Migration Networks and the Processes
of Community Transformation
Pacific Seaboard: Arvin, California and Woodburn, Oregon
CUMBRE “Understanding Immigration and the Changing
Communities of the Americas”
University of Nebraska, Omaha
April, 2007
Labor Camp to Main Street Panel
Edward Kissam
Senior Researcher
Aguirre Division, JBS International
Transnational Migration Network Linkages
and Community Transformation
 Our New Pluralism project conducted case studies of
6 rural communities in the U.S. and how
immigration is transforming them. Field research
took place 2001-2003.
 There is a good deal of research on networkmediated linkages between migrant-sending and
migrant-receiving communities, there is less on
diversity within migrant-receiving communities
 Two axes are needed for visualizing diversity among
migrant-receiving communities: “vertical”
(temporal) and “horizontal” (cross-sectional)
A Continuum of Waves of Migration
 From 1990-2000, 19 “new settlement” states (all of
them rural) experienced an average 159% growth in
immigrant population; another 3 rural states fell into the
90-100% growth range. The social landscape of rural
America is changing dramatically.
 But migration from rural Mexico to the rural U.S. is not
new. The Bracero program was important—but so were
other migrant streams—via Texas and via “direct”
migration circuits
 The roots of the contemporary transformation of rural
American agricultural communities date back more than
half a century--to the earliest days of modern large-scale
agribusiness from the 1920’s onward
Drawn by Agribusiness, Mexicanos, Okies
Converged in Arvin, California
 Arvin was founded 1908, with 90 acres of walnut. By
1921, DiGiorgio expanded to 6,000+ acres of plums and
grapes
 By 1936, a few families of Mexicanos, recruited by local
troqueros, from 1942 onward, Braceros, by 1944, 8% of
heads of household were of Mexican origin. Sunset Camp
built in 1938 for influx of Okies
 From 1961 onward, Tejanos settled out of the “long-haul
migrant circuit” throughout the U.S.—including Arvin
 From the early 1980’s, Oaxaquenos from Sinaloa and
Baja California began settling
 In 2002-2003, 80% of HH are Mexicanos, another 9%
2nd or 3rd generation--Mexican-Americans
At the End of the Oregon Trail:
Woodburn’s Small Farmers

In the 1920’s Woodburn had “100 or so” households of small
farmers—”times were tough”, “120 acres was considered large”

By the 1950’s Woodburn was “Berry Capital of the World” and
by 1957 Tejanos were settling out of the long-haul migrant
circuit (which had included hops and apples in WA) as well as
strawberries and cane berries in Oregon

Russian “Old Believers” arrived in the 1960’s and 1970’s (via
China, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Turkey) and moved rapidly
into farm labor contracting, joining Tejano troqueros.

In the 1970’s Tankersley began recruiting Mixtecos in
Juxtlahuaca and Tlaxiaco area and by 1988, they began
settling out in Woodburn and the Willamette Valley.

In 2000, Woodburn “discovered” it was a minority-majority
community and began to grapple seriously with different
dimensions of diversity (age, income, ethnicity, language)
Incorrect Mental Models of “Community”
Hinder Sound Rural Social Policy

In Arvin, Woodburn, and many other rural U.S. communities,
“community” is a standing wave, a nexus where different
groups converge and interact. Change is constant

These newly pluralistic communities are nodes in
transnational migration networks. Reference to “community
transformation” is not an exaggeration.

What were small farming hamlets during the Depression
became communities with many Mexican and MexicanAmericans at the end of WW II. More than 90% of Arvin’s
and Woodburn’s current residents are of Mexican origin.

We need to think and talk of mutual adaptation, co-evolution,
and community development—not assimilation.
Quasi-Racial Analyses of Diversity Obscure
Crucial Realities of Community Dynamics

Historical conflicts between mestizo and indigenous populations

Emergence of pan-indigenous identity—in Baja California and
throughout the Pacific Seaboard

A broad spectrum of Mexican-American identities in terms of
biculturalism--attitudes and interactions vis-a-vis Mexicanos

Socioeconomic diversity among Mexican immigrants—
especially between migrants from rural or urban areas

Extended family/migration network affiliation and resources of
“bonding” social capital and experiences settling in a
community

Workplace context, neighborhood context, “civic recruitment”
networks, experience with community institutions and
consequent accumulation of “bridging” social capital
Implications of Community Diversity

Access to “bonding” social capital inherent in family and village
networks varies according to migration network affiliation and each
network’s maturity and control of the local social universe (jobs,
information, housing)

Access to village/migration social networks’ resources is always
imperfect. Mutual reciprocity seems to be quite a “weak force” in
the social universe—either because networks do not have enough
resources to share (as Menjivar found in San Francisco) or because
individuals from earlier cohorts of immigrants (e.g. farm labor
contractors) assert their independence from them.

The skills to develop “bridging” social capital are crucial in
communities such as Arvin where multiple migration networks
converge. Tensions between competing networks (e.g. Mixtecos
and Guanajuatenses) and immigrant cohorts (settlers and
sojourners) hinder immigrants’ conversion of social capital into
“civic capital” or “political capital”.
Arvin Mexican Migration Networks Today

23% of HH’s—Yuriria-Xoconoxtle, Rancho del Tigre, Rancho Palo
Alto area, other Guanajuatenses 13%: more than 1/3 of
community

15% of HH’s—Jalisco (urban and rural)

14% of HH’s—Baja California and Sinaloa

13% of HH’s—Michoacan

5+% of HH’s—Tejano networks

5% of HH’s—other Chicano networks (incl. urban flight from LA)

5% of HH’s Oaxaca

Seven other Mexican sending states with <5% each
Woodburn Mexican Migration Networks Today

24% of HH’s-Oaxaquenos (Sta. Maria Tindu, San Juan
Mixtepec, San Mateo Tunuche, Sta. Maria Caxtlahuaca)

19% of HH’s-Michoacanos (San Jeronimo, Quiroga, Cupicuaro,
Morelia, various smaller ranchos)

13% Guanajuato (Penjamo, Leon, Silao, Guanajuato, Romita)

6% Guerrero (Coyuca, Acapulco, Tecpan de Galeana,
Ometepec)

5% Edo. De Morelos, 5% Mexico, D.F., 5% Jalisco, 5% Veracruz

Puebla, Tlaxcala, Edo. De Mexico, San Luis Potosi, Zacatecas,
Durango, Sinaloa, Nayarit, Colima, Tamaulipas (3% or less)

~5% Tejanos, Oregon-born Mexican-Americans
*as % of immigrants only
Arvin Snapshot: Past, Present, Future
Origin and Immigration Status
of Arvin Heads of Households, Overall Population, and Minors: 2003
Citizenship/
Immigration Status
% of HH Heads
(N=160)
% of All Persons
in HHs
(N=673)
% of Minors
0-18 years of age
(N=287)
18%
33%
68%
US-born—non-immigrant family
9%
7%
4%
US-born--2nd –3rd gen. immigrant
9%
26%
64%
Foreign-Born
82%
66%
32%
Naturalized Citizen
10%
5%
1%
Legal Permanent Resident
42%
27%
11%
PRUCOL/Qualified
4%
5%
7%
Unauthorized
26%
22%
13%
U.S.-Born
.
Woodburn Snapshot: Past, Present, Future
Origin and Immigration Status:
Woodburn Heads of Households, Overall Population, and Minors: 2003
Citizenship/Immigration Status
% of Heads of
Household
(N=128)
% of All Persons in
Households
(N=524)
% of Minors 0-18
years of age
(N=256)
U.S.-Born
38%
49%
72%
US-born—non-immigrant family
32%
16%
6%
US-born--2nd –3rd gen. immigrant
6%
33%
66%
62%
51%
29%
Naturalized Citizen
5%
2%
---
Legal Permanent Resident
26%
21%
9%
---
---
---
31%
28%
20%
Foreign-Born
PRUCOL/Qualified
Unauthorized
Federal Immigration Policy Continues
To Be A Serious Problem for Rural Towns

One-quarter of households are “mixed status” (24% in Arvin,
27% in Woodburn). That is, they include both unauthorized
and legal or citizen household members. These families
experience serious tensions due to constant jeopardy and
inequities in access to crucial services

In one out of ten households (11% in Arvin, 8% in Woodburn)
all family members are of unauthorized immigration status.
There is only a flimsy “safety net” in the event they have
family crises or need help from others.

In Arvin, one out of eight (13%) and in Woodburn, one out of
five (20%) future heads of household—the children and youth
18 or younger---are of unauthorized immigration status. Yet
these Generation 1.5 immigrant children will be called upon to
play a crucial role using their bilingual/bicultural skills to work
in the pluralistic context of Arvin civic life. Although Tejanos
are a small sub-group in both towns, they have played a
crucial role in civic life in both.
New Pluralism Study Implications for
Local Responses to Change

Due to multiple competing migration/social networks and to divisions
between immigrant cohorts which arise in the course of living in the
U.S. “bonding” social capital inherent in migration/social networks is
not easily or immediately translated into “civic capital”.

However, immigrants and native-born residents of rural communities
can find common ground and work collaboratively to improve
community life. In Arvin and Woodburn the school system have
made very positive contributions in this arena. In Woodburn,
municipal government’s leadership has been exemplary.

But nowhere do we see little evidence of comprehensive response or
any single model of “best practice”. Each community has distinct
priorities and relies on a unique mix of local resources. Informationsharing across communities has great promise.

Stores of human, social, cultural, and civic capital are crucial
resources in rural, economically disadvantaged communities. A
meta-policy goal (locally and nationally) must be to assure these
resources can be drawn upon for positive community change.
But…Federal Immigration Policy Dialogue
and Legal Framework Need To Change

Rural communities face many real-world challenges in
responding to the “new pluralism”. Current federal
immigration policy is dysfunctional in not addressing these
communities’ actual needs—to bring residents together to
address common concerns, not divide them.

A crucial first step is to abandon policy dialogue around
analysis of immigrant and native-born “populations”. Rural
community residents work, live, and raise children together.

New social and economic policies and adequate federal
funding are needed to overcome language barriers, offer
lifelong learning opportunities, diversify local economies,
stem out-migration of “the best and the brightest”, negotiate
cultural tensions, and promote civic participation.
Immediate Legislative/Regulatory Implications

Effective immigration policy reform requires provisions for “a pathway to
citizenship”. AgJobs and STRIVE have crucial permissive (legalization) and
proactive (ESL and civics classes) provisions. Further initiatives will be
needed to reform the naturalization process so citizenship is not
conditioned on education/language-learning ability.

Efficient and equitable immigration policy reform requires family unity
provisions—a shortcoming of IRCA was that it didn’t. Guest worker
programs violate basic human rights to live as families and will inevitably
fail due to the arrogant assumption that basic human social behavior can
be regulated/legislated.

Federally-funded initiatives to facilitate and promote civic and political
engagement among immigrants and native-born U.S. residents alike are a
crucial investment in the future of an increasingly pluralistic nation.

Rural communities present special opportunities to articulate and test new
strategies for immigrant social and civic integration—because immigration
is transforming them so rapidly and because many now have the
experience to begin developing the concrete, fine-grained, day-to-day
strategies needed to transform social capital into civic capital and bring
diverse community residents together.