Migration to the United States from Indigenous Communities in Mexico

Asad L. Asad Cite as: Asad, Asad L., and Jackelyn Hwang. 2019.
“Migration to the United States from Indigenous
Communities in Mexico.” The ANNALS of the American
Jackelyn Hwang Academy of Political and Social Science. 684: 120-145.

Published in ANNALS of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2019)

Abstract

Research on Mexican migration to the United States has long noted how characteristics
of individuals’ sending communities structure their opportunities for international movement.
This literature has seldom considered how these characteristics overlap with the concentration of
indigenous residents—those with origins in pre-Hispanic populations—in a community. Drawing
on large-scale survey data from 143 communities surveyed by the Mexican Migration Project,
supplemented with data from the Mexican Census, this article uses multilevel models to describe
how the share of indigenous residents in a migrant-sending community relates to different
aspects of the migratory process, focusing on (1) the decision to migrate to the United States and
(2) the documentation used on migrants’ first U.S. trip. We do not find that indigenous shares are
associated with the decision to migrate to the United States. However, relative to respondents
living in communities in low-indigenous municipalities, those in communities in high-
indigenous municipalities are more likely to migrate as undocumented rather than documented
migrants. We conclude that indigenous places are more likely to be sites of economic and social
disadvantage and therefore limit the possibilities their residents have for international movement.

Keywords: international migration; documentation status; indigenous communities; place

stratification; Mexico; United States

Asad L. Asad completed his Ph.D. in Sociology at Harvard University and served as a
Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for the Study of Inequality at Cornell University before joining
the faculty of Stanford University as Assistant Professor of Sociology in the fall of 2019. His
work focuses on social stratification; migration and immigrant incorporation; and race/ethnicity.

Jackelyn Hwang is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Stanford University.

Her main research interests are in the fields of urban sociology, race and ethnicity, immigration,
and inequality. She completed her Ph.D. in Sociology and Social Policy at Harvard University
and served for two years as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Princeton’s Office of Population
Research before joining the faculty at Stanford.

Correspondence: asad.asad@cornell.edu
 About 11.6 million Mexicans lived in the United States in 2013; half this population was

undocumented (Passel et al. 2014; Migration Policy Institute 2018). Demographers note how

characteristics of individuals’ origin communities—such as their levels of economic

development or varying histories of U.S. migration—structure opportunities for international

migration, including the documentation status held upon entry (e.g., Massey and Espinosa 1997).

However, few have considered how these characteristics overlap with the share of indigenous

residents—those persons with pre-Hispanic ancestry—in a community. We characterize places

with relatively-high shares of indigenous residents as marked by indigeneity, and we argue that

the context of indigeneity is an important consideration for understanding migratory processes

(Fox 2006; Fox and Rivera-Salgado 2004). Indeed, ethnographers and historians note that the

context of indigeneity represents a primary dimension of place stratification in Mexico in that it

is strongly associated with the uneven distribution of economic and social resources (Batalla

1996; de la Peña 2006; Novo 2006; Zapata 2000). This article takes a demographic approach to

examine how this axis of inequality may manifest in the context of Mexico-U.S. migration.

We investigate how having origins in an indigenous place relates to different aspects of

the migratory process. Specifically, we use data from 143 communities surveyed by the Mexican

Migration Project (MMP), supplemented with additional information on respondents’ larger

economic and social contexts, to examine if the context of indigeneity is associated with (1) the

decision to take a first U.S. trip and (2) the documentation status of the first U.S. trip. Given

ethnographic and historical research suggesting that indigenous density is associated with an

uneven distribution of economic and social resources across communities, we expect migrants

from indigenous places to be less likely than their counterparts in non-indigenous places to

1

migrate to the United States and, among those who migrate, to be more likely than their

counterparts in non-indigenous places to do so without documentation.

Using multilevel models, we find that the context of indigeneity is associated with

divergent pathways of movement to the United States—but not always in straightforward ways.

Although we do not find that the context of indigeneity is related to the likelihood of first U.S.

migration, among those who do migrate, we find that those in high-indigenous places are more

likely to do so in undocumented than in documented status. We conclude that the share of

indigenous residents in a community is related to the reproduction of social inequality in

Mexico-U.S. migration insofar as these places represent sites of concentrated economic and

social disadvantage that limit residents’ options for international movement.

Mexico-U.S. Migration: Economics, Networks, Policy, and the Context of Indigeneity

Here we review the dominant micro- (i.e., individual or household) and macro-level (i.e.,

ecological) explanations for international migration, specifying how economic, social, and policy

considerations may contribute not only to individuals’ U.S. migration decisions but also to their

documentation status on the first U.S. trip. We then describe how the context of indigeneity is

associated with the various determinants of migration and suggest the importance of studying the

context of indigeneity as an axis of stratification in Mexico-U.S. migration flows.

Micro- and Macro-level Economic Considerations

Neoclassical and new economics theories of migration describe how micro-level factors

such as individual income and household wealth affect the migratory process. In neoclassical

economics, individuals migrate when they expect to earn higher wages in a destination country

(Harris and Todaro 1970; Sjaastad 1962). In the new economics perspective, households in

developing economies use migration as part of a strategy to diversify risks to income (Stark and

2

Bloom 1985). In addition to mobilizing U.S.-bound flows, these micro-level factors may limit

access to the documentation required for lawful migration because applications for visas and

other migration papers require the payment of fees and proof of financial resources that many

individuals and households lack. As a result, not all potential Mexican migrants can afford to

secure documents, particularly given the visa backlogs and long wait times that have come to

characterize the process since the enactment of per-country visa quotas after 1965 (Massey and

Espinosa 1997, 949).1 These individuals instead turn to undocumented entry as the only means of

gaining access to U.S. jobs, often with the help of border smugglers known colloquially as

coyotes (Donato et al. 2008). Overall, studies suggest that persons lower on the socioeconomic

ladder are both more likely to migrate—and more likely to do so without documents—compared

to those higher in the status hierarchy.

The neoclassical and new economics traditions also imply that macro-level factors—

labor supply and demand as well as local distributions of income and wealth—are associated

with the migratory process (see Massey et al. 2002, 13). In more economically-developed

communities, individuals have access both to institutions useful for mobility such as schools and

to industrial and service jobs that employ higher-skilled workers (Durand et al. 1996; Massey

1988; Massey et al. 2002). In communities typified by low-wage agricultural work, however,

access to jobs and resources is relatively lacking (Taylor and Yunez-Naude 2000). Given limited

access to stable, high-paying jobs outside of agriculture, residents of these communities are

vulnerable to the fluctuations of a volatile economy. As a result, residents from less-developed

1
The length of the wait depends on the visa for which one has applied. For example, Mexicans applying for
employment-based visas may wait up to two years for application processing, while family-based visa petitioners
may wait up to 22 years. Source: U.S. Department of State. 2017. “Visa Bulletin for May 2017.” Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of State. http://bit.ly/2opUY3o. Accessed June 12, 2017.

3

communities are more likely to migrate—and to do so without documents—than those from

more-developed areas.

Micro- and Macro-level Social Considerations

Cumulative causation theory considers how network connections contribute to the

migratory process (Massey et al. 1993, 449). It outlines how migration attains a self-feeding

character over time, whereby each migration act expands the range of ties that connect non-

migrants in an origin community to migrants in a destination country, with this expansion of ties

serving to mobilize additional migrants (see Garip and Asad 2016). The theory suggests that

direct connections to current or former U.S. migrants—particularly family members—facilitate

international movement. Given the family-reunification entitlements of U.S. immigration law

(Jasso and Rosenzweig 1986), the theory also implies that those with family connections are

more likely to depart with documentation. Holding constant socioeconomic status, we therefore

expect that persons lacking family members with documented migratory experience are not only

less likely to migrate but also less likely to migrate in a documented status compared to those

with family ties to documented family members.

Cumulative causation theory also identifies a number of macro-level pathways associated

with the migratory process. As more individuals from an origin community migrate, the

community is likely to experience distributional transformations that alter its economic structure

(Fussell and Massey 2004, 154). Increasingly visible signs of wealth—in the form of land

purchases or home improvements—may stimulate additional out-migration (Garip and Asad

2015, 2016; Stark and Taylor 1991). In addition, as the prevalence of migration increases within

communities, international migration may become a normative expectation (Kandel and Massey

2002). The concentration of community members who can transmit knowledge and information

4

about how to legalize may, in turn, contribute to a higher likelihood of taking a documented trip,

even among those lacking direct family ties (Corona and Romo 2008; Hagan 1994; Garip and

Asad 2016). Overall, then, migration and especially documented migration are hypothesized to

be more likely in places with more-extensive migration histories; individuals from places with

limited migration histories are less likely to migrate overall but more likely to depart without

documents when they do choose to head northward.

Policy and Timing Considerations

Whatever economic and social circumstances may prevail in households and

communities, at any point in time the likelihood of migration is also conditioned by policy

(Massey et al. 1994). A temporary labor arrangement known as the Bracero Program brought

millions of Mexicans to the United States for farm labor on legal short-term visas from 1942 to

1964 (Cornelius 1986). Ongoing demand for labor after 1965 (Massey and Pren 2012)—coupled

with two peso devaluations in Mexico, as well as the United States’ implementation of visa

restrictions—mobilized additional flows from Mexico while ensuring that they would enter the

country without legal authorization (Jasso and Rosenzweig 1990; Massey and Espinosa 1997).

About 80% of the 5.7 million Mexicans who entered the United States between 1965 and 1986

were undocumented (Bean and Stevens 2003; Durand and Massey 2003; Massey et al. 2002).

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) heightened border security and granted

amnesty to 2.3 million undocumented Mexicans already in the United States. Amnesty

recipients’ relatives then migrated to the United States themselves, both with and without

documents (Massey and Espinosa 1997, 960; see also Massey et al. 2016). Additional attempts to

bolster immigration enforcement in 1990 and 1996 followed, but they had limited success in

stemming undocumented Mexico-U.S. migration (Donato and Armenta 2011).

5

The Context of Indigeneity

Both theory and research explain how the availability of economic and social resources at

the micro and macro levels affect the migratory process. But they seldom grapple with how the

context of indigeneity, and its association with the uneven distribution of resources across

communities in Mexico (Batalla 1996; de la Peña 2006; Flores and Telles 2012; Novo 2006;

Villarreal 2014; Zapata 2000), relates to migrant decision-making (but see Asad and Hwang

2018). Mexico is home to some 62 recognized indigenous groups, who make up the largest

indigenous population in the Western hemisphere (Hamilton 2011; Layton and Patrinos 2006).

Indigeneity is a feature of place, with ethnographic and historical accounts describing how

residence in an indigenous community—regardless of indigenous language proficiency or ethnic

identification—constitutes a powerful axis of inequality within Mexico (Batalla 1996, 22; Novo

2006, 7; see also Friedlander 2006).2 Even when individuals speak an indigenous language or

self-identify as indigenous in one setting, they can shed their community membership and

achieve fluency in Spanish to gain access to coveted economic and social resources in other

communities (Nagengast and Kearney 1990). A community’s relatively-high indigenous density

thus represents a potentially critical but overlooked factor in explicating the process of Mexico-

U.S. migration (Fox 2006).

The limited attention to the context of indigeneity in demographic studies of Mexico-U.S.

migration is surprising in light of the relatively-large ethnographic and historical literature on

Mexico’s indigenous populations. Although a few studies describe early waves of migrants out

of indigenous areas that participated in the Bracero Program—including P’urépechas from

Michoacán (Durand 1994), Mixtecs and Zapotecs from Oaxaca (Nagengast and Kearney 1990;

2
A similar dynamic exists in the United States, where race serves as a principal axis along which the stratification of
economic and social resources across place follows, regardless of one’s own race (Massey and Denton 1993).

6

Stephen 2007), and Nahuas from Tlaxcaltec (Raúl and Romo 2008)—the vast majority of

indigenous communities remain unstudied. Once the Bracero Program ended in 1964, the

already-mobilized indigenous communities continued to send migrants to the United States for

farm work, motivated by endemic poverty and successive Mexican economic crises. IRCA’s

passage in 1986 allowed the relatively-few migrants from indigenous communities with a history

of U.S. migration during the Bracero Program the opportunity to legalize (Durand and Massey

2003a, 89), but most Mexicans from indigenous communities remained untouched by migration.

Aligned with the expectations of the cumulative causation theory of migration, we therefore

expect the context of indigeneity to be negatively associated with the likelihood of migration

and, among migrants, to be positively associated with the likelihood of undocumented migration.

The outflow of workers from the largely mestizo communities in west-central Mexico

created labor shortages in the historical heartland for U.S. migration. Indigenous communities

often supplied workers to meet this demand, using internal migration within Mexico as a strategy

for socioeconomic mobility until the 1980s. Some left subsistence farming in their home

communities to pursue seasonal work on large, export-oriented farms in northern Mexico

(Hamilton 2011; Psacharopoulos and Patrinos 1994), while others moved from the countryside to

urban hubs in Mexico to work in factories (Nolasco 1995, 125). Following economic crisis in

Mexico during the 1980s, members of these itinerant indigenous communities looked to join

still-mobilized non-indigenous Mexican communities in migrating to the United States for new

employment opportunities.

Although some groups, such as the Mixtecs (FitzGerald et al. 2012), had crossed into the

United States before IRCA, most did so after its passage when access to documentation was

limited, security along the Mexico-U.S. border was fortified, and the economic outlook for

7

indigenous communities in Mexico grew bleak in the wake of trade-induced changes. Thus, we

expect U.S.-bound migration from high-indigenous communities to be less likely compared to

communities with few or no indigenous residents. Among persons who do migrate, however, we

expect that those from high-indigenous communities to display a higher likelihood of migrating

in undocumented rather than documented status.

At around the same time that U.S.-bound flows from indigenous communities began to

mobilize, Mexico entered a period of agricultural and industrial development that exacerbated

economic disparities between the country’s indigenous and non-indigenous areas (Gordon 1997,

422). Residents of non-indigenous places benefitted from infrastructural improvements that

facilitated access to human and financial capital, but these benefits did not extend to residents of

indigenous areas (Hamilton 2011, 131). A constitutional amendment in 1992 permitting the

privatization of landholdings upended the communal system of farming (known as ejidos) on

which the livelihoods of many indigenous communities depended (Jung 2003).

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which sought to eliminate

barriers to trade between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, followed in 1994 against the

strong opposition of indigenous communities (Fernández-Kelly and Massey 2007; Kelly 2001).

The Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas exemplifies this opposition in many ways (see Harvey 1998;

Zapata 2000). In the end, NAFTA not only exacerbated wealth disparities between indigenous

and non-indigenous places but also increased rates of poverty within indigenous communities

(Hamilton 2011, 131; Fernández-Kelly and Massey 2007; Kelly 2001; Meza 2006). These

transformations prompted new waves of internal migration throughout the 1990s as members of

indigenous communities searched for viable sources of income.

8

 Contemporary U.S.-bound migration from indigenous areas occurred against this

economic backdrop (Holmes 2013). The few indigenous communities whose histories of U.S.-

bound migration allowed them to legalize under IRCA, depicted in ethnographies of Mixtecs by

Kearney 2018 [1996]; Novo 2006; Smith 2003; Stephen 2007) and the Nahuas (see Raúl and

Romo 2008), could rely on networks to secure documents for family members adversely affected

by NAFTA. Indigenous communities without such extensive histories, depicted in ethnographic

or census-based analyses of the Hñähñú from Hidalgo (Quezada Ramírez 2008; Schmidt 2012;

Schmidt and Crummett 2004), could only journey to the United States in undocumented status.

With little recourse to legalization and an increasingly-securitized Mexico-U.S. border, pioneer

migrants from these nascent sending communities served as conduits for ongoing undocumented

flows. Anthropological and historical accounts thus point to the late 1980s and early 1990s as a

new epoch of U.S.-bound migration from indigenous areas.

Methodology

Data

In this analysis, we merge surveys of migrants and non-migrants from the MMP3 with

data on municipalities of residence from the Mexican Census compiled by IPUMS-International

(Ruggles 2013). The MMP survey records information on respondents’ demographic and

socioeconomic characteristics and, among migrants, the timing and legality of their first and last

U.S. trips. The dataset includes 122,836 individuals, 15.9% of whom had been to the United

States by the time of the survey. Altogether, they lived in 22,374 households located in 143

communities throughout Mexico. Around 200 households were randomly-sampled in each

community and, within each household, the household head reported on the U.S. migration

3
Detailed information about the MMP, a collaborative effort between Princeton University and the University of
Guadalajara, is available online (http://mmp.opr.princeton.edu).

9

history of each household member. The communities in MMP143 were surveyed during winter

months between 1982 and 2013 (when migrants traditionally return for the holidays) and cover

24 of Mexico’s 32 states.

Comparisons of the MMP data with nationally-representative surveys show the former

provides an accurate profile of U.S. migrants who return to Mexico (Durand et al. 2001; Zenteno

and Massey 1999). Nonetheless, the MMP is not representative of all Mexican communities,

including indigenous ones. The survey initially focused on Mexico’s historical migrant-sending

regions, particularly those in the Central-West where indigenous communities are sparse relative

to the central and southern parts of the country. Though the MMP has since expanded to survey

communities with larger shares of indigenous residents, these remain underrepresented. Whereas

communities in which 10% of all residents speak an indigenous language constitute one-third of

all municipalities in Mexico, they represent only 10% of those included in the MMP sample.

Although speakers of indigenous languages are contracted for fieldwork in indigenous areas, the

MMP survey questionnaire is written and usually administered in Spanish, thereby excluding

indigenous-language respondents and communities, which are generally among the most

disadvantaged in Mexico (CONEVAL 2011; INEGI 2009). We thus expect the MMP data to

provide a conservative test of the link between the context of indigeneity and U.S. migration.

Municipalities in Mexico are roughly equivalent to a U.S. county and constitute the

smallest geographic units of data available from the Mexican Census. In this study, we combined

data on respondents surveyed by the MMP with information on their municipalities of residence

derived from the census. Some MMP communities are villages or towns in small municipalities,

whereas others are neighborhoods in mid-sized and large urban municipalities; in some cases,

two MMP communities may lie in the same municipality. Unfortunately, we cannot identify

10

whether MMP respondents lived in the survey community when they first migrated to the United

States and therefore assume that characteristics of the survey place proxy the context from which

the migration occurred. About 14% of respondents reported taking a domestic trip at some point

prior to the survey, and 19.5% were surveyed in a municipality different from that of their birth.

Since variation within municipalities along these contextual indicators is likely, we further

assume our estimates represent a lower bound for the variance of place effects.

Measures

We examine the relationship between the context of indigeneity with two key features of

the migratory process. Our first dependent variable is whether a respondent chose to undertake a

trip to the United States by the time of the MMP survey. Respondents who ever took a U.S. trip

are coded as “1,” with non-migrants coded as “0.” Our second dependent variable is whether

respondents who chose to migrate did so without documents, with undocumented migrants coded

as “1” and those who entered with one of the several documented statuses captured by the MMP

coded as “0.” Focusing on first U.S. trips limits concerns about endogeneity—the likelihood that

the characteristics of people and places change over multiple trips as a result of migration

itself—which complicates statistical estimation. Although research suggests that gradations of

documentation (e.g. permanent versus temporary status) matter for patterns of migration and

immigrant incorporation (e.g., Asad 2017; Donato and Armenta 2011; Menjívar 2006; National

Academies of Sciences 2015), we lack the sample size to consider separately the various

categories of documentation contained in our data.

Our primary independent variable is a categorical indicator of a community’s municipal-

level indigeneity calculated from Mexican Census data. We classify communities in

municipalities where at least 10% of residents reported speaking an indigenous language as

11

“high-indigenous,” those communities in municipalities where fewer than 1% of residents speak

an indigenous language as “low-indigenous,” and those with shares in between as “moderate-

indigenous.”4 Our classification mirrors that used by Mexico’s National Population Council and

National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Pueblos (CONEVAL 2012, 39). About

70 percent of the MMP communities are in low-indigenous municipalities; approximately nine

percent are in high-indigenous municipalities, with the remaining 21 percent falling into the

moderate-indigenous category.

Data on whether residents speak indigenous languages are available from the Mexican

Census beginning only in 1990. In contrast, first U.S. trips recorded in the MMP range from

1906 to 2012 and average 1975; and nearly two-thirds of the first-time migrants in our sample

left before 1990. Assessing the context of indigeneity only in 1990 thus minimizes the possibility

that a municipality’s history of U.S. migration affects its indigenous language-speaking density.

The degree of indigeneity decreased by about 2%, on average, between 1990 and 2010 and the

change was greater in more indigenous places. We thus expect our 1990 indigeneity measure to

be conservative.

We first test, separately, if the context of indigeneity is related to migration and

documentation status. Then, in a sequence of models, we adjust for community characteristics

particular to the MMP, as well as individual-, household-, and municipal-level characteristics

that tend to be correlated with indigeneity based on the literature reviewed. These variables are

observed at the time of the survey unless otherwise noted. Our models adjust for the survey year

to account for differences in how the MMP selected its communities over time (i.e., beginning

4
Mexico’s indigenous populations may be counted using measures of language proficiency or ethnic identification
(see Villarreal 2014: 780-783 for a summary; see also Flores and Telles 2012). We use the language measure
because the Mexican Census did not ask respondents about their ethnic identification until 2010.

12

mainly in communities in non-indigenous communities), as well as the type of the community

(i.e., metropolitan area, smaller urban area, town, or rancho, based on population sizes

determined by the MMP).

Using information on all respondents included in the MMP data, we constructed a

measure for the average number of rooms in the household’s dwelling and the average years of

education in each community to compare the socioeconomic status of individuals within the

community to the community average. We also include a dummy indicator for whether

respondents lived in a state on the Mexico-U.S. border at the time of the MMP survey to account

for the possibility that these individuals were recently deported and had not yet returned to their

home communities, may be preparing to migrate, or may migrate more frequently than residents

of non-border states (Durand and Massey 2003a, 78-9). No MMP community in a high-

indigenous municipality lies in a border state.

We also control for individuals’ demographic characteristics, including birth year, sex,

household position, marital status, and household size, as well as socioeconomic characteristics,

such as education, employment status, and occupational sector.5 We measure household-level

socioeconomic status with characteristics of respondents’ dwellings: the number of rooms in

each individual’s home and whether the household has finished flooring (Massey et al. 1990).

To capture the circumstances of migration, we include dummy variables for whether individuals

ever migrated within Mexico and whether they moved away from their municipality of birth, as

internal migration may serve as a “springboard” to international migration (Durand 1994). We

control for the year of first U.S. trip to account for potential differences in the policy context at

the time of migration.

5
Occupational sector is based on the classification of occupations utilized by the Mexican Census (see Appendix D
of the MMP documentation).

13

 To control for household-level migration dynamics—specifically, that migrants from

households with longer migration histories are more likely to enter the United States and to do so

with documents obtained through migrant family members—we include a dummy variable for

whether another household member ever made a documented trip. In models predicting

undocumented migration, we further control for the legal context of migration by including a

measure of the probability of apprehension at the border during the time of the trip and a

measure of visa accessibility in the year of migration based on the number of Mexicans who

received a green card relative to all Mexican migrants observed (variables constructed by the

MMP and available from the project website).

Finally, we incorporate indicators for respondents’ communities and municipalities. We

measure a community’s macro-level economic development by using the share of residents in its

municipality in the survey year that earns less than the minimum wage. This variable is highly

correlated with multiple measures of economic development, including municipal-level rates of

self-employment, agricultural work, low education, and a lack of basic infrastructure. To capture

domestic migration experience in the community, we control for the share of adults who reported

taking an internal trip by the year of the survey. In models predicting undocumented migration,

we account for community migration histories by including a control variable for the share of a

community’s adults with U.S. migration experience in the year of U.S. migration, calculated by

the MMP. We do not include this variable in models predicting migration relative to non-

migration since it is a summary measure of the outcome variable.

Table 1 compares means of the above measures for all respondents in communities in

high- (8% of the sample) and low-indigenous (75% of the sample) municipalities. Respondents

in these municipalities are statistically distinguishable on almost every indicator. Relative to

14

respondents surveyed in communities in low-indigenous municipalities, those in high-indigenous

municipalities are more likely to be male, younger, the spouse of the household head, more

highly educated,6 and employed. They live in smaller homes with unfinished flooring, are more

likely to live in their birth community, and are less likely to have taken a domestic trip.

Respondents in high-indigenous municipalities have shorter histories of U.S. migration in their

households, are less likely to have a member of the household who is documented, and are less

likely to live in a Border State.

TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

Among migrants in our data (15.9% of the entire sample), they are less likely to live in

high-indigenous municipalities (13.4% of the entire sample) than in low-indigenous communities

(17.1% of the entire sample). Compared with migrants in low-indigenous places, migrants in

places with a relatively high indigenous presence are more likely to have migrated more recently,

to have migrated without documents, to have migrated during periods when visas were less

available, and to have departed when the probability of apprehension was slightly lower.

When we examine average community- and municipal-level characteristics, there are

large differences between indigenous and non-indigenous places. On average, indigenous

municipalities were surveyed later and were less likely to be located in metropolitan areas

relative to small urban areas or villages. Indigenous communities also had smaller homes and

lower rates of education and were less economically-developed with shorter histories of internal

migration. Thus, the context of indigeneity is highly correlated with many characteristics that are

6
This trend is likely an artefact of the later timing of the MMP surveys in indigenous municipalities coinciding with
a secular increase in average levels of schooling among non-migrants in Mexico across time (Garip 2016: 37).

15

negatively associated with the likelihood of migration to the United States and, among migrants,

making a trip with legal documentation.

Analytic Strategy

Our goal is to examine the association between a sending community’s context of

indigeneity and their residents’ decision to initiate migration to the United States. To accomplish

this aim, we estimated a series of multilevel models to account for the hierarchical structure of

the MMP data, where individuals and households are nested within survey communities. To

estimate the odds of taking a trip to the United States, we fit a three-level logistic regression

model, with individuals constituting the first level, households the second, and communities the

third. Our outcome of interest is whether an individual took a U.S. trip by the time of the MMP

survey. The primary independent variable is the categorical indicator of a community’s

municipal-level indigeneity, with communities in low-indigenous municipalities omitted as the

reference category.

To estimate whether individuals sought to enter the United States as undocumented

migrants, we consider only migrants and fit a two-level logistic regression with individuals at the

first level and communities at the second.7 We cannot include a separate level for households

here because many households contain only one or two migrants, making for sparse data

structures that complicate estimation (Bell et al. 2008). Our outcome of interest is whether a

migrant made their first U.S. trip in undocumented status and our principal independent variable

is the same as that defined above.

7
In multilevel models, the value of the higher-order units within which individuals are nested must be the same for
all individuals within each unit. Accordingly, in our models predicting first U.S. migration that include all MMP
respondents, all contextual measures are observed in the survey year and are included in the models at the
community level (level three). By contrast, in our models predicting documentation status that include migrants
only, the time-varying measures of migrants’ larger economic and social contexts at the year of first migration are
included as level-1 variables, while indicators that approximate the community context at the time of the MMP
survey are included at the second level.

16

 In both analyses, we first test our primary hypothesis that the context of indigeneity is

associated with the migratory process (Model 1), statistically measuring the degree to which

communities in high-indigenous municipalities are negatively associated with the odds of

migration and positively associated with the odds of migrating without documents. In subsequent

models, we add community characteristics at the time of the survey, including its metropolitan

category, fieldwork year, whether it is in a state on the Mexico-U.S. border, as well as each

community’s average household size and education level. Then we add individual- and

household-level demographic characteristics; individual- and household-level socioeconomic

indicators; and national migration characteristics. Lastly, we evaluate if respondents’ larger

economic and social contexts explain any observed association between the context of

indigeneity and the migratory process. For brevity, and for both analyses, we simply present the

model without control variables and the fully-adjusted model. Results from intervening models

are available upon request.

We centered all indicators around their mean values for the analytic sample so that the

level-1 intercept in the models predicting first U.S. migration represent the mean log odds of

migrating to the United States for an individual who has average characteristics across all

independent variables. Likewise, in the models predicting documentation, the intercept

represents the mean log odds of undocumented migration for individual migrants who have

average characteristics across all variables in the model. We drop all respondents missing data

for any variables used in the analyses, removing about 5.2% of the sample. An examination

revealed that missing values were not systematically related to either our primary dependent or

independent variables.

Results: Resources, Migration, and Documentation

17

 Before estimating our multilevel models, Table 2 presents average characteristics for

MMP communities located in low- and high-indigenous municipalities. This contrast supports

the view that the context of indigeneity is associated with access to fewer of the economic and

social resources that commonly predict migration to the United States. Relative to MMP

communities in low-indigenous municipalities, those in high-indigenous municipalities are less

likely to be found in metropolitan areas and more likely to have residents who work in

agriculture and who are self-employed. High-indigenous municipalities have a larger share of

residents living in poverty and who lack finished flooring and plumbing in their homes. They

also lack access to the social resources that predict U.S.-bound migration, containing fewer

residents who have ever migrated either within Mexico or abroad, shorter histories of migration,

and larger shares migrating without documentation.

TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE

Table 3 displays odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals estimated using robust

standard errors for the first set of models predicting migration to the United States. The odds

ratios for level-1 variables represent the mean expected change in the odds of U.S. migration

relative to non-migration associated with a one-unit change for the variable in question, holding

other characteristics constant and accounting for the hierarchical structure of the data. The level-

2 and level-3 odds ratios indicate the expected average change for the average migrant and

average household in the odds of migrating to the United States associated with a one-unit

change in those variables defined at these. Odds ratios greater than one indicate an increase in

the odds of migrating compared to not migrating whereas odds ratios less than one indicate a

decrease in the odds of migrating relative to not migrating.

TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE

18

 The unconditional model, which has no independent variables, has an intraclass

correlation coefficient of .194, indicating that around 19.4% of the variation in the likelihood of

migrating by the time of the survey is due to between- rather than within-community differences.

Odds ratios estimated from the fully-adjusted, three-level logistic model predicting first U.S.

trips do not support the hypothesis that the context of indigeneity is associated with the decision

to migrate. In models with or without controls, the odds of initiating U.S. migration are

statistically the same in communities in low- and high-indigenous municipalities. Instead we find

that other factors described in prior research better explain variation in individuals’ decisions to

migrate to the United States. As shown in Table 3, individuals from rural areas, small towns or

villages, and mid-sized cities have higher odds of migrating compared with individuals from

metropolitan areas. Individuals from more-recently surveyed communities have slightly higher

odds of migrating compared with those from communities surveyed in earlier years, although

this relationship is not significant at conventional levels (p <0.10).

Demographic characteristics are also associated with the U.S. migration decision. Males,

older people, household heads and spouses, and married individuals all have higher odds of

initiating U.S. migration than do females, younger people, non-household heads or spouses, and

unmarried individuals. When we consider individual and household socioeconomic

characteristics, we find support for both the neoclassical and new economics views of migration.

Higher education levels, better housing quality, and employment in manufacturing relative to

agriculture are positively associated with migration. In contrast, persons working in the

professional sector, who are not in the labor force, and who are unemployed are less likely to

migrate than those working in agriculture.

19

 The results also support the cumulative causation theory of migration in that an

individual’s access to current or former U.S. migrants significantly increases the odds an

individual’s own first migration. Respondents surveyed outside their birth municipality have

higher odds of U.S. migration relative to those surveyed at their birthplace; but respondents who

have ever taken a domestic trip in Mexico evince lower odds of U.S. migration compared with

those who have not taken a domestic trip. We do not find that economic development is

associated with U.S. migration in our sample, perhaps because there is substantial variation in

migration rates in areas with both low and high levels of economic development. Residents may

not migrate if development in their community brings economic opportunity, but they may also

not migrate if they lack access to resources useful for doing so (see Fussell and Massey 2004).

Although some of the factors that predict U.S. migration relative to non-migration

overlap with communities in high-indigenous municipalities, others do not. For example,

indicators positively associated with U.S. migration—being male and having completed only

primary or secondary schooling—are more prevalent in the communities in high-indigenous

municipalities in our data, and most communities in high-indigenous municipalities are small

urban areas or towns. Indicators negatively associated with U.S. migration—being younger and

not being the household head or spouse—also characterize high- rather than low-indigenous

municipalities in the MMP data. Other indicators that predict U.S. migration—being married or

college educated, living outside one’s birth municipality, having at least one member of the

household who is documented, coming from a larger household, living in a home with finished

flooring, and residence in a rancho or metropolitan—are overrepresented in communities in low-

indigenous municipalities. Some factors characteristic of low-indigenous municipalities—

20

domestic migration at the individual and community levels—are negatively associated with U.S.

migration.

Table 4 presents odds ratios from logistic regression models estimated to predict whether

migrants took an undocumented versus a documented first U.S. trip. The unconditional model

with no independent variables has an ICC of .275, indicating that approximately 27.5% of the

variation in undocumented migration by the time of the survey is due to between- rather than

within-community differences. Here we find evidence that the context of indigeneity is

positively associated with undocumented relative to documented migration on the first U.S. trip.

In the model including only the indigeneity indicators, migrants from high- rather than low-

indigenous municipalities have 2.29 times the odds of migrating undocumented relative to

migrating documented (p < 0.001).

TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE

In the fully-adjusted model, however, the odds ratio for high- compared with low-

indigenous municipalities drops to 1.90, which is not significant at conventional levels (p<0.10).

Nonetheless, the coefficient for communities in municipalities of moderate indigeneity rises to

significance with the addition of independent variables (p< 0.05); it is not significantly different

from the coefficient for communities in high-indigenous municipalities, suggesting that the

relatively small number of communities in the high-indigenous category yields insufficient

power to detect a significant effect. Of course, other factors correlated with the context of

indigeneity may also explain some of the observed relationship between indigeneity and

migrants’ documentation.

As in the models predicting U.S. migration, we find that other factors explain variation in

undocumented relative to documented migration. In the fully-adjusted model, migrants surveyed

21

outside of metropolitan areas have higher odds of leaving as undocumented migrants compared

to those in metropolitan areas. However, neither survey year nor community socioeconomic

characteristics significantly predict the likelihood of undocumented migration. Instead, it is the

addition of individual demographic, socioeconomic, and migration characteristics that appears to

mediate the relationship between high-indigenous municipalities and documentation status. As

can be seen, males and younger migrants, as well as those from larger households, display higher

odds of undocumented migration. In contrast, migrants with higher levels education evince lower

odds of migrating without documents.

We also find that migrants who live outside their birth municipality and those who

migrated during a time when the probability of apprehension was higher have higher odds of

undocumented migration. As one would expect, those who migrated during a time of greater visa

availability have much lower odds of undocumented migration. Consistent with the cumulative

causation theory of migration, we further find that migrants in households where another

member is documented have lower odds of undocumented migration. However, we do not find a

relationship between undocumented migration and the share of the municipal population earning

less than the minimum wage, the share of adults with U.S. migration experience in the

community, or the share of adults with domestic migration experience in the community in our

models. Indeed, documentation status varies evenly across communities with high and low levels

of these characteristics.

Discussion and Conclusion

Demographers describe the context of indigeneity as a primary dimension of place

stratification in Mexico that is strongly associated with the uneven distribution of economic and

social resources across communities. Ethnographic and historical accounts of indigenous

22

communities suggest that this axis of inequality may be related to the prevalence of migration to

the United States, but demographers have seldom examined this possibility in the research done

to date. Using survey and contextual data from the Mexican Migration Project, supplemented

with additional information from the Mexican Census, we find that the context of indigeneity is

related to divergent pathways of movement to the United States.

Specifically, our results suggest that many of the economic and social characteristics of

origin communities known to be predictive of U.S. migration are disproportionately lacking in

areas with greater indigeneity. Nonetheless, we did not find a significant association between the

context of indigeneity and first U.S. migration. While some factors that are negatively associated

with migration—such as non-metropolitan areas and homes with unfinished flooring—may

concentrate in high-indigenous municipalities, many other factors that predict migration overlap

with low-indigenous communities, such as being married, having a college education, living

outside one’s birth municipality, having a larger household size, being related to a household

member who is documented, and living in a rancho or metropolitan area.

Models predicting documentation status on migrants’ first U.S. trip nevertheless suggest

that the unequal concentration of economic and social resources in indigenous versus non-

indigenous places still matters for migratory outcomes. In fully-adjusted models, we find that the

context of indigeneity is associated with the likelihood of migrating undocumented as opposed to

documented on the first trip for U.S.-bound migrants from communities in moderate-indigenous

municipalities. Although the coefficient for those migrants living in high-indigenous

municipalities does not reach statistical significance at conventional levels (p <0.10), it is

statistically similar to the coefficient for moderate-indigenous municipalities. Altogether, we take

these results to suggest that U.S.-bound migrants from communities in municipalities

23

characterized by greater indigeneity are more likely to take an undocumented rather than

documented first trip when compared with their peers in low-indigenous municipalities.

These findings likely do not apply to all of Mexico’s diverse indigenous communities,

particularly those in west-central Mexico as opposed to central or southern Mexico. Some

indigenous communities in west-central Mexico—such as the P’urépechas in Michoacán

(Durand 1994)—maintain longstanding ties to the United States, while others in Central and

Southeastern Mexico—such as the Hñähñú from Hidalgo (Quezada Ramírez 2008; Schmidt

2012; Schmidt and Crummett 2004)—have recently begun to migrate to the United States more

intensively. Nonetheless, our results suggest that a bundle of factors may underlie between-

community differences in migrants’ documentation status in the central and southeastern regions

of Mexico. High-indigeneity in those regions is associated with limited economic development

and a low prevalence of U.S. migrants, and together these circumstances appear to limit access to

documentation.

Our analyses should be taken as a first step in uncovering the role the context of

indigeneity plays in shaping aggregate patterns of Mexico-U.S. migration. Our results need to be

extended to consider how the context of indigeneity and its resources relate to migratory

decisions taken later on in the migratory process after the initial U.S. trip (see, e.g., Asad and

Hwang 2018). Research focusing on migrants’ last trip to the United States may illuminate

whether and how individuals accumulate the financial and social resources useful for not only

migration but also for documentation (Orrenius and Zavodny 2005, 220; see Aptekar 2015;

Massey et al. 2002). Future survey research should also make a greater effort to collect

information on individual- and community-level measures of indigeneity in order to assess its

effect on migratory outcomes across levels of analysis. This sort of large-scale research should

24

be supplemented with additional micro-level studies of indigenous communities migrating to the

United States in order to identify what mechanisms may underlie the association between the

context of indigeneity and migratory outcomes.

Overall, our examination of the context of indigeneity and U.S. migration reveals at least

two pathways through which indigenous places are associated with inequality in Mexico-U.S.

migration flows. First, relative to non-indigenous places, high-indigenous municipalities are

more likely to be sites of multiple forms of economic and social disadvantage. Second, related to

this point, residents of indigenous areas have limited access to resources useful for international

movement with documentation. These results suggest that demographers should pay greater

attention to the different ways the context of indigeneity and its resources affect the migratory

process.

25

 References

Aptekar, Sofya. 2015. The road to citizenship: What naturalization means for immigrants and

the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Asad, Asad L. 2017. Reconsidering immigrant illegality: How immigrants perceive the risk of

immigration law and enforcement. Working Paper, Department of Sociology, Harvard

University, Cambridge, MA.

Asad, Asad L., and Jackelyn Hwang. 2018. "Indigenous Places and the Making of

Undocumented Status in Mexico-U.S. Migration." International Migration Review.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0197918318801059

Batalla, Guillermo Bonfil. 1996. México profundo: Reclaiming a Civilization. Translated by

Philip A. Dennis. Austin: Univ of Texas Press.

Bean, Frank D., and Gillian Stevens. 2003. America's newcomers and the dynamics of diversity.

New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bell, Bethany A., John M. Ferron and Jeffrey D. Kromrey. 2008. Cluster size in multilevel

models: The impact of sparse data Structures on point and interval estimates in two-level

models." JSM proceedings, section on survey research methods, pp. 1122-1129.

CONEVAL (Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social). 2011.

Descripción sociodemográfica de la población hablante de lengua, autoadscrita como

indígena y el resto de la población, a partir de los datos del Censo De Población Y

Vivienda 2010. México, DF: CONEVAL.

CONEVAL (Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social). 2012. La

pobreza en la población indígena de México, 2012. Vol. México, DF: CONEVAL.

26

Cornelius, Wayne A. 1986. From sojourners to settlers: The changing profile of Mexican

migration to the United States. Stanford, CA: Americas Program, Stanford University.

Corona, Arturo Vásquez, and Adrián González Romo. 2008. La importancia de las redes sociales

en la migración ilegal hacia los Estados Unidos: El caso de Hueyotlipan, Tlaxcala. In

Raúl Jiménez Guillén and Adrián González Romo, eds., La migración de Tlaxcaltecas

hacia Estados Unidos Y Canad: Panoram actual y perspectivas. San Pablo Apetatitlán,

Mésico: Colegio de Tlaxcala.

de la Peña, Guillermo. 2006. A New Mexican nationalism? Indigenous rights, constitutional

reform and the conflicting meanings of multiculturalism. Nations and Nationalism 12 (2):

279-302.

Donato, Katharine M., Brandon Wagner, and Evelyn Patterson. 2008. The cat and mouse game

at the Mexico-US Border: Gendered patterns and recent shifts. International Migration

Review 42 (2): 330-59.

Donato, Katharine M., and Amada Armenta. 2011. "What we know about unauthorized

migration." Annual Review of Sociology 37:529-43.

Durand, Jorge. 1994. Más Allá de la línea: Patrones migratorios entre México Y Estados

Unidos. México, DF: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes.

Durand, Jorge, William Kandel, Emilio A. Parrado and Douglas S. Massey. 1996. International

migration and development in Mexican dommunities. Demography 33 (2): 249-64.

Durand, Jorge, and Douglas S. Massey. 2003. The costs of contradiction: US border policy

1986–2000. Latino Studies 1 (2): 233-52.

27

Durand, Jorge, Douglas S. Massey and Rene M. Zenteno. 2001. Mexican immigration to the

United States: Continuities and changes. Latin American Research Review 36 (1):

107-27.

Fernández-Kelly, Patricia, and Douglas S. Massey. 2007. Borders for whom? The role of

NAFTA in Mexico-US Migration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political

and Social Science 610: 98-118.

FitzGerald, David S., Jorge Hernández Díaz, and David Keyes. 2012. The wall between us: An

indigenous community in Mexico and the United States. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Flores René D., and Edward Telles. 2012. “Social Stratification in Mexico: Disentangling Color,

Ethnicity, and Class.” American Sociological Review 77(3):486–94.

Fox, Jonathan. 2006. Reframing Mexican migration as a multi-ethnic process. Latino Studies 4

(1): 39-61.

Friedlander, Judith. 2006. Being Indian in Hueyapan: A revised and updated edition. New York:

Macmillan.

Fussell, Elizabeth, and Douglas S Massey. 2004. The limits to cumulative causation:

International migration from Mexican urban areas." Demography 41 (1): 151-71.

Garip, Filiz. 2016. On the move: Changing Dynamics of Mexico-U.S. migration. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Garip, Filiz, and Asad L Asad. 2015. Migrant networks. In Robert A. Scott and Stephen M.

Kosslyn, eds., Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Malden, MA:

John Wiley & Sons. At https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0220

Garip, Filiz, and Asad L. Asad. 2016. Network effects in Mexico-U.S. Migration: Disentangling

the underlying social mechanisms. American Behavioral Scientist 60 (10): 1168-93.

28

Gordon Rappaport, Sara. 1997. Pobreza y patrones de exclusión social en México.

Documentos de trabajo No. 92, Instituto Internacional de Estudios Laborales. Geneva:

International Labor Organization.

Hagan, Jacqueline. 1994. Deciding to be legal: A Maya community in Houston. Piladelphia, PA:

Temple University Press.

Hamilton, Nora. 2011. Mexico: Political, social, and economic evolution. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Harris, John R., and Michael P. Todaro. 1970. Migration, unemployment and development: A

two-sector analysis. American Economic Review 60 (1): 126-42.

Harvey, Neil. 1998. The Chiapas rebellion: The struggle for land and democracy. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press.

Holmes, Seth. 2013. Fresh rruit, broken bodies: Migrant farmworkers in the United States.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática). 2009. Perfil

sociodemográfico de la población que habla lengua indígena. Mexico: INEGI.

Jasso, Guillermina, and Mark R. Rosenzweig. 1986. Family reunification and the immigration

mMultiplier: US iImmigration law, origin-country conditions, and the reproduction of

immigrants. Demography 23 (3): 291-311.

Jasso, Guillermina, and Mark R. Rosenzweig. 1990. The new chosen people: Immigrants in the

United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Jiménez Guillén, Raúl, and Adrián González Romo, eds. 2008. La migración de Tlaxcaltecas

hacia Estados Unidos Y Canad: Panoram actual y perspectivas. San Pablo Apetatitlán,

Mésico: Colegio de Tlaxcala

29

Jung, Courtney. 2003. The politics of indigenous identity: Neoliberalism, cultural rights, and the

Mexican Zapatistas. Social Research 70 (2): 433-461.

Kandel, William, and Douglas. S Massey. 2002. The culture of Mexican migration: A theoretical

and empirical analysis. Social Forces 80 (3): 981-1004.

Kearney, Michael. 2018 [1996]. Reconceptualizing the peasantry: Anthropology in global

perspective: New York: Routledge.

Kelly, Thomas J. 2001. Neoliberal reforms and rural poverty. Latin American Perspectives 28

(3): 84-103.

Layton, Heather Marie, and Harry A. Patrinos. 2006. Estimating the number of indigenous

people in Latin America. Pp. 25-39 in Gillette Hall and Harry Anthony Patrinos, eds.,

Indigenous Peoples, Poverty, and Human Development in Latin America. Basingstoke

Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Massey, Douglas S. 1988. Economic development and international migration in comparative

perspective. Population and Development Review 14 (3): 383-413.

Massey, Douglas S., Rafael Alarcón, Jorge Durand and Humberto González. 1990. Return to

Aztlan: The social process of international migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Massey, Douglas S., Joaquin Arango, Graeme Hugo, Ali Kouaouci, Adela Pellegrino and J.

Edward Taylor. 1993. Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal.

Population and Development Review 19 (3): 431-66.

Massey, Douglas S and Nancy Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: segregation and the making

of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

30

Massey, Douglas S, Jorge Durand and Nolan J Malone. 2002. Beyond smoke and mirrors:

Mexican immigration in an era of economic integration. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation.

Massey, Douglas S., Jorge Durand and Karen A Pren. 2016. Why border enforcement backfired.

American journal of sociology 121 (5): 1557-1600.

Massey, Douglas S., and Kristin E. Espinosa. 1997. What's driving Mexico-US migration? A

theoretical, empirical, and policy analysis. American Journal of Sociology 102 (4): 939-

999.

Massey, Douglas S., Luin Goldring and Jorge Durand. 1994. Continuities in transnational

migration: An analysis of nineteen Mexican communities. American Journal of Sociology

99 (6): 1492-1533.

Massey, Douglas S., and Karen A. Pren. 2012. Unintended consequences of US Immigration

policy: Explaining the post-1965 surge from Latin America. Population and

Development Review 38 (1): 1-29.

Menjívar, Cecilia. 2006. Liminal legality: Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants' lives in the

United States. AmericanJournal of Ssociology 111 (4): 999-1037.

Meza González, Liliana. 2006. Transformaciones económicas en México y migración a Estados

Unidos." Pp. 173-93 in Elena Zúñiga Herrera and Jesús Arroyo Alejandre, Agustín Escobar

Latapí, and Gustavo Verduzco Igartúa, eds., Migración México-Estados Unidos:

Implicaciones y retospara ambos países. Guadalajara, México: Centro de Investigaciones

y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Sociol.

Migration Policy Institute. 2018. Mexican-born opulation over time, 1950-present. Washington,

DC: Migration Policy Institute. Accessed December 10, 2018 at

31

 https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/mexican-born-population-

over-time

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. "The Integration of

Immigrants into American Society." Vol. Panel on the Integration of Immigrants into

American Society. Cambridge, MA: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine.

Nagengast, Carole, and Michael Kearney. 1990. Mixtec ethnicity: Social identity, political

consciousness, and political activism. Latin American Research Review 25 (2): 61-91.

Nolasco, Margarita. 1995. Migración indígena a las fronteras nacionales. Berlin: Centro de

Ecología y Desarrollo.

Novo, Carmen Martínez. 2006. Who defines indigenous?: Identities, development, intellectuals,

and the state in northern Mexico. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Orrenius, Pia M., and Madeline Zavodny. 2005. Self-selection among undocumented immigrants

from Mexico. Journal of Development Economics 78 (1): 215-240.

Passel, Jeffrey S., Jens Manuel Krogstad and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera. 2014. As growth stalls,

unauthorized immigrant population becomes more settled. Washington, DC: Pew

Research Center.

Psacharopoulos, George, and Harry Patrinos. 1994. Indigenous people and poverty in Latin

America. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Indigenous people and poverty in Latin

America.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/519371468772449588/pdf/multi0page.pdf

Quezada Ramírez, María Félix. 2008. La migración Hñahñú eel Valle del Mezquital, Estado De

Hidalgo. México, DF: Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas.

32

Ruggles, Steven. 2013. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, International Version 6.2

[Machine-Readable Database]. Minneapolis: Minnesota Population Center.

Schmidt, Ella. 2012. Citizenship from below: Hñähñu Heritage in a transnational world. Latino

Studies 10 (1-2): 196-219.

Schmidt, Ella, and María Crummett. 2004. Heritage re-created: Hidalguenses in the United

States and Mexico." Pp. 401-15 in Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, eds.,

Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States.. La Jolla, CA: Center for US-Mexican

Studies and Center for Comaprative Immigration Studies.

Sjaastad, Larry A. 1962. The costs and returns of human migration. Journal of Political Economy

70 (5): 80-93.

Smith, Robert C. 2003. Migrant membership as an instituted process: Transnationalization, the

state and the extra-territorial conduct of Mexican politics." International Migration

Review 37 (2): 297-343.

Stark, Oded, and David E Bloom. 1985. The new economics of labor migration. American

Economic Review 75 (2): 173-78.

Stark, Oded, and J Edward Taylor. 1991. Migration incentives, migration types: The role of

relative deprivation. The Economic Journal 101 (408): 1163-78.

Stephen, Lynn. 2007. Transborder lives: Indigenous Oaxacans in Mexico, California, and

Oregon. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Taylor, J Edward, and Antonio Yunez-Naude. 2000. The returns from schooling in a diversified

rural economy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82 (2): 287-297.

Villarreal, Andrés. 2014. Ethnic identification and its xonsequences for measuring inequality in

Mexico. American Sociological Review 79 (4): 775-806.

33

Zapata, Juan. 2000. Sociedad Mexicana y sus pueblos indígenas a fines del Siglo XX. Nuevo

León: Universidad de Monterrey.

Zenteno, Rene M., and Douglas S. Massey. 1999. Especificidad versus representatividad:

Enfoques metodológicos en el estudio de la migración Mexicana hacia Estados Unidos.

Estudios Demográficos y Urbanos. 14(1):75-116.

34

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for All Variables Used in Multilevel Models
Respondents in Communities in Respondents in Communities in Low-
All Respondents High-indigenous Municipalities indigenous Municipalities
N 122,836 10,175 92,486
% U.S. Migrants 15.9% 13.4% 17.1% ***
Individual- or Household-Level Measures
Demographic Characteristics
Male (Ref: Female) 44.6% 45.1% 44.8% ***
Year Born 1972 (17.9) 1974 (17.2) 1971 (17.9) ***
Household Position
Household Head 5.25% 4.55% 5.60% ***
Spouse of Household Head 15.1% 16.4% 14.6% ***
Not Head or Spouse 79.7% 79.0% 79.8% ***
Married (Ref: Not Married) 49.5% 48.0% 50.0% ***
Household Size 7.38 (3.55) 7.72 (3.13) 7.63 (3.59) ***
Socioeconomic Characteristics
Educational Attainment
< Primary 39.5% 38.2% 40.5% ***
Primary 46.1% 47.2% 45.9% *
Secondary 9.60% 10.5% 8.97% ***
University 4.77% 4.10% 4.65% **
Employment Sector
Primary 8.10% 8.30% 8.75%
Secondary 12.0% 12.1% 12.3%
Tertiary 12.2% 10.6% 11.9% ***
Quarternary 5.22% 6.71% 4.98% ***
Not in Labor Force 61.1% 61.2% 60.6%
Unemployed 1.41% 0.97% 1.42% ***
Finished Flooring (Ref: Dirt/Cement) 45.7% 38.4% 49.2% ***
Number of Rooms in House 4.16 (1.95) 3.42 (1.70) 4.30 (1.97) ***
Migration Characteristics
Year of First Trip to U.S. (Migrants Only) 1983 (13.7) 1988 (13.5) 1983 (13.7) ***
Undocumented on First U.S. Trip (Migrants
Only) 76.1% 87.3% 75.0% ***
Domestic Trip? 13.2% 10.6% 13.5% ***
Lives Outside Birth Community? 19.5% 12.5% 20.0% ***
Year of First Migration in Household 1978 (16.7) 1984 (16.6) 1977 (16.8) ***
Anyone Else in Household Documented? 21.0% (40.7) 11.7% (32.2) 24.1 (42.7) ***
Border 9.58% 0.00% 10.7% ***
Visa Availability in Migration Year (Migrants
Only) 8.76 (8.91) 7.91 (7.89) 8.89 (9.07) ***
Probability of Apprehension in Migration Year
(Migrants Only) 30.7 (5.48) 29.6 (4.88) 30.8 (5.51) ***
Community- or Municipal-level Measures
Community Context in Survey Year
Year of Survey 1998 (7.53) 2000 (7.64) 1998 (7.42) ***
Average Number of Rooms 5.84 (1.02) 5.42 (0.72) 6.04 (1.00) ***
Average Years of Education 8.95 (0.92) 8.84 (0.71) 9.04 (0.92) ***
Metropolitan Category of Community
Metroplitan Area 20.6% 0.00% 18.88% ***
Small Urban Area 26.4% 36.9% 27.6% ***
Village or Town 30.9% 46.5% 29.4% ***
Rancho 22.0% 16.7% 24.2% ***
Larger Community Context in Survey Year
% of Municipal Population Earning < Minimum
Wage 31.7% (15.4) 47.8% (14.8) 31.3% (14.4) ***
% of Adults with Domestic Migration Experience
in Community 13.2% (33.8) 10.6% (30.8) 13.5% (34.2) ***
Context of Indigeneity (1990)
Low Indigeneity (<1%) 75.3% - -
Moderate Indigeneity (1-10%) 16.4% - -
High Indigeneity (>10%) 8.28% - -
Notes: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05, †p<.1. Standard deviations in parentheses. P-values test statistical significance of differences between respondents in communities in high-
and-low indigenous municipalities. Measures of "Larger Community Context," except indigeneity, observed in survey year. Indigenous levels are based on the share of
residents who report speaking an indigenous language in 1990 (Source: Mexican Census compiled by IPUMS-International).

35

 Table 2. Average Characteristics for Communities in Low- and High-indigenous Municipalities in the Mexican
Migration Project Data
Communities in Communities in High-
Low-indigenous indigenous
Municipalities Municipalities
(<1%) (>10%)
Community-level Measures (At survey year, unless otherwise noted)
Year of Survey 1999 2001
Community Population (1990) 131,115*** 11,269
Metropolitan Category of Community
Metropolitan Area 17.3%*** 0.00%
Smaller Urban Area 23.1% 30.8%
Town 27.9% 46.2%
Rancho 31.7% 23.1%
Average Household Size 5.94** 5.37
Average Years of Education 8.93 8.69
Average Number of Domestic Trips 1.50** 1.69
Percentage of Adults with Domestic Migration Experience 13.5%*** 10.6%
Percentage of Adults with U.S. Migration Experience 17.1%*** 13.4%
Year of First U.S. Trip 1983*** 1988
Undocumented on First U.S. Trip 75.0%*** 87.3%
Municipal-level Measures (1990)
Municipal Population 161,923*** 32,423
Percentage of Male Labor Force in Agricultural Sector 44.9%** 62.0%
Percentage of Female Labor Force in Agricultural Sector 8.6% 8.1%
Percentage of Male Labor Force in Manufacturing Sector 27.9% 20.4%
Percentage of Female Labor Force in Manufacturing Sector 22.2% 31.8%
Percentage of Male Labor Force in Service Sector 27.3%** 17.6%
Percentage of Female Labor Force in Service Sector 69.2% 60.1%
Percentage of Labor Force Self-Employed 29.4%** 48.3%
Percentage of Population Earning < Minimum Wage 34.2%** 50.7%
Percentage of Population Earning Twice Minimum Wage 28.4%*** 16.7%
Percentage of Dwellings with Dirt Floor 14.1%* 32.4%
Percentage of Dwellings without Plumbing 26.5%*** 58.2%
N 104 13

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05, †p<.1. Two-tailed t-tests indicate different from communities in high-indigenous
municipalities. Indigenous levels are based on the share of residents who report speaking an indigenous language in
1990 (Source: Mexican Census compiled by IPUMS-International). All other variables except average household size
and years of education--which are authors' calculations of the MMP data--are from the MMP "COMMUN" file.

36

 Table 3. Odds Ratios from Three-level Logistic Regression Models Predicting Mexicans' First Migration (Relative to Non-
migration) to the United States

Context of Indigeneity Fully-adjusted Model

OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Level 1: Individual Measures
Male (Ref: Female) 4.79*** (4.10, 5.61)
Year Born 0.97*** (0.97, 0.98)
Not Household Head or Spouse (Ref: Head or Spouse) 0.26*** (0.22, 0.30)
Married (Ref: Not Married) 2.00*** (1.78, 2.24)
Socioeconomic Characteristics
Educational Attainment (Ref.: < Primary)
Primary 1.90*** (1.77, 2.04)
Secondary 1.98*** (1.79, 2.20)
University 1.18* (1.00, 1.39)
Employment Sector (Ref: Primary)
Secondary 1.35** (1.14, 1.58)
Tertiary 0.91 (0.75, 1.10)
Quarternary 0.36*** (0.29, 0.45)
Not in Labor Force 0.18*** (0.15, 0.22)
Unemployed 0.69** (0.56, 0.84)
Migration Characteristics
Domestic Trip 0.56*** (0.50, 0.63)
Lives Outside Birth Community? 1.30*** (1.14, 1.48)
Anyone Else in Household Documented? 1.65*** (1.50, 1.83)

Level 2: Household Measures

Demographic Characteristics
Household Size 1.03** (1.02, 1.04)
Socioeconomic Characteristics
Finished Flooring (Ref: Dirt/Cement) 1.27*** (1.17, 1.38)
Number of Rooms in House 1.02† (0.99, 1.04)

Level 3: Community Measures

Intercept 0.13*** (0.11, 0.15) 0.05*** (0.05, 0.06)
Year of Survey 1.01† (0.98, 1.05)
Average Number of Rooms 1.43** (1.17, 1.76)
Average Years of Education 1.09 (0.93, 1.27)
Metropolitan Category of Community (Ref.: Metropolitan Area)
Smaller Urban Area 2.37*** (1.59, 3.51)
Town 1.92** (1.21, 3.05)
Rancho 3.34*** (2.01, 5.57)
Border State 1.20 (0.81, 1.82)
Ecological Context in Survey Year
% of Municipal Population Earning < Minimum Wage 1.12 (0.40, 3.12)
% of Adults with Domestic Migration Experience in Community 7.06** (1.64, 30.3)
Context of Indigeneity (1990; Ref: Low Indigeneity (<1%))
Moderate Indigeneity (1-10%) 0.68 (0.46, 1.00) 1.31 (0.90, 1.91)
High Indigeneity (>10%) 0.81 (0.53, 1.25) 1.18 (0.71, 1.96)

Level-3 Conditional Intraclass Coefficient (ICC; for U.S. migration) 0.175 0.129
% of Unconditional ICC (.194) 97.3 72.0
Level-1 N 122,836 122,836
Level-2 N 22,374 22,374
Level-3 N 143 143
Notes: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05, †p<.1. All variables are grand-mean centered. All indicators observed at survey year unless
otherwise noted. Confidence intervals are calculated using robust standard errors.

37

Table 4. Odds Ratios from Two-level Logistic Regression Models Predicting Mexican Migrants' Undocumented (Relative to
Documented) Status on the First Trip to the United States

Context of Indigeneity Fully-adjusted Model

OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Level 1: Individual or Household Measures
Demographic Characteristics
Male (Ref: Female) 1.94*** (1.65, 2.28)
Year Born 1.03*** (1.02, 1.04)
Household Position (Ref: Not Head or Spouse)
Household Head 0.91† (0.77, 1.09)
Spouse of Household Head 0.97 (0.77, 1.21)
Married (Ref: Not Married) 1.08 (0.94, 1.24)
Household Size 1.07*** (1.05, 1.10)
Socioeconomic Characteristics
Educational Attainment (Ref.: < Primary)
Primary 0.82* (0.71, 0.96)
Secondary 0.35*** (0.27, 0.44)
University 0.18*** (0.13, 0.25)
Employment Sector (Ref: Primary)
Secondary 1.17† (0.99, 1.37)
Tertiary 1.02 (0.86, 1.22)
Quarternary 0.97 (0.86, 1.22)
Not in Labor Force 0.96 (0.77, 1.21)
Unemployed 0.84 (0.60, 1.18)
Finished Flooring (Ref: Dirt/Cement) 0.76*** (0.67, 0.86)
Number of Rooms in House 0.91*** (0.88, 0.94)
Migration Characteristics
Year of First Trip to U.S. 1.01 (0.99, 1.04)
Domestic Trip Prior to First U.S. Migration 1.13† (0.96, 1.33)
Lives Outside Birth Community? 1.39** (1.17, 1.64)
Year of First Migration in Household 1.00 (0.99, 1.01)
Anyone Else in Household Documented? 0.27*** (0.23, 0.32)
Ecological Context in First Migration Year
Visa Availability 0.01*** (0.01, 0.03)
Probability of Apprehension 5.85* (1.03, 33.4)
% of Municipal Population Earning < Minimum Wage 0.80 (0.12, 5.17)
% of Adults with Migration Experience in Community 0.89 (0.05, 14.3)

Level 2: Community Measures

Intercept 3.30*** (3.19, 3.42) 4.23*** (3.37, 5.362
Year of Survey 0.97 (0.94, 1.01)
Average Number of Rooms 1.02 (0.80, 1.31)
Average Years of Education 1.19 (0.94, 1.48)
Metropolitan Category of Community (Ref.: Metropolitan Area)
Smaller Urban Area 2.18** (1.26, 3.77)
Town 2.59** (1.40, 4.80)
Rancho 3.93** (1.78, 8.69)
Border State 0.30*** (0.18, 0.50)
% of Adults with Domestic Migration Experience 1.13 (0.35, 3.61)
Context of Indigeneity (1990; Ref: Low Indigeneity (<1%))
Moderate Indigeneity (1-10%) 1.11† (1.00, 1.23) 1.77* (1.14, 2.74)
High Indigeneity (>10%) 2.29*** (1.94, 2.70) 1.90† (0.96, 3.76)

Conditional Intraclass Coefficient (ICC; for undocumented first migration) 0.264 0.146
% of Unconditional ICC (.275) 96% 53%
Level-1 N 19,510 19,510
Level-2 N 143 143
Notes: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05, †p<.1. All variables are grand-mean centered. Confidence intervals are calculated using robust
standard errors. Inidcators observed at survey year unless otherwise indicated. Indigenous levels are based on the share of residents
who report speaking an indigenous language in 1990 (Source: Mexican Census compiled by IPUMS-International).

38