Circular Migration
By Albert B. Kelly
We all know about the food fight that’s taking place over
immigration and security at our southern border. We also know the conventional
wisdom on both sides of the issue. But what if we’re all way off base? What if
it turns out that the narrative we’ve been told about illegal immigration as something
that’s victimizing us turns out not to be entirely true? What if our policies
helped create our current circumstance? Would
we reconsider our position? Would we allow our legislators to compromise?
I ask these questions because there is research, more than I
ever imagined, that suggests that some of what we’ve done in the name of border
enforcement has actually made the problem of illegal immigration in the country,
mostly from Mexico, more problematic than it might otherwise appear to be. The
research I’m referring to is from Douglas Massey, Jorge Durand, and Karen Pren
in a paper entitled “Why Border Enforcement Backfired”.
In the paper, the researchers set forth the idea that our
militarized enforcement efforts over several decades was first and foremost an
overreaction that bore little relationship to what was actually happening and
secondly, that the consequence of militarizing the border changed immigration from
being mostly an undocumented Mexican migration consisting of male workers in a
circular flow involving just three states into a permanent U.S. population of 11
million in all 50 states.
In a nutshell, the reason migrants stopped circulating back out
of the country (aka outflow migration) is because a militarized border and extremely
harsh policies made any back and forth movement too difficult, risky, and
dangerous so people stayed. The militarized border kept people out to be sure, but
it also discouraged people from leaving.
It’s fair to ask why the crack-down came if there wasn’t a
huge problem to solve. It’s also fair to ask why we continue these policies today.
The short answer is that no one ever lost an election cracking down on an “alien
invasion” allegedly taking jobs and creating havoc. It’s an easy sell to a
pissed off electorate with little downside. It’s also a problem with a face and
an identity that we can see and touch in our towns as opposed to some abstract concept
like globalism. Throw in homeland security in an age of terrorism and as
election issues go, it’s a no-brainer.
But then there’s the research to consider. Between 1986 and
2008, the number of undocumented in the country, mostly from Mexico, grew from
3 million to 12 million. This increase happened at the same time that we beefed
up the Border Patrol and enforcement, yet this crack-down did little to stop
the influx. The unintended consequence according to the research has been a
reduction in the rate of “return migration” by cutting-off the flow of people
who would have otherwise left of their own accord. Knowing they couldn’t go
back and forth easily, many undocumented individuals and families stayed and made
homes in towns across the country, including in Bridgeton, which is near the
agriculture.
Most of this circular migration was about work with workers going
back and forth across the border monthly or seasonally doing work most of us considered
menial with low pay. The pay wasn’t much by American standards but it made a
difference across the border. The take-away is that many undocumented persons
eventually went home again until they couldn’t, at least without great risk.
In the 1950’s, the U.S. had roughly 50,000 permanent
resident entries and 450,000 temporary work entries per year. Much of this was connected
to the cycle of labor, U.S. employer demand and Mexican labor supply. By the
late 1970’s the labor cycle hadn’t changed, but the quota established by the
government was just 20,000 legal resident visas and zero temporary work visas
per year. When the legal path to enter and work disappeared, migrants crossed
illegally and stayed, hired by employers, including locally, wanting cheap
labor.
Contrary to recent headlines, the number of undocumented persons
crossing the southern border is relatively low and the researchers suggest this
is due to demographic changes in Mexico rather than to our enforcement. Yet these
points remain unexamined. Maybe it’s time to reconsider undocumented issues
within the context of circular migration and the cycle of labor. Maybe there’s
a circular migration framework to be implemented that generates revenue and
allows for security- something more realistic and humane than a one-way expenditure
of tax dollars on brick and mortar.