The Latin American and Mexican Mass Migration
Phenomenon: Refocusing

Magdalena Rappl
Tennessee Technological University

Section I.
Introduction

     The purpose of this project is to acquire knowledge on the principal forces influencing the probability of Latin American and Mexican mass migration. The secondary purpose is to document a progression of events, beginning with the income and employment history of the international migrants, continuing with the migration process itself, and culminating with the country of destination adjustment process. The challenges to families stemming from the decision to migrate vary depending on numerous factors such as age, distance, regional labor market developments, gender, family status, ownership of assets and wealth position, social and physical environments, government policies, type of profession or occupation, and many others. Section II describes these challenges in a general way, and contains a literature review of migration, mobility, and relocation studies published during the past thirty years.
     The next step in this research effort consists of invoking the human capital investment model developed by Sjaastad (1962) and reworking it to acknowledge the significance of quality of life variables in the migration decision. Section III contains a model of international migration for Latin American and Mexican households. This model separates work-related rewards into monetary and psychological groupings. Another noteworthy contribution is the inclusion of direct and indirect exchange costs. The author additionally recognizes and incorporates non-work psychological exchange costs and work-related psychological exchange costs. Finally, a description of selected quality-of-life indicators deriving from pre-departure and post-arrival non-work environments is presented.
     In Section IV, the author presents the results of a survey that addresses the work-related monetary and non-monetary rewards, the direct and indirect exchange costs, and the non-work psychological exchange costs, the work-related psychological exchange costs, and, finally, the pre-departure and post-arrival quality of life indicators associated with mass migration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America, from the perspective of the international migrant and the family. The last section contains the Summary and Conclusions.

Section II.
Literature Review of Migration Studies

     The rewards literature can be classified in roughly three main areas of analysis, namely estimation and prediction of individual or family rewards, estimation and prediction of collective or societal rewards, and estimation and prediction of the redistribution of income as a consequence of migration.
     This present literature review focuses on the first area of analysis, namely the estimation and prediction of individual or family rewards from migration. According to Lansing and Morgan (1967), the potential migrants must believe, after taking into account extensive and intensive searches for job information and carefully applying critical thinking processes to the valuable information they have collected, that the discounted stream of lifetime rewards must be larger in the area of destination than in the area of origin. In Lansing and Morgan’s study, as well as in Farber’s research (1983), the authors propose one way of “guesstimating” the rewards that the potential migrant expects to receive over a lifetime, by asking him/her how much money and how many non-monetary changes it would take to get him/her to change his/her mind and decide against migration.
     When the present value of net future expected benefits is modeled for international migrants, “guesstinating” a reward “expost,” in terms of the monetary and non-monetary package it would have taken to prevent the migrant from migrating internationally, becomes even more insightful when the “family left behind” component is acknowledged and given its proper and adequate weight.
     In a landmark study generated by Polachek and Horvath (1977), using a lifecycle point of view, the results indicate that an increase in family monetary rewards is not necessarily the result of the summation of increased monetary rewards for all members of the family.
     McLaughlin (1991), in his seminal theory of quits and layoffs, presents several acclaratory statements regarding migration due to voluntary separation by the worker (quits) and involuntary separation by the worker (layoffs). Migration studies show lifetime gains in rewards for almost all migrants, especially for those who quit voluntarily. When studying the migration process due to involuntary separation, the increase in rewards with regards to the new set of circumstances (namely, unemployment or a lesser job) is significant. However, if the researcher uses the earnings that would have accrued, had the layoff not taken place, the earnings change is usually negative; namely, the migrant exhibits lower earnings after the move compared to earnings before the layoff. (Also see Mincer & Higuchi, 1988; Anderson & Meyer, 1994; Holzer, 1994). This might become an insightful hypothesis when studying “temporary work visas” and subsequent job turnover of migrants.
     Several migration studies, including Borjas’ book (Borjas, 1990), which look at long historical periods of post-migration earnings, show that the stream of earnings is irregular, namely, income is characterized by a non-steady flow. Specifically, the immediate short-term post-migration experience indicates a small reduction in earnings, then a catching up phase, and subsequently, a higher rate of increase in rewards over and above previous post-migration phases. When looking at the sample cohorts, these relationships are more commonly evidenced among international immigrants, then among regional and state-to-state migration.
     According to Chiswick, the formal educational attainments, on-the-job training, work experience, and general knowledge are not always perfectly transferable (Chiswick, 1980). In his study, he found two very strong and significant forces pulling post-migration earnings in opposite directions: on one hand, the imperfections in the skill transferability process lead to wages below those of comparable worker cohorts in the place of destination. The rewards, though, may still be higher than in the place of origin. On the other hand, he detected the presence of a very strong self-selection bias in the migration cohort, compared to similar non-migrating cohorts, namely a stronger tendency for self-improvement and self-sacrifice for future expected rewards. Migrants are more future-minded than present-minded with regards to equivalent similar non-migrating cohorts. Migrants are more willing to abstain from present consumption, and more willing to forego job satisfaction in the environment they have built for themselves.
     In the field of international migration, Chiswick and Long both have studied the effect of Americanization on men and women respectively, and have found that, in short-term periods, the negative skill transferability effect overpowers the positive self-selection bias effect, but sometimes after eleven to fifteen years, the self-selection overpowers the skill transferability effect. (Also see Polachek & Horvath, 1977; Vijverberg, 1993; Borjas, Bronars, & Trejo, 1992.)
     One professional study worth of mention because it approaches the topic of international migration from a slightly different perspective is Piore’s article dealing with the different types and qualities of information. Piore (1979) defines information as a resource which provides specific knowledge and improves efficiency. Information may be perfect or imperfect. When information is perfect, the migrant may not perceive it correctly, not understand it, skip it, dismiss it, or, maybe hopefully, internalize it correctly. Unfortunately, in most cases, information is imperfect; namely, it is partial, incomplete, twisted according to the disseminator’s viewpoint, or lagged timewise. Under such circumstances, the present value of future net benefits—namely, rewards minus costs—is usually estimated using imperfect information. The uncertainty and unexpected eventualities (otherwise known as standard deviation) increase on both components of the equation, namely, rewards and costs.
     The purpose of the next section is to develop a complete model of international migration.

Section III.
Acknowledgement of the Significance of Non-Monetary Costs and Benefits in the
Human Capital Investment Model of Latin American and Mexican Mass Migration

     The author’s contribution to this field of applied research resides in the extension of the human capital model to include a separation in modeling of the cost/benefit function, acknowledging the fact that non-monetary costs and benefits can be very significant.

A Model of International Migration:
Determinants of Latin American and Mexican Migration

     In the model, international migration is understood as a form of human capital investment in which costs are endured during early time periods with the objective of obtaining compensatory returns over an extended period of time in the future.
     When only monetary factors are taken into consideration, the decision-rule can be described as follows: If the present value of all future expected monetary benefits from international migration for an individual or family exceeds the summation of monetary costs, households will decide in favor of a migration experience. If the full cost of international migration exceeds the summation of all discounted future expected benefits, households will decide against migration.
     Net benefits are defined as benefits minus costs. The same variables influencing the sign of the net benefit result are also the variables influencing the international migration decision in migrating families or individuals. To estimate and predict the discounted stream of net benefits, the author uses the following equation which summarizes the process of international migration. It is a comprehensive system that helps to capture the human experience of international migration.
Present value of net benefits for international migrants and their families:

In which:
        mR_nt     =    the monetary reward obtained from the new jobs (n) in year t
        mR_ot    =    the monetary reward obtained from the old jobs (o) in the year t; the rewards that are lost after the migration process
        pR_nt    =    psychological reward new location
        pR_ot    =    psychological reward old location
        T         =    the number of years the decider cohort expects to work at jobs n
        r          =    the rate of discount
        C         =    monetary costs
               =    the summation of the sequence of yearly net benefits ranging from year 1 (decision year) to year T (the next quitting year, retirement year, or year in which one could be terminated or involuntarily repatriated, or reverse the migration flow and voluntarily return to the country of origin)
     The exchange costs are the costs of exchanging the old job in the country of origin for the expected new job in the country of destination. They should be viewed as full economic costs or opportunity costs. They include (1) transactions costs, (2) transportation costs, and (3) legal barriers to the exercise of the international migrant’s profession. This section develops and analyzes exchange costs in the international migration process for families or individuals.

1. Transaction costs are defined as full economic costs of searching, connecting, and disconnecting; and are incurred because of the exchange of jobs. They include finding a new job, a new house, new housemates, selling old property, canceling old utilities and contracts, and forwarding information to the new location.
        Where
                    iC_transact    =    indirect cost of lost time at market work because of the migration process
                   dC_transact   =    direct transaction costs of X.
         Where   
                     X            =    Search costs for jobs and homes associated with one’s own effort, expenditures on employment agency and real estate agency or similar intermediary, and expenditures associated with contract negotiations.
2. Transportation costs are defined as resources used in the transportation of the international migrating family and its possessions. They include the initial migration cost, as well as subsequent returns to the old place of habitation to visit friends and family, if appropriate or possible at all.
                   dC_transport =    direct costs of transportation
                    iC_transport   =    indirect costs of transportation.
   These are the opportunity costs of not working as the international migrant commutes. They are incurred for the purpose of searching, migrating, and subsequent visiting.
3. Artificial and legal barriers to the exercise of the international migrant’s profession or trade are defined as restrictions created by institutions or government agencies such as required temporary employment permits, guest worker permits, green cards, farm work permits, and drivers’ licenses, general identification, state exams, associated fees for permits and licenses, quantitative limitations on the number of practicing professionals, as well as outright prohibitions to practice one’s profession or trade.
                    dC_legal        =    direct cost to overcome barriers to entry
                    iC_legal        =    indirect cost barriers to entry expressed as the time that the migrant gives up
   Therefore, the direct and indirect exchange costs associated with the international migration become:
                    C              =    [i C transact + i C transp + i C legal barriers + d C transp + d C legal barriers + dCtransact]
   Note: The indirect and direct exchange cost equation shows that this activity may extend beyond the initial international migration process.

     The non-work psychological exchange costs of international migration may include the following components:

1. Uprooting children out of the origin school system and establishing them in the destination school system.
2. Leaving behind a network of friends, mentors, co-workers, and relatives and establishing a new network or support system.
3. Losing ties with the local community and forging new ties with the new community.
4. Giving up a familiar worship environment and selecting a new environment.
5. Losing the comfort of moving about in familiar surroundings and rediscovering the most cost efficient means elsewhere.
6. Losing the cultural continuity, i.e., festivals, celebrations, and slowly acclimating to a new culture.
7. Relinquishing a carefully defined status in the community and rebuilding a new one in the context of culture and language barriers.
8. Increased risk of family disintegration, separation and loneliness, and subsequent effort to mend family ties or forge new ones.
9. Leaving behind one type of legal and political system, and adjusting to a new framework.
   Where:
          nwPEC_t  =    non-work psychological exchange costs in time period t

     The work-related psychological exchange costs of international migration may include the following components:

1. Uprooting the migrant and his family out of the old employment situation and establishing new employment connections.
2. Leaving behind a network of coworkers, mentors, superiors, and employers and establishing a new support system.
3. Losing job-related ties in the community and forging new meaningful relationships.
4. Giving up familiar work practices, expectations and replacing them with new habits.
5. Losing the comfort of a known work environment (physical and social) and learning how to operate in the new one.
6. Losing the continuity of the corporate employment culture and blending into a new one.
7. Relinquishing a carefully defined job status and seniority and gaining access to new opportunities for rising within the new organization.
8. Relinquishing the satisfaction of familiar insurance, retirement, vacation, and savings packages which are work-related and replacing them with new ones.
9. Abandoning familiar language and communication patterns and learning to operate in a new and unfamiliar language and culture.
   Where:
          wPEC_t    =    Work-related psychological exchange costs in time period t.

     There remains one social, family, and personal subject area to be discussed, namely the quality of life changes outside the work environment. There are differences in the quality of life indicators derived from the leisure-time activities, community support services, institutional support structures, worship activities, family ties benefits, entertainment options, club activities, civic organization participation, and social events components. The quality of life indicators obtained from the “pre-departure from point of origin” life-cycle phase are different from the “post-arrival in point of destination” life-cycle phase.
     Pre-departure and post-arrival quality of life index of non-work social, family, and personal environments for the migrant should be acknowledged.
            Q_t   =    (Q_nt-Q_ot)
            Q_t   =    net quality of life change from international migration by individuals and families
            Q_ot =    pre-departure quality-of-life indicator
            Q_nt =    post-arrival quality-of-life indicator
     It is assumed:

1. that Q_t is highly significant during the entire lifetime of the international migrant.
2. It is insightful to estimate the discounted stream of quality of life changes.
   The following section contains the survey results. The survey is based on the present value model included above.

Section IV.
The Net Benefits of International Migration
A Note on Methodology

     The author has developed a “less commonly used” approach for studying the defining characteristics of the foreign-born population living in the United States. This study focuses on the Latin America and Mexico-born populations living in Tennessee.
     Instead of using secondary data from the Current Population Survey, conducted by the Department of Labor and the U. S. Census Bureau, (1994) the author resorted to using primary data.
     There exist several reasons for this approach. The U. S. Census Bureau does not directly count the Latin American and Mexican migrant population arriving by land. Therefore, the U. S. Census Bureau cannot define the particular demographic characteristics of this group with much precision. It uses a questionable, but generally accepted methodology employed by many researchers, namely the residual approach. While perhaps adequate for estimating its size, it is totally inadequate for estimating demographic characteristics. The U. S. Census Bureau approach consists of finding the difference between the estimated immigrant population recorded at ports-of-entry and the estimated total foreign-born population in the United States. The difference between these two becomes the immigrant population by land.
     Many researchers base their entire findings on data obtained from the March Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is a survey of approximately 50,000 households administered every month. Once a year, in March, the questionnaire is expanded in various areas, in particular, the area of foreign-born cohorts. This information is then used to obtain the Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
     While acknowledging the usefulness of this approach, the author opted to obtain primary data. The author developed a survey for Mexican and Latin American immigrants who entered the U. S. by land. The survey includes many questions also found in the U. S. Census Bureau questionnaires, but in addition, contains numerous questions on pre-migration country-of-origin characteristics, as well as the documentation of exchange costs. In this manner, the author uses a visible and real population sample, as opposed to a ghost or differential population sample. This visible and real sample is traced from the point of origin to the point of destination.
     In addition to many multiple choice questions, the survey contains numerous short-answer questions. While time-consuming, this process is insignificant and sheds light on the thoughts, hopes, expectations, fears, and concerns of the respondents. The responses were completely anonymous from the beginning.
     The survey was distributed in October of 2006, and returned over a three-week period. Two-thirds of the surveys were returned. Even though the survey was written in both English and Spanish, it was administered in Spanish only. With over 135 multiple choice questions and 30 short-answer questions, the author recognized the patience and good will of the respondents. Over 80% of the respondents would not have been able to respond in English, but participated in an extraordinarly complete and thorough and detail-minded fashion in Spanish.
     In retrospect, the unique contribution that this research effort makes can be traced directly to the veracity, thoroughness, and openness of the respondents.

Survey Results

     The survey, developed by the author, consists of the following categories:

General Demographic Characteristics

     When looking at the demographic characteristics of the sample cohort, the following distribution by country of origin emerged: 22% of the survey participants were from Mexico, 66% from Central America, 11% from South America and rest, namely 0%, from the Caribbean Islands.
     The survey was administered to either single individuals or heads-of-households only. It as found that 71% were male and 29% were female. In other words, a majority of the heads-of-households or single migrants were males.
     The age distribution of the participants was skewed strongly in favor of people under the age of 30, namely those in the age category from 18 to 29. Very few individuals, in percentage terms only 7%, were 40 years of age or older.
     With respect to the marital status of the participants, it was found that 51% were now married to either an American or Latino spouse. Of this category, almost all were married to a Latino spouse. Very few individuals, in fact fewer than 10%, indicated that they were either widowed or divorced/separated. 33% were single. Most individuals had 1 to 6 family members living with them.
     Most of the respondents in this survey were fairly recent arrivals. When asked how long they have lived in the United States, 3% had lived here less than one year, 25% between one and three years, 25% between three and five years, and the rest, namely 47%, had lived here more than 5 years. Their annual gross income during the last year was less than $10,000 for 40% of the workers, and between $10,000 and $16,000 for 44%. 16% earned more than $16,000. In this last group, only 3% earned more than $30,000.
     When querying the method of entry into the United States, it was found that the preferred and by far the most commonly used method was by land. 88% migrated by land, none migrated by sea, and 12% migrated by air.

Direct and Indirect Exchange Costs
Transaction Costs

     When respondents were asked to indicate how long it took them to find their first job in the United States, it became clear, once again, that new arrivals employed effective job search techniques. Their responses substantiated this statement, in that, it was found, that 29% took less than 7 days, 11% took between 8 to 14 days, and the rest, namely 60%, took about 28 days to find their first job. The rest remained unemployed longer, but had unsteady jobs, until employment materialized. They considered “unsteady jobs” the same as unemployment.
     Their job search process became even more expedient when asked about subsequent job searches, and length of time involved in this process. Their response, overwhelmingly, was that 65% found jobs in less than one month, 22% took a little over 28 days, and the rest took longer.
     The practice of geographical mobility was also taken into consideration. It is a well-known fact that geographic mobility varies proportionately with age, and that younger migrant cohorts are more geographically mobile. They are simply more willing and able to relocate.
     When querying the nature of the principal reasons that convinced them to undertake the migration to the United States, the respondents cited six main reasons:

1. The expectation of higher income
2. The existence of family already residing in the United States
3. A better future for their family still in the point of origin
4. Unhappiness with employment conditions and opportunities in Latin America
5. Unhappiness with past employers
6. Pursuit of the “American Dream”

     Among these six categories cited above, the expectations of a higher income, and a better future for themselves and their families were answered unanimously by all respondents. They constituted “essential” reasons. The rest constituted “important” reasons. There were minor reasons, such as “they liked it here.”

Transportation Costs

     When analyzing their travel budget, one of the questions posed was: “How much money did you spent on carfares, busfares, hotel accommodations, food, and more?” 10% answered that they spent less than $50, and 81% that they spent over $150, in fact, much more.
     A follow-up question concerning their travel budget dealt with the topic of how much they had to spent on guides and guide fares. They answered that the expense was considerable. The largest group, namely 81%, stated that they had to disburse more than $150, in fact, much more. But the rest spent less than $150.

Legal Barriers to Entry into the Labor Force

     When asked to enunciate the types of problems they had encountered when entering the labor market in the United States, this is what they had to say: The problems ranged from:

-     language and communication obstacles: 75% significant; 25% minor.
-     to permit and documentation issues: 50% significant; 50% minor.
-     to drivers’ licenses problems: 20% significant; 80% minor
-     to work permit and visa requests: 40% significant; 60% minor
-     to co-worker hostility and unfriendliness: 60% significant; 40% minor
-     to community and neighbor-related problems: 10% significant; 90% minor

to name a few. Yet, they emphasized that problems were not obstacles. Problems did not become barriers to entering the labor force.
     In summary, the low unemployment rates for migrants in the presence of multiple obstacles and legal barriers to entry are a modern-day miracle, a textbook paradigm for contemporary work ethics.

Non-Work Related Wellness Factors of Migration

     Returning once more to the process of migration and family relationships, the percentage of respondents who were married was 60%. Of the married respondents, 97% had a Latin American spouse, and 3% had an American spouse. 30% had responded that they migrated with a wife or husband and/or children. When further querying this subject matter, it was discovered that a significant proportion, namely 36%, migrated with either their immediate or their extended family, namely spouses and children, brothers, sisters, parents, or other relatives. More commonly, however, they migrated with friends and/or acquaintances. 52% indicated that they were not alone during their migration process and had indeed traveled with a companion, such as a friend or acquaintance. 70% of the ones who left their families behind indicated that they might bring their immediate families. When asked if they had plans to return permanently to their homeland and reunite with the families in the future, their response was unequivocal: 55% said “no,” and 45% said “maybe” or “yes.”

Work and Government-Related Categories in Country of Origin

     Politicians, governing people, and employers were missed very little. Co-workers were missed even less.

Community, Education, and Traditions-Related Category in the Country of Origin

     The feeling of missing a significant part of their former environment and the feeling of loss was not voiced in a resounding way.

Family-Related Issues in Country of Origin

     When looking at the impact of migration on the preservation of the integrity of the family unit, several insightful response patterns emerged. When the respondents were asked whether their migration had contributed to their family’s disintegration or problems with family members, 52% responded that it had not affected their family ties, and 37% responded that it had affected their relationships a little, and the rest responded that it had affected their family very much.
     A follow-up question asking them if they had known then what they know now, would they still have migrated, was answered in the following way: 88% stated “definitely” or “probably yes,” and 12% stated “no” or “probably not.”

Employment-Related Issues in the Country of Destination

     When shifting the focus to the new country-of-destination experience, the surveyor started by posing the question as to whether they were satisfied with the type of employment they were able to find. Their response was recorded as follows:
     None stated that they were not at all satisfied; 30% stated that they were sort of satisfied; and 70% stated they were very satisfied. When asked to elaborate on this response, they stated that their occupation did not change much, but their jobs and employers did.
     When they were asked if they were satisfied with their wages, their response was: 11% stated that they were not at all satisfied. When asked to explain, the answer became a relative one. They were satisfied in terms of the purchasing power that their wages brought for consumption to their family in the country of origin, but less satisfied in terms of the purchasing power in the country of destination. 37% stated they were sort of satisfied; 48% that they were quite satisfied.
     When asked to state their job classification, the following distribution emerged. The smallest proportion worked in the manufacturing or food processing centers. The largest group were employed in the agriculture, forestry, landscaping, and construction sectors, namely 60%. A relatively small proportion worked in the service sector, such as restaurants, hotels, stores, in janitorial capacities and others.

Personal, Family, and Social Issues in the Country of Destination

     In the section that follows, the migrants were given the opportunity to explore the factors that could lead to an improved possibility for a better life, better than what was being experienced at the present moment.
     It was found that the principal factors leading to a better quality of life were definitely:

• To earn more income, for 96% of the respondents.
• To obtain permanent residency status and receive the ability to travel back and forth freely to their country of origin, as expressed by 96% of the respondents.
• To have their family members with them, as manifested by 89% of them.
• To gain a better command of the English language, as expressed by 93% of them.
• To gain more access to useful information, as indicated by 85% of them.
• To acquire the ability to provide opportunities for their family in the areas of education , a productive life, housing, transportation, health care, insurance, and more, as expressed by 85% of them.
• To have the opportunity to worship, as stated by 74% of them.

     The rest considered them important, but not essential. None considered these categories minor or insignificant.

Main Concerns and Self-Improvement Categories: Country of Destination

     At this point, the focus switched to immediate matters of concern in the daily life of the migrant, and the related topics of self-improvement. These responses represented essential and important concerns. Less important and insignificant concerns were not included.
     When asked to elaborate on their main concerns in the present, the respondents stated that finding permanent, long-term employment was definitely a top priority, as expressed by 96%. Finding higher-paying employment was listed by 96%. Finding and maintaining reliable transportation was listed as a top concern also, by 77%. Getting all their papers in order was a main source of concern for 96%. Finding good and reliable housing was at the top of the list also, for 93%. Having good and affordable health care was cited as a main concern by 93%. For the future, the majority hoped to have good private company retirement benefits, 93% responded so; and also government retirement benefits, 81% responded so.

Continuing Education in Country of Destination

     When the topic of continuing their education in the United States was brought up, the respondents admitted that they were challenged to think about topics which they usually did not have time to consider. When they were asked whether they would like to continue their education in the United States, in view of the fact that they had good memories of their teachers during their early formative years, many responded that they had not considered this yet, but that if circumstances were favorable, they certainly would. After noticing that most of them did express an interest as indicated by the high percentage who answered yes to this question (93% had stated yes; 7% stated they had not had time to consider), they were asked if they would like to further their education in the following categories:
            93% expressed that they would like to improve their English language skills.
            70% expressed that they would like to obtain a high school diploma.
            63% expressed that they would be interested in a college or university education
            52% expressed they would like the opportunity to obtain technical training.
            59% expressed that they were in favor of on-the-job training with a company or in a         particular profession
And finally,
            92% stated that they planned to send their children to pursue college/university studies, or technical studies.

Earnings History in the Country of Destination

     After earnings and working conditions and employment packages and job search histories were analyzed in previous sections, the author once more returned to the topic of earnings of migrant workers. This time, the focus was on developing some insight regarding general earnings trends correlated to the length of time the migrant had participated in the labor force.
     The respondents were asked if their earnings had increased significantly since they had become more familiar with the American labor market. The question was broken up into three parts: the short run, the intermediate run, and the long run. In the short run, their earnings increased some, or very little; in the intermediate run, they showed a slight or insignificant upward trend; in the long run, for those who had experienced the longer run, they either leveled off, in most cases, or really increased in a few cases.

Opportunities in the Country of Destination

     In the last section of the survey, they were given a final set of questions to answer. They were:

• If given the opportunity, would you like to make this your permanent home? 85% responded “yes” to this question
• If given the opportunity, would you like to become a permanent resident? 96% responded “yes” to this question
• If given the opportunity, would you like to become a United States citizen? 93% responded “yes” to this question.

     The section above summarized the pathway from immigration to residency to citizenship. The participants unanimously had this desire. Some respondents had achieved these goals.
     This concludes the Survey Results Section.
     The following section contains a General Summary of the Latin American and Mexican Mass Migration Phenomenon Project.

Section V: Summary and Conclusions
Summary of Principal Findings

     The primary purpose of this research effort was to acquire knowledge on the principal forces influencing the probability of Latin American and Mexican mass migration. The secondary purpose was to document a progression of events, beginning with the income and employment history of the international migrants, continuing with the migration process itself, and culminating with the country of destination adjustment process.
     In order to document these rewards and challenges, the author invoked a human capital investment model, and reworked it to acknowledge both the monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits of international migration.
     This model, titled the Present Value of Net Benefits for International Migrants and their Families, and presented in Section III, dictated the design and the structure for the survey.
     What follows is a 5-point summary of the principal findings of the survey:

• The annual gross income was less than $16,000 for over 84%.
• Many reasons were cited for undertaking the migration process, but the explanations of a higher income and a better future for their families were cited unanimously.
• It would have taken a higher salary in the country-of-origin than the migrants were earning in the country-of-destination in order to have decided against migration. Wages would have had to be ten to eighteen times higher.
• The big earnings rise occurred immediately after migration. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term wage rate increase were not significant. The author labeled this phenomenon “the vertical catapulting effect.”
• Most respondents stated that they would like to make this country their permanent home and become U. S. citizens.

     This concludes the Summary section. The following section contains the Conclusions.

Conclusions

     The documentation process facilitated by the survey and the survey results brought the researcher back to the original Present Value of Net Benefits of International Migration Model. When the international migrants compared the Expected Net Benefits with the Actual Net Benefits, they must have (implicitly) concluded that the Actual Present Value was equal to or greater than the Expected Present Value.
     Numerous statements of the respondents lent credence to this conclusion:

• Had they known what they know now, they would still have migrated.
• A “compensatory wage differential” 10 to 18 times above their previous earnings would have had to exist to have kept them from migrating.
• There existed absolutely no “non-monetary” combination of factors valuable enough to have reversed their decision.

     In conclusion, the international migrant perceived the Present Value of Net Benefits to be extremely high.
     Even though, in retrospect, many components of the Model now seem trivial, they still occupy a valid place in the Model as they served the purpose of showing the researcher which factors were essential and important, and which ones were minor and insignificant in the international migration decision.
     When revising the model and studying its individual components, it became evident that the international migrants were very aware of mRnt. But they were less aware of, and therefore placed less significance on all other components in the model. They had a good understanding of mRnt and placed a disproportionate significance on this variable. This is further substantiated when considering the strong family ties with relatives back in Latin America and the migrants’ commitment to sending long-term remittances.
     In summary, the objective of this research project was to generate a mechanism whereby policy makers might better understand some of the underlying reasons for international migration. This understanding could assist in the development of guidelines and recommendations regarding how to engage in targeted assistance to Latin America and Mexico, focusing on labor market improvements, i.e., wages and employment, and also, how to address the impact of mass migration of another country’s or region’s majority in the United States.

References

Anderson, P. M., & Meyer, B. D. (1994). The extent and consequences of job turnover. Brookings Papers on
       Economic Activity: Microeconomics, 177-248.
Borjas, G. (1990). Friends or strangers, chapter 7. New York: Basic Books.
Borjas, G., Bronars, S., & Trejo, S. (1992, September). Self-selection and internal migration in the United States.
       Journal of Urban Economics 32(2),159-185.
Chiswick, B. R. (1980, October). Immigrant earning patterns by sex, race, and ethnic groupings. Monthly Labor
       Review, 22.
Farber, S. C. (1983, January). Post-migration earnings profiles: An application of human capital and job search
       models. Southern Economic Journal, 693-705.
Holzer, H. T. (1994, February). Job vacancy rates in the firm: An empirical analysis. Economics, 61I(241), 17-36.
Lansing, J. B., & Morgan, J. N. (1967, Fall). The effect of geographical mobility on income.
       Journal of Human Resources, 475-494.
McLaughlin, K. J. (1991, February). A theory of quits and layoffs with efficient turnover.
       Journal of Political Economy, 99, 1-29.
Mincer, J., & Higuchi, Y. (1988). Wage structures and labor turnover in the U.S. and Japan.
       Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 2, 97-133.
Piore, M. J. (1979). Birds of passage: Migrant labor and industrial societies. Cambridge, England:
       Cambridge University Press, 149-154.
Polachek, S., & Horvath, R. (1977). A life cycle approach to migration: Analysis of the perspicacious
       peregrinator. In Ehrenberg, R. (Ed.), Research in LaborEconomicsI. Greenwich. CT: JAI Press, 103-149.
Sjaastad, L. A. (1962, October). The costs and returns of human migration. Journal of Political Economy, 80-93.
Vijverberg, W. (1993, May). Labour market performance as a determinant of migration. Economica, 60, 143-160.