Transnational Political Agenda of Latino Immigrants

The Case of Hometown Associations and

FederationsXóchitl Bada

Latin American and Latino Studies ProgramUniversity of Illinois at Chicago

xbada@uic.edu

Immigrant Civic Engagement: Spheres of Action

1. Hometown Associations, indigenous groups, and other ethnic organizations (soccer leagues, cultural organizations, FIOB)

2. Unions and Independent Worker Centers for day laborers, local school councils farmworkers, (Workplace Project, Líderes Campesinas, NDLON, CIW, FLOC)

3. Faith-based organizations (immigrant congregations and ecumenical religious initiatives) Ex: Journey of Hope, Tepeyac Association’s Binational Torch

4. Non-Profit migrant-led independent media in Spanish (Radio, TV, Newspapers, Digital Disaporas)

5. Traditional/Historical Latino Organizations: LULAC, MALDEF, NCLR, and NALEO

What is an HTA?HTAs often begin as informal associations, such as soccer clubs, mutual aid societies or prayer groups, but over time many have not only become formal organizations, but have also “scaled up” to form federations that represent various communities of origin from the same sending state. Sometimes these clubs create larger coalitions, including federations of different states. Though many group migrants from rural communities of origin, HTAs are predominantly concentrated in metropolitan areas in the United States. Also known as clubes de oriundos, or migrant clubs, Mexican HTAs are among the best-known migrant-led organizations.

How are HTA’s organized?• There are four organizational levels:

– The INFORMAL Group (Extended family networks, friends, and fictitious kin ties around faith, sports, rotary credits, mutual aid societies, public work committees)

– The FORMAL club, committee, or association (Migrants coming from the same village and/or municipality including family members born elsewhere)

– The INSTITUTIONALIZED Federation (Migrant members of several HTAs from the same state plus sympathizers and family members born elsewhere)

– The COALITION OF FEDERATIONS (Several federations make an alliance for cooperation in transnational issues)

Family Remittance Senders in Latin America who Belong to a HTA

• Ecuador 10% • Haiti 10% • Honduras 7% • Colombia 6% • Nicaragua 4% • El Salvador 4% • Mexico 4% • Dom. Rep. 3% • Guatemala 3% • Bolivia 1%

Source: Orozco and Rouse, 2007

Mexican HTAs by State of Destination

• HTAs are distributed in 17 states (34% U.S. territory)

• They are heavily concentrated in 3 states (CA, IL, TX get 88% of the total)

• Distribution is now including new destinations (N. Carolina, Utah, Georgia)

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

27

4

5

7

9

11

27

48

170

329

0

0

0

3

0

2

2

15

3

4

7

5

5

15

73

82

240

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Michigan

Nevada

N. Carolina

Florida

Indiana

Georgia

Utah

New Mexico

Oregon

Colorado

Washington

Arizona

Pennsylvania

New York

Texas

Illinois

California

1998

2003

Source: Ministry of Foreign Relations, 2003

Mexican HTAs by state of origin

• 17 Mexican states are represented (53%)

• They are heavily concentrated in 5 states (Zac., Jal., Gro., Mich., Gto., get 60% of the total)

• Distribution now includes states that are less historical and more indigenous (Oax., Pue., Ver., Hgo. Tlax.)

6

10

11

11

12

13

17

20

23

27

34

36

48

51

51

100

126

3

6

4

6

2

7

12

19

39

22

12

22

40

19

23

74

113

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

D.F.

Chihuahua

Hidalgo

Mexico

Veracruz

Tlaxcala

Sinaloa

Durango

S.L.P.

Nayarit

Puebla

Oaxaca

Guanajuato

Michoacán

Guerrero

Jalisco

Zacatecas

1998

2003

Number of Mexican State Hometown Associations in metropolitan Chicago (1994-2006)

14

63 4

35

14

27

18 18

41

26

33

26 24

59

3733

3026

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Guerrero Michoacan Zacatecas Guanajuato Jalisco

1994

1998

2002

2006

Sources: Orozco (2002) and Mexican Consulate database of Mexican organizations in Chicago (2006)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

No. de clubes por estado

Clubes por estado (abril, 2005)

Series1 33 59 37 26 13 30 20 6 7 4 3 4 4 1 1 1 2

Zacatecas Guerrero M ichoacán J aliscoSan Luis P otosí Guanajuato Durango Oaxaca Hidalgo Chihuahua P uebla

Estado de M éxico Veracruz Tamaulipas Nuevo León

Aguascalientes

Distrito Federal

Source: Mexican Consulate-IME Chicago

Mexican hometown associations in Chicago by state of origin 2005

Binational Political Agenda:• Immigration: legalization, naturalization, electoral

participation, and immigrant integration• Dissemination: Educate public on root causes of migration• Education: improve access and opportunities • Labor: Worker rights and unionization• Civil Society: Participation and Networking• Healthcare: improve access and outreach• Housing: first time buyers, foreclosure prevention • Development: Promote small businesses, and jobs creation• Accountability: Transparency and participatory budgeting• Remittances: reduce sending costs and increase public

funds for collective remittance projects to reduce effects of neoliberal economic restructuring

Three-for-One for Migrants Program Overview:

• Total federal investment in 2002: 10 million dollars

• Total federal investment in 2008: 22 million dollars

• Total federal budget is less than 1% of public investment for development

• For every dollar collected in VAT income captured from expenditure of remittances, the government contributed three cents on the dollar in 2008 to the3X1 program

• Between 2002-2010, 13,599 projects have been completed.

• Only 4% of projects are productive investments

• 82% of the investment is received from 3 states in the U.S.: California, Illinois, and Texas.

• In 2002, 20 migrant groups participated. In 2010, the program collaborated with 421 HTAs based in 31 states in the U.S. and some in Canada.

• The projects have benefited 28 Mexican States

SEDESOL, 2011

Tomato green house in the village of San Rafael, municipality of Santa Ana Maya. Project financed with 3X1 federal matching funds and organized migrants from San Rafael and Tzitzio living Chicago and Joliet, IL.

3X1 in Michoacán, period 2002-2004: 253 projects (of those, only 30 were categorized as productive) Chicago-based organizations supported 26 projects (10% of the total)

Benches and basketball court in Las Cruces, municipality of Churintzio, summer of 2004

Public park in Ecuandureo, municipal town center, located in the Bajío Zamorano region. Project paid for by municipality 96-98 and Chicago residents.

Local School Councils (More than 1,300 Latino last names out of 5,901 members= 22%),

Mujeres Latinas en Acción

Erie Neighborhood House

Casa Michoacán

Chicago Cultural Alliance

Illinois Arts Council

Pilsen Environmental Rights and Resource Organization (PERRO)

Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO)

Enlace Chicago

Hispanic Ministry of Chicago Catholic Archdiocese

De Paul University

University of Illinois at Chicago

The Resurrection Project (Affordable Housing)

Chicago Latin American Soccer Association (CLASA has 428 teams, mostly Mexican)

Local Networks for Latino Immigrant Civic Engagement

19

Main political networks in Chicago

• Democratic Party representatives

• Republican Party representatives (Abuelitas Program)

• Mexican National Action Party of the Midwest (PAN)

• Mexican Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD)

• Vanguardia Migrante (PRI)

• Binational Michoacano Front (FREBIMICH)

• International Coalition of Mexicans Abroad

• Coalition for the Political Rights of Mexicans Abroad

• Institute for Mexicans Abroad’s Advisory Board (IME)

20

Networks with local/national/transnational advocacy organizations

• Coalitions and Alliances:– March 10th movement– Institute for Mexicans Abroad (IME) Advisory

Board – National Alliance of Latin American and

Caribbean Communities (NALACC)– Confederation of Mexican Federations in the

Midwest (CONFEMEX)– Mexican Consulate Protection Network– Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee

Rights– Latino Policy Forum– Iniciativa Ciudadana A. C.

Networks with Donors, Banks, and Labor Organizations

– Rockefeller Foundation – Ford Foundation– Inter-American Foundation – Inter-American Development Bank – First Data Corp/Western Union– Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights – MacArthur Foundation– Donors Forum– Chicago Community Trust– Iniciativa Ciudadana para la Promoción de la Cultura del

Diálogo, A.C.– Instituto Federal de Acceso a la Información – Solidago Foundation – AFL-CIO International Solidarity (2000)

Challenges to Transnational Political Agendas

Common misconception in the US of immigrants as political actors.– Mexican immigrants should pay more attention to

politics here where they live.Immigrants are involved in local civic participation through their grassroots organizations.

– Mexican immigrants should invest their money here in the US.

Low income immigrants earning less than $20,000 per year, invest 82% of their income to sustain themselves in the US

– Mexican immigrants will never assimilate.Immigrants will assimilate differently than their predecessors. Some will naturalize choosing to participate only in US politics will others (likely a minority) will be binational and will participate civically and politically in both home and host societies.

Mexican HTAs in cities with large immigrant demonstrations in 2006

CONFEMEX PRESENCE IN CHICAGO MARCHES, 2006

Main Barriers to Latino Naturalization

• Increased Application Fees

• New Exam goes into effect in October

• New Backlogs are rapidly increasing

• Lower Educational attainment /Literacy Levels compared to other ethnic groups

• Lack of information about dual citizenship laws

• Dilemma of returning to countries of origin

• Limited access to improve/acquire skills in English

• Lack of coordinated government sponsored national efforts to encourage LPRs to become citizens

• Fear/Anxieties over immigration records and the highly complex bureaucratic process

Main Opportunities to Latino Naturalization

• Dual nationality/citizenship in many Latin American Countries

• Recession and immigration restrictions are reducing circular migration

• National Media coalitions are implementing successful campaigns (YEH)

• Immigrant mobilization towards Comprehensive Immigration Reform

• New Citizens are likely to convince others to apply to citizenship

• New Naturalizations had a visible impact in 2008 presidential elections

• Increased political competition attracts interest to participate in elections

• Some states are becoming interested in sponsoring naturalization campaigns (IL, NJ)

• National League of Cities recently launched an immigrant incorporation initiative

• Proposition 187 in California, Dual nationality Law , and the tightening of the immigration laws in 1996 encourage many to become citizens

• In 1995, only 20% of eligible Mexican immigrants had become citizens, but that rate rose 15 percentage points by 2005

• By comparison, 57% of Asians have naturalized in the past 20 years.

• Between 1995-2005, the share of Mexicans who naturalized rose 75% , compared with a 20% increase for all others.

• By 2008, 2 million eligible Mexicans had acquired US citizenship while 2.5 millions remained as LPRs

Potential for greater civic engagement: Mexicans are steadily catching up

Estimated Legal Permanent Residents Eligible to Naturalize (millions), national total, and from principal Latin American countries, 2002-2006

2006 2004 2003 2002

National Total 8.25 8.0 7.9 7.8

Mexico 2.65 2.4 2.4 2.4

Dominican Republic

.31 .3 .3 .32

El Salvador .22 .2 .2 .18

Cuba .23 .2 .2 .21 Source: Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics (Cited in Ayón 2008)

Universe of Immigrants from Latin American eligible to Naturalize (qualifying LPRs)

Source: NALEO (2009)

Living up to the 2006 Promise: “Today we March, Tomorrow we Vote”

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Conclusions

• Binational groups are attempting to alter their relations with the nation-state, from a market membership to full political participation in home and host country affairs

• Local context matters for extending civic engagement towards domestic arenas. There are marked differences between integration opportunities in urban and rural destinations

• HTAs and federations function as a bridge to economic, social, and political incorporation of first generation immigrants to US society

• There is not enough evidence to believe that membership to HTAs will significantly delay incorporation to American society

• Hybridization of political values and cultural manifestations is clearly observed in organized migrant practices

• Second generation will have easier access to cross-border political memberships

Latin American Immigrant Civic Participation Project

Cities included in the study:

Chicago, IllinoisWashington, D.CLos Angeles, CaliforniaOmaha, NebraskaFresno, CaliforniaCharlotte, North CarolinaTucson, ArizonaSan José, CaliforniaLas Vegas, Nevada

Mexico Institute, Latin American Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/migrantparticipation. In collaboration with Andrew Selee (Wilson Center) and Jonathan Fox (University of California, Santa Cruz