Introduction
The “Invisible Ones,” or Los Invisibles in Spanish, refer to children and youth who are U.S. citizens and have lived most of their lives in the United States but now reside in Mexico.1 Mexico’s Ministry of the Interior estimates there could be 430,000 to 600,000 U.S. citizen minors in this situation.2 These children are often “invisible” to teachers and administrators in Mexican schools, and their experience has largely been overlooked in the literature on migration between the U.S. and Mexico.3 This may be because there are far fewer studies on return migration to Mexico than on migration to the U.S., and the topics of international migrant children and transnationalism are less researched overall.4 Moreover, estimating the number of migrants, including minors, leaving the United States for Mexico each year is difficult, since there is no official count. There are many reasons Mexicans and their families return to Mexico, involving mixed circumstances of voluntary and involuntary departures. Migrants with families that include children and adolescents also face multifaceted challenges. This brief discusses the various forces contributing to the increase of return migration and, consequently, the growing number of U.S. citizen minors in Mexico. It also explores the difficulties they face upon their arrival and addresses the initiatives that Mexico has implemented to assist the children and adolescents in this situation. Ultimately, it argues that more visibility and research is necessary to analyze the impact of return migrants and their U.S.-born children.
Return Migration
Return migration is a less frequently researched subject in the study of international migration and a less frequently considered topic within the immigration debate.5 Migrants’ return to their country of origin can be voluntary or involuntary; however, it can be difficult to separate returns into just two categories, as there are different understandings and definitions of these terms.6 Generally, involuntary return—also known as forced return—involves formal deportation (or removal) orders from the United States. Voluntary returnees include those who decide to return to their home country, likely with preparation and planning and without interference from the U.S. Border Patrol or U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.7 Yet they can also include detainees who request “voluntary departure” from the Department of Homeland Security or an immigration judge—instead of receiving orders for deportation/ removal—and must leave the United States within a certain period of time.8 Voluntary returnees can also include those who decide to return but are compelled or under pressure to do so, which may result from unforeseen circumstances such as family separation, the loss of a job, or another economic hardship.9
Analyzing the policies and historical factors related to return migration is also important. Migratory flows can be permanent, circular, or temporary in nature. Generally, from the early 20th century to about the 1980s, migration was temporary or circular. Low-skilled temporary migrants intended to work in the United States, gather enough money, and return to Mexico. Arriola (2014) describes structural causes that affected return migration after 1980, such as the 1982 debt crisis in Mexico and the 1986 U.S. Immigration Reform and Control Act.10
Figure 1 — Reasons for Return Migration to Mexico (2009–2014)
Enhanced border enforcement during the 1990s and in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., accompanied by increasing border security resources—budget, personnel, surveillance, technology, and fencing—has also been cited as creating a “caging” effect, making returning home more difficult for undocumented immigrants and causing them to stay longer in the United States to avoid the risk of not being able to later return to the U.S.11 On the other hand, the passage of the U.S. Illegal Immigration Reform and Individual Responsibility Act in 1996 also made it easier to deport non-citizens by “increasing the number of categories of non-citizens subject to detention and deportation, or removal, to include non-citizens who hold temporary visas and green cards, along with those without legal documents.”12 While many of these factors resulted in individuals staying longer periods of time or settling in the United States, in 2015 the Pew Research Center found that more Mexicans were leaving than entering the U.S.13 Thus, examining these issues is crucial to understanding why an increasing number of U.S. citizen minors are ending up in Mexico—as undocumented parents depart, they often choose to take their younger children with them to keep the family together.
Data from Mexico’s 2014 National Survey of Demographic Dynamics (Encuesta Nacional de la Dinámica Demográfica [ENADID]) show that from 2009 to 2014, about one million Mexicans and their families (including U.S.-born children) left the U.S. for Mexico, either voluntarily or involuntarily.14 Figure 1 illustrates the reasons for return, with the main reason being family reunification. Reyes argues that “family produces certain commitments and obligations that may force people to return.”15 Miryam Hazán’s analysis based on a survey of 601 return migrants in the state of Jalisco, Mexico, is a case in point. Hazán found that homesickness and family-related issues—which can include family problems in the U.S., family problems in Mexico, taking care of family members in Mexico, and getting married and starting a new family—together form the most common category of reasons for return.16
Besides family reunification, 14 percent of respondents to the ENADID reported deportation as the main reason for returning to Mexico, with another 6 percent citing job changes. Stringent immigration enforcement within the U.S. through immigration raids, employer sanctions, and the Employment Verification System (or e-Verify) has made it more difficult for undocumented migrants to find or keep jobs.17 The 2008–2009 U.S. recession and the 2008 global financial crisis also contributed to this difficulty and may have influenced some migrants’ decision to return.18 Moreover, during and after the economic crisis, the Obama administration “oversaw an escalation of interior apprehensions and removals under programs such as 297(g) agreements, Secure Communities, and its replacement the Priority Enforcement Program.”19
While return migration in and of itself is a dynamic and complex phenomenon, it is even more so when it involves families—especially those with mixed status (families composed of a mix of citizens, legal immigrants, and undocumented immigrants). Living in a mixed-status family is not easy. Even if a child is a citizen, he or she may still experience stress associated with documentation status if parents or siblings are undocumented.20 Separating families by leaving U.S. citizen minors behind when returning to Mexico can also be traumatizing; as a result, many families choose to leave together.
Challenges Facing U.S.-born Children Living in Mexico
Existing literature on family migration has largely focused on adult decision-makers without properly analyzing a children-in-families approach.21 Even if they have little or no say in the decision to migrate, U.S.-born children need to be understood as “active agents in the actual process” who warrant greater research on their experiences and how they cope with the transition to a new country.22 Zúñiga and Hamann argue that these children do not even belong in the category “return migrants,” because they are immigrating to Mexico—not returning.23 Their experiences are diverse and not easily categorized. How the child copes with the transition varies, as does whether or not they were involved in the decision-making process to “return.” There are many reasons for a family to return to Mexico, and there are many factors that contribute to the wellbeing of these children, the challenges (including social, emotional, educational, and economic) they may face upon their arrival, and their overall experiences living in Mexico. Some make the transition more easily than others, but it can depend on the Spanish language skills they possess, as well as other school-related and family dynamics.24
For example, Zayas et al. found that U.S.-born children who accompanied their deported parents to Mexico displayed depressive symptoms and were likely to report emotional problems such as negative mood, physical symptoms, and negative self-esteem.25 Their experiences are complex and cannot be easily divided into static categories, as a study analyzing children’s narratives of their family’s migration found that “their stories complicate any traditional return story,” and they generally understand the rationale of their families’ decision to return.26 After arriving in Mexico, U.S.-born children face difficulties upon entering school and in the classroom. Even enrolling children in school has posed a challenge for some parents, as some families return to Mexico without the documentation necessary for school enrollment, such as school transcripts from the U.S. Complicating the matter further, parents in this situation are often economically disadvantaged, do not have access to the internet, and are fearful or unable to reach out to a U.S. consular office for information.27 Bureaucratic processes can also present further obstacles to overcome. For instance, until 2015 Mexico required an apostille—a form of international certification instituted by a 1961 Hague Convention—to authenticate foreign public documents such as U.S. birth certificates, and parents had to pay for official translation of documents.28 It is not known how many children have been adversely affected by such processes; the lack of proper documents makes it difficult for them to attend school or access social and health services.
Once enrolled in school in Mexico, these U.S.-born children face further problems. Many of them do not read or write Spanish, or they speak English better than Spanish, which impedes their transition into the Mexican school system.
Figure 2 — Citizenship and Immigration Status of Minors With Unauthorized Immigrant Parents in the United States (2009–2013)
Many schools lack the resources to train teachers or offer services equivalent to the U.S. English Language Learner (ELL) or English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction programs.29 While Mexico’s Ministry of Education does have a program to help migrant children assimilate into Mexican schools, hiring teachers for this program is expensive, and resources are unevenly distributed throughout the country.30 A study has shown that students with previous schooling in the United States are three times more likely to repeat a year of school after migrating than those with school experience solely in Mexico.31 Many struggle to adjust to different teaching methods and varied school resources, such as transportation or cafeteria offerings.32
Heading in the Right Direction—Public Policies Affecting U.S. Citizen Minors Living in Mexico
One of the oldest programs related to migrant children is the Programa Binacional de Educación Migrante (Binational Program for the Education of Migrants [PROBEM]), which was created in 1982 as a collaborative effort between the U.S. and Mexican governments.33 It includes a teacher exchange program and aims to facilitate the paperwork for enrolling children in schools and have them continue at their grade level with the “Transfer Document.”34 PROBEM still exists but is viewed by some as “out of date and under-funded.”35 Furthermore, awareness of PROBEM’s existence among schools, teachers, and migrant families is limited. For instance, a study performed in the state of Guerrero found that the program was not well publicized in the educational centers visited.36 The program Educación Básica sin Fronteras (Basic Education without Borders), which was created in January 2008 but concluded in 2013, worked in conjunction with PROBEM to “contribute to improving school achievement among students returning to Mexico from other countries who are enrolled in the National Educational System and to promote appropriate school services for children who leave our country.”37 Additionally, the U.S. and Mexican governments have launched programs such as ¡Documéntate Ya! (Get Documented!) and Soy México, Registro de Nacimiento de la Población México-Americana (I am Mexico, Birth Registration of the Mexican-American Population) with the goal of informing Mexican parents how to get proper documents for their U.S.-born children and facilitating the process for these children to become Mexican nationals and benefit from their binational status.38 Both programs are active on social media (Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube) to increase visibility and spread information to migrant families and their U.S.-born children. The Soy México program’s objective is to guarantee these children legal status in Mexico. An agreement between the Registro Nacional de Población e Identificación Personal (Mexican National Registry of Population and Personal Identification) and the U.S. National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems facilitates the online certification of U.S. birth certificates (even without the apostille).39 According to a government report, 19,289 individuals registered their U.S. birth certificate through Soy México from September 2016 to June 2017.40
Conclusion
Mexico and the United States are heading in the right direction in terms of understanding the needs of Mexican parents with U.S.-born children. However, more needs to be done in order for programs like ¡Documéntate Ya! and Soy México to reach these parents and assist them in applying for dual citizenship for their children. Without the necessary documents, these minors become a vulnerable population without proper access to schools or social and health services. It is imperative to continue programs that help parents understand the paperwork involved in passport applications and child registries.
This is an issue that concerns both countries, not just Mexico. In addition to the estimated 430,000 to 600,000 U.S. citizen minors currently living in Mexico, it is also important to consider U.S. citizen children who have at least one undocumented parent living in the United States. Using census data, the Migration Policy Institute estimates that from 2009 to 2013, there were 5.1 million minors in the U.S. with at least one unauthorized immigrant parent, with 4.1 million (79 percent) of them being U.S. citizens (see Figure 2).41 Moreover, this issue extends to the 548,000 active Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients who came to the United States from Mexico as children.42 According to one of the largest studies to date on DACA recipients, 25.7 percent of respondents reported having at least one child who was U.S. citizen.43 What will happen to these children if their parents lose their protected status? If they end up returning to Mexico either voluntarily or involuntarily, is Mexico prepared to deal with this number of return migrants and their U.S. citizen children?
More needs to be done to identify these children and help them become integrated into classrooms in Mexico, such as establishing programs to train teachers or hiring English-speaking teachers. School administrators and teachers also need to learn about best practices from educational models that help children transition to a new school system. Otherwise, these children all too often become invisible among their Mexican peers who attend the same school. Finally, more research is needed to understand the impact of these U.S. citizen children in Mexico, their educational experience, and if and when they decide to return to the U.S., as is their full right to do so.
Endnotes
1. Claudio Sanchez, “‘Invisible’ Children: Raised In The U.S., Now Struggling In Mexico,” NPR, November 13, 2016, http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/11/13/498271392/invisible-children-raised-in-the-u-s-now-struggling-in-mexico.
2. Secretaría de Gobernación, “Miguel Ángel Osorio Chong, Secretario de Gobernación, en el Programa Soy México, Registro de Nacimiento Población MéxicoAmericana,” September 20, 2016, https://www.gob.mx/segob/prensa/las-fronterasgeograficas-deben-ser-un-punto-deencuentro-e-intercambio-el-secretariode-gobernacion.
3. Betsabé Román González, Eduardo Carillo Cantú, and Rubén Hernández-León, “Moving to the ‘Homeland’: Children’s Narratives of Migration from the United States to Mexico,” Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 32, no. 2 (summer 2016): 252–75.
4. See Eduardo Fernández Guzmán,“Revisión bibliográfica sobre la migración de retorno,” Norteamérica 6, no. 1 (2011): 35–68. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=193722595003.
5. Fernández Guzmán, “Revisión bibliográfica,” 35; Belinda I. Reyes, Dynamics of Immigration: Return Migration to Western Mexico (San Francisco, California: Public Policy Institute of California, January 1997), http://www.ppic.org/publication/dynamics-of-immigration-return-migration-to-western-mexico/.
6. See European Commission, European Migration Network, Return Migration (Luxembourg: 2007), 3, https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/emn-studies/return-migration/emn_return_migration_booklet_feb08_en.pdf; Bryan Roberts, Cecilia Menjívar, and Néstor P. Rodriguez, “Voluntary and Involuntary Return Migration,” in Deportation and Return in a Border-Restricted World: Experiences in Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, eds. Bryan Roberts, Cecilia Menjívar, and Néstor P. Rodríguez (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG, 2017), 4.
7. Christine Wheatley, “Push Back: U.S. Deportation Policy and the Reincorporation of Involuntary Return Migrants in Mexico,” The Latin Americanist (December 2011): 35-60.
8. Jill Anderson, “Bilingual, Bicultural, Not Yet Binational: Undocumented Immigrant Youth in Mexico and the United States” (working paper, Wilson Center Mexico Institute, Washington, D.C., October 2016), https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/bilingual-bicultural-not-yet-binational-undocumented-immigrant-youth-mexico-and-the.
9. Roberts, Menjívar, and Rodriguez, “Voluntary and Involuntary Return Migration,” 5.
10. Luis Alfredo Arriola Vega, “Return Migration from the United States to Rural Areas of Campeche and Tabasco,” Migraciones Internacionales 7, no. 4 (July– December 2014): 103, http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/migra/v7n4/v7n4a4.pdf.
11. See Carla N. Argueta, Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, April 2016), 28, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42138.pdf; Douglas S. Massey, Jorge Durand, and Karen A. Pren, “Border Enforcement and Return Migration by Documented and Undocumented Mexicans,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41, no. 7 (2015): 1015–40; Belinda Reyes, “Changes in trip duration for Mexican immigrants to the United States,” Population Research and Policy Review 23, no. 3 (June 2004): 235–57; and Tony Payan, The Three U.S.-México Border Wars, 2nd ed. (West Port, Connecticut: Praeger Security International, 2016), 4–23.
12. Wheatley, “Push Back,” 37.
13. Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, “More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S.,” Pew Research Center, November 2015, http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/.
14. Ibid.
15. Reyes, “Dynamics of Immigration,” 39.
16. Miryam Hazán, “Understanding return migration to Mexico: towards a comprehensive policy for the reintegration of returning migrants,” (Working Paper 193, UC San Diego’s Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, La Jolla, California, September 2014), 33-34. https://ccis.ucsd.edu/_files/wp193.pdf.
17. Ibid., 16.
18. Arriola Vega, “Return Migration,” 103; Claudia Masferrer and Bryan R. Roberts, “Going Back Home? Changing Demography and Geography of Mexican Return Migration,” Population Research and Policy Review 31, no. 4 (August 2012): 485.
19. Anderson, “Bilingual, Bicultural, Not Yet Binational,” 11.
20. Stephanie R. Potochnick and Krista M. Perreira, “Depression and Anxiety among First-Generation Immigrant Latino Youth: Key Correlates and Implications for Future Research,” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 198, no. 7 (2010): 470-7.
21. Naomi Bushin, “Researching Family Migration Decision-Making: A Children-in-Families Approach,” Population, Space, and Place 15, no. 5 (September/October 2009): 430.
22. Madeleine E. Dobson, “Unpacking Children in Migration Research,” Children’s Geographies 7, no. 3 (August 2009): 355–60.
23. Víctor Zúñiga and Edmund T. Hamann, “Going to a home you have never been to: the return migration of Mexican and American-Mexican children,” Children’s Geographies 13, no. 6 (2015): 644.
24. Damien Cave, “American Children, Now Struggling to Adjust to Life in Mexico,” The New York Times, June 18, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/world/americas/american-born-children-struggle-to-adjust-in-mexico.html.
25. Luis H. Zayas, Sergio AguilarGaxiola, Hyunwoo Yoon, and Guillermina Natera Rey, “The Distress of Citizen-Children with Detained and Deported Parents,” Journal of Child and Family Studies 24, no. 11 (2015): 3213–23, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4667551/.
26. Zúñiga and Hamann, “Going to a home you have never been to,” 646, 653.
27. Inspection of Embassy Mexico City, Mexico (Arlington, Virginia: Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of State, June 2015), 30, https://oig.state.gov/system/files/isp-i-15-28a.pdf.
28. Anderson, “Bilingual, Bicultural, Not Yet Binational,” 25.
29. Debbie Holmes, “OSU Researcher Finds Barriers For U.S. Born Children Thrust Into Mexican Schools,” WOSU Public Media, June 6, 2017, http:// radio.wosu.org/post/osu-researcher-finds-barriers-us-born-children-thrust-mexican-schools#stream/0; Víctor Zúñiga and Edmund T. Hamann, “Going Home? Schooling in Mexico of Transnational Children,” CONfines 2, no. 4 (August–December 2006): 41-57, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/45.
30. Kristen Hwang, “As American kids pour across the border, Mexican schools struggle to keep up,” USA Today, September 5, 2017, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/09/05/american-kids-pour-across-border-mexican-schools-struggle-keep-up/629458001/.
31. Edmund T. Hamann and Víctor Zúñiga, “Schooling and the Everyday Ruptures Transnational Children Encounter in the United States and Mexico,” in Everyday Ruptures: Children and Migration in Global Perspective, ed. Cati Coe, Rachel R. Reynolds, Deborah A. Boehm, Julia Meredith Hess, and Heather Espinoza (Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press, 2011), 141–60.
32. Jean Merl, “The Students We Share: Binational Education Between the U.S. and Mexico,” UCLA Ed & IS (Fall 2016): 4–11, https://issuu.com/uclaedis/docs/ucla_ed_is_magazine_fall_2016; Zúñiga and Hamann, “Going Home?,” 52.
33. “Programa Binacional de Educación Migrante (PROBEM),” Dirección General de Relaciones Internacionales, Secretaría de Educación Pública (website), http://www.mexterior.sep.gob.mx/2_prob_ini.html.
34. The Transfer Document is a binational and bilingual (Spanish and English) student academic record for elementary and junior high students that serves as an official recognition of studies. See Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior, “Documento de Transferencia,” August 22, 2016, https://www.gob.mx/ime/acciones-y-programas/documento-de-transferencia.
35. Anderson, “Bilingual, Bicultural, Not Yet Binational,” 21.
36. Luis Fernando Ocampo Marín, “Migración de retorno, familias transnacionales y demandas educativas,” Revista Sociedad & Equidad 6 (January 2014): 46, https://sye.uchile.cl/index.php/RSE/article/view/27217/32065.
37. Betsabé Román González and Víctor Zúñiga, “Children Returning from the U.S. to Mexico: School Sweet School?” Migraciones Internacionales 7, no.4 (July– December 2014): 277–86, http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1665-89062014000200010; Pensar desde el otro lado: Los desafíos de una educación sin fronteras (Mexico City: Secretaría de Educación Pública, 2008), http://www.sepen.gob.mx/probem/ebsf/pensar_desde_el_otro_lado.pdf.
38. Amelia Shaw, “An Invisible Tide: Undocumented U.S. Kids in Mexico,” The Foreign Service Journal 93, no. 8 (October 2016): 48–52, http://www.afsa.org/invisible-tide-undocumented-us-kids-mexico; Secretaría de Gobernación, “Miguel Ángel Osorio Chong.”
39. Secretaría de Gobernación, “#SoyMéxico, Registro de Nacimiento de la Población México-Americana,” video, September 20, 2016, https://www.gob.mx/segob/videos/soymexico-registro-de-nacimiento-de-la-poblacion-mexico-americana; Michelle McConnell, “Remarks by Michelle McConnell, Health Attaché, U.S. Embassy Mexico,” First Meeting of Ministers and National Authorities of the Americas on the Right to Identity, September 29, 2016, https://2009-2017.state.gov/p/wha/rls/rm/262761.htm.
40. Quinto Informe de Gobierno 2016–2017 (Mexico City: Presidencia de la República, August 2017), 176, http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/quintoinforme/.
41. Randy Capps, Michael Fix, and Jie Zong, “A Profile of U.S. Children with Unauthorized Immigrant Parents” (Migration Policy Institute Fact Sheet, Migration Policy Institute, Washington, D.C., January 2016), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/profile-us-children-unauthorized-immigrant-parents.
42. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Approximate Active DACA Recipients: Country of Birth: As of September 4, 2017,” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/ Immigration%20Forms%20Data/All%20 Form%20Types/DACA/daca_population_data.pdf.
43. “Results from Tom K. Wong et al., 2017 National DACA Study” (Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C., updated October 7, 2017), 9, https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2017/11/02125251/2017_DACA_study_ economic_report_updated.pdf; Tom K. Wong, Greisa Martinez Rosas, Adam Luna, Henry Manning, Adrian Reyna, Patrick O’Shea, Tom Jawetz, and Philip E. Wolgin, “DACA Recipients’ Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow” (Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C., August 28, 2017), https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2017/08/28/437956/daca-recipients-economic-educational-gains-continue-grow/.
This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.
