‘ E LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

TRANSNATIONAL LIFE HISTORIES: MEXICAN ORIGIN ELDERLY
IN SOUTHWEST DETROIT, MICHIGAN

presented by

Gabn‘ela saenz

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Sociology

 

 

SEQW\ j QC, UK

 

Major Professor’s Signature

117/ 9’09

Date

MSU is an Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

— skgk-‘_._.a_m--4-a-n~ -

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KthroleccaPresICIRCIDateDuetindd

 

 

TRANSNATIONAL LIFE HISTORIES: MEXICAN. ORIGIN ELDERLY IN SOUTHWEST
DETROIT, MICHIGAN

By

Gabriela Séenz

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Sociology

2009

ABSTRACT

TRANSNATIONAL LIFE HISTORIES: MEXICAN ORIGIN ELDERLY IN SOUTHWEST
DETROIT, MICHIGAN

By
Gabriela Séenz

Qualitative life history interviews with elderly Mexican origin immigrants of
Detroit, are used to address the question: are transnational families, identity, and
behavior a new phenomenon. Most of the writing on transnationalism identifies it
as a post-1965 process that allows immigrants to remain active in both countries of
origin and settlement Transnationalism has also been associated with the post-
1965 expansion of Mexican communities in the US. Foner (1997) argues that many
of the activities that scholars have recently identified as transnational have taken
place for over 100 years. If Foner’s assertions are correct, then the implications of
contemporary understanding and related assumptions about Mexican immigrant
communities throughout the US. must be revised. The study finds informants
across the life course, continue to maintain significant social, familial, economic, and
identity links, with people and communities of Mexico and Detroit. Ties are used
both to access and render support. The study concludes that processes of
immigrant community adaptation and formation, including those to long-
established populations, are more complex and transnational in form than generally
assumed in mainstream social science. Keywords: immigration, transnational,

Mexican.

Copyright by
Gabriela Séenz
2009

DEDICATION

Dedicated to the adaptive families of Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, and Lansing. Including the
Garza, Saenz, Davis, Oswald, and Olivo families. In memory of Dr. Ernesto Garza and
Mr. Eugene W. Davis. Thank you always for teaching and sharing: the Detroit Tigers,

your families, love, friendship and what leadership and integrity mean to community.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful for the guidance, direction, time, and support graciously offered by Dr.
Steven J. Gold, Dr. Maxine Baca Zinn, and Dr. Tobias Ten Eyck.

Thank you to my family — Tia Lety, Abue Elda, todos mis tias/tios, abuelitos,

primos, hermanos —Erik Servando y Juan Rene Jr., y mis papas Nelly & Juan. And a
thank you to Carolyn Kimbrough. Tambien quiero decir Gracias alas familias que
intriviste

Thank you to the MSU Section of Latino Sociology — Rudy, Pauline, Lori and

Juan ——inspiring, supportive, dedicated, wonderful mentors, colleagues and friends.
Finally, a thank you to my dear friends —Yolanda, Allison, Lea Marie, Sophia, Jen,
Solymar, Mia Bianca, Elizabeth, Robert, Devyn, Schirron, Adrian, Sammy, Cruz, Kevin,
Teneha, Lou, Yahira, Eli, Darlene, Melanie, Jenny, Kierra, Berenice, Tonatiuh, Adam,

Hunter, Ana, Chris, Teresa, and Vera.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................. 1
Theoretical Perspectives & Literature Review ................................................... 2
A Transnational Framework for Social Fields, Identity, and Family ................. 7

Rationale for

Research ................................................................................................ 9
Context of Detroit ........................................................................... 9
Mexican Detroit ............................................................................ IO
Mexicans as Recent Immigrants ......................................................... 12
Mexican Immigrants as Social Problmens .............................................. 13
Application of Research to the Current Study .......................................... 15

Methods and Sample ................................................................................ 17

My Role as an Insider Researcher in the Study ................................................. 19

Findings .............................................................................................. 23
Transnational Origins ...................................................................... 23
Transnational Mexican Detroit: Present Day ........................................... 30
Transnational Identity ...................................................................... 33

Interpretation of the Findings ...................................................................... 34
Family & Transnational Behavior ....................................................... 34

Conclusions .......................................................................................... 37

vi

Introduction

In recent years, an approach called transnationalism has been advanced by
scholars to comprehend contemporary migration. It has been applied widely to Latino
and Mexican communities in the United States. The approach conceives migration as a
multi-level process (demographic, political, economic, racial/ethnic, gender, and familial)
that involves various links between two or more settings rather than a discrete event
constituted by a permanent move from one nation to another.

Most of the writing on transnationalism identifies it as a recent social
phenomenon, post-1965, associated with political, technological, and economic processes
of globalization and lists of factors including low costs forms of transportation and
communication (jet travel, the intemet, cellular phones) in allowing immigrants to remain
actively involved in both countries of origin and settlement. The post-1965 association of
transnationalism is also related to the post-1965 expansion of Latino and Mexican
communities in the United States

Some scholars challenge the recent onset of transnationalism. F oner (1997)
argues that many of the activities that scholars have recently identified with
transnationalism have taken place for over 100 years. As such, she contends that
transnationalism has been a long standing process among various migrant populations. If
Foner’s assertions are correct, then the implications of contemporary understanding and
related assumptions about Mexican immigrant communities throughout the US. must be
revised.

In this paper, I draw on life history interviews with elderly Mexican immigrants

to answer how transnational theory may help to understand the Mexican community of

Detroit. The purpose of this research is to provide voice to Mexican immigrants who
immigrated prior to 1965 and to ask if transnational families, identity, and behavior are
new.

I begin with a review of transnational literature and the context of Detroit. I then
establish a framework for my methodology. Finally I interpret the life of my informants

and return to the concept of transnationalism.

Theoretical Perspectives & Literature Review

Whereas from the perspective of transnationalism, immigration is a process, other
perspectives conceptualize immigration as composed by individual soj ourners moving
across borders. Sojourning is a phrase commonly associated with Mexican immigration
and its basic meaning is temporary resident. Samora’s text Los Mojados: The Wetback
Story (1971) studies the Mexican undocumented alien and chronicles a sojourning path of
immigration. He identifies three types of temporary or sojourning immigrants:
‘braceros,’ ‘commuters,’ and ‘border crossers.’ Braceros, designate “temporary contract
seasonal farm workers,” who legally worked while under contract in the US from 1942-
1964. While commuters have, “acquired an immigrant visa. . .which entitles him to reside
and work in the US. . ..Mexicans with an immigrant visa... live in Mexico and commute
to the United States to work,” (7). ‘Border crossers’ similarly commute across the border
for work, may have a temporary border crossing permit, which is not an immigrant visa.
Hence work is illegal and often in farm fields. The temporary immigrants are said to be a
part of the migratory stream between the US. and Mexico that: “Over the years this
process has produced enclaves of Mexican-American settlements... as the Mexican-

Americans have dropped out of the migrant stream at every opportunity of a steady job, a

decent wage, and an education for their children. In Many northern places they have
joined small groups of Chicanos who ventured into this area starting in the 19205 and
‘303,” (10). For Samora (1971) temporary residency, sojourning or being a part of the
migratory stream between the US. and Mexico is a defining characteristic of Mexican
immigration. And he has dichotomized permanent settlement and presence in the US. as
dropping out of the immigrant experience and migratory stream. Samora has also
identified ‘northern’ places as having Mexican-American, not Mexican immigrant
enclaves since the 19205.

Historically, periods of Mexican migration have been considered sojourning
without permanent settlement or establishing communities in the US. For example
Sanchez (1993) describes, “. . .Mexican families were much more likely to be involved in
a pattern of circular migration. ...only Mexicans exhibited a pattern of back and forth
movement that would continue for years. ...During World War I and up until 1921, the
United States government contributed to this pattern by giving entrance visas to
temporary workers in order to regulate their movement back into Mexico at the end of a
season,” (133).

Other scholars also portray Mexican migration as historically sojourning.
Hondagneu-Sotelo (1995) explains a transition period of Mexican migration from
sojourning to permanent settlement with the establishment of families and communities,
“The second half of the twentieth century has witnessed a transformation from a
predominantly sojoumer or cyclical pattern of Mexican migration to the widespread

establishment of Mexican immigrant families and communities throughout California,”

(165). Hence if Mexican migration is considered transnational-maintaining community
and family in both the US. and Mexico, it is a new consideration after a sojourning past.
The sojourning migratory perspective as related to Mexican migration is
important. For Sanchez (1993), sojourning occurred within a context of government
regulation. For Hondagneu-Sotelo (1995) the contemporary establishment of Mexican
immigrant families and communities in California helps to differentiate a Mexican
sojourning past. This potentially obscures if Mexicans have had a transnational history.
Sojourning in many ways oversimplifies immigration in a dichotomy of “back

and forth” or return to ancestral lands and never establishing host settlement. Sojourning
also restricts immigrants’ investment in the host society as temporary. The very
description of immigrants as temporary residents, without permanent settlement, or host
society investment also perpetuates Mexicans as “other,” in the sense that they do not
belong or are not an integral part of US. racial and ethnic composition. Sojourning lacks
consideration that immigration itself is a process, and may be a part of a life continuum in
constant flux between both country of origin and the host society shaped by multiple
social forces.

Unlike sojourning, trasnationalism recognizes that immigrants can simultaneously be
a part of both origin and settlement communities, rather than simply moving between the
two. Scholars consider transnational practices in terms of social fields or domains of
“social, economic, and political relationships immigrants have established and maintain
with their home societies...” (Foner 1997, 356). Since the 19903, transnationalism has
been an influential perspective and is described as a recent phenomenon. It is well

understood that recent immigrants encounter a different context of reception than was the

case among European immigrants at the turn of the century, when they entered during an
economic and industrial boom. Instead, “new immigrants are entering a highly stratified
society characterized by high income inequality and growing labor market segmentation
that will provide fewer opportunities for economic advancement (Massey 1995),”
(Mobasher and Mahmoud 2004, xii). In addition to economic differences, racial and
ethnic differences between Europeans (whites) and Latinos & Asians (non-whites) are a
part of the different context of reception to the US. (Rubin 1994, 174-175). With these
distinctions from former immigrants, transnationalism is understood to be a part of the
difference, helping to explain how immigrants experience economic and structural
changes.

In conducting research, several transnational- theoretical perspectives are
influential. Basch et a1 (1994) define transnationalism as: “the processes by which
immigrants forge and sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their
societies of origin and settlement. We call these processes transnationalism to emphasize
that many immigrants today build social fields that cross geographic, cultural, and
political borders. . . .” (6). Basch et a1 (1994), are not only defining transnationalism as the
ability to be a part of both origin and host/settlement communities, they are emphasizing:
transnationalism as a present day process, how transnationalism can be created and
maintained by immigrants, how country of origin and settlement are related or linked for
immigrants, and involvement in both communities is happening in several capacities.

For other scholars, transnationalism is not only a present day process. It is also a
new, unique phenomenon that has not previously occurred and it justifies a new area of

research in immigration. They claim, “the occasional contacts, trips and activities

across national borders of members of an expatriate community also contribute to
strengthening the transnational field but by themselves, these contacts are neither novel
enough, nor sufficiently distinct... What constitutes truly original phenomena and, hence
a justifiable new topic of investigation, are the high intensity of exchanges, the new
modes of transacting, and the multiplication of activities that require cross-border travel
and contacts on a sustained basis,” (Portes, Guamizo and Landolt 1999, 219). Portes et
a1. (1999) are emphasizing novelty as a defining characteristic of transnationalism, since
there are observed new and high intensity forms of activity, and the activities require
continuous cross-border travel and communication.

While Portes et a]. (1999) claim newness as central, Foner (1997) argues
transnationalism is not new. Instead there are new transnational trends, due to modern
technology, the global economy, and politics. She explains, “Transnationalism has been
with us a long time, and a comparison with the past allows us to assess just what is new
about the patterns and processes involved in transnational ties today,” (371 ). Foner
(1997) also notes the danger of repeatedly recognizing transnationalism as new since,
“Once ignored or reviled, transnational ties are now a favorite conference... Yet the
novelty of contemporary conditions should not be exaggerated. Immigrants who move
from one country seldom cut off ties. .. (369).

A similar understanding is suggested by Thomas and Znaniecki in The Polish
Peasant in Europe and America (1920). The authors explain, “. . .the central object of our
investigation, is... the creation of a society which in structure and prevalent attitudes is
neither Polish nor American but constitutes a specific new product,” (240). They

emphasize how immigrants have not assimilated to the host society nor returned to their

country of origin, but instead created a life that contains both Polish and American
features, suggesting transnationalism did exist at the turn of the century, under different
social forces. Much of the book is the dialogue of letters between family members in
Europe and the US. at the turn of the century. Letters that explain how and when family
members will see each other again, how their life and family life in each respective
country is, how they are creating and maintaining Polish communities and customs, and
how immigrants in both Europe and the US. were extensively involved in each other’s
lives and communities. The research of Thomas & Znanieck (1920) is important since it
supports Foner’s (1997) perspective, that transnationalism is not new, nor is it limited to
present day migratory patterns. This may be relevant to Mexican and Latino
communities.
A Framework for Transnational Social Fields, Identity, and Family

One obvious disadvantage of a transnational framework is that, “There is no
consensus among students of transnationalism about who or what exactly is included in
the phenomenon.” (Hernandez- Leon 2008, 12). Instead researchers have debated the
term; of whom and what may be considered transnational, in its theoretical application,
locus of research, and significance to understand immigrant communities and families.
In fact, Alba & Nee (2003, 150-151) doubt if transnational characteristics (as they
consider to be at home in two places and fluent in the mother tongue) can exist past the
second and third generation.

I consider a transnational framework to be very useful, to study the social domain

of immigrant lives, specifically on the basis of three important concepts as applied to the

Mexican immigrant community of Southwest Detroit: behavior to facilitate transnational
community and/or social fields, transnational identity, and transnational family.

To elaborate on Basch, Glick-Schiller, and Blanc’s (1994) understanding of
trasnationalism and trasnational social fields, I also consider the work of Georges’ (1990)
of a Dominican immigrant community to and from the US. She explains, “Constraints
imposed by geography and US. immigration law conditioned the general countours of
the Pinero migrant stream. ...however, they were challenged and partially offset by
relations of kinship, fiiendship, patronage, and community. These relations came to span
international boundaries, articulating Los Pinos and New York into a single transnational
social field (234).”

Related to the meaning of transnational social fields, I understand transnational
identity, as when “immigrants whose daily lives depend on multiple and constant
interconnections across international borders and whose public identities are configured
in relationships to more than one nation-state,” (Glick-Schiller, Basch, and Szanton-
Blanc 1995, 48).

In terms of transnational families, F oner (1997) points out, “we still know little
about how pervasive and extensive various transnational ties actually are... Or, for that
matter, how transnationalism affects immigrants —from their family lives... and the
communities in which they live,” (3 69). To understand transnational families, I consider
the work of Hondagneu—Sotelo & Avila (1997). Although the emphasis of their research
is on transnational motherhood, I believe the research establishes a related framework for
transnational families. They contend, “Examining transnational motherhood, defined not

as physical circuits of migration but as the circuits of affection, caring, and financial

support that transcend national borders...” (550). This is an important distinction from
other transnational definitions, that limit transnational inclusion based on immigrant’s
physical ability to transcend national borders.

An equally important theoretical framework that is not mutually exclusive in
studying migration, is gender. Gender is important since, “Major areas of life- including
sexuality, family, education, economy, and the state —are organized according to gender
principles and shot through with conflicting interests and hierarchies of power and
privilege,” (Glenn 1999, 5). Feminist scholars have combined transnational frameworks
with gender theory and analysis, contributing to the field of migration. Although space
precludes a full analysis of gender in this paper, I consider class, race, and gender a

requisite for a complete sociological understanding of migration.

Rationale for Research:
Context of Detroit

Transnational migration literature has focused on gateway cities. Cities with:
growing populations; thriving urban centers; high percentage of foreign born; and a part
of the global, postindustrial economy. In the context of the US, Lin (2004) illustrates
how transnational immigrants have created gateway cities by reclaiming post industrial
cities such as Miami, Houston, and New York. She points out fifteen U.S., “gateway
cities received a majority of US. immigration in the 1990-1995 period. ...immigration
gateways are also ‘world cities’ that articulate domestic economic activities with the
global economy (Waldinger 1989; Muller 1993),” (185).

This focus on gateway cities has not included rustbelt locations like Detroit,
despite the existence of its immigrant communities. Bhalla (2002), challenges many

assumed descriptives of immigrant cities since she provides evidence that Detroit is

transnational, “In documenting the migration of immigrants to an area in decline...
immigration is ...not exclusive to prosperous urban areas and global cities that have
come to be characterized as migrant cities,” (11).

For more than half a century, the city of Detroit has experienced tremendous
structural loss with the closing of factories, rise in foreclosures, and decline in city
population. By academic definition, it could be difficult to characterize Detroit as a
global city, since it does not have a high percentage of foreign born individuals, let alone
a strong economy to support a densely populated urban center. Not since 1950 has the
city experienced its largest population of nearly 2 million (US. Census Bureau 1950).
By 2000, the City of Detroit population dropped to approximately 951,270 people 01S.
Census Bureau 2000b). In 2000, foreign born totaled 45,541 representing 4.8% of
Detroit’s population in comparison to 11.1% for the US. national average (US. Census
Bureau 2000a). The low percentage of the total city population is a characteristic unlike
a ‘global’ or immigrant ‘gateway’ city such as New York or Los Angeles. Yet parts of
Detroit, such as Southwest Detroit have existed as an immigrant community and
experienced population growth.

Mexican Detroit
Detroit continues to have the presence of a Mexican immigrant community. In

March of 2005, while conducting informant interviews, The Detroit News reported, how
the immigrant community of Southwest Detroit, had made the area one of the few city
neighborhoods growing in population and business, including housing the city’s busiest
commercial district (Aguilar 2005, 1). In 2007, amid the potential closing of 52 Detroit
Public Schools, The Detroit News reported, pockets of the city experiencing revitalization

could be affected. Including the Southwest neighborhood, that had the opening of a new

10

library branch in 2006, the only new library branch to open since 1981 (Mrozowski,
MacDonald, and Wilkinson 2007, 1).

The significance of the Mexican immigrant community of Detroit is not new. The
historical significance of Mexican workers and communities in the Midwest, Michigan
and Detroit has been documented (Humphrey 1943; Baba & Abonyi 1979, Valdes 1982,
Vargas 1993). The 1920 census, reported a count of 1,268 foreign born Mexicans living
in Detroit (Baba & Abonyi 1979, 50). Yet, by 1929, “most of Detroit’s Mexicans lived
on the southwest side,” numbered approximately 15,000 and, “. . .constituted the second
biggest urban settlement of Mexicans in the Midwest,” (Vargas 1993, 124, 126) hopeful
evidence of the community’s duration, and related to the present since “. . .the early
colonies prevailed and formed the foundation of the present-day Latino communities of
the Midwest,” (Vargas 1993, 7). As the Michigan auto industry extended to other cities,

6‘

so did Mexican working class colonies (51), for plants in Detroit, Pontiac, Flint, and
Saginaw,” ( 101). Interstingly, one inforrnant’s older brother, lost fingers while he
worked on the construction of the Ambassador Bridge, during the 1920’s, connecting
Detroit to Canada. And although historical analyses of Detroit and Michigan’s Mexican
colonias and communities, may not have the purpose of examining transnational ties, I
find there are related clues. For example, in terms of racial discrimination, “Less
integrated than Europeans... Mexicans rarely became naturalized citizens; most were
reluctant to relinquish their ties to Mexico for rights and privileges American citizenship
did not guarantee. . .,” (Vargas 1993, 130). In a footnote, Vargas (1993, 217 n. 26)

reports observations of a US. immigration inspector, noting migration and return to

Mexico, “The immigration that comes in February. . .. is nearly all northbound ...Part of

11

them go north to take positions with ...automobile factories... in the industrial centers...
The Mexicans, unlike other nationals, goes home when times in the United States begin
to get hard and work is scarce.” By the 1960 census it was known, “Detroit has a large
community of Mexican Americans who have migrated to city in postwar era,” (Poremba
2001, 296). Hence the Detroit Mexican community has the potential of including a
history that has fostered and maintained transnational ties.

Mexicans as Recent Immigrants
In terms of US. immigrants’ national origins, it is commonly accepted

demographically, the majority of immigrants prior to 1960, came from Europe or Canada.
With the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendment of 1965, “Things changed
rapidly... when family reunification criteria rather than national origins quotas became
the main basis for granting entry,” (Bean & Stevens 2003, 18-19). Hence immigration to
the US. in many ways experienced a demographic shift, and by the 19803, “84.4% were
from Asian or Latin American countries. . .,” (Bean & Stevens 2003, 19). A major
consequence of this demographic shift has been a perception of Asian and Latinos as
limited to recent immigrants. Inevitably hiding: historical presence, long established
communities, experiences of structural inequality, and status of citizenship behind
immigrant status in the US. In racial terms, “Asian Americans and Latinos, despite their
active presence in American society in the mid-nineteenth century, are depicted as only
the latest immigrant groups coming to the United States,” (Sanchez 1999, 375). This
viewpoint of Latinos, specifically Mexicans as recent immigrants may also perpetuate
that transnational migration is a recent process, associated with modern gateway cities,
technology, and globalization, denying the history of an ethnic community in Southwest

Detroit as related to families and communities of Mexican origin. We must also consider

12

how transnational migration literature, since the early 19903 has included Mexicans,
Latinos, and other ethnic/ minority groups (Levitt 2001; Grasmuck & Pessar 1991;
Hirsch 2003; Smith 2006). But how few scholars, with the exception of historians
(Sanchez 1998, 338; Hsu 2000; Chen 2000) or insiders (Barajas & Ramirez 2007, 372;
Chee 2005, 1) have identified, studied, included or redefined transnational behavior,
identity, families, and community prior to 1965 for racial/ethnic minority communities.
Again this perpetuates the perception of racial/ethnic minorities, as only recent
immigrants and Mexican transnational communities as “new.”
Mexican Immigrants as Social Problems

The known existence of Mexican communities alone does not explain how ethnic
communities are sustained or understood. Valdes (1992) explains, “. . .Latinos find it
difficult to study our own history in Michigan. . .for several reasons... we are the objects
of study, the investigators more often are interested in ...the problems we supposedly
create, rather than our historical presence and the world we have created here,” (1).
Unfortunately Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans have been associated with
un-American social problems. For example, consider how immigrants are, “commonly
fingered as the other, the invading and ominous people threatening time tested social
norms and economic principles,” (Laws 1997, 89). Suarez-Orozco (2001, 68)
summarizes how immigrants are viewed as an economic social problem, related to three
main questions: a) if immigrants depress the wages of native born workers, b) Do
immigrants contribute to the tax system or are they a tax service burden, and c) are poorly

educated and low skilled immigrants useful in a knowledge based economy.

13

Aida Hurtado (1995) explains how assimilation fiameworks of molding to
American culture have been used to degrade ethnic communities and define Latinos,
including Mexican families as social problems,

The predominant framework for understanding ethnic families in general, and

Latino families in particular. . .The assimilation framework... ignores the fact that

Latinos and European immigrants started from a different economic base, as well

as different cultural values and history (Ybarra, 1983).” (42)

It extends the culture of poverty thesis that contends the poor have a different

way of life than the Anglo mainstream society and that these cultural differences

explain continued poverty. . .that the culture of Latinos (and other racial/ethnic

groups) is responsible for their lack of economic advancement. . .,” (51-52).
Hurtado (1995) and Valdes (1992) are in other words challenging the social problems
dimension of Mexican and racial/ethnic minority group research. In many ways the use
of an assimilation framework obscures privilege, social inequality, and the social location
of racial/ethnic families in the United States.

Hondagneu—Sotelo (2002) considers how the social problem dimension of
Mexican immigration is perpetuated in public opinion and highlights how anti-immigrant
sentiment shifted from Mexican immigrant workers as stealing jobs in the 19803 to
Mexican immigrant families depleting community resources just as families established
permanent communities. She explains “. .. by the 19903, although the cry of unfair
economic competition failed, xenophobic restrictionists recast their fears by shifting
attention from immigrant Mexican workers to their families, claiming that undocumented
immigrants and their children were depleting the welfare system and ‘draining public
resources.’” (196).

I begin research with an understanding of social inequality as applied to Mexican

communities. I relate this research to the Structural Diversity Approach. More

specifically the first and third themes: “Families are socially constructed and historically

14

changing,” and “The social locations in which families are embedded are not the product
of a single power system, but are shaped by interlocking hierarchies,” (Baca Zinn, Eitzen,
and Wells 2008, 26-27). Just as scholars have, “pushed for a reconstruction of family
theory through incorporating race as a dimension of social structure rather than merely an
expression of cultural differences (Baca Zinn 1990, 1994),” (1995, 183), I attempt to
understand how the social forces of race and immigration have shaped families.
Transnational perspectives are also tools to understand immigrant ethnic communities
both past and present and how they challenge the research locating immigrant families as
social problems within deficit or culture of poverty frameworks.

Application of Research to the Current Study

Although this research includes Mexican immigrants as informants, I use the term
Mexican origin to include both Mexican American and Mexican immigrant families,
since many families do fit into both categories. It is possible for a family to be Mexican
American, with members born in the United States, across multiple generations, and also
be a part of Mexican immigrant families, with members who have immigranted to the
United States. A dichotomy is not always accurate, nor may it capture racial/ethnic
heritage.

This research involves elderly immigrants, an under studied population in
immigrant and ethnic communities. Thome et al (2003) explain, “. . .age as an organizing
dimension of migration has been relatively neglected... Since gender and age are basic
axes of kinship, more attention to their intersecting dynamics would be especially fruitful

for the study of families and migration (243).

15

This is the case especially as Mexican and Latino communities are characterized
as recent and young immigrant communities. It is possible in interviewing elderly
immigrants and including their life histories, to include age as an important dimension of
the migration process, to observe if migration and its effects are lifelong and not limited
to the men and women of reproductive or work force age.

Levitt (2002) in studying second generation transnational children notes,
“Transnational activities do not remain constant across the life cycle. Instead, they ebb
and flow at different stages, varying with the demands of work, school, and family,”
(139). Also Louise (2004) describes, how return migration and transmigrants are often
falsely over simplified by smooth transitions, she explains, “It is this historical and
processual dimension that is often lacking in many discussions of transnational
relationships, which in their emphasis on the maintenance of linkages between
transmigrants and their places of origin, often render static the social practices associated
with transnational movements over time. . .,” (212). I believe the same to be true for
elderly Mexican origin immigrants and their families. Each informant’s life, all shaped
by macro social forces affecting Detroit, may describe how their transnational activities
and experiences are not static.

Smith’s (2002) research with Mexican immigrants in New York City considers,
“transnational life in the second generation: result from the second generation’s
engagement with racial, gender, and class and status hierarchies in the United States (and
sometimes in Mexico),” and “ evolves... in the life course...” (146). Hence, not only is

immigration in a context flux across the life span, it also varies according to social

16

location. I believe Mexican origin families and elderly Mexican origin immigrants to

illustrate a social location relevant to Detroit.
Methods and Sample

The purpose of research is to provide voice to Mexican immigrants who
immigrated to Southwest Detroit prior to 1965 and ask if transnational families, identity,
and behavior are new.

Conducting in-depth interviews and obtaining life histories permits observation
and gives voice to continual life perspectives of informants as immigrants. Migration is
considered a continual process instead of a single event. I have chosen two areas of
inquiry and observation into informants’ daily lives: transnational behavior between the
countries of US. and Mexico, and the family.

The Extended Case Method allows the researcher to link interview and field work
findings with theories of migration, permitting me, the researcher to have an ongoing
conversation with informants and theory. The notion of entering conversation with
participants is important since it allows, “. . .access to the lifeworld,” (Buroway 1991,
284). For example as research continued, it was possible to link field work and
transnational theory and research to the context of informants’ societal experiences. The
advantage of, “reconstructing existing theory,” is it may help to observe, “similar
phenomena with a view to explaining differences,” (Buroway 1991, 280). For example,
even though all project participants have migratory experiences, a similar phenomena,
using the extended case method, enables differences to be explained, such as if

transnational migration is new or old.

17

In addition, Life History as a research framework allows researchers, “to ask
people to talk about their daily lives... and generate more inclusive concepts for
understanding the actual complexities social institutions and the processes of social
change,” (McCall & Wittner 1990, 46). A3 McCall & Winter (1990) illustrate from
experience of gathering research, “knowledge of their everyday activism resides
primarily in women’s memories and is retrievable principally through their own accounts.
If they do not tell their stories, we cannot know how they make sense of their
experiences,” (67). Thus Life History enabled me to build upon methods and theory to
answer how elderly immigrants’ understood their daily experiences as shaped by and
shaping migratory processes.

In spring of 2005, I interviewed a total of twelve participants in the Southwest
Detroit area, predominantly Mexican neighborhoods. I interviewed four men and eight
women, including three married couples. Participants ranged in age from 62 to 88. In-
depth interviews averaged two visits, ranging a total of five to ten hours with each
participant. I asked for participant permission to tape record and jot notes during my
interview. In arranging interviews I asked participants when I could visit at their
convenience, to ask questions and learn of their and their families’ migratory life
histories. Meeting arrangements were made in varying stages, depending on my level of
acquaintance. For example, with certain participants by identifying myself on the
telephone they welcomed me anytime to their home, with others, I made specific time
arrangements either through a mutual friend or family member. One couple, prior to
scheduling a meeting requested and confirmed with their ‘social network’ my parents and

grandparents names, occupations, and community of Mexican origin. Because of my

18

previous acquaintance whether personally or indirectly through friends and family, upon
my arrival conversation began with comments/concems of our level of acquaintance. In
many ways interviews became shared conversations, as informants not only tested my
knowledge of their transnational social fields, but also to understand and get updates on
my family’s-patemal and maternal extended family, life, and work between Detroit and
Mexico.

Respondents told me of their immigrant experiences, without my interruption
with the exception of minor clarifications. I asked relevant questions to fill in gaps.
Upon leaving each interview I dictated notes in regards to the photos shown, their home,
and any informal/closing discussion not recorded on audiocassette. After each interview
audiocassettes were translated and transcribed. In analyzing the data the purpose was to
identify expressive quotes participants made of their daily lives and life histories to
compare & contrast experiences. Each participant has been given a pseudonym to protect

their identity. I have also provided fictive names to communities of origin.
My Role as an Insider Researcher in the Study

The term ‘insider,’ is commonly used to denote minority group scholars who have
conducted field research in minority communities. Sociology continues to consider
‘insider,’ field research to have both advantages and disadvantages. Baca Zinn (1979)
explains how insider field research may provide methodological advantages, “The most
important is that the “lenses” through which they see social reality may allow minority
scholars to ask questions and gather information others could not... The unique

methodological advantage of insider field research is that it is less apt to encourage

19

distrust and hostility, and the experience of being excluded (e.g. as a white researcher)
from communities . . .” (212).

For the sake of this research I consider my insider status an advantage. I have
strong personal ties to Southwest Detroit. 1 am an insider as my family’s home is next to
Patton Park. I am directly linked with the areas of interest. My grandparents have lived
in SW Detroit since the late 19403. My parents attended grade school in both Mexico
and SW Detroit. 1 have both Mexican and US. citizenship. Several avenues of informal
acquaintance exist between my-self and participants. Respondents include family friends
of my grandparents established in their settlement process in Detroit, family friends from
communities of Mexico who also immigrated. Parents or extended family of friends, or
family friends from where my grandparents and parents have worked, including our
family business, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler and Great Lakes Steel. In every form of
acquaintance described, an important aspect of our relationship is Mexican
ethnicity/nationality, knowledge of extended family networks, migration, and settlement
between Detroit and Mexico. Inadvertently, and in many ways to my research advantage,
the research thus conducted is the result of lifelong experiences and interactions with
such exemplary families. I use the term insider to acknowledge equal status to that of my
informants’ social location of: race/ethnicity, immigrant history, class, and geographic
community. My insider status did grant me access to a social world for the collection of
data and field research.

As a self-described insider I do face disadvantages in research. I must
acknowledge potential bias, in that I may characterize my informants as infallible. As an

insider, I may rely on taken for granted knowledge of my research topic and setting,

20

causing me to omit questions that would appear important to social outsiders. An insider
status grants me the unequal power of controlling the direction of research —if I pursue
questions about family I am allowed to make relevant observations. In other words
informants did not decide what transnational aspects I observed, again shaping potential
bias in my research. Informants trust my questions and analysis will not cause them or
their family harm. There are still elements of difference between informants’ lives and
my own, for example in age and level of formal education. I must also emphasize my
research is not for the purpose of generalizing. The life histories’ of twelve informants is
not representative of all pre 1965 Mexican origin immigrants or immigrants to Detroit.

Rumbaut (2000, 40) acknowledges that current and future immigration research
questions are improving as generations of immigrants are now interested in research. As
an insider to an immigrant community, I too may ask questions others may not know to
ask. By being an insider to selected settings, I not only have previous life knowledge of
immigrant experiences, I also have an established level of acquaintance since we share a
neighborhood, community and migratory context. It is for these same reasons I take all
methods of research ethics and data collection seriously to protect each informant’s
confidentiality.

I consider insider research to be a methodology, as Wellman (1993) describes for
data collection of marginalized communities. Wellman wanted data to, “capture the lived
experience of ordinary people. ..We decided to consider as “experts” those who had lived
the lives we wanted to understand,” (67). So the basis of hiring diverse community
members as research assistants was invaluable to a methodology of discussing sensitive

issues. By being an insider, I am using my expertise to draw out sensitive issues and

21

document the lived experience of ordinary Detroit community members. Wellman
(1993) conducted interviews with tape recorders, and transcribed the interview once
completed, since, “The tape recorders permitted interviewers to participate —to exchange
ideas with the respondents,” and interviews, “were organized around people’s life
histories -their experiences with such major institutions in American society as family,
school, work...and in-depth interviews permitted a more reciprocal exchange in the
research process,” (71-72). I tape recorded interviews and engaged in conversation with
respondents so as to share the dialogue of family experiences. I always offered my
family experiences and life history to promote an equitable dialogue.

Although an insider to the Mexican community of Detroit, I am in many ways an
outsider to the academic research setting. Wellman (1993) explains, “Science is usually
restricted to “experts” who are traditionally selected by “objective” criteria: formal
education, degrees, research experience. These criteria often effectively exclude people
of color from actively participating in studies of their own communities,” (67). Wellman
has summarized how marginalized communities have historically been excluded from
research and the knowledge process that has shaped sociological thought.

Hill Collins (1986) argues, "Black female intellectuals have made a creative use
of their marginality -their "outsider within" status- to produce Black feminist thought that
reflects a special standpoint on self, family and society," (814). I understand this paper to
re-examine long held assumptions related to Mexican immigrant families and
communities. Hill Collins (1986) contends conducting sociological research as an

9“

‘outsider within, stimulates a reexamination of one’s own personal and cultural

experiences; and, yet these same experiences paradoxically help to illuminate sociology’s

22

anomalies... The approach suggested by the experiences of outsiders within is one where
intellectuals learn to trust their own personal and cultural biographies as significant
sources of knowledge. .. experienced reality is used as a valid source of knowledge for
critiquing sociological facts and theories, while sociological thought offers new ways of
seeing that experienced reality,” (829-830). I agree- marginalized or "outsider within,"
researchers can contribute to and push sociological research, theory, and knowledge

forward by challenging long held assumptions and paradigms.

Findings

Based on informants’ life histories, transnational migration is not new. If we
define transnationalism as how immigrants create and sustain community in both
communities of origin and host societies, their life experiences are full of transnational
aspects. They identify as being a part of communities in the United States and Mexico.
In their daily dialogue, the existence of family on both sides of an international border,
and both communities shaping their daily lives across decades, it is evident all informants
are, and have been, transnational and have helped maintain transnational communities.

Transnational Origins
To answer the research question, is transationalism new to Mexican immigrants in

Detroit, I begin with informants’ immigrant origins. Eleven of the twelve informants
immigrated to Detroit prior to 1965. Four immigrated during the 19403, six during the
19503, and two during the 19603. Four informants immigrated to another US. city before
arriving to Detroit. Of the twelve informants, one is a citizen by birth, eight are

' naturalized citizens, and three are legal resident aliens. Although eight informants are
naturalized citizens, they described the decision process to naturalize, multiple attempts

of applying, and how the process sometimes spanned decades. For the eight naturalized

23

citizens, time from initial migration into the US, to establishing citizenship, ranged from
twenty-one to fifty-four years. Two of the eight citizens also admitted to initially
crossing the border without documents. Evidence the process of becoming a legal
resident let alone a naturalized citizen may not be a predictable path.

All informants exhibited family stage migration, when a family member
immigrates and eventually other members join. Three informants immigrated as children
with family. Four informants joined husbands working in Detroit. One informant joined
her aunt and uncle working as a young adult. Another informant immigrated as a young
adult at the same time as her husband. These different trajectories of immigrant entrance,
by age, marital status, and family relationships also exemplify the variety of early
transnational patterns and behavior. Examples follow.

Since birth Beatrice was raised by her paternal grandmother and aunt, Tia
Carmela. She was adopted by her paternal Tio Mateo and Tia Nancy, because her
grandmother could not leave Veracruz without her ‘cane.’ Beatrice remembers the
significance of her uncle visiting Veracruz from Detroit, often it meant meat for dinner.
The process of coming to the US. took three years, with Tia Nancy coordinating many
visits with lawyers in Mexico and the US. It was March 19‘", 1953 when Beatrice finally
made it to Detroit. Beatrice still has the single Mexican passport that is for both her and
her grandmother. Once in the US, frequent trips to Veracruz were made, enabling
Beatrice to be a part of her mother’s side of the family. Beatrice grew up months at a time
between Detroit and Veracruz, and in Veracruz with her mother’s parents, siblings,
nieces and nephews. Beatrice, at a young age was not only a part of both Detroit and

Veracruz communities she was also responsible for maintaining family ties by providing

24

care to her grandmother. A significant transnational memory for Beatrice is the first time
she drove her grandmother to Veracruz in 1960 during her grandmother’s fight with
cancer. Beatrice recalls the conversation in which her grandmother asked her to travel to
Veracruz:

...She told me, ‘Hija I want you to do me a favor.. you know I am dying of

cancer’ I said yes, I knew she wasn’t very grave but she was in bad shape. She

said, ‘I want you to do me a favor. Talk to your husband Jose. That you take me
by car to Veracruz. She said, “I want you to take me, so I can say good bye to
everyone there.” I knew it would be a long trip but I told her, ‘It’s fine, let me talk

to Jose and I will let you know what he says.’ So I went and told Jose that I

needed to take her.

Beatrice is explaining the importance for her grandmother to be with family in Veracruz
before she passed away, evidence that Beatrice and her grandmother were a part of both
Detroit and Mexican communities.

Senor Cristian, was born in 1917 as a US. citizen in the Mexican community of
Rockdale, Illinois. At the age of four his father was shot and killed. Neighbors from the
state of Jalisco took him in, while his sister was put in an orphanage. Within months of
informally adopting Cristian the neighbors returned to Jalisco, taking him too. However,
when they tried to cross back into the US, the family did not have a passport for Cristian
and he was not allowed to return with the family to Illinois. Cristian became a street
child, selling newspapers in the city of Monterrey, but always wanting to find his sister.
As a teenager because of his ability to speak Spanish and English, Cristian was a tourist-
guide for rich Americans, transporting them throughout Mexico and to the border.
Through this work, an American reporter offered to help Cristian find his sister. But in

order to adopt her he had to provide A) proof he was established-that he was married and

B) money for a nun to transport his sister to the border. Senor Cristian retrieved false

25

documents from the district office of his parents’ state of Durango and purchased a
Mexican marriage license, in order to adopt his sister from the orphanage in Joliet,
Illinois at the age of 18. They lived in Monterrey before Senor Cristian did in fact marry,
and decided to return to the US to find his parents’ grave. When I asked him how he
arrived to Detroit, he explained in Spanish and English,

after the war, the Second World War, and the Consulate told me -You’re going to

go, you know English! They are going to get you. Uncle Sam’s going to get you.

But I thought OK, I’ve got a reason to go over there. My folks are buried and I

don’t know where they are buried. I’m going to fix their grave. He got me. I

only crossed, the border May 1st and by May 5"1 Uncle Sam got me.

For Senor Cristian, although born a US. citizen, the death of his parents, and the
separation from his sister were motivations of maintaining social networks of friends and
family in the US. and Mexico. Upon entrance into the navy, Senor Cristian ironically
obtained citizenship and was ultimately discharged due to the loss of his sight. By 1947,
he, his wife, and sister together maintained transnational ties, via family and friends in
both Monterrey and Detroit. Senor Cristian’s home in Detroit not only housed his
Mexican born wife and only daughter, but also his sister, mother in law, a sister in law
and two brother-in laws. His wife’s sisters and brothers eventually bought houses of their
own in the neighborhood. The youngest sister in law, Josefa still lives two streets down.
His wife and sister were seamstresses for GM, while he worked for 33 years at Chrysler.
They also maintain a home in Monterrey.

In explaining his transnational ties, Senor Cristian explains how he not only
helped his wife’s family but others from Mexico in building community in Detroit. In

talking about his wife’s sister, he explains how family members on both sides of the

border helped each other,

26

Josefa, she worked at GM, she was from San Rosita and we got all the girls from
San Rosita to come. When we would go to San Rosita to see my in laws, the girls
would give us butter, chorizo and all types of things to sell over here. After-
wards, we were able to get all the girls from San Rosita a job with the telephone
company and we would help the girls here.

Daniela’s immigrant origins are also transnational and exemplify a complex
family stage migration process. She explains,

Well in ’45 we married, and in ’47 Jose came [to Detroit] by himself after we
married and I came here in 1947. He... did not want me to come and he did not
want me to come because there was difficulty with finding an apartment. When I
came, well I realized. I came without permission because my aunt told me —hija
don’t you want to go north? I said, yes tia, I do want to go north with Jose-he told
me —I can’t get you a home, because I work 7 days and lots of extra time, and its
been impossible to find and arrange. So my aunt said —“look hija tell him to send
you sufficient money so you can go to St. Louis to see your cousins, and I will tell
Rene, my son to take you... I’ll tell Rene, Jose has work for him there up north.”

Only Daniela and her aunt knew Daniela’s final train stop to be Detroit. Once Rene and
Daniela arrived in Detroit she was greeted by her surprised husband, brother-in-law, and
extended family members who lived with her husband. Her immigration to Detroit was a
process of social networking through family and friends who were transnational. It was in
fact a male cousin who escorted her by train from a small town in Mexico through St.
Louis to Detroit.

Like other participants Alicia describes initial family stage migration and her
growing family based on her ties to both Detroit and Mexico,

I am the youngest of nine siblings, when I was pregnant with my first and second

child, I went back to Mexico to be with my family. I wanted my sisters and

mother to be there for my births, besides my husband was busy with work, at that

time I didn’t know enough people to take care of me in Detroit... once the kids

were growing up I always took them to San Ignacio or San Angelo to see family,

especially when they were out of school or I had to come back to bury my mother
and aunts.

27

Alicia, despite having lived in Detroit for a year by the time of her first daughter’s
birth-1950, and four years with her second daughter, continued to return to Mexico by
train for the major life events of pregnancies and births. In this case transnational
behavior was a form of personal agency to have support and maintain relationships with
family.

A common thread for all twelve participants, is not only the preexistence of
family and friends —a transnational Mexican community already existent in Detroit to
join, but equally important, a source of work to support such families and transnational
ties. Alicia provided two photos, one showing her husband with fellow employees of
Great Lakes Steel at a Mexican bar on Bagley Street, in Southwest Detroit. The second
photo is of the same group of employees in Monterrey, with signatures on the back, dated
May 17, 1946. Friends and family in both Mexico and Detroit supported each other in
providing a network of co-workers, who knew employers that would hire Mexican labor.

Alicia’s husband worked more than thirty years at Great Lakes Steel. Even in
death Alicia’s husband was transnational. Although he died in Detroit, he was buried in
Mexico. Transnational friends and family traveled from Detroit to his fimeral. Alicia
continues to travel to Mexico to see family. She also visits for healthcare, since she does
not have insurance in the US. She believes healthcare in Mexico to be affordable and
better quality. Inforrnants’ daily lives are evidence, supporting Foner’s (1997) argument,
that immigrants seldom cut ties.

All twelve informants worked to support their families, including women. Erika
describes her immigration to Detroit based on the need to financially support herself as a

young adult.

28

My mother died and my father remarried. I have nine half siblings, two live in the

US, the rest in Mexico and from his first marriage there are four of us. .. I came

here, I was already old... 19. I came to a glove making factory... I joined my

aunt, uncle, and their daughter in the factory, later my brother came.

Many institutions shaped the opportunity of family, work, community, and
settlement for Mexican immigrants to Detroit prior to 1965. Ten of the twelve
informants’ families were at some point financially supported through work in Detroit’s
industries. It was this same financial stability that in many ways shaped a process of
transnational Mexican community in the neighborhood. In addition to work, by 1933,
both St. Anne’s and Holy Trinity Catholic diocese sponsored their first Feast of the
Virgin of Guadalupe, with a Mexican priest to celebrate the mass (Valdez 1990, 9). By
1940 St. Anne’s provided weekly Spanish mass. By 1942 Father Barrett serving Holy
Redeemer, St. Anne’s, and Holy Trinity began traveling to and from Mexico (Valdez
1990, 13). As Father Reilly explains the transition of parishioners at St. Anne’s as
predominantly Irish in the 19203 to also including Mexican immigrants, he frames their
migration in the context of work and faith, "They came to work on the railroads, although
many were deported during the Depression... Then there were those who came during

the persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico. . .And they came later to work in the

war industries," (Dempsey 2000).

In 1945 La Michoacana Tortilla Bakery opened. Since the turn of twentieth
century and up until the 19803 the neighborhood had the distinct advantage of having the
Michigan Central Station as a means of train transportation throughout the US;
specifically several routes between Chicago, St. Louis, Houston and connections

throughout Mexico. Informants described taking the train to be reunited with family in

29

Mexico. They also described the ease of travel by car, making efforts to carpool and join
family working in Indiana, Ohio, or Illinois to Mexico. In other words, several
institutions existed to support Mexican transnationalfamilies and communities prior to

1965.

The context of a transnational community prior to 1965, challenges the limited
perceptions of Mexicans as recent transnational immigrants and historically sojourning.
Although Sanchez (1999) dates the US. government controlling sojourning patterns up
until 1921 and Hondagneu-Sotelo (1995) describes sojourning patterns until the last half
of the twentieth century with a transition to community and settlement in California; both
historical context do not easily fit labor and migration patterns for Mexican families
between Detroit and Mexico. Instead Mexican immigrants, both men and women, to
Detroit were able to create and sustain a permanent community supported by work; as
well as continue family ties to Mexico. All women and men informants had access to
employment in the formal labor market, though employment was also affected by
manufacturing downturns. Although Detroit Mexican immigrants may not be limited to
sojoumers, two of the four male informants began working in agriculture prior to entering
the auto industry and two husbands of female informants described a family history in
construction. Hence a sojourning beginning for four families still led to the opportunity

of industrial work and the possibility of a longstanding transnational community.

Transnational Mexican Detroit: Present Day
Having considered informants immigrant origins and providing evidence of

transnational behavior and social fields —specifically family relationships between Detroit

30

and Mexico prior to 1965, challenges the ideology of transnationalism as a process that is
new and unique to present day immigration trends. To provide further evidence that
transnationalism is not new and unique, I include informants’ present day life experiences
that exemplify how transnational behavior and social fields through the context of family
and work continue.

Fernando and Flor describe the transition of Fernando originally a seasonal
worker, finding a steady job, allowing the family to join him and how they established
family ties in the US and Mexico. As Fernando describes,

Fernando -“Yes, I worked at a lot of places, got injured... worked hard in the
fields in Arizona, but always going back to San Gloria (Mexico) and once
we got married, and I knew we were going to have kids, once we had kids, it
changes your life, you want the best for them, so I thought the best was looking
for steady work, and I eventually found it in Detroit. Flor came after me...

Flor —“When we married, I thought I would be fine home with the boys with his
family and mine, but I wasn’t... I did not want to raise the kids by myself or be
by myself, I told him many times I didn’t get married to be by myself, I married a
man?!”

The family remains transnational as the two explained:

Fernando —“Our kids know San Gloria very well because we went at Christmas
and when the kids were out of school in the summer,”

F lor-looking at Fernando “or when the plant was closed,”

Fernando —“Yes I worked for Ford, but many years work was slow or I was just at
the job bank or waiting for the union, so we went to San Gloria. Even the grand
kids love San Gloria, see this one, —- the youngest grand child, he is a little devil to
the cows in San Gloria. . .the kids love it, there is no TV but they don’t get bored,
even their mom who is American likes to go...

author —who do you visit in San Gloria?

F ernando—family of course. .. I told you I have five brothers and four sisters, and
they have lots of kids, and I have lots of cousins, of course the kids know their
cousins,” and in terms of their recent travels he describes, “in 2002 we went for
six months, to make sure the house that was being built was built well and we had
just retired; in 2003 we went for 6 weeks around Christmas time, we were there
when the kids came; in 2004 we went for eight weeks, it was the last week of
March to the last week of May... That is the hard part —we don’t know where we
will end up, and traveling back and forth is hard, you never know what the
weather will be like in San Gloria or Detroit, and you never know how long you

31

will be away, but here we have the kids and our grandkids, health insurance, and
have to see the doctor every once in a while.

Informants had children born in both Mexico and Detroit (Alicia, Daniela, and
Franchesca & Fernando), or just in Mexico as is the case for Maribel. Maribel’s
youngest son lives with her, one daughter also lives in Detroit. Her oldest son still lives
in Mexico with his wife and children although he is a US. citizen. Maribel’s only living
sister also lives in Mexico. Because her sister is not a US. citizen, Maribel’s sister can
only visit by passport for six months at a time. Her eldest grandson recently married in
Mexico. She and the family in Detroit attended the wedding. When she describes her
grandchildren, (by photos she explains who lives in the US. and who lives in Detroit)
many pictures are the grandchildren together in both the US. and Mexico, illustrating
transnational family ties. I interviewed her days before a planned trip. She described
how sometimes she flies back and forth with her sister, sometimes with her daughter
and/or son. For her last trip her daughter and grandchildren drove. However difficult to
identify participants’ daily life experiences, in confidence and in a whisper, so her son
would not hear, Maribel described,

If Graciela (daughter) and Roberto (Graciela’s husband) retire, and go to

Mexico... then I will too, because its not the same to have a son vs. a daughter

take care of you & help you, take you to the doctor, take you to the store and I

know because I live with a son, but Graciela helps me more. Graciela takes me to

the eye doctor, not my son.
For Maribel transnational behavior is also dependent on her daily care, further evidence
that transnational behavior can continue not only throughout her life process but be
transmitted to the next generation of family, specifically her children and grandchildren.

Maribel also described how she loves her time with her sister, the company of having her.

That she wished there was a way they could live together now that they are older, without

32

the restrictions of passports. As I left for the evening, Maribel confessed, “Yes, this is
my home, but I wish me and my sister could live in our father’s house in Mexico,
together.” Maribel was contesting that the home she has created and owns is in Detroit.
In an ideal world she would want her sister to live with her in the home in which they
were raised, but Maribel’s age and health also requires attention from her children for
daily care, and her daughter and son in Detroit provide such care.
Transnational Identity

It is important to note that participants had a way of identifying or at minimal
expressing their transnational characteristics, either in how they described their family in
both the US. and Mexico; their personal identity as Mexican in the US, saying “soy
Mexicana pero vivo en Detroit” meaning, I am Mexican but I live in Detroit, as Magda
expressed; and even the characterization of the people they remain in contact with are
transnational. Maribel, in thinking of my extended family and whom she knew, asked
upon my arrival and greeting,

Does your grandmother know Francisco from Santa Rosa? She is from Santa

Rosa too right? He had married my comadre Chata. . .He just died Friday. Tio

Chuto came over Sunday and told me... maybe your grandma knows him.
For Maribel not only has she described and identified her communication and
involvement with a distant community, she has described the transnational community in
which other Detroit people, (potentially my family) are involved in as well. For this
Mexican transnational community/neighborhood, a transnational identity is expressed
and reaffirmed through their social networks of friends and family in Detroit and parts of

Mexico. Erika when describing travel used the phrase, “iba and venia,” meaning coming

and going, she would come and go between Mexico and Detroit for a month at a time. “I

33

would come and go, in a month I would come and go. . .in a month’s time I would go and
return. Every year since we had the time when the kids were out of school.” This phrase
of coming and going emphasizes, not only a simultaneous presence in places, the ease
and repetition of the phrase, is used as if there is no divide between the two countries.
For informants, their identity was in relation to two nation states, and not simply

Mexican-American.
Interpretation of the Findings

Family & Transnational Behavior

The lives of my informants challenge several sociological concepts and my
research has several implications for transnational immigrant family research. For all
twelve, their lives and migratory experiences are not captured with the term sojourning.
Nor is their long held presence in Detroit limited to evidence of permanent settlement.
This counters Samora’s (1971) concept of leaving the sojourning migrant stream because
of a ‘steady’ job. In fact industrial work and unemployment did not inhibit transnational
behavior. In several capacities informants have invested time, energy, resources, and kin
networks in communities of Mexico and Detroit. This challenges a misperception of
Mexican immigrant communities as contemporary, historically temporary, and Mexican
transnational communities as new.

I believe it accurate to describe the lives of all informants as transnational. All
twelve informants describe working to preserve ties to both Detroit and Mexico. More
specifically, informants describe a Southwest Detroit community involved in preserving
ties to Mexico and vice versa. People are social, Mexicans are no exception. If scholars

describe transnational activity as new because of technology, innovation, and

34

transportation; this limits transnational behavior as a twenty first century, post 1965
phenomenon; and we will fail to acknowledge the long standing social relationships
immigrants have maintained with nations of origin.

The immigrant experiences of all informants not only occurred prior to 1965, they
were all facilitated by the need of labor and the presence of family, kin, and community
of previous generations. I find the lives of my informants to support Foner’s (1997)
argument, that “transnationalism has been with us a long time,” (371). I would add it has
been with us a long time because immigration may not necessarily end family, kin, and
community relationships. Participant observation and Life Histories of the informants
reveal their transnational families do span the life course and multiple generations.

Transnational behavior observed of informants and their families will continue
since the behavior has allowed them to meet both social and economic needs. Consider
the life history of Christian. He explained how he not only provided financial and social
support to his immediate family but also to extended family, friends, and kin that was
also returned in both Mexico and the US. In fact all of my informants are at least
informal friends. For Christian it was a source of pride to explain how help is
reciprocated through the networks of kin, family and friends. Four informants attended
Alicia’s husband’s funeral in Mexico. For Beatrice, the financial stability of an uncle in
Detroit permitted her and her grandmother to immigrate. Throughout her life Beatrice has
maintained family ties to Mexico, and often still receives family from Mexico. For
Fernando and Flor, access to grandchildren, a home, and healthcare are identified as main
reasons for maintaining ties to Detroit, yet they describe how often they do return to

Mexico to rejoin family and share their hometown with their grandkids. Although Dona

35

Maribel requires the time, help and care of her children she too wants to visit family
across the border, a reality of having siblings and family on both sides. Forms of family
care work: for children, aging parents, siblings, and family reunification are transnational
in nature for all informants. This all supports Hondagneu-Sotelo & Avila’s (1997)
understanding of transnational family, since the, ‘circuits of affection, caring, and
financial support,’ transcend national borders.

Although Detroit may not be characterized as a ‘global’ or ‘gateway’ city —the
lives of my informants are examples of Detroit having an immigrant and Mexican
American community prior to 1965. When informants’ lives are put in the historical
context of la colonia Mexicana de Detroit, they support Douglas Massey’s observations,
that the understanding of the 1965 Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act;
were the major source for increased Latino migration, is false. He explains, “. . . the rise
in immigration from Latin America were under way well before the mid-19603 and for
reasons that had little to do with an act of Congress,” (Massey 1996, 2). It is also
important to acknowledge the neighborhood, has a variety of immigrant status social
locations. Undocumented immigrants are neighbors to a variety of races & ethnicities,
including legally documented Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans. They share
the neighborhood’s geography of a transnational social field. This is in contrast to
Hemandez- Leon’s (2008) understanding, of undocumented immigrants’ originally from
Monterrey, working in Houston, and their inability to physically transcend the nation-
state border. He describes, “Instead of members of a transnational community, then,

regiomontano workers have become part of a segmented immigrant population," (136).

36

Informants had a diversity of family arrangements and age at initial migration.
Men and women immigrated. And in reference to immigration literature, informants
continue to exhibit transnational behavior, seeing extended and immediate family in the
US. and Mexico, despite their age, enabling them to reunite and be a part of multiple
family relationships. Findings are descriptive of a transnational community, data analysis

provides both support and challenge to transnational and immigrant community literature.
Conclusions

The original intention of research was to learn about the settlement process for
immigrants who have aged in an ethnic community. After initial observation and
interviews it was apparent that settlement is as much a continual process of migration, as
are life circumstances that cannot be controlled. Hondagneu-Sotelo (1994) explains,
“Even if immigrants are committed to remaining in the US, unanticipated events... can
quickly sidetrack such plans,” (xxii).

Informants’ life experiences exemplify a combination of uncontrollable social
forces and personal attempts of daily agency. Informants’ migration process was the
result of structural opportunity, an eventual ability of finding middle and working class
jobs, and establishing a life with family in Southwest Detroit. All informants have
experienced job insecurity and/or loss as experienced by the greater Detroit area
economy. Like Levitt’s (2001), informants, the informants in this study, “...choose to
remain transnational to overcome the blocked opportunities they face in the United
States,” (205).

Although informants varied greatly in their initial migratory experience; some

coming as children, adults, single, married, as parents, and/or orphans; they all

37

understood their migratory experience in relation to the family they created, joined,
reunited, and the family a part of their lives in both Mexico and the US. In many ways
the transnational history captured through informants’ interviews are similar to the life
observed and recorded, in how their daily life is understood in the context of family
events (marriage, births, & funerals), obligation, and living arrangements. Informants do
not use the term transnational, but they do understand their life is affected by people,
opportunities, and challenges in both Mexico and Detroit.

The twelve informants, as Mexican origin, elderly community members should
not be restricted to the characterization of sojoumers or border crossing immigrants. The
city of Detroit may not be categorized as a global city that is densely populated, or as
having a high percentage of foreign born. Yet, informants’ community and neighborhood
is transnational and includes active participants and families that are not limited to the
reproductive or working age migrant population. Aged, Detroit residents who migrated
before 1965 reveal patterns that are consistent with transnationalism as defined by Foner
(1997), Basch et al. (1994), Hondagneu-Sotelo & Avila (1997) and Glick-Schiller et a1.
(1995). The twelve informants are a part of communities, networks and families in both
the United States and Mexico. It would be a mistake to label Mexican origin elderly as
passive players in an active transnational urban community.

This research is important since it not only historicizes an ethnic community; it
also challenges the concept of trasnationalism as limited to global cities, with a large
percentage of foreign born community members, and young immigrants. The Midwest is
often characterized as not having a Latino past or present. It may be common place for

Miami, Los Angeles, New York, Houston, and Chicago to boast a Mexican or Latino

38

community, but the existence of a Latino community, let alone one that is transnational is
often discounted because of its regional location. Present day Detroit is stereotyped by
‘white flight’ and an impoverished African American urban core. Race in Detroit is in
many ways described as a black and white problem especially in the context of the civil
rights riots of the 19603 and economic disparity. Despite the history of Southwest
Detroit, its existence is still contested. In other words members of the Detroit community
have defined which neighborhoods (and who lives there) are a part of the ‘original’
Southwest Detroit. This all intersects with an American sentiment of what ethnicities fit
in the native hierarchy and who is characterized as recent immigrants. Informants have
provided an understanding of how they conceptualize their communities in Detroit and
Mexico and the networks of family & friends in daily life.

Several directions for future research exist. In the same way European migrants
are characterized as immigrating at the turn of the century during a time of industrial and
economic boom, the recent wave of Latino immigrants are depicted as experiencing
structural inequality during a time of limited social mobility, the study of transnational
families across generations could provide insight into how families have survived
through such economic and structural changes. Samora’s concept of leaving the
migratory stream because of the opportunity of a steady job —does not apply to present
day Detroit —since job insecurity and transnational families persist. If academia is after
an understanding of Mexican families, we must include how migratory families once
experiencing economic instability during macroeconomic stability, are surviving massive
economic instability and how or if they are maintaining transnational communities and an

ethnic identity. If Foner (l 997) and Levitt (2001) are correct, it should be no surprise

39

Mexican transnational families are not new, since adaptation to adversity is not new. Just
as scholars have argued “Blacks, Latinos. . .are racial groups that are formed, defined, and
given meaning by a variety of social forces in the wider society. . .Each group is also
bound together by ethnicity. . .often used for coping with racial oppression,” (Baca Zinn
1990, 80) a future area of research should consider how transnational perspectives and
life processes are used for family survival. Future research to understand ethnic
communities must continue to use concepts of structural inequality, globalization,
transnational theory and the lived experiences of Mexican origin families.

The paper contributes to an understanding of a Mexican community that has been
created and sustained through transnational links that to date are a part of Detroit, and
closely linked to a history, through informants understanding of daily life. The paper
revises transnational migration literature and immigration literature that have emphasized

for Mexican families, a limited recent and post 1965 presence.

40

Work Cited

Alba, Richard and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking The American Mainstream:
Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Aguilar, Louis. 2005. “Mexicans Bolster a Comer of Detroit; San Ignacio Natives Own
Many Businesses in The Southwest Section, One of The Few Growing Areas.” The
Detroit News, March 6.

Baba, Marietta Lynn and Malvania Houk Abonyi. 1979. “Mexicans of Detroit: Peopling
of Michigan Series.” 1-97. Detroit: Wayne State University, Center for Urban Studies.

Baca Zinn, Maxine, D. Stanley Eitzen, and Barbara Wells. 2008. Diversity in Families.
Allyn & Bacon.

Baca Zinn, Maxine. 1995. “Social Science Theorizing for Latino Families in the Age of
Diversity.” In Understanding Latino Families: Scholarship, Policy, and Practice, ed.
Ruth B. Zambrana, 177-189. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publications.

----- . 1994. “Feminist rethinking from racial-ethnic families.” In Women of Color in US.
society, eds. M. Baca Zinn and B.T. Dill, 3-12. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

----- . 1990. “Family, Feminism, and Race in America.” Gender and Society 4, no. 1: 68-
82.

----- . 1979. "Field Research in Minority Communities: Ethical, Methodological, and
Political Observations by an Insider," Social Problems 27, no.2 (December).

Barajas, Manuel and Elvia Ramirez. 2007. “Beyond Home-Host Dichotomies: A
Comparative Examination of Gender Relations in a Transnational Mexican Community.
Sociological Perspectives 50, no. 3: 367-392.

9,

Basch, Linda 0., Nina Glick Shiller, and Cristina Blanc-Szanton. 1994. Nations
Unbound: Transnational Projects, Post-Colonial Predicaments, and De-terrirorialized
Nation-States. Langhome: Gordon and Breach.

Bean, Frank D. and Gillian Steven. 2003. America ’s Newcomer ’s and the Dynamics of
Diversity. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Bhalla, Vibha. 2002. “American Dreams Gendered Migrations From India.” PhD diss.,
Michigan State University.

Burawoy, Michael. 1991. “The Extended Case Method.” In Ethnography Unbound:

Power and Resistance in the Modern Metropolis, eds. Alice Burton, Ann A. Ferguson,
and Kathryn J. F ox, 271-287. Berkeley: University of California Press.

41

Chee, Maria W.L. 2005. Taiwanese American Transnational Families. New York:
Routledge.

Chen, Yong. 2000. Chinese San Fransisco: A Study of Transpacific Community, 1890-
1943. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Dempsey, Mary. 2000. “St. Anne de Detroit.” Michigan History Magazine. Nov/Dec
2000.

Foner, Nancy. 1997. “What’s New About Transnationalism? New York Immigrants
Today and at the Turn of the Century.” Diaspora 6, no.3: 355-375.

Georges, Eugenia. 1990. The Making of a Transnational Community. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1999. “The Social Construction and Institutionalization of
Gender and Race: An Integrative Framework.” In Myra Marx Ferree, Judith Lorber, and
Beth B. Hess (eds.), Revisioning Gender, 3-43. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Glick-Schiller, Nina, Linda Basch, and Cristina Szanton-Blanc. 1995. “From Immigrant
to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration.” Anthropological Quarterly 68(1):
48-63.

Grasmuck, Sherri and Patricia Pessar. 1991. Between Two Islands: Dominican
International Migration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hemandez- Leon, Ruben. 2008. Metropolitan Migrants: The Migration of Urban
Mexicans to the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hill Collins, Patricia. 1986. “Learning From the Outsider Within: The Sociological
Significance of Black Feminist Thought.” Social Problems 33, no. 6: $14-$32.

Hirsch, Jennifer S. 2003. A Courtship After Marriage: Sexuality and Love in Mexican
Transnational Families. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette and Jerome Straughan. 2002. “From Immigrants in the City,
to Immigrant City.” In From Chicago to LA, ed. Michael J. Dear, 187-211. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. 1994. Gendered Transitions: Mexican Experiences of
Immigration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

----. 1995. “Women and Children First: New Directions in Anti-Immigrant Politics.”
Socialist Review 25, no. 1:169-190.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette and Ernestine Avila. 1997. “I’m Here, But I’m There”: The
Meanings of Latina Transnational Motherhood.” Gender and Society 11, no. 5: 548-571.

42

Humphrey, Norman D. 1943. “The Migration and Settlement of Detroit Mexicans.”
Economic Geography 19, no. 4: 358-361.

Hurtado, Aida. 1995. “Variations, Combinations, and Evolutions: Latino Families in the
United States.” In Understanding Latino Families: Scholarship, Policy, and Practice, ed
by Ruth E. Zambrana, 40-61. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publications.

Hsu, Madeline. 2000. Dreaming of Gold, Dreaming of Home. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.

Laws, Glenda. 1997. “Globalization, Immigration, & Changing Social Relations in US.
Cities.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 55: 89-
104.

Levitt, Peggy.. 2001. The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

----. 2002. “The Ties That Change: Relations to the Ancestral Home over the Life Cycle.”
In The Changing Face of Home, ed. Peggy Levitt, 123-144. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation.

Lin, Jan. 2004. “Globalization and the Revalorizing of Ethnic Places in Immigration
Gateway Cities.” In Migration, Globalization, and Ethnic Relations: An Interdisciplinary
Approach, ed. Mohsen M Mobasher and Mahmoud Sadri, 182-200. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Louise, Andrea. 2004. Chineseness Across Borders. Durham: Duke University Press.

Massey, Douglas S. 1995. “The New Immigration and Ethnicity in the United States.”
Population and Development Review 21, no. 3: 631-652.

Massey, Douglas S. 1996. “The False Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act.” American
Sociological Association, World On The Move, Newsletter of the Section on International
Migration, Newsletter 3 — Spring, 2-3.

McCAll, Michal & Judith Wittner. 1990. “The Good News about Life History.” in
Symbolic Interaction and Cultural Studies, ed. Howard S. Becker and Michal M.
McCAll, 46-89. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mobasher, Mohsen M. and Mahmoud Sadri. 2004. Editors’ Introduction to Migration,

Globalization, and Ethnic Relations: An Interdisciplinary Approach. eds. Mohsen M.
Mobasher and Mahmoud Sadri, xi-xiii. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

43

Mrozowski, Jeniffer, Christine MacDonald and Mike Wilkinson. 2007. “Ripple effect:
Could closing Detroit public school buildings derail the city's revitalization efforts?”
Detroit News January 31.

Muller, Thomas. 1993. Immigrants and the American City. New York: New York
University Press.

Poremba, David Lee. 2001. Detroit in its World Setting : A Three Hundred Year
Chronology, 1 701 -2001. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Portes, Alejandro, Luis E. Guamizo, and Patricia Landolt. 1999. “The Study of
transnationalism: Pitfalls and Promise of an Emergent Research Field.” Ethnic and Racial
Studies 22(2):217-23 7.

Rubin, Lillian B. 1994. Families On The Fault Line. New York: Harper Collins
Publishers.

Rumbaut, Ruben. 2000. “Immigration Research In the United States: Social Origins and
Future Orientations.” In Immigration Research For a New Century: Multidisciplinary
Perspectives, eds. Foner, Nancy, Ruben Rumbaut, and Steven J. Gold, 23-43. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.

Sanchez, George J. 1993. “Family Life and the Search for Stability.” in Becoming
Mexican American: Ethnicity, Culture, and Identity in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900-1945,
129-150. New York: Oxford University Press.

----. 1998. “Commentary.” in Crossing: Mexican Immigrations In Interdisciplinary
Perspectives, ed. Marcelo M. Suarez-Orozco, 336-340. Boston: Harvard University
Press.

----. 1999. “F ace the Nation: Race, Immigration, and the Rise of Nativism in Late-
Twentieth Century America.” The Handbook of International Migration: The American
Experience, eds. Hirschman, Charles, Philip Kasinitz & Josh DeWind, 371-382. New
York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Smith, Robert C. 2002. “Life Course, Generation, and Social Location as Factors Shaping
Second-Generation Transnational Life.” In The Changing Face of Home, ed. Peggy
Levitt, 145-167. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Smith, Robert C. 2006. Mexican New York: Transnational Lives of New Immigrants.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Suarez-Orozco, Marcelo M. 1998. “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About
Assimilation But Were Afraid to Ask.” In Crossing: Mexican Immigrations In
Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Ed. Marcelo M. Suarez-Orozco, 67-81. Boston: Harvard
University Press.

44

Thomas, William I. and Florian Znaniecki. 1984. “Organization of the Immigrant: The
Polish-American Community.” In The Polish Peasant In Europe and America, ed. and
abridged Eli Zaretsky, 239-255. Vols. 1-5 Orig. pub. 1918-1920. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.

Thorne, Barrie, Marjorie F aulstich Orellana, Wan Shun Eva Lam & Anna Chee. 2003.
“Raising Children and Growing Up, across National Borders: Comparative Perspectives
on Age, Gender, and Migration.” In Gender and US Immigration: Contemporary Trends,
ed. Pierrette Hondagneu—Sotelo, 317-340. Berkley: University of California Press.

US. Census Bureau. Census 1950. History: 1950 Census Fast Facts — Population of the
Ten Largest Urban Places 1950. www.census.gov/history/www/1950/010962.html

US. Census Bureau. Census 2000a. Fact Sheet -Census 2000 Demographic Profile
Highlights: Social Characteristics: Foreign Born. www.factfinder.census.gov

US. Census Bureau. Census 2000b. Population Finder, Population trends — Detroit.
www.factfinder.census. gov

Valdes, Dennis Nodin. 1982. El Pueblo Mexicano En Detroit y Michigan: A Social
History. Detroit: Wayne State University, College of Education.

----. 1992. “Divergent Roots, Common Destinies? Latino Work and Settlement in
Michigan.” Occasional Paper 4, 1-17, Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Valdez, Margarita. 1990. T radiciones del Pueblo: Traditions of Three Mexican Feast
Days in Southwest Detroit. Detroit: Casa de Unidad Cultural Arts and Media Center.
Interview with Maria Magana Alvizu
Interview with Father James Barrett
Vargas, Zaragosa. 1993. Proletarians of the North: A History of Mexican Industrial
Workers in Detroit and the Midwest, 1917-1933. Berkely: University of California Press.

Waldinger, Roger D. 1989. “Structural Opportunity or Ethnic Advantage? Immigrant
Development in New York.” International Migration Review 23: 48-72.

Wellman, David T. 1993. Portraits of White Racism. 5th ed. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Ybarra, L. 1983. “Empirical and Theoretical Developments in the Study of Chicano
Families.” In The State of Chicano Research on Family, Labor, and Migration.
Proceedings of the First Stanford Symposium on Chicano Research and Public Policy.
ed. A. Valdez, A. Camarillo, & T. Almaguer, 91-110. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for
Chicano Research.

45

 

S"
"I
H
"