a time when natives welcomed their family members back home. Simultaneously, those who celebrated gossiped in hushed whispers about the returnees’ “Americanized behavior”. This behavior change was observed in multiple ways: returnees expected higher wages; gender roles shifted; overall dress and demeanor became unrecognizable to some. Mixed feelings were ubiquitous in Arandas and, quite frankly, throughout Mexico.

The ambivalence was directed mainly towards the effect of the returnees upon assimilating back into Mexican society. On one hand, both the departure and the return of migrants were majorly beneficial to the people of Mexico. As previously mentioned, one of the main “metas” for crossing the border was to earn decent pay through intensive labor. In most cases, Mexican laborers sent much of their earnings back home in the form of financial remittances. With some form of capital flowing through Mexico, those at home rebuilt and “westernized” Mexico. Though, as we will see in the future, financial remittances were used by those who returned for all the wrong reasons.

On the other hand, those who stayed home resented the American culture brought back to Mexico. Indignation was experienced by the conservative elderly, cultural preservists, and even the Mexican government. Those who worried about culture emphatically protested the “unruly” behavior by those who came back.

The government was ambivalent. Many believed that returnees provided opportunities for the Mexican economy to grow. Along with remittances, Mexican workers brought ideas, technology, and policy from the US. During the early to mid-20th century, advancements to factory production and productivity outputs allowed the US and other westernized nations to soar economically, and the institution of some of those policies, the Mexican government believed, would help propel Mexico in the same direction. However, laborers also brought home American beliefs in rights and freedom that the Mexican government feared would stifle productivity. Specifically, American policy, such as the Wagner Act, guaranteed laborers in the US the right to unionize, a right understood by Mexican migrants. Upon returning to an economically recovering nation, returnees often refused to work for such low wages compared to the wages earned in the US, creating a constant threat due to the absence of manpower.

Arandas exemplifies the thousands of little Mexican towns that welcomed back returnees while discouraging the spread of “westernization.” Fears were often realized. In states such as Jalisco and Zacatecas with large returnee populations, hometown associations (HTAs) grew exceedingly popular towards the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. Initially mutual aid clubs, these HTAs helped fund communal matters in small towns, such as funerals, cultural centers, and some health needs. In states and towns with large returnee populations, the Mexican government implemented Tres por Uno, a program meant to quadruple migrant payment from remittances by having the federal, state, and municipal governments each make an equal contribution of remittances sent to a public project in Mexico. The allocation of these funds was intended to develop important infrastructure. Theoretically ideal, the true purpose of Tres por Uno was never realized. Sarah Lynn Lopez made note of the many Mexicans who wrongly allocated funds towards prestige projects rather than developing necessary infrastructure and culture projects. For example, some cities established resorts and other unnecessary pieces of grandeur, hoping to turn centers for Mexican culture into tourist attractions, which conflicted with the desires of non-migrants who desired funds to be allocated to modernizing towns and to be used to bring new industries to those towns. Overall, these HTAs never thoroughly succeeded and reflected the “western influence” of which so many in Mexico sought to rid.

Overall, the development of movement patterns from Mexico to the US throughout the 20th century fostered both nationalism as well as intracultural disparities within the Mexican population. With the migration of more than one million migrants and the dispensation of 4.6 million contracts during the Bracero Program, a war-torn Mexico experienced the unity of its citizens towards a cause of economic revival. However, it was only natural that those who crossed the then-perforated border adopted and introduced American ideas and culture back home. With this in mind, I will continue to assess a loss of “mexicanidad” that divided the Mexican population over cultural values and overall ethics.

Mexicans Losing Mexicanidad

            To some, upon settling and assimilating in the US, adapting to American customs, and even bearing children in the US, Mexicans were no longer considered “Mexican”. There were different names used: those born in the US were Mexican-Americans or Chicanos, some were solely considered American, and others were still considered Mexican. The pre-1930s mass migration discussed earlier transformed Mexican identity and even gave birth to new identities. This transformation would play a major role during the 1930s, when, although many still made their way from Mexico to the US, close to 1 million Mexicans were repatriated back to Mexico.

The 1930s saw a significant historical phenomenon between the United States and Mexico: the beginnings of mass deportation and repatriation. Tens of thousands of Mexicans migrated to the US for temporary opportunities to escape an oppressive Mexican government and earn money, but many were returned to their home country. There were two forms of forced return: deportation and repatriation[5].

            As more and more Mexicans entered the US in the early 1900s, the Americans cracked down on excessive immigration with nativist policies, sending many immigrants back to where they came from. There were many varying statistics on the number of deportees and repatriates at the time, with different sources estimating figures more than 100,000 people apart.

            Life for returnees was extremely difficult. Many people were repatriated to Mexico more than once, and the process to start anew back home proved challenging for most. One reason for these challenges is the Mexican government’s indifference to the situation. She highlights how the government has welcomed repatriates with open arms (85), but once these citizens were back within Mexican borders, the government did little to support them. Many spent the first few months back in Mexico in border towns, with virtually no money, no resources, and no support. These towns grew crowded, the surplus population disrupting local commerce.

If a repatriate and their family were sent further South to their hometown, seeking employment was still difficult. Many employers resented repatriates, some for their “anti-nationalist sentiment,” others simply because they had worked in the US. Specifically, US employers in Mexico refrained from hiring repatriates because they picked up on the sentiment expressed by unions in the US, disrupting business and commerce. Additionally, more laborers seeking employment upset local laborers, creating dissension through competition (90).

Left with few resources and hated by many people, repatriates struggled to acclimate back in their home country. This struggle was heightened by the diseases brought over, including tuberculosis and leprosy. These common conditions amongst repatriates who worked in the US added more reason for native Mexicans to view repatriates as inferior (101). However, some programs sought to support repatriates, including the National Repatriation Committee and La Campaña de Medio Millión (87). Despite various efforts, however, repatriates remained oppressed and impoverished. One analysis of border town Ciudad Juárez highlighted that returnees and deportees made up a majority of the city’s homeless population, demonstrating the country’s refusal to address the issues of a significant portion of its population (96).

Deportations and repatriations continued to occur frequently in this period. Deportations became a method of punishment for crime-committing Mexicans living in the US. For example, many prostitutes in the US were deported, thus affecting many Mexican women (110). However, some people benefited from deportations, with Ramon Preciado and his crime ring as a group that partnered with members of the American border patrol in a corrupt exploitation of repatriation. A coyote in Nogales, Sonora, Preciado received payments to smuggle hopeful Mexicans across the border and find them employment. If they did not pay, Preciado turned these migrants over to border patrol. With the forced return of many Mexican migrants, those at home rejected their differences. Repatriation contributed significantly to the differing views on migration as well as an outright rejection of westernized Mexican values.

Moreover, the Catholic Church, an entity within Mexico consistently opposed to immigration, migrating Mexicans would lose their Catholic values in replacement for a major Protestant population in the US. “Primera Visita Pastoral” is an article detailing the story of Archbishop Orozco y Jimenez of Jalisco visiting the newly created Parish of Pegueros in Jalisco for the first time. He and his secretary, Father Francisco Uranga y Sáenz, were welcomed enthusiastically by the parish’s people and Pastor Morales. The narrator, Jimenez, noted the material progress within the parish, with a clock tower having been erected and new streets having been opened. Jimenez was pleased with the communal values upheld within the parish, but, in a letter written in 1920 to Morales, lamented the migration of the Mexican people and a loss of overall community as expressed by the Church. More so, this anti-migrant sentiment was felt among many who elected to stay behind, forming a tense divide between two opposing viewpoints in 20th-century Mexico.

With the constant movement of migrants both ways across the border, people saw a greater rejection of those who mixed. This was further observed during the Tres por Uno program and many other HTAs. As mentioned earlier, American-influenced returnees sought to transform Mexican towns into resorts and other means of attraction to outsiders, whereas most others, including the government, opted to use Tres por Uno funds to preserve Mexican culture.

Mexican-American migration throughout the 20th century fundamentally transformed what it meant to be Mexican. Migration patterns both strengthened Mexican nationalism as well as divided the nation. At this point, I will shift my argument to highlight other transformations to Mexican society.

Other Changes in Mexican Migrants

            Nationalism certainly was not the only effect mass migration left on Mexicans in both the US and back home. Remittances were a portion of payment that laborers sent from the US back to Mexico to financially support their families and communities.  To conclude my research, I will lay out the effects of multifaceted remittances, racial injustice, and disparity back in Mexico.

            Remittances are, by definition, financial. However, when considering migration during the 20th century, many Mexican migrants brought back remittances in other forms. Social remittances, for example, were extremely common in the case of US-Mexico border crossings. As previously mentioned, many Mexican returnees brought back knowledge about labor rights, technology, and general society,  gleaned during temporary stays in the US. This spreading of new ideas demonstrated the dispersion of social experiments and newfound ideologies. One inadvertent social remittance that fundamentally reshaped Mexican society was the rewiring of filial structure, specifically regarding the dominance of the father in the household.

Thanks to migrant writing across the century, many of these stories of the effects of migration and remittances on Mexican society are intact. The Chavez-Torres family from Calvillo, Aguascalientes, is an example of the effects on society of the Bracero Program and the migration patterns it created. The brothers of the family decided to leave for the United States with the Bracero Program for the economic benefits that Mexico did not have. This gave them a chance to support their household financially, a strategy of many Mexican families in the mid-20th century. This was the brothers’ familial obligation: contributing to the household economy.

Financial remittances were for many families in Mexico’s main source of income during this time. The brothers of the Chavez-Torres family, including Paco, Jose, Jesus, and Juan, used their earnings in the US to pay for food, medicine, and other commodities and necessities. It was important to note, however, that remittances were inconsistent, dependent on the conditions of labor in the US. Additionally, social remittances grew important during this time. Social remittances were the values and expectations that migrants learned in the US. This influence was brought back home in Mexico, changing mindsets about labor policy and worker rights. Remittances brought relief and problems to the Chavez family. Remittances brought relative stability to the family’s finances. Financial remittances helped the father, Jose, through Parkinson’s by providing enough money for medical care.

During the Bracero Program, family structure was starkly changed. Women took on more roles as leaders of the house and finances. This marked a drastic shift from Mexico’s typical patriarchal leadership, in which the father was the leader and decision-maker of the house. Jose, the father, found his authority to be weakened by the Bracero Program and his sons’ independence. His influence waned, and he was often unable to control his sons to fulfill their filial duty due to the great distance between him and his sons. This relationship only began to resemble a traditional patriarchal family when Jose fell ill with Parkinson’s disease because it compelled his sons to be obedient and to support him financially.

Although the sons received work and pay in the US, conditions were unpredictable and oftentimes poor. In his letters back to Mexico, one of the sons, Jose, emphasized how little the pay was. “Aquí no te creas que es duro y no se gana tanto…[6]” he said. Furthermore, he noted with this quote, “anda ve en las nueces pero se acabaron y ahora estoy en la peluquería...[7]” the unpredictability of his employment. Many workers often switched in and out of jobs and lived through periods of unemployment.

The documented experiences of the Chavez-Torres family and their struggle to cope with a separated family reflected the experiences of hundreds of thousands of families before, during, and after the Bracero Program. Remittances influenced some of these changes, supporting families both financially and emotionally.

Additionally, it is important to discuss the significant racism and nativist sentiment experienced by migrants. Racism in the US has existed since the region’s founding as colonies, but Mexicans only began migrating in recent centuries. And although Mexicans had experienced such racism from the beginning, institutional racism escalated rapidly in the latter half of the 20th century, following a series of policy changes toward border security and the increased use of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

Following the passing of the Hart-Cellar Act in 1965, Mexican migrants continued to flow into the US with fewer restrictions. During this time, however, workers lacked visas and other necessary documentation, increasing the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border. With that, the INS increased enforcement and cracked down on the flow of migrants entering the country. With these policy changes, more than 1 million Mexicans were forcibly deported back to Mexico in the decades following the Hart-Cellar Act.

Byproducts of this era of mass deportation included the significant politicization of this process. Proponents of mass deportation and the INS used the phenomenon as leverage for political campaigns, with many spreading exaggerated reports of the “danger” of what many then called “illegal aliens” to the media, effectively rendering the entire nation cognizant of the government’s efforts to eradicate the US of undocumented immigrants.

To many Mexicans, the process was violent and unjust. Migrants living in the Southwest highlighted the fear they felt daily. Many, including women and their children, were afraid to leave their houses at any given moment. INS workers often arrested individuals and transported them to migrant camps within the same day. Migrant camps were crowded and had few amenities, and many people spent weeks before crossing the border back to Mexico. The Carter Administration saw the INS’s first director of color, Leonel Castillo, who had Mexican origins. Castillo’s proposals to improve migrant camp conditions and treat migrants more humanely were met with severe backlash from a largely white personnel, ultimately leading to his resignation. Americans were adamant on purifying the US, ridding the country of its large population of Mexican migrants. This nativist sentiment has still been felt in the 21st century under more recent administrations.  

Conclusion

            Viewing twentieth-century Mexican migration to the US through a comprehensive literary review on nationalism, identity (Mexicanidad), and government policy has demonstrated that migration is a dynamic and multifaceted process. The studies, documents, and literature considered in this dissertation highlight that Mexican migrants have been and are a people responsible for influencing the shape of US-Mexico relations for the past centuries.

            In migrating to the US in search of opportunity, Mexicans have adopted American ideas and customs that have revolutionized the identity of the Mexican people and affected the relationship of Mexicans back home with those in the US. Mexicans, while gaining American insight, have altered their Mexicanidad, changing the way they were met when returning home. Upon returning home, Mexicans reinstitutionalized nationalism and, at the same time, altered the meaning of “Mexicanidad”.

            Forced repatriations, temporary labor contracts during the Bracero Program, and mass deportation following the Hart-Cellar Act left significant marks on each generation of migrants. But migrants adapted, continuously changing the way they approached the journey North. Ultimately, their presence in the US has bolstered the economy and contributed to a significant increase in productivity. In recognizing the complexity of this century-long narrative, policymakers can better understand the far-reaching effects of border policy – from transforming family structure and community to governments themselves, the Mexican migration narrative is essential to both Mexico and the US’s existence.

Reference List

Amador, F., II. (2020). Review of Migrant Longing: Letter Writing across the US-Mexican Borderlands, by Miroslava Chávez-García, 2018. Middle Atlantic Review of Latin American Studies, 4(1), 200. https://doi.org/10.23870/marlas.288

Barbosa, G. Y., & Hudgins, A. (2021). Review: “The Deportation Machine: America’s Long History of Expelling Immigrants” (2020), by Adam Goodman. Mitologías Hoy, 23, 185–188. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/mitologias.791

Booth, W. (2012). Deborah Cohen, Braceros: Migrant Citizens and Transnational Subjects in the Postwar United States and Mexico (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2011), pp. 328, $39.95, hb. Journal of Latin American Studies, 44(3), 622–623. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022216x1200065x

Equipo diocesano de Pastoral San Juan de los Lagos. (n.d.). Boletín de Pastoral de la Diócesis de San Juan de los Lagos. Club Pegueros. https://diocesisdesanjuan.org/boletin/bol_biblioteca/Boletin_167.pdf

FitzGerald, D. S. (2017). The Remittance Landscape: Spaces of Migration in Rural Mexico and Urban USA. by Sarah Lynn Lopez. Migration Studies, 6(1), 157–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnx040

Garcia, M. T., & Monroy, D. (2000). Rebirth: Mexican Los Angeles from the Great Migration to the Great Depression. Western Historical Quarterly, 31(4), 499. https://doi.org/10.2307/970115

Gutierrez, L. D. (2016). A constant threat: Deportation and return migration to Northern Mexico, 1918-1965. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8ft6j5xj

Hellman, J. A. (2011). A Nation of Emigrants: How Mexico Manages its Migration by David Fitzgerald. Political Science Quarterly, 126(2), 356–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165x.2011.tb02154.x

[1] Douglas Monroy, Rebirth: Mexican Los Angeles from the Great Migration to the Great Depression (University of California Press, 1999).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Booth, W. (2012). Deborah Cohen, Braceros: Migrant Citizens and Transnational Subjects in the Postwar United States and Mexico (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2011)

[4] FitzGerald, D. S. (2017). The Remittance Landscape: Spaces of Migration in Rural Mexico and Urban USA. by Sarah Lynn Lopez.

[5] Gutierrez, L. D. (2016). A constant threat: Deportation and return migration to Northern Mexico, 1918-1965.

[6] “Here it’s not that hard and not much is made”

[7] “I was in the nut harvests, then that ended, and now I’m working in a hair salon.”