Why Does Immigrant Trip Duration Vary Across U.S. Destinations?*

Transcription

1 Why Does Immigrant Trip Duration Vary Across U.S. Destinations?* Belinda I. Reyes, Public Policy Institute of California Laura Mameesh, Public Policy Institute of California Objective. This article explores the factors that lead to differences in immigrant trip duration across U.S. destinations. Methods. Using data from the Mexican Migration Project and the 1970, 1980, and 1990 U.S. Censuses, we estimate discrete-time hazard models of the probability of return for unauthorized male migrants. Results. We find three patterns of migration for undocumented migrants across U.S. destinations: semi-permanent and permanent migration to urban areas; temporary migration to agricultural areas; and sojourner, or cyclical, migration to border regions. These patterns depend on the characteristics of the immigrant population that moves to each destination, in addition to the opportunities available to migrants in each destination. However, all these factors are mediated by social and institutional conditions at the destination. Conclusions. The findings of this study reiterate the importance of economic opportunities as an important predictor of not only migration to, but also length of stay in, the United States. Dynamic regions not only attract more immigrants, but they also attract a more permanent population of migrants. Introduction Much has been written in recent years about the impact of undocumented immigrants on the United States. However, the effects of undocumented immigrants are very localized. They move to particular locations and are exposed to specific circumstances in those locations. In 1997, six states accounted for 72 percent of the immigrant population (CPS, 1997). Geographic concentration of Mexican immigrants is even more substantial, with close to 77 percent living in Texas, California, and Chicago in 1997 (CPS, 1997). Moreover, immigrants to California move to specific regions within the state, with a substantial proportion settling in Los Angeles. In addition to the large preference for migration to a set of specific regions, *Direct all correspondence to Belinda I. Reyes, Public Policy Institute of California, 500 Washington Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, CA <Reyes@ppic.org>. All data and coding materials are available from the authors for purposes of replication. The authors would like to thank the reviewers of Social Science Quarterly, as well as Hans Johnson, Wayne Cornelius, Gary Bjork, and Enrico Marceli for their insightful comments and suggestions on early drafts of this paper. SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 83, Number 2, June by the Southwestern Social Science Association

2 Immigrant Trip Duration 581 there are also differences on how long people stay at different U.S. destinations. Some regions have a large long-term immigrant population, whereas others have a predominantly seasonal and temporary population. This article examines the duration of stay in California s regions, Illinois, and Texas of undocumented male immigrants from western Mexico. To explore the factors that lead to differences in trip duration across U.S. destinations, we used a set of recursive discrete-time hazard models of the likelihood of return migration conditional upon location and length of time in the United States. Below, we briefly discuss the current literature on trip duration, our data, and methodology. This is followed by a discussion of our results and concluding remarks. Literature Review Much of the recent research on immigrant trip duration has examined the effects of individual, household, and home community characteristics on migration patterns (Lindstrom, 1996; Massey and Espinosa, 1997; Reyes, 2001). In general, the research finds that immigrants with higher levels of education, nonhousehold heads, younger immigrants, and immigrants originating from regions with strong economic opportunities and greater household resources stay longer in the United States than their counterparts, holding all else constant (Lindstrom, 1996; Massey and Espinosa, 1997; Reyes, 2001). If immigrants with particular characteristics locate in particular regions in the United States, this will create a difference in trip duration across destinations. But the opportunities at the destination also hold some explanatory power over immigrant trip duration. There is a great deal of variation in economic opportunities for immigrants across U.S. destinations. Researchers have found that urban centers provide immigrants with a diverse environment with many economic opportunities, thereby increasing the probability of long-term settlement (Massey et al., 1987; Cornelius, 1991). On the other hand, studies of rural areas find high poverty rates and poor economic opportunities for immigrants, which may lead to shorter trip length (Taylor, Martin, and Fix, 1997). A variation in economic opportunities exists even within urban areas and rural areas. In some places wages may be higher, but the cost of living may also be higher, dissipating some of the economic advantage of the location and leading to a shorter stay. In addition to economic opportunities, some Mexican communities have a long history of migration toward established social networks in specific U.S. destinations. These networks provide prospective migrants with better information about opportunities available in the United States, thereby reducing the costs and risks of migration and enabling immigrants to stay

3 582 Social Science Quarterly longer in the United States (Gurak and Caces, 1992; Massey et al., 1993; Massey, 1990a, 1990b; Taylor, 1986). Finally, social and institutional factors in each region may affect duration by limiting or enhancing opportunities for immigrants. Established ethnic enclaves help immigrants in some regions, while discrimination limits opportunities in others. Border enforcement can prevent entry into some regions by increasing the cost of migration; but it may also extend duration, as immigrants need to recuperate higher migration costs (Kossoudji, 1992; Taylor, Martin, and Fix, 1997). Data and Methodology The analysis in this article is based on data from the Mexican Migration Project (MMP) and the 1970, 1980, and 1990 U.S. Censuses. We used data for the first and last trip of undocumented immigrant males, who were older than 12 years of age at the time of migration. 1 We limited the years of migration to four-year ranges surrounding the census years in order to include census variables for the regions. Although the MMP data set is one of the richest available for studying Mexican migration, the sample has several limitations. The MMP is not a representative sample of the immigrant population in the United States. It is a representative sample of the communities sampled some of the most important sending communities to the United States. Also, the sample may be missing people who have little connection to the origin location because, for the most part, the data collection relies on an informant in Mexico to gather information about migrants in the United States. This limitation imposes a bias toward migrants who make shorter trips because they are more likely to maintain ties with the origin community. 2 Despite these drawbacks, no other data set provides such a comprehensive sample of families in both Mexico and the United States, containing information about family resources, migration experience, and conditions in the home community, to study migration and enabling us to study trip duration of immigrants from one of the major sending regions of immigrants to the United States. The six regions examined in this study are: Central/Southern California, the California Coast, Los Angeles/Orange Counties (Los Angeles), Texas, Chicago, and the San Francisco/San Jose urban area (San Francisco). 3 The 1 We chose 12 as a cutoff because a large number of men aged 13 and over worked during their stay in the United States. 2 We are interested in regional variations in duration. Therefore, this implies that we are underestimating differences in duration, since the regions in which we observe longer duration are also those where we expect more family migration. 3 The Central/Southern California region consists of the San Joaquin Valley, the Sacramento Valley, Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, Lake Tahoe, and agricultural workers from Los Angeles County. Chicago is the urban area of Chicago and its

4 Immigrant Trip Duration 583 TABLE 1 Description of Variables Variable Description Age at migration Age at time of migration Education Years of education completed Trips Total number of trips at the time of current trip Household head = 1 if migrant is a household head, else 0 Unskilled manual = 1 if migrant employed in unskilled occupation at current trip, else 0 No work = 1 if migrant not working at current trip, else 0 Moved before IRCA = 1 for trip before 1986, else 0 Mean wages MSA Real wage earned by an average Mexican immigrant Unemployment MSA Rate of unemployment for Mexican immigrants Actual mean wage Wage earned in current trip Cost-of-housing index Index of housing cost in each region History of migration = 1 if someone in the household has been in the U.S. before t, else 0 Owns business = 1 if household owns a business at t, else 0 Owns land = 1 if household owns land at year t, else 0 Family in U.S. = 1 if some family member is living in the U.S. Household head age Age of household head Household head education Education of household head Community population Total population size at t Jalisco = 1 if migrant from Jalisco, else 0 Zacatecas = 1 if migrant from Zacatecas, else 0 Guanajuato = 1 if migrant from Guanajuato, else 0 Nayarit = 1 if migrant from Nayarit, else 0 Percent earning twice the minimum wage Percent of males earning twice the Mexican minimum wage at t Female labor force participation rate Percent of females in the labor force at t Proportion of males employed in agriculture Proportion of males employed in agriculture at t regions were chosen to conform to general migration patterns and to represent the varied experience of immigrants throughout the United States. 4 For example, the California Coast s agricultural production differs from that of Central/Southern California, particularly since the 1970s (Palerm, 1991). Thus, one could infer a different immigrant experience resulting from a surrounding suburbs; the San Francisco/San Jose region is composed of the San Francisco and San Jose metropolitan areas and their suburbs. The California Coast region consists of Salinas-Monterey-Santa Cruz, Ventura-Oxnard-Simi, Santa Barbara, Napa-Sonoma, and agricultural workers from the San Francisco/San Jose urban areas. The Texas region consists of specified cities and their suburban extensions: Abilene, Amarillo, Austin, Beaumont, Brownsville, Bryan College, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Galveston, Houston, Laredo, McAllen, Odessa, San Angelo, San Antonio, Tyler, Victoria, and Wichita Falls. 4 We were also limited by the regional grouping available in the MMP sample.

5 584 Social Science Quarterly growing divergence in economic opportunities of these two regions. Other regions, such as San Diego, Arizona, or the northwest, could not be examined because of sample size limitations. However, California, Texas, and Illinois are by far three of the most popular destinations for undocumented Mexican immigrants. 5 The six regions are rather large. However, this allowed us to use census data to construct analogous areas using metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or county group designations. 6 We could then observe economic opportunities available to immigrants in each region using census data. 7 From the MMP sample, we gathered premigration factors, such as household resources, family history of migration, economic conditions in the community of origin, networks in the United States, and migration experience. From the census data, we examined postmigration factors, such as average wages, 8 and the unemployment rate for noncitizen Mexican males. 9 We also used a measure of housing cost in each region to determine cost-of-living differences across destinations. 10 The variables in the model are described in Table 1. We used discrete-time hazard to estimate the likelihood of return conditional upon location and length of stay. We ran five different models and added new variables to the model progressively so as to help explain the regional difference in duration. As we added more relevant factors to the analysis, the region fixed effects change, pointing us to the important factors leading to differences in duration across U.S. destinations. 11 Regional Differences in Trip Duration Trip duration among undocumented Mexican males is very short. Looking at the regional average in Figure 1, close to two-thirds of the immigrants return to Mexico after just two years in the United States. However, there is 5 In 1997, 77 percent of the Mexican foreign-born in the United States resided in these three states. 6 Many of the MSAs are roughly comparable to the MMP regions; but in some cases, census MSAs were combined to form a region equivalent to those used in the MMP sample. 7 The MMP data set includes some information about U.S. destinations. However, the information is limited. Wages were not usable for approximations due to limited sample sizes in each region-year. Also, data were not available for all of the regions we were interested in studying. 8 For 1980 and 1990, wages were calculated by dividing salary and wage income by the product of weeks worked previous year and usual hours worked per week. In 1970, however, income, hours, and weeks were reported in ranges; thus we used midpoints to reproduce the same calculation as above. 9 Wages are corrected using the CPI with 1994 = This index uses the cost of homes and rentals in each region in 1989 and the proportion of owners versus renters to generate a housing expenditure index. For more information, see Dardia, Sherwood-Call, and Barbour (submitted 2001). 11 It should be noted that while we attempted to incorporate as many factors as possible, some unobservable factors might not have been incorporated (e.g., discrimination).

6 Immigrant Trip Duration 585 FIGURE 1 Difference in Length of Stay Across U.S. Regions* *This chart is a simulation of the probability of stay using the results of Model 1. We used the mean and the beta coefficients for all the independent variables in the model and generated a simulation for the average undocumented immigrant man in this sample. a great deal of variation in trip duration across regions in the United States. After one year, 24 percent of the migrants to Texas and 70 percent of those to San Francisco were still in the United States. By year four, most of the migrants to Texas had already returned to Mexico (95 percent), while 53 percent of the immigrants were still in San Francisco. Individual Characteristics and Migration Experience Table 2 presents the average characteristics of the immigrants in the sample across U.S. destinations. Higher levels of education, higher job skills, not being a household head, and arriving in the United States after passage of the Immigrant Reform and Control Act (IRCA) are associated with longer stay in the United States. Urban areas have some of the highest levels of education, nonhousehold head migration, and migration after San Francisco has the smallest proportion of household heads, unskilled workers, and migrants who entered before IRCA. And immigrants to San Francisco have some of the highest levels of education. However, the education and skill level of the population is low in all regions in the sample.

7 586 Social Science Quarterly Characteristic TABLE 2 Characteristics of Undocumented Male Immigrants Central South Coast San Los Fransisco Angeles Texas Chicago N Age at migration (years) Average education (years) Average number of trips Household head 46% 37% 33% 33% 59% 38% Unskilled manual 82% 83% 55% 57% 71% 63% No work 13% 14% 26% 23% 10% 20% Moved before % 44% 43% 47% 54% 46% Mean wages MSA $6.43 $7.33 $8.05 $7.03 $6.62 $8.48 Unemployment MSA 12.4% 8.5% 7.3% 7.3% 6.5% 6.5% Actual mean wage $3.53 $4.31 $3.82 $3.53 $3.10 $3.67 Cost-of-housing index Owns land 35% 34% 39% 22% 15% 16% Owns business 56% 53% 58% 66% 50% 65% History of migration 54% 72% 51% 66% 50% 52% Family in U.S. 30% 52% 30% 48% 39% 49% Household head age Household head education Community population 35,325 25,429 28,794 47,830 30,384 60,650 Jalisco 27% 15% 12% 16% 5% 8% Zacatecas 8% 3% 6% 9% 2% 0% Guanajuato 12% 5% 2% 9% 76% 75% Nayarit 9% 5% 38% 22% 2% 1% Percent earning twice the minimum wage 23% 28% 31% 29% 15% 20% Total female labor force participation rate 18% 17% 16% 18% 17% 15% Proportion of males employed in agriculture 58% 51% 55% 45% 60% 58% When personal and migration characteristics are added to the model (Model 2 in Table 3), some of the differences in duration between the regions disappears. The regional dummy for San Francisco increases, while it declines for all other regions. This indicates that part of the reason for the differences in duration is selectivity. San Francisco has more immigrants with characteristics that discourage return and those in other regions have characteristics that encourage return.

8 Immigrant Trip Duration 587 TABLE 3 Parameter Estimates for Discrete-Time Hazard Models of Return to Mexico: Undocumented Immigrant Men Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Coast 0.764** (0.054) 0.671** (0.058) 0.681** (0.063) 0.666** (0.064) 0.594** (0.066) Coast*time 0.423** (0.068) 0.485** (0.07) 0.462** (0.07) 0.468** (0.071) 0.442** (0.07) Central Valley 0.92** (0.042) 0.846** (0.046) 0.379** (0.073) 0.379** (0.076) 0.315** (0.078) CV*time 0.498** (0.047) 0.442** (0.047) 0.444** (0.048) 0.45** (0.048) 0.413** (0.05) San Francisco 0.358** (0.08) 0.224* (0.084) (0.091) (0.093) 0.07 (0.095) SF*time 0.5** (0.09) 0.279* (0.093) 0.255* (0.089) 0.254* (0.09) 0.216* (0.089) Chicago 0.377** (0.064) 0.202* (0.068) 0.508** (0.082) 0.482** (0.083) 0.44** (0.09) Chicago*time (0.197) 0.202** (0.048) 0.157* (0.049) 0.172** (0.05) 0.193** (0.053) Texas 1.66** (0.052) 1.43** (0.056) 1.12** (0.075) 1.15** (0.076) 1.167** (0.082) Texas*time 0.507** (0.07) 0.396** (0.071) 0.393** (0.069) 0.36** (0.069) 0.342** (0.069) Time 0.351** (0.015) (0.077) (0.076) (0.077) 0.481* (0.151) Human capital ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Good economic opp. ( ) ( ) ( ) Greater HH resources ( /+) ( /+) Good opp. at origin (+) Negative log 33,060 33,060 33,060 33,060 33,060 Percent concordance 72% 80% 80% 81% 81% **Significant at a 1 percent level. *Significant at a 5 percent level. Economic Opportunities in the Place of Destination Since Mexican migrants come to the United States primarily for economic reasons, it makes sense that variations in economic opportunities across destinations influence trip duration. Table 2 presents data on economic conditions for migrants in all six regions. The urban region has some of the highest wages and some of the lowest unemployment rates. The Coast is an interesting region in that, like Central/Southern California, the majority of employment is agricultural; but unlike the Central Valley, economic conditions are better (higher wages coupled with lower unemployment). In the Central/Southern region, the main production of relatively cheap crops has remained relatively un-

9 588 Social Science Quarterly changed since the 1960s. But in 1997, the Coast was specializing in highvalue, specialty crops, such as strawberries, broccoli, and avocados, which required higher skilled and, therefore, better paid workers (California Agricultural Resource Directory, 1997). Model 3 in Table 3 presents the coefficients for the fixed effects controlling for economic conditions in addition to migrants personal characteristics and migration experience. Economic conditions decrease the fixed effect of urban regions and the Coast, but they increase the fixed effect of Texas and Central/Southern California. The effects are strongest for San Francisco, Chicago, and Central/Southern California. In San Francisco and Chicago, migrants enjoy good wages and employment prospects, which serve to delay return. In Central/Southern California, however, the economic outlook for migrants is not as encouraging; so immigrants are more likely to return. In fact, when economic factors are accounted for, trip duration for migrants in Central/Southern California is higher than those in the Coast, pointing to the importance economic opportunities play in explaining the difference in duration in different regions in California. The coefficient for the cost of housing variable turns out to be negative and significant at a 5 percent level. This appears to be counterintuitive. However, we believe that the cost of housing variable may be capturing other factors about the regions better schools, better climate, better housing stock, or more amenities that lead to both higher cost of housing and longer duration in the United States. On the other hand, people may need to stay longer in more expensive regions because it takes them longer to save the same amount of money as in a cheaper region. Household Networks and Resources The availability of networks and the household s resources can also affect trip duration. Networks facilitate the flow of information between the United States and Mexico and may provide the potential migrant with resources at the destination. And resources may help the immigrant stay in the United States as the family may be less dependent on the immigrant for income, but they may also encourage return, because the migrant may be responsible for maintaining the property or business. Table 2 presents the distribution of household characteristics for migrants in the various regions. Note that in each region, over 50 percent of the migrants originate from families with migration experience. A smaller proportion of migrants to Texas originate from households with migration history than others. They have fewer resources, and a smaller proportion of them own land or a business than those in other regions. In general, including household resources increases the effect of the fixed effect, which implies that migrants in general have resources that lead to

10 Immigrant Trip Duration 589 longer stays in the United States. This is especially true for those who move to urban areas, as shown in Model 4 in Table 3. Economic Opportunities in the Community of Origin While it is important to examine the circumstances surrounding the migrant during his stay, it is also important to understand the situation in his home community. Previous research has found that people stay longer in the United States if they originated from dynamic regions (Lindstrom, 1996), but they have not taken into account the time trend. What we find is that originating from a region with higher earnings makes people more likely to return the first year after migration, but the effect declines over time. In Table 2, we see that the immigrants who move to Texas and Chicago originate from communities with a large proportion of men employed in agriculture and a smaller proportion of men earning twice the minimum wage than immigrants to other regions. On the other hand, immigrants to San Francisco originate from regions with a higher proportion of men earning twice the minimum wage. Incorporating economic conditions in the home community to the analysis decreases the effect of the coefficient in all regions. The effect is strongest for Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Central/Southern California. It appears that the higher earning at home of immigrants in Los Angeles and San Francisco leads to more return in the first years after migration. But for those in Central/Southern California, it may be the high concentration of agricultural workers that leads to more return. Social and Institutional Factors After holding constant for personal characteristics, migration experience, household resources, and opportunities in the origin and destination, most of the difference in trip duration has been explained. Still, a substantial difference persists (as shown in Figure 2). A difference of 25 percent still exists between Texas and Los Angeles two years after migration. Two important factors may be at work. First, the border between Texas and Mexico was much more open than the border between California and Mexico during the period of our study, with several potential crossing points, making traversing the border relatively easier (Smith and Tarallo, 1995). 12 This changed 12 We originally included cost of crossing data in the model, but the fact that we are in essence examining the effect of policy on regional differences in duration made it necessary to have cost of crossing data for every year and every region. Because there were not enough data in the sample to generate those estimates, we had to drop this variable.

11 590 Social Science Quarterly FIGURE 2 Simulation of the Probability of Stay for the First and Last Models* *We use the mean and the beta coefficients for all the independent variables in the model to generate a simulation for the average undocumented immigrant man in this sample. The mean values are: nowork = 4%, skilled = 16%, head = 51%, Jalisco = 17%, Zacatecas = 10%, Guanajuato = 21%, Nayarit = 18%, age = 26 years, education = 6 years, before IRCA = 73%, log trips = 3.3, log wage = 1.6, PUMA wage = $7.14, PUMA unemployment = 8.4%, family in U.S. = 41%, network in U.S. = 53%, worker/person = 39%, business = 46%, head education = 4 years, head age = 49 years, land = 23%, population at origin = 37,000, twice minimum wage = 24%, female labor force = 18%, employers = 5%, agricultural employment = 53%.

12 Immigrant Trip Duration 591 in 1994 with Operation Hold the Line, an effort to curb illegal immigration into Texas through increased border enforcement. 13 Second, social factors may prevent longer stay in Texas. For example, antiimmigrant sentiments, or discrimination, not only negatively affect employment opportunities, but may also dissuade immigrants from remaining on their trip for very long. There is a lengthier and more intense experience of labor discrimination and ill treatment of Mexican immigrants in Texas than in California (Martinez, 1978; Montejano, 1994; Galarza, 1964). This is not to say that discrimination against Mexicans has not existed in California; rather only that it has been more severe in Texas over a longer period of time (Moore, 1970). However, conditions in Texas may be changing. For example, former Texas Governor George W. Bush opposed a state proposition similar to California s Proposition 187 (which sought to deny social services and school access to undocumented immigrants), and vowed to protect the immigrant population in the state. At the same time, California is perceived as more anti-immigrant. Strong border enforcement, Propositions 187, 209 (which sought to eliminate affirmative action programs), and 227 (which dismantled bilingual education programs) may have made the State of California more hostile to immigrants. It remains to be seen what future changes in policies and perception will have on immigrants in both states. Summary and Conclusions The findings of this study illustrate the diversity in migrant length of stay in the United States. On the one hand, most of the immigrants in this sample returned to Mexico after a few years in the United States. Taking into account all relevant factors, an average immigrant has a 50 percent probability of returning within the first year after migration. On the other hand, immigrants have different trip duration in different U.S. destinations. On average, we find three principal patterns of migration: semi-permanent and permanent migration to urban areas, temporary migration to agricultural areas, and sojourner or cyclical migration to Texas. Urban regions, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago, have longer trip durations than other regions (Figure 2), generally attracting higher-skilled migrants with more education and lower incidence of household head migration. Immigrants to urban regions have greater economic opportunities, as evidenced by a diversity of employment opportunities and higher wages. All these factors have been found to increase duration in the United States. Immigrants to the agricultural regions the California Coast and Central/Southern California exhibit more return and have shorter trips than those in urban regions, but they have longer trip duration than those in 13 Unfortunately, we cannot observe if the policy has altered migration patterns because our data end in 1993.

13 592 Social Science Quarterly Texas. This is likely due to the nature of agricultural employment and immigrant selectivity. Compared to migrants in Texas, immigrants in California s agricultural regions have slightly more education, a smaller proportion of them are household heads, a greater proportion of them own land or a business, and they earn higher wages (actual wage). Although eventual return rates are similar in Central/Southern California and the Coast, immigrants initially stay longer along the Coast because of greater economic opportunities. Lastly, immigrants to Texas have the shortest trip duration of all regions. They tend to be undocumented household heads with low levels of education and limited resources and opportunities in the home community. Furthermore, institutional factors have historically limited opportunities for Mexicans in Texas compared to other regions and may affect trip duration in Texas. The findings of this study reiterate the importance of economic opportunities as an important predictor of not only migration to, but also length of stay in, the United States. Dynamic regions not only attract more immigrants, but they also attract a more permanent population of immigrants. However, economic incentives can be mediated by social and institutional factors, as demonstrated by the migration patterns in Texas. REFERENCES California Agricultural Resource Directory Sacramento, Cal.: Office of Public Affairs, California Department of Food and Agriculture. Cornelius, W. A Los Migrantes de la Crisis: The Changing Profile of Mexican Migration to the United States. In M. G. De la Rocha and A. E. Latapi, eds., Social Responses to Mexico s Economic Crisis of the 1980 s, U.S.-Mexico Contemporary Perspective Series 1. San Diego, Cal.: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. Dardia, Michael, Carolyn Sherwood-Call, and Elisa Barbour. Submitted Regional Income Inequality in California. PPIC Working Paper Series. Galarza, Ernesto Merchants of Labor: The Mexican Bracero Story. Charlotte, N.C.: McNally & Loftin. Gurak, D., and F. Caces Migration Networks and the Shaping of Migration Systems. Pp in M. M. Kritz, L. L. Lim, and H. Zlotnik, eds., International Migration Systems: A Global Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kossoudji, Sherrie A Playing Cat and Mouse at the U.S.-Mexican Border. Demography 29(2): Lindstrom, David P Economic Opportunity in Mexico and Return Migration from the United States. Demography 33(3): Martinez, Oscar J Border Boom Town: Ciudad Juarez Since Austin, Tex.: University of Texas Press. Massey, D. S. 1990a. The Social and Economic Origins of Immigration. American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 510:60 72.

14 Immigrant Trip Duration b. Social Structure, Household Strategies, and the Cumulative Causation of Migration. Population Index 56(1):3 26. Massey, D. S., R. Alarcon, J. Durand, and H. Gonzalez Return to Aztlan: The Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley and Los Angeles, Cal.: University of California Press. Massey, D. S., Joaqui Arango, Graeme Hugo, Ali Kouaoci, Adela Pellegrino, and J. Edward Taylor Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal. Population and Development Review. 19(4): Massey, D. S., and K. Espinosa What s Driving Mexico-U.S. Migration? A Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Analysis. American Journal of Sociology 102(4): Montejano, D The World of the Mexican Worker in Texas. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 4: Moore, Joan W Mexican Americans. Ethnic Groups in American Life Series. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Palerm, Juan Vicente Farm Labor Needs and Farm Workers in California: 1970 to California Agricultural Studies Sacramento, Cal: Employment Development Department. Reyes, Belinda I Immigrant Trip Duration: The Case of Immigrants from Western Mexico. International Migration Review 35: Smith, M. P., and B. Tarallo Proposition 187 Global Trend or Local Narrative Explaining Anti-Immigrant Politics in California, Arizona, and Texas. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 19(4): Taylor, J. Edward Differential Migration, Networks, Information and Risk. In Oded Stark, ed., Research in Human Capital and Development: Migration, Human Capital and Development, Vol. 4. Greenwich, Conn.: Jai Press. Taylor, J. Edward, P. Martin, and M. Fix Poverty Amid Prosperity: Immigration and the Changing Face of Rural California. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.