Immigration Research Paper

The Micro-History of Mexican Immigration in the United States 1
The Micro-History of Mexican Immigration in the United States
A Review of Mexican Immigration for the years 1993 to Present
Lisa Harrod
Gu, Yu
Abdurrahman Haldun Unal
Business Research/Analysis
Dr. Annette Craven
April 30, 2008

The Micro-History of Mexican Immigration in the United States
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to document the micro-history of Mexican immigration into the
United States for the years dating 1993 to the present. The study includes research into the
demographic and economic trends of Mexican immigration, and the United States governmental
policies and laws, and state legislations that have effected Mexican immigration.
Methodology
This study is a qualitative research study. The data collected was derived from surveys,
research studies, and literature provided through various sources on population census,
immigration research, and U.S. policy and laws regarding U.S. immigration. Library visits
included the library located at the University of Incarnate Word (UIW), St. Mary’s East Kenedy
Law Library, and San Antonio’s Central Library. Interviews were conducted with Raul
Rodriguez, Dr. Lupita Nath, and Dr. Jim Creagan, located at the University of the Incarnate
Word (UIW).
Databases used in this research included CQ Researcher, EBSCO Host, GPO Access and
Lexus Nexus. Key search words used were immigration, Mexican immigration, U.S. Mexican
immigration policy, U.S. immigration policy, economics and immigration, U.S. labor markets,
health and insurance, immigration investment, and U.S. population estimates. Major sources
used in this study included: CQ Researcher, U.S. Census Bureau, Pew Hispanic Organization,
Centers for Immigration Studies, Department of Homeland Security, United Nations
Organization, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), and Migration Policy Institute,
along with the literary works of Jorge Castaneda and Gregory Rodriguez.
Literature Review
The report captures the demographic make up of legal and illegal immigrants of
Mexican origin coming into the United States, as well as their socioeconomic status. The report
then focuses attention on the immigration policies and laws put into place by the U.S.
government and state governments, with respect to those states that have had the greatest impact
from Mexican immigration..
The majority of the research studies, surveys, and literature used in this study covers
immigration into the U.S. up to the year 2006. The most current reports dated in 2007 and the
early part of 2008 are based on data and projections reported in 2006 and earlier. Mexican
Hispanics are a subgroup of the total Hispanic population so many assumptions about Mexican
immigration are based on the findings of the Hispanic immigration population as a whole. This
report addresses the topics as they apply to the immigration of Mexican Hispanics.
Based on the premise that the U.S. census is performed every ten years, some data
included in the demographic section of this report includes the years 1990 through 1992.
Numbers and statistical data may vary for a given year dependent on the date of the report and/or
survey for the year being reported due to updates made to the population estimates by the U.S.
Census Bureau.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 has had a major impact on the
Mexican immigrant population in the U.S. for the respective time period. For this reason it has
been included in this report. This report focuses on the federal laws and polices, and some state
legislation, that have effected or impacted Mexican immigration in the U. S.
Introduction
There are growing concerns in the United States over the issue of immigration.
American citizens are concerned by the large growth trends of the immigrant population and the
cultural effects associated with the high growth rate. There are also concerns over the effects
that immigration has on the economy, and the cost of immigration to taxpayers. Events such as
the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and September 11, 2001, have added a new
element of concern; terrorism in the U.S. These concerns combined with economic slowdowns
have more and more Americans calling for stricter immigration policies. This has had a direct
impact on Mexican immigration in the U.S.
The U.S. federal government defines Hispanic as a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican,
Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race
(Ramirez, 2004, p. 1). Hispanics of Mexican origin make up the largest subgroup among the
Hispanic population. Mexican immigration has demonstrated a steady and rapid increased
growth rate in the United States. In 2006, Mexican Hispanics constituted 64 percent of the total
Hispanic population, making them the largest Hispanic group in the U.S, comprising 9% of the
total U.S. population.
Mexican immigrants have lower incomes and higher rates of poverty and unemployment
than that of native born Americans. The high growth rate coupled with the socioeconomic status
of this immigrant population has become an issue of political debate over the concerns of the
cost of these immigrants to U.S. taxpayers. This is especially true among the states with the
highest percentages of Hispanic immigrants.
In response to public outcry on issues of immigration, there have been many legislative
actions taken by the U.S. government and many of the state governments. The legislative actions
have had both pro and anti-immigration effects. Due to increasing concerns over national
security and terrorism prevention, much of the legislation passed under the guise of securing our
country, has had a direct effect on immigration and immigration policies.
Demographics - U.S. Mexican Immigration
The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 1990, that there were 22.4 million Hispanics in the
United States out of a total population of 250 million people, accounting for 9 percent of the total
population. In 1993 the total Hispanic populations was estimated at 25.2 million. In 2000 the
total Hispanic population was estimated at 35.3 million or 12.5 percent of an estimated 281.4
million total population. The number of Hispanics reported in 2006 was 44.3 million
constituting 15 percent of the nation’s total population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).
Mexican Hispanics have maintained their status as the largest group among the Hispanic
population throughout 1993 up to the present time. In 1990, Mexican Hispanics comprised 61.2
percent (13.6 million) of the Hispanic population, accounting for 7.4 percent of the total U.S.
population. In 1993 the estimated Mexican Hispanic population was 26,160,000, out of the
estimated 35,305,818 Hispanics. Mexican Hispanics accounted for 59 percent of the total
Hispanic population in the United States in the year 2000. By the year 2005 Mexican Hispanics
accounted for 63.9 percent (28,784,268) of the total 41,929,302 Hispanic population. In 2006
the number of residents of Mexican origin reached 28.3 million or 64 percent of the Hispanic
population, and comprised 9% of the nation’s total population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008, p. 1).
The following graphs in Figure 1 and Figure 2 depict the size relationship of Mexican
Hispanics to the total Hispanic population. Table 1, Summary Table A depicts the average
immigration rates for the years 1992 to 2004 for Hispanics by place of birth, legal status and by
Race/Hispanic origin.
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Hispanic Population by Origin 2000
(Percent distribution. Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection
sampling erro, nonsampling error, and definitins, see w.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf)
15.7 Other Hispanic

0.3 Spaniard
2.3 Dominican
5.1 Central American
5.1 South American
Mexican 59.3 3.5 Cuba

n
9.1 Puerto Rican
Source: U.S. Census 2000 Summary File 4
.
Table 1.
Summary Table A. Average Annual Immigration for 1992 - 2004 by Placed of Birth, by Legal Status, by
Race/Hispanic Origin Based on CPS and ACS and Census 2000 /Data
(In thousands)
Variable
and Average Immigration Amount of Change Percent Change
Group
Start Peak End Start to Peak to Start to Peak to
'92-'97 '99-'00 '02-'04 Peak End Peak End
Place of Birth
U.S., Total 1,139 1,541 1,164 401 -376 35% -24%
Mexico 376 513 402 137 -111 37% -22%
Other Latin Amer. 241 319 238 78 -81 32% -25%
Asia 307 377 314 69 -63 23% -17%
All Other 215 332 211 117 -122 54% -37%
Legal Status#
Total Immigration 1,274 1,577 1,124 303 -452 24% -29%
Legal Permanent 628 647 452 19 -195 3% -30%
Unauthorized 486 662 488 176 -174 36% -26%
Legal Temporary 160 268 185 108 -83 68% -31%
State of Residence
U.S., Total 1,142 1,541 1,164 399 -377 35% -24%
California 279 331 239 52 -92 19% -28%
Other Major
States 471 574 425 103 -149 22% -26%
New Growth
States 216 355 289 139 -70 64% -20%
All Other 177 280 215 104 -66 59% -23%
Race/Hispanic Origin
Total Immigration** 1,142 1,540 1,165 398 -375 35% -24%
Hispanic 554 751 576 196 -174 35% -23%
Asian* 285 339 283 54 -56 19% -17%
White* 217 350 226 133 -124 62% -35%
Black* 84 98 78 14 -20 17% -20%
# Status at time of survey

*Non-Hispanic only. See source definition
**Total includes American Indian/Alaska Native not shown separately.
Source: Pew Hispanic Center 2005, Detailed Tables1a-1c

A high natural increase, births minus deaths, and substantial immigration from Mexico
attributed to the rapid increase of Mexican Hispanics in the United States.
Hispanics accounted for almost half (1.4 million) of the national population growth of
2.9 million between July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2006. With a 2.4 percent increase between
July1, 2005 and July1, 2006, Hispanics are the fastest growing minority group. About 1
of every two people added to the nation’s population between July 1, 2005 and July 1,
2006, was Hispanic (U. S. Census Bureau, May 17, 2007, p. 1).
Birth rates for the Hispanic population are 3.1 compared to the national rate of 2.1. Figure 4
depicts the percent of foreign born Mexican Hispanics in the U.S.
Table 2.
The number of foreign born from Mexico was 9.2 percent in 2000, a 1.7 percent increase
from 7.5 percent reported on the U.S. Census in 1990. Native born Mexican Americans
decreased 5.7 percent from 64.2 percent in 1990 to 58.5 percent in 2000. In 2006 the number of
foreign born from Mexico was 30.8 percent accounting for 11.5 million people (Pew Hispanic
Organization, 2008). Figure 3 shows a comparison of the percentage rates for nativity and
citizenship status for the census years 1990 and 2000. Table 3 breaks down the foreign born
U.S. population by state.
Figure 3.
Nativity and Citizenship Status of Mexicans Hispanics in

the U.S. for 1990 and 2000
Native Foreign born, naturalized citizen Foreign born, not a citizen
Year 2000 58.5 9.2 32.2
Year 1990 64.2 7.5 25.8
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

(Percent Distribution)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary File 4
Table 3.
Table 3. Continued
Gender in Mexican Immigration
According to the United Nations, the percentage of female migrants worldwide has
increased 2.4 % between the years 1980 and 2005. The U.S. percent of female migrants has
declined by 3.2% between the years 1980 and 2005. Through the mid 1990’s, the large number
of male unauthorized migrants into the U.S. has outnumbered that of legal permanent
immigrants, making the U.S. the exception to the global trend toward feminization.
Mexican immigration broken down by gender: In 2004, Mexican born women accounted
for an estimated 1.1 million arriving in the previous five years, or about 42% of all recent
arrivals from Mexico. A Pew Hispanic Center analysis of the March 2005 Current Population
Survey shows that of an estimated 11.1 million unauthorized migrants, 58% of the adults were
male while 42% were female (Passel, 2006, p. 1). In contrast, females accounted for 52% of the
adult legal migrant population in 2005,” and males accounted for 48 percent (Fry, p 3). The U.S.
Census Bureau reported in July 2006, that the ratio for Hispanic males was 107 per every 100
Hispanic females. Figure 4 illustrates the percentages of authorized and unauthorized immigrant
migration by gender.
Figure 4.
In the United States gender composition creates a unique marker of the current migration
trends.
“It demonstrates the extent to which migration to the U.S. is distinguished
by a large and steady flow of males who enter the country, live and work here,
outside the framework of the legal immigration system. No other industrialized country
has experienced the same trend in the gender composition of its foreign-born population,
and none other has added to its foreign-born population as much by way of an
unauthorized flow of male workers” (Fry, p3).
Figure 5 depicts the recent Mexican arrival to the U.S. by gender for the years 1980 and 2004.
Figure 5.
Figure3: MexicanRecent ArrivalstoU.S. ByGender:
1980and2004
(InMillions)
1.6 1.5
1.4
1.2 1.1
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4 0.3
0.2
0
Year 1980 Year 2004 Year 1980 Year 2004
Females fromMexico Males fromMexico
Age Factors of Mexican Immigrants
In 1990, nearly 70 percent, 7 out of 10, Hispanics were younger than 35 years old with
“nearly 40% under the age of 20” (Pinal, 1990, p. 6)). In 2000 the median age of Hispanics was
26.0 years compared with 35.4 years for the total population, with one third of the Hispanic
population younger than 18. “Among Hispanic groups, people of Mexican . . . origin were most
likely to be younger than 18. Mexican Hispanics had a reported median age of 24.4. The median
age for the Hispanic population in 2008 was 27.4 years compared to 36.4 years of the total
population. For people of Mexican descent the median age was reported at 25.7 years (Ramirez,
2004, pg. 5).
The following tables, table depict the median age of all Hispanics as reported by the U.S.
Census Bureau’s population estimates and Facts for Feature reports for the years 1990 to 2006.
Figure 6 shows the median age of the Mexican Population in the U.S. in 2006. Mexican
Hispanics have a younger median age compared to the median age of the total Hispanic
population in 2006.
Table 4.
Resident Population Estimates of the United States by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999
Population Estimates
July July July July July July July July July
Age 1,1990 1,1991 1,1992 1,1993 1,1994 1,1995 1,1996 1,1997 1,1998 July 1,1999
Median Age (years) 27.8 27.9 28 28.2 28.1 28.3 28.4 28.5 28.7 28.8
All Races (National Mean
Age 40.4 40.5 40.6 40.7 40.8 36.7 37 37.3 37.6 37.9
http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/nat-srh.txt
Table 5.
Population Estimates April 1, 2000

Sex and Age July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, Estimates
Census
2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Base
.Median age (years) Both
Sexes
27.4 27.2 26.9 26.7 26.4 26.2 25.9 25.8 25.8
.Median age (years) Males
27.2 26.9 26.6 26.4 26.1 25.8 25.5 25.4 25.4
.Median age (years) Females
27.7 27.5 27.3 27.1 26.9 26.6 26.4 26.3 26.3
Total population 36.4 35.4
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2006/NC-EST2006-04-HISP.xls
Figure 6.
Age of the Mexican Population in the U.S. 2006
18-34
35-49
50+
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Survey of Mexican and Central American Immigrants in the United States August 8, 2007 Bendixen & Associates - MIF FOMIN
Undocumented Residents
There is a division of public opinions on the policies that deal with unauthorized migrants
in the U.S. There is increased national concern over this group because many view illegal
immigrants as being a drain on costs to taxpayers, and it is believed that immigrants are taking
jobs away from U. S. citizens. According to the poll, No Consensus on Immigration Problem or
Proposed Fixes, “53 % said people who are in the U.S. illegally should be required to go home,
while 40 % say they should be granted some kind of legal status that allows them to stay here”
(Pew Hispanic Center, March 30, 2006, p. 1). Nearly half of those surveyed who felt illegal
immigrants should be required to leave also said that some should be able to stay under a
temporary work program.
The Pew Hispanic Center reported that in March 2005 there were an estimated 11.1
million undocumented residents living in the United States. Out of the 11.1 million more than 6
million originated from Mexico. Between the years 1990 and 2005, “Unauthorized migrants
have accounted for about 80 to 85 percent of the increase,” in the average number of the
Mexican population in the United States (Passel, 2005, p. 2). An estimated 2.0 million - 26%
arrived between the years 1990 to 1994, 2.9 million – 18% between the years 1995 to 1999 and
4.4 million – 40% who arrived between the years 2000 to 2005 (Pew Hispanic Center- Fact
Sheet, 2006).
“Almost two thirds (68 percent) of the undocumented population lives in just eight states:
California (24 percent), Texas (14 percent), Florida (9 percent), New York (7 percent),
Arizona (5 percent), Illinois (4 percent), New Jersey ( 4 percent), and North Carolina (3
percent). . . But, since the mid-1990s the most rapid growth in the immigrant population
in general and the unauthorized population in particular has taken place in new settlement
states” (Passel, 2005, p. 11).
Figure 7 graphically depicts the numbers and percentages of the unauthorized migrants
between the years of 1990 and 2005. Table 6 lists the numbers of unauthorized migrants per
state based on the 2005 Current Population Survey. Figure 9 depicts the dispersion and
redistribution of unauthorized immigrants by states.
Figure 7.
Table 6.
Estimates of the Unauthorized Migrant Population for the States based on the March 2005 CPS
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Immigration Populations per State:
There is a trend of immigration dispersing and moving away from the six traditional
gateway states toward nontraditional settlement states. This is a result of the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 that granted amnesty to an estimated 3.0 illegal immigrants.
Their new legal status allowed immigrants freedom to move out and away from the six
traditional gateway states of California, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Texas.
This has also effected illegal immigration in that large numbers of illegal immigrants are
beginning to migrate to new settlement states (also known as second and third tier states), a large
percentage of them for reasons of family reunification in addition to economic factors.
The U.S. Census Bureau reported on March 5, 2008, that in 2006, there were 28.3 million
U.S. residents of Mexican origin, constituting 9 percent of the nation’s population. California
and Texas have the largest numbers of residents of Mexican origin in the United States followed
by New York and Florida. In 2006, 48 % of the Hispanic population resided in California (13.1
million) and Texas (8.4 million). In 2006 the number of people of Mexican origin living in
California was 10.84 million, and 7.02 million resided in Texas. Illinois, New Jersey, Arizona,
New Mexico, Colorado and Massachusetts all have significant proportions of Hispanic residents.
Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee have reported
increased rates of Hispanic population growth between the 1990 census and the 2000 census.
According to Rakesh Kochler’s, et al., report The New Latino South, “the Hispanic growth rates
continue to outpace the national average in the most recent census estimates: North Carolina at
394%, Arkansas at 337%, Georgia at 300%, Tennessee at 278%, South Carolina at 211% and
Alabama with 208%. Nevada was an exception with 217%,” between the years 1990 and 2000
(Kochler, 2005, p. 2).

In 1990 “. . . 9 out of every 10 Hispanics lived in just 10 states . . . with California,
Texas, New York, and Florida having the largest proportions” (Pinal, 1993, p.3). "Illegal
migrants [are moving away from] traditional states: Eighty-eight percent of the nation's illegal
immigrants lived in the six traditional settlement states for immigrants in 1990, but the same
states had only 61 percent of the total in 2004. In other words, an estimated 3.9 million
undocumented migrants lived in other states" (CQ Researcher, 2005, p. 400).
The U.S. Census Bureau reported on July 16, 2007 that 22 states including Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas,
Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming all reported Hispanics as the largest minority group
in their respective states. New Mexico reported in 2006, to have the highest percentage of the
population that was of Hispanic origin with 44%, the highest of any other state. California and
Texas followed with 36% and Arizona with 29%. In 2007 there were 15 states reporting to
have “at least a half million Hispanic residents” (U.S. Census Bureau, July 16, 2007, p. 2). The
15 states were Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington.
Modes of Entry for Unauthorized Migrants
There are a large percentage of unauthorized migrants in the U.S. who came to the
country legally and then overstayed their visas. The Pew Hispanic Center’s research report on
Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population, May 22, 2006, reported that nearly
half of the unauthorized migrants now living in the United States had entered legally through a
port of entry such as an airport or border crossing. The 2006 estimates for unauthorized migrants
were between 11.5 and 12 million. 45% (4 to 5.5 million) of the total migrant population entered
the U.S. with visas and remained in the country after the visa had expired. A smaller group,
roughly 250,000 to 500,000, entered legally using a Border Crossing Card. The remaining share
of unauthorized immigrants, 6 to 7 million, entered the country illegally by evading customs,
hiding in vehicles, wading across the Rio Grande, through the Arizona deserts, or other points
along the Mexican American border. Table 7 outlines the unauthorized migrants’ modes of
entry. Table 8 depicts the number of unauthorized migrants who are visa over-stayers.
Table 7.
Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population
Non-Immigrant Visa Overstayers 4 to 5.5 Million

Entered Legally with Inspection
Border Crossing Card Violators 250,000 to 500,000
Evaded the Immigration Inspectors

6 to 7 Million
Entered Illegally without Inspection and Border Patrol
Sub-total Legal Entries Sub-total Legal Entries
Estimated total Unauthorized Population in 2006 11.5 to 12 Million
Source: pew Hispanic Center Estimates based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey and Department
of Homeland Security reports.
Table 8.
Proportion of Unauthorized Migrants who are Visa Overstays
Country of Arrived Before Arrived Arrived Arrived
Total
Birth 1982 1982-88 1988-92 1992-96
Mexico 14% 13% 17% 18% 16%
Central America 21% 20% 29% 33% 27%
All Others 87% 93% 89% 90% 91%
Source: Pew Hispanic Center Estimates based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey and Department
of Homeland Security Reports.
Economics
Many in this country feel that the costs of immigration, at its current levels, are weighing
down on the U.S. economy. In 1997, “The National Academy of Sciences found that the net
fiscal drain on the American taxpayers is between $166 and $226 a year per native household,”
(FAIR, p. 1). According to a study conducted by the Manhattan Institute under the direction of
Edwin S. Rubenstein, each immigrant costs taxpayers over $9,000, and every immigrant
household of four costs $36, 000 in taxes in 2007.
Mexican Hispanics account for the largest group of immigrants entering the U.S. “From
the early 1990s. . , more than 1.1 million migrants came to the United States every year on
average. In the peak years of 1999 and 2000, the annual inflow was about 35% higher, topping
1.5 million. By the years 2002 and 2003, the number of Mexican Hispanics coming to the
country was 1.1 million” (Passell, p. 1). Immigration has had an impact on the American labor
force. The number of Mexican immigrants in the United States labor force increased from 2.6
million to 4.9 million for the years 1990 to 2000. Figure 10 illustrates the peak years of annual
migration into the U.S. for the years 1999 to 2000.

Figure 10.
The education level of Mexican immigrants is usually low compared to other immigrants
and to natives, as seen on figure 2. Out of all Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, 64.9%
of them have less than a high school education, and 1.1% have a graduate or professional degree.
Most immigrants take jobs that have low-level incomes. They have little trouble finding
work. Family and social networks play a significant role in this. They easily transition into new
jobs, and often find themselves working in industries that are new to them. Many are paid at
minimum-wage levels or below. It is not uncommon for these workers to experience relatively
long spells of unemployment. Table 9 lists the distribution of Mexican immigrants across
industries in the U. S. for both legal and illegal immigrants in 1999.
There is a steady and strong demand for migrant workers from Mexico for short-term
jobs. The major industries for Mexican immigrants include: construction, the leisure and
hospitality industry, and business services. The construction industry, which is the largest
employer of short-team illegal workers, employed more than 1.4 million illegal workers between
2000 and 2005. Construction is the dominant industry for employing migrants in Atlanta, Dallas
and Raleigh (Kochlar, p. 2).
The leisure and hospitality industry is the second largest employer of short-team illegal
workers. Between the years 2000 and 2005, about 1.2 million illegal migrant were employed in
the leisure and hospitality industry. The hospitality industry is the major employer of illegal
immigrants in New York City. The construction industry, and the leisure and the hospitality
industry combined, account for the employment of an estimated 40% of all short-term illegal
workers (Kochlar, p. 11)
The third group of short-term illegal workers, work in the field of business services.
During 2000 and 2005, over 0.85 million people worked in building maintenance, cleaning and
landscaping (0.35 million), manufacturing, mainly in Chicago (0.35million), wholesale and retail
(0.27 million), and education and health services (0.12 million) (Kochlar, pp. 11,12)
Table 9
Because of low education and skill levels, their salaries are lower than natives.
Despite the economic gains achieved by Mexican immigrants in the 1990s, they still lag behind the
rest of the population along nearly every economic indicator. Like poverty, the situation for legal
Mexicans is much better than for those in the country illegally.
The average income of legal Mexican immigrants is only 67 percent that of natives. For
example, the typical weekly earnings of full-time Hispanic workers was about $396 per week in
2000. The weekly earnings of full-time native workers were $591 per week. In 2000, the native
unemployment rate was 3.5 percent, compared to 5.7 percent among Hispanics. There is a high
cost for cheap immigrant labor. It causes huge wage reductions that in turn generate the net gain
for employers and others. The fiscal cost created by immigrant households was estimate by the
National Research Council to be between $11 and $12 billion dollars per year. This is large
enough to offset the modest economic gains that come from access to immigrant labor.
The National Research Council in 1997 found that during the course of a Mexican immigrant’s
lifetime, the average immigrant without a high school degree will use more than $89,000
dollars in public services than he pays in taxes. For a high school degree the figure is $31,000,
and with a college education paying considerably more in taxes than they use in services.
Because so many immigrants are poor and uneducated, the fiscal effect is negative. It means
that when the fiscal effects of low-skill immigrants are considered, immigration reduces the
wages of most vulnerable Americans and creates an added fiscal burden for American
taxpayers. This burden is large enough to offset any economic gain resulting from lower
wages for the unskilled.
Jobs promote immigration of Mexican workers into the United State. These same immigrant
families will build in the U.S., and they will have children here. Their high rates of poverty increase
substantially the total size of poor population in the U.S. Mexican immigrants and their U.S-born
children under age 18 account for 4.2 percent of the nation’s total population, they account for 10.2
percent of the nation’s total poor population in 2001.
The current levels of immigration, including Mexican immigrants, are widening the gap
between the rich and the poor. The official definition of poverty developed by the federal
government in 1964 considers a person to be in poverty if the family in which he resides has pre-tax
cash income below an officially determined threshold (based on the size of the family). Poverty
rates are important in providing insight into Mexican immigration’s impact on the United States
economy.
Mexican immigrants have very high poverty rates. In 1999, 16.8% of all immigrants lived
in poverty, more than double the rate of natives. Approximately one in four Mexican immigrants
lives in poverty, compared to about one in ten natives, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The
U.S. Census Bureau reported a 23% poverty rate in 2006 for people of Mexican Heritage.
Due to the high poverty rate of Mexican immigrants, food stamps are important in
helping families get through difficult times. In 1996, 4.7 million Latinos received food stamps.
In March 2001, 17.3 million people, mostly children, benefited from food stamps. The maximum
permissible benefit for a family of four is $434 per month. The average benefit was less than
$75 per person per month. For states like California, one - quarter of poor immigrant families
use food stamps, compared to 36 percent of the state’s poor native families.
U. S. Immigration Policies and Laws
IRCA - The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), “. . . referred to in Mexico as
the Simpson – Rodino Law,” was signed by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986
(Castaneda, p) The IRCA granted amnesty to an estimated 3 million illegal Mexican residents
and allowed an estimated 2 million documented Mexicans to apply for legal status. In 1996 the
largest number of these now legal permanent residence, became citizens. The three main
provisions of the IRCA included:
1) Legalization of a portion of the undocumented population, thereby reducing the number of
illegal aliens.
2) Sanctions against employers hiring illegal aliens knowingly
3) Additional border enforcement to impede further unlawful entries
(Becker, p 15)
Under the IRCA, Mexican migrants gained temporary residence assisting them to move
closer toward becoming permanent residents. Over 3 million illegal Mexican migrants became
American citizens without losing their Mexican nationality. The process took ten years to
complete (Castaneda, p. 20). The act identified two groups that were eligible to apply for
legalization:
1) Illegal aliens who entered into US illegally before January 1, 1982 or entered into
the US on temporary visas before January 1, 1980.
2) Special Agricultural Workers (SAW); most of these workers were migrants from
Mexico who worked in perishable agricultural commodities for a minimum of ninety
days between May 1, 1985 and May 1, 1986. The reason for creation of this group was
that fruit and vegetable farmers feared that they would lose their workers.
The path to legalization included:
1) Applying for legalization
2) Temporary residence - 5 years
3) Permanent residence - 5 years
4) Citizenship
(Becker, p 15)
“The impact of IRCA was much more concentrated with respect to legal immigration
than naturalization.” (Rytina, 2002). In 1996, Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR), made legal by
IRCA, represented 40% of all immigrants in 1989 and 1991, 75% of which were Mexican. In
1996, IRCA peaked with one-quarter million LPRs becoming citizens.
Prior to IRCA the 1986 double standard in hiring workers prohibited unauthorized
workers from working, but permitted employers to hire them. Post IRCA, the 1986 standard put
the burden of proof on employers to demonstrate that employees had valid proof of identity and
proof of authorization to work. Since employers had to verify eligibility/identity as outlined by
IRCA 1986, some illegal workers started to assume the identities of individuals whose status
could be documented.
Negative impacts of the IRCA 1986 include, identity theft, false credit charges, false
credit report entries and social security usage of legal residents by unauthorized workers (Becker,
p16). Despite the IRCA's employer sanctions, because of the loopholes unauthorized
employment continued. Post IRCA 1986, forged documents became an industry in the U.S.
(Castaneda, p29).
Post – IRCA border enforcement, together with, interior policies resulted in Mexican
population growth in the U.S., since those policies discouraged the immigrants from going back
to Mexico every year as they had been doing before. (Castaneda, p37)
1993 Negative Public Opinions on Immigration in the U.S.
1993 was a time of increasing negative public opinion on the issue of immigration in the
United States in response to such tragic stories of illegal immigrants in the news such as the story
featured in the March 8, 1993 issue of Time magazine, Terror Hits Home - Search for the Tower
Bomber. The article described how terrorists, under the leadership of an illegal alien who had
entered the country with a false Iraqi passport, had bombed the World Trade Center on February
26, 1993, killing 5 people and injuring over 1, 000 others. This was soon followed by the story
of the Golden Venture, an attempt to smuggle hundreds of Chinese immigrants into the United
States aboard a freighter, that ended when the freighter was deliberately run aground, forcing the
300 illegal aliens that were on board to have to swim ashore on June 6, 1993. deaths from
drowning and hyperthermia, 1993. Ten died as a result and the rest were detained by the INS.
Following the bombing of the World Trade Center, Americans began to express their
views on wanting stricter immigration rules. A New York/ CBS poll revealed that 61 % of the
population wanted to decrease immigration into the United States. An increase of 12 % from a
similar poll taken in 1986, the same year that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,
went into effect granting 2.5 million illegal immigrant’s legal status in the U.S. Mexican
immigrants made up the largest immigrant group in the U.S. in 1993, accounting for 9% (25.2
million) of the nations total population according to a U.S. Census Bureau report issued
September 1993.
Economic slow downs in cities with high immigrant populations added to the pressures
on legislators to change the immigration laws. “More critics were asking for fundamental
changes in the way immigration was governed as they believed that immigrants were imposing
economic, environmental and social burdens on the U.S. society” (Cooper, p. 1). Governor Pete
Wilson of California and California Senator Barbara Boxer blamed immigrants for imposing
high costs to their states for free schooling, health care and other public services. Governor
Wilson claimed that immigrants, specifically illegal immigrants cost the state more in public
services then they gave back. On June 18, 1993 Orange County, California called for a three
year halt to immigration. California’s claims increased negative public attention to illegal
immigrants crossing the U.S. – Mexican border across the United States (Cooper, p. 2).
Operation Hold the Line and Operation Gatekeeper 1993
“Operation Hold the Line in El Paso, begun in 1993, and Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego
last year apparently led to a significant drop in apprehensions of illegal immigrants, the center
said. The analysis said fewer apprehensions reflected better deterrence.” (Clayton, p 1) The San
Diego and El Paso sectors are the two busiest crossing areas for illegal immigration from Mexico
(Rytina, 2002).
“The monthly average apprehensions had increased steadily until those two operations,
and in the last fiscal year, dropped by 19 percent, from more than 100,000 to about 81,500 for
the entire Mexican border. Because statisticians expected a continued substantial increase, "the
overall significance of the change caused by better border control was a reduction of . . . nearly
40 percent below the prevailing trend,'' the report said.” (Clayton, 1995) By comparison,
apprehensions decreased 73 percent in El Paso during the first full year of the crackdown there.
“Immigration and Naturalization Service spokesman James Michie said the agency agreed with
the report's conclusion that "the border can be controlled'' and "is always pleased to receive
constructive analysis and recommendations” (Clayton, 1995). An important affect of operations
Hold the Line and Gatekeeper was that it moved the border crossings from the west in California
to the borders of Arizona
IIRIRA: Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
On September 30, 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRIRA) became law. In an effort to reduce illegal immigration, the IIRIRA included the
following among its many provisions:

i) Required doubling the number of US Border Patrol agents to five thousand by 2001 and
increasing equipment and technology at air and land ports of entry.
ii) Authorized improvements of southwest border barriers.
iii) Toughened penalties for immigrant smuggling (up to ten years in prison, fifteen years for
third and subsequent offenses) and document fraud (up to fifteen years in prison)
iv) Increased the number of INS investigators for work site enforcement, tracking aliens who
overstayed visas, and investigating alien smuggling
v) Instituted a new "expedited removal" proceeding (denial of an alien's entry into the United
States without a hearing) to speed deportation of aliens with no documents or with fraudulent
documents.
vi) Authorized three voluntary pilot programs to enable employers to verify the immigrant status
of job applicants and to reduce the number and types of documents for identification and
employment eligibility.
vii) Instituted a bar on admissibility for aliens seeking to reenter the United States after having
been unlawfully present in the country-a bar of three years and a bar of ten years for those
unlawfully present for more than a year.
William J. Clinton
During his leadership, President Clinton took steps in order to deter illegal immigration.
On May 3, 1995 a press release from the Office of the Press Secretary of the White House
briefed the public on Immigration Enforcement Improvements Act of 1995 which was sent to the
congress. It expressed that the doors of America would be open to immigrants as it has always
been but laws should be enforced to oversee the flow of immigrants by including a statement
from President’s 1995 State of the Union Message: “We are a nation of immigrants. But we are
also a Nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to
permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do
more to stop it”. (William J. Clinton Foundation, May 03, 1995) Parallel to the efforts to reduce
immigration of the states such as California, he did not support a guest worker program. On June
23, 1995, Presidential Statement on New Guest Worker Program listed the reasons for his
opposition as follows:
i) It would increase illegal immigration
ii) It would reduce work opportunities for U.S. citizens and other legal residents
iii) It would depress wages and work standards for American workers (William J.
Clinton Foundation, June 23, 1995).
In 1996 border patrol was empowered, sensors were installed and 40 miles of 14 – foot fences
were built in order to deter illegal immigration. While implementing stricter policies regarding
border control President Clinton had a different approach towards the illegal Mexican
immigrants who were already present in the US: He became the first US president to visit
Mexico since 1979. He promised the Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo that he would avoid
mass deportations (PBS).
NAFTA 1994
On January 01, 1994 NAFTA was signed into law by the Clinton administration. Border
enforcement was increased at the same time. NAFTA has exacerbated the economic crisis of
1976, 1982, 1987-88, 1994-95 in Mexico and the need for low wage and low skill labor need of
the US economy in the same period when it was experiencing an economic expansion.
Countryside in Mexico was being de-structured by the trade and liberalization since 1985; farms
had changed and agriculture's share in GDP had dropped. NAFTA intensified this trend
(Castaneda, p 30). Clinton administration prevented further integration of labor markets by
increasing the border enforcement while integrating other North American markets (Castaneda,
p. 36). One of the most important elements of NAFTA during the talks in the US Congress was
on immigration: NAFTA would stop the illegal immigration. Clearly it did not serve this purpose
well (Castaneda, p55). In her Report on Twelve Years of NAFTA Teresa Chavez [DODS]
writes that: NAFTA has caused massive emigration; "...people have had to leave their families
and all of their traditions. They have exchanged them for the stereotypical American dream"
(Ojeda. p 91).
Oil and Immigration:
During the talks of NAFTA in 1992 – 1993 immigration issue could gain the bilateral
characteristic if it was demanded by Mexico. U.S. would ask for more access for Mexico’s
energy resources in return. This was not a favorable situation by Mexico and it was not brought
to the table (Castaneda, p52).
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 set forth the
following changes to U.S. immigration law:
• A distinction was introduced for the purpose of this relief between applicants who were
lawful permanent residents and those with no legal status in the United States;
• Renamed deportation proceedings and exclusion proceedings as "removal proceedings";

• Major changes to the immigration consequences of criminal cases;
• Mandatory detention for immigrants convicted of certain crimes;
• A permanent bar to permanent residence for those who falsely claimed to be U.S. citizens
• Authorization for the U.S. Attorney General to hire at least 1,000 new Border Patrol
agents and 300 new support personnel each year from 1997-2001.
Welfare Reform Law of 1996
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 was signed into law
(which is known as Welfare Reform Law of 1996) to ensure that welfare benefits did not serve
as incentives for immigration and immigrants admitted into the United States were self reliant.
While most of the public benefits remained available to naturalized citizens, non-citizen aliens
became ineligible for most of those benefits. They were barred from participating in federal
programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps,
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Medicaid. Public assistance responsibility was shifted
from the federal government to the states. Illegal immigrants were already ineligible for most
major welfare programs (Becker, p21).
Restoration of Government Benefits:
On August 15, 1997 Balanced Budget Act passed. SSI and Medicaid benefits were restored to
those who had received these benefits before the Welfare Reform passed. “The non-citizen
Benefit Clarification and Other Technical Amendments Act of 1998 amended the welfare reform
law, requiring that nonqualified aliens who were receiving SSI and Medicaid benefits on August
22, 1996” (Becker, p 22).

Food Stamps
In 1997, with food stamp restriction, 940,000 of 1.4 million legal immigrants receiving
food stamps lost their eligibility. Nearly one-fifth was immigrant children. 1997 - 1998 14 states
created food stamp programs that served about one quarter of this immigrant group. The
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 and the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 restored access to many legal immigrants (Becker, p 22).
States Views and Policy on Immigration
Individual states have a difference of opinion on the issue of immigration in their
individual states. States like California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico with large numbers of
Mexican immigrants take a more anti-immigrant approach to this issue. States such as Nebraska
who relies on immigration for employing workers in its meatpacking industry and the state of
Georgia with its SR 1426, requesting the U.S. Congress to continue a legal pathway for
immigration, both maintain pro-immigration views.
Proposition 187
California approved Proposition 187 which prohibited illegal aliens receiving any welfare
services, education and emergency healthcare. It required local law enforcement, educators,
medical professionals, and social service workers to report suspected illegal aliens. Producing
and distributing fraudulent documents became a state felony punishable by up to five years in
prison (Castaneda, p 27).
District Judge Marian R. Pafaelzer ruled Proposition 187’s provision denying elementary
and secondary education for children as unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court decision in
Plyler v. Doe. In March 1998 Pfaelzer permanently revoked restrictions Proposition 187
imposed. (Becker, p 27)
Even though Proposition 187 was not upheld, it helped to set the stage for a national
debate on immigration and major legislation in Congress and “inspired a national campaign to
curb government spending on legal immigrants” (Rodriguez, 245).
In 1994 large numbers of permanent residents, who historically had the lowest rate of
naturalization of any immigrant group, began enrolling in citizenship classes. “The Los Angeles
Unified School District, the largest provider of such courses in the nation, experienced
enrollments rates that were three times higher than the previous year and one hundred times
higher than the average for the previous eight years.” (Rodriquez, 244) “Between 1992 and
1996, the number of citizenship applicants in California rose by 500 percent. By April 1995, the
Los Angeles district office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service was receiving 2,200
applications for citizenship a day” (Rodriquez, pp 244-245). Mexico was the leading country of
origin for naturalized immigrants with a 212 percent increase in naturalizations from the
previous year (Rodriguez, 245). This increase can also be contributed in part to IRCA.
"When, in the early 1990s, California Senator Pete Wilson pushed for and later achieved
as governor, the legal entry of tens of thousands of agricultural workers into his state, and then,
again as governor, tried to drive them out through Proposition 187 once his state started suffering
from its downsizing of its aerospace industries..." (Castaneda, p 39).
Proposition 200
In November 2004 Proposition 200 was voted and approved in Arizona. Proposition 200
required proof of citizenship when registering and applying for public benefits and it required
public employees to report suspected undocumented immigrants. "The Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund filed a suit to block the implementation of Proposition 200. In
December 2004 the U.S. district judge David Bury lifted a temporary order barring
implementation of Proposition 200, which allowed it to become law in Arizona." (Immigration
and Illegal Aliens p 27).
SR 1426
Georgia passed the SR 1426 resolution which said that Georgia recognized the great
value of continued immigration into the state (Immigration and Illegal Aliens p 28). It further
stated that "the state of Georgia benefited greatly from immigrants who seek to make the United
States and Georgia their home and the hard work and financial contributions of immigrants have
created a healthier life for immigrants as well as native-born immigrants" (Georgia SR 1426,
March 30, 2006).
Mexican Immigration Becoming a Shared Responsibility:
Until the beginning of the year 2000 Mexican immigration to the US was seen as the
matter of the US only. Views of the United States of Mexico did not exist in the immigration
policy making process. It was purely US domestic issue. A panel by the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace produced “Mexico – U.S. Migration: A Shared Responsibility, calling the
both governments to start talks on immigration since the long immigration history between the
two countries in fact sufficed the means of bilateral policy making. This meant Mexico would be
a side in the matters of its citizens who moved to the US. The panel also recommended that the
Bush administration to legalize the undocumented immigrants which could be made possible
through different ways. Maximizing of participation of eligible Mexicans was also
recommended. Panel’s message included four elements:

1) Conversion of unauthorized workers into legal temporary workers,
2) Provide mechanisms for those who can meet reasonable criteria to earn legal
permanent residence,
3) Offer long term undocumented populations immediate legal permanent residence
status,
4) Negotiate a temporary labor program.
In the light of this panel formed by scholars, religious and community leaders, the Joint
Statement by President George Bush and President Vicente Fox Towards a Partnership for
Prosperity first outlaid that migration from Mexico to the US was a bilateral issue (Castaneda,
Pg, 79) on February 16, 2001 (Castaneda, 78). The statement read: “…Migration is one of the
major ties that bind our societies. It is important that our policies reflect our values and needs,
and that we achieve progress in dealing with this phenomenon. We believe that Mexico should
make the most of the skills and productivity of their workers at home, and we agree there should
be an orderly framework for migration which ensures humane treatment, legal security, and
dignified labor conditions. For this purpose, we are instructing our Governments to engage, at
the earliest opportunity, in formal high-level negotiations aimed at achieving short and long-term
agreements that will allow us to constructively address migration and labor issues between our
two countries. This effort will be chaired by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General of
the U.S. and the Secretary of Foreign Relations and the Secretary of the Interior of Mexico…”
(Bush, 2001).
Joint Communiqué by the High Level Working Group 2001
On April 4, 2001, Mexico and the United States released a joint communiqué which
stated that two countries had begun the negotiations on bilateral migration. The communiqué was
prepared by the High Level Working Group. Purpose of the talks was to achieve a framework for
orderly, safe, legal and humane migration and for the protection of worker rights. This
communiqué was important as migration would be considered of issue both countries since the
achieving the framework was seen a shared responsibility to ensure that migration from Mexico
would create mutual benefit.
Joint Statement between the United States and the United Mexican States
On September 06, 2001 with a joint statement President Bush and President Fox both renewed
their commitment to new and realistic approaches to migration (The White House, September
06, 2001).
Finally, it seemed to be there was a big change in the neighbor countries’ relations which
would affect the millions of immigrants’ future. The door was opening for migrants to become
immigrants. To open that door was a big responsibility on the US administration’s shoulders
(Castaneda, p 81). It was not easy to reach an agreement which would satisfy both Mexico and
the parties in the Congress. Republicans were in favor of a guest program and democrats were in
favor of amnesty (Castaneda, p 85). Bush administration began to backtrack as it realized the
magnitude of the political investment in August 2001 and before September 11, 2001
(Castaneda, p 81).
September 11, 2001
On September 11, 2001 four passenger airplanes were hijacked by terrorists belonging to
terrorist organization Al Qaeda. Two planes crashed into World Trade Center bringing down the
twin towers, one hit Pentagon, and one crashed in Pennsylvania. After September 11, 2001 the
negotiations between the two countries were halted. Immigration issue and security issue was
tied to each other. The Mexican issue once again was the issue of the United States alone and
turned back into its unilateral form.
2001 U. S. Patriot Act - Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act
USA Patriot Act of 2001 became Public Law 107 – 56 on October 26, 2001. In the act the
purpose of it is stated as: “An act to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and
around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes” (U.S.
Patriot Act). After 9/11 it was understood that some of the terrorists had entered he U.S. legally
an overstayed their visas without any action taken by the INS. In order to end future violations
and to provide a thorough background check before admission into the US the act mandated the
increase the number of the personnel at the northern border, allocation of funds for technology
needs and giving the INS access to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal database.
INS was to begin to entering names of thousands of foreigners who had been ordered deported
and entering their names into the FBI database. It amended the INA, with the material support, to
detain alien or remove that alien from the country if that alien was soliciting membership or
funds to a terrorist organization.
It also directed the U.S. attorney general to implement an entry - exit system, with
particular focus on biometric information gathered during the visa application process and it
appropriated $36 million to monitoring system of foreign students. The act established
provisions to ensure that the immigration status of 9/11 victims and their families was not
adversely affected as a result of the attacks. The family members of some victims were facing
deportations (Becker pg, 24).
Smart Border Agreement
"Fox had brought up the security issue with Bush on their first talk after 9/11, at the
White House on October 4, 2001, and repeatedly during his conversations with the U.S. leader
throughout the United Nations Summit on Development Financing, held in Monterrey, Mexico,
in late March 2002. At that meeting, in the course of a seperate, bilateral encounter between the
two presidents, the two countries signed the Border Partnership Agreement (or "Smart Border
Agreement") that included twenty-two specific points on border issues, ports of entry, exchange
of information, etc., (ExMex, p. 96).
The agreement listed the U.S. – Mexico Border Partnership Action Plan under three
categories:
i) Secure Infrastructure
ii) Secure Flow of People
iii) Secure Flow of Goods
Item eleven of Secure Flow of People was a reaffirmation of mutual commitment to Border
Security. It asked Mexico to cooperate with the U.S. on stopping illegal immigration by
allocating the high ranked personnel and instutions (The White House).
Homeland Security Act of 2002
On November 25, 2002, Homeland Security Act of 2002 was signed into law. It was “an
act to establish the Department of Homeland Security and for other purposes” (The White
House). This act consolidated more than 20 agencies into one department employing over
170,000. INS was one of the agencies in the process of consolidation. Title IV, Section 402 of
the act immigration services and immigration law enforcement was separated: INS became the
USCIS and immigration enforcement became the ICE.
Border Security:
Section 402 of the act has outlined the responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Border
and Transportation Security which are preventing the entry of terrorists and the instruments of
terrorism into the United States, Securing the borders, territorial waters, ports, terminals,
waterways, and air, land and sea transportation systems of the United States, administering the
immigration and naturalization laws of the Unite States, administering the customs laws of the
United States, ensuring the speedy, orderly, and efficient flow of lawful traffic and commerce in
carrying out these responsibilities (Illegal Immigration and Aliens, pg 24).
Section 1011 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of
2003
May 2005, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finalized the guidance on
Section 1011 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.
$250 million from FY2005 to FY2008 allocated for treatment of unauthorized immigrants. The
states which received the highest allocations for the year 2005 were California, Texas, Arizona,
New York, Illinois and Florida. Undocumented aliens, aliens paroled into the United States at a
U.S. port of entry for the purpose of receiving such services, and Mexican citizens permitted
temporary entry to the U.S. were included. (Medicare Modernization Act, 2005)
Real ID Act of 2005
One of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission was that an improved and secure
identification should be created for all Americans. After Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 which asked new standards to be established for identification in 2005
Real ID Act was signed into law by President Bush. The act mandated federal standards for state
issued driver's licenses. Responsibility for driver's license passed to the Department of Homeland
Security from the Department of Transportation. The new law required DMV personnel to verify
the citizenship or immigration status before issuing a driver's license or non-driver's license.
By May 11, 2008 all states are to be certified for issuing licenses. After this date license issued
by non-certified states will not be accepted for federal purposes including boarding on an
airplane. (Becker, p25)
Change in a policy:
Decades old “Catch and Release” policy was ended by Department of Homeland
Security on October 18, 2005. Under this policy aliens “Other Than Mexicans (OTM)” who
illegaly entered the U.S. were apprehended but due to the lack of detention centers they were
released for a hearing. They would not come to the hearing most of the time. On the other hand,
Mexican aliens who entered the U.S. were being deported immediately. On April 16, 2007
Department of Homeland Security website reported the deportation time decrease from 45 days
to 90 days, no releases of OTMs due to lack of detention facilities or lack of bedspace and a
dramatic decrease in apprehensions of OTMs between the years 2005 and 2007 (Homeland
Security, August 30, 2007). The policy was replaced with “catch and return” where any alien
illegally entered the U.S. have ahd to be subject to apprehension, detention and deportation (The
White House, January 28, 2008).

Secure Fence Act of 2006
Secure Fence Act of 2006 was signed into law in order to implement necessary measures
to secure the southwestern border of the United Sates with Mexico. The measures included
hundreds of miles of more fences, more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, lighting and authorization
to the DHS to use advanced technology. (Becker, p 26)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Swift & Company raids:
As a result of increasing complaints, in an effort to crack down on identity theft ICE raided Swift
& Company a beef and pork processor headquartered in Colorado December 12, 2006. 1,282
illegal aliens were arrested and 65 people were arrested on criminal charges (Immigration and
Illegal Aliens pg 16). Illegal aliens submitted stolen identifications for employment at Swift
plants. The social security numbers of US citizens were verified in the Basic Pilot Employment
Eligibility System which was used by Swift since 1997 ( U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement).
President Bush’s said “The system we have in place has caused people to rely upon
smugglers and forgers in order to do work Americans aren’t doing. It is a system that, frankly,
leads to inhumane treatment of people.” (The New York Times, December 21, 2006).
Bush Administration and Comperehensive Immigration Reform
On August 3, 2006 President Bush urged the congress to pass the a Comperehensive
immigration reform bill and he explained what it should include:
i) Create a guest worker program that would establish a legal channel for foreign workers to
enter the country in an orderly way, for a limited time,

ii) Enforce our immigration laws at the worksite
iii) Resolve the status of illegal immigrants who are already in the country
iv) Help newcomers assimilate into our society (The White House, August 03, 2006)
On June 28, 2007 the Senate was not able to reach an agreement on a border security and
immigration reform bill. On January 28, 2008 President Bush addressed the nation on improving
border security and immigration . The Bush administration has increased border security and
immigration enforcement funding from $4.8 billion in 2001 to $12.3 billion in 2008. Border
Patrol agents has increased from 9,000 agents in 2001 to more than 15,000 in 2008. Department
of Homeland Security completed construction of 290 miles of pedestrian and vehicle fence
along the border. Apprehensions at the Southern Border decreased by 20 percent in 2007. (The
White House, January 28, 2006)
Former Federal Reserve Chairman’s Testimony
Remarks by Former Chairman Alan Greenspan, August 27, 2004, “Of course,
immigration, if we choose to expand it, could also lessen the decline of labor force growth in the
United States. As the influx of foreign workers that occurred in response to the tight labor
markets of the 1990s demonstrated, U.S. immigration does respond to evolving economic
conditions. But to fully offset the effects of the decline in fertility, immigration would have to be
much larger than almost all current projections assume.” (Greenspan, Alan).
Republicans and Democrats on Public Services to Illegal Aliens

National polls show that Republicans are almost twice more as likely as Liberal
Democrats to favor denying illegal aliens basic social services. On the other hand they approve
providing education to illegal alien’s children (Castaneda, p 10).
Findings
Immigration from Mexico according to the states migrants are choosing to move can be
classified in three groups: 1) Gateway states where the immigrants first arrive like (California,
New York, ,Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois, 2) Second-tier states where immigrants
increasingly tend to settle after their gateway states such as North Carolina, Georgia,
Washington, and Massachusetts, 3) Third - tier states where immigrants from Mexico go to
without staying in the traditional destinations including those who are coming directly from
Mexico. (Castaneda, pp 6-7)
A study of this data by Mr. Passel for the Pew Hispanic Center showed that while 58
percent of the immigrants who arrived in the United States since 2000 settled in 5 of the
traditional gateway states, 24 percent settled in 9 second-tier states (including Georgia,
Massachusetts and Washington) and 11 percent found homes in 11 third-tier states, many of
which have seen little immigration before (stretching from Connecticut to Minnesota to Nevada).
The current trends are showing a great increase of immigration in the second tiered states.
A study of this data by Mr. Passel for the Pew Hispanic Center showed that while 58 percent of
the immigrants who arrived in the United States since 2000 settled in 5 of the traditional gateway
states, 24 percent settled in 9 second-tier states (including Georgia, Massachusetts and
Washington) and 11 percent found homes in 11 third-tier states, many of which have seen little
immigration before (stretching from Connecticut to Minnesota to Nevada). Dispersion and

diffusion means the movement from California and Texas. Five factors deflected immigration
away from California in the second half of the 1990's:
1) Increase in the costs and risks of border-crossing in the San
Diego area,
2) A slow-down of the California economy,
3) A strong anti-immigration sentiment in the state (Governor Pete Wilson's support of Prop.
187to promote his reelection in 1994),
4) Mobility obtained through amnesty and legalization process between 1987 and 1992,
5) Economic boom in the US from 1992 onward.
“And while many of those first- and second-tier states saw the largest numbers of new
arrivals from Mexico, Mr. Passel found, it was some of the third-tier states that saw the largest
percentage increases: Alabama, South Carolina, Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania as
reported by Rick Lyman in the New York Times, August 15, 2006, Census Shows Growth of
Immigrants.
Increased border enforcement, policies and practices like Operation Gatekeeper have
moved the border crossing from west towards east. “The fences or walls, enhanced Border Patrol
surveillance overreaction to strident scenes broadcast on U.S. television in the mid-1990s of
Mexican immigrants swarming over the border then bobbing and weaving through the traffic on
the interstate highway from San Ysidro and San Diego, all converged to create an unwanted but
not unexpected result. Instead of crossing roughly in the area comprised between the sea to the
west and the Tijuana airport to the east migrants were being squeezed inland, first into the
mountains of eastern California, and subsequently, into the desert of western and central
Arizona” (Castaneda, 58).

The dangers entailed by rough terrain brought about tragic, unforeseen consequences:
1) People began to die by 1997; more than one person loses his life everyday. By the year 2000,
500 people were dying every year, because of dehydration, sunstroke, snakebite, and
exposure.
2) As the difficulties increased the price of smuggling people increased and it turned into
organized crime (roughly 1000 dollars per head 1000 crossings per day equals to 365 million
dollars).
3) Most important circularity came to an end; apprehensions are declining (as fewer people are
caught at the border, because fewer are coming and going).
From 1996 onward Mexicans began to stay instead of returning home for half of the year
and bringing their families to the US instead of leaving them at home. (Castaneda, p 59)
Although gateway states are still absorbing the biggest numbers of immigrants, movement to
second – tier and third – tier states is increasing as a result of legalization and amnesty by IRCA
1986, pro - immigrant laws passed by some of those states like the SR 1426 in Georgia and
increasing existence of family and friends in the same states.
Conclusion
The circulatory nature of Mexican immigration is coming to a halt. The legislation being passed
in the U.S. at the federal and state level, is calling for stricter enforcement of immigration laws
and border enforcement on both legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico. As a result, many
Mexican immigrants are remaining in the U.S. for fear they will not be able to return. As more
immigrants remain in the U.S. there is a trend of dispersion as they migrate out from the
historical gateway states to non-traditional settlement states. Mexican immigration is impacting
both the U.S. both culturally and economically, and legislation, both at the federal and state
level, are attempting to address the costs of this rapidly growing minority and the socioeconomic
impacts they bring with them.

References
Becker, Cynthia S. Kepos, Paula. (2005) Immigration and Illegal Aliens,
Burden or Blessing. Detroit. Thomson Gale.
Bendixin & Associates. (2007, August 8). Survey of Mexican and Central Americans in the
United States. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from Bendixin and Associates
http://www.iadb.org/news/docs/remitmex.pdf
Bush, George W. (2001, February 16). Joint Statement by President George Bush and
President Vicente Fox Towards a Partnership for Prosperity, The Guanajuato Proposal.
Office of the Press Secretary. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases
/2001/02/20010220-2.html
Camarota, Steven A. (2007, August). 100 Million More – Projecting the Impact of Immigration
on the U.S. Population, 2007 to 2060. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from the Center for
Immigration Studies. http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back707.html
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Mexico-U.S. Migration A Shared Responsibility.
(2001) http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pdf/files/M%20exicoReport2001.pdf
Castaneda, Jorge G. (2007). Ex Mex. New York. New Press.
Central Intelligence Agency. (April 15, 2008). The World Fact Book – United States.
Retrieved April 9, 2008, from the Central Intelligence Agency
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html
Clayton, William E Jr. (1995, June 1) Center for Immigration Studies - 'Our border can be
controlled,' says analysis of two crackdowns Study looks at El Paso and San Diego
The Houston Chronicle, June 1, 1995; p. A15 http://www.cis.org/articles/1995/

bordercoverage.html
Cooper, Mary H. (2005, May 6) Immigration Reform. Volume 15, Number 17, p. 400, May 6,
2005. Retrieved March 7, 2008, from CQ Researcher
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1993092400
Fry, Richard. (2008). Gender and Migration. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from the Pew Hispanic
Center. http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=64
GreenBlatt, Alan. (February 1, 2008). Immigration Debate. Volume 18, Number 5. pp 99-119
Retrieved March 7, 2008, from CQ Researcher www.cqresearcher.com
Greenspan, Alan (2004, August 27) Remarks by Alan Greenspan A Symposium Sponsored by
the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,
http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/Speeches/2004/20040827/default.htm
Homeland Security. (August 30, 2007). Success Stories: DHS Officially Ends
“Catch and Release” Policy. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from Department of Homeland
Security http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/stories001.shtm
Jernegan, Kevin. (February 2005). A New Century: Immigration and the US. Retrieved
February 2, 2008, from the Migration Information Source
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/print.cfm?ID=283.
Katel, Peter. (2005, May 6) . Illegal Immigration. 385-418. The CQ Researcher, Volume 15,
Number 17, p. 400, May 6, 2005.
Hoefer Michael, Nancy Rytina, and Christopher Campbell., (August 2007). Estimates of the
Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2006.
Retrieved March 5, from Pew Hispanic Organization.
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/17.pdf
Kochlar, Rakesh (2005. December 6). The Economic Transition to America. Pew Hispanic
Center Reports and Fact Sheets. http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=58
Krueger, Alan B., Orszag ,Jonathan M. (2002,January 24) Hispanics and the Current Economic
Downturn: Will The Receding Tide Sink Hispanics? Pew Hispanic Center
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=3
Lyman, Rick. (2006, August 15). Census Shows Growth of Immigrants. New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/us/15census.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=sl
ogin
Masci, David., (July 14, 2000). Debate Over Immigration. Volume 10, NO. 25 pp 569-592.
Retreived March 7, 2008, from CQ Researcher www.cqresearcher.com
Medicare Modernization Act- Section 1011 (May 9, 2005) Emergency Health Services for
Undocumented Aliens. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?
Counter=1452
Meisenheimer, Joseph. (1992) How Do Immigrants Fare in the U. S. Labor Market? Monthly
Labor Review http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1992/12/art1abs.htm
New York Times Editorial. (December 21, 2006). Mr. Bushes Immigration Realism. Retrieved
April 28, 2008, from The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/opinion/21thu3.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogi
n&oref=slogin
Ojeda, Martha A., Hennesy, Rosemary., (2006) NAFTA from Below. Coalition for Justice
in the Maquiladuras, San Antonio. TX p. 91
Passel, Jeffrey S., Suro, Roberto., (2005 September 27). Rise, Peak, and Decline:
Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992- 2004. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from Pew Hispanic
Center Reports http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53.
Passel, Jeffrey S. (2005, March 25) Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the
Undocumented Population. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from the Pew Hispanic Center –
Reports. http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf.
PBS. (April 29, 2008). Interactive Time Line: Border History. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from
PBS http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/interactive-timeline.html.
Pew Hispanic Center. (2006). A Statistical Portrait of the Foreign-Born Population at Mid-
Decade. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from the Pew Hispanic Center Reports
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/foreignborn2006/foreignborn.pdf
http://pewhispanic.org/docs/print.php?DocID=11
Pew Hispanic Center. (2006). A Statistical Portrait of the Foreign-Born Population at Mid-
Decade. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from the Pew Hispanic Center Reports
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/foreignborn2006/Table-12a.pdf
Pew Hispanic Center (May 22, 2006). Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population.
Retrieved March 5, 2008, from the Pew Hispanic Center Reports.
Pew Hispanic Center. (2006, April 5). Recently Arrived Migrants and the Congressional
Debate on Immigration. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from Pew Hispanic Center Reports
and Fact Sheets. http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/15.pdf
Pew Hispanic Center. (April 13, 2006). The Labor Force Status of Short-Term Unauthorized
Workers . Retrieved March 5, 2008, from Pew Hispanic Center Reports and Fact Sheets.
Pew Hispanic Center. (April 26, 2006). Estimates of the Unauthorized Migrant Population
Based on March 2005 CPS. Retreived March 3, 2008, from the Pew Hispanic Center
Reports and Factsheets. http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/17.pdf
Pew Hispanic Center. (March 30 2006). No Consensus on Immigration Problem or Proposed
Fixes – Americas Immigration Quandary. Retreived March 5, 2008, from Pew
Hispanic Center Survey Reports
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1045
Pinal, Jorge del. et. al. (1993, September) We the American. . . Hispanics. Retrieved March 13,
2008, from the U. S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics
Administration, Bureau of the Census. http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-2r.pdf
Ramirez, Roberto R., et. al. (2004, December) We the People: Hispanics in the United States.
Retrieved March 13, 2008. from the U. S. Department of Commerce Economics and
Statistics Administration, U. S. Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
Robinson, Mary. (2006 September) Rethinking Global Migration New Realities, New
Opportunities, New Challenges
http://steinhadt.nyu.edu/igems/CONFERENCE/program.html
Rodriguez, Gregory. (2007). Mongrels, Bastards, Orphans, and Vagabonds. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Rytina, Nancy. (2002, October 5). IRCA Legalization Effects – Lawful Permanent Residence
and Naturalization through 2001. Office of Policy and Planning Statistics Division U. S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Senate Resolution 1426, Georgia State. (March 30, 1006). Retrieved April 20, 2008, from
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/pdf/sr1426.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008, March 5). Facts for Features-Cinco de Mayo. Retrieved March 28,
2008, from the U.S. Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives
/facts_for_features_special_editions/011613.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2007, July 16). Facts for Features-Hispanic Heritage Month 2007.
Retrieved April 10, 2008, from the U.S. Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/Press-
Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010327.html
U.S. Census Bureau. ( 2007, May 17). Minority Population Tops 100 Million.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/010048.html
U.S. Census Bureau Population (2001, January 2) Estimates of the United States by Sex, Race,
and Hispanic Origin: April1, 1990 to July1, 1999. Retrieved March 13, 2008 from
http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/nat-srh.txt
U.S. Census Bureau Population (2006, July 1) Estimates of the United States by Sex, Race,
and Hispanic Origin: April1, 2000 to July1, 2006. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/
U.S. Department of Commerce (1992, October) We Asked You. . . Told Us Hispanic Origin.
Retrieved March 5, 2008 from U.S. Bureau of the Census
http://www.census.gov/apsd/qc/cqc7.pdf
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(December 13, 2006), News Releases, U.S.
Uncovers Large-Scale Identity Theft Scheme Used By Illegal Aliens to Gain Employment
at Nationwide Meat Processor - Worksite enforcement investigation reveals that
hundreds of U.S. citizens and lawful residents may have been victimized, from the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement website:
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/061213dc.htm.
U.S. Patriot Act (2001, October 26) Public Law 107-56 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf
Warren, Robert. (2000 August 21). Labor Market Characteristics of Mexican Immigrants in
the United States Office of Policy and Planning U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
William J. Clinton Foundation. (May 03, 1995). Fact Sheet On Immigration Enforcement Act.
Retrieved April 30, 2008, from the William J. Clinton Foundation
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/050395-fact-sheet-on-immigration-
enforcement-act.htm
William J. Clinton Foundation. (June 23, 1995). Presidents Statement on New Guest Worker
Program. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from the William J. Clinton Foundation
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/062395-presidential-statement-on-new-
guestworker-program.htm.
The White House, A Bill. Homeland Security Act of 2002, from The White House Website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/bill/index.html
The White House, George W. Bush. (not dated) Smart Border: 22 Point Agreement U.S.
Mexico Border Partnership Action Plan Retrieved April 25, 2008, from The White
House Website :http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/usmxborder/22points.html
The White House, George W. Bush, Vicente Fox. Joint Statement bewtween the United States
and The United Mexican States. September 06, 2001, from The White House Website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010906-8.html
The White House, George W. Bush. ( August 03, 2006) Fact Sheet Operation Jump Start:
Acting
Now to Secure the Border, from the White House Website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060803-7.html
The White House, George W. Bush. (January 28, 2008), Comprehensive Immigration Reform,
The State of the Union Address January 28, 2008. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from The
White House Web Site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/immigration/.

Figures
Figure 1 Hispanics, by Type of Origin: 1990. U.S. Bureau of the Census, We Asked . . . You
Told us, (October, 1992) http://www.census.gov/apsd/cqc/cqc7.pdf . p. 2
Figure 2: Hispanic Population by Origin 2000 Ramirez, Roberto R., et. al. (2004, December)
We the People: Hispanics in the United States. U. S. Department of Commerce
Economics and Statistics Administration, U. S. Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf. p. 3.
Figure 3. Nativity and Citizenship Status of Mexican Hispanics in the U.S. for 1990 and 2000.
Source of chart includes: Pinal, Jorge del. et. al. (1993, September) We the American. . .
Hispanics. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from the U. S. Department of Commerce
Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census.
http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-2r.pdf p. 6.
Ramirez, Roberto R., et. al. (2004, December) We the People: Hispanics in the United
States. Retrieved March 12, 2008. from the U. S. Department of Commerce Economics
andStatistics Administration, U. S. Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf p. 8.
Figure 4. Immigrant Migration by Gender. Fry, Richard. (2008). Gender and Migration.
Retrieved March 5, 2008, from the Pew Hispanic Center.
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=64 p. 3.
Figure 5. Mexican Recent Arrival to U.S. by Gender: 1980 and 2004
Fry, Richard. (2008). Gender and Migration. Pew Hispanic Organization. p.3
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=64 p. 8.
Figure 6. Age if the Mexican Population in the U.S. in 2006. Bendixin & Associates (2007,
August 8) Survey of Mexican and Central Americans in the United States Retrieved
April 15, 2008 from http://www.iadb.org/news/docs/remitmex.pdf p. 4
Figure 7. Most Unauthorized Arrived Since 1990. Passel, Jeffrey S. (2005, March 25) Estimates
of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population.
Retrieved March 14, 2008, from the Pew Hispanic Center -Reports.
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf p. 9.
Figure 8. Unauthorized Concentrated but Also Dispersing Passel, Jeffrey S. (2005, March 25)
Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population. Retrieved
March 14, 2008, from the Pew Hispanic Center -Reports.
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf. p. 10
Figure 9. Major Redistribution Away From Big 6 Settlement States. Passel, Jeffrey S.
(2005,March 25) Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented
Population. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from the Pew Hispanic Center -Reports.
Figure 10. Annual Migration to the U.S. Peaked in 1999 – 2000. Passel, Jeffrey S., Suro,
Roberto., (2005 September 27). Rise, Peak, and Decline:
Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992- 2004. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from Pew Hispanic
Center Reports http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53. p. 3.

Tables
Table 1. Summary Table A. Average Annual Immigration for 1992 - 2004 by Placed of Birth,
by Legal Status, by Race/Hispanic Origin Based on CPS and ACS and Census 2000
/Data. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from Pew Hispanic Center
Table 2. Fertility in the Past Year by Region of Birth: 2006. A Statistical Portrait of the
Foreign-Born Population at Mid-Decade. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from the Pew
Hispanic Center Reports
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/foreignborn2006/Table-12a.pdf
Table 3. Foreign Born by State and Region of Birth in the United States, 2006: Pew Hispanic
Center. (2006). A Statistical Portrait of the Foreign-Born Population at Mid-Decade.
Retrieved March 5, 2008, from the Pew Hispanic Center Reports
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/foreignborn2006/Table-12a.pdf p. 1.
Table 4. Resident Population Estimates of the United States by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin:
April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999 U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Retrieved
March 5, 2008 from the U.S. Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/nat-srh.txt pp. 1 , 2
Table 5. Table 4: Annual Estimates of the Hispanic or Latino Population by Age and Sex for the
United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Population Estimates Retrieved March 5, 2008, from
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2006/NC-
EST2006-04-HISP.xls pp. 1,2.

Table 6. Estimates of the Unauthorized Migrant Population for the States based on the March
2005 CPS. Pew Hispanic Center. (April 26, 2006). Estimates of the Unauthorized
Migrant Population Based on March 2005 CPS. Retreived March 3, 2008, from the Pew
Hispanic Center Reports and Factsheets. http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/17.pdf
p. 1.
Table 7 Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population. Pew Hispanic Center
(May 22, 2006). Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population.
Retrieved March 5, 2008, from the Pew Hispanic Center Reports.
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf. p. 1
Table 8. Proportion of Unauthorized Migrants who are Visa Overstays. Pew Hispanic Center
(May 22, 2006). Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population. Retrieved
March 5, 2008, from the Pew Hispanic Center Reports.
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf. p. 4.
Table 9. Occupation by Region of Birth: 2006. Pew Hispanic Center. (2006). A Statistical
Portrait of the Foreign-Born Population at Mid-Decade. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from
the Pew Hispanic Center Reports
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/foreignborn2006/Table-24.pdf. p. 1.

Immigration Research Paper

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Immigration Research Paper

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

The Micro-History of Mexican Immigration in the United States 1

The Micro-History of Mexican Immigration in the United States

A Review of Mexican Immigration for the years 1993 to Present

Abdurrahman Haldun Unal

Dr. Annette Craven

April 30, 2008

The Micro-History of Mexican Immigration in the United States

Purpose of the Study

Centers for Immigration Studies, Department of Homeland Security, United Nations

from Mexican immigration..

legislation, that have effected or impacted Mexican immigration in the U. S.

impact on Mexican immigration in the U.S.

total U.S. population.

highest percentages of Hispanic immigrants.

country, has had a direct effect on immigration and immigration policies.

Demographics - U.S. Mexican Immigration

15.7 Other Hispanic

5.1 South American

Mexican 59.3 3.5 Cuba

Source: U.S. Census 2000 Summary File 4

# Status at time of survey

Source: Pew Hispanic Center 2005, Detailed Tables1a-1c

attributed to the rapid increase of Mexican Hispanics in the United States.

depicts the percent of foreign born Mexican Hispanics in the U.S.

U.S. population by state.

Nativity and Citizenship Status of Mexicans Hispanics in

Native Foreign born, naturalized citizen Foreign born, not a citizen

Year 2000 58.5 9.2 32.2

Year 1990 64.2 7.5 25.8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Gender in Mexican Immigration

“It demonstrates the extent to which migration to the U.S. is distinguished

unauthorized flow of male workers” (Fry, p3).

Females fromMexico Males fromMexico

Age Factors of Mexican Immigrants

2004, pg. 5).

Population Estimates April 1, 2000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

temporary work program.

states” (Passel, 2005, p. 11).

redistribution of unauthorized immigrants by states.

Immigration Populations per State:

percentage of them for reasons of family reunification in addition to economic factors.

(Kochler, 2005, p. 2).

In 1990 “. . . 9 out of every 10 Hispanics lived in just 10 states . . . with California,

undocumented migrants lived in other states" (CQ Researcher, 2005, p. 400).

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,

Modes of Entry for Unauthorized Migrants

of unauthorized immigrants, 6 to 7 million, entered the country illegally by evading customs,

Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population

Non-Immigrant Visa Overstayers 4 to 5.5 Million

Evaded the Immigration Inspectors

Sub-total Legal Entries Sub-total Legal Entries

Estimated total Unauthorized Population in 2006 11.5 to 12 Million

Central America 21% 20% 29% 33% 27%

All Others 87% 93% 89% 90% 91%

household of four costs $36, 000 in taxes in 2007.

migration into the U.S. for the years 1999 to 2000.

industries in the U. S. for both legal and illegal immigrants in 1999.

and Raleigh (Kochlar, p. 2).

workers (Kochlar, p. 11)

Mexicans is much better than for those in the country illegally.

wages for the unskilled.

percent of the nation’s total poor population in 2001.