Guanajuatense and Other Mexican
Immigrants in the United States: New Communities in Non-Metropolitan
and Agricultural Regions
by Victor Garcia, Ph.D.
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
and
Laura Gonzalez Martinez, Ph.D.
The University of Texas at Dallas
Working Paper No. 47
December 1999
About the Authors:
Dr. Victor Garcia is a cultural anthropologist, whose
specialty is Latin American and Latino Studies, and the Assistant
Director of Cultural and Ethnic Studies at the Mid-Atlantic Addiction
Training Institute (MAATI). His research interests include economic
anthropology, peasant studies, the political economy of agriculture
and farm work in the Unites States, and lately, alcohol abuse
among transnational migrants. Dr. Garcia's research experience
on Mexican farmworker populations and rural enclaves in California
and Pennsylvania has brought him recognition as a leading researcher
on these subjects. His findings have been published in book chapters
and research reports, put forth in working papers, and presented
in numerous papers given at national and international conferences.
He teaches courses on Latin America, the economics of peasant
societies, and Latinos in the U.S.
Dr. Laura Gonzalez Martinez is an anthropologist, educated
in both the United States and Mexico, who has studied the peasantry
of Guanajuato, Mexico, for over 20 years. The social and economic
consequence of the Green Revolution on peasant economies, migration
and immigration to the United States, and gender issues are only
a few of her research topics. Over the last six years, as coordinator
of the Network of Guanajuato Migrants Project, Dr. Gonzalez Martinez
has examined the emergence and evolution of major migration and
immigration networks from rural Guanajuato to different regions
of the United States and Canada. She has published a book, Repuesta
Campesina a la Revoluci-n Verde en el Bajio (1992), articles,
and reports. Dr. Gonzalez Martinez is currently a visiting professor
at the School of Social Sciences, University of Texas, Dallas,
where she teaches courses on international migration, U.S. Latinos,
and ethnographic methods in a field school in Dallas.
SUGGESTED CITATION
Garcia, Victor (Ph.D.) and Laura Gonzalez Martinez (Ph.D.). Guanajuatense
and Other Mexican Immigrants in the United States: New Communities
in Non-Metropolitan and Agricultural Regions, JSRI Research Report
#47, The Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, 1999. |
Related Readings
Rochin, Refugio I. Immigration and Ethnic Communities: A Focus
on Latinos. Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1996.
Guanajuatense and Other Mexican Immigrants
in the United States:
New Communities in Non-Metropolitan and Agricultural Regions
Over the last two decades, as vegetable, fruit, and horticultural
industries restructure their operations and intensify their production,
there has been an influx of Mexican farmworkers to non-metropolitan
and agricultural regions of the United States (Garcia, Gouveia,
Rivera, and Rochin, forthcoming; Griffith and Kassam, 1995; Palerm,
1991).1 With each passing year, many of these laborers are settling
with their families in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida,
and other states that had not experienced heavy Mexican immigration
in the past. In these states, the number of Mexican people is
increasing in towns and cities found in agricultural regions;
in some cases, the number is doubling in a couple of years. They
are becoming the majority of the residents in neighborhoods,
and in the process, introducing another culture, way-of-life,
and language into the larger community.
This paper addresses the growth of the Mexican-descent population,
foreign and U.S.-born, in non-metropolitan and agricultural areas.2
It will begin with a general discussion of immigration from Mexico
to the United States, particularly from the state of Guanajuato.
In the second part, regional concentration of Mexican-origin
workers and their families in the United States will be briefly
examined. Two relatively new Mexican settlements in southeastern
Pennsylvania, one in Kennett Square and another in nearby Toughkenamon
where the authors of this paper (Garcia and Gonzalez, 1995) have
conducted research, will be presented as examples of emerging
and rapidly growing Mexican enclaves in the third section. Lastly,
some explanations for the emergence and growth of these and other
enclaves in non-metropolitan and agricultural regions will be
discussed. Argument that campesino [peasants] from Guanajuato
and other parts of Mexico not only immigrate to these areas,
but many migrate in order to continue practicing subsistence
farming back home.3
Mexican Immigrants in the U.S.
According to U.S. census figures, there are nearly 30 million
Latinos, or Latin American residents, in the United States (U.S.
Bureau of Census, 1997).4 About 16.9 million of them were born
here, while 13.1 million were born abroad (U.S. Bureau of Census,
1997). That is, nearly 56% were native-born while 44% were foreign-born.
Given the serious shortcomings of the Census Bureau to adequately
enumerate Latinos, the overall Latino population may be significantly
higher. Nonetheless, census figures reveal that Latinos are the
fastest growing ethnic group in the U.S., six times faster than
the general U.S. population. Additionally, it is predicted that
in the next century they will surpass the African American population
and become the largest minority group in the country (U.S. Bureau
of Census, 1998). In many Southwestern communities, this prediction
has already come true. Latinos, if not the largest minority,
are now the new majority in states such as California and Texas
(Palerm, 1991; U.S. Bureau of Census, 1998).
The majority of the Latinos residing in the United States are
Mexicans and their Chicano, or Mexican American, descendants.5
They account for 63% of this populace and for the vast majority
of the migrants working in agriculture and related industries
(U.S. Bureau of Census, 1997; Runyan, 1997). Historically, Mexicans
and their descendants have always been the largest Latino population
in the United States. This should be of no surprise given that
nearly one-third of the United States was once Mexican territory.
When the U.S. annexed Mexico's northern territory, it also acquired
a population that over time has attracted others from the original
homeland.
The vast majority of the Mexican immigrants to the United States
are campesinos and rural proletariats from Guanajuato and other
states of Mexico's Central Plateau Region (Almanza, B. and Lopez
Riofrio, 1997).6 Located in central Mexico (see Map 1), Guanajuato
covers an area of 30,589 square kilometers, and according to
official census figures, is populated by nearly 4 million inhabitants
(Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografia e Informatica, 1994).
The immigrants are primarily from subsistence-farming areas,
such as the ones found in the municipalities of Allende, Moroleon,
Salvatierra, and San Francisco del Rincon (Almanza B. and Lopez
Riofrio, 1997). Displaced campesinos from the state's modern
agricultural area, the Bajio Region which includes the municipalities
of the Valle Santiago and others, are also immigrating and migrating
to the U.S. (Gonzalez, 1992).
Since colonial times, Guanajuato whose motto is tierra de oportunidades
[land of opportunities] has been a major agricultural and mining
center of the country. Petroleum refineries, assembly plants
for U.S. automobiles and trucks, the shoe and leather industries,
and the booming clothing enterprises are other contributors to
the economy of the state. Additionally, remittances from guanajuatenses
[natives of Guanajuato] in the United States, migrants, and immigrants
add millions of U.S. dollars to the economy on an annual basis,
allowing thousands of rural families to overcome economic hardships
and many small businesses (such as grocery and clothing stores)
to thrive (Guerrero Resendiz, 1998). To protect the rights of
its citizenry abroad and to promote cultural and economic ties
with Guanajuato, the state government of Guanajuato created la
Direcci-n de Atenci-n a las Comunidades Guanajuatenses en el
Extranjero [The Office for the Attention to Guanajuatense Communities
found Abroad].7
Since the early 1900's, campesinos from Guanajuato and surrounding
states, such as Michoacan and Jalisco, have migrated and immigrated
to the United States (Cross and Sandos, 1981).8 Initially, from
1910 to 1930, only displaced refugees fleeing the political upheaval
and violence of the Revolution of 1910 and the Cristero Revolt
departed for the United States. Later, after the 1940's, generation
after generation has sought employment across the border (Durand,
1995; Gonzalez, 1995; Rionda, 1994; Sepulveda Garza, 1994). Currently,
it is estimated that 1.7 million guanajuatenses live in the United
States (Gonzalez, personal communication, 1998). If the U.S.
descendants of the early immigrants are included, the number
increases to at least 2 million people (Gonzalez, personal communication,
1998). The size of this population explains why guanajuatenses
and their Chicano, or Mexican American, descendants are numerous
in the Southwest and some areas outside of this region. It is
estimated that 800,000 live in Houston and Dallas, Texas, in
barrios [Latino neighborhoods] such as La Magnolia and Oak Cliff
(Gonzalez, 1995), and that hundreds of thousands are concentrated
in the Los Angeles metropolitan area and scattered throughout
farming regions of California (Gonzalez, 1995; 1998; Rionda,
1995a and b). Nearly 240,000 guanajuatenses reside in Illinois
(Gonzalez and Hernandez Hernandez, 1998), of which 86,000 live
in Chicago (Rionda, 1995a and b).
Lately, as of a decade ago, guanajuatenses have been migrating
to Canada in growing numbers to work in that nation's agriculture
(Quintero, 1998; Arguello Zepeda, 1993). Whether or not this
migration practice will continue in the decades that follow is
yet to be seen.
Mexican Settlement and Concentration in the United States
Historically, immigrants from Guanajuato and elsewhere in
the Mexican Republic have not only settled in the U.S. Southwest,
as is often believed. In fact, as Chicano historians such as
Gamboa (1990), Garcia (1996), and Nodin Valdes (1991) have found
in their research, this has never been the case. At the turn
of the century, Mexican railroad workers settled with their families
in towns situated along major routes that spanned the country,
creating the first Mexican and Chicano communities in the Northwest
and Midwest. Other compatriots, after being recruited to work
in agriculture and manufacturing, gradually transplanted their
roots to agricultural towns and major industrial cities in the
heartland, such as Chicago and Detroit. As early as the 1920's,
Mexicans were also induced to work in these same industries in
Northeastern states, such as Pennsylvania (Taylor, 1973). Campesinos,
together with their families, immigrated, but did not establish
strong immigration networks into the U.S. Northeast (Taylor,
1973). Others would do so in the 1980's.
Today, Mexicans reside in nearly every state, where they and
their U.S.-born children are creating new Mexican communities
that overtime will become Chicano in character as their children
become adults and have families of their own. In particular,
the majority of the Mexican immigrants and other people of Mexican
descent reside mainly in the Southwest. The second largest concentration,
anywhere from 8.6% to 10.6%, is in the Midwest; the third is
in the West, with 2.9% to 9.7%; the fourth is in the South, with
2.9% to 7.9% (Saenz and Martinez, forthcoming). And the region
with the least concentration is the Northeast, with anywhere
from 0.4% to 1.5% (Saenz and Martinez, forthcoming).9
A growing number of Mexican newcomers have settled in U.S. non-metropolitan
areas and work in agricultural industries. The non-metropolitan
Latino population grew from 1.8 million to 2.4 million between
1980 and 1990, an increase of 30% (Rochin and Marroquin, 1997).
The immigrants among their ranks grew from 37.9% to 39.1% (Rochin
and Marroquin, 1997).10 An estimated one million Mexicans live
in metropolitan areas, where housing is available, but they work
in traditional non-metropolitan industries, such as agriculture
and food-processing plants (Rochin and Marroquin, 1997). Mexicans
and Chicanos live within the metropolitan areas of Fresno and
Sacramento, Calif., but harvest tomatoes, cucumbers, and many
other crops grown in surrounding farmland. The same residence
and employment pattern can be found in other parts of the country.
Mexican immigrants and migrants live in Omaha, Neb., and Newark,
Del., and work in surrounding meat processing-plants (Gouveia,
forthcoming; Horowitz and Miller, forthcoming).
Additionally, the increasing Mexican population in non-metropolitan
areas and metropolitan centers in major agricultural regions
is reflected by the growing number of farmworkers. It is estimated
that the farmworker population in the United States, the majority
of whom are of Mexican descent, increased from 1.8 to 2.5 million
from 1960 to 1996 (Greenhouse, 1998). Given the Bureau of the
Census' shortcomings in enumerating migratory farmworkers, especially
transnational migrants [migrants whose permanent base is in a
country other than the United States], the growth of the farmworker
populace may be higher than indicated in the census figures (Garcia
and Gonzalez, 1995; Palerm, 1995). The mobility, housing and
residence practices, and limited knowledge of the English language
of the migrants make them difficult to locate and enumerate (Garcia
and Gonzalez, 1995; Palerm, 1995).
The increase in the farmworker population has caught many so-called
experts by surprise. A couple of decades ago, during the height
of research at land-grant universities on mechanizing harvests,
agricultural economists predicted the decline and possible elimination
of laborers in the harvest process of many vegetables and fruits
(Palerm, 1991). Instead, as Palerm (1991), Garcia and Gonzalez
(1995), and Griffith and Kissam (1995) have found in their research,
the opposite has occurred in California, Pennsylvania, Florida,
and other states. Today, there are more farmworkers in these
states than ever before.
Mexican Enclaves
In and out of non-metropolitan areas across the nation, Mexican
immigrants are settling in communities near labor-intensive agriculture
and food-processing plants. They are creating enclaves Ð
a growing concentration of foreign- and U.S.-born Mexican residents
Ð that did not have a settled Mexican population in the past.
This population is changing the demographic characteristics of
local neighborhoods, from predominantly aging and Anglo to young
and Mexican. At the same time, Mexican populace is altering the
local culture, by introducing the Spanish language, setting up
another way of life, and establishing traditional Mexican practices,
such as tandas [rotating credit associations] and compadrazgo
[fictive kin] ties.
In Pennsylvania, the authors (Garcia and Gonzalez, 1995) Mexican
enclaves are emerging and their populations are growing in many
counties, such as Burks and Chester, that until two decades ago
did not attract Mexican immigrants and migrants in large numbers.
In the 1990 census, 232,000 Latinos were enumerated in Pennsylvania.
If the thousands of transnational Mexican migrants who live in
relatively hidden labor camps were included in the census, this
number would be higher. In the census, Puerto Ricans made up
the majority of the Latinos at 65%, while the Mexicans were the
second largest constituency group at 10.2%. The majority of the
Puerto Ricans live in cities on the eastern side of the state
(Falcon, 1993), while the Mexicans are concentrated in townships
and boroughs outside of these metropolitan areas in vegetable,
fruit, and mushroom-producing regions (Garcia, 1997).
Enclaves in Southern Chester County, Pennsylvania
The largest concentration of Mexican immigrants and migrants
in Pennsylvania are found in Southern Chester County (see Map
2), a semi-rural and major mushroom- producing region in the
country. Southern Chester County is comprised of four boroughs
and 19 townships in 18 municipalities.11 The communities are
small, with under 10,000 inhabitants, and situated along the
old Baltimore Pike, Route One. Interspersed around them are mushroom
houses, migrant labor camps, and horse ranches. In the communities,
Mexican workers and their families, mainly from Guanajuato, are
creating enclaves. Two examples are found in Kennett Square and
Toughkenamon (see Map 2).
Kennett Square and Toughkenamon
Exactly when the Mexican immigrants began to settle down in Southern
Chester County is not known. However, there is a general agreement
among the old-timers that as early as the 1960's Mexican migrants
were already working in the local mushroom industry. These early
sojourners were solo men who left their families behind in Mexico.
In the 1970's, there is evidence that some of these early migrants,
mainly those with permanent resident status, started to settle
with their wives and children. First, they resided in housing
provided by their mushroom employers, and later, in the boroughs
and the townships especially in Kennett Square and Toughkenamon.
As they moved into the communities, they began to show up in
the censuses.
In all, 2,454 Mexicans were enumerated in all of Chester County
in the last decennial census. Nearly two-thirds of them, 1,728
laborers over the age of 16, were employed in agriculture mainly
in the mushroom industry (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992). These
census figures, however, do not include all of the Mexican residents
in the county as a whole. In fact, it is safe to assume that
the numbers do not even come close to an approximation of this
group in Southern Chester County alone. This discrepancy is due,
on the one hand, to the traditional undercount of Mexicans in
official censuses and, to the presence of residents who arrived
after the 1990 census.12
Kennett Square
In the 1990 census enumeration, Kennett Square, the largest borough
in Southern Chester County, had a population of 5,218 inhabitants
concentrated in a physical area of about 1.1 square miles (Chester
County, 1992). It sits on the crossroads of old Route One [in
an east-west direction] and Route 82 [in a south-north direction].
Located in the heartland of mushroom country, Kennett Square
is the self-proclaimed mushroom capital of the world. The Mexican
population is the fastest growing Latino ethnic group in the
borough. In absolute numbers, as shown in Table 1, the non-Hispanic
White population in Kennett Square only increased from 3,847
to 3,918 people, but in relative terms, it decreased from 81.6%
to 75.08% of the total population. Meanwhile, as indicated in
Table 2, the Mexican population rose from 24 to 374 people during
the same period, an increase of 1,450%.
Kennett Square is not a struggling farm or farmworker town,
similar to many found in California and other parts of the country.
It is a very affluent community, comprised of a large number
of professionals, middle-class residents, and retirees. Kennett,
as the locals call it, is a major commerce center in the area,
where local people do their banking, pay their utility bills,
and shop. It is also the headquarters of the Kennett School District,
which services the surrounding municipalities and houses the
local high school. Nearby, immediately outside of Kennett, world-renown
Longwood Gardens attracts thousands of visitors annually, and
turns the community into a tourist destination in the spring,
summer, and early fall. Many of the visitors stay and dine at
the Longwood Inn and in surrounding bed and breakfast establishments.
They can be seen browsing along State Street.
Toughkenamon
Located a little over one mile west of Kennett Square, on old
Route One, is the unincorporated community of Toughkenamon. It
is among the smallest communities in Southern Chester County
in terms of area and population size. According to the last decennial
census, it had a population of 1,273 inhabitants living in a
physical area that covers a little under one square mile. Like
in Kennett Square, the Mexican population is the fastest growing
ethnic group in Toughkenamon. As shown in Table 3, the non-Hispanic
White population decreased from 811 (72.99% of the total) to
726 people (57.03% of the total) from 1980 to 1990; and concurrently,
as indicated in Table 4, the Mexican population increased from
88 to 354 inhabitants, an increase of 300%.
Toughkenamon is predominantly a bedroom community for farmworkers
and their families. Unlike Kennett Square, it does not have a
large well-to-do population. As Mexican immigrants settle down,
the community is becoming increasingly working-class in character.
Additionally, it does not have a commerce center, only a handful
of small businesses scattered along the old Baltimore Pike Road.
In fact, residents in Toughkenamon bank and shop in near-by Kennett
Square, which is closer than the other boroughs in the area.
Other Enclaves in Southern Chester County
Other communities, such as West Grove, Avondale, and Oxford,
which were void of Mexican families until recently, now house
them. They are not always visible to the public, but their growing
presence is evident. For example, Mexican women can be seen shopping
in local grocery stores and Mexican children sit in the classrooms
of the schools. Further evidence are the Mexican delicatessens,
video and tape shops specializing in Mexican movies and music,
and tortilla factories that have opened up for business along
the roads leading to and from these Mexican enclaves in the making.
In addition, Mexican food products, including imported goods,
can be found in local grocery stores.
Mexican newcomers in Kennett Square, Toughkenamon, and other
townships have created a sense of community. People of similar
backgrounds and from the same region in Mexico reside in proximity
to each other. The majority of them are from the state of Guanajuato,
from small ranches in the municipios [municipalities] of Moroleon,
Uriangato, and Yuriria (see Map 1). For example, they are from
Las Penas, La Barranca, La Loma, and La Ordena in Moroleon; from
Monte de Juarez, La Cienega Prieta, Tierra Blanca, San Vicente,
and San Isidro in Yuriria; and from El Derramadero, El Cuervo,
La Lobera, El Aguacate, and La Lagunilla in Uriangato. They recognize
themselves as fellow countrymen, from a region back home, and
also identify themselves as members of new communities in Southern
Chester County. Families look after each other, care for each
other's children, share resources, and provide each other with
job leads and other types of information (see Table 5).
Some Explanations for the Emergence of Enclaves
In earlier works, the authors (Garcia and Gonzalez, 1995;
Garcia, 1997) employed the agricultural restructuring hypothesis,
as used by Palerm (1991) and Krissman (1995), to explain the
emergence and the growth of Mexican enclaves in Southern Chester
County.13 Basically, the hypothesis postulates that the restructuring
of agricultural enterprises and the intensification of crop production
augment the number of farmworkers needed over a given year, many
of whom settle down with their families, altering the ethnic
and demographic composition of local communities. Additionally,
the authors argued that the SAW Program, a government program
designed to control the flow of labor into the country, played
a role in the emergence and growth of the Mexican enclaves (Garcia
and Gonzalez, 1995; Garcia, 1997). SAW, like the Bracero Program,
allowed Mexican families to immigrate into and settle in the
region.14
Subsequently, however, the authors have concluded that the agricultural
restructuring hypothesis was one-sided, and as such, does not
explain why transnational migrants only join their immigrant
compatriots on a seasonal basis. Transnational migration, as
researchers of the Mexican peasantry (Gonzalez, 1992; Palerm
and Uriquiola, 1993; Palerm, 1997) have discovered, is a bi-national
phenomenon and any explanation of the movement of workers across
the border requires that contributing factors in both countries
to be explored. They have shown that the two agricultural systems,
one in the U.S. and the other in Mexico, are intrinsically linked
and highly dependent on each other. For example, the vegetable
and fruit industries in California and other states provide the
peasantry with an income essential to continue subsistence farming;
in turn the peasantry provides these industries with cheap labor
that allows them to survive and remain competitive in the global
economy (Gonzalez, 1992; Palerm and Uriquiola, 1993).
Transnational migration is an economic practice that allows campesinos
to continue to supplement subsistence farming. Subsistence agriculture
is a risky farming endeavor, and it alone does not meet the basic
food needs of the producers and their families. Despite these
shortcomings, peasants in Guanajuato and other states of the
Mexican republic do not easily abandon agriculture for permanent
employment elsewhere (Gonzalez, 1992; 1994; 1995; Cebada Contreras,
1993; 1994; Delgado Wise and Moctezuma Longoria, 1993). However,
some peasants, those tired of enduring the uncertainties of production
and those unable to obtain land of their own, may leave when
other economic opportunities present themselves. Instead of abandoning
the land, the majority of them practice other economic activities
that supplement their crop production, particularly migration
(Gonzalez, 1992; Palerm and Urquiola, 1993). An outsider, someone
not familiar with the culture, would see the peasantry's reluctance
to abandon the land as irrational and a loss of economic opportunity
that may be found elsewhere. A closer look reveals that subsistence
farming is more than an economic activity. It's a traditional
way of life in many areas of Mexico.
Conclusion
Mexican immigration to the United States, especially from Guanajuato,
has occurred since the turn of the century. Over the decades,
as current settlement concentrations indicate, guanajuatenses
have settled in the U.S. southwest mainly in metropolitan areas,
but a significant number were also homesteaders outside of this
region. Guanajuatenses settled in non-metropolitan areas in the
Northwest and Midwest, but until the 1960's, when the Bracero
Program was terminated, their numbers were to remain small. The
majority were migrants, and as such, only worked in the United
States temporarily while living in Mexico permanently.
Starting in the 1980's, earlier in some instances, guanajuatenses
and other Mexican immigrants began to settle and change the ethnic
and demographic characteristics of many towns and cities in and
around non-metropolitan areas of the country, as a result of
the restructuring and intensification of U.S. food production
and processing. These Mexican residents and their children established
enclaves, where immigrants and migrants alike, sought and continue
to seek solace, housing, and employment. Kennett Square and Toughkenomon
are examples of such enclaves. Twenty years ago, Mexicans were
not immigrating into Southern Chester County; they were only
migrating. Today, many of these migrants are settling down with
their families and establishing their own communities.
The Mexican newcomers in Kennett Square, Toughkenomon, and numerous
other enclaves across the United States harvest a variety of
crops and hold jobs in food-processing plants. Employment in
this line of work is sporadic and seasonal, and provides wages
at or near the poverty level. Despite these serious obstacles
to their livelihood, Mexican immigrants have what it takes to
overcome them. They have a strong work ethic, aspire to improve
their plight and better the opportunities of their children,
and have a strong will to build stable families and communities.
If incorporated into their communities as full and legitimate
members, these new immigrants will help rebuild communities and
local economies. As is happening in Kennett Square and Toughkenomon,
they will open small businesses with their savings; pay business,
sale, and other taxes contributing to municipal revenues; shop
in local stores keeping businesses afloat and open; and rebuild
their homes and, revitalizing neighborhoods.
References
Almanza B., Miguel Angel and Lucero Circe Lopez Riofrio. 1997.
De aqui y de alla: Reflexiones generales de fen-meno migratorio
internacional y los j-venes. Gente: Revista del Consejo Estatal
de Poblaci-n Guanajuato, VII (2): 36-41.
ArgŸello Zepeda, F. 1993. Experiencias migratorias de campesinos
de Guanajuato en Canada. Regiones, I (1): 89-105.
Cebada Contreras, C. 1993. La migraci-n hacia Estados Unidos
y dos comunidades de origen en el estado de Guanajuato. Regiones,
I (1): 73-87.
Cebada Contreras, C. 1994. Comunidad y mercado de trabajo agricola.
Regiones, II (4): 145-168.
County of Chester. 1992. Chester County Profile 1992. A report
prepared by the Chester County Planning Commission, Government
Services, West Chester, Penn.
Cross, H. and J.A. Sandos. 1981. Across the Border: Rural Development
in Mexico and Recent Migration to the United States. Institute
of Governmental Studies, University of California Press.
Delgado Wise, R. and M. Moctezuma Longoria. 1993. Metamorfosis
migratoria y evoluci-n de la estructura productiva de Zacatecas.
Regiones, I (1): 107-120.
Durand, J. 1995. Regiones migratorias, balance nacional. Ponencia
presentada en la quinta reuni-n nacional de investigaci-n demografica
del Colegio Mexico, Junio.
Falcon, A. 1993. Latinos in Pennsylvania in the 1990's: A Socioeconomic
Profile. A report prepared for the Governor's Advisory Commission
on Latino Affairs, presented at the Encounter of the Cultures
Conference, Mechanicsburg, Penn., Oct. 14-15.
Gamboa, E. 1990. Mexican Labor and World War II: Braceros in
the Pacific Northwest, 1942-1947. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Garcia, J.R. 1996. Mexicans in the Midwest, 1900-1932. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Garcia, V. 1992. Surviving farm work: economic strategies of
Mexican and Mexican American households in a rural Californian
community. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of California, Santa Barbara.
Garcia, V. 1997. Mexican Enclaves in the U.S. Northeast: Immigrant
and Migrant Mushroom Workers in Southern Chester County, Pennsylvania.
JSRI Report Number 27, Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Mich.
Garcia, V., L. Gouveia, R.I. Rochin, and J. Rivera (eds.). (forthcoming).
Rural Latinos: Cross National Perspectives. Penn State Press,
Rural Studies Series.
Garcia, V. and L. Gonzalez. 1995. Finding and numerating migrants
in Mexican enclaves of the U.S. Northeast: the case of Southern
Chester County, Pennsylvania. A research report for the Center
for Survey Methods Research, U.S. Bureau of Census, Suitland,
Mary.
Goldschmidt, W. 1978. As you sow: three studies in the social
consequences of agri-business. Montclair, New Jersey: Allanheld,
Osmun and Co. Publishers.
Gonzalez, L. 1992. Respuesta campesina a la Revoluci-n Verde
en El Bajio. Mexico: Univ. Iberoamericana.
Gonzalez, L. 1994. Political brokers, ejidos, and state resources:
the case of Arturo Quiroz Francia, a peasant leader from Guanajuato,
Mexico. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of California, Santa Barbara.
Gonzalez, L. 1995. Proyecto redes de migrantes guanajuatenses.
Pa'l Norte: Boletin de Direcci-n de Atenci-n a Comunidades Guanajuatenses
en el Extranjero, 4.
Gonzalez, L. 1998. Cali-Gua, la red de migrantes que unen a California
con Guanajuato. Pa'l Norte: Boletin de la Direcci-n de atenci-n
a Comunidades Guanajuatenses en el Extranjero, 11.
Gonzalez, L. and J. Hernandez. 1998. Presentaci-n. Research,
National Assoc. for Chicana and Chicano Studies, Centro Hist-rico,
Mexico, D.F., June 24-27.
Gouveia, L. (forthcoming). From the beet fields to the killing
floors: Latinos in Nebraska's meat packing Communities. In Rural
Latinos: Cross National Perspectives. Penn State Press, Rural
Studies Series.
Greenhouse, S. 1998. As economy booms, migrant workers' housing
worsens. New York Times, section A, page 1, Sunday, May 31.
Griffith, D. and E. Kassam. 1995. Working Poor: Farmworkers in
the United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Guerrero Resendiz, M.E. 1998. El impacto econ-mico de la migraci-n
internacional Mexico-Estados Unidos en el campo rural guanajuatense.
Research paper, National Association for Chicana and Chicano
Studies, Centro Hist-rico, Mexico, D.F., June 24-27.
Hogan, H. 1991. The 1990 post-enumeration survey: operations
and results. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Statistical Association, Atlanta, Ga., Aug. 19-22.
Horowitz, R. and M.J. Miller (forthcoming). Immigrants in the
Delmarva poultry-processing industry: the changing face of Georgetown,
Delaware and Enviorns. In Rural Latinos: Cross National Perspectives.
Penn State Press, Rural Studies Series.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografia e Informatica. 1994.
Guanajuato: sintesis de resultados. XI censo general de poblaci-n
y vivienda, 1990. Mexico, DF.
Krissman, F. 1995. Cycles of poverty in rural Californian
towns: comparing McFarland and Farmersville in Southern San Joaquin
Valley. Special Conference on Immigration and the Changing Face
of Rural California, Asilomar Conference Center, Monterey, Calif.,
June 12-14.
Nodin Valdes, D. 1991. Al norte: Agricultural Workers in Great
Lakes Region, 1917-1970. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Palerm, J.V. 1991. Farm labor needs and farm workers in California,
1970-1989. California Agricultural Studies 91-2, Employment Development
Department, Sacramento, Calif.
Palerm, J.V. 1997. Los nuevos campesinos. Mexico, DF: Universidad
Iberoamericana.
Palerm, J.V. and I. Urquiola. 1993. A binational system of agricultural
production: the case of the Mexican Bajio and California. In
Aldrich, D.G. and L. Meyer, Mexico and the United States neighbors
in crisis. University of California and The Borgo Press.
Quintero, S. 1998. La red Guanajuato-Canada. Research paper,
National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies, Centro
Hist-rico, Mexico, D.F., MŽxico, June 24-27.
Rionda, L.M. 1994. Determinantes hist-ricos en la migraci-n campesina
mexicana a los Estados Unidos. El agrarismo en una comunidad
michoacana. Regiones, II (4): 109-125.
Rionda, L.M. 1995a. Los trabajadores guanajatenses en los Estados
Unidos. Pa'l Norte: Boletin de la Direcci-n de atenci-n a Comunidades
Guanajuatenses en el Extranjero, 2.
Rionda, L. M. 1995b. Guanajatenses en movimiento. La migraci-n
en busqueda de oportunidades. PaUl Norte: Boletin de la Direcci-n
de atenci-n a Comunidades Guanajuatenses en el Extranjero, 5.
Rochin, R.I. and E. Marroquin. 1997. Rural Latino Resources.
The Julian Samora Research Institute. Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Mich.
Runyan, J.L. 1997. Profile of hired farmworkers, 1994 annual
averages. Agricultural economic report no. 748 (U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.).
Saenz, R. and A.I. Martinez (forthcoming.). Labor market earnings
of Mexican-origin workers in non-metropolitan America. In Rural
Latinos: cross national perspectives. Penn State Press, Rural
Studies Series.
Sepœlveda Garza, M. 1994. Lineamientos del proceso agrario
en el este de Guanajuato 1920-1982. Regiones, II (4): 187-196.
Taylor, P. 1973. Mexican labor colony at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
In Rosaldo, Renato, et. al., Chicano: the evolution of a people.
Minnesota: Winston Press.
U.S. Bureau of Census. 1982. General population characteristics,
Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Bureau of Census. 1992. General population characteristics,
Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Bureau of Census. 1997. Current Population Survey, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Bureau of Census. 1998. Population Projections for States,
by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, CB96-176, Washington,
DC.
Endnotes
An earlier version of this article was presented at the National
Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies in the Centro Hist-rico,
Mexico, D.F., Mexico, on June 24-27, 1998. It was given at a
panel titled Redes de migrantes Guanajuatenses en los Estados
Unidos.
1. Similar processes are occurring in the meat-processing industry
across the country. Mexican workers are becoming the majority
in the labor force of this industry. This appears to be a trend
in the meat and poultry plants in the U.S. Midwest, South, and
East. For further information see Gouveia, forthcoming and Horowitz
and Miller (forthcoming).
2. The Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designates
and defines metropolitan areas (MAS). These include metropolitan
statistical areas (MSAs), consolidated metropolitan statistical
areas (CMSAs), and primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs),
of which MSAs are the most numerous.
The underlying concept of MSA is that of a core area containing
a large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities
having a high degree of economic and social integration with
that core. MSA composed of entire counties, except in New England,
where the component entities are cities and towns. By the OMBUs
current MAS standards, each MSA must include either a city with
least 50,000 people, or Census Bureau-defined urbanized area
(UA), and total population of least 100,000 (75,000 in New England).
Within an area that meets the requirements to be an MSA and also
has a population of one million or more, the OMB recognize individual
component areas if they meet specified criteria and local opinion
supports their recognition. If recognized, the component areas
are designated as PMSAs, and the entire area that contains them
becomes a CMSA. If PMSAs are not recognized, the entire area
is designated as MSA. Metropolitan Areas, June 30, 1993, U.S.
Maps, GE-90, no. 4.
3. By subsistence farming or agriculture, the authors make reference
to agricultura temporal [rain-fed agriculture], as it is called
in Mexico. This type of crop cultivation takes place on marginal
lands comprised of poor soils, uneven terrain, and no or little
water for irrigation. The parcels are small, under five hectares,
and are primarily used to grow subsistence crops, such as corn,
beans, and squash. Some of the crops are also sold on the market.
4. The term Latinos refers to people whose origins are in Latin
America. This population includes U.S. citizens removed from
Latin America over many generations, but who acknowledge and
trace their rich heritage to Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean,
and what is commonly referred to as South America.
5. Chicanos refers to people of Mexican descent, U.S.- and foreign-born,
who reside in the United States. It is a self-identity term,
and as such, members of this population may or may not choose
to call themselves Chicanos. Others may prefer to call themselves,
tejanos, Mexican Americans, hispanos, or just americanos.
6. The Central Plateau Region is a basin within the Cordilleran
highlands in central Mexico. It has numerous urban communities
and the largest population concentration in the country. Increasing
population pressure and the land-tenure system have stimulated
a massive migration to Mexican Cities, the United States, and
Canada.
7. In May of 1994, the State of Guanajuato established La Direcci-n
de Atenci-n a Comunidades Guanajuatenses en el Extranjero. The
objectives of this governmental office was (i) to determine the
number and location of the guanajuatenses in the United States;
(ii) to promote associations of guanajuatenses in the United
States; (iii) to work with governmental and non-governmental
agencies that deal with immigrants; (iv) to write and distribute
a newsletter; (v) to visit the immigrants; and (vi) to look after
the general well-being of the immigrants.
8. The core-sending states are Durango, Jalisco, Michoacan, Guanajuato,
San Luis Potosi, Zacatecas, Tamaulipas, and Nuevo Leon. Peasants
from these states have migrated and immigrated to the United
States since the turn of the century. In the 1920's, these states
contributed about three-fourths of the migrants to the U.S. Findings
from recent research reveal that the majority of the migrants
continue to be from these eight states (Cross and Sandos, 1981).
9. Saenz and Martinez use 1990 Public U.S. Microdata Sample (PUMS).
The PUMS constitutes 5 % sample of the nation's enumerated population
in the census. For further information about the sample, see
Saenz and Martinez (forthcoming).
10. These percentages only include those Mexican-origin workers,
between the ages of 16-64, employed in agriculture. Thus, it
does not include immigrant children.
11. The 18 municipalities are West Nottingham, East Nottingham,
Upper Oxford, Lower Oxford, Penn, New London, Elk, Franklin,
London Grove, West Marlboro, East Marlboro, New Garden, London
Britain, Kennett, Newlin, Pocopson, Pennsbury, and Birmingham.
12. Traditionally, there has been a differential net undercount
between Whites and other ethnic groups in decennial censuses.
For example, according to the Census Bureau's Post Enumeration
Survey (PES), a nation-wide survey designed to measure coverage
of the 1990 census, the census enumerates approximately 98% of
all people nation-wide. However, this survey also revealed that
there was a differential net undercount of racial and ethnic
minorities. According to the PES, the net census undercount for
Latinos in the 1990 census is estimated at 5.2%. The corresponding
rates for African Americans is 4.8%, for Asian and Pacific Islanders
is 3.1%, and for American Indians is 5.0% (Hogan 1990).
In order to better understand the reasons for the differential
net undercount and other types of census errors, the U.S. Bureau
of Census, through its Center for Survey Methods Research, commissioned
independent ethnographic studies in 1990. In these studies, anthropologists
who were studying ethnic minority communities were recruited
and contracted to conduct alternative enumerations in selected
housing tracts, where they were well-known and trusted by the
local populace. In all, 25 research sites, including in Puerto
Rico, were selected across the country on the basis of the concentration
of Latinos, African Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans.
Ten were Latino sites, of which only three were chosen because
of their farmworker residents. All three of the studies found
evidence of undercounts in the official counts. Although these
studies do not provide valid statistical estimates, they provide
valuable insight into the causes of census omissions and other
erroneous counts among ethnic and racial minorities.
13. The agricultural restructuring hypothesis is premised
on the work of anthropologist Walter Goldschmidt (1978). His
hypothesis is that large-scale farming, industrial agriculture
as he calls it, creates poor social conditions in surrounding
communities, such as relative degrees of social equity, relative
amounts of social homogeneity and participation, and relative
amounts of social services and of economic opportunity. This
type of agriculture, he argued, introduces a larger number of
seasonal, underemployed, and underpaid laborers into regional
towns; and in turn, they produce unstable, undemocratic, and
impoverished communities. Although Goldschmidt's hypothesis was
designed to explain social, economic, and political changes in
farming communities and their correlation to poverty, when modified
(like Palerm and his colleagues did) it can also be used to explain
the influx of new laborers into a region.
14. The objective of Special Agricultural Workers (SAW) Program,
a major legalization program of Immigration Reform and Control
Act of 1986, was to legalize the undocumented labor force employed
in agriculture. It allowed illegal, or undocumented farmworkers,
to legalize their status in the country, if they met stipulated
criteria. These newly legalized workers were permitted to sponsor
the immigration of their immediate family.
The Bracero Program was an emergency bilateral labor agreement
between Mexico and the United States in which the former was
to provide the agricultural industry of the latter with labor.
The program was to remain in effect only during World War II,
but under the auspices of Public Law 78, it was extended to 1964.
The bracero workers (laborers recruited through the Bracero Program)
were to work no more than six months in any given year. However,
many of them would stay beyond their contract period. In the
mid-1960's, after its termination, growers, fearful of loosing
their skilled farm labor force, encouraged and assisted their
ex-bracero workers and their families to settle down.
JSRI Home | JSRI Research & Publications | Working Paper Series |
