Migration Networks and the Processes of Community Transformation Pacific Seaboard: Arvin, California and Woodburn, Oregon

1
Migration Networks and the Processes of Community
TransformationPacific Seaboard Arvin,
California and Woodburn, Oregon

• CUMBRE Understanding Immigration and the
  Changing Communities of the Americas
• University of Nebraska, Omaha
• April, 2007
• Labor Camp to Main Street Panel
• Edward Kissam
• Senior Researcher
• Aguirre Division, JBS International

2
Transnational Migration Network Linkages and
Community Transformation

• Our New Pluralism project conducted case studies
  of 6 rural communities in the U.S. and how
  immigration is transforming them. Field research
  took place 2001-2003.
• There is a good deal of research on
  network-mediated linkages between migrant-sending
  and migrant-receiving communities, there is less
  on diversity within migrant-receiving communities
• Two axes are needed for visualizing diversity
  among migrant-receiving communities vertical
  (temporal) and horizontal (cross-sectional)

3
A Continuum of Waves of Migration

• From 1990-2000, 19 new settlement states (all
  of them rural) experienced an average 159 growth
  in immigrant population another 3 rural states
  fell into the 90-100 growth range. The social
  landscape of rural America is changing
  dramatically.
• But migration from rural Mexico to the rural U.S.
  is not new. The Bracero program was importantbut
  so were other migrant streamsvia Texas and via
  direct migration circuits
• The roots of the contemporary transformation of
  rural American agricultural communities date back
  more than half a century--to the earliest days of
  modern large-scale agribusiness from the 1920s
  onward

4
Drawn by Agribusiness, Mexicanos, Okies Converged
in Arvin, California

• Arvin was founded 1908, with 90 acres of walnut.
  By 1921, DiGiorgio expanded to 6,000 acres of
  plums and grapes
• By 1936, a few families of Mexicanos, recruited
  by local troqueros, from 1942 onward, Braceros,
  by 1944, 8 of heads of household were of Mexican
  origin. Sunset Camp built in 1938 for influx of
  Okies
• From 1961 onward, Tejanos settled out of the
  long-haul migrant circuit throughout the
  U.S.including Arvin
• From the early 1980s, Oaxaquenos from Sinaloa
  and Baja California began settling
• In 2002-2003, 80 of HH are Mexicanos, another 9
  2nd or 3rd generation--Mexican-Americans

5
At the End of the Oregon Trail Woodburns Small
Farmers

• In the 1920s Woodburn had 100 or so households
  of small farmerstimes were tough, 120 acres
  was considered large
• By the 1950s Woodburn was Berry Capital of the
  World and by 1957 Tejanos were settling out of
  the long-haul migrant circuit (which had included
  hops and apples in WA) as well as strawberries
  and cane berries in Oregon
• Russian Old Believers arrived in the 1960s and
  1970s (via China, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina,
  Turkey) and moved rapidly into farm labor
  contracting, joining Tejano troqueros.
• In the 1970s Tankersley began recruiting
  Mixtecos in Juxtlahuaca and Tlaxiaco area and by
  1988, they began settling out in Woodburn and the
  Willamette Valley.
• In 2000, Woodburn discovered it was a
  minority-majority community and began to grapple
  seriously with different dimensions of diversity
  (age, income, ethnicity, language)

6
Incorrect Mental Models of Community Hinder
Sound Rural Social Policy

• In Arvin, Woodburn, and many other rural U.S.
  communities, community is a standing wave, a
  nexus where different groups converge and
  interact. Change is constant
• These newly pluralistic communities are nodes in
  transnational migration networks. Reference to
  community transformation is not an
  exaggeration.
• What were small farming hamlets during the
  Depression became communities with many Mexican
  and Mexican-Americans at the end of WW II. More
  than 90 of Arvins and Woodburns current
  residents are of Mexican origin.
• We need to think and talk of mutual adaptation,
  co-evolution, and community developmentnot
  assimilation.

7
Quasi-Racial Analyses of Diversity Obscure
Crucial Realities of Community Dynamics

• Historical conflicts between mestizo and
  indigenous populations
• Emergence of pan-indigenous identityin Baja
  California and throughout the Pacific Seaboard
• A broad spectrum of Mexican-American identities
  in terms of biculturalism--attitudes and
  interactions vis-a-vis Mexicanos
• Socioeconomic diversity among Mexican
  immigrantsespecially between migrants from rural
  or urban areas
• Extended family/migration network affiliation and
  resources of bonding social capital and
  experiences settling in a community
• Workplace context, neighborhood context, civic
  recruitment networks, experience with community
  institutions and consequent accumulation of
  bridging social capital

8
Implications of Community Diversity

• Access to bonding social capital inherent in
  family and village networks varies according to
  migration network affiliation and each networks
  maturity and control of the local social universe
  (jobs, information, housing)
• Access to village/migration social networks
  resources is always imperfect. Mutual
  reciprocity seems to be quite a weak force in
  the social universeeither because networks do
  not have enough resources to share (as Menjivar
  found in San Francisco) or because individuals
  from earlier cohorts of immigrants (e.g. farm
  labor contractors) assert their independence from
  them.
• The skills to develop bridging social capital
  are crucial in communities such as Arvin where
  multiple migration networks converge. Tensions
  between competing networks (e.g. Mixtecos and
  Guanajuatenses) and immigrant cohorts (settlers
  and sojourners) hinder immigrants conversion of
  social capital into civic capital or political
  capital.

9
Arvin Mexican Migration Networks Today

• 23 of HHsYuriria-Xoconoxtle, Rancho del Tigre,
  Rancho Palo Alto area, other Guanajuatenses 13
  more than 1/3 of community
• 15 of HHsJalisco (urban and rural)
• 14 of HHsBaja California and Sinaloa
• 13 of HHsMichoacan
• 5 of HHsTejano networks
• 5 of HHsother Chicano networks (incl. urban
  flight from LA)
• 5 of HHs Oaxaca
• Seven other Mexican sending states with lt5 each

10
Woodburn Mexican Migration Networks Today

• 24 of HHs-Oaxaquenos (Sta. Maria Tindu, San
  Juan Mixtepec, San Mateo Tunuche, Sta. Maria
  Caxtlahuaca)
• 19 of HHs-Michoacanos (San Jeronimo, Quiroga,
  Cupicuaro, Morelia, various smaller ranchos)
• 13 Guanajuato (Penjamo, Leon, Silao,
  Guanajuato, Romita)
• 6 Guerrero (Coyuca, Acapulco, Tecpan de Galeana,
  Ometepec)
• 5 Edo. De Morelos, 5 Mexico, D.F., 5 Jalisco,
  5 Veracruz
• Puebla, Tlaxcala, Edo. De Mexico, San Luis
  Potosi, Zacatecas, Durango, Sinaloa, Nayarit,
  Colima, Tamaulipas (3 or less)
• 5 Tejanos, Oregon-born Mexican-Americans
• as of immigrants only

11
Arvin Snapshot Past, Present, Future

.
12
Woodburn Snapshot Past, Present, Future
13
Federal Immigration Policy Continues To Be A
Serious Problem for Rural Towns

• One-quarter of households are mixed status
  (24 in Arvin, 27 in Woodburn). That is, they
  include both unauthorized and legal or citizen
  household members. These families experience
  serious tensions due to constant jeopardy and
  inequities in access to crucial services
• In one out of ten households (11 in Arvin, 8 in
  Woodburn) all family members are of unauthorized
  immigration status. There is only a flimsy
  safety net in the event they have family crises
  or need help from others.
• In Arvin, one out of eight (13) and in
  Woodburn, one out of five (20) future heads of
  householdthe children and youth 18 or
  younger---are of unauthorized immigration status.
  Yet these Generation 1.5 immigrant children will
  be called upon to play a crucial role using their
  bilingual/bicultural skills to work in the
  pluralistic context of Arvin civic life.
  Although Tejanos are a small sub-group in both
  towns, they have played a crucial role in civic
  life in both.

14
New Pluralism Study Implications for Local
Responses to Change

• Due to multiple competing migration/social
  networks and to divisions between immigrant
  cohorts which arise in the course of living in
  the U.S. bonding social capital inherent in
  migration/social networks is not easily or
  immediately translated into civic capital.
• However, immigrants and native-born residents of
  rural communities can find common ground and work
  collaboratively to improve community life. In
  Arvin and Woodburn the school system have made
  very positive contributions in this arena. In
  Woodburn, municipal governments leadership has
  been exemplary.
• But nowhere do we see little evidence of
  comprehensive response or any single model of
  best practice. Each community has distinct
  priorities and relies on a unique mix of local
  resources. Information-sharing across
  communities has great promise.
• Stores of human, social, cultural, and civic
  capital are crucial resources in rural,
  economically disadvantaged communities. A
  meta-policy goal (locally and nationally) must be
  to assure these resources can be drawn upon for
  positive community change.

15
ButFederal Immigration Policy Dialogue and
Legal Framework Need To Change

• Rural communities face many real-world challenges
  in responding to the new pluralism. Current
  federal immigration policy is dysfunctional in
  not addressing these communities actual needsto
  bring residents together to address common
  concerns, not divide them.
• A crucial first step is to abandon policy
  dialogue around analysis of immigrant and
  native-born populations. Rural community
  residents work, live, and raise children
  together.
• New social and economic policies and adequate
  federal funding are needed to overcome language
  barriers, offer lifelong learning opportunities,
  diversify local economies, stem out-migration of
  the best and the brightest, negotiate cultural
  tensions, and promote civic participation.

16
Immediate Legislative/Regulatory Implications

• Effective immigration policy reform requires
  provisions for a pathway to citizenship.
  AgJobs and STRIVE have crucial permissive
  (legalization) and proactive (ESL and civics
  classes) provisions. Further initiatives will be
  needed to reform the naturalization process so
  citizenship is not conditioned on
  education/language-learning ability.
• Efficient and equitable immigration policy reform
  requires family unity provisionsa shortcoming of
  IRCA was that it didnt. Guest worker programs
  violate basic human rights to live as families
  and will inevitably fail due to the arrogant
  assumption that basic human social behavior can
  be regulated/legislated.
• Federally-funded initiatives to facilitate and
  promote civic and political engagement among
  immigrants and native-born U.S. residents alike
  are a crucial investment in the future of an
  increasingly pluralistic nation.
• Rural communities present special opportunities
  to articulate and test new strategies for
  immigrant social and civic integrationbecause
  immigration is transforming them so rapidly and
  because many now have the experience to begin
  developing the concrete, fine-grained, day-to-day
  strategies needed to transform social capital
  into civic capital and bring diverse community
  residents together.