CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Migration and Labor DynamicsDiaspora, migration, transnational identityMigration, Health, Geopolitics, Historical Geography

Changes in the transnational family structures of Mexican farm workers in the era of border militarization

Open access
Hamilton, Erin R., Hale, Jo Mhairi·2016·Demography
DOI 10.1007/s13524-016-0505-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Historically, undocumented Mexican farm workers migrated circularly, leaving family behind in Mexico on short trips to the United States. Scholars have argued that border militarization has disrupted circular migration as the costs of crossing the border lead to longer stays, increased settlement, and changing transnational family practices. Yet, no study has explored changes in the transnational family structures of Mexico-U.S. migrants that span the era of border militarization. Using data from the National Agricultural Workers Survey, we document a dramatic shift away from transnational family life (as measured by location of residence of dependent children) among undocumented Mexican farm workers and a less dramatic shift among documented Mexican farm workers in the United States between 1993 and 2012. These trends are not explained by changes in the sociodemographic characteristics of farm workers or by changing demographic conditions or rising violence in Mexico. One-half of the trend can be accounted for by lengthened duration of stay and increased connections to the United States among the undocumented, but none of the trend is explained by these measures of settlement among the documented, suggesting that some Mexican farm workers adopt new family migration strategies at first migration. Increases in border control are associated with lower likelihood that children reside in Mexico—a finding that holds up to instrumental variable techniques. Our findings confirm the argument that U.S. border militarization—a policy designed to deter undocumented migration—is instead disrupting transnational family life between Mexico and the United States and, in doing so, is creating a permanent population of undocumented migrants and their children in the United States.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13524-016-0505-7

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The well-being of migrants post-deportation has been examined in some diverse contexts, though the longitudinal and reciprocal relationships with their U.S.-based families have not received attention.

    “The well-being of migrants post-deportation has been examined in some diverse contexts (9, 18, 57–61) though the longitudinal and reciprocal relationships with their U.S.-based families have not received attention.”

    From Deported Men's and Father's Perspective: The Impacts of Family Separation on Children and Families in the U.S. (2020) · cites this paper as [18]

    The citation is attached to the statement that post-deportation migrant well-being has been examined in diverse contexts. The Introduction and Transnational Family Life sections discuss border militarization and changing family structures, but the passages found when searching for post-deportation well-being and deported migrants do not address that statement. The later claim about reciprocal relationships is not attached to this citation. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Alvarado, S. E., & Massey, D. S. (2010). Search of peace: Structural adjustment, violence, and international migration. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 630, 137-161.
  2. Andreas, P. (2011). The transformation of migrant smuggling across the U.S.-Mexico border. In D. Kyle & R. Koslowski (Eds.), Global human smuggling: Comparative perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 139-156).
  3. Bean, F. D., Leach, M. A., Brown, S. K., Bachmeier, J. D., & Hipp, J. R. (2011). The educational legacy of unauthorized migration: Comparisons across U.S. immigrant groups in how parents' status affects their offspring. International Migration Review, 45, 348-385.
  4. Bean, F. D., & Lowell, B. L. (2004). NAFTA and Mexican migration to the United States. In S. Weintraub (Ed.), NAFTA's impact on North America: The first decade (pp. 263-284). Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies Press.
  5. Cornelius, W. A. (1992). From sojourners to settlers: The changing profile of Mexican immigration to the United States. In J. A. Bustamante, C. W. Reynolds, & R. A. Hinojosa Ojeda (Eds.), U.S.-Mexico relations: Labor market interdependence (pp. 155-195). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  6. Cornelius, W. A. (2001). Death at the border: Efficacy and unintended consequences of US immigration control policy. Population and Development Review, 27, 661-685.
  7. Dreby, J. (2007). Children and power in Mexican transnational families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1050-1064.
  8. Dreby, J. (2010). Divided by borders: Mexican migrants and their children. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  9. Dreby, J. (2015). Everyday illegal: When policies undermine immigrant families. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  10. Durand, J., Massey, D. S., & Charvet, F. (2000). The changing geography of Mexican immigration to the United States: 1910-1996. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 1-15.
  11. Gathmann, C. (2008). Effects of enforcement on illegal markets: Evidence from migrant smuggling along the southwestern border. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1926-1941.
  12. Gonzales, R. G. (2011). Learning to be illegal: Undocumented youth and shifting legal contexts in the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Review, 76, 602-619.
  13. Hagan, J. M., Castro, B., & Rodriguez, N. (2009). Effects of U.S. deportation policies on immigrant families and communities: Cross-border perspectives. NCL Review, 88, 1799-1823.
  14. Hall, M., & Greenman, E. (2015). The occupational cost of being illegal in the United States: Legal status, job hazards, and compensating differentials. International Migration Review, 49, 406-442.
  15. Hanson, G. H., Robertson, R., & Spilimbergo, A. (2002). Does border enforcement protect US workers from illegal immigration? Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 73-92.
  16. Hanson, G. H., & Spilimbergo, A. (1999). Illegal immigration, border enforcement, and relative wages: Evidence from apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border. American Economic Review, 89, 1337-1357.
  17. Hardy, L. J., Getrich, C. M., Quezada, J. C., Guay, A., Michalowski, R. J., & Henley, E. (2012). A call for further research on the impact of state-level immigration policies on public health. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 1250-1253.
  18. Holmes, S. (2013). Fresh fruit, broken bodies: Migrant farmworkers in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press. INEGI. (2015a). Población, hogares, y viviendas: Natalidad y fecundidad [Population, households, and dwellings: Birth and fertility] [Data set]. Aguascalientes, Mexico: INEGI. Retrieved from http://www3.inegi .org.mx/sistemas/temas/default.aspx?s=est&c=17484 INEGI. (2015b). Población, hogares, y viviendas: Nupcialidad [Population, households, and housing: Nuptiality] [Data set]. Aguascalientes, Mexico: INEGI. Retrieved from http://www3.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/temas/ default.aspx?s=est&c=17484
  19. Massey, D. S. (1986). The settlement process among Mexican migrants to the United States. American Sociological Review, 51, 670-684.
  20. Massey, D., Alarcon, R., Durand, J., & Gonzalez, H. (1987). Return to Aztlan: The social process of international migration from western Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  21. Massey, D., & Capoferro, C. (2008). The geographic diversification of U.S. immigration. In D. S. Massey (Ed.), New faces in new places: The changing geography of American immigration (pp. 25-50). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
  22. Massey, D., Durand, J., & Pren, K. (2015). Border enforcement and return migration by documented and undocumented Mexicans. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41, 1015-1040.
  23. Massey, D., & Pren, K. (2012). Unintended consequences of US immigration policy: Explaining the post- 1965 surge from Latin America. Population and Development Review, 38, 1-29.
  24. Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review, 26, 67-82.
  25. Mummert, G. (2009). Siblings by telephone: Experiences of Mexican children in long-distance child-rearing arrangements. Journal of the Southwest, 51, 503-522.
  26. Rendall, M. S., & Parker, S. W. (2014). Two decades of negative educational selectivity of Mexican migrants to the United States. Population and Development Review, 40, 421-446.
  27. Reyes, B. I. (2004). Changes in trip duration for Mexican immigrants to the United States. Population Research and Policy Review, 23, 235-257.
  28. Riosmena, F., & Massey, D. S. (2012). Pathways to El Norte: Origins, destinations, and characteristics of Mexican migrants to the United States. International Migration Review, 46, 3-36.
  29. Roberts, B. (1995). Socially expected durations and the economic adjustments of immigrants. In A. Portes (Ed.), The economic sociology of immigration: Essays on networks, ethnicity, and entrepreneurship (pp. 42-86). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
  30. Smith, R. C. (2006). Mexican New York: Transnational lives of new immigrants. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  31. Warren, R., & Warren, J. R. (2013). Unauthorized immigration to the United States: Annual estimates and components of change, by state, 1990 to 2010. International Migration Review, 47, 296-329.
  32. Wiedrick, J. (2014). Strong, handy, and cheap: The new generation of complex survey analysis software (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Portland State University, Portland, OR.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hamilton, E. R., & Hale, J. M.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Hamilton, Erin R.
ORCID
Venue
Demography
Publisher
Duke University Press
Published
2016-09-13
Volume
53
Issue
5
Pages
1429-1451
ISSN
  • 0070-3370 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-7790
DOI
10.1007/s13524-016-0505-7
OpenAlex
W2519434700
Cited by
20
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)
Locations
  • Demography (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of California, Santa Barbara
  • University of California, Davis
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration and Labor Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Diaspora, migration, transnational identity
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Migration, Health, Geopolitics, Historical Geography
Keywords
transnational families, border militarization, circular migration, irregular migration, border control, duration of stay, agricultural labor migration
MeSH terms
Farmers, Adult, Age Factors, Family Characteristics, Female, Humans, Male, Mexico, Sex Factors, Transients and Migrants, United States, Violence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review