MIGRACIONES INTERNACIONALES, VOL. 5, NÚM. 4, JULIO-DICIEMBRE DE 2010 Emigration Policy and State Governments in Mexico Guillermo Yrizar Barbosa Rafael Alarcón El Colegio de la Frontera Norte Abstract Several Mexican state governments have created institutions and developed public policies to benefit their emigrants abroad following the federal government’s lead. The main objective of this article is two­fold: first, to analyze the three sociopoliti­ cal factors that influenced the emergence of emigration policy at the state level, and second, to examine two strategic activities undertaken by state governments in the Central Western region. Public agencies for international migrants carry out various actions such as administering federal government programs, preserv­ ing regional identities, promoting human and civil rights for migrants, locating missing persons, and processing official documents. Many of these activities are complementary to those undertaken by federal government. However, some of these agencies play a strategic role in the repatriation of the bodies of Mexican migrants that die in the United States and the management of temporary employ­ ment abroad for their citizens. Keywords: 1. international migration, 2. emigration policy, 3. state govern­ ments, 4. Mexico, 5. United States. Política de emigración y gobiernos estatales en México Resumen Varios gobiernos estatales en México han creado instituciones y desarrollado políti­ cas públicas para beneficiar a sus emigrantes en el extranjero, siguiendo el ejemplo del gobierno federal. El objetivo principal de este artículo tiene dos vertientes: pri­ mero, analizar los tres factores sociopolíticos que influyeron en el surgimiento de la política de emigración a nivel estatal y, en segundo lugar, examinar dos actividades estratégicas llevadas a cabo por gobiernos estatales en la región centro­occidente. Las agencias públicas para migrantes internacionales llevan a cabo diversas acciones tales como la administración de programas federales, la preservación de las identi­ dades regionales, la promoción de los derechos humanos y civiles de los migrantes, la localización de personas perdidas y el trámite de documentos oficiales. Muchas de estas actividades son complementarias a las que realiza el gobierno federal; sin embargo, algunas de estas agencias tienen un papel estratégico en la repatriación de los restos de los migrantes mexicanos que mueren en Estados Unidos y en la gestión del empleo temporal para sus ciudadanos en el exterior. Palabras clave: 1. migración internacional, 2. política de emigración, 3. gobier­ nos estatales, 4. México, 5. Estados Unidos. MI 19.indd 165 7/16/2010 6:06:02 PM [166] Introduction1 Overcoming a past of indifference and negligence, since the early 1990s, the Mexican State has implemented an active approach towards Mexicans abroad. This radical change has materialized in two major constitutional reforms: the passage of the Ley de na- cionalidad in 1997, allowing those that decided to adopt another nationality to preserve their Mexican nationality, and the passage of reforms to the Código federal de instituciones y procedimientos electorales (Federal Code of Institutions and Electoral Procedures) in 2005, enabling Mexicans to vote from abroad, which occurred for the first time in the 2006 presidential election. Nationwide, the federal government created the Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior (Institute for Mexicans Abroad) in 2003, as a decen­ tralized body of the Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (Foreign Affairs Ministry), “to promote strategies, incorporate programs, and obtain recommendations to improve the living standards of Mexican communities abroad.”2 Thus, Mexico with an enormous diaspora concentrated virtually entirely in the United States, joined countries such as the Philippines and Morocco which, with different forms of government, implemented a national emigra­ tion policy (Asis, 2006; Brand, 2006; Durand, 2004; García y Griego, 2006; Alanís, 2006; González, 2006; Imaz, 2006; Alar­ cón, 2006; Yrizar, 2008, 2009; Fitzgerald, 2009). Like federal government, several Mexican state governments and certain municipalities have created institutions and devel­ oped public policies for their emigrants in the United States. The governments of Michoacán and Zacatecas are pioneers in some of these initiatives. On the one hand, Michoacán is the only state to have granted the right to vote for its governor from abroad and the only one to have a Secretaría del Migrante in operation since 2008. The state of Zacatecas initiated the internationally 1We are greatly indebted to Françoise Lestage, David Fitzgerald and two anony­ mous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. 2Institute for Mexicans Abroad website, at (last acces­ sed on August 16, 2009). MI 19.indd 166 7/16/2010 6:06:03 PM YR IZAR-AL ARCÓN/EMIGR ATION POLICY AND STATE GOVER NMENTS IN MEXICO 167 known 3×1 Program (García Zamora, 2006:158), that has be­ come a federal government program and has come to be regarded as the “first transnational policy in Mexico” (Fernández, García Zamora and Vila, 2006). Zacatecas was also the first state to car­ ry out a constitutional reform of migrants’ civil rights, called Ley migrante, which allows absent citizens to run for public office in their state (Moctezuma, 2003). State governments have not only implemented federal initiatives, but have also been concerned with “governing migration” (Irazuzta and Yrizar, 2006). The main objective of this article is two­fold: first, to analyze the three sociopolitical factors that have influenced the emer­ gence of emigration policy at the state level in Mexico, and sec­ ond, to examine two strategic activities undertaken by two states regarding international migrants: the repatriation of the bod­ ies of Mexican migrants who die in the United States and the management of temporary employment in the United States and Canada. This study focuses on states in Central Western Mexico, the traditional region of migration to the United States (Massey et al., 1987), and seeks to contribute to the incipient academic research on state governments’ actions regarding international migration to the United States, as Goldring (2002), Michael Smith (2003), Escala (2005), Valenzuela (2006), Vila (2007), and Fernández et al. (2007) have already shown, among others. It is necessary to analyze emigration policy at the state level in Mexico because in the United States and other parts of the world, sub­national governments often implement their own im­ migration policy even though this is a function of the central or federal government. In recent years, sub­national governments in the United States have implemented an increasing number of actions affecting immigrants, such as the decision by states, coun­ ties and cities to enter into agreements under the 287(g) program with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ice) to enable state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law. Conversely, other cities have become sanctuaries in order to pre­ vent access by ice. MI 19.indd 167 7/16/2010 6:06:03 PM MIGRACIONES INTERNACIONALES, VOL. 5, NÚM. 4, JULIO-DICIEMBRE DE 2010168 Likewise, certain state and local governments place restrictions on access to public services, renting homes or obtaining driver licenses for undocumented migrants. This issue has sparked a debate on the competence and cooperation that should exist be­ tween government levels regarding the different effects of immi­ gration, as Antonio Izquierdo and Sandra León (2008) pointed out regarding the model of autonomous communities in Spain. This study is divided into four sections: the first contains a theoretical discussion to validate the concept of emigration pol­ icy. The second analyzes the sociopolitical factors that led to the emergence of this policy at the state level in Mexico. The third describes the public agencies for international migrants at the state level in Mexico’s Central Western region while the fourth examines two strategic activities undertaken by certain Mexican state governments to benefit their migrants. The final section dis­The final section dis­ cusses the main findings and conclusions of the study. Theoretical Approaches to the Concept of Emigration Policy The concept of emigration policy has only recently been analyzed. It began to be accepted in the literature on migration studies as a result of Barbara Schmitter Heisler’s (1985) seminal study. Na­ tional emigration policy is defined as the set of decisions and pub­ lic actions that states’ central governments establish to manage the departure to other countries and the return of their citizens (by land, sea or air) as well as the design of public policies through institutions and programs to establish linkages with emigrants residing permanently or temporarily abroad. In this respect, David Fitzgerald (2009:33) distinguishes be­ tween emigration policies, designed to control citizens’ departure and return, and emigrant policies to strengthen ties with citizens who are already abroad. For his part, Alan Ganlen (2008:842) uses the concept of diaspora engagement policies to describe how states of origin appropriate emigrants by treating them as mem­ bers of the society of origin with the rights and obligations of associated members. MI 19.indd 168 7/16/2010 6:06:03 PM YR IZAR-AL ARCÓN/EMIGR ATION POLICY AND STATE GOVER NMENTS IN MEXICO 169 But it was James Hollifield (2004) who opened up a very promising avenue for understanding how national states design emigration policies. Based on the analysis of immigration policy in Europe and the United States, the author considers that states’ functions have evolved over time. They are initially defined by their military and security functions for protecting the territory and the population. Subsequently, and at least since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the Trading State has emerged which, in addition to its security functions, assumes an economic func­ tion to construct favorable regimes for trade and investment. The second half of the 20th century has seen the emergence of the Migration State, the main purpose of which is to regulate international migration. James Hollifield (2004:903) argues that the emergence of the Trading State necessarily involves the emer­ gence of the Migration State, since the wealth, power and stability of the state is increasingly dependent on its willingness to accept trade and migration, especially in contexts of regional economic integration (Hollifield, 2004:901). On the basis of James Hollifield’s (2004) concept of the Mi­ gration State, one can hypothesize the parallel emergence of the Emigration State in countries where a high proportion of citizens are emigrants residing abroad. This might be the case of the Phil­ ippines, Morocco and Mexico, whose states, in addition to evolv­ ing on their security functions and those required for guaranteeing trade and international investment, have regulated the departure and return of their emigrants, who constitute a significant portion of the population and contribute to national economies by sending monetary remittances. These states have also striven to reach out to their diasporas by offering them various types of membership. The Philippines is one of the most emblematic cases of in­ stitutional support for international emigrants since the central government created the Philippine Overseas Employment Ad­ ministration (poea). In 2005, this agency directly administered the departure and rehiring of nearly a million Filipinos as tempo­ rary workers abroad, reinforcing the policy of labor exportations initiated in the mid­1970s (poea, 2005). MI 19.indd 169 7/16/2010 6:06:04 PM MIGRACIONES INTERNACIONALES, VOL. 5, NÚM. 4, JULIO-DICIEMBRE DE 2010170 Alan Ganlen (2008:851) argues that although all countries have emigrants, and many devote part of their state apparatus to them, this issue has been ignored. Following James Hollifield (2004), he calls this portion of the states dedicated to emigrants the Emigration State, which is considered abnormal, since the modern geopolitical imagination regards the nation­state territo­ rial unit as the ideal model of political organization. Barbara Schmitter Heisler (1985) documented the emergence of emigration policies by migrant sending countries such as Al­ geria, Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Turkey and Yugoslavia in the 1960s and 1970s. These countries created government institu­ tions dedicated to emigrants and tried to promote long­term tem­ porary migration for their citizens. The author notes that states with a long history of emigration such as Italy and Spain tended to have more developed, coordinated emigration policies. Various Italian governments developed a network of organiza­ tions, institutions and agencies that were directly or indirectly linked to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Consulates located in countries with large contingents of Italian emigrants dealt with their family, employment and social security problems and re­ ported directly to the Direzione dell’Emigrazione at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Spain, with its long history of emigration to its former colonies and European countries from the mid­1960s onwards, set up the Instituto Español de la Emigración as part of the Secretary of Labor, which operated through the consulates. A 1971 law was designed to encourage the creation of associations to reinforce Spanish identity and enable emigrants to maintain close links with Spain. In the case of Mexico, Jorge Durand (2004) considers that there have been five phases during the hundred years of devel­ opment of an emigration policy. In the early 20th century, this policy was designed to dissuade Mexicans from migrating to the United States. During and after the Second World War, a nego­ tiation policy was implemented through the Bracero Program. Subsequently, Jorge Durand used the phrase “laissez­faire policy” MI 19.indd 170 7/16/2010 6:06:04 PM YR IZAR-AL ARCÓN/EMIGR ATION POLICY AND STATE GOVER NMENTS IN MEXICO 171 to describe the Mexican government position between the 1970s and 1980s. Manuel García y Griego (1988) had previously identi­ fied this period as “a policy of no policy”. The 1990s saw a damage control policy that was linked to the Mexican diaspora’s opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement. During the last stage, at the beginning of President Vicente Fox’s administration, Jorge Durand (2004) erroneously perceived the development of proposals that pointed towards a policy of “shared responsibility” with the U.S. government. As eventually proved, there was never any attempt at joint responsi­ bility by the U.S. Congress, which implemented a national secu­ rity policy regarding immigration in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. David Fitzgerald (2009:155) argues that the Mexican govern­ ment attempted to control the volume, length of trips, skills and geographical origin of emigrants to the United States between 1900 and the early 1970s. Since the late 1980s, it has changed its policy towards the management of emigration. Rafael Alarcón (2006) considers that the acceptance of Mexico as a country of emigrants and therefore the start of a clear emi­ gration policy began in the early 1990s due to a combination of various processes. In addition to the crisis caused by the electoral fraud in the 1988 presidential elections and the Mexican govern­ ment’s attempts to secure passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, three other factors explain the emergence of Mexico’s emigration policy: 1) the rapid growth of the Mexican population in the United States in the 1990s; 2) the favorable public perception of migrants in Mexico due to the large family and collective remittances they sent from the United States; and 3) the triumph of Proposition 187 in California in 1994 that was supported by 59 per cent of the electorate that sought to prohibit the provision of social services through public funds for undocu­ mented persons living in that state. The countries and sub­national units that implement public policies for emigrants through government institutions and pro­ grams are usually those that experience high emigration rates and MI 19.indd 171 7/16/2010 6:06:04 PM MIGRACIONES INTERNACIONALES, VOL. 5, NÚM. 4, JULIO-DICIEMBRE DE 2010172 reception of remittances. That is why the Mexican case is not unique worldwide. A little­known case at the sub­national level is that of Kerala, a state in South Western India with a Department for Non­Resi­ dent Keralites’ Affairs. Kerala, with a similar population to Cali­ fornia (over 30 million) in a territory the size of The Netherlands, has an agency that overtly promotes emigration and the attrac­ tion of remittances.3 Lastly, the concept of “federative diplomacy,” also known as “para­diplomacy” (Schiavon, 2004; Velázquez Flores, 2006) is valuable to substantiate the concept of emigration policy at the state level in Mexico. Federative diplomacy holds that Mexican states implement a foreign policy of their own as a result of de­ centralization, democratization and the emergence of regions in response to globalization that has created an incentive for states to seek greater participation within the international arena in order to support their exports and portray themselves as ideal places for receiving direct foreign investment (Schiavon, 2004). The Emergence of Emigration Policy at the State Level in Mexico Guillermo Yrizar Barbosa (2008) argues that there are at least three sociopolitical factors that explain the emergence of a state­ level emigration policy in Mexico. The first is the recommen­ dation by the Foreign Affairs Ministry, in 1990, to create state authorities for dealing with migrants abroad, following the model of the Programa para las Comunidades Mexicanas en el Exterior (pcme) (Program for Mexican Communities Abroad) (Figueroa­ Aramoni, 1999; Robert Smith, 2003:310; Vila Freyer, 2007). The second factor is the increasing migrants’ demands for public attention to state offices in Mexico, particularly from bra- ceros. However, those that most demanded consideration were organized migrants from hometown associations (hta) and fed­ erations of Mexicans abroad, partly thanks to their presence in 3Non­Resident Keralites’ Affairs Department website, (last accessed on March 1, 2010). MI 19.indd 172 7/16/2010 6:06:04 PM YR IZAR-AL ARCÓN/EMIGR ATION POLICY AND STATE GOVER NMENTS IN MEXICO 173 public opinion as a result of the visibility they have acquired as senders of monetary remittances. There was also an increase in citizens’ demands that state governments ensure the repatriation of the deceased and the location of migrants that had gone miss­ ing during their undocumented border crossing or within the United States. A third factor is the political and electoral interest that gover­ nors, local congresses, political parties and other social actors at the state level have shown in international migration. This in­ cludes what has been called the “cascade effect”, which consists of imitating the activities certain states are undertaking in relation to the migration issue. The exchange of experiences among states helped governments and their agencies to achieve better practices in their actions towards migrants and their families. As for the origin of public agencies for international migrants in Mexican states, the pcme was undoubtedly a key element, since it was a government strategy that required the participation of state administrations in reaching out to their diasporas. This has been pointed out by Goldring (2002:67) who holds that in view of the erosion of the Programa de Solidaridad Internacional during President Carlos Salinas de Gortari’s administration, the pcme attempted to encourage governors of sending states who had not reached out to their migrants to do so. As Michael Peter Smith (2003) has noted ensuring the success of the pcme, re­ quired states’ participation in approaching the regional diasporas, which meant that each state acted differently. Zacatecas was the pioneering state in cooperating with mi­ grants through the 1×1 Program implemented in the late 1980s, when the migrants and the state government contributed with one dollar each to finance public infrastructure (García Zamora, 2006).4 However, during this period there was no public agency 4It is important to note that before the participation of states governments in the financing of public infrastructure, during the 1970s Mexicans in the United States from states like Zacatecas or San Luis Potosí gathered funds to support small popu­ lation nuclei such as ranchos, localities, towns and municipalities in their places of origin, in order to buy materials that will make it possible to provide public services, like distribute drinking water (Badillo, 2001:428). MI 19.indd 173 7/16/2010 6:06:05 PM MIGRACIONES INTERNACIONALES, VOL. 5, NÚM. 4, JULIO-DICIEMBRE DE 2010174 for international emigrants because the state government was only interested in managing the investment of collective remit­ tances. In this respect, the first public agency for international migrants, devoted exclusively to residents in the United States and their relatives in Mexico, was not created in Zacatecas but rather in Michoacán in 1992. The Dirección de Servicios de Apoyo Legal y Administrativo a Trabajadores Emigrantes (dsalate) (Office of Legal and Admin­ istrative Support Services for Emigrant Workers), was created on June 22, 1992, within the Subsecretaría de Gobernación del Esta­ do, through an administrative agreement published in the official state journal during the administration of the interim governor of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (pri) (Institutional Revolutionary Party), Genovevo Figueroa Zamudio (1988­1992). dsalate began its activities with very few resources and per­ sonnel due to the fact that its main task was to provide support for the repatriation of the deceased. Claudio Méndez, former di­ rector of the Coordinación General para la Atención al Migrante Michoacano, declared that the institution that existed in 1992 was virtually and exclusively devoted to repatriating the bodies of Michoacanos who had died in their attempt to cross the Mexican Northern border or in the United States.5 An important factor that explains the appearance of public agencies for international migrants in Michoacán is the move­ ment of former braceros that emerged in the municipality of Pu­ ruándiro. According to Jesús Martínez Saldaña, the last director of the Instituto Michoacano de los Migrantes en el Extranjero (imme), this initiative was put forward by Ventura Gutiérrez Mén­ dez, leader of the “Braceroproa” group, and a native of this mu­ nicipality, which has a long tradition of migration to the United States.6 According to Ventura Gutiérrez, on July 1, 1996, the Casa 5Interview with Claudio Méndez, Morelia, Michoacán, February 2008. From January to March 2008, interviews were carried out with the directors and personnel of public agencies for migrants at the state level, mainly in the states of Michoacán and San Luis Potosí. We are grateful for the cooperation of both the Instituto Mi­ choacano de los Migrantes en el Extranjero and the Instituto de Atención a Migran­ tes del Estado de San Luis Potosí. 6Interview with Jesús Martínez Saldaña, Morelia, Michoacán, February 2008. MI 19.indd 174 7/16/2010 6:06:05 PM YR IZAR-AL ARCÓN/EMIGR ATION POLICY AND STATE GOVER NMENTS IN MEXICO 175 del Trabajador was set up to deal with the problems of migrants and their families in his hometown. Two years later, it spawned the movement of former braceros.7 Nearly sixteen years after the first public agency for emigrants was created in Michoacán, the Secretaría del Migrante came into being in 2008. This institution was created thanks to the modifi­ cations to the Ley orgánica de la administración pública del estado of January 3, 2008 (H. Congreso del Estado de Michoacán de Ocampo, 2008). Article 27 of this law describes the 19 functions of this secretaría, the first of which provides a general ideal of the aim of this new public agency: “formulate, promote, instrument and evaluate public policies for Michoacán migrants in order to promote their integral economic, social, cultural and political de­ velopment.” In the case of Zacatecas, the pri’s defeat in the gubernatorial elections in the late 1990s and the victory of the Partido de la Re­ volución Democrática (prd) (Democratic Revolution Party) led to the institutionalization of a new organization for migrants in the government structure. The successful candidate, Ricardo Mon­ real (1998­2004), acknowledged the support of the Zacatecanos in the United States by creating the Dirección de Atención a Comu­ nidades Zacatecanas en el Extranjero at the start of his term. A similar political situation accompanied the formation of pub­ lic agencies for migrants in other states. The arrival of the Par ti do Acción Nacional (pan) (National Action Party) and the depar­ ture of the pri from the governorships of Aguascalientes, Gua­ najua to, Jalisco, San Luis Potosí and Nayarit led to an increase in government activity towards emigrants and their families. It should be noted, however, that the pri administrations prior to the party transitions in Zacatecas, Michoacán and San Luis Po­ tosí already had blueprints for the creation of migrants’ agen­ cies that were adopted by the incoming administrations. In this respect, the participation of state government representatives in the Coor dinación Nacional de Oficinas de Atención a Migrantes (Conofam) (National Coordination of Migrant Service Offices) 7E­mail communication with Ventura Gutiérrez, May 2008. MI 19.indd 175 7/16/2010 6:06:05 PM MIGRACIONES INTERNACIONALES, VOL. 5, NÚM. 4, JULIO-DICIEMBRE DE 2010176 proved crucial in ensuring that the states learned and exchanged “best practices” in terms of structure, services and actions that would enable them to work and improve relations with emigrant communities. The participation of organized migrants in elections at the state level has been crucial in demanding the creation of agencies for international migrants. In Michoacán and Zacatecas migrants have become truly transnational political actors who have sought to consolidate their presence in public opinion. Public Agencies for International Migrants in Central Western Mexico Since the mid­1990s, state governments in the Central Western region of Mexico have negotiated and cooperated with migrants’ organizations (i.e. htas) in the United States in promoting com­ munity development through investment in public infrastructure and social projects. Some of the best­known cases include Zacate­ cas, Jalisco, Michoacán and Guanajuato. However, other states in the same region have also begun to develop public policies for their residents abroad, such as Aguascalientes, Colima, Durango and San Luis Potosí. Central Western Mexico is known as the traditional region of emigration to the United States thanks to its history and high emigration rates (Massey et al., 1987; Durand and Massey, 2003; Conapo, 2006). Between 1925 and 2000, over 50 per cent of Mexican international migrants were born in this region, mainly in the states of Zacatecas, Michoacán, Jalisco and Guanajuato (Durand and Massey, 2003). These four comprise the group of states of most interest, since they lead the sociodemographic and economic indicators linked to international migration. This situ­ ation has justified the broad and varied academic research con­ ducted on these states since the pioneering work of Paul S. Taylor (1933) in Arandas, Jalisco. Table 1 shows the importance of the relationship between the states of Central Western Mexico and the United States in MI 19.indd 176 7/16/2010 6:06:06 PM YR IZAR-AL ARCÓN/EMIGR ATION POLICY AND STATE GOVER NMENTS IN MEXICO 177 which Zacatecas, Jalisco, Michoacán and Guanajuato reveal their preeminence. The population of these four states accounted for 16 per cent of the total population in Mexico (over 17 million persons) in 2006. It is remarkable that in 2005, 36 per cent of Zacatecanos lived in the United States. Michoacán is in second place with 25 per cent of its citizens residing in the United States. In 2006, this state received nearly 2.5 billion dollars in remit­ tances, the largest amount nationwide, accounting for 13.2 per cent of the state gdp. Zacatecas, Michoacán and Durango, in that order, had the largest proportion of households that received re­ mittances. Finally, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacán and Zacate­ cas account for just over a third of the total number of Mexicans living in the United States. The degrees of migratory intensity and marginalization esti­ mated by the Consejo Nacional de Población (Conapo) (National Council of Population) in 2000 are significant for the region as a whole. Zacatecas, Michoacán, Guanajuato, Durango and Nayarit have a very high degree of migratory intensity, whereas Jalisco, Aguascalientes, Colima and San Luis Potosí have a high degree. Interestingly, none of the states in the traditional region has a very high degree of marginalization. While Jalisco, Aguascalientes and Colima have a low degree of marginalization, Durango has a medium degree, and the remaining states have a high degree of marginalization. San Luis Potosí stands out has having the sixth highest degree of marginalization nationwide, just below the five most marginalized states in Mexico.8 Over the past ten years, the number of public agencies for migrants has grown, particularly in central­western Mexico. In 1997, Luin Goldring (2002:73) identified nine “state offic­ es for international migrants” in Durango, Guanajuato, Guer­ 8The five states with very high marginalization according to Conapo estimates are Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Hidalgo, and Veracruz. In recent years, these states have experienced an increase in their migratory flows. As early as 2000, Guerrero and Hidalgo already had a high degree of migratory intensity (Conapo, 2000, “Índices de Marginación” and “Publicaciones en línea”, (last accessed on March 1, 2010). MI 19.indd 177 7/16/2010 6:06:06 PM Ta bl e 1. D em og ra ph ic a nd M ig ra to ry I nf or m at io n on S ta te s in th e W es t C en tr al R eg io n of M ex ic o (2 00 0­ 20 06 ) St at es in th e W es t C en tr al R eg io n Po pu la tio n a (2 00 5) M ex ic an -b or n an d Re sid en t i n th e U .S .b (2 00 5) In co m e fr om re m itt an ce s c (2 00 6) H ou se ho ld s t ha t re ce iv e re m itt an ce s d (2 00 0) M ig ra to ry in te ns ity d (2 00 0) M ar gi na liz at io n e (2 00 0) In ha bi ta nt s % To ta l % M ill on s of u sd % g d p sta te % Pl ac e Pl ac e D eg re e Pl ac e D eg re e A gu as ca lie nt es 1 06 5 41 6 1. 0 13 5 98 9 13 .0 37 8 3. 6 6. 69 10 ° 6° H ig h 28 ° Lo w C ol im a 56 7 99 6 0. 6 99 6 05 16 .8 16 7 3. 7 7. 34 9° 8° H ig h 22 ° Lo w D ur an go 1 50 9 11 7 1. 5 38 4 19 2 24 .7 37 1 3. 3 9. 70 3° 5° V er y hi gh 17 ° M ed ia G ua na ju at o 4 89 3 81 2 4. 7 92 6 71 8 18 .3 2 05 5 6. 7 9. 20 5° 3° V er y hi gh 13 ° H ig h Ja lis co 6 72 5 11 3 6. 5 1 41 5 22 4 20 .8 1 99 3 3. 7 7. 70 8° 7° H ig h 25 ° Lo w M ic ho ac án 3 96 6 07 3 3. 8 1 06 1 86 7 25 .1 2 47 2 13 .2 11 .3 7 2° 2° V er y hi gh 10 ° H ig h N ay ar it 94 9 68 4 0. 9 18 3 50 8 18 .4 32 8 7. 2 9. 64 4° 4° V er y hi gh 14 ° H ig h Sa n Lu is P ot os í 2 41 0 41 4 2. 3 39 3 84 5 16 .3 60 7 2. 6 8. 20 6° 9° H ig h 6° H ig h Z ac at ec as 1 36 7 69 2 1. 3 50 8 92 4 35 .9 61 0 2. 6 13 .0 3 1° 1° V er y hi gh 12 ° H ig h Re gi on al to ta l 23 4 55 3 17 22 .6 5 10 9 87 2 8 98 1 So ur ce s: a in eg i ( 20 09 ). b C on ap o (2 00 6) . c B an co d e M éx ic o (2 00 6) , “ E st ad íst ic as ”. A va ila bl e at < ht tp :// w w w .b an xi co .o rg .m x/ > (la st a cc es se d on M ar ch 1 , 2 01 0) . P er ce nt ag e of g dp a va ila bl e in A gu ay o Q ue za da , 2 00 7. d C on ap o es tim at es b as ed o n 10 p er c en t sa m pl e of 1 2t h G en er al P op ul at io n an d H ou sin g C en su s 2 00 0, “ Pu bl ic ac io ne s en lí ne a” . A va ila bl e at < ht tp :/ /w w w .c on ap o. go b. m x/ > (la st a cc es se d on M ar ch 1 , 2 01 0) . e C on ap o es tim at es b as ed o n 10 p er c en t sa m pl e of 1 2t h G en er al P op ul at io n an d H ou sin g C en su s 2 00 0, “ Ín di ce s de m ar gi na ci ón ”. A va ila bl e at < ht tp :/ /w w w .c on ap o. go b. m x/ > (la st a cc es se d on M ar ch 1 , 2 01 0) . MI 19.indd 178 7/16/2010 6:06:06 PM YR IZAR-AL ARCÓN/EMIGR ATION POLICY AND STATE GOVER NMENTS IN MEXICO 179 rero, Jalisco, Michoacán, Oaxaca, Puebla, San Luis Potosí and Zacatecas. If Colima, Aguascalientes and Nayarit had had a pub­ lic organization for migrants during this period, the traditional migration region to the United States would have been the only one in which all the states would have a public agency for inter­ national migrants in the late 20th century. In 2003, Michael Peter Smith (2003:473) identified twenty­three states with this kind of organization. A public agency for international emigrants is a specialized or­ ganization, at any level of government, designed to implement policies and operate programs for international migrants, their families and communities of origin in order to address their prob­ lems, demands and needs. We have decided to call them agencies rather than offices since each government has a different name for them: secretariats, institutes, offices, centers, direcciones, coor- dinaciones, departments or units. In Mexico, these organizations are known as Oficinas de Atención a Migrantes (Ofam). As table 2 shows, in 2008 the central­western region of Mexico is the only one in which all states have a public agency for in­ ternational migrants. In the case of Jalisco, there are two offices responsible for dealing with the Jaliscienses abroad, although both are located in the Dirección de Asuntos Internacionales. Table 2 also shows that only eight states in Mexico (Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Querétaro, Tamaulipas, Campeche, Quintana Roo and Tabasco) do not have an administrative orga­ nization whose name explicitly refers to their migrants or residents abroad. Thus, 24 public agencies for international migrants have been identified at the intermediate government level in Mexico, including the Distrito Federal. These organizations appear under various names throughout Mexico, which usually contain the name of their target popula­ tion: migrants. Virtually all the agencies have a welfare­based ap­ proach, under the categories of “service, support and protection” with the exception of the Secretaría del Migrante in Michoacán, the Instituto Estatal de Migración de Zacatecas and the Subcoor­ dinación de Enlace Internacional y de Mexiquenses en el Exterior, MI 19.indd 179 7/16/2010 6:06:07 PM MIGRACIONES INTERNACIONALES, VOL. 5, NÚM. 4, JULIO-DICIEMBRE DE 2010180 Table 2. Public Agencies for International Migrants by State and Region in Mexico, 2008 Regions and States Public agencies Traditional Aguascalientes Oficina de Atención a Migrantes Aguascalentenses y Familiares Colima Coordinación General de Atención a Migrantes Colimenses Durango Dirección de Atención a Comunidades Duranguenses en el Extranjero Guanajuato Dir. Gral. de Atención a Comunidades Guanajuatenses en el Extranjero Jalisco Dirección de Atención al Jalisciense en el Exterior y Coordinación de Protección a Jaliscienses en el Extranjero Michoacán Secretaría del Migrante Nayarit Oficina de Atención a Oriundos del Estado de Nayarit en el Extranjero San Luis Potosí Instituto de Atención a Migrantes del Estado de San Luis Potosí Zacatecas Instituto Estatal de Migración de Zacatecas North Baja California — — B. C. S. — — Coahuila Oficina Estatal para la Atención de Coahuilenses en el Extranjero Chihuahua Coord. Gral. de la Comisión Estatal de Población y Atención a Migrantes NuevoLeón Dir. de Relaciones Federales, Consulares y de Atención al Migrante Sinaloa — — Sonora Dirección General de Atención a Migrantes Tamaulipas — — Center Distrito Federal Centro de Atención a Migrantes y sus Familias Hidalgo Coord. Gral. de Apoyo al Hidalguense en el Estado y el Extranjero Edo. de México Subcoord. de Enlace Internacional y de Mexiquenses en el Exterior Morelos Dirección General de Atención a Migrantes y Participación Ciudadana Puebla Comisión Estatal para la Atención del Migrante Poblano Querétaro — — Tlaxcala Dirección de Atención a Tlaxcaltecas en el Extranjero South Campeche — — Chiapas Unidad de Atención a Migrantes Guerrero Dir. Gral. de Atención a Comunidades Guerrerenses en el Exterior Oaxaca Instituto Oaxaqueño de Atención a Migrantes Quintana Roo — — Tabasco — — Veracruz Dir. Gral. de Atención a Migrantes del Gobierno del Estado de Veracruz Yucatán Departamento de Atención a Migrantes del Estado de Yucatán Source: Drawn up using information provided by the Centro de Estudios Sociales y Opinión Pública (cesop, 2006) of the Cámara de Diputados, phone interviews and from the websites of states governments from January to July 2008. MI 19.indd 180 7/16/2010 6:06:07 PM YR IZAR-AL ARCÓN/EMIGR ATION POLICY AND STATE GOVER NMENTS IN MEXICO 181 although in this last state, since it is a coordination office, the role or hierarchy of the agency is lower in comparison with the other two in terms of budget, personnel and programs. Not all of the state public agencies for migrants have the bud­ get, organization, or the legal instruments to effectively make a difference in reaching out to migrants or meeting their demands. Michoacán stands out because it is a secretaría, giving it the high­ est hierarchy in government structure in comparison with the other states. As a result, it has a higher operating budget and a larger number of staff than other states. The most notable presence of state agencies for migrants in Me x ican public opinion occurred when nearly a dozen state rep­ resentatives decided to group together around the migration issue just before the change of political party in the Mexican Presiden­ cy in 2000. The Declaratoria de Puebla, the founding document of the Coordinación Nacional de Oficinas de Atención a Mi­ grantes (Conofam) (National Coordination of Migrant Service Offices), was signed by the representatives of 11 states on March 8, 2000.9 The signatory representatives of the Declaratoria de Puebla were drawn from the governments of Hidalgo, San Luis Potosí, Michoacán, Zacatecas, Puebla, Oaxaca, Sonora, Jalisco, Queré­ taro, Morelos and Guerrero. Ana Vila Freyer (2007:79), based on information from the first national coordinator, Mario Riestra from the state of Puebla, declared that Conofam was constituted on the initiative of the first eight states mentioned above. The two states that had an agency for migrants in 1997 and did not sign the Conofam document were Guanajuato and Durango. Of the eleven representatives that signed the declaration, three 9The document states that they comprise the Asociación Nacional de Oficinas de Apoyo a Migrantes de la República Mexicana, as a “permanent organization that promotes the integral solution of the problems that lead to the migration phenom­ enon, both inside and outside the country, whose main aim being development with justice and equity for Mexico’s male and female migrants.” We are grateful to Mauro Ruiz Saldierna, director of the Oficina Municipal para la Atención a Migrantes de San Luis Potosí in 2008 for providing us with a copy of this document. MI 19.indd 181 7/16/2010 6:06:08 PM MIGRACIONES INTERNACIONALES, VOL. 5, NÚM. 4, JULIO-DICIEMBRE DE 2010182 came from states not governed by the pri: Querétaro and Jalisco had pan executives while Zacatecas was governed by the prd.10 In the Declaratoria de Puebla, representatives of the signatory governments defined migration as a problem and an opportunity. They also admitted that the attitudes of government, media and organizations of Mexicans abroad towards migrants were some­ times paternalistic but also cooperative.11 It is striking that the founding declaration of Conofam included the states’ position on temporary employment abroad. The ninth consideration advo­ cated to “promote binational programs of temporary workers and agricultural day workers between Mexico and the United States to enable many Mexicans to work in a documented manner with access to social security programs in the U.S.” It is not surprising that a few years later, Zacatecas and San Luis Potosí should have been the pioneering states in the promotion and supervision of temporary work visas, mediating between legal representatives of U.S. firm, contractors and Mexican workers wishing to secure employment in el Norte. Two Strategic Activities: Repatriation of the Deceased and Management of Temporary Employment Abroad Mexican state governments undertake various activities for their emigrants in the United States. The first and one of the most important is the management of federal government programs 10In Morelos, governorship was handed over from the pri to the pan on July 6, 2000. 11Seventeen considerations comprise the Declaratoria de Puebla, including the following: encourage participation by the three orders of government; strengthen links with Mexicans in the United States to preserve their identity and language; provide job training for migrants and their families in their communities of origin to improve their income; launch health campaigns; promote productive projects in sending zones that will provide employment alternatives; acknowledge remittances as a “stability factor” in receiving areas; promote the creation of state centers or of­ fices in “locations where there are concentrations of Mexican migrants inside and outside the country” in order to provide legal advice and support with emphasis on human rights; cooperation and rapprochement with federal government, the media and hometown associations. MI 19.indd 182 7/16/2010 6:06:08 PM YR IZAR-AL ARCÓN/EMIGR ATION POLICY AND STATE GOVER NMENTS IN MEXICO 183 related to international migration, such as the Programa Paisa­ no, the 3x1 Program, and the Programa Vete Sano­Regresa Sano (Leave Healthy­Come Back Healthy Program). A second activity to which state governments assign a significant part of their bud­ get is the preservation of regional identities among communities of Mexicans living in the United States though the organization of fairs, concerts, bailes, and festivals. The third activity, which is less frequent among agencies but has been identified as an area of opportunity, is the promotion of human and civil rights for migrants, such as voting from abroad. Likewise, state agencies collaborate in the location of missing persons, especially during undocumented border crossing, and in processing official or iden­ tity documents such as birth and marriage certificates. All these activities are part of the emigration policy that public agencies for international migrants from central­western Mexico have carried out since the 1990s. In some cases, these activities are complementary to those implemented by the federal govern­ ment, however, some state governments play a strategic role in the repatriation of the deceased and in the management of temporary employment abroad for their citizens. Repatriation of the Deceased A very sensitive activity among the migrant population in which state governments have specialized with the support of the Mexi­ can consular network, municipal governments and htas, is the repatriation of the bodies of Mexican citizens who die in their at­ tempt to cross the border clandestinely or for other reasons in the United States. Between 2000 and 2005, the number of deceased Mexicans repatriated, managed by public agencies for interna­ tional migrants, significantly increased. According to Françoise Lestage (2008:210), the transportation of the remains of Mexican migrants, especially of those from Oaxaca and Michoacán, has increased since 2000. In Oaxaca an 80 per cent increase was de­ tected during the period from 2003 to 2005, rising from 187 in 2003 to 341 in 2005. In Michoacán, the number of repatriations MI 19.indd 183 7/16/2010 6:06:08 PM MIGRACIONES INTERNACIONALES, VOL. 5, NÚM. 4, JULIO-DICIEMBRE DE 2010184 rose from 258 in 2003 to 542 in 2005. Lestage (2008:211) asserts that the number of Mexicans who died in the United States and were repatriated, rose from 3 429 in 2003 to 5 176 in 2005. According to information from the Instituto de Atención a Mi­ grantes del Estado de San Luis Potosí (Inames), the number of Potosinos who have died on U.S. soil or in their attempt to cross the border and were transported back to their native land has also steadily grown. The period from September 2003 to December 2004 saw 19 repatriations, a figure that nearly doubled in 2005 to 40. In 2007, the total number of repatriations of deceased mi­ grants from San Luis Potosí was 118. Information from the Instituto Michoacano de los Migran­ tes en el Extranjero (imme) and the Inames reveals the migrants’ localities of origin, as well as the place where they died in the United States. In the case of the imme in Michoacán, the total number of repatriations was 294 in 2007; 61 of whom were from the Morelia­center region, 41 from the Meseta Purépecha and the same number from the eastern region. The lowest number of repatriations, six, was recorded in the southern region of Coa­ huayana followed by the Bajío Zamorano region with seven. In 2005, the Inames in San Luis Potosí followed up 40 repatriations: 18 were from the central zone, where the state capital is located; nine were from the zona media; seven from the Huasteca Potosina and six from the Altiplano Potosino. In both states, it is interesting to note that traditional migra­ tion regions, such as the Bajío Zamorano and the Altiplano Po­ tosino, have very low numbers of registered repatriations, despite having large numbers of migrants in the U.S., as well as a very long history of international migration. This suggests that social integration plays a key role in the decision of migrant families to bury or cremate the bodies of their members in the U.S. rather than transporting them back to Mexico. In regards to the places where migrants die, the comparison of repatriation records shows the presence of state diasporas in traditional and new destinations. Of the 294 cases attended by the imme, 131 were recorded in California, 18 in Texas, 16 in MI 19.indd 184 7/16/2010 6:06:09 PM YR IZAR-AL ARCÓN/EMIGR ATION POLICY AND STATE GOVER NMENTS IN MEXICO 185 Illinois, 16 in North Carolina, 14 in Arizona and lastly 11 each in Florida and Georgia. In the case of San Luis Potosí, of the 40 cases registered by Inames, 13 occurred in Texas, seven in Florida and three in Georgia. The death of migrants during the undocumented crossing of the U.S.­Mexico border requires special attention. In a recent report, Maria Jimenez (2009) denounced the humanitarian cri­ sis on this border due to the death of over 5 000 persons since 1994. In March 2008, the Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’Homme (2008) declared that 4 000 persons died between 1993 and 2005 trying to cross the border between Mex­ ico and the United States, “a figure that involves 15 times more deaths in just over a decade than the Berlin wall during its 28 years of existence.” As recent studies have shown, it is increasingly dangerous and expensive to cross the border for undocumented persons (Cornelius and Lewis, 2007; Sisco and Hicken, 2009; Fuentes and García, 2009). Unfortunately, given this situation, the public agencies for international migrants must continue with their repatriation programs in order to serve the families of those who perish trying to cross a deadly border. Management of Temporary Employment Abroad 12 The management of temporary employment abroad is another key activity carried out by some state public agencies for inter­ national migrants. At least since 2001, the agencies of Zacatecas, San Luis Potosí, Jalisco, Aguascalientes, Colima and Michoacán, have facilitated the hiring of temporary workers in U.S. and Ca­ nadian firms (see Yrizar, 2008). In 2001, abc correspondent Deborah Amos documented the process whereby legal representatives of U.S. companies and workers from San Luis Potosí met at government offices to se­ lect personnel to occupy unskilled positions using H­2 temporary 12Most of the information on this section is based on interviews with Mauro Ruiz Saldierna on February 2008 in San Luis Potosí, and with Armando Elías Esparza on May 2008 in Tijuana. MI 19.indd 185 7/16/2010 6:06:09 PM MIGRACIONES INTERNACIONALES, VOL. 5, NÚM. 4, JULIO-DICIEMBRE DE 2010186 visas (Ruiz Saldierna, 2008:207­209). This report was produced before September 11, 2001, in the context of the migration agree­ ment (acuerdo migratorio) that was negotiated between presidents Vicente Fox and George W. Bush. This report was broadcast on the Nightline tv program on September 5, 2001 and informed that of 13 000 applicants only 40 were hired to work in a meat packing plant in Texas. The Dirección General de Enlace Internacional (dgei) of San Luis Potosí was in charge of organizing meetings between po­ tential candidates and employers. This agency supported U.S. employers by providing health screening and background checks of the candidates. In an interview with Deborah Amos, one of the recruiters stated: “I want somebody who is at least 25, I want somebody who is married, I want someone who has children. He will probably come back to Mexico, I say 99 per cent chance of that, when his visa is up”. The dgei required selected workers to sign a Migrants’ Moral Commitment (Compromiso Moral del Migrante) which obliged them to engage solely in the work for which they had been hired, to “send regular remittances from their income to their families, in order to protect the integrity of the latter,” and to return to Mexico within the agreed time limit (see figure 1). This docu­ ment drawn up by the dgei included the signatures of the mi­ grants’ wives, and in some cases of their mothers and children. Efforts by the San Luis Potosí and Zacatecas governments to administer temporary employment for their citizens began at a meeting with U.S. government officials in the city of Monte rrey, Nuevo León. Armando Elías Esparza representing Zacatecas, and Mauro Ruiz Saldierna representing San Luis Potosí, together with representatives from the states of Puebla, Hidalgo, and Guana­ juato traveled to Monterrey, Nuevo León, to participate in the First Forum on H­2A and H­2B Work Visas. From December 1999 to late 2000, the public agency for mi­ grants in San Luis Potosí collaborated in sending over 300 work­ ers with temporary employment visas to a meat packing firm in Corpus Christi, Texas, and to landscaping companies in Missouri, MI 19.indd 186 7/16/2010 6:06:09 PM YR IZAR-AL ARCÓN/EMIGR ATION POLICY AND STATE GOVER NMENTS IN MEXICO 187 Maryland and Colorado.13 According to Mauro Ruiz, former di­ rector of the dgei, thanks to the Migrants’ Moral Commitment that he designed, only one of the more than 300 workers sent from San Luis Potosí deserted. To explain how state governments intervened in the adminis­ tration of H­2 visas, it is important to describe the way they work. According to Mónica Verea (2003:133), the H­2 visa programs began during the Second World War when the Allies needed cheap labor. She notes that in 1952, Public Law 283 was passed establishing “the H­2 category of non­immigrants for the first time, […] it authorized the temporary admission of unskilled for­ eign workers on a small scale without special approval from Con­ gress” (Verea, 2003:146­147). This visa category is sub­divided into H­2A and H­2B. On the one hand, H­2A visas are designed for farm workers for a period 13E­mail communication with Mauro Ruiz Saldierna, 12 June, 2008. Source: Personal archives of Mauro Ruiz Saldierna. Figure 1. Migrants’ Moral Commitment (Compromiso Moral del Migrante), Dirección General de Enlace Internacional of San Luis Potosí, August 2001 MI 19.indd 187 7/16/2010 6:06:10 PM MIGRACIONES INTERNACIONALES, VOL. 5, NÚM. 4, JULIO-DICIEMBRE DE 2010188 of not longer than eleven months with the possibility of renewal. According to Ángel Torres Mendoza (2007:143­144), from the Centro de Asesoría Jurídica y Sindical Valentín Campa, several Mexican workers with H­2A visas have engaged in the pro duction of tobacco in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Ken­ tucky; Christmas trees in Georgia, Tennessee, New York and Atlanta; corn in Indiana; onions in Georgia and Virginia; other vegetables in Mississippi, Georgia and Washington; and apples in New York. Using information from the Inter­American Institute of Migration and Labor, this author has also identified the two largest foreign contracting companies that provide Mexican farm labor for the U.S. market: Del­Al Associates, Inc. or Álamo Part­ ners (with offices in McAllen, Texas; Monterrey, Nuevo León; and San Luis Potosí, S. L. P.) and Manpower of America (with its operating center in Monterrey, Nuevo León, and offices through­ out other cities in Mexico) (Torres Mendoza, 2007:144).14 On the other hand, H­2B visas are intended for temporary non­ farm workers. Mexicans accounted for 27 per cent of all these visas in 2001, for which work certification is required and admis­ sion is limited (Verea, 2003:133). This type of visa is provided for unskilled workers. In May of 2008, Los Angeles Times (Gaovette, 2008) reported that given the bureaucratic difficulties faced by entrepreneurs interested in hiring workers with H­2B visas, the Labor Department began re­writing the operating rules in order to streamline the program. According to data from the Department of Homeland Security, in 2008, Mexico obtained by far the largest number of temporary visas for seasonal agricultural workers (H­2A) and seasonal non­ agricultural workers (H­2B and H­2R) (see table 3). 14The study called “La migración agrícola documentada de México a Estados Unidos: Un proceso de contratación ilegal en territorio nacional” by Ángel Torres Mendoza (2007:141­154) deals with “the responsibility of the Mexican State and its governments in hiring Mexican farm workers to work abroad,” highlighting the lack of policies that defend and protect international labor migrants. The author holds that temporary employment programs established between Mexico and the United States have violated the labor legislation of both countries. MI 19.indd 188 7/16/2010 6:06:10 PM YR IZAR-AL ARCÓN/EMIGR ATION POLICY AND STATE GOVER NMENTS IN MEXICO 189 The Secretaría del Migrante in Michoacán has also made an effort to administer temporary employment in the United States. On March 3, 2008, the state government signed a collaboration agreement with United Farm Workers (ufw)—a union found­ ed by César Chávez—to enable peasants from extremely mar­ ginalized municipalities to engage in farm work in the United States with H­2A visas. The document was signed by the recently elected governor Leonel Godoy and Arturo Rodríguez, president of ufw (Correa, 2008). Another effort to administer temporary employment abroad for Michoacanos is that of the Secretaría de Desarrollo Económico in Michoacán which in collaboration with the Servicio Nacional de Empleo participates in hiring tem­ porary farm workers through the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program established between the Canadian and Mexican gov­ ernments in 1974. Table 3. Non­immigrant Temporary Worker Admissions to the United States by Visa Type and Country of Citizenship, 2008 Country of citizenship Seasonal agricultural workers (H-2A) Seasonal non- agricultural workers (H-2B, H-2R a) H-2A + (H-2B, H-2R) % of H-2A + (H-2B, H-2R) Mexico 163 695 74 938 238 633 84.40 Jamaica 4 131 8 765 12 896 4.56 Guatemala 533 3 275 3 808 1.35 Philippines 31 3 686 3 717 1.31 South Africa 1 285 1 743 3 028 1.07 Romania 232 1 942 2 174 0.77 Israel Db 1 491 1 491 0.53 United Kingdom 29 1 451 1 480 0.52 Canada 457 712 1 169 0.41 Other Countries 2 710 11 618 14 328 5.07 Total 173 103 109 621 282 724 100.00 aIssuances of H­2R (returning H2­B workers not subject to annual numerical limits) ceased at the end of 2007. bData withheld to limit disclosure. Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2009, table 32. MI 19.indd 189 7/16/2010 6:06:10 PM MIGRACIONES INTERNACIONALES, VOL. 5, NÚM. 4, JULIO-DICIEMBRE DE 2010190 Conclusions With the incorporation of state governments, emigration policy in Mexico has rapidly developed and become increasingly com­ plex since its inception at the federal level in the early 1990s. In this respect, Mexico has established government institutions at the federal, state and municipal levels to attempt to manage the enormous diaspora of eleven and a half million people now resid­ ing in the United States. Since 2006, these migrants send Mexico approximately 25 billion dollars annually in family remittances, constituting the second largest source of foreign income after oil revenues. Nowadays, most states in Mexico have a public agency for emi­ grants; only eight of the 32 states lack this type of government institution. This article has shown the emergence of a state emi­ gration policy in Mexico that was due to the confluence of three factors. First, the 1990 initiative of the Foreign Affairs Ministry proved crucial in recommending the creation of offices in each state to provide services for communities abroad. The second factor was the demands on the part of organized migrants for state govern­ ments to provide services and solutions to their problems. These groups include the htas and federations of Mexican immigrants residing in the United States, and former bracero organizations fighting for the reimbursement of their savings that had been held back by employees during the first part of the Bracero Program. The third factor was the interest of governors, local congresses and political parties at the state level who regarded international migrants as a new electorate. This factor includes the “cascade effect” which consists of replicating the activities states are un­ dertaking in relation to migration. The exchange of experiences between state governments through the National Coordinator of Migrant Service Offices (Conofam) was crucial in this process. The existence of state public agencies for international migrants in Mexico also reflects the inability of the federal government to cope with regional diasporas with such heterogeneous histories, MI 19.indd 190 7/16/2010 6:06:11 PM YR IZAR-AL ARCÓN/EMIGR ATION POLICY AND STATE GOVER NMENTS IN MEXICO 191 sociocultural profiles and political cultures. The question that arises is to what extent the decentralization of emigration policy has led to more effective management. State governments have a greater capacity than federal government to approach emigrants in their communities of origin, as shown by their participation in the repatriation of the deceased and the management of tem­ porary employment abroad. State governments serve a smaller population than federal government and also have more suitable mechanisms for establishing closer links with their emigrants in the United States. For example, migrants in the United States organized into htas have formed federations at the state level that establish more direct and fluid communication with both state and municipal administrations. Before it had a migrants’ agency with its own range of services, Zacatecas had a collaboration program with migrants’ organiza­ tions which for several decades had invested in basic infrastruc­ ture and social programs on its own account. Other governments, e.g., Guanajuato and Jalisco, were also interested in attracting re­ mittances from their migrants and channeling them into sending communities. Unlike these cases, since 1992, there has been a state government agency in Michoacán that was primarily con­ cerned with the repatriation of the deceased but also provided support for migrants and their families. In comparison with other states, the Michoacán agency has the largest budget and an ad­ ministrative structure with greater hierarchy. Lastly, just as Aristide Zolberg (2006) considers that immigra­ tion policy is a key instrument in nation­building, emigration policy performs this function by extending the nation beyond its borders in the Mexican case. This vision is reflected in the Plan nacional de desarrollo presented by the Mexican federal govern­ ment in 1995 when it declared that “the Mexican nation exceeds the territory contained by its borders.” Consequently, state gov­ ernments such as those of Zacatecas, Michoacán and San Luis Potosí, have gone beyond national borders to govern their citizens abroad. MI 19.indd 191 7/16/2010 6:06:11 PM Migraciones internacionales, Vol. 5, núM. 4, julio-dicieMbre de 2010192 References aguayo Quezada, sergio, ed., (2007), El almanaque mexicano 2007, México, aguilar. alanís, Fernando (2006), “Que se vayan y se queden allá: la polí- tica mexicana hacia la migración a estados unidos,” in jorge a. schiavon, daniela spenser and Mario Vázquez, eds., En busca de una nación soberana: Relaciones internacionales de México, si- glos xix y xx, México, acervo Histórico diplomático-secretaría de relaciones exteriores, pp. 351-384. alarcón, rafael (2006), “Hacia la construcción de una política de emigración en México,” in carlos gonzález gutiérrez, coord., Relaciones Estado-diáspora: Aproximaciones desde cuatro conti- nentes, México, Porrúa/secretaría de relaciones exteriores/uni- ver sidad autónoma de Zacatecas, pp. 157-179. asis, Maruja (2006), “desenvolviendo la caja de balikbayan: los filipinos en el extranjero y su país de origen,” in carlos gon- zález gutiérrez, coord., Relaciones Estado-diáspora: Aproxima- ciones desde cuatro continentes, México, Miguel Ángel Porrúa/ secretaría de relaciones exteriores/universidad autónoma de Zacatecas, pp. 23-51. badillo, david a. (2001), “religión y migración transnacional en chicago: el caso de los potosinos,” in Fernando alanís enci- so, coord., La emigración de San Luis Potosí a Estados Unidos: Pasado y presente, México, el colegio de san luis/senado de la república, pp. 117-141. brand, laurie (2006), “Marruecos: la evolución de la participa- ción institucional del estado en las comunidades,” in carlos gonzález gutiérrez, coord., Relaciones Estado-diáspora: Aproxi- maciones desde cuatro continentes, México, Miguel Ángel Por- rúa/secretaría de relaciones exteriores/universidad autónoma de Zacatecas, pp. 99-136. cesop (2006), “contexto nacional,” Migración, frontera y pobla- ción, México, centro de estudios sociales y de opinión, june 8. conapo (2006), Mexico-United States Migration: Regional and State Overview, México, secretaría de gobernación/consejo nacional de Población. YriZar-alarcón/eMigr ation PolicY and state goVernMents in Mexico 193 cornelius, Wayne a. and jessa M. lewis (2007), Impacts of Bor- der Enforcement on Mexican Migration: The View from Sending Communities, la jolla, california, center for comparative im- migration studies/university of california at diego. correa evaristo (2008), “convenio de gobierno del estado y la unit ed Farm Workers be neficiará a jornaleros”, La Jornada de Michoacán, Mo relia, Michoacán, May 29. available at (last accessed on March 1, 2010). durand, jorge (2004), “From traitors to Heroes: 100 Years of Mexican Migration Policies,” Migration Information Source, Mi gration Policy institute. available at (last accessed on March 1, 2010). durand, jorge and douglas Massey (2003), “regiones de origen,” Clandestinos. Migración México-Estados Unidos en los albores del siglo xxi, México, universidad autónoma de Zacatecas, pp. 63-96. escala rabadán, luis (2005), “Migración internacional y organi- zación de migrantes en regiones emergentes: el caso de Hidal- go,” Migración y Desarrollo, first semester, num. 4, pp. 66-88. Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l’Homme (2008), “united states-Mexico Walls, abuses, and deaths at the borders: Flagrant Violations of the rights of undocument- ed Migrants on their Way to the united states,” num. 488/2. available at (last accessed on March 1, 2010). Fernández de castro, rafael, rodolfo garcía Zamora and ana Vila Freyer, coords., (2006), El Programa 3x1 para Migrantes. ¿Primera política transnacional en México?, México, instituto tecnológico autónomo de México/universidad autónoma de Zacatecas/Miguel Ángel Porrúa. Fernández de castro, rafael et al., coords. (2007), Las políticas migratorias en los estados de México: Una evaluación, México, cámara de diputados, lx legislatura/instituto tecnológico autónomo de México/universidad autónoma de Zacatecas/ Miguel Ángel Porrúa. Migraciones internacionales, Vol. 5, núM. 4, julio-dicieMbre de 2010194 Figueroa-aramoni, rodolfo (1999), “a nation beyond its bor- ders: the Program for Mexican communities abroad,” Journal of American History, vol. 86, num. 2, september, pp. 537-544. Fitzgerald, david (2009), A Nation of Emigrants. How Mexico Manages Its Migration, berkeley, california, university of cali- fornia Press. Fuentes, jazmin and olivia garcia (2009), “Coyotaje: the struc- ture and Functioning of the People-smuggling industry,” in Wayne a. cornelius, david Fitzgerald and scott borger, eds., Four Generations of Norteños: New Research from the Cradle of Mexican Migration, la jolla, california/boulder, colorado, center for comparative immigration studies/lynne rienner Publishers, pp. 79-100. ganlen, alan (2008), “the emigration state and the Modern geopolitical imagination,” Political Geography, num. 27, pp. 840-856. gaovette, nicole (2008), “new Work Visa rules to cut bureaucra- cy”, in the nation, Los Angeles Times, los angeles, califor nia, May 22. available at (last accessed on March 1, 2010). garcía y griego, Manuel (1988), “Hacia una nueva visión de los indocumentados en estados unidos,” in Manuel garcía y griego and Mónica Verea campos, eds., México y Estados Uni- dos frente a la migración de los indocumentados, México, coor- dinación de Humanidades/universidad nacional autónoma de México/Miguel Ángel Porrúa. garcía y griego, Manuel (2006), “dos tesis sobre seis décadas. la emigración hacia estados unidos y la política exterior mexi- cana,” in jorge a. schiavon, daniela spenser y Mario Vázquez eds., En busca de una nación soberana: Relaciones internacio- nales de México, siglos xix y xx, México, acervo Histórico di- plomático, secretaría de relaciones exteriores (pp. 551-580). garcía Zamora, rodolfo (2006), “Migraciones internacionales y desarrollo en México: tres experiencias estatales,” in rafael Fernández de castro et al. coords., Las políticas migratorias YriZar-alarcón/eMigr ation PolicY and state goVernMents in Mexico 195 en los estados de México: Una evaluación, México, cámara de diputados, lx legislatura/instituto tecnológico autónomo de México/universidad autónoma de Zacatecas/Miguel Ángel Porrúa, pp. 157-170. goldring, luin (2002), “the Mexican state and transmigrant organizations: negotiating the boundaries of Membership and Participation,” Latin American Research Review, num. 37, pp. 55-99. gonzález gutiérrez, carlos, coord., (2006), Relaciones Estado- diáspora: Aproximaciones desde cuatro continentes, México, Miguel Ángel Porrúa/secretaría de relaciones exteriores/uni- versidad autónoma de Zacatecas. H. congreso del estado de Michoacán de ocampo (2008), Ley orgánica de la administración pública del estado de Michoacán de Ocampo, Morelia, january 9. Hollifield, james (2004), “the emerging Migration state,” The International Migration Review, vol. 38, num. 3, pp. 885-912. imaz, cecilia (2006), La nación mexicana transfronteras. Impac- tos sociopolíticos en México de la emigración a Estados Unidos, México, Facultad de ciencias Políticas y sociología/universi- dad nacional autónoma de México/seminario de Política y Migración. irazuzta, ignacio y guillermo Yrizar (2006), “gobernar la mi- gración: consideraciones y preguntas en torno al gobierno de los mexicanos en el exterior,” in centro de estudios sociales y de opinión Pública, La migración en México: ¿Un problema sin solución?, México, cámara de diputados, lix legislatura, pp. 173-216. izquierdo, antonio and sandra león (2008), “la inmigración hacia adentro: argumentos sobre la necesidad de coordinación de las políticas de inmigración en un estado multinivel,” in Política y Sociedad, vol. 45, num. 1, pp. 11-39. jimenez, Maria (2009), Humanitarian Crisis: Migrants Deaths at the U.S.-Mexico Border, american civil liberties union (aclu) of san diego and imperial counties/Mexico’s national com- mission of Human rights, october 1. available at (last accessed on March 1, 2010). lestage, Françoise (2008), “apuntes relativos a la repatriación de los cuerpos de los mexicanos fallecidos en estados unidos,” Migraciones Internacionales 15, vol. 4, num. 4 , pp. 209-220. Massey, douglas et al. (1987), Return to Aztlán: The Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico, berkeley, cali- fornia, university of california Press. Moctezuma longoria, Miguel (2003), “la voz de los actores: Ley migrante y Zacatecas,” in Migración y desarrollo, num. 1, octo- ber, pp. 1-19. poea (2005), ofw Global Presence: A Compendium of Overseas Em- ployment Statistics, Mandaluyong city, Philippines, Philippine overseas employment administration. available at (last ac- cessed on june 6, 2009). ruiz saldierna, Mauro (2008), “Memorias de un migrante. an- tecedentes, iniciativas, satisfacciones y decepciones en la crea- ción, organización y despegue de la oficina estatal de atención a migrantes del gobierno del estado de san luis Potosí, 1997- 2003,” in Fernando alanís enciso, coord., ¡Yo soy de San Luis Potosí!... Con un pie en Estados Unidos, México, el colegio de san luis/Miguel Ángel Porrúa/secretaría de gobernación/ consejo Potosino de ciencia y tecnología, pp. 187-212. schiavon, jorge (2004), “la política externa de las entidades fe- derativas mexicanas: un estudio comparativo de seis federacio- nes,” Integración y Comercio, year 8, num. 21, july-december, pp. 109-131. schmitter Heisler, barbara (1985), “sending countries and the Politics of emigration and destination,” The International Mi- gration Review, vol. 19, num. 3, pp. 469-484. sisco, jessica and jonathan Hicken (2009), “is u.s. border enfor- cement Working?,” in Wayne a. cornelius, david Fitzgerald and scott borger, eds., Four Generations of Norteños: New Re- search from the Cradle of Mexican Migration, la jolla, califor- nia/boulder, colorado, center for comparative immigration studies/lynne rienner Publishers, pp. 41-76. YriZar-alarcón/eMigr ation PolicY and state goVernMents in Mexico 197 smith, Michael P. (2003), “transnationalism, the state, and the extraterritorial citizen,” Politics and Society, vol. 31, num. 4, pp. 467-502. smith, robert c. (2003), “Migrant Membership as an instituted Process: transnationalization, the state and the extra-territo- rial conduct of Mexican Politics,” International Migration Re- view, vol. 37, num. 2, pp. 297-343. taylor, Paul s. (1933), A Spanish-Mexican Peasant Community: Arandas in Jalisco, berkeley, california, university of califor- nia Press. torres Mendoza, Ángel (2007), “la migración agrícola documen- tada de México a estados unidos: un proceso de contratación ilegal en territorio nacional,” in cecilia imaz, coord., ¿Invisi- bles? Migrantes internacionales en la escena política, México, Fa- cultad de ciencias sociales y Políticas/universidad nacional autónoma de México/sitesa, pp. 141-154. united states department of Homeland security (2009), Year- book of Immigration Statistic: 2008, Washington, d. c., u.s. dhs, office of immigration statistics. Valenzuela, M. basilia (2006), “la instauración del 3×1 en jalis- co: el acomodo de los gobiernos estatales a una política adopta- da por el gobierno del estado,” in rafael Fernández de castro et al. coords., Las políticas migratorias en los estados de México: Una evaluación, México, cámara de diputados, lx legisla- tura/instituto tecnológico autónomo de México/universidad autónoma de Zacatecas/Miguel Ángel Porrúa, pp. 139-156. Velázquez Flores, rafael (2006), “la paradiplomacia mexicana: las relaciones exteriores de las entidades federativas,” Relaciones internacionales, México, universidad nacional autónoma de México, February-august. Verea, Mónica (2003), “las políticas sobre migrantes temporales en américa del norte,” Migración temporal en América del Nor- te. Propuestas y respuestas, México, centro de investigaciones sobre américa del norte/universidad nacional autónoma de México, pp. 123-179. Vila Freyer, ana (2007), “las políticas de atención a migrantes en los estados de México: acción, reacción y gestión,” in cecilia Migraciones internacionales, Vol. 5, núM. 4, julio-dicieMbre de 2010198 imaz, coord., ¿Invisibles? Migrantes internacionales en la escena política, México, Facultad de ciencias sociales y Políticas/uni- versidad nacional autónoma de México/sitesa, pp. 77-105. Yrizar barbosa, guillermo (2008) [master's thesis], “de la repa- triación de cadáveres al voto extraterritorial: Política de emi- gración y gobiernos estatales en el centro occidente de México,” tijuana, el colegio de la Frontera norte. Yrizar barbosa, guillermo (2009), “Políticas migratorias e institu- ciones hacia los marroquíes en el extranjero: ¿amenaza política o panacea transfronteriza?,” Frontera Norte 42, vol. 21, july- december, pp. 53-77. Zolberg, aristide (2006), A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America, new York, russell sage Foundation. Websites banco de México (bank of Mexico [banxico]), . consejo nacional de Población (national council of Population [conapo]), . instituto de los Mexicanos en el exterior (institute for Mexicans abroad [ime]), . instituto nacional de estadística y geografía (national institute of statistics and geography [inegi]), . non-resident Keralites’ affairs department (norka), . date of receipt: september 14, 2009. date of acceptance: november 4, 2009.