Politics across borders: Mexico's policies
toward Mexicans in the United States
Garcia-Acevedo, Maria Rosa
Publication Title: Journal of the Southwest. : 22-DEC-03.
President Vicente Fox's 2000 characterization of the Mexican community in the United
States as "heroes" delighted most of his paisanos on both sides of the Rio Bravo/Rio
Grande. The Mexican diaspora in the United States had finally come of age. The heroes of
the Mexican diaspora had braved the hardships of migration to define a new life for
themselves in the United States. Many had achieved marked success and had supported
their Mexican families (and the Mexican economy!) by remitting about $10 billion annually
by the onset of the new millennium. In the Foxista view, they were a credit to the raza and a
boon to the Mexican economy.
Fox's accolades helped bestow increasing dignity and credibility upon the Mexican diaspora
in the United States. Their new status differed from the disdain frequently voiced of old by
posturing Mexico City pseudo-aristocrats and their super-nationalistic brethren. But Fox's
declaration was hardly an abrupt break with the past. Rather, it capped an evolution
embedded in Mexican history and pursued consciously and consistently since the early
1970s.
Focusing on the 1990s and the first years of this millennium, this paper describes and
analyzes two components of contemporary Mexican policies and programs touching
Mexicans in the United States: the political connection and the economic connection
between the Mexican homeland and Mexicans living in the United States--the Mexican
diaspora.
The evolving connections reflect general global trends and more localized Mexican national
developments. At the global level, affiliation with more than one traditional nation-state
flows from advances in transportation and communications and from increasing streams of
migrants, goods and services, capital, and intellectual currents. These global trends
contribute to expanding the [inks between ancestral countries and communities of
expatriates (Glick Schiller, Basch, and Blanc Szanton 1992, 10). In this scenario,
governments, including the Mexican government, develop more comprehensive and
complex outreach policies and programs to connect with and nurture communities abroad.
Traditionally, for example, the Irish and Polish governments have courted Americans of
Irish and Polish extraction. In the same vein, the German government has long enjoyed a
special relationship with Germans living in Central Europe.
The second causal component is more specifically related to the situation in Mexico. The
Mexican new departures connect to Mexican domestic politics. Mexico's politics are
increasingly democratic and participatory, and its elections more competitive. The country's
major political contestants increasingly seek the moral, financial, and political support of
their compatriots resident in the United States.
This article is divided into several parts. The first part offers some historical context. The
second and third parts constitute its substance. They focus upon two dimensions of
Mexico's outreach policies: (1) the search for political support emphasizing the involvement
of the Mexican diaspora in the electoral process of Mexico; and (2) the economic links
created through the participation of U.S.-based Mexican-hometown community
organizations (clubes) in the making of local public policy in Mexico.
The cases exemplify the constellation of goals, agents, and tools that have been part of the
contemporary links between Mexico and its diaspora. They also document the influence of
Mexican-origin organizations in U.S. communities in the drafting and future development
of these links. The possibilities and limitations of Mexico's policies toward its diaspora in
the United States are examined through the two case studies.
By "Mexican diaspora" I refer to the Mexican-origin community in the United States. The
diaspora is composed of any number of subpopulations, depending upon the criteria
utilized. My discussion focuses upon Mexicans and Mexican Americans. The distinction
between them evolves from their place of birth: Mexican Americans were born in the
United States; Mexicans in Mexico. A diaspora is understood as a dispersed people.
Following Van Hear's definition of diaspora, three components of the concept are
particularly pertinent to the study of the Mexican community in the United States: (1) the
population is dispersed from the homeland; (2) their presence abroad is enduring; and (3)
there exist social, economic, and cultural interchanges between the spatially separated
populations in the homeland and abroad (Van Hear 1998, 6).
While the overwhelming majority of the Mexican-origin population in the United States are
migrants, about 100,000 Mexicans remained in the new U.S. territories after the MexicanAmerican War (1846-48). Of course, they and their descendants were never physically
dispersed. Metaphorically, however, they were uprooted from their original home land and
frequently suppressed or exploited by Anglo Americans. In a very real sense, they became
foreigners while riving on their native soil.
THE EVOLUTION OF MEXICO'S DIASPORIC CONNECTIONS
Mexico's connection to its brethren in the United States is long-lived, but closer and more
comprehensive ties evolved in the latter part of the previous century, continuing and
intensifying into the present millennium. Mexican federal, state, and municipal
governments and Mexican nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have launched new
initiatives. Mexicans and Mexican Americans living in the United States have grown more
forthcoming and more active in their relations with official and unofficial Mexico. The twoway relationship waxes more complex yearly.
The original ties between Mexico and its U.S. diaspora date from the years immediately
following the Mexican-American War. They continued during the Mexican Revolution of
1910 and beyond. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed in 1848, marked the beginning
of the wide array of policies and programs reflecting Mexico's reach to Mexicans and
Mexican Americans residing north of the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande in the United States
(Griswold del Castillo 1990, 40).
In the aftermath of the war, Mexico's search for political support constituted a major goal of
the Mexico City government (Gonzalez 2000, 257). The government of Benito Juarez
established contacts with so-called Juntas Patri6ticas in the U.S. Southwest, formerly
Mexican territory. These organizations supported the Juarez government. They raised
money and provided in-kind assistance for Mexico's defense against the invading French
army.
Similar initiatives emerged during the chaotic and troubled decade following the outbreak
of the Mexican Revolution of 1910. For example, both Francisco I. Madero and Venustiano
Carranza promoted the creation and development of grassroots organizations in the United
States. Respectively, they were called the Clubes Liberales and the Juntas
Constitucionaristas (Gomez Quinones 1996, 45).
After the revolution, the Mexican government collaborated with Mexican American
associations dedicated to cultural and civil-rights issues, often called Comisiones
Honorificas. They became critical non-governmental agents of Mexico's outreach program
to Mexicans living in the United States--that is, the U.S.-based Mexican diaspora. As now,
diversity and complexity characterized the relationship. Some organizations emerging in the
1930s supported the political ambitions of Jose Vasconcelos, a leading opposition figure of
the time, who had bolted the dominant party (later to become the PRI). Vasconcelos had
lived a short time in the United States (Santamaria Gomez 1994, 23-27).
Beginning in the early 1970s, President Luis Echeverria (1970-76) initiated new dimensions
to the programs. Echeverria sought ties with a new generation of leaders emerging from the
Chicano Movement. He received delegations of Mexicans and Mexican Americans from the
United States. He advertised his attention to the issues and personally instructed the
Mexican Secretaria de Educacion Publica (SEP) and the presidency's secretariat to develop
specific cultural and educational programs designed to encourage linkages with the diaspora
(Gutierrez 1983, 51). Both Presidents Jose Lopez Portillo (1976-82) and Miguel de la
Madrid Hurtado (1982-88) expanded the agenda encompassing the "two Mexicos" living on
either side of the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande (Garcia-Acevedo 1996).
At about the same time, the Mexican hometown associations, the clubes, began to
proliferate in the United States. Although they existed as early as the 1960s, the upturn in
Mexican migration ha the wake of the 1982 economic crisis added expanding numbers of
newly arrived Mexican migrants. They always found a strange land and frequently
encountered a hostile environment dominated by Anglo Americans. The clubes offered
security and opportunities to socialize with their paisanos. The clubes eventually evolved
more comprehensive economic and political agendas. They are discussed and analyzed
later.
The Mexican presidential elections of 1988 added another impetus to Mexican
organizations in the United States. In this case, the newly founded groups took on a more
political hue. The 1988 elections that brought Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1988-1994) to
power were tainted by credible charges of electoral fraud. Mexicans abroad were
embarrassed and angry. Many were also relatively prosperous and well educated by that
time. They mobilized politically and formed a number of new organizations devoted to
political militancy. Some examples include the Mexican Democratic Forum, the Mexican
Assembly for Effective Suffrage, and the Mexican Committee to Support Cuauhtemoc
Cardenas. Cardenas had been the losing candidate in the questionable elections of 1988.
Recognizing the growing political potential of the Mexican community in the United States,
in 1990 President Carlos Salinas created yet another agency to court Mexicanos abroad, the
Programa para las Comunidades Mexicanos en el Exterior. It established the first permanent
bureau in charge of Mexico's outreach policies. Especially during its first years, the
Programa enjoyed extensive resources, significant discretion in using them, and
considerable political clout. It took on a passel of ambitious charges: to enhance diasporic
ties to include political, economic, and cultural goals; to foster participation of additional
Mexican agents; and to expand the number of policy targets within the Mexican-origin
community in the United States. (Secretaria de Relaclones Exteriores 1990, 1-3; 1997, 1-2)
Other agencies of the executive branch also redesigned their agendas to include a diasporic
component. The Secretariat of Social Development (SEDESOL) provided funds for public
works cofinanced by clubes in the United States. In the context of the negotiations over the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Mexican commerce secretary hired
several Chicano/Latino public relations firms and three former Chicano politicians as
lobbyists for the Mexican government (Dresser 1991, 22; Frase Blunt 1991, 1).
President Ernesto Zedillo (1994-2000) continued and intensified the evolution of Mexico's
policies and programs embracing the Mexican diaspora. The 1995 Plan Nacional de
Desarrollo defined the Mexican community in the United States as an integral part of the
"Mexican global nation" (Secretaria de Programacion y Presupuesto 1995, 8).
Vicente Fox has certainly subscribed to the principle of the Mexican global nation living
beyond the confines of Mexico's cartographic boundary lines. During his electoral
campaign, Fox proclaimed that he would represent 120 million Mexicans (including 20
million in the United States). Fox has frequently addressed "all Mexicans," including those
living in the United States (Sheridan and Stewart 2000, 1). He created a new bureau in the
president's office. Its head, Juan Hernandez, a college professor in the United States,
exemplified a new generation of Mexican Americans willing to serve in Mexico's public
administration.
Hernandez's office merged with the exterior secretary's Programa para las Comunidades
Mexicanos en el Exterior. This reflected an innovative bottom-up component to Fox's
diasporic discourse, implying that the Mexico-origin population in the United States has the
right to influence Mexico's outreach policies.
Building upon those ideas, the Foxista government in mid-2002 announced a new agency
formally headed by Fox, the National Council for Mexican Communities in the Exterior.
The council is composed often ministries linked to diasporic policies. The foreign minister
is the interagency coordinator for the Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior. In a highly
symbolic gesture, President Fox declared that the head of the institute had to be a Mexican
residing abroad. He appointed Candido Morales, a resident of California born in Oaxaca of
Mixtec ancestry (Garrison 2002).
A significant new departure mandated a 120-member advisory council composed of
Mexicans living in the United States. The innovative initiative is another sign of Mexico's
evolving participatory democracy. It defines another turning point in terms of Mexico's
outreach policies ("Funcionamiento" 2002, 1-2).
In sum, several trends stand out in this review of the chronology of Mexico's policies and
programs touching the diaspora in the United States. Firstly, the policies signify increasing
sensitivity to the dignity and value of Mexicans and Mexican Americans living in the
United States. In the past, they were frequently despised as pochos--damned at the very
least as sociocultural bastards seduced and corrupted by a superficial U.S. culture and
probably political traitors to the Mexican nation. At best, they were naive in their
understanding of Mexico and Mexican politics. But, in the twenty-first century, they are
redefined as dignified and worthy Mexicanos who happen to live beyond the confines of
Mexican territory. Indeed, Vicente Fox has declared Americans of Mexican derivation to be
heroes, worthy of respect and admiration.
Secondly, the programs are increasingly comprehensive. Beginning as hesitant formal
pronouncements devoid of real substance, they have become comprehensive programs
backed by significant resources. The programs bring Mexicans and Mexican Americans to
the motherland for educational programs, offer assistance to Mexican American
businessmen, match funds from the diaspora to developmental programs in Mexico, and
sponsor a wide range of cultural events in the United States.
Finally, the policymaking process waxes increasingly democratic and representative,
reflecting Mexico's domestic progress from a semiauthoritarian to a semidemocratic
political system. The authoritarian declarations of imperial and paternalistic presidents have
given way to expanding grassroots input originating in the diasporic community in the
United States. Opinions from representatives in the United States are solicited, and they are
heeded.
Any number of global, hemispheric, bilateral, and domestic developments have influenced
those momentous changes, but two wax especially salient in understanding the changing
face of Mexico's relations with the American diaspora: (1) the search for political support
evolving from Mexico's emerging democratic and competitive political system; and (2) the
search for economic support evolving from Mexico's need for economic resources and the
relative wealth and generosity of Mexicans and Mexican Americans in the United States.
THE POLITICAL CONNECTION
Several trends define and influence the connection between the Mexican political system
and the U.S. based diaspora. These trends emanate from developments in both countries. In
Mexico, the political system grows more competitive with each election. Competition
breeds a search for political resources--money and general political and specific electoral
support of various stripes, including votes. Here in the United States, long-established
Mexican Americans have become increasingly prosperous and politically active. And recent
immigrants from Mexico have included more highly educated people, especially since the
Mexican economic crisis of 1982 (Mena 2003). Moreover, the numbers in both categories
expand. The birthrate amongst Mexican Americans and Mexicans is higher than the U.S.
mean, and the numbers of both legal and undocumented migrants continue to grow. An
estimated 1.5 million Mexican registered voters live in the United States. Hence, a richer,
more politically mobilized, and more numerous diaspora signifies multiplying opportunities
for Mexican politicos in search of" resources.
Two issues dominate political discourse emerging from the diaspora in the United States.
Firstly, Mexican citizens living in the United States seek the right to vote in Mexican
elections. Their initial demands address presidential elections, but voting rights in federal
legislative and state and municipal elections also form part of' the larger package. In that
vein, the second focus centers on representation for members of the U.S. diaspora in the
Mexican federal legislature, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, as well as in the state
legislatures of selected Mexican states.
As noted in the preceding historical chronology, the diaspora has played an occasional
political role in Mexico for many years, but the contemporary initiatives are more broadly
conceived and seemingly more continuous. They began in earnest with the 1988
presidential elections, when all three major candidates campaigned in the United States. A
telling symbol of the new departure occurred in May 2000, when two major presidential
candidates showed up in Los Angeles on the same day. They were Cuauht6moc Cardenas,
of the Partido de la Revolucion Democratica (PRD), and the eventual winner, Vicente Fox
of the Partido Accion Nacional (PAN; Gil 1992, 295; "Highlight" 2000.
>From the 1990s on, Mexico's national political parties and politically involved NGOs have
increasingly acknowledged the Mexican-origin community in the United States as their
"constituency abroad" (Hamilton and Chinchilla 2001, 189, 192). They have recognized the
political leverage of the diasporic community deriving from their economic contributions
and their potential influence on the voting behavior of their relatives in Mexico (Porter
2002).
Beyond the presidential aspirants, an increasing number of gubernatorial and mayoral
candidates from all political forces in Mexico visit the United States during their political
campaigns. In 1998, the two major candidates for the governorship of the state of Zacatecas
both came to the United States. Ricardo Monreal (PRD) and Jose Olvera (PRI) organized
especially active campaigns in California. Their California constituency displayed divided
loyalties, but the PRDista Monreal was the winner (Crawford 1998, 9).
While Mexican politicos may be nearly at one in recognizing the advantages of support
from the diaspora in the United States, they are less unanimous and less consistent in their
support of the diaspora's political agenda: the right to vote and representation in the
Mexican federal legislature for those living in the United States. The PRI has been most
reluctant to support those ambitions; the PAN is mixed; the PRD is close to unanimity in
support (Feldman-Bianco 1992, 149). The parties' levels of support are inversely related to
the conventional perceptions of their popularity amongst Mexican Americans and Mexicans
in the United States. In passing, the reality may differ from conventional perceptions.
Various regional surveys conclude that the three major parties share roughly equal support
within the diaspora (Calderon-Chelius and Martinez-Saldana 2002).
Two developments in 1997 and 1998, during the regime of President Ernesto Zedillo,
advanced the debate over the right to vote for Mexicans abroad. In 1997 an amendment to
Article 36 of the Mexican Constitution and subsequent revisions of the electoral code
changed the residency requirement for voting. The provisions removed the stipulation that
residency within the territory of Mexico was a requirement to vote in Mexican elections.
Equally importantly, in 1998 an ad-hoc commission of Mexican experts published an
extensive report on possible scenarios for organizing an electoral process abroad. The
document provided a detailed account of the logistics of the electoral process. It stated that
the bulk of the organizational work for elections abroad would be concentrated in thirtynine states of the United States, particularly in Calfornia where about 50 percent of Mexican
nationals in the United States reside. In terms of costs, various scenarios and their respective
budgets were laid out in the document, based on the number of prospective voters, the
documents required to vote, and the way the electoral process would be organized,
including the polling sites, mail ballots, etc. ("Informe" 1998).
The 1997 and 1998 initiatives seemed promising for the voting participation of the Mexican
diaspora in the United States, but only very modest progress has since been recorded. It is
unlikely that Mexican nationals living in the United States will be able to cast a vote on
U.S. soil for the 2006 presidential elections. In 1999, for example, the PRIcontrolled
Mexican Senate refused to enact the provisions necessary to implement the right to vote
abroad. In the 2000 presidential elections, a few thousand Mexicanos cast their votes in
Mexican borderland cities where special polling places had electoral ballots allocated for
out-of-district voters. But that alternative offered little satisfaction to the overwhelming
majority of potential Mexican voters resident in the United States (Mena 2002).
Some symbolic progress was made in the 2003 midterm elections. Five candidates from the
U.S. diaspora sought at-large seats in the Chamber of Deputies. One was elected: Manuel de
la Cruz, a Californian from the Clubes Zacatecanos, is celebrated as a pioneer. He is the
first Mexican with U.S. citizenship to gain an elected post without his fight being contested
in Mexico (Bordreaux 2003; Mena 2003).
The opposition to the initiatives articulates three main arguments. The first conjures some
nuances of the prejudices of old in questioning the loyalty or perspicacity of the U.S.-based
voters. The arguments range from racist (or classist) to fairly rational. The most rational
extrapolations reason that voters living under another government are divorced from the
impact of their actions. That is, their vote may have few consequences for them. A variation
on that contention claims that voters living in the United States lack the requisite
information to cast an informed ballot. A second argument raises concerns about the
position of the American government. Some fear that conducting Mexican elections on U.S.
territory may trigger both an official and popular backlash. Washington has issued no
official position on the wisdom or legality of Mexico conducting elections on U.S. soil. But
the prospects certainly suggest some complexities, if not disruption--especially every
twelfth year when U.S. and Mexican presidential, federal legislative, and a plethora of state
and local elections would be held in the same year in both countries.
The third argument mustered by the opposition highlights the costs and logistical difficulties
related to organizing Mexican elections in the United States (Valades and Carpizo 1999, 48). For example, mailing absentee ballots is not feasible because the Mexican postal system
is unreliable. Mexican consulates in the United States might organize the elections, but
there may well be too few consulates to process the volume ("Informe" 1998, vol. 1).
Beneath the surface the argument also recognizes that the logistical difficulties might well
be compounded by differing currents of thought within the diaspora. Many Mexican
nationals living in the United States would not trust the Mexican consulates to conduct fair
elections.
Those in the United States and Mexico who favor the extension of the vote and
representation respond with a series of counterarguments and initiatives, ranging from the
legal through the political to the practical. At the level of legal advocacy, they hold that
Mexican citizens living abroad merit the same voting rights as those living in Mexico. The
rights of citizenship are not limited by territorial considerations, especially in the
contemporary period marked by highly sophisticated communications media. Indeed, the
1997 constitutional revisions firmly established this principle. Politically, they contend that
their patriotic commitment to Mexico runs deep, and their ambition to support Mexico's
evolution to increasing democracy is profound. That commitment, they say, is constantly
demonstrated by the diaspora's significant economic support of Mexico. It reached $10
billion annually by the beginning of the millennium and continues to grow. Beyond those
remittances, Mexican and Mexican American travel and tourism from the United States to
Mexico also offer significant support to the Mexican economy. Finally, the practicalities of
conducting elections may not be so complex as the opposition claims. Indeed, the Mexican
Comision de Especialistas presented detailed electoral scenarios ("Informe" 1998, vol. 1).
Moreover, Mexican-origin organizations organized mock elections in cities like Chicago
and Dallas in 1994 and 2000, designed to demonstrate the feasibility of holding elections
abroad (Ross Pineda 1999, 21, 33, 99, 117).
The U.S.-based diasporic organizations have also produced proposals to facilitate the
representation in the Mexican Congress of Mexicans living abroad. They feature the
creation of a sixth circumscription within the federal Chamber of Deputies. Mexico now has
five proportional, representational geographic constituencies that elect a total of two
hundred members to the chamber, in addition to three hundred elected from single-member
constituencies. The sixth multimember district would follow quite logically the principle of
proportional representation already included in legislative elections in Mexico ("Proponen"
2002, 1; Mena 2002).
At the subnational level, clubes in the United States have also lobbied the state legislatures
for the right to be represented in the state congresses and for the right of Mexicans in the
United States to run for office in state elections. Various groups from the states of
Michoacan and Zacatecas have been especially energetic in pushing those proposals
(Martha Ofelia Jimenez, personal communication, August 18, 2002).
In summary several points want emphasis. Firstly, a significant number of organizations of
the Mexican diaspora favor significant participation in the Mexican political system,
defined as voting rights and representation in the Mexican legislature. And they have been
hard at work lobbying Mexican policymakers to enact those reforms. Secondly, mouthing
adherence to those principles is quite fashionable amongst Mexico's policyrnakers and
politicos. It is now accepted practice. Indeed, the majority of them are unquestionably quite
sincere in their support.
But thirdly, the charge is more complex than it appears to be at first blush. For reasons good
and bad, a considerable number of Mexico's political elite oppose the initiatives. Most
calculating PRIistas see the incorporation of the diaspora as inimical to their electoral
interests. Many PANistas concur with the PRIistas. Moreover, the logistics really are
complex. Conducting an election on foreign soil for as many as three to four million voters
is no simple matter. Divisions within the political currents of the diaspora add further
complications. An analysis of the divisions within the diaspora goes beyond the scope of
this article, but they are many and intense. Finally, after all is said and done, the U.S.
government may well scotch the idea as its reality begins to penetrate official circles.
Indeed, the intricacies of the economic connection also play into the analysis.
THE ECONOMIC CONNECTION
The economic connection between the Mexican federal, state, and municipal governments
and the Mexican diaspora waxes increasingly significant. Increasingly large sums of money
are involved and more formalized processes are being established. The federal government
in Mexico City is active, of course, but the interaction between state and local governments
and the hometown clubs in the United States also plays a major role in the relationship. The
state of Zacatecas has been especially innovative. Evolving from its initiatives, a "three
times one" (3 x 1) system frequently defines the process. It involves the U.S.-based
hometown clubs, the state and municipal governments, and the various agencies within the
federal government in providing matching funds for local development projects.
At the federal level, the Mexican government formally acknowledged the clubs as potential
economic resources and allies as early as the first years of the 1990s. The devastating
economic crisis of 1994-95 added impetus to Mexico City's outreach to the U.S.-based
organizations. Remittances from the United States to Mexico became increasing significant
for literally millions of Mexicans as they struggled to survive the crisis (de la Garza and
Lowell 2002, 29-35). The federal government drafted new economic outreach policies
designed to secure ties with the clubs. The policies designated various Mexican agencies to
promote the new relationship. In the Foreign Ministry, the Programa para la Atencion de las
Mexicanos en el Exterior nurtured ties with established hometown clubs, and fostered the
creation of new clubs among the diaspora in the United States. In other departures, the
Social Development Ministry established the Programa de Solidaridad Internacional entre
Mexicanos to provide the financial resources to cosponsor public works promoted by the
hometown associations in the United States (Gonzalez Gutierrez n.d., 176).
At the state and municipio levels, the policies and programs evolved from ad hoc and
uncoordinated to increased systematic rationality. At the outset, the states and
municipalities responded hesitantly to the initiatives from the U.S.-based clubs. While
generally supportive, they sometimes opposed the offers of assistance, erecting bureaucratic
barriers from fear of political competition emanating from the diaspora (Smith 1994, 21).
But the environment evolved into a more favorable one by the early 1990s. Dozens of state
governors and local presidentes municipales representing all the major political parties
pursued diasporic relationships. They traveled to California, Illinois, and other states to
meet with their constituency abroad (Garcia-Acevedo 1996, 137-38). They came from states
with significant migration to the United States such as Guanajuato, Oaxaca, San Luis
Potosi, and Zacatecas. They negotiated cosponsorship of local public works with the clubs,
including the construction or renovation of schools, plazas centrales, water distribution
systems, wastewater treatment facilities, etc. They sometimes also discussed electoral
politics, as noted in the preceding discussion ("Ruiz Massieu" 1991, 11; "Governor" 1993,
2-3; "Jalisco's" 1992, 4).
More than 450 hometown clubs existed in the United States by 2002. About half of them
were in California, the principal destination for Mexican migrants. Many of the clubs were
members of federated umbrella organizations that bind hometown clubs from the same state
in Mexico. Ten such state-level federations represented the states of Jalisco, Michoacan,
Oaxaca, and Zacatecas (Martha Ofelia Jimenez, personal communication, August 18, 2002;
de la Garza 1991, 101-2).
Zacatecas has been especially vigorous and inventive in its initiatives to coordinate and
exploit its ties with hometown clubs in the United States (Gonzalez Gutierrez n.d., 177).
The Zacatecas state government portrays the clubes as a significant vehicle to muster
outside resources to finance development programs throughout the state. As early as 1993,
the government of Zacatecas discussed specific development projects with more than forty
hometown associations organized as the Clubes Zacatecanos de California. The government
of Zacatecas pledged to match the funds raised by the clubes (Martha Ofelia Jimenez,
personal communication, August 18, 2002). Under this program, the clubes from Zacatecas
raised $300,000. The state of Zacatecas matched that sum, and SEDESOL, following the 3
x 1 principle, contributed a final $300,000, bringing the total to nearly $1 million. The funds
went to various projects in Zacatecas, including the construction of schools and libraries.
Beyond the Zacatecas state government, municipio governments also played a role in the
program.
Vicente Fox's home state of Guanajuato also pioneered outreach programs to the diaspora in
the United States Governor Carlos Medina Placencia, Fox's predecessor in the post,
established in the early 1990s an office dedicated to nurturing Guanajuato's relationship
with its paisanos in the United States. The state's Oficina para las Comunidades de
Guanajuato en el Exterior administers Casas de Guanajuato in cities like Chicago, Dallas,
Houston, and Los Angeles where many guanajuatenses reside ("Community" 1993; "Carta"
1994, 13). Among other activities, the casas pursue outreach programs designed to facilitate
cooperation with the local Guanajuato clubs.
Beyond Zacatecas and Guanajuato, state programs and 3 x 1 programs have proliferated. By
the turn of the twenty-first century, many Mexican states had established similar programs,
including at least the states of Aguascalientes, Baja California, Chihuahua, Colima, Jalisco,
Nayarit, Puebla, San Luis Potosi, Sinaloa, and Tlaxcala ("Alla donde vivia" 1993;
"Institutes" 1993).
The administration of President Vicente Fox warmly embraced the 3 x 1 programs from the
outset, and his Citizens Initiative Program seeks to expand them ("Encuentro 2001, 1;
Martha Ofelia Jimenez, personal communication, August 18, 2002). In justifying the
programs, the Fox administration has argued that developing public works at the local level
in Mexico contributes to reducing the temptation to migrate. In the process, the programs
may also contribute to reducing the death-dealing horrors Mexicans experience crossing the
border. That horror defines an inhumanity that increasingly preoccupies official (and
unofficial) Mexico--and the United States, for that matter.
The control of remittances from the diaspora constitutes a final provocative issue in the
relationship amongst the several actors in the scenario, including the federal government,
the state governments, municipal administrations, and of course, the clubs and other
organizations representing the diaspora in the United States. The states and municipios had
successfully challenged the primacy of the federal government by the mid-1990s. Since
roughly the beginning of the millennium, the clubs and other groups in the United States
have begun to define a significant decision-making role for the diaspora.
The emerging influence of the hometown clubs in the larger scenario derives from several
factors reflecting demographic, economic, and political changes and realities.
Demographically, the diaspora is more numerous; economically, it is richer; politically, it is
more skillful and is operating in a more democratic, receptive context in Mexico. The
demographic realities are obvious. Mexicans and Mexican Americans total about 23 million
of the 37 million Hispanics in the United States. Many are recent immigrants dating from
the mid-1980s who maintain strong ties with Mexico. The economics are equally clear. In
both absolute and relative terms, the U.S. Mexican-origin population grows increasingly
wealthy. Hence, Mexican nationals resident in the United States and Mexican Americans
are both willing and able to contribute more to their paisanos in Mexico. Increased money
equals increased political influence. The evidence is manifest. A study by Mexico's
National Population Council indicates that migration to the United States affects fully 96
percent of Mexico's municipios. Of the 96 percent, one-quarter are "highly affected" by
remittances from the United States (Felix 1999).
The politics of the relationship evolves due to changes both in the United States and in
Mexico. Mexicans and Mexican Americans have socially and politically mobilized in the
United States and have grown increasingly accomplished in politics and skillful in the use
of contemporary communications channels. This is illustrated by Miguel Moctezuma's
(1999) and Robert Smith's (1994) case studies of clubes in Oakland, California, and
Brooklyn, New York--representing, respectively, the municipios of Sain Alto, Zacatecas,
and Ticuani, Puebla. Both case studies document how the U.S.-based clubs wheel and deal
in the politics of their respective municipios in Mexico. In both cases, representatives of the
diaspora have assumed critical roles in the political decision-making process touching the
distribution of economic resources to competing municipal projects (Smith 1994, 180-82;
Moctezuma 1999, 1-8). The U.S.-based activists take full advantage of the wonders of
contemporary transportation and communications to influence the decision-making process
in Mexico. The leaders of the clubs sometimes fly to Mexico on weekends, they conduct
conference calls with their countrymen in Mexico, and they employ emails and other
Internet technology to maintain contact and facilitate their political influence.
And the political environment in Mexico grows more receptive to this influence. To be sure,
the Mexicanos back home are more welcoming because their needs are expanding and the
potential resources from the United States are greater. But Mexico's transition to a
semidemocratic political culture also contributes to a more flexible, participatory political
milieu. It is more open to all kinds of participatory input, including that from the diaspora
located in the United States (Goldring 1992, 42).
In sum, the economic connection between Mexico and the diaspora reflects evolutionary
changes equally as profound as those marking the political connection. The diaspora waxes
more significant in the relationship as it grows more numerous, more prosperous, and better
organized in hometown clubs and various designs of federations. Front the homeland,
cooperation grows at all levels of official Mexico. The federal government in Mexico City
plays a significant role, hut the states are equally cogent in the relationship, and municipios
often play a leading role. The Fox administration is perhaps even more enthusiastic than its
predecessors. Vicente Fox has been especially vocal (and eloquent) ill dignifying Mexican
Americans and Mexican nationals resident in the United States. His administration pursues
several initiatives designed to solidify established relationships and nurture new ones.
Significant economic resources are involved. The $10 billion flowing from the diaspora in
the United States to Mexico is not much less than the foreign exchange earnings of
petroleum exports and maquiladora transactions. And, certainly not least significant, the
diaspora plays an increasingly salient role in the formation and implementation of policies
and programs defining the economic connection. Changes in the composition and condition
of the diaspora and in the Mexican polity influence the growing role of the U.S.-based
hometown clubs in the economic connection.
Whatever the influences and causes, the economic connection complements and merges
with the political connection described previously to form a relatively comprehensive and
institutionalized system. The system links an expanding diaspora to an increasingly active
and receptive panoply of governmental and nongovernmental organizations in Mexico.
CONCLUSIONS
The ties between Mexico and the Mexican-origin community in the United States have been
transformed during the last dozen years or so. Historical trends quickened in the 1970s and
achieved a new stage from the early 1990s to the present. The sociocultural image of
Mexican nationals and Mexican Americans in the United States waxes increasingly
positive. The politics of the relationship brims with novel departures reflecting changes in
both Mexico and the United States. The changes highlight initiatives designed to offer more
political influence to the diaspora in the United States. The economic might of the diaspora
partially explains the newly evolving political equation. The economic relationship is now
institutionalized in a continuum of arrangements featuring the participation of federal, state,
and municipal governments in Mexico and various organizations in the United States,
usually based upon hometown and home-state affiliations derived from the diaspora's
Mexican origins.
>From the historical perspective, initiatives launched by Presidents Echeverria and Salinas
de Gortari and expanded under Vicente Fox merit special recognition. In the early 1970s,
Echeverria anticipated contemporary programs in taking official cognizance of the diaspora
and personally participating in meetings calculated to nurture the relationship between it
and the Mexican government. Salinas mainstreamed the ties in the Programa para las
Comunidades Mexicanas en el Exterior. Fox continued, elaborated, and added to the
programs in a series of new policies and programs.
The transformation of sociocultural attitudes informs the historical evolution and the present
political and economic relationships between Mexico and the Mexican diaspora in the
United States. Even Mexico City's posturing pseudo-aristocrats were impressed with the
achievements and sophistication of Mexican Americans when they began to confront them
more frequently in the 1980s. Rodolfo de la Garza and Adela Vargas correctly see those
attitudinal changes as "the most significant" result of the early contacts (1991, 93). At
present, a much more positive vision of the Mexican-origin community characterizes
Mexican opinion and permeates governmental outreach policies. Carlos Monsivas (sees the
transformation as an evolution from a vision of Mexican Americans as "the other" to a more
comfortable vision of them as "relatives and friends" (Monsivais, personal communication,
July 22, 2001). Beyond friends, the political reality is that the diaspora is now composed of
relatively wealthy and powerful individuals.
Associated with those changes, a new discourse emerged. Forging links with Mexicans
abroad became a formal part of Mexico's foreign policy agenda. The 1995 Plan Nacional de
Desarrollo included the concept of a "Mexican global nation" incorporating members and
participants who reside beyond the confines of its borders (98 percent of them in the United
States). President Fox subscribed to these ideas. He consistently emphasized the profound
links between all Mexicans, within and without Mexico.
But the substance of the new relationship transcends differing sociocultural attitudes and
changing modes of discourse. It is firmly embedded in significant initiatives signifying new
political and economic bonds that have redefined the basic relationship between Mexico and
Mexican nationals and Mexican Americans resident in the United States. In the political
arena, every political force in Mexico nurtures ties with Mexicans in the United States, the
constituency abroad. In the economic realm, the national government from the presidency
through a dozen or so ministries and agencies court the diaspora. State and municipal
governments follow suit.
The political parties mimic the government's campaign to court the diaspora. Mexican
electoral campaigns routinely extend to the United States, especially to California but also
to Arizona, Texas, Chicago and Illinois, and other locales. The PRD has been especially
successful in garnering political support in the United States, the PAN has achieved an
intermediate level of success, while the PRI pays increasing attention to the constituency
abroad.
While Mexicanos from south of the line seek political support of several varieties, activists
in the U.S. diaspora seek the vote in Mexican presidential elections at the outset, suffrage at
the state and local levels as a second step, and representation in Mexican legislative bodies
as a third goal. They hear Mexican governmental and political officials promise support and
enjoy a range of consultation, but they have received little of substance in the initial years of
the millennium and hold little hope for the vote in the 2006 presidential elections.
Economic relationships complement and influence the political bonds between Mexico and
the diaspora. Institutionalized ties between the Mexican government and the hometown
associations have increased substantially. Nigh on five hundred formal links between
Mexico and the clubs had been established by the early 2000s, frequently formalized
through the Programa 3 x 1 encompassing the clubs and Mexican governments at one or
more levels. The joint efforts, which involve the governments matching funds raised in the
United States, has produced a plethora of public works throughout Mexico--schools, health
clinics, soccer fields, markets, roads, and renovations of churches and plazas centrales, to
name just a few.
But a balanced analysis demands the recognition of gnawing tensions in a generally
productive and expanding relationship. They involve atavistic sociocultural attitudes and
newly evolving competition for political and economic turf. The debate over the right to
vote for Mexicans abroad is a case in point. It exemplifies how the shadow of pochismo
continues to cloud the relationship between Mexicans north and south of the Rio
Grande/Rio Bravo. The scenario is admittedly complex, and many of the reservations
posited by Mexicanos in opposition certainly need to be addressed. But, the charges of
political naivete take on the nuances of traditional class prejudices against Mexican
migrants in the United States. And the charge that they may be too Americanized to
understand Mexican politics comes close to an indictment of the diaspora as sellouts, a
charge long since put to the lie.
Beyond the realm of sociocultural prejudice, the realities of turf wars also take their toll on
Mexican-diasporic amity. In domestic Mexican politics, the clash between former Foreign
Minister Jorge Castaneda and Juan Hernandez in the president's office offers a case in point.
Moreover, some political elites in Mexico see the diaspora as a potential threat to their
positions and privileges.
Again, the struggle over the vote for Mexicans resident in the United States crystallizes the
point. The PRI may perceive that it has the most to lose; the PRI leadership has been least
enthusiastic of the major political parties in facilitating the vote for Mexicans living abroad.
The PRD is enthusiastic; it correctly sees Mexicanos in the United States as significantly
buttressing its political support. The PAN's position is mixed, again reflecting perceptions
of its support among the diaspora. Fox was and continues to be popular in the United States.
The PAN, as a party, is less so. It should be emphasized that the potential diasporic vote
could be quite significant. A potential for perhaps three million votes hangs in the balance
before the end of this decade. The turnout for the midterm elections of 2003 totaled a trifle
more than twenty-seven million voters.
Another area of tension emerges in economic relations at the municipio governmental level,
where the financial resources of the clubs in the United States can be quite important. On
the whole, Mexican municipios are economically and administratively resource-poor. While
far from rich and sophisticated by any absolute standards, the U.S.-based clubs enjoy
relative wealth and some of their membership is well educated and well versed in the
political arts. They often eschew the political passivity of their Mexican paisanos.
In the political context, Mexicans in the United States sometimes wax aggressive, like the
participants in democracy that they have become. Mexican officials react defensively, eager
to protect their turf, their power, their privileges. The relationship sometimes brims with
tension and the potential for conflict. The case of Andres Bermudez, the "Tomato King" is
an example. A long-time resident of California who had become rich, Bermudez returned to
Mexico to seek the position of presidente municipalin Jerez, Zacatecas. He won, but the
Mexican electoral tribunal voided his election under the technicality that he had not fulfilled
the one-year residency requirement.
In a general and symbolic fashion, the Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior and its
advisory committee crystallize the larger relationship. In one incarnation, it may be a
powerful vehicle for Mexicans abroad who sit on the committee to fashion Mexico's
policies and programs touching almost 25 million Mexican-origin individuals living in the
United States. Or, it may become a tool of the Mexican elites, who may co-opt the advisory
committee's members and relegate them to rubber stamping the policies designed by the
Mexican government.
In the final analysis, the relationship between Mexico and Mexicans on one side of the
border and Mexican nationals and Mexican Americans on the other side is complex. It is
many faceted and multilayered; it is in transition. Indeed, both sets of actors are equally in
transition--Mexicans from a semiauthoritarian to a semidemocratic polity; Mexican
Americans from a poor and impotent minority to a middle-class, influential political force in
the United States. And all of this, of course, occurs in the context of U.S. policies and
programs destined to influence the relationship between Mexico and its U.S. diaspora.
REFERENCES
"Alibi donde vivia." 1993. La Paloma 14 (May-June): 4. Bordreaux, Richard. 2003.
"Migrant Candidates Come from Well Financed Group Independent from Parties." Los
Angeles Times, 29 June, A3.
Calderon-Chelius, Leticia, and Jesus Martinez-Saldana. 2002. La dimension politica de la
migracion mexicana. Mexico: Instituto Mora.
"Carta del Gobernador Carlos Medina Placencia, Gobernador del Esta do de Guanajuato a
sus Paisanos, 19 Octubre 1994, Guanajuato, Gto." 1994. La Paloma 21 (Sept.-Nov.): 13.
"Community Chronicle." 1993. La Paloma 15 (July-Aug.): 3. Crawford, Leslie. 1998.
"Mexican Politicians Cross the U.S. Border in Search for Vote." Financial Times, May 6, 9.
de la Garza, Rodolfo, and Briant Lindsay Lowell, eds. 2002. Sending Money Home.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
de la Garza, Rodolfo, and Adela Vargas. 1991. "The Impact of Mexican Immigrants on the
Political Behavior of Chicanos: a Clarification of Issues and some Hypotheses for Future
Research" The University of Texas at Austin. Unpublished Paper. 1991.
Dresser, Denise. 1991. "Exporting Conflict: La nueva politica mexicana en Estados
Unidos." Estados Unidos, Informe Trimestral 4: 15-22, 92-102.
"Encuentro con integrantes de la comunidad mexicana y el Presidente en Chicago." 2001.
Boletin de Prensa, July 15. Retrieved from www.presidencia.gob.mx on July 17, 2001.
Feldman-Bianco, Bela. 1992. "Multiple Layers of Time and Space: The Construction of
Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism among Portuguese Immigrants." In Nina Glick Schiller,
Linda Basch, and Cristina Blanc-Szanton, Towards a Transnational Perspective on
Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism, 148-59. New York: New York
Academy of Sciences. 1992.
Felix, Edgar. 1999. "Zacatecas, estado transfronterizo." El Financiero, January 15, 36.
Frase-Blunt, Martha. "On the Fast Track to Free Trade." HISPANIC, (August 1991.
"Funcionamiento del Consejo Nacional para las Comunidades en el Exterior." 2002.
Retrieved from Sistema Internet de la Presidencia de la Republica,
www.presidencia.gob.mx, August 23, 2002.
Garcia-Acevedo, Maria Rosa. 1996. "Return to Aztlan: Mexico's Policies toward
Chicanas/Chicanos." In David Maciel and Isidro Ortiz, Chicanas/Chicanos at the
Crossroads, 130-57. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Garrison, Jessica. 2002. "Activist to Head Agency on Mexicans in U.S." Los Angeles
Times, November 25, B1-B7).
Gil, Carlos B. 1992. Hopes and Frustration: Interviews with Leaders of Mexico's Political
Opposition. Wilmington, DE: SR Books.
Glick Schiller, Nina, Linda Basch, and Cristina Blanc-Szanton. 1992. "Transnationalism: A
New Analytic Framework for Understanding Migration." In Nina Glick Schiller, Linda
Basch, and Cristina Blanc Szanton, eds., Towards a Transnational Perspective on
Migration: Race, Clasa, Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered. New York: New York
Academy of Sciences.
Goldring, Luin. 1992. "La migracion Mexico-EUA y la transnacionalizacion del espacio
politico y social: perspectivas desde el Mexico rural." Estudios Sociologicos 10 (29) El
Colegio de Mexico.
Gomez-Quinones, Juan. 1996. "Interpretacion de las relaciones entre la comunidad
mexicana en Mexico y Estados Unidos." In David R. Maciel, ed., El Mexico olvidado:
historia del pueblo chicano. Ciudad Juarez, Chih., and El Paso, TX: UACJ/UTEE
Gonzalez, Juan. 2000. Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America. New York:
Penguin Books.
Gonzalez Gutierrez, Carlos. n.d. "La Organizacion de los Inmigrantes." Unpublished
manuscript.
"Governor of Oaxaca in California." 1993. La Paloma 16 (Sept.-Dec.), 2-3.
Griswold del Castillo, Richard. 1990. The Treat), of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Norman and
London: University of Oklahoma Press.
Gutierrez, Armando. 1983. "The Chicano Elite in Chicano Mexicano Relations." In
Armando Vazquez and Manuel Garcia y Griego, eds., Chicano Mexicano Relations. Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Hamilton, Nora, and Norma Stoltz Chinchilla. 2001. Seeking Community in a Global City.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
"Highlight California Clout." 2000. Los Angeles Times, May, A-3-A-24
"Informe final que presenta la Comision de Especialistas que estudia las modalidades del
voto de los mexicanos en el extranjero, Mexico, D.F." 1998. 12 November. Mexico, D.F.:
Comision de Especialistas.
"Institutes and Centers." 1993. La Paloma 13 (Mar.-Apr.), 6-11.
"Jalisco's Governor Visits Los Angeles." 1992. La Paloma 11 (Oct.-Dec.): 4.
Mena, Jennifero 2002. "Mexican Expatriates Want Ability to Vote, Seek Office." Los
Angeles Times, March 21, A3.
--. "U.S. Citizen in Mexican Congress." 2003. Los Angeles Times, July 11, B1.
Moctezuma Longoria, Miguel. 1999. "Redes sociales, comunidades illiales, familias y
clubes de migrantes. El Circuito Migrante Sain Alto, Zac.-Oakland, CA." Ph.D. diss.,
Colegio de la Frontera Norte. Mexico.
Porter, Eduardo. 2002. "Los politicos cortejan a los mexicanos en EEUU. October 23.
Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com, October 27, 2002.
"Proponen circunscripciones electorales para migrantes e indigenas." 2002. El Universal,
August 4. Retrieved from www.eluniversal.com. rex, August 4, 2002.
Ross Pineda, Paul. 1999. Los mexicanos y el voto sin fronteras. Mexico: CEMOS.
"Ruiz Massieu in Chicago." 1991. La Paloma 4 (Mar.-May): 11.
Santamaria Gomez, Arturo. 1994. La politica entre Mexico y Aztlan. Culiacan: Universidad
Autonoma de Sinaloa.
Secretaria de Programacion y Presupuesto. 1995. Plan nacional de desarrollo 1995-2000.
Mexico, DF: Secretaria de Programacion y Presupuesto.
Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores. 1990. "Objetivos, politicas e ideas programaticas."
Mexico: Direccion General del Programa Presidencial para la Atencion de tas Comunidades
Mexicanas en el Exterior. April 5.
--. "Programa para las comunidades mexicanas en el extranjero." 1997. Mexico:
Subsecretaria de Cooperacion Internacional. May. Sheridan, Mary Beth, and Jocelyn Y.
Stewart. 2000. "Mexican Candidates' Visits Highlight California Clout." Los Angeles
Times, May 9, A3.
Smith, Robert C. 1994. "Los Ausentes Siempre Presentes: The Imagining, Making, and
Politics of a Transnational Community between Ticuani, Puebla, Mexico, and New York
City." Ph.D. diss. Columbia Univ.
Valades, Diego, and Jorge Carpizo. 1999. El voto de los mexicanos en el extranjero.
Mexico: Editorial Porrua.
Van Hear, Nicholas. 1998. New Diasporas. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
MARIA ROSA GARCIA-ACEVEDO is assistant professor of political science at
California State University, Northridge