THE GREAT RETURN MIGRATION
In his work on internal return migration in the United States, he says that since the nineteenth century, and particularly since the thirties of the twentieth century, the attention of academics in migrations and economic, social and environmental transformations has focusedThey bring with them. A considerable emphasis has been placed on population changes, but relatively little has been said about people who cancel future displacements for returning to their place of origin. Moreover, returned migrants are extremely important in some areas, so understanding return migration can be useful to explain migratory behavior in general.
The emigration factors that refer are the following: 1) the need for the labor market of developed countries;2) the possibility of chain emigration for family reasons;3) the efficiency of restrictive admission policies;4) the instability of developing countries;5) development perspectives in countries of origin;6) Economic integration and 7) the media.
Official Statistical Data, examine the sequences of repeated migration in the United States, especially those that suppose a return. The work hypothesis derives from the concepts of specific location capital and imperfect information. The research results reveal differences between migrants who chose to return or move forward to a new place, or not to move.
The methodological study of the return must be carried out based on a theoretical model and not only on the analysis of migratory experiences that fall into the scope of the descriptive, since this last technique does not allow identifying regularities within the phenomenon, to be based on the analysis ofunique experiences without a context that one to others. When thus being carried out, the descriptive nature of the return studies only review the reasons to return, adapt and the impact they have on the localities of origin, identifying the subjects from their experiences and not of the regularities of the return migrants ingeneral.
As we can see, the return studies in the sixties, in addition to not being abundant, are focused on the European continent, although there is already a theoretical concern about it, a reflection on the methodological problem they contain (data source (source, its analysis unit and its analytical techniques), and the construction of typologies through the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. This opens a window of opportunity in research.
In 1980 the work of George Gmelch ”Return Migration” was published, with a great theoretical content on return migration;This is one of the classic studies on the subject. It is an essay that, based on the various empirical studies that other authors have made, elaborates a typology of returned migrants, observes the reasons to return, the adaptation and readjustment of the returnees and the impact of return migration on societies in societiesoriginally. The author concludes that all studies on return are descriptive. The trend has been to treat each return population as a special entity in unique experiences. GMELCH concludes by stating that little theory has been applied to return cases, although this also occurs in migration bibliography in general.
In the present study, I use the term migrant to refer to both emigrant, immigrant, refugee and exiled, as Jin does it in his book The Writer As A Migrant, “because this expression covers all those people who move, voluntarily or involuntarilyFrom one country to another ". When referring to the migration action I assume that it consists in abandoning a place with all its environmental, historical, sociocultural and family content to settle elsewhere, with different content: landscape, language, customs, norms ”.
There are recent studies with various methodologies and statistical sources that are contributing to the knowledge of the migrant that currently returns to Mexico. You could say that there are three dimensions of analysis that have been privileged: in knowing the characteristics of the migrant returned nationwide and in some states of the Mexican Republic.
The study of the return in the United States has focused fundamentally on observing it within the country. As it has been a nation with very low international migration indices, their analysis of return resign from their very high tendency to internal mobility: initial movements, return and forward. If in the decades of the seventies and the eighties the studies were global, already in the second half of the nineties they were oriented to more specific issues.
Since the nineteenth century it was recognized that migratory flows often tend to produce ‘counterflujos’ of migration, mostly, returned immigrants. This may be due in part to the fact that, in the past, many returns were given spontaneously and therefore, they were not perceived as an aspect that required the same level of supervision as the cases that implied resettlement and theintegration.
The works on the migration of return in Mexico are very scarce compared to the great flow of works on international migration. Although the amounts of returnees are lower than in other stages (for example, the bracer and undocumented period of 1945 and 1986, respectively), the return has determining implications.
(Lindstrom, 1996), using data at the individual and family level collected in thirteen Mexican communities (three metropolitan areas, such as León, Morelia, Irapuato, five small cities in Guanajuato, Jalisco and Michoacán, and five villages of Nayarit, Jalisco, Michoacán andZacatecas), analyzes the influence of the economic characteristics of the area of origin on the duration of Mexican migrants in the United States.
That is, investment opportunities in the areas of origin of migrants are positively associated with the duration of stay in the United States. However, the author notes that the tendency to family reunification in the United States in those years depended on the fact that the wife and children strengthen economic and social ties in their new environment, which eventually makes it difficult (even if they continue and achieve their goalssavings) return to their communities of origin.
In abroad; b) Share capital, or social networks in both parties, so they consider the authors who are established in the United States, the possibilities of return and contact with the community of origin decrease over time; c) physical or material capital, or the number of properties, land, agricultural plots that it has in its community of origin; d) The economic conditions of the community of origin, where economic diversification and investment possibilities play an important role in the duration of stay abroad; e) Macroeconomic conditions in both countries, where inflation, crisis and devaluation influence returning and investing. This allows us to understand how this migration process is sealed by a constant tension between staying in the dollar country or returning to Mexico.
Return migration continues to be the great chapter for writing in the history of migration. This may be due in part to the fact that, in the past, many returns were given spontaneously and, therefore, they were not registered and were not perceived as an aspect that required the same level of supervision as the cases that involved resettlementand integration. An effective approach to the return of those people who do not have a legitimate basis to remain in a state of destination bases the broader effort made to combat irregular and illegal migration.
When a migrant decides to leave his country of origin there is the possibility of returning. Even in the circularity approach, it is established that at some point in time or point of the migratory circle, the migrant returns to his country of origin. Some studies argue that the decision to return to the place of origin is similar to the one taken at the time of emigrating, that is, ‘the immigration process is restarted in the opposite direction and entered a phase of decision -making’ again ’.
The return and exits are the two sides of the same currency of migration. The factors have varied according to historical stages and according to particularities such as social, political and economic situation, one has prevailed over the other or even balanced. This apparently is the case of flows in recent years.
In The US/Mexico Cycle studio. The End of An was made by Mexicans and America Thinking Together (Matt) it was found that between 2005 and 2010, 1.39 million people migrated from the United States to Mexico;Of that total, 70 percent (985 thousand) corresponds to return migrants and the remaining 30 percent (405 thousand) to members of the family of Mexican migrants born in the United States. . Although the study of return migration represents a challenge in terms of material to consult, due to the shortage of research on this issue, it is possible to find institutional efforts to generate sources of own information.
According to the statistics of the Migration Policy Unit (UPM) of the Ministry of the Interior (Segob), between 2005 and 2010, 1.4 million people returned from the United States to Mexico. Most of them were "returned emigrants", that is, people born in Mexico who had lived in the United States at some point, but who had returned to their country of origin with or without intention of emigrating again. Theoretically and methodologically, the neoclassical vision of human capital continues to dominate;Marxism and neo Marxism are absent, and the analysis of social networks and transnational ties begin to emerge, as well as the neo -institutional perspective.
Traditionally, two types of migratory movements, the departure and the arrival, have been studied, that is, emigration and immigration, but if we consider as an order of mobility that first emigrates from one place to immigrate to another, it is logical to distinguish a thirdtype of movement that would be the return (or back to the initial place of origin at a later time in time). This movement would therefore end a migratory cycle, and exists from the moment there is an initial displacement,.
Leave feedback