Desertification and Migration

8/2/2019 Desertification and Migration

1/64

U.S. COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION REFORM

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

Desertification and Migration:

Mexico and the United States

Michelle Leighton Schwartz

Jessica Notini


2/64

THE U.S. COMMISSIONON IMMIGRATION REFORM ISABIPARTISANCOMMISSIONAUTHORIZEDBYTHE

IMMIGRATION ACTOF 1990 ANDCHARGEDWITHEXAMINING IMMIGRATIONPOLICYAND ITS IMPACTON

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, ANDCOMMUNITYRELATIONS, ONPOPULATIONSIZEANDCHARACTERISTICS, ANDON

THEENVIRONMENT.

RICHARD ESTRADAASSOCIATE EDITOR, EDITORIAL PAGE, DALLAS MORNING NEWSAPPOINTED BY SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP

HAROLD EZELLPRESIDENT, THE EZELL GROUP, INC.APPOINTED BY HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP

LAWRENCE H. FUCHSJAFFEE PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN CIVILIZATION AND POLITICSBRANDEIS UNIVERSITYAPPOINTED BY SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP

ELECTED BY COMMISSIONERS TO BE VICE CHAIR

ROBERT CHARLES HILL

PARTNER, VENABLE BAETJER HOWARD & CIVILLETTIAPPOINTED BY HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP

SHIRLEY MOUNT HUFSTEDLERFORMER JUDGE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUITFORMER SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAPPOINTED BY PRESIDENT CLINTON AS COMMISSION CHAIR

WARREN R. LEIDENBERRY, APPLEMAN & LEIDEN LLPAPPOINTED BY HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP

NELSON MERCEDSENIOR ASSOCIATECOMMUNITY TRAINING & ASSISTANCE CENTERAPPOINTED BY SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP

BRUCE A. MORRISONCHAIRMAN, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARDAPPOINTED BY HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP

MICHAEL S. TEITELBAUMALFRED P. SLOAN FOUNDATIONAPPOINTED BY SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP

ELECTED BY COMMISSIONERS TO BE VICE CHAIR

SUSAN MARTIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR


3/64

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

Desertification and Migration:

Mexico and the United States

MICHELLE LEIGHTON SCHWARTZ, PROJECT DIRECTOR

JESSICA NOTINI, ATTORNEY

NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

FALL 1994


4/64

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

NHI STAFF

MICHELLE LEIGHTON SCHWARTZ, PROJECT DIRECTOR

JESSICA

NOTINI

, ATTORNEY

GREGORY A. THOMAS, PRESIDENT

DAVID FULLERTON, RESOURCE SCIENTIST

MARK R. WOLFE, LEGAL RESEARCHER

MARK SWANSON, LEGAL RESEARCHER

SUSAN REID, LEGAL RESEARCHER

KATHLEEN FABINY, ADMINISTRATOR

MICHELLE MOORE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

CONSULTANTS

JORGE BUSTAMANTE, DIRECTOR, COLEGIO NACIONAL DE LA FRONTERA NORTE

DANIEL DELAUNAY, DEMOGRAPHER, ORSTOMALAIN WINCKELL, GEOGRAPHER, ORSTOM

MICHEL LEPAGE, DATA ANALYST, ORSTOM

WEWISHESPECIALLYTOTHANKTHEFOLLOWING PERSONSFORTHEIRREVIEW

AND COMMENTS ON THEPOLICY ISSUES DISCUSSED INTHIS REPORT

PROF. RICHARD BILSBORROW, CAROLINA POPULATION CENTER

MANUEL ANAYA GARDUNO, INSTITUTO DE POSTGRADUADOS, MEXICO

PIERRE MARC JOHNSON, PROFESSOR OF LAW, MCGILL UNIVERSITY, CANADA

PROF. MICHAEL KEARNY, UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE

NAN KENNELLY, BUREAU FOR REFUGEE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DR. DIANA LIVERMAN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

PROF. PHILLIP MARTIN, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

MARCO ANTONIO PASQUAL MONCAYO, COMISION NACIONAL SOBRE ZONAS ARIDAS, MEXICO

DAVID RUNSTEN, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR RURAL STUDIES

PROF. EDWARD TAYLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

ROGER WINTER, U.S. COMMITTEE FOR REFUGEES

WITHSPECIALASSISTANCEFROM

SUSAN FORBES MARTIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, U.S. COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION REFORM


5/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I

FINDINGS ON MEXICO: PRELIMINARY CASE STUDY IIDESERTIFICATIONIN MEXICO II

HISTORIC MIGRATIONFROM MEXICOTOTHE UNITED STATES II

MIGRATION RELATEDTO DESERTIFICATION III

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION III

ISSUESFOR FURTHER INVESTIGATIONOFTHE ENVIRONMENTAND MIGRATION PHENOMENON

IV

ISSUESFOR EVALUATIONIN DEVELOPING BROADER POLICY RESPONSES IV

POTENTIAL SHORT- AND LONG-TERM OPPORTUNITIESFOR DEVELOPMENTOF ENVIRONMENTAL

SOLUTIONS VI

INTRODUCTION 1

BACKGROUND 2

FINDINGS ON MEXICO: PRELIMINARY CASE STUDY 3

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 3

DEMOGRAPHIC AND GEOGRAPHIC PROFILE 4

DESERTIFICATION IN MEXICO 5

ARIDITYIN MEXICO 6

PROCESSES

OF

DESERTIFICATION

AND

REGIONS

MOST

AFFECTED

7UNSUSTAINABLE LAND-USE PRACTICES CAUSING DESERTIFICATION 9

CLIMATE, DROUGHTAND DESERTIFICATION 12

MIGRATION RELATED TO DESERTIFICATION 13

HISTORIC MIGRATION FROM MEXICO TO THE UNITED STATES 14


6/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

MIGRATION FROM MEXICO TO THE UNITED STATES RELATED TO

ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION 17

INTEGRATION OF GEOSTATISTICAL DATA 20

QUANTIFYING MIGRATION FLOWS 21

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM-MENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION

22

ISSUES FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

MIGRATION PHENOMENON 23

FURTHER INVESTIGATETHE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMSAND

MIGRATION 24

INVESTIGATETHE DEVELOPMENTOF IMMIGRATIONAND OTHER POLICIESTHAT MAY BE

RESPONSIVETO ADDRESS ECOLOGICALLY-INDUCED MIGRATION 25

ISSUES TO EVALUATE IN DEVELOPING BROADER POLICY RESPONSES 26

DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTALLY-MOTIVATED MIGRANTSAND OTHER ECONOMIC

MIGRANTSTO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL ROOT CAUSESOF MIGRATION 27

INVESTIGATE HOW POLICY RESPONSES MIGHT PROVIDEAN OPPORTUNITYFOR SOME

MIGRANTSTO RETURN HOMETOTHEIR COMMUNITIES 28

INVESTIGATETHE OPPORTUNITYFOR ESTABLISHING JOINT U.S.-MEXICO PROGRAMSTO

ADDRESSTHE MIGRATION RELATEDTO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS 30

POTENTIAL SHORT- AND LONG-TERM OPPORTUNITIESFORTHE DEVELOPMENTOF

ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 31

REFERENCES 43


7/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- i -

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

The greatest threat to habitability may be

the degradation of agricultural lands indeveloping countries where many peopledepen d u pon farming for their livelihood.Long periods of over-exploitation due topopulation growth and poverty inevita-bly result in land degrad ation, sometimesirreversibly altering the carrying capacityof the land . This phenomenon, known asdesertification, currently affects 3.6 billionhectares, the equivalent of one-quarter ofthe worlds total surface.

The Commission on Immigration Reform[CIR] requested this preliminary study ofenvironmental degradat ion related tounsustainable land and water use as oneof the potential root causes of certain mi-gration from Mexico to the United States.Perhaps as with no other country, migra-tion from Mexico raises critical issueswithin the Comm issions man date. The2,000 mile border betw een Mexico and theUnited States historically has been por ous.In the past thirty years the U.S. has de-

ported more than seventeen million ille-gal Mexican imm igrants. The large wagedifferential between the two countries andextensive migran t networks act as an enor-mou s pull in motivating migration. The

poverty and economic disparity in Mexicoare strong factors which pu sh m igrantstoward the U.S. Trade relations and theexchange of goods and services across theborder heighten the need for stable rela-

tions with Mexico. Thus, migration fromMexico will continue to be an importantfocus for foreign policy development and,specifically, of concern to the Commission.

The findings contained in this report sug-gest that serious impairment of Mexicosagricultural lands may give rise to m igra-tion. There is evidence to suggest that aportion of the 900,000 persons who mi-grate annually from the arid and semi-arid regions of Mexico do so because ofthe desertification processes which yearlyimpair 1,000 square miles of surface areaand cause the abandonment of another400 square miles of farmlands.

As environmental degradation can oftenbe addressed through targeted interven-t ion, this report presents recommen-da t ions for fu ture ac t ion by theComm ission and/ or Congress that go be-yond reform of traditional migration p oli-

cies and in stitutions. It iden tifies specificissues for further stud y and policy d evel-opm ent as a first step in add ressing Mexi-can migration related to desertification.


8/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- ii -


Findings onMexico:Preliminary CaseStudy

Mexico is the third largest and secondmost pop ulous country in North Am erica.Two-thirds of the countrys poor peopleare farmers and farm workers. Three-quarters of those most impoverished livein rural areas, many as subsistence farm-ers.

Desertification in

Mexico

Most of Mexicos lands are undergoingsome process of land degrad ation. As aresult, approximately 2,250 square kilo-meters of potentially pr odu ctive farmlandsare taken out of prod uction or abandon edeach year. Experts estima te that Mexicosdesertification p roblems are caused largelyby the excessive clearing and cultivationof land unsuitable for agriculture, over-grazing, the exploitation of forests and

vegetation for fuel, the application of in-efficient irrigation practices, mining activi-t i es , and urban expans ion . Cl imate

conditions, particularly periods of pro-longed drought, exacerbate these prob-lems.

The environmental and socioeconomic

impacts of desertification have becomemore widespread as people abandon de-graded lands and move onto marginallands that are even less suitable for agri-culture. This push into marginal landsis attributable to a number of factors, in-cluding government policy, monopoliza-tion of higher quality land by large-scalefarmers, and a high population growthrate.

Historic Migration

from Mexico to the

United States

Mexican migration to the United Stateshistorically has been rooted in economictrends on both sides of the border. Mostof this migration has been illegal, despitesuch government in i t i a t ives as theBracero Program, that permitted tem-porary recruitment and employment of

Mexicans in the United States. Legisla-tive efforts, including the ImmigrationReform and Control Act of 1986 [IRCA],have been unsuccessful in substantiallycurbing illegal immigration.


9/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- iii -

Migration Related to

Desertification

Mexicans have fled rural poverty for de-cades to seek better opp ortunities in Mexi-can cities and th e United States. Thereasons for migration are often complex,but relationships between certain environ-mental conditions and population move-ments can be identified.

The quality of farmlands, availability andreliability of water supply, and the man-agement of lands play an important rolein contributing to migration from ruralareas. Specifically, land degr ada tion and

desertification frequently lead to migra-tion when people can no longer subsiston the land. The Mexican governm enthas found that approximately 900,000people now leave arid and semi-arid ar-eas every year. Our investigation, includ -ing analysis of geostatistical informationand migration data, confirmed that theinability to make a living from the landdue to dry conditions and processes ofsoil erosion contribute to the decision ofrural people to migrate. This is supp orted

by studies of other regions in Mexico andLatin America.

No one has attempted to determine howmany of these migrants leave the ruralareas of Mexico because of serious im-pairment of farmlands or other desertifi-

cation pr ocesses. The time constraints andscope of our investigation did not permitus to undertake any real quantificationanalysis. Further investigation and d atadevelopment is warranted to provide a

more accurate basis for determining thescope of the problem.

Conclusions &Recommendations

for Future Action

The find ings contained in this report sup -port the following preliminary conclu-sions.

First, there is evidence to suggest that aportion of the migrating population fromMexico to the United States consists ofpeople wh o are moving because they can-not farm the lands due to ongoing pro-cesses of soil d esertification. Second ,preventing this migration will requireaddressing the environmental causes ofthe problem, largely associated with un-sustainable land and water u se in Mexico.It is likely that specific policies will benecessary to assure the viability of farm-ing and to revitalize degraded lands.Third, while the development of data onmigration associated with environmentalproblems is too prem ature to recomm endspecific foreign policies, our preliminary


10/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- iv -


analysis reveals that the Commission andCongress will need to look beyond tradi-tional immigration policy to address theroot causes of the problem . The pr eciseprograms and policies will depend upon

the results of further field and analyticalstudy described below.

Issues for Further

Investigation of the

Environment and

Migration

Phenomenon

The following recommendations are pre-

sented for the Commissions future actionto improve un derstanding of immigrationand foreign policies that could be formu-lated to address the problem.

Investigate the relationship between the

environment and migration. Reversingthe trends of land degradation in Mexicowill be critical in stemming the migrationrelated to unsustainable use of agricultura llands in certain regions. Investigating thelinks between environment, migration,

and population, as well as the interrela-tionship of climatological factors, willprovide more definitive analysis of thesetrends that can form the basis for appro-priate policy developm ent. In this con-text it would be useful to investigate thelands currently undergoing desertification

in rur al and semi-arid areas of Mexico thatfoster significant involuntary migration.This information should be analyzed inconjunction with migration and popula-tion data and other geostatistical infor-

mation.

Investigate the development of immigra-

tion and other policies that may be re-

sponsive to address ecologically-induced

migration. Traditional measures, such astightening border controls and employersanctions for hiring illegal immigrants, willbe insufficient to prevent the migrationrelated to serious environmental deterio-ration in Mexico. These traditional policyresponses may be more effective if coupledwith agricultural land rem ediation, train-ing, and edu cational program s. If theobjective of U.S.immigration policy is toaddress root causes of migration, thensuch an objective will need to incorporatebroader policies that involve internationalcooperation, aid, and technical supportmeasures.

Issues for Evaluation

in Developing BroaderPolicy Responses

The United States could play a catalyzingrole in the development of such policies,particularly given its expertise in agricul-tural management. The Commission and/


11/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- v -

or Congress should investigate opportu-nities for policy development in this area.

Distinguish between environmentally-

motivated migrants and other economic

migrants to address environmental root

causes of migration. Adverse environ-mental conditions can lead to increasedpoverty w hen families can no longer sub-sist on their lands. They may be forcedto join the grow ing numbers of other eco-nom ic migran ts. How ever, it app earsuseful to distinguish between these en-vironmental migrants and other eco-nom ic migrants for two reasons. First,understanding that some segment of theinternational m igration p opu lation is pri-marily motivated to move because of theirinability to farm could foster the develop-ment of environmental programs specifi-cal ly designed to s tem this cause ofmigration . Second, because the mo tiva-tion for leaving their homelands is differ-ent from that of other economic migrants,those forced to leave because farming isunsustainable may consider returninghome if remediation programs are offered.The Commission should explore this dis-

tinction in its further study of migrationand environment issues and in develop-ing policy recommendations.

Investigate how policy responses could

provide an opportunity for some mi-

grants to return home. The prelimina ryfindings of our investigation suggest thatmigrants forced to leave because farmingis unsustainable may consider returninghome if they can successfully farm the

land. Further study is needed to deter-mine w hether these find ings represent theattitudes of a broader base of rural mi-grants in the United States. If so, theComm ission and/ or Congress shoulddetermine the potential for developingpolicies to p romote the return of rural mi-grants to participate in agricultural train-ing and development p rograms in Mexico.

Investigate the opportunity for establish-

ing joint U.S.-Mexico programs to ad-

dress the migration related to

environmental problems. The creationor modification of certain policies inMexico likely will be needed to redressthe growing environmental problems re-lated to harvesting of forests and vegeta-tion. Finan cial assistance and transfer oftechnical expertise could play a key rolein prom oting the implementation of thesepolicies in m any par ts of Mexico. TheCommission and / or Congress should ex-

plore the opportunity to develop coop-erative programs with Mexico to create,finance, and implement environmentalmitigation and prevention programs.


12/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- vi -


Potential Short- and

Long-Term

Opportunities for

Development of

EnvironmentalSolutions

This report identifies specific measuresthat warrant further consideration in theformulation of environmental programsand policies. These are based uponpreliminary investigation of some deser-tification problems in Mexico and our ex-perience in developing recommendedprogram s to add ress agricultural manage-ment problems in the western United

States. We have identified the need todevelop such policy goals as: reducingcrop cultivation on mar ginalized lands; in-stituting controlled grazing practices andprom oting alternative sustainable uses ofthe lands affected; reducing water-inten-sive crop cultivation in certain areas; sub-stituting drought resistant crops, whereappropriate; and implementing efficientagricultural w ater m anagement practices.

The primary difficulties in translatingthese objectives into actual practices willbe (1) securing the resources and exper-tise necessary to assist farmers in modify-ing their behavior and, (2) obtaining the

cooperation of the rural workers w ho tra-ditionally have followed particular culti-vation, grazing, harvesting, and irrigationpractices.

One way to achieve the necessaryparticipation may be to carry out modelprograms or pilot projects to test the rec-ommended changes in land management.Rural participants closely involved in thedevelopment and app lication of solutionswill ensure that programs are more prac-tical and influential in fostering changeby both the immediate participants andoutsid e observers. If there is sufficientfinancing to reduce the risks, rural com-munities or ejidos may participate volun-tarily in these projects.


13/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 1 -

INTRODUCTION

The scope of the m and ate of the Comm is-sion on Immigration Reform [CIR], ascreated by the Immigration Act of 1990,includes examination of the impact ofimmigration on the foreign policy andnational security interests of the UnitedStates. Perhaps as with no other country,immigration from Mexico raises criticalissues with in this mand ate. The 2,000-mile border between Mexico and theUnited States historically has been por ous.In the past thirty years, the U.S. has de-ported more than seventeen million ille-gal Mexican imm igrants. The large wage

differential between the two countries andextensive migran t networks act as an enor-mou s pull in motivating migration. Thepoverty and economic disparity in Mexicoare strong factors which pu sh m igrantstoward the U.S. Trade relations and theexchange of goods and services across theborder heighten the need for stable rela-tions with Mexico. Thus, imm igrationfrom Mexico will continue to be an im-portant focus for foreign policy develop-ment.

CIR requested this preliminarily study ofone of the potential root causes or pushfactors of migration from Mexico: envi-ronmental degradation related to unsus-tainable land and water u se in ru ral areas.Though this relationship has been little

studied, our investigation revealed thatthere may be a strong link between seri-ous impairment of agricultural lands ordesertification and increased migrationto the U.S. There is eviden ce to suggest

that a portion of the 900,000 persons whomigrate annually from the arid and semi-arid regions of Mexico may do so becauseof the d esertification p rocesses that yearlyimpair 1,000 square miles of surface areaand cause the abandonment of another400 square miles of farmlands.

Perhap s unlike other econom ic root causesof migration, environmental degradationoften can be prevented or remediated w ithtargeted intervention. We have a solidunderstanding of the management tech-niques required to address many agricul-tural land and irrigation problems, butoften there is a lack of education, train-ing, and financial resources to undertakethe necessary reforms. Such reformscould yield both short- and long-termbenefits to Mexico and the United Statesin addressing the problem.

Our f indings sugges t tha t the

Commissions further investigation of theenvironment and migration phenomenonis warranted to increase und erstanding ofthe official policies that could be formu-lated in response. Congress will need tolook beyond traditional imm igration poli-cies to address the environmental root


14/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 2 -


causes of migration. In this pap er, wepresent the findings of our preliminarystudy and recommendations for furtheraction by the Commission and Congress.

BACKGROUND

There are many areas in the world whereunsustainable land use practices inevita-bly result in soil deterioration, sometimesirreversibly altering the carrying capacityof the land. This pr ocess of desertifica-tion can have profound social and eco-nomic impacts, including migration.

The United Nations Conference on Envi-ronment an d Developm ent [UNCED] con-cluded that desertification affects 3.6billion hectares of rain-fed croplands,range lands , and i r r iga ted l ands , theequivalent of one-quarter of the worldstotal land surface, and 70 percent of alldrylands (UNCED 1992a:47). Even morecritically, this phenomenon affects one-sixth of the Worlds population (UNCED1992a:47). The United Nation s Popula-tion Fund recently concluded that more

than 135 million people may be at risk ofbeing displaced by severe desertification(UNPF 1991:32).1

While the causes of environmentally-induced population movements are nu-merous, the greatest threat to habitabilitymay be the degradation of agriculturallands in countries where most people de-

pend upon farming for their livelihood.Populat ion growth and poverty placeadditional pressure on scarce land re-sources , exacerbat ing deser t i f icat ion(UNPF 1991:32).1 If growth rates are notreversed, the curren t, alarm ing pace of en-vironmental degradation will accelerate:each year, eleven m illion hectares of tropi-cal rainforests are cut, twenty-six billiontons of topsoil are eroded, and six millionhectares of arable land are desertified(UNCED 1992c:para 47, 48, 69, 70, 79, 82,83, 101). These factors ultim ately forcepeople to aband on an agricultural subsis-tence and relocate to nearby already over-populated urban centers or to migrate toneighboring states.

We have investigated this issue in vari-ous countries and regions of the world.(Maloney 1990/ 91a, 1990/ 91b; Sander s1990/ 91a, 1990/ 91b; Tamondon g-Helin &Helin 1990/ 91; Catanese 1990/ 91). De-

velopm ent in parts of North Am erica andthe Caribbean Basin countries has led tosubstantial rural outm igration over the last

1The cur rent trend s in popu lation grow th exacerbate this threat. The expected increase in theworld s pop ulation by n early one billion peop le will occur in pov erty-stricken areas, increasingpressure on lands that already have been marginalized (UNCED 1991; El Hinnawi 1985).


15/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 3 -

three decades, some to the United Statesand most to urban centers within the af-fected countries (Commission for theStudy of International Migration and Co-opera t ive Economic Development

1990:101). Little has been docum ented ,however, on the relationship betw een en-vironmental degradation and migration inthis region.2

Mexico is one of many countries affectedby these problems. Mexicos climate ispredom inantly arid or semi-arid. Muchof its surface area is affected by desertifi-cation, caused by a combination of clima-to logica l fac tors and unsus ta inableland-use practices. Mexico has also beenthe source of large-scale, cross-bordermigration for several decad es. The find -ings contained in this report indicate thatthe increasing impairment of Mexicosagricultural lands is a potentially signifi-cant cause of migration to the UnitedStates that warrants further study. Pre-liminary eviden ce of this relationship sug-ges t s fur ther avenues of research ,education, and targeted intervention willbe necessary to remed iate existing or pre-

vent future problems.

Our findings and recommendations pre-sented below are based upon work thatwe completed for the United NationsSecretariat for the Intergovernmental Ne-gotiating Committee for a Convention to

Combat Deser t i f icat ion and Drought[INC-D]. Our analysis was expanded tofocus on issues critical to U.S. immigra-tion policy development.

FINDINGS ONMEXICO:PRELIMINARYCASE STUDY

Introduction andMethodology

In investigating the desertification andmigration problems in Mexico, we u nder-took an extensive literature review, con-ducted sample interviews with migrantsliving in Northern California3 and withpeople in several rural town s and villagesin Central Mexico, and discussed the is-

2There is an abundance of literature on deforestation and land degradation, with only incidentalreference to the resultant migration. While migration experts and academics have un dertakenmuch research on migration patterns in this region, they have not looked deeply into howenvironmental problems may contribute to these population movements.

3California is the primary dest inat ion of most undocumented migrants from Mexico.Approximately two-thirds of undocumented Mexico State migrants in the United States areto be found in California . . . (Bustamante 1992:10).


16/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 4 -


sues with migration and environmentexperts. As we had such a short time toconduct our investigation, the findingspresented below can be viewed only aspreliminary.

The maps presented in this report weredeveloped for the Natu ral Heritage Insti-tute in connection with this project and aspart of a cooperative program betweenCOLEF [El Colegio de la Frontera Nortein Ti juana d i rec ted by Dr . JorgeBustamante] and ORSTOM [The FrenchInstitute of Scientific Research for Coop-erative Development], a study financedin part by CONACYT. This is par t of aGeographic and Statistical InformationSystem [SIGEF] concerning the NorthFrontier/ Border created by D. Delaunayand J. Santibanez. The ma ps use theSavane and Rapido param eters developedat the Institute by Marc Souris and MichelLepage. The census inform ation is takenfrom CODICE90, CD-ROM edited byINEGI. The information pr ovided onmigration was obtained from surveysconducted by Dr. Bustamante, R. Corona,and J. Santiban ez of COLEF. The climat ic

characterization is derived from the Na-tional Atlas of Mexico of UNAM, fromthe National Atlas of the Physical Envi-ronment of Mexico and relevant letterspu blished by ENEGI. The auth ors of thegeostatistical information presented areDaniel Delaunay (Demographer), Alain

Winckell (Geographer) and Michel Lepage(Data Analyst) of ORSTOM.

Demographic andGeographic Profile

Mexico is the third largest and secondmost pop ulous country in North Am erica.Its cur rent popu lation of 88 million p eoplehas quadrupled since 1940, (Commissionfor the Study of International Migrationand Cooperative Economic Deveopment1990:11), and is growing by 1.5 millionpeople annually (Commission for theStudy of Migration and Cooperative Eco-

nom ic Deveop men t 1990:12). Mexico City,the capital of Mexico, is the most popu-lated city in the world, with an expected25 m illion peop le by the year 2000 (UN PF1991:60).

Mexicos territory extends over 1,958,201square kilometres, bordering the UnitedStates to the north, the Gulf of Mexicoand the Caribbean Sea to the east, Belizeand Guatemala to the southeast, and theGulf of California and the Pacific Ocean

to the west. Most of the coun try is high-land or mou ntainous. App roximately 20percent is forested. Most of the YucatnPeninsula and the Isthmus of Tehuan-tepec in the southeast is lowland . Thereare lowlying strips of land along the Gulf


17/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 5 -

of Mexico, the Pacific Ocean, and the Gu lfof California. The heart of Mexico is thegreat Mexican Plateau, which is inter-rupted by mounta in ranges and seg-mented by deep rifts.

The country is divided into thirty-onestates and a federal district that includesthe capital, Mexico City [Map 1 p.19]. Thegovernment is organized as a federal re-public, with the powers of chief executiveand head of state vested in a popularly-elected president.

Approximately 55 percent of Mexicospopula t ion a re Mes t izo , 29 percentAmerindian, and 10 percent European,with Spanish the primary language andRoman Catholicism the most-practiced re-ligion. Two-third s of the coun trys poorpeople are farmers and farm workers.Three quarters of those most impover-ished live in rural areas (Martin 1993:99).Many in agriculture are subsistence farm-ers who commonly grow corn and beansfor their families and depend on low andvariable rainfall for the success of theircrops (Martin 1993:100).

A unique feature of Mexican agriculturalmanagement is i ts communal land orejido system. Ejidos are comm unal farmsthat were created after the Mexican revo-lution w hen the governm ent redistributedland from large landowners to the land-

less peasants for w hom the revolution w asfought. Ejido members obtain land as agroup from the government, but usuallyfarm the land individually. Ejidos controlabout 70 percent of Mexicos croplands

and half of its irrigated lands (Martin1993:101). National policy now a llows in-dividual ejido mem bers to sell or rent theirland.

Desertification inMexico

There has been much debate about themean ing of the term d esertification. The

best explanation of it as both a physicalstate of land degradation and as a pro-cess of deterioration may be the follow-ing:

Deser t i f icat ion, revealed bydrought , i s caused by humanactivities in which the carryingcapacity of the land is exceeded;it proceeds by exacerbated naturalor man-indu ced m echanisms, andis mad e man ifest by intricate steps

of vege ta t ion and so i ldeter iorat ion which resul t , inhuman terms, in an irreversibledecrease or destruction of thebiological potential of the land andits ability to su pp ort pop ulations.(Mainguet 1991:4)


18/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 6 -


The term is technically defined by therecently adopted Un ited N ations Conven-tion to Combat Desertification as, landdegradation in arid, semi-arid and drysub-humid areas resulting from various

factors, including climatic variations andhuman activities. (UNGA 1993b)

Most of Mexicos lands are undergoingsome process of land degradation. Thegovernment of Mexico has concluded that97 percent of its territory is affected tosome degree, and that 60 percent of itsterritory is extremely or severely de-graded.4 This data is not surprising inlight of findings by experts in 1978 thatapp roximately 150 million hectares of landhad prob lems of desertification, represent-ing 80 percent of Mexicos territory(Medellin-Leal 1978:107). These experts es-timated that desertification would con-t inue to advance rapidly in Mexico,degrading between 100,000 and 200,000hectares of land per year. The Mexicangovernm ents current findings suggest thatthis prediction was correct.

As a result of this land degradation, it is

now estimated that 1,000 square miles or

2,250 square kilometers of potentially pro-ductive farmlands are taken out of pro-duction or abandoned each year (Myers1993:140; UN PF 1991:99). These figu resdemonstrate the gravity of the desertifi-

cation problem in Mexico and underliethe need for immediate preventative andremedial measures.

Aridity in Mexico

Much of Mexico is comprised of arid andsemi-arid zones, making the lands vul-nerable to the p rocesses of desertification,as discussed below. These land s consti-

tute more than 50 percent, and perhapsas much as 80 percent, of Mexicos terri-tory (Myers 1993:139; Ballin-Cortes1990a:3). [See Map 2]. The governmen tof Mexico estimates that they comprise52.5 percent of Mexicos total land area(Comision Nacional de las Zonas Aridas1993:sum 1.1).

Approximately eight million hectares ofland, constituting approximately 45 per-cent of all agricultural land, is farmed or

used for grazing in the arid and semi-

4We were unable to obtain a complete copy of the Plan de Accion Para Combatir la Desertificationen Mexico before this paper w as submitted to the Commission. Where possible, we referto the portions of the final plan that we obtained (Comision Nacional de las Zonas Aridas1994). Where w e were m issing p ortion of the final plan, we have in a few instances, reliedon information contained in a prior version of the plan prepared in October 1993 (ComisionNacional de las Zonas Aridas 1993).


19/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 7 -

arid regions of Mexico. Of this land , onlyabou t 25 per cent is irrigated . Seasonalagriculture, or rainfed farmland, in theseregions has the highest rate of crop lossin the country. Frost and drou ght are the

principal causes (Comision Nacional delas Zonas Aridas 1993:sum 1.3).

The desert, arid, semi-arid, dry su bhum id,and humid regions of Mexico are shownon Map 2 [p.20], Index of Aridity. OfMexicos territory, 23.6 percent is desert,11.2 percent is arid, 9.9 percent is semi-arid and 25.7 percent is dry sub-humid[Map 2]. This indicates that approxi-mately 70 percent of Mexicos lands maybe vulnerab le to desertification. Levels ofprecipitation and evaporation in Mexicotend to support this estimate: Maps 3, 4,an d 5 [pp.21-23] iden tify precipitation andevaporation levels in various regions inMexico and the number of dry monthsper year experienced in these regions. Wedetermined aridity for the purpose ofthese charts as the ratio of average an-nual rainfall and average annual evapo-ra t ion . In deve loping th i s workingdefinition of aridity, we incorporated the

definition n ow contained in the U.N. Con-

vent ion to Combat Deser t i f i ca t ion(UNCCD 1994).5

Processes of

Desertification and

Regions Most

Affected

There are a number of natural mechanismsor phenomena that contribute to the pro-cesses of desertification of vulnerablelands (those lands being utilized beyondtheir carrying capacity). The most signifi-cant of these in Mexico are wind andwater erosion of soils, affecting between

60 percent and 85 percent of Mexicosterritory (Comision Nacional de las Zo-nas Aridas 1993:Ch 2, sect 2.3.2, 2.3.3).Experts estimate that at least 70 percentof Mexicos ag ricultural lands ar e affectedby soil erosion of some type (Myers1993:140; UNPF 1991:98).

Other significant types of land degrada-tion that form part of the desertificationprocess include salinization, sodification,physical degradation, biological degrada-

tion, and chemical degrad ation. The Mexi-

5Article 1 of the text defines arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas as areas in which theratio of average annual precipitation to potential evapotranspiration falls within the rangefrom 0.05 to 0.65 (UNCCD 1994). While this definition does n ot pr ovide clear guidan ce,it does suggest the importance of examining temperatures, precipitation and evaporation orpotential evapotranspiration in determining the level of aridity in a particular region.


20/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 8 -


can government estimates that these pro-cesses affect 20 percent, 15 percent, 20percent, 80 percent and 15 percent ofMexicos territory respectively (ComisionNacional de las Zonas Aridas 1993:Ch 2,

sect 2.3.2-2.3.7).

Salinization and sodification of soils areof particular interest to some because theyare caused primarily by irrigation that isotherwise considered to be a beneficialpractice. The problem s generally stemfrom poor d raining of irrigated lands an dthe app lication of poor quality wa ter. Anestimated one-fifth of Mexicos croplandis irrigated (Liverman & OBrien 1991:351),and 10 percent of these lands are nowhighly sal inized (Myers 1993:140;Comision Nacional de las Zonas Aridas1993:Ch 2, sect 2.3.4). Ou r investiga tionssuggest that this problem is particularlynotable in such arid states as Sonora w hereirrigation is relied upon for the produc-tion of crops in the absence of significantrainfall (Arguelles 1993).6

The government of Mexico has investi-gated the extent of these processes of land

degradat ion in the s tates of Mexico(Comision Nacional de las Zonas Aridas1993:Ch 2). Accord ing to this investiga-

tion, the Mexican states with the greatestrates of land degradation are:

Water erosion. Aguasca l ien tes ,Guanajuato, Coahuila, Michoacan,

Zacatecas, Jalisco, Nuevo Leon, andSan Luis Potosi, with more than 45percent of the sur face severe lyaffected;

Wind Erosion. San Luis Potosi ,Morelos, Hidalgo, Nuevo Leon, BajaCalifornia, Queretaro, and Zacatecas,with more than 80 percent of theirsurface affected;

Salinization. Tamaulipas, Sonora,Baja California, Chihuahu a, Coa-hu ila,and Colima, w ith more than 2 percentof their surface affected;

Sodification. Campeche , Sonora ,Quintana Roo, Morelos , Yucatan,Tabasco, and Mexico, with 13-40percent of their surface affected;

Physical Degradation. Hidalgo andVeracruz, with 40-90 percent of their

surface affected;

Biological Degradation. Col ima,Morelos, Tabasco, Chiapas, Veracruz,

6Mr. Arguelles is an agrarian lawyer with substantial experience and knowledge of conditionsin the Sonora area.


21/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 9 -

Jalisco, Michoacan, Nayarit, Yucatan,and Sina loa , wi th more than 90percent of their surface affected;

Chemical Degradation. Tabasco,

Campeche, Veracruz, Nayarit, andOaxaca, with 20-67 percent of theirsurface affected;

States that are experiencing nearly allof these forms of degradation are:Chihuahua, Coahuila, Colima, Jalisco,Mexico, Sinaloa, and Sonora(Comision Nacional de las ZonasAridas 1993:Ch 2, sect 2.3.2-2.3.7).Our investigation indicates that theremay a l so be cons iderable l anddegradation in Puebla and Guerrero.

Given the extent of arid and semi-aridareas in Mexico, it is likely that a signifi-cant portion of the lands in Mexico arevulnerable to, or are presently undergo-ing, desertification at some level. We wereunable to obtain precise information onthe areas in which the soil or vegetativedeterioration has resulted in an irrevers-ible decrease or destruction of the bio-

logical potential of the land and its abilityto sup port people. Further investigationwill be needed.

Experts have found that serious desertifi-cation usually exists along the borders ofdeserts, such as Northern Mexico and in

the areas of transition between semi-aridand subhumid or tropical zones (Ballin-Cortes 1990b:158) [See Maps 2 and 6pp .21,24]. Ou r observations of the bord ersof the Chihuahuense Desert in the San

Luis Potosi area were consistent with thisfinding.

Unsustainable Land-

Use Practices

Causing

Desertification

Human activities are generally consideredto be the determining factor in all stages

of desertification (Maingu et 1991:5). It isestimated that 87 percent of desertifica-tion problems are caused by unsustain-able land use, with the remaining 13percent attributable to climate conditions(Ballin-Co rtes 1990a:3). Theoverexploitation of lands can make themvulnerable to the processes of desertifica-tion. Lands in arid or semi-arid areasthat have been stripped of their vegeta-tive cover are perilously susceptible toerosion from harsh w inds or rains. This

degradation may irreversibly alter theability of the soils to sustain crops thatmay be replanted or vegetation for graz-ing.

The types of land use practices that canlead to desertification include:


22/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 10 -


1. Clearing and cul tiva t ing landsunsuitable for agriculture or cul-tivating crops in a manner thatoverburdens the land without tak-ing adequ ate precautions against

erosion;

2. O v e rg r a zi n g l an d s , i n cl u d in gplacing too many animals onsmall parcels of land and failingto rotate the lands grazed;

3. Exploiting forests and other veg-etation for fuel, consumption, andsale;

4. Adop ting poor wa t er m anage -ment and irrigation practices;

5. Ur ban expansion , m i n ing , andpubl ic works. (Medel l in-Leal1978:63-71; Comision Nacional delas Zonas Aridas 1993:Ch 2, Sect2.2.1-2.2.4; Ballin-Cortes &Vasquez Rocillo 1993).

Of these activities, the first two m ay causethe mos t widespread degrada t ion in

Mexico (Ballin-Cortes & Vasquez Rocillo1993).

Our field investigation confirmed thatpoor cultivation practices and overgraz-ing are serious problems. We toured partsof San Luis Potosi in the Desert of Chi-

huahua reputed to be typical of arid andsemi-arid areas with desertification prob-lems. There we observed, and confirmedthrough interviews, that the majority ofthe rural population tries to subsist by

growing corn and beans, despite the factthat the natural soil base is only margin-ally productive, even when rainfall isadequate, and is generally exhausted bythese crops in a short time (Ballin-Cortes& Vasquez Rocillo 1993; Natural HeritageInstitute 1993). When rainfall is inad-equate, as is frequently the case, thesepeop le find themselves in a d esperate situ-ation. We also observed that a substan -t i a l por t ion of the rura l popula t ionpractices grazing as a supplement or al-ternative to cultivation.

The results of these practices were visiblein the land conditions we encountered.Vegetation was extremely sparse in theareas surrounding each village and manydusty fields of little apparent productivevalue were left exposed to wind and watererosion. The poverty of the peop le livingin these conditions was notable. At thetime of our visit, hund reds of women an d

children from the villages lined the cen-tral highway begging for candy, money,or gifts for the upcoming Christmas sea-son.

The environmental and socioeconomicimpacts of desertification have grown as


23/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 11 -

people abandoned the degraded lands andmoved onto more marginal lands, lesssuitable for agriculture (Ballin-Cortes &Vasquez Rocillo 1993). The push into mar -ginal lands is attributable to a number of

factors, includ ing official po licies. First,as land is exhausted d ue to un sustainablecultivation an d grazing, rural inhabitantsseek official authorization to clear moreland, which they use and manage in thesame w ay, thereby continuing the p atternof degradation and abandonm ent of lands.Second, the government has commonlygranted permits for this type of clearingin an attempt to placate poor rural farm-ers and obtain political support (Ballin-Corte s & Vasqu ez Rocillo 1993). Thegovernment generally has promoted theexpansion of agriculture an d grazing intomarginal lands in the wake of the Mexi-can revolution as part of the effort to pro-vide peasants with promised land. Thegovernment has sometimes attempted tosatisfy peasant demands by providingthem marginal land not previously culti-vated, rather than taking land from largelandholders.

Third, large-scale farmers have consis-tently purchased the more marginalizedlands of the smaller-scale farmers, caus-ing them to seek new land in even moremarginal areas (Myers 1993:141). Manybelieve that this trend will intensify in thewake of new land reform policies whichallow ejido members to sell or rent their

land (Villarejo 1993; Ballin-Cortes &Vasquez Rocillo 1993). Fourth, high popu-lation growth rates increase thedemandfor land in Mexico causing both a pushinto marginal land s and an increase in the

level of many activities contributing todesertification (Liverman 1992:64; Myers1993:141-42; Comision Nacional de lasZonas Arida s 1993:Ch 2, sect 2.1). Thegovernment of Mexico has noted that theadvance of desertification is particularlyrapid in central Mexico where the popu-lation density is greatest and th e pressureson the land are most severe (ComisionNacional de las Zonas Aridas 1993:Intro).Map 6 [p.24] illustrates those areas whererur al density is the greatest in Mexico andcorrelates this with data on aridity. Asthe map indicates, the central plateau is asemi-arid zone w ith high popu lation d en-sity. As discussed below, Maps 7 and 8[pp.25,26] also identify significant migra-tion from this region.

Finally, for m any years, the National Bankin Mexico has financed the cultivation ofsuch crops as corn and beans, regardlessof whether those crops were sustainable

by the land und er cultivation. This fiscalpolicy apparently has encouraged ruralworkers to continue unsus-tainable agri-cultural p ractices and created financial dif-ficulties for the National Bank because thelack of productivity resulted in reducedprofits and loans were frequently unpaid(Ballin-Cortes & Vasquez Rocillo 1993).


24/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 12 -


Climate, Drought and

Desertification

Periodic droughts and generally dry con-ditions in the arid, semi-arid, and drysubhu mid areas of Mexico have un dou bt-edly contributed to the advance of deser-tification. Only abou t 12 percent of thenations water is on the central plateauwhere 60 percent of the population and51 percent of the cropland are located(Liverman 1992:45). How ever, som e be-lieve that climatic events have played onlya small role in this process, noting that todate temperatures have not changed no-tably and that the low rainfall experi-

enced in dry years in the a r id andsemi-arid regions has usually been withinthe expected range of precipitation (Ballin-Cortes & Vasquez Rocillo 1993).

Where climate change has occurred, someexperts suggest that it has been caused orexacerbated by human activity. One studyexamining the differences between Ari-zona and Sonora along the United States/Mexico border found that variations intemperature could be explained by differ-

ences in vegetation and soil moisture onthe two sides of the border (Bal l ing

1988:106-07; Bryant , et al. 1990:260-61). Onthe Mexican side of the border, vegeta-tion and soil moisture were depleted dueto heavy overgrazing, resulting in tem-peratures that were two to four degrees

centigrade warmer than on the Arizonaside where grazing was p racticed in a con-trol led, sustainable manner (Bal l ing1988:106-07; Bryant, et al. 1990:260-61).The authors of the study also believe thatthe conditions on the Mexican side of theborder may actually decrease the amountof rainfall, though this postulation has yetto be verified (Balling 1993). Certa inly,the degraded condition of land on theMexican side of the border exacerbatesthe erosion caused by rainfall.

In addition, the impacts of climate changeon the environment often depend moreon the characteristics of the region andpeople affected than on the nature of theclimate change itself (Liverman 1992:44,57). Thus, for exam ple, one study foun dthat the lands vulnerable to drought intwo different regions of Mexico corre-sponded mu ch more closely with m isman-agement ofejido lands, lack of irrigation,

lack of high yielding seed varieties, andlack of fertilizer than with physical cli-mate conditions (Liverman 1992:60).7

7The correlation with ejido land management appeared to be based on the facts that moremarginal land was given to ejidos in land reform efforts and that ejidos are socially morevulnerable because they have less access to irrigation, credit, improved seeds, and otherresources (Liverman 1992:61).


25/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 13 -

Nevertheless, climate clearly plays a rolein the processes of desertification andthere is widespread concern that the de-cline in sustainability of Mexicos landsfor agriculture will become even more

alarming if predicted global warmingoccur s. The effects of global warm ing inMexico, under any model, will createwarmer and drier conditions (Liverman& OBrien 1991:363). Such cond ition scould increase significantly the severityand effects of drought, exacerbate the pro-cesses of desertification, and devastate themajority of Mexican croplands and farm-ers relying on low and variable rainfall(Liverman & OBrien 1991:364; Liverman1992:45, 65; Myers 1993:140).

Migration Relatedto Desertification

Mexicans have been fleeing rural povertyfor decades to seek better opportunitiesin Mexican cities and the United States

(Martin 1993:99). Work shorta ges areworst in the rural areas of Mexico, whereunemp loyment and und eremp loyment af-fect two out of three of all potential work-ers (Myers 1993:142). Such unem ploym ent

and underemployment generally createst rong currents of migrat ion (Mart in1993:52-53).

It is difficult to determine why migrationoccurs in any time period or from anypar ticular region. The reasons for migra-tion are often comp lex. Popu lation mov e-ments from rural Mexico depend upon anumber of factors, including the extent offamilial or other networks already estab-lished in the U.S. and potential earnings(Massey , Goldr ing & Durand 1993;Durand & Massey 1992).8 Determining,with any precision, the central reason formigration in any particular case or com-munity requires in-depth study and ex-tensive survey or interview of migrantsand community members.

8The changing selectivity of migration results from the growth and elaboration of migrantnetwor ks, which are comp osed of ties of kinship, friend ship, and p aisanaje (shared commu nityorigin) between migrants and nonmigrants located in the United States and Mexico. . . . Oncethe number of network connections in an origin area reaches a critical threshold, migrationbecomes self perp etuating in creating the social structu re needed to sustain it. Every newmigrant reduces the costs of subsequent migration for a set of friends and relatives (Durand& Massey 1992:17).

Age, availability of jobs and wages also play a central role (e.g., Ritchey 1976; see also Azipe1981).


26/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 14 -


Notwithstanding the complexity in at-tempting to determine the primary factormotivating migration in a particular cir-cumstance (which may require disaggre-gating a multiplicity of reasons), we can

identify relationships between certain en-vironmental phenomenon and populationmovements.9 These are discussed below,after a brief summary of historic migra-tion from Mexico to the United States, andshould provide context for the discussionthat follows.

Historic Migrationfrom Mexico to

the United States

The United States, par ticularly California,is the primary destination of migrantsleaving Mexico (Bustam ante 1992:10). Theborder between Mexico and the UnitedStates extend s 2,000 miles. Unau thorizedmigran ts cross it daily. Since 1964, sev-enteen million illegal Mexican migrantshave been apprehended and deported(Durand & Massey 1992:6).10

Mexican migration to the United Stateshistorically has been rooted in economictrend s on both sides of the border. Be-tween 1849 and 1900, more than 100,000Mexican immigrants migrated to the

United States (Corwin 1978:31 citing 12thU.S. census) , f ind ing employmentthroughout the American Southwest asranch hands, agricultural workers, andtrack workers for the railroads (Corwin1978:29). Betw een 1910 and 1935, as aresult of the economic turmoil followingthe Mexican revolution and the fact thatthe average wage for an agr icul turalworker in the United States was two toten times that of the Mexican agriculturalworker (Corwin 1978:53), approximately1.5 million Mexican migrants came to theUnited States (Commission on Agricul-tura l Workers 1992:42). During this pe-riod, large-scale farms, railroads, andmines in the United States soon becamedependent on the Mexican workers, whowere w illing to accept temp orary emp loy-men t for low w ages (Martin 1993:57). Ou tof their desire for a cheap seasonal laborsup ply, these comm ercial interests lobbiedfiercely to obtain exem ptions for Mexican

9This has been determined through several other country-specific investigations, some of whichare summarized in this report.

10For decades there has been significant illegal migration form Mexico to the United States.From 1942-1964, some five million Mexicans were apprehended and deported (Durand &Massey 1992). It is widely believed th at the U.S. Bracero progr ams, gran ting legal status tothousands of Mexicans and Latin Americans to work the burgeoning U.S. agricultural fields(particularly during World War II), encouraged illegal migration to the U.S.


27/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 15 -

migrant w orkers from the then restrictiveimmigration laws, and w ere to a great ex-tent successful up until the onset of theGreat Depression (Zabin, et al. 1993:19).

After the Crash of 1929, however, as aresult of the huge influx of migrant Am eri-can workers into the farm labor m arket inCalifornia, the Department of State beganinstituting restrictionist policies that or-dered more stringent enforcement of ex-is t ing immigrat ion laws from whichMexican laborers had previously beenexemp t (Cardenas 1975:74). From 1929 to1933, between 300,000 and 450,000 Mexi-cans were deported or voluntarily de-parted from the United States (Durand &Massey 1992:5). As the Depression sub-sided and the United States began pre-paring for World War II, agriculturalemployers successfully lobbied for re-newed im portation of Mexican labor (Mar-tin 1993:60). As a result, the BraceroProgram was established in 1942 pursu-ant to a bilateral agreement between theUnited States and Mexico (Cardenas1975:75).

The Bracero Program permitted large-scale recruitment and temporary employ-ment of Mexicans, though it did notprovide a mechanism for legal immigra-tion (Card enas 1975:75). The Bracero Pro-gram , as initially passed, lapsed at the endof 1947. During its first five years the

program was small, admitting only 62,000workers at i t s peak in 1944 (Mart in1993:61). The Program continu ed, how-ever, under the Ninth Proviso of the Im-migration act of 1917, which exempted

temporary laborers from alien exclusionlaws (Commission on Agricultural Work-ers 1992:28). Du ring this phase of theBracero Program, employers directly re-cruited and contracted with Mexican la-borers without government supervision(Carden as 1975:77). The most comm onmethod of recruiting Mexican laborers atthis time consisted of finding Mexicanswho were illegally in the United States,temporarily deporting them to the bor-der, and then recruiting them as braceros(Card enas 1975:78). After the onset of theKorean war, Congress enacted the Thirdphase of the Bracero Program as PublicLaw 78 (Mexican Farm Labor Program)in 1951. To protect domestic labor, how-ever, Public Law 78 required that, beforeMexican laborers could be recruited, theSecretary of Labor had to determine that:no domestic laborers were available to dothe work; the employment of Mexican la-borers would not adversely affect the

wages of s imilar ly s i tuated domest icworkers; and reasonable efforts had beenmade to attract domestic workers to theem pl oym en t i n ques t i on ( Ca r denas1975:78). Public Law 78 was extend ed sixtimes by Congressional amendments un-til the end of 1964 (Cardenas 1975:79).


28/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 16 -


During the entire span of the programfrom 1942 to 1964, approximately 4.6 mil-l ion braceros were admit ted into theUnited States (Durand & Massey 1992:6).At its p eak betw een 1956-1959, mor e than

400,000 braceros were admitted each year(Martin 1993:63).

Despite the Bracero Program, however,illegal immigration continued to be im-portant source of Mexican labor in theUn ited States (Card enas 1975:79). Thenum ber of apprehensions mad e by the INS(i.e., 4.87 million) was greater than thetotal number of workers admitted pursu-ant to the Program (Martin 199:63). Someauthors hav e argued that the Bracero Pro-gram actually stimulated illegal immigra-tion by creating the expectation that thefastest way to upw ard m obility was to gonorth, (Commission on Agricul turalWorkers 1992:19) and by establishing per-manen t migratory networks. In contrastto the 4.6 million Mexicans admitted un-der the Bracero Program and the 1.5 to 5million workers who immigrated illegally,only 545,000 Mexicans legally immigratedto the United States between 1942 and

1964 (Martin 1993:63).

Illegal immigration grew rapidly after theBracero Program expired. The number ofi l l ega l a l i ens apprehended c l imbedsteadily from 86 thousand in 1964 to mor ethan 1 million by 1977 (Congressional

Research Serv ice 1980:37). Estima tes ofthe total number of illegal aliens in theUnited States from the mid-sixties to thepresent vary widely, but there appears tobe consensus that there was a steady in-crease until the enactment of the Immi-gration Reform and Control Act of 1986[IRCA] (Commission on Agricul turalWorkers 1992:4; Durand & Massey1992:7).11 IRCA struck a compromise be-tween agricultural interests, who wanteda temporary worker program that w ouldprovide an adequate supply of seasonallaborers, and labor interests, who argu edthat importing more labor was unneces-sary and would depress wages and dis-place domestic labor (Commission onAgricultural Workers 1992:6). IRCA m an-dated employer sanctions as the princi-pal tool for reducing illegal immigrationto the United States, and provided forlegalization of more than 1 million illegalagricultur al workers und er the Special Ag-

ricultural Worker Program (Commission

11Durand and Massey suggest that perhaps the most accurate estimate of the number of illegalimmigrants in the United States at the time of IRCA is derived from the number of peoplewho applied for general amnesty and legalization through the SAW provisions (2.3 million)plus 25 percent.


29/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 17 -

on Agricultura l Workers 1992:5). Al-though IRCA was successful in legalizing2.3 million illegal immigrants, it did notsubstantially curb il legal immigration(Durand & Massey 1992:10), and, there-

fore, failed to stabilize the agriculturallabor market (Comm ission on AgriculturalWorkers 1992:132). The Com mission onAgricultural Workers, which was man-dated under IRCA to assess it, concludedthat, as long as employers continued tohire unauthorized workers and Mexicanslacked economic opportunities at home,illegal migration would continue (Com-mission on Agricultural Workers 1992:132-33).

Migration fromMexico to theUnited StatesRelated toEnvironmentalDegradation

The results of our preliminary study ofMexico suggest that the quality of farm-

lands, availability and reliability of watersupply, and the management (or misman-agement) of lands play an important rolein contributing to migration from ruralareas. The inability to farm because ofland degradation or desertification can

result in rural unemployment and gen-eral poverty and can lead to migration.In 1978, experts examining the desertifi-cation problem in Mexico concluded thatapproximately 600,000 people abandoned

the countryside every year as a directresult of their inability to subsist on theland (Med ellin-Leal 1978:59, 71). Theseexperts attributed the inability to survivein the countryside in large part to theprocess of desertification that continuallyredu ced the w orkable surface areas of theland and impoverished many Mexicans(Med ellin-Lea l 1978:59, 65, 71). They alsonoted that arid and semi-arid areas werethe principal sources of these rural mi-grants (Medellin-Leal 1978:73).

In discussing the historical role that landquality and distribution has played indecisions to migrate from rural Mexico,two experts concluded:

Although the common wisdom isthat adopt ing cash crops andcapi ta l in tens ive product ionmethods l ed to grea te r out -migration via displacement of

rura l workers , compara t ivestudies suggest that the processwas more complex. Displacementdid occur in communities withpoor quality land and in placeswhe r e l and was unequa l l ydistributed, but in communities


30/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 18 -


where land was of high qualityand m or e even l y d i s t r i bu t edamong families, the advent ofcomm ercialized farming increasedrural incomes, lowered risks to

farm households, and therebyreduced pressures for migrationto the United States. (Durand &Massey 1992:35)

Based on more recent investigations, theMexican government observed that thereis still a strong tendency for people tomigrate from arid and semi-arid areas,which contain 20 million inhabitants withscarce possibilities for work (ComisionNacional de las Zonas Aridas 1993:Ch2,sect 2.1). The government found that ap-proximately 900,000 people now leave theseareas every year(Comision Nacional de lasZonas Aridas 1993:Ch 2, sect 2.1, 2.5).12

As suggested in earlier studies, a signifi-cant portion of the migration from aridand semi-arid rural areas likely is attrib-utable, at least in part, to the desertifica-tion that eliminates approximately 1,000square m iles of land and causes the aban-donment of at least 400 square miles of

fa rmland every year (Medel l in-Lea l1978:59; see also Myers 1993:140; UNPF1991:98-99). This explains wh y some ex-

perts have concluded that recent up surgesin migration from Mexicos rur al areas arecaused by land d egradation that, togetherwith rising p opulation levels and the p ushof small farmers onto marginal lands, has

caused an agricultural squeeze (Myers1993P:141; UNPF 1991:99; Bilsborrow &DeLargy 1991:128-29).13

Our investigation of the San Luis Potosiarea confirmed a strong relationship be-tween the inability to make a living fromthe land due to dry conditions or landdegradation and the decision to migrate,at least temporarily (Natural HeritageInsitute 1993; Ballin-Cortes & VasquezRocillo 1993). The peop le we spoke w ithstated th at wh en their corn and bean cropswere inadequate and grazing was poor,as frequently occurred, one or two familymembers would be forced to migrate insearch of work to supplement the familyincome. These peop le generally attributedthe failure of crops and grazing to lack ofrainfall and the absence of irrigation sys-tems.

Some experts assert that these deficien-

cies more properly are attributed to theinability of the land to sustain corn andbean crops, the poor m anagement of graz-

12In the final version of the National Plan, now being issued, the government notes that thelargest part of emigration is from municipalities that are predominantly rural in character.

13 Population growth is greater in rural than urban areas (Mendez y Mercado 1985:14).


31/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 19 -

ing, and general land degradation result-ing from these practices (Ballin-Cortes &Vasqu ez Rocillo 1993). Agricu ltur aleconomist David Runsten finds manyproblems with existing agricultural prac-

tices in Mexico. Soilborne diseases arecommon and i r r igat ion pract ices arepoor ly applied (Runsten 1994). While thegovernment has begun to take steps toaddress the problem, in some cases pro-viding compensation to landowners toplant trees on their lands, there appar-ently has been little research, education,or training in Mexico on alternate orsupplemental agricultural techniques toremedy this problem (Runsten 1994).Runsten believes that man y of the p eopleliving on marginal lands in Mexico willcontinue to migrate as the lands becomeunsuitable for farming or grazing.

These observations have been confirmedby other studies of Mexico and LatinAm erica (Bilsborrow & DeLargy 1991:128-9). For examp le, Edw ard Taylor has in-d ica ted tha t , in h i s inves t iga t ion of Michoacan, Mexico, he found a strong linkbetween environmental degradation and

migration. He ind icated that:

There i s a d i rec t nega t ivere la t ionship be tween theproductivity of family resourcesin village economic activities andm igrat ion . Because crop

p r oduc t i on i s an i m por t an tactivity, declining prod uctivity onthe l and increases migra t ionpressur es. It also encourages ashift towards less land-quality

dependent activities, includinglivestock p rodu ction, which un lesscarefully managed may have afurther detrimental effect on landqual i ty, especial ly in f ragi leenvironmen ts. (Taylor 1994)

Taylor notes that the relationship betweenmigration and soil degradation is com-plex and may exacerbate the destructionof fragile ecosystems in Mexico. Therealso may be an inverse relationship, w herethe opportunity to migrate is less costlyto a family than the environmental invest-ment needed to increase productivity ofthe farmland.

The presence of migra t ionoppor tuni t i es increases theopportunity cost of investing inenvironmental conservation. Ineffect, the environment competeswith migration for scarce family

resou rces, includ ing time. Thebasic problem is that migration isan economic activity the returnsto which do not depend on landquality. The availability of suchactivities tends to d iscourage landconservation . (Taylor 1994)


32/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 20 -


Notw ithstand ing this, Taylor further sug-gests that remittances sent home fromthose who m igrate could provide a sourceof fund s for conservation investment. Thisis particularly important given that most

farmers in Mexico do not have access tocredit. Remittances have largely taken theplace of the missing bank to financesmall farm investments (Taylor 1994).

Integration ofGeostatisticalData

In completing our investigation, we ana-

lyzed geostatistical information concern-

ing various regions of Mexico affected byaridity and likely to be most affected bydesertification. We developed a map iden-tifying migration from rural areas, with across-comparison to geostatistical data on

aridity in Mexico [see Maps7, 8 pp.25,26].The information on m igration u sed in p re-paring these maps was gathered in a sur-vey of Mexican migrants l iving andworking in the United States who werereturning to Mexico in 1993 for an un-specified period of time.14 The informa-tion collected in this survey included thelast place of residence in Mexico by rurallocality of the migran ts. This data is sig-nificant because it tends to indicate therelative num ber of people who m igrate to

14The surv ey did not attempt to determine whether the migrants intended to return p ermanentlyor tempor arily for such reasons as vacation or family visit. The survey gathering the datawas conducted by Dr. Jorge Bustamante and his colleagues at El Colegio de la FronteraNorte as part of an ongoing, large-scale project funded by the World Bank to produce adirect estimate of the variation of undocumented immigrants from Mexico to be found inthe U.S. during th e time mon itored. This estimate is obtained by focusing on p atterns ofcirculatory migration flows as determined through interviews of randomly selectedindividu als at a num ber of Mexican bord er cities. The project, begun in 1993, will becompleted in spring 1994. Because not all data from th e survey ha s been collected an danalyzed, we developed our estimates by extrapolating six months of the data, providingan estimate of undocumented immigrants from Mexico in the U.S. in 1993.

The foundational work for the survey methodology consisted of a pilot study in which Dr.Bustamante and his colleagues conducted surveys of migrants at various border crossingpoints over an appro ximately six-year period . The new su rvey method ology used in theseinterviews was developed based on procedures used to sample mobile populations forbiological statistics. The successfully comp leted pilot stud y pr odu ced the only time seriesdatabase available on the flows of undocumented migration from Mexico other than thestatistics on apprehensions produced by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Serviceand provided the information necessary to determine the proper p arameters of the surveyand sampling design.


33/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 21 -

the United States from the rural localitiesof Mexico.

The use of migration and aridity data indetermining precise correlations between

migration and desertification is limited fortwo reason s. First, much of Mexicos ter-ritory is arid or semi-arid and we cannotassume that all arid or semi-arid areasare desertified (though, as the governmentof Mexico concludes, 60 percent of allland s are severely degr ad ed). Second,though there is migration from the ruralarid and semi-arid areas, we cannot as-sume, without further investigation, thatall migration identified from these areasis a result of desertification. As discussedabove, we do know that the central re-gion of Mexico, which is arid or semi-arid and has a high rural density, haswidespread desertification problems andsignificant out-migration. Our discussionwith experts, research, and analysis of therelevant statistical data (some of which ispresented in Maps 7 and 8) suggests thatfurther investigation will likely confirm that

desertification, as well as other environmentalfactors, contribute to migration from this re-gion.15

QuantifyingMigration Flows

There has been considerable d ebate on theannual flow of migrants from Mexico tothe United States (Durand & Massey1992:4-5).16 Estimates range from 150,000persons per year to between 500,000 and600,000 persons per year (Myers 1993:144;Durand & Massey 1992:6-9; see also Mar-tin 1993:4-6). Ap pr oxima tely 100,000 to

150,000 of these are expected to settle inthe United States (Martin 1993:4). An ad -ditional 1.5 to 2 million Mexicans whoenter the U.S. illegally each year are con-sidered temporary workers or seasonalmigrants expected to return to Mexico.17

The World Bank projects that between1995 and the year 2000, an additional750,000 to 900,000 Mexicans will migrateto the U.S (Martin 1993:5).

15Martin (1993) also suggests that the allocation of water and development of irrigation supplies

can be a powerful force in motivating internal migration; water projects in northern Mexicohave led to substantial internal south to north migration to Sinaloa, Baja, and other areas.Martin believes that, if Mexico undertakes more such water projects in the north (such aswould be likely to reduce transportation costs of fruit grown in Mexico and exported to theU.S. market), there may be more stepping-stone migration to the United States.

16Myers (1993:144) suggests that 150,000 to 300,000 illegally migrate to the United States eachyear to settle.

17Most Mexicans ar e expected to continu e to arr ive illegally; there are estimated to be 1.5 to 2.5million illegal entries each year, and over 90 percent of those apprehended are Mexicans . .. (Martin 1993:4)


34/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 22 -


No one has attempted to determine howmany of these migrants leave the ruralareas of Mexico because of serious im-pairment of farmlands or other desertifi-cation pr ocesses. The time constraints and

scope of our investigation did not permitus to undertake any real quantificationanalysis. Further investigation and datadevelopment is warranted to provide amore accurate basis for determining thescope of the problem. How ever, the lackof precise data on the nu mber of migrantsshould not paralyze the policy develop-ment process, particularly as quantifica-tion historically has been an area forfervent debate in the migration field andthere may be enough qualified data towarrant policy considerations. Recom-mended issues for further investigationare discussed in Conclusions and Recom-mendations, below.

CONCLUSIONSAND RECOM-MENDATIONS FORFUTURE ACTION

The relationship between ecological de-struction and migration is a phenomenonthat has been little studied on a globallevel. Stud ies of various regions of theworld confirm that migration is increas-ingly a result of serious environmental

degradation, particularly desertificationprocesses that impair the viability of soilsand agricultural sustainability.

Mexico has significant desertification prob-

lems because much of its lands are af-fected by ar id or semi-ar id cl imate.Historically, it has been the source oflarge-scale migration to the United States.We undertook a preliminary study to un-derstand better the relationship betweensevere land degradation in Mexico andmigration to the U.S. Ou r preliminaryinvestigation leads to the following con-clusions.

First, there is evidence to suggest that aportion of the migrating population fromMexico to the United States are peoplewho are moving, directly or via Mexicosurban centers, because they cannot farmthe land s. The deterioration of the soilbase is due to ongoing processes of deser-tification affected by both climate andunsustainable land and water use prac-tices. Those most acutely affected aresubsistence farmers who grow corn andbeans for their families to survive.

Second, preventing this migration willrequire addressing the root environmen-tal causes of the problem, largely associ-a ted wi th inef f ic ien t agr icu l tura lmanagem ent. National, regional, and lo-cal policies, institutions, and practices in


35/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 23 -

Mexico likely will need to be reformed.A significant barrier to implementing re-forms in Mexico is the lack of education,training, and financial programs for af-fected farming communities. Too, U.S.

domestic policies, particularly in the agri-cultural sector, may be contributing tothese problems and warrant further in-vestigation.

The U.S. Commission on InternationalMigration and Cooperative EconomicDevelopment concluded that long-termeconomic development is the most effec-tive means of preventing internationalmigration in this region (Gregory 1989:31).However, this may not prevent the mi-gration associated with severe ecologicaldam age. Economic development will bemor e effective if coupled with specific en-vironmen tal policies, includ ing regu lationsand financial incentives designed to pre-vent and redress land degradation anddrought (e.g., the lack of reliable watersup ply). Redressing the problem willrequire programs to assure the viabilityof farm ing and to revitalize salinized soils

or otherwise degraded natural resourcesin affected rural communities.18

Third, while the development of data onmigration associated with environmental

problems is too prem ature to recomm endspecific foreign policies, our preliminaryanalysis reveals that the Commission andCongress will need to look beyond tradi-tional immigration policy to address theroot causes of the problem. Precise pro -grams and policies will depend upon theresults of further field and analyticalstudy, as described below.

Issues for FurtherInvestigation ofthe Environmentand MigrationPhenomenon

The environmental ph enomena in Mexicothat can give rise to migration and thecommunities most affected should be in-vestigated more comprehensively to un-

18The San Joaquin Valley, an historically prosperous region that produces much of California'sagricultural revenues of more than $17 billion, may serve as an examp le. In spite of itsprosperity, the region only recently has begun to address the salinization and otherdesertification problems that have been building for decades because of poor land and waterman agement p ractices. These now thr eaten the viability of 750,000 acres of prim e farmland.Thousands of acres have been fallowed because of lack of understanding or attention to theproblem by both farmers and regulatory agencies. These groups are now beginning p rogramsto arrest the problem.


36/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 24 -


derstand better the immigration and for-eign policies that could be formulated byUnited States policymakers to address theproblem. The Comm ission may wish tound ertake such investigation or to recom-

mend to Congress that it appropriate re-sources to conduct the necessary researchand field study.

The following specific recommendationsare proposed to guide the further actionof the Commission and/ or Congress:

Further Investigate

the Relationship

BetweenEnvironmental

Problems and

Migration

Reversing the trends of land degradationin Mexico will be critical in stemming themigration related to unsustainable use ofagr icul tural lands in cer tain regions.Investigating the links between environ-ment, migration, and pop ulation will pro-vide more definitive analysis of thesetrends and suggest appropriate policydevelopment.

Given the dearth of available field-baseddocumentation on which to formulatepolicies, further study should seek to

determine h ow influential a role environ-mental problems play in decisions to mi-grate. Field research shou ld includ einterviews of migrants in affected ruralcommu nities as part of broader field stud -

ies.

It will be important to investigate the re-gions that suffer the most acute environ-mental p roblems and that foster significantinvoluntary migration because this infor-mation can provide a basis for the devel-opment of prevention and remediationprograms th at could yield short- and long-term environmental and migration ben-efits to both Mexico and the Un ited States.

Specifically, we recommend more preciseidentification and investigation of thelands currently undergoing desertificationin rural, arid, and semi-arid areas ofMexico. For examp le, a detailed inven-tory of the lands in the Central Plateauregion could enable more accurate corre-lation of migration from th is area and landdegradation patterns, as well as provideinformation on the nu mber of people whomay be affected. This will be critical to

identifying priority areas for policy re-sponses.

The key will be to build upon and bridgethe existing efforts of researcher s, officials,and nongovernmental organizations toanalyze environmental problems and


37/64


R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 25 -

population movements in an integratedfashion. For example, new migration data(that will be available soon) is currentlybeing produced by the Colegio de laFrontera Norte and ORSTOM. This da ta

can be used to d etermine more accuratelythe migra tion pattern s in Mexico. Dataon outm igration from an area can be com-bined w ith geographical information ser-vice statistics [GIS] identifying areas ofland imp airment. In turn, this data canbe compared with other regional migra-tion patterns. The data can provide abeginning p oint for locating the m ost criti-cal environment-migration areas and de-t e r m i n i ng t he num ber o f m i g r an t saffected.

The relat ionship between populat iongrowth, environmental problems, andmigration also should be studied. Popu-lation growth increases pressure on scarcenatu ral resources in ru ral areas. In agri-cultural regions, when the carrying capac-ity of the lands are exceeded, people areforced to move. Little is un derstood aboutthe dynamic between population growthin certain agricultural regions in Mexico

and the marginalization of agriculturallands that promotes migration. Any fu-ture investigation into the links betweenmigration and environm ent should, there-fore, include analysis of how populationgrowth may affect environment and mi-gration problems.

Finally, understanding climate change inthis region also will be imp ortant. Cer-tain data already has been developed onclimate change and global warming andcan be evaluated further and integrated

with research on migration and environ-men t issues. Some experts are concernedthat declining conditions in rural Mexico,unemployment, and migration will be-come worse in the event of global warm-ing. If dr y regions of Mexico becomewarmer and dr ier as global warmingmodels suggest, Mexican croplands andthe farmers who rely on low and variablerainfall could be severely affected. Manymore ru ral inhabitants could be forced tomigrate (Liverman 1992).

Investigate the

Development of

Immigration and

Other Policies that

May Be Responsive to

Address Ecologically-

Induced Migration

In carrying out its mandate to considerways to increase the effectiveness of U.S.immigration policy, the Com mission m ayconsider prop osals to tighten bord er con-trols and employer sanctions for the hir-ing of illegal imm igrants. Preliminarily,we analyzed some of these policies to de-


38/64

R E S E A R C H

P A P E R

- 26 -


termine their potential in addressing mi-gration related to environmental degra-dation.

As the Commission is aware, policies to

increase border controls and punitivesanctions against employers and certainother measures were adopted underIRCA. These were designed to controlthe flow of immigration from Mexico tothe U.S. Some contend that IRCA hashad relatively little impact on stemmingundocumented immigration from Mexico(e.g., Massey, Durand & Donato 1992:139-40, 155-56). The policies have becomesomewhat controversial because it is as-serted that they can lead to violenceagainst Mexicans and can drive undocu-mented workers fur ther underground,leaving no recourse to challenge emp loyerabu ses (Hu erta 1992:150-51). In addition,certain federal studies have found thatthese policies tend to encourage discrimi-nation against foreign workers, whetherhere legally or illegally (Huerta 1992:87-88, 150-51; Mahoney 1992:150-53).19

These traditional policy responses prob-

ably will not be sufficient to diminish thepressures on migration related to serious

environmental deterioration in Mexicobecause they do not address the root ofthe problem. However, these policies canbe more effective in addressing this typeof migration if coupled with agricultural

land remediation, training, and educa-tional pr ogra m s. If the objective ofU.S.immigration policy is to address rootcauses of immigration, then such an ob-jective will need to incorporate broaderpolicies that involve international coop-eration, aid, and technical support mea-sures.

Issues to Evaluate

in DevelopingBroader PolicyResponses

The United State

Desertification and Migration

Documents

Transcript of Desertification and Migration