Immigration

This has always been a hot topic, but recent legislation has made it particularly relevant to Georgians. As a result, I have decided to post the "Findings" section of my project for my senior seminar in Anthropology. Let me know if there are any questions. I plan to post my fieldnotes in related posts.

Discussion of Findings:
The research conducted on undocumented migration in the United States yielded significant results, and the information obtained reflected popular concepts of segmented labor market and neoclassical theories. In addition, one respondent in particular engaged me in a discussion with regarding Marx’s theory of labor exploitation. In this section, I will also describe some of the aspects of the research that contribute to the body of anthropological knowledge currently available. Next I will give prospects for continued research on this interesting topic. First, though, I would like to relate the aspects of the project that hindered thorough investigation of undocumented non-citizens in this country, for there were many.
Complications are bound to arise when conducting qualitative research. Despite my efforts in this endeavor, my results were limited by many factors. Many of these limitations stem from the fact that the respondents were from a culture foreign to me. My expertise in the Spanish language can be described as pedestrian, at best. This language barrier prevented me from being able to obtain detailed information regarding the migration experiences of Respondent A. I utilized a translator with much success, but the data gathered was general in nature. A difference in native tongue also limited the coherence of the questionnaire. My translator was not available, so I had to depend on an Internet source for its translation. As a result, some of the questions may have been unclear. Also, my research dealt with participants from a focused geographic area. The motives of immigrants from other parts of the country may differ from those of my respondents, who all live in the Metro Atlanta Area. Also, all of the participants are employed in the hospitality industry in one form or another. I do not expect that their motives to come to this country would be different than those employed in other economic arenas, but there is no way to confirm this. The most significant limitation of this study was the meager sample size. Such a paltry sum of respondents has severely limited the significance of the data. Much effort was placed into increasing the number of respondents, but the language barrier and the topic’s sensitivity prevented disclosure from an ample number of participants. Such limitations have prevented a study as inclusive as I had wished, but important data remains that can be correlated with other bodies of literature dealing with migration and related theory.
Prior to conducting the fieldwork for this project, I was introduced to several pieces of literature dealing with segmented labor market theory. In this concept, immigration is described as integral to a global system of postindustrial economies, and these capitalist systems have a constant demand for an inexpensive labor force (Clark, 2004; Duignan, 2004; Espenshade, 1995; Murphy, 2001; Schloenhardt, 1999). Regional imbalances in economic development exist between varying countries, and people from countries that have attained a lower level of development become prime candidates to help form a migrant workforce of cheap laborers for more economically sound destinations.
Though the evidence appears scant, I found correlations between this avenue of anthropological thought and the data accumulated from respondents A and B. Each of these participants revealed the presence of many relatives and friends here in the United States and across the Atlantic in the European Union. Respondent B stated one dollar earned in America and the E.U. equals more than three dollars earned in Peru, and Respondent A related that the schools in Peru were grossly inadequate in comparison to those in the U.S. and E.U. These statements revealed significant disparities in economic development between Peru, the U.S., and the E.U. What was revealed about the preponderance of jobs in these areas related to Peru says a bit about the demand for inexpensive labor as well. Both respondents, A and B, revealed no prospects of employment as financially gratifying as those in the U.S. and E. U., but their occupations are considered by many to be quite undesirable. I found this to support the perception that more developed economies display an active demand for these people. As stated previously, the evidence remains scant, but the data seems to support the conventional wisdom related to segmented labor market theory.
The results also relate to neoclassical theory as individuals wish to move from a less stable economic environment to one that can potentially provide benefits (Clark, 2004; Espenshade, 1995; Murphy, 2001; Schloenhardt, 1999; Yang, 1998). This theory expresses the idea that migrants wish to maximize their incomes, so they move to areas of higher income levels. As highlighted by Espenshade (1995), there is a micro aspect of this theory that stresses individual agency. People make their own decisions as they move from unfavorable circumstances to a place where gains can be reached in hopes of accumulating wealth.
Respondents A and B provided great detail regarding this way of thinking. As soon as my Phase 2 interview with Respondent A began, the participant explained his reasons for migration as purely economic. He came here to make money in order to improve his financial standing as well as that of his family. This was an affirmation of neoclassical theory, and it confirmed the hypothesis I carried into the study. Respondent B reiterated these motives in his interview. Before he decided to immigrate to America, his grandparents stated, “Look at us; at how we live. You don’t want this. You could do better in the United States.” Respondent B’s father had established himself in Atlanta, and he had been slowly accumulating wealth for several years. His family’s feelings and the prosperity of his father spurned his decision to come to this country; further exemplifying neoclassical trends in migration theory. In addition, Respondent D plainly stated on the questionnaire that he moved to the U.S. for job opportunities.
There are other aspects joined with this component of micro-neoclassical theory. A lack of speed in educational development in one country may help contribute to a migrant’s motivation (Yang, 1998). Those with educational aspirations may not be able to attend university in their own country; thus, there exists a great benefit in migration to America. No information on this was obtained from respondents C or D, but these motives were confirmed as both respondents, A and B, referenced their educational aspirations and the prohibitive nature of an education in Peru. Post-secondary education in Peru is simply too expensive for them to participate, so they came here in hope of one day working toward a higher education.
In addition, the age of the respondents at the time of their migration was found to be in support of this economic theory. Evidence suggests market driven motives for immigration when a disproportionate number of migrants are from lower age brackets (Clark, 2004). All of the respondents were in their mid to late teens at the time of their migrations. If their motives were political, their ages would have been distributed on a larger scale, and they probably would have traveled with family members. For all of the reasons discussed, I found there to be a significant representation of neoclassical theory in the data accumulated in this research.
Data gathered also revealed support of common labor theory. Marxist theory states that a person’s labor power can be a commodity utilized to better one’s conditions. When a person uses their labor power as a necessity, their choices become much more limited, and they can become bound by the options given them by the entity consuming their labor power (Lysandrou, 2000). Coercive techniques could be used to insure the cooperation of those involved, and these conditions can lead to exploitation (Espenshade, 1995; Schloenhardt, 1999). To address this issue in my research, I spoke at length about this concept with Respondent B during Phase 3 of the interview process. I asked if the participant was familiar with the term “exploitation”, and he said he thought it meant “something like take advantage of.” After this exchange, I inquired as to what he thought about the instances of forced labor he experienced in his journey to America. He stated that since others had made the trip before him, he was familiar with what he would have to do. Also, the head coyote, whom he met in Lima, Peru, detailed these work arrangements with him before the trip began. The respondent stated he and his colleagues knew what would be expected of them, and they chose to participate anyway. He plainly related to me that he did not feel exploited in any way. He was aware of what he would have to go through, but he admitted it did not make the journey any easier.
In this qualitative study, I did not only wish to highlight the migrant experience and its relationship to prominent theory; I hoped to shed light on some aspects of migration not covered by many bodies of anthropological literature. Despite the volume of research relating to this topic, no apparent research has been conducted on the recruiting methods employed by coyotes. Likewise, little is known about where recruitment takes place. Also, no knowledge has been accrued regarding migrant preparation for their journey or its associated cost (Schloenhardt, 1999).
In this research, I found there was really no “recruitment” associated with a respondent’s cooperation with an illegal trafficking network. Of the two respondents who had their migration facilitated by a smuggling network, both personally knew people associated with coyotes. Their families arranged for them to be involved with them and aided their preparation for the journey, which only took a couple weeks. I had expected familial involvement in the respondents’ expeditions, but I was surprised by the extent of it. Family members of both of these respondents not only introduced them to the network of coyotes; they helped finance the trip and provided a support network for the newly arrived immigrants here in this country. Though no literature I was exposed to hint at trip duration, the data shows that it took a great amount of time for them to complete their journey. It took five months and five days for one; for the other, it took just over six months. The considerable cost involved was also a significant discovery. Respondent A’s migration cost thirteen thousand dollars, while Respondent B spent fifteen thousand in order for him to make it to the States. These unique aspects of the study do much to illustrate the migrants’ experience while they contribute to the existing body of anthropological literature associated with undocumented migration.
The results of this investigation provided many avenues for future study. For one, I would like to obtain more specific economic information in order to compare the developmental aspects of Peruvian and American economies. Also, more detailed demographic information is warranted. I need to further establish the conditions of the respondents in relation to other citizens of their homelands to further exemplify neoclassical and segmented labor market theories. Also, each respondent that crossed the Guatemalan/Mexican border experienced difficulties. For this reason, I would like to investigate the restrictive measures taken by the Mexican government to prevent illegal migration. Most importantly, I would like to conduct research on multinational crossings along the Mexican/American border. Respondent B was held in a jail consisting of many segregated nationalities. From this, it can be implied that people from distinct and varying nationalities utilize this permeable border to arrive in the United States. I am not aware of any research conducted on this matter, and I would gladly undertake it.