Guanajuatense and Other Mexican Immigrants in the United States ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5. Hispanic Enrollment in Migrant EducationProgram, Chester County, Pennsylvania – 1992-1997Year Mexican Puerto Rican Other* TotalNumber % Number % Number % Number %1991-92 670 75 179 20 47 5 896 1001992-93 824 81 150 15 43 4 1,017 1001993-94 1,018 88 117 10 28 2 1,163 1001994-95 939 94 41 4 6 2 997 1001995-96 1037 92 70 6 15 2 1,172 1001996-97 1,218 93 56 4 30 3 1,304 100Sources: U.S. Bureau of Census, General Population Characteristics – Pennsylvania, Washing -ton, D. C., 1982; General Population Characteristics – Pennsylvania, Washington, D. C., 1992.Some Explanations for the Emergenceof EnclavesIn earlier works, the authors (García and González,1995; García, 1997) employed the agricultural restructuringhypothesis, as used by Palerm (1991) and Krissman(1995), to explain the emergence and the growth of Mexicanenclaves in Southern Chester County. 13 Basically,the hypothesis postulates that the restructuring of agriculturalenterprises and the intensification of crop productionaugment the number of farmworkers needed over agiven year, many of whom settle down with their families,altering the ethnic and demographic composition oflocal communities. Additionally, the authors argued thatthe SAW Program, a government program designed tocontrol the flow of labor into the country, played a role inthe emergence and growth of the Mexican enclaves (Garcíaand González, 1995; García, 1997). SAW, like theBracero Program, allowed Mexican families to immigrateinto and settle in the region. 14Subsequently, however, the authors have concludedthat the agricultural restructuring hypothesis was onesided,and as such, does not explain why transnationalmigrants only join their immigrant compatriots on a seasonalbasis. Transnational migration, as researchers ofthe Mexican peasantry (González, 1992; Palerm andUriquiola, 1993; Palerm, 1997) have discovered, is a binationalphenomenon and any explanation of the movementof workers across the border requires thatcontributing factors in both countries to be explored.They have shown that the two agricultural systems, onein the U.S. and the other in Mexico, are intrinsicallylinked and highly dependent on each other. For example,the vegetable and fruit industries in California and otherstates provide the peasantry with an income essential tocontinue subsistence farming; in turn the peasantry providesthese industries with cheap labor that allows themto survive and remain competitive in the global economy(González, 1992; Palerm and Uriquiola, 1993).6Transnational migration is an economic practice thatallows campesinos to continue to supplement subsistencefarming. Subsistence agriculture is a risky farmingendeavor, and it alone does not meet the basic food needsof the producers and their families. Despite these shortcomings,peasants in Guanajuato and other states of theMexican republic do not easily abandon agriculture forpermanent employment elsewhere (González, 1992;1994; 1995; Cebada Contreras, 1993; 1994; DelgadoWise and Moctezuma Longoria, 1993). However, somepeasants, those tired of enduring the uncertainties of productionand those unable to obtain land of their own, mayleave when other economic opportunities present themselves.Instead of abandoning the land, the majority ofthem practice other economic activities that supplementtheir crop production, particularly migration (González,1992; Palerm and Urquiola, 1993). An outsider, someonenot familiar with the culture, would see the peasantry’sreluctance to abandon the land as irrational and a loss ofeconomic opportunity that may be found elsewhere. Acloser look reveals that subsistence farming is more thanan economic activity. It’s a traditional way of life inmany areas of Mexico.ConclusionMexican immigration to the United States, especiallyfrom Guanajuato, has occurred since the turn of the century.Over the decades, as current settlement concentrationsindicate, guanajuatenses have settled in the U.S.southwest mainly in metropolitan areas, but a significantnumber were also homesteaders outside of this region.Guanajuatenses settled in non-metropolitan areas in theNorthwest and Midwest, but until the 1960’s, when theBracero Program was terminated, their numbers were toremain small. The majority were migrants, and as such,only worked in the United States temporarily while livingin Mexico permanently.Starting in the 1980’s, earlier in some instances, gua -najuatenses and other Mexican immigrants began to settleand change the ethnic and demographic characteristicsof many towns and cities in and around non-metropolitanareas of the country, as a result of the restructuring andintensification of U.S. food production and processing.These Mexican residents and their children establishedenclaves, where immigrants and migrants alike, soughtand continue to seek solace, housing, and employment.Kennett Square and Toughkenomon are examples of suchenclaves. Twenty years ago, Mexicans were not immigratinginto Southern Chester County; they were onlymigrating. Today, many of these migrants are settlingdown with their families and establishing their own communities.
The Mexican newcomers in Kennett Square,Toughkenomon, and numerous other enclaves across theUnited States harvest a variety of crops and hold jobs infood-processing plants. Employment in this line of workis sporadic and seasonal, and provides wages at or near thepoverty level. Despite these serious obstacles to theirlivelihood, Mexican immigrants have what it takes toovercome them. They have a strong work ethic, aspire toimprove their plight and better the opportunities of theirchildren, and have a strong will to build stable familiesand communities. If incorporated into their communitiesas full and legitimate members, these new immigrants willhelp rebuild communities and local economies. As is happeningin Kennett Square and Toughkenomon, they willopen 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.ReferencesAlmanza B., Miguel Angel and Lucero Circe LopezRiofrio. 1997. “De aquí y de allá: Reflexiones generalesde fenómeno migratorio internacional y losjóvenes.” Gente: Revista del Consejo Estatal dePoblación Guanajuato, VII (2): 36-41.Argüello Zepeda, F. 1993. Experiencias migratorias decampesinos de Guanajuato en Canadá. Regiones, I(1): 89-105.Cebada Contreras, C. 1993. La migración hacía EstadosUnidos y dos comunidades de origen en el estado deGuanajuato. Regiones, I (1): 73-87.Cebada Contreras, C. 1994. Comunidad y mercado detrabajo agrícola. Regiones, II (4): 145-168.County of Chester. 1992. Chester County Profile 1992.A report prepared by the Chester County PlanningCommission, Government Services, West Chester,Penn.Cross, H. and J.A. Sandos. 1981. Across the Border:Rural Development in Mexico and Recent Migrationto the United States. Institute of Governmental Studies,University of California Press.Delgado Wise, R. and M. Moctezuma Longoria. 1993.Metamorfosis migratoria y evolución de la estructuraproductiva de Zacatecas. Regiones, I (1): 107-120.7Durand, J. 1995. Regiones migratorias, balancenacional. Ponencia presentada en la quinta reuniónnacional de investigación demográfica del ColegioMéxico, Junio.Falcon, A. 1993. Latinos in Pennsylvania in the 1990’s:A Socioeconomic Profile. A report prepared for theGovernor’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:B r a c e ros in the Pacific Northwest, 1942-1947.Austin: University of Texas Press.García, J.R. 1996. Mexicans in the Midwest, 1900-1932.Tucson: University of Arizona Press.García, V. 1992. “Surviving farm work: economicstrategies of Mexican and Mexican American householdsin a rural Californian community.” Ph.D. Dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara.García, V. 1997. Mexican Enclaves in the U.S. Northeast:Immigrant and Migrant Mushroom Workers inSouthern Chester County, Pennsylvania. JSRI ReportNumber 27, Julian Samora Research Institute, MichiganState University, East Lansing, Mich.García, V., L. Gouveia, R.I. Rochín, and J. Rivera (eds.).(forthcoming). Rural Latinos: Cross National Per -spectives. Penn State Press, Rural Studies Series.García, V. and L. González. 1995. Finding and numer -ating migrants in Mexican enclaves of the U.S.Northeast: the case of Southern Chester County,Pennsylvania. A research report for the Center forSurvey Methods Research, U.S. Bureau of Census,Suitland, Mary.Goldschmidt, W. 1978. As you sow: three studies in thesocial consequences of agri-business. M o n t c l a i r,New Jersey: Allanheld, Osmun and Co. Publishers.González, L. 1992. Respuesta campesina a la Revolu -ción Verde en El Bajío. México: Univ. Iberoamericana.González, L. 1994. “Political brokers, ejidos, and stateresources: the case of Arturo Quiroz Francia, a peasantleader from Guanajuato, Mexico.” Dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of California,Santa Barbara.
Page 1 and 2: Guanajuatense and Other Mexican Imm
Page 3 and 4: Michigan State UniversityEast Lansi
Page 5: Guanajuatense and Other Mexican Imm
Page 8 and 9: Map 2. Chester County, Pennsylvania
Page 12 and 13: González, L. 1995. Proyecto redes
Page 14: the turn of the century. In the 192

Guanajuatense and Other Mexican Immigrants in the United States ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?