The migration of Mexicans to the United States is a complex phenomenon, The Quantification of Migration between Mexico and the United States

Transcription

1 The Quantification of Migration between Mexico and the United States Frank D. Bean, Rodolfo Corona, Rodolfo Tuirán & Karen A. Woodrow-Lafield The migration of Mexicans to the United States is a complex phenomenon, with a long history and structural roots on both sides of the border. Not surprisingly, Mexico and the United States have often held dissimilar views of this migration. On each side of the border, government officials, policy specialists and the public have often revealed distinct perceptions as to the nature, magnitude, causes and consequences of the movement of persons between the two nations. This complicates the task of the analyst. This report seeks to simplify analysis by focusing only on the question of the quantity of migration. How large is the flow and what is the sizes of the populations in the two countries that result from it? These are among the most often discussed aspects of migration, ones that lend themselves to intense speculation. In Mexico and the United States, the question of numbers arises frequently as part of the public debate on migration, and analyses of the causes and impacts of migration in both countries depend, to a considerable extent, on the calculations (well founded or not) about the size of the phenomenon. One of the first conclusions of this report is that Mexican migrants to the United States are not homogeneous, but rather consist of diverse subgroups that migrate 1

2 for different reasons (Bean, et al., 1994; Corona, 1993). Distinguishing among migrants is necessary in order to demarcate flows conceptually and in order to interpret the results of efforts to measure them. Recognizing differences among migrants also helps to evaluate the impacts of migration on the societies of origin and destination. From the outset, the question of the magnitude of immigration, therefore, has facets that imply a number of subquestions. How many Mexicans (authorized and unauthorized) are located at any given time in the United States? Of these, how many habitually reside in that country? How many work or look for work in the United States but actually live in Mexico? How many Mexicans enter the United States annually to reside in that country or to work in it? How many return within the same time period? What is the net flow, or the difference between the total entries and the total return flows? Researchers trying to answer such questions on international migration are confronted with diverse methodological and technical problems. Besides the problems confronting efforts to quantify migratory flows that are well-known, other problems arise from the special characteristics of the movement of Mexicans to the United States. Analysis is difficult because of the surreptitious nature of much of the flow, the constant change in the nature of migratory populations, the difficulties in determining how long Mexicans stay in the United States, and the difficulties in estimating the considerable size of return flows to Mexico (even after lengthy periods of residency in the United States). This report seeks to overcome these difficulties insofar as possible. Its two main objectives are (1) to assess the results and adequacy of efforts of the past 25 years to estimate the magnitude of migration between Mexico and the United States, and (2) to develop estimates of the stocks and flows of migrants between the two countries circa the mid-1990s, based on the approaches and results of earlier assessments as well as on newly available data and research conducted in the 1990s. Before proceeding further, two additional comments are in order. The first concerns terminology. We use the term unauthorized migrant throughout this report to refer to those Mexican migrants who are in the United States without authorization at a given point in time, either because they have surreptitiously entered the country or because they overstayed their legally authorized periods of stay. We are aware that many observers prefer other terms. Our choice of nomenclature is based on our conclusion that the term unauthorized migrant most accurately describes the category of persons who are not in the United States legally. We use the term migrant rather than immigrant because many of the persons in this category enter the United States for temporary purposes, that is they stay only short periods of time. The second matter concerns the consequences of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 for Mexican migration flows. This legislation has had 2

3 such profound implications for the numbers and kinds of Mexican migrants going back and forth between Mexico and the United States that we wish to signal and underscore the importance of IRCA for our topic at the outset of this report. In almost every one of our discussions, we will be noting not only the ways in which we endeavor to measure the stocks and flows of migrants, but also the ways in which IRCA has influenced their magnitude. And because IRCA s legalization provisions have so increased the numbers of persons eligible for immigrant visas under the current provisions of U.S. immigration law, IRCA will also have implications for immigration flows in the future, as we note below. The rest of this report is divided into six sections. We first consider the recent sizes of the total Mexican-origin and Mexican-born populations in the United States. Second, we discuss estimates of legal immigration from Mexico to the United States. Third, we examine estimates of unauthorized migration to the United States that are based mostly on U.S. data. Fourth, we present estimates of migration from Mexico to the United States that are based on recent data collected in Mexico. Fifth, we examine the available evidence about the migration to Mexico of persons from the United States and other countries. Sixth, we summarize and synthesize the results from the above sections, together with other recent data, to develop what we think are reasonable numbers as to the magnitude of the stock and flows of Mexican migrants to the United States just after the middle of the decade of the 1990s. The Total Mexican-origin Population in the United States The Mexican-origin population living in the United States has grown substantially during the 20th Century. The population consists of several groups with different experiences. First, there are those individuals born in the United States who can trace their ancestry to Mexico. This group in turn consists of those persons whose ancestors lived in those parts of the United States that once were part of Mexico, as well as those persons whose ancestors migrated to the what is now the United States. Second, there are those individuals born in Mexico who have subsequently moved to the United States. This group in turn can be broken down into three sub-groups naturalized citizens, legal immigrants and unauthorized migrants from Mexico. The following discussion examines the size and growth of the total Mexican-origin population living in the United States, focusing on changes in the size of each of these components where possible. Our major purpose here is not to examine the estimates of these components in detail, because we undertake that exercise below. Rather, it is to demonstrate the rough size of the migration components in relation to the total. We begin by examining 3

4 changes in the way this group has been measured over time. Since the United States Census is the primary source of this information, we focus first on changes in census definitions. Then, we discuss the patterns of growth in the Mexicanorigin population over the past century. Ethnicity denotes a social identity deriving from group membership based on common race, religion, language, national origin, or some combination of these factors (Bean and Tienda, 1987:38). In part because ethnicity is a multi-dimensional concept, the way in which the Mexican-origin population has been defined by the United States Census Bureau has changed over the years in part because measurements have been based on a number of different indicators at different points in time (see Table 1). Prior to 1970, Mexican ethnicity could be operationalized through the use of various objective markers, including place of birth, parents place of birth, language and Spanish surname. While serving to identify well Mexican-origin persons who were either foreign born or whose parents were born in Mexico, these identifiers failed to identify adequately third or higher generation Mexican-origin persons, especially those who no longer spoke Spanish at home or who no longer had a Spanish surname due to intermarriage. These limitations were especially problematic for identifying the Mexican-origin population given the group s long history in the United States. In response to Table 1 Identifiers Available in the United States Census or Current Population Survey for the Hispanic Population, Home Spanish Language Origin Birth- Foreign Mother Other than Spanish 1 or Year place Parentage Tongue English Surname Descent Ancestry yes yes no no no yes no 1990 yes no no yes no yes yes 1980 yes no no yes yes yes yes 1970 yes yes yes no yes yes no 1960 yes yes yes 2 no yes no no 1950 yes yes no no yes no no Source ( ) Bean and Tienda, 1987; (1990 Census and CPS) Constructed by the authors. 1 Only available for five southwestern states. 2 Available for 25% of the foreign-born population 4

5 these concerns, a new measure of ethnicity was added to the 1970 Census in which Mexican ethnicity could be identified through the use of a subjective item, Spanish origin. The census measure on Spanish origin allowed respondents of any generation to identify themselves as possessing Mexican or several other Spanishorigin ethnicities. Such changes in the basis for measuring the Mexican-origin population of the United States do not mask the fact that the Mexican-origin population has grown steadily over the last several decades (Table 2). Some of this growth can be attributed to natural increase in the U.S.-born Mexican-origin population. Mexican- American fertility rates are approximately 35 to 40 percent higher than those of Anglos (Bean and Tienda, 1987; Bachu, 1995; Clark and Ventura, 1994), while each of these groups appears to experience comparable mortality rates. Thus, even in the absence of migration, the share the Mexican-origin population contributes to Table 2 Total Mexican-origin Population in the United States: Total Mexicanorigin Population Percent of Year (in Thousands) Total U.S. Population , , , , , , , , Source: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Historical Statistics of the United States, Part 1 (1975), U..S. Bureau of the Census, 1980 and 1990, and March Current Population Survey, 1995 and These figures are based on CPS data that are adjusted for undercount and thus are not comparable to census figures. 2 Mexican-origin population calculated as a sum of the Mexican-born population and natives of Mexican parentage. 5

6 growth in the total population would increase relative to the share contributed by the Anglo population. The present day size of the Mexican-origin population in the United States, however, is mostly attributable to immigration from Mexico during the 20th Century. Corona (1994) and Edmonston and Passel (1994) estimate that the Mexican-origin population in 1990 would only have been percent of its current size had there been no immigration from Mexico since Table 3 presents the size of the Mexican-born population in the United States for each decade of the 20th Century. The flow of immigrants from Mexico has fluctuated substantially throughout this period, but it is clear that the Mexican-born population has become over time an increasingly large component of the foreign-born population of the United States. The growth of the Mexican-born population in the United States has varied as a consequence of economic and political conditions on both sides of the border Table 3 Total Mexican-born Population in the United States: Mexican-born Percent of the Population Percent of the Total Mexican- Year (in Thousands) Total Foreign-born origin Population , , , Source: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Historical Statistics of the United States, Part ), U.S. Bureau of the Census and 1990, and March Current Population Survey, 1995 and These figures are based on CPS data that are adjusted for undercount and thus are not comparable to census figures. 2 Mexican-origin population calculated as a sum of the Mexican-born population and natives of Mexican parentage. 6

7 (Freeman and Bean, 1997; Szekeley and de la Garza, 1997). The border between Mexico and the United States attained its modern definition in 1848, but records on the Mexican immigration to the United States were not kept until The accuracy of such data is dubious, however, as the border region at that time was largely unsupervised and the nature of immigration from Mexico at the very beginning of the 20th Century is unknown. Two of the border states (Arizona and New Mexico) were only territories under U.S. supervision until The first large scale officially measured immigration from Mexico into U.S. territory occurred between 1910 and Increased demands for labor brought about by the exclusion of Chinese workers in 1882, Japanese workers in 1907 and a shortage of European immigrants during World War I encouraged Mexican migration. Numbers of Mexican migrants continued to increase as the federal government exempted the Western Hemisphere from the national quota laws of the 1920s and early 1930s in the name of Pan Americanism which was also encouraged by many in the southwest who looked towards Mexico for cheap labor (Reimers, 1992). However, when the demand for labor decreased during the Great Depression of the 1930s, The United States repatriated many Mexican-origin individuals. Many of those sent involuntarily to Mexico were American-born children. Levels of migration from Mexico once again increased with the introduction of the Bracero Program from (Figure 1). Starting in World War II, non-mexican farm workers in California sought higher paying jobs in the defense Figure 1. Legal Immigrants Admitted from Mexico, Europe and Total,

8 industry, reducing the available labor supply for farmers. This prompted growers to place pressure on Congress to admit temporary workers, or braceros, from Mexico. During the peak of the program in 1956, the number of workers recruited was 445,197 (Reimers, 1992). Although these workers were expected to be temporary residents in the United States, many stayed along with their family members. While growers fought to retain the supply of cheap Mexican labor, Congress refused to extend the program beyond Despite the end of the Bracero Program, both unauthorized and legal migration from Mexico has continued to grow during the past three decades (Figure 2). In particular, the size of the legal population increased dramatically during the late 1980s and early 1990s, in part due to the legalization provisions of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). Between 1989 and 1994, IRCA offered legal status to approximately 2 million undocumented Mexican migrants who had been either working in agriculture or living illegally in the United States before Table 4 illustrates the effect of IRCA s legalization programs on the size of the flow of immigrants from Mexico. When those legalizing their status under the amnesty provisions are removed from the official numbers of immigrants arriving in the decade, the size of the Mexican migrant population entering between 1981 and 1994 is greatly reduced. Another segment of the Mexican-born population in the United States is the unauthorized migrant population. We discuss below in Figure 2. Legally Resident Foreign-born by Mexican Birth:

9 Table 4 Immigration from Mexico to the United States: Number Arriving Percent of All from Mexico Immigrants Arriving Years in the Decade in the Decade A. Published Totals ,490, ,655, , , , , , , , , B. Numbers of Mexican Arrivals Excluding IRCA legalizations , , Source: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1995 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., Numbers of those legalizing their immigration status from the Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( ). considerable detail estimates of the size of the unauthorized Mexican migrant population and the methods used to arrive at these estimates Another component of the Mexican-born population in the United States includes those immigrants who have become citizens of the United States. Table 5 presents the numbers of Mexican-born persons who have naturalized over the past 35 years. Compared to other immigrant groups in the United States, Mexican immigrants have been slow to naturalize (Grebler, 1966; Bean and Tienda, 1987). English language ability is frequently cited as the largest barrier to citizenship among Mexican immigrants (Reimers, 1992). It is clear from Table 5 that the proportion of persons from Mexico who are naturalizing in any given year relative to the total Mexican-born population has increased over time. During 1996 the 9

10 Table 5 Number of Naturalizations among Mexican-born Persons in the United States: Number of Number per 10,000 Naturalizations Mexican-born Persons Year Among Mexicans In the United States , , , , , Source: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (1996). number of immigrants becoming citizens increased substantially as those legalizing their status under IRCA become eligible for naturalization, and as permanent resident aliens seek to attain citizenship in order to be eligible for benefits as required by legislation passed in the 104th Congress (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1997). Growth in the Mexican-origin population in the United States is expected to continue into the next century due to both natural increase and increased net immigration. According to Census Bureau population projections, the Hispanic-origin population will add more people to the population in the next 60 years than all other racial and ethnic groups combined (Day, 1995). Table 6 presents projections of the size of the Hispanic-origin population based on U.S. Census projections. These projections assume that the Hispanic population will receive the highest number of immigrants than any other racial/ethnic group (350,000 annually). In addition, the Census Bureau projections are based on the assumption that the higher fertility rates of the Hispanic-origin population compared to other groups will persist. Fertility in the Hispanic-origin population is matched only by the Asian-origin population in the United States. The projections indicate that the Hispanic-origin population will make up approximately 25 percent of the population by 2050 (Day, 1995). The last two columns of Table 6 present the population projection for just the Mexican-origin population based on its size relative to the Hispanic-origin population. Two projections are presented based on slightly different assumptions. The first is based on the assumption that the relative size of the Mexican-origin population as a segment 10

11 Table 6 Projected Size of the Mexican-origin Population in the United States: Projected Size (in Thousands) for the: Mexican Mexican Population Population Year Hispanic Population (Estimate 1) 1 (Estimate 2) ,936 16,135 16, ,366 18, ,139 24,642 25, ,652 31,539 33, ,570 39,276 43, ,164 48,018 54,031 Source: Projection of the Hispanic Population from Day, Jennifer Cheeseman, Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, pp , U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., Projection of the Mexican-origin population constructed by the authors. 1 Assuming that the proportion of the Hispanic population that is of Mexican origin remains the same as observed in 1990 (59.9%). 2 Assuming the Mexican-origin population will continue to increase as a proportion of the total Hispanic population by 1.5 percentage points per decade. of the total Hispanic-origin population in the United States will stay the same. The Mexican-origin population represented roughly 60 percent of the Hispanic-origin population in Table 6 also presents a projection assuming that the Mexicanorigin population will continue to increase as a proportion of the Hispanic-origin population over the next several decades. Based on these assumptions, the Mexicanorigin population in the United States will more than double in size over the next sixty years. In fact, using these projections, the Mexican-origin population alone will be larger than the projected size of the Black population by the year The projections make it clear that the Mexican-origin population in the United States will continue to increase for some time based on the characteristics of the population as of In addition, there are other ways that the Mexican-origin population can change in the near future without changes in fertility or mortality. For example, as those who legalized under IRCA become eligible for citizenship in the United States, they will also be eligible to petition to bring family members 11

12 to this country (Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1992). Mexican immigrants have the largest pool of relatives who could become migrants to the United States under the family reunification provisions than any other foreign-born group in the United States (Schulte and Wolf, 1994; Woodrow and Peregay, 1991). Another source of change that could affect the projected size of the Mexicanorigin population is changing rates of intermarriage and/or changing self identification among the children of mixed-ethnicity parents. The projections in Table 6 do not account for the possibility of changes in patterns of exogamy. Intermarriage between racial/ethnic groups may alter the way future generations identify themselves given the present categories of race and ethnicity. Differential patterns of exogamy may alter the projected size of these groups (Bean et al., 1997). Edmonston, Lee and Passel (1994) have presented population projections adjusted for differential exogamy rates among Hispanics and other racial/ethnic groups. Increases in exogamy are built into their projections (see Table 7) and show that the Hispanicorigin population in the United States could vary from between 50.9 million and 77.4 million people by 2040 depending on actual rates of exogamy. Table 7 also presents the projected size of the Mexican-origin population based on the same patterns of exogamy built into the Edmonston, Lee and Passel projections. These projections demonstrate that, if the Mexican population remained approximately Table 7 Projected Size of the Mexican-origin Population in the United States Adjusted for Potential Exogamy: Hispanic-origin Pop n (in millions) Mexican-origin Pop n (in millions) Single Ancestry Single and Single Ancestry Single and Only 1 Mixed Ancestry 2 Only 3 Mixed Ancestry Source: Bean, Cushing, Haynes and Van Hook (1997), Edmonston, Lee and Passel (1994). Notes: 1 Both parents are of Hispanic origin. 2 At least one parent is of Hispanic origin. 3 Both parents are of Mexican origin. 4 At least one parent is of Mexican origin. 12

13 60 percent of the total Hispanic-origin population, individuals of Mexican origin would number between 30 and 46 million persons by the year 2040 depending upon actual rates of exogamy. Estimates of Authorized or Legal Mexican Immigration Measuring Legal Immigration: Knowns Administrative Statistics Admissions for lawful permanent residence, legalization approvals, adjustments to lawful permanent residence, and nonimmigrant arrivals are easily accessible administrative statistics. These would be considered knowns in the sense that the data sets are regarded as highly complete within the domain. Interpretive cautions must be noted for using these administrative statistics for social science research. First, those immigrants arriving as permanent residents may have had prior U.S. residence experience or may anticipate short or long stays abroad. Survey responses to questions about the timing of immigration may differ from recorded date of lawful permanent residence. Second, generally-legalized immigrants are usually presumed as having settled here for their lifetimes and at minimal risk of return migration as a consequence of their sustained presence. Third, those adjusting to lawful permanent residence from a nonimmigrant class may have substantial U.S. residence histories, either continuous or on an intermittent basis. Fourth, arriving nonimmigrants are presumed to be temporary residents, and the majority of nonimmigrant departures occur following short durations of saty. Measuring Legal Immigration: Unknowns The following sub-sections address the major uncertainties stemming from temporary migration, emigration after legal immigration, incorporation of the agriculturally-legalized population, and the ultimate immigration consequences of the IRCA legalizations. Presence of Nonimmigrants A one-year entry cohort of nonimmigrant arrivals is comprised of (1) aliens who depart and (2) aliens who stay or are lifetime migrants. Among those who depart, most depart within a brief interval and others depart after stays of at least one year. Among those who stay, some adjust to permanent resident status, and others stay as unauthorized or undocumented, but either may have changed among nonimmigrant classes. Those nonimmigrant arrivals followed quickly by departure are not considered as counting toward population change and such individuals 13

14 would not meet residence rules for either census enumeration or inclusion in national surveys. Those eventually departing after longer residence periods and those ultimately becoming lawful permanent residents present accounting difficulties. The critical questions is: As of a specific date, how many nonimmigrants have stayed in the United States for at least one year or are likely to do so? The magnitude of the accumulated number of present stayers across various nonimmigrant arrival cohorts is needed to estimate the legally resident foreign-born populations for dates falling within the transition between nonimmigrant status and departure or adjustment to permanent status. Their presence is hidden until their adjustments are recorded in immigrants statistics. This problem is difficult conceptually, analytically, and empirically. The appropriately detailed arrivals and departures statistics are not yet published for monitoring the nonimmigrant population, although considerable improvements have been made. Departures statistics have not been published regularly and are incomplete because the departure portion of the I-94 form may not be collected at exit or INS may receive it much later. Interpreting the net difference of 3.3 million for 1994 (22.1 million arrivals less 18.8 million departures [U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service 1996b]) is impossible without modeling nonimmigrant processes of arrival, departure and adjustment over time with modification for undercoverage. The residence rules for the census stipulate that individuals shoulds be living here on a permanent basis or should have lived here for at least six months. Therefore, even when migration may not be for the purpose of permanent residence, six months of residence might be considered a threshold for considering nonimmigrants as usual residents. The 1980 estimate of Warren and Passel included about 612,000 nonimmigrants whose class of admission was taken to imply usual residence 243,000 refugees, 192,000 students, and 177,000 other aliens (Woodrow 1990). Throughout the 1980s, the presumption was that newly-arriving nonimmigrants becoming usual residents for several months were offset by departures, including adjustments of status of similarly usually resident nonimmigrants. This could be a shaky assumption because the annual number of nonimmigrant arrivals has tripled relative to A total of 1,150,000 nonimmigrants adjusted to lawful permanent residence during Thus there are about 230,000 annually who are identified as long-term temporary migrants. Emigration after Legal Immigration The volume of authorized or legal immigration rose over the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Following the post-war period of low immigration and low emigration, the magnitude of emigration after legal immigration, also known as return migration 14

15 or re-migration, also began to shift upward. Absent official counts for departing immigrants, several indirect approaches described possible emigration levels for the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s decades (Warren and Peck, 1980: Warren and Kraly, 1985; Warren and Passel 1987; Woodrow-Lafield, 1996a; Ahmed and Robinson, 1994, Borjas and Bratsberg, 1996). The crucial question is whether emigration levels for are sufficiently descriptive of emigration levels for and , or whether emigration has perpetually increased in the latter half of the 20th Century as the foreign-born population increased dramatically. Emigration levels might be unchanged because emigration rates may be lower among contemporary immigrant residents than among earlier cohorts. Origin or other characteristics associated with lower propensity to emigrate may be more highly represented among foreignborn residents. Indeed, the compositional mix of the foreign-born population has shifted to include greater proportions of (1) Latin Americans and Asians for whom emigration has seemed lower than for Europeans (Jasso and Rosenzweig, 1990); Warren and Kraly, 1985) and (2) immigrants who entered under visa categories associated with lesser likelihood of return migrating, such as refugees, asylees, adjustees from nonimmigrant statuses, and formerly undocumented or temporarily resident individuals. The preponderance of evidence about emigration is more adequate for positing a broad range than for stating that emigration levels are higher in the 1980s than in the 1970s. The empirical evidence is mixed. First, several studies support a range for 1980 census coverage research of about 0.9 to 1.9 million foreign-born emigrants. Second, there is variance among estimates of emigration for the 1980s. A newly applied approach in the U.S. context, multiplicity sampling-based surveys of U.S. residents about nonresident relatives, supported a broad range for emigration occurring over (Woodrow-Lafield 1996a). In combination with sensitivity analyses in Woodrow (1991b) based on using emigration rates by age, sex, period of entry, and country or region of origin, the preliminary evaluation of 1990 census coverage employed an estimate of 1.33 million for net emigration of legally resident foreign-born for the 1980s and allowed for variation between 0.8 million and 2.2 million. A re-application of Warren and Peck s (1980) intercensal approach yielded a result toward the upper end of this range (Ahmed and Robinson 1994). Although this study was taken to support higher emigration in the 1980s than in the 1970s and a higher allowance for population programs, the U.S. Bureau of the Census took an evenhanded approach in also increasing the allowance for net population change due to net undocumented migration. For the present purposes of positing estimates for net legal immigration as of the 1980s and 1990s, we make assumptions about the level and composition of emigration flows that are generally consistent with prior research for the 1960s 15

16 and 1970s. For post-1989 analyses, alternative series will show the effects of varying assumed emigration from 95,000 to 195,000 annually. Legal foreign-born emigrants will be distributed to Mexico as country of origin and to all other countries of origin on the same basis as for undocumented research (Woodrow and Passel 1990; Woodrow 1992c). The Mexico-born population has increased dramatically since 1950, but that increase has been dominated recently by legal immigration primarily family-based and legalization-based. In one sense, there might seem to be lesser propensity for return migration given a greater density on legal status, greater demographic diversity, and possibly greater representation of sending communities at migration maturity. Alternatively, the Mexico-born population could ultimately reach a time at which Mexican return migration could emerge as more easily discernible, despite limitations of methodologies, simply because of its volume as a function of the larger size of immigrant cohorts over the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Such a shift could be detectable, if not precisely measurable, by comparing multiplicity sampling-based estimates of Mexican emigrants over time, as Woodrow-Lafield (1996a) found for the post-irca period between 1987 and The SAWs Population In referring to the agricultural legalization, meaningful distinctions exist among SAW applicants, SAW-approved beneficiaries, SAW-default beneficiaries, and residents becoming SAW-approved beneficiaries. The SAW beneficiaries may not be presumed automatically as living in the United States because their proof of agricultural work experience was insufficient for establishing usual residence in the United States. Migrant agricultural workers have historically commuted for lengthy periods of time as part of the settlement process (Massey 1986; Lowell 1992; Tilly 1990). Because about 700,000 SAW applications were filed in May 1988-November 1988 (498,000 in the last two months), the SAW program may have been a magnet for aliens seeking U.S. residence status and may have ultimately promoted migration to and settlement in the United States (Also, see Martin 1990, 1994, 1996.) Further confusing the issue of whether SAW beneficiaries live in the United States or their origin country, which was Mexico for 81.6 percent, the INS automatically granted lawful permanent resident status to all SAW beneficiaries. That benefit was extended to both SAW-approved beneficiaries and SAW-default beneficiaries, whose applications INS simply failed to deny, with about 900,000 becoming lawful permanent residents by the default deadline of December 1, Thus, the single action of SAW application yielded entitlement for U.S. permanent residence. 16

17 Figure 3. Legally Resident Foreign-born in 1989 by Mexican-born and Resident SAWs There are limited insights to SAWs behavior following legalization. The National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) acquired individual migrant workers legal status; almost one-half of the migrant workforce in has legalized under IRCA (Gabbard, Mines, and Boccalandro 1994). Samardick (1995) reported that about 32 percent of Mexico-born migrant workers in had received SAW status and that about 7 percent had generally legalized after long-term undocumented residence. Many of the SAW beneficiaries appear to have continued working in seasonal agricultural services. Another indicator of SAW beneficiaries residence in the U.S. rather than their origin country will be their behavior in seeking to naturalize. Naturalization statistics for fiscal year 1996 showed a continued upward trend, but application levels for naturalization among eligible generally-legalized immigrants or SAW beneficiaries are not known. Application rates among the generally-legalized population have been tracked in only a very limited fashion (U.S. Department of Labor (1996:107). Immigrant Flow Effects from IRCA The presence of IRCA beneficiaries family members in the United States must be viewed carefully in building an accounting model for the legally resident foreignborn population. The demographic consequences of the general legalization program under IRCA will be considerable with as many as 2.5 million future immigrants 17

18 related to these legalization beneficiaries, including 1.6 million Mexican relatives (Woodrow-Lafield 1994a). Approximately 136,000 spouses, 223,000 children, 30,000 parents, 130,000 siblings, and 102,000 other relatives are estimated as living in the IRCA beneficiary households and having non-resident statuses (family fairness, temporary visa, other, or missing). Within households of legalized Mexican immigrants, there were 91,000 spouses, 159,000 children, 19,000 parents, 99,000 siblings, and 69,000 other relatives in nonpermanent statuses, totaling 436,000 (unpublished analyses by Woodrow-Lafield). In a demographic accounting analysis of the resident population, resident dependents of IRCA beneficiaries will be incorporated in the estimated legally resident foreign-born population in a lagged fashion as they become legal immigrants with the allocated visas for , with second preference (or first, third, or fourth preference) visas in some year, or under provisions for immediate relatives (parents, spouses, or minor children) of U.S. citizens. IA90 specified that up to 55,000 visas might be granted for spouses and children of legalization beneficiaries to avoid family disruption. This largesse was apparently insufficient because (1) a lesser amount resulted 140,000; (2) the second preference visa waiting list counts associated with legalization beneficiaries were 739,774; 853,382; and 824,000 in fiscal years 1993, 1994 and 1995 (U.S. Department of State 1993, 1994, 1995 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform 1995). Many (one half million) of these spouses and children are probably related to beneficiaries of the SAW or agricultural legalization (Woodrow-Lafield 1995b). The waiting list under second preference is so clogged that waiting times for new applicants are growing progressively longer. A more expedient way for these close family members to legally immigrate to the United States will be the two-tier processes of the IRCA beneficiary s naturalization and sponsorship of their spouses and minor children under immediate relatives provisions for which there are no limitations except for those who were minor children at the time of visa petition filing who aged into adulthood and were ineligible for visa issuance. Among Mexican respondents in the 1992 LPS, nearly three-quarters indicated they would either definitely or probably apply for naturalization upon becoming eligible (Woodrow-Lafield 1995c). This study supported a cost-benefits strategy in naturalization decision-making in that having a co-resident sibling without permanent status and having a parent or sibling intending to immigrate are significantly associated with intending to apply for naturalization. The numbers of spouses and children who could become legal immigrants under immediate relatives provisions during could exceed one half million. 18

19 Demographic Accounting for Unauthorized or Legal Migration Legally Resident Foreign-born Population in 1980 Warren and Passel (1983, 1987a, b) first formulated a baseline estimate for the alien component using the Annual Alien Address Registration Program for January 1980 according to self-reported residence status. The 1980 alien data were adjusted for estimated underregistration of 11.1 percent, resulting in an overall increase of 12.5 percent. For Mexico, Warren and Passel estimated that 7.3 percent of legally resident aliens had failed to register (Passel 1991). An estimate of naturalized citizens in the 1980 census was based on both census reporting as naturalized citizens and a demographic estimate constructed by surviving naturalizing immigrants over time, as identified with INS administrative naturalizations statistics. A major criticism directed at this work on the undocumented population was that the authors assumed that INS sources correctly recorded naturalizations over (Hill 1985b), but classification by citizenship was unnecessary for derivation of an undocumented estimate, and subsequent demographic accounting was for the foreign-born category. The Warren-Passel estimate for 1980 of 12,084,000 legally resident foreignborn persons, including 7,816,000 aliens and 6,118,000 naturalized citizens was meant to represent the complete population of legally resident foreign-born persons as of January Included were 2,326,000 persons of Mexican birth, with 2,121,000 aliens and 205,000 naturalized citizens. An obvious weakness is an inconsistency with 1980 census data for foreign-born persons entered before 1960 in that the census counts were lower than Warren and Passel s estimate for all countries or regions other than Mexico. Demographic research on legal status of the foreign-born population has emphasized the Entered After 1960 population, with inclusion of Mexicans who entered pre The nature of the data collection over a one-month period also raises concerns because the population estimate would probably over-represent shorter durations and lead to over-estimating the population entered for the most recent time period. Hill (1985b) raised questions about over-reporting for Mexico, among other countries, possibly as a result of misreporting by temporary residents in the category for permanent resident. Subsequently, Passel (1991) allowed for greater variability in the legally resident alien component for the Mexican population (+10 percent) than for the non-mexican population (+3 percent), noting that undocumented migrants might have erroneously registered. The estimate of legally resident foreign-born persons as of 1980 by Warren and Passel can be considered a standard in several senses, and it became a foundation for using a components-of-change method to derive post-1980 estimates for legally resident foreign-born populations in the United States. The major 19

20 components of change are estimated mortality, assumed emigration, admissions of lawful permanent residents and certain groups of arriving refugees, and other transitions to lawful permanent residence by persons already living in the United States (including adjustments and legalizations). This methodology was designed for consistency with the Census Bureau s methodologies for demographic analysis and postcensal population estimates. An accounting for components of change for the resident population was equivalent to accounting for components of change in the legally resident population before 1980 because an undocumented presence had not yet been measuraæble. After the 1980 census apportionment counts exceeded the independent estimate, the Census Bureau endeavored to improve estimates of the number of illegal aliens and make public a sufficient number of undercount estimates to illustrate the uncertainties in the methods (ASA Technical Panel, 1984). To this end, a systematic research program at the Census Bureau monitored net legal immigration in the 1980s and indirectly monitored net undocumented migration by partitioning survey estimates for the foreign-born population into legal and undocumented components (Passel and Woodrow 1987; Woodrow, Passel and Warren 1987; Woodrow and Passel, 1990; Woodrow 1992c). Table 8 summarizes the time series of estimates of the foreignborn population, legally resident foreign-born estimates, and estimates of unauthorized residents in surveys or censuses. Post-1986 estimates required accounting for IRCA-legalized aliens transitions from undocumented resident to legal resident. Those legalizing on the basis of having lived here continuously in an undocumented status since before 1982 are prima facie permanent residents. The figures in Table 8 incorporate most of the general legalizations, but alternative estimates based on allowing for agricultural legalizations are discussed below. To the degree that there is undercoverage of either the legally resident or undocumented residents, there will be underestimation of the unauthorized component (Woodrow-Lafield 1995a). Because foreign-born undercoverage is not known, a potpourri of rationales have been discussed for a range on the total number of unauthorized residents over Despite the passage of time, these ranges are not really very different. The most consensual is the range for 1980 that relies on several studies suggesting that the probable upper bound of the unauthorized population was 3.5 to 4 million (Bean, King, and Passel 1983; Levine, Hill, and Warren 1985; Passel and Robinson 1988; Heer and Passel These studies were the foundation for the net unauthorized migration component for evaluating the 1990 census (Woodrow 1991a) which is discussed more later. It must be noted that an estimate for legally resident foreign-born population was implicit rather than explicitly stated and that the net unauthorized migration component possibly included agriculturally legalized residents. The last two studies 20

21 Table 8 Estimates for Foreign-born, Legally Resident, and Unauthorized Populations Based on Demographic Accounting: Legally resident Estimated Foreign-born in census or survey foreign-born in U.S. unauthorized Hypothetical residents total number Date of in survey or range Estimate All Periods % Post-1960 All periods Post-1960 or census (in millions) Relevant Sources 1970 Census 9,739, % 3,316,928 9,739,723 3,316, Passel & Robinson (1988) Nov ,198, % 8,760,000 11,474,000 7,036,000 1,724,000 none given Passel & Woodrow (1987) Woodrow, Passel, & Warren (1987) 1980 Census 14,139, % 9,230,000 12,082,000 7,173,000 2,057, to 3.5; Warren & Passel (1983, 1987) Passel (1985b) Passel & Robinson (1988) 2.0 to 5.0; Fay, Passel, & Robinson (1988) 1.5 to 3.5; Hill (1985) 2.0 to 4.0 Levine, Hill, & Warren (1985) April 1983 (14+) 13,633, % 9,949,000 11,540,000 7,855,000 2,093,000 none given Passel & Woodrow (1987) June ,237, % 13,069,000 13,079,000 9,911,000 3,158, to 5.0 Woodrow, Passel, & Warren (1987) Passel & Woodrow (1986) June ,185, % 14,379,000 15,279,000 12,473,000 1,906,000 none given Woodrow & Passel (1990) Nov ,785, % 15,154,000 15,735,000 13,104,000 2,050, to 3.1 Woodrow (1990, 1991b, 1992b) Projected 19,090, % 15,754,000 16,690,000 13,354,000 2,400, Woodrow (1991b) April to Census 19,768, % 16,628,000 17,690,000 14,354,000 2,274, to 5.0 Woodrow-Lafield (1995) 1990 Census 19,724, % none given 17,749,000 none given 1,975,000 none given Clark et al. (1994) Note: Most foreign-born population figures include estimated amounts for misreporting as native foreign-born persons. Source: Woodrow-Lafield, Forthcoming 21

22 mentioned in table 8 (Woodrow-Lafield 1995a; Clark et al., 1994) make allowances for nonspecific sources of legal immigration, including agriculturally legalized residents, and we return to these results a closer examination of studies for the period. The legally resident Mexico-born population in the United States increased from about 1.4 million in 1980 to 3.0 to 3.5 million for 1990 (Table 9), depending on particular assumptions. The unauthorized population of Mexican birth appears to have fluctuated and to have declined slightly for 1990 relative to 1980, but this appearance may be artifactual due to the survey or census estimate. Prior to IRCA, extrapolation of studies of average population change due to net unauthorized migration from Mexico implied there were as many as 2.5 to 3.5 million unauthorized Mexican residents, but the post-irca range was lower 1.0 to 2.2 million (Woodrow -Lafild 1996e). These estimates for legally resident foreign-born populations are only as accurate as they are unbiased from data gaps on emigration or return migration and unknown long-term immigration associated with nonimmigrants or agriculturally legalized persons. Exercising expert judgment is inescapable, but guiding strategies are nonexistent. The number of unauthorized residents in 1990 was certainly below six million (Woodrow-Lafield, 1997). Without Accounting for IRCA Legalizations Prior studies showed post-1986 estimates for the legally resident foreign-born population without any amnestied aliens pursuant to IRCA only for the purpose of estimating net population change due to undocumented immigration. Without allowing for legalization pursuant to the amnesty provisions of IRCA, the foreignborn population legally resident would have grown from 7,036,000 to 11,440,000 over (second tier, Table 9). This increase is only from post-1981 immigration. Recently admitted legal Mexico-born immigrants accounted for slightly more than one-tenth of net legal immigration for the post-1981 entry period. With Accounting for Generally Legalized Immigrants The featured or preferred estimates for the legally resident foreign-born population showed an increasing trend over The rate of increase was greater for the Mexico-born population legally resident as the number more than doubled over that decade from 1,388,000 to 2,522,000. Without considering origin, most of the increase is attributable to post-1981 immigration. With closer examination, most of the increase for the Mexico-born population falls within the pre-1981 entry reference period almost wholly from the IRCA legalization 22