Areas of origin of movements to the USA

Migration from Chiapas to the USA is a recent migratory process; it was very low throughout the 20^th century. However, in 2002 it began a rapid increase, which reached its peak in 2006, when it became the highest flow to the USA in the entire country, and then registered a continuous decrease in the volume of migrants, as in the rest of the Mexican states (see Table 1). In Chiapas, the social networks that facilitate movement are not yet fully structured, as they are in other states of the country with a greater migratory tradition.

In the period of analysis, 2009-2016, the flow of people from Chiapas to the USA decreased considerably, from 47.8 thousand people in 2009 to 3.6 thousand in 2016 (see Table 1), which implied a reduction of -13.2% annually, in a national context of a generalized decrease of Mexicans to the northern country (in the same period the total volume registered a reduction of -12.6% annually).

In terms of the areas of origin, three economic regions of Chiapas stand out as those with the highest emigration. Two of them, Soconusco and Sierra Mariscal, are in the extreme southeast of the state, on the border with Guatemala. The third region, Altos Tsotsil Tzeltal, is in the center of the state (see Figure 1). In 2009, these three regions accounted for 56.1% of the total flow, 62.6% in 2012, and 59.6% in 2016. Some municipalities in these regions stood out for their considerable volume of migrants to the USA: in the Soconusco region, Tapachula stood out; in the Sierra Mariscal region, it was Motozintla and Frontera Comalapa; and in the Central region, San Cristóbal de las Casas and Chamula. In 2012 and 2016, these municipalities accounted for more than a third of the total volume of Chiapas residents moving to the USA (see Figure 1).

Source: created by the author based on information on the flow of migrants from the south to the USA (^{El Colegio de la Frontera Norte et al., 2019})

Figure 1 Migrants from Chiapas to the United States of America, by socioeconomic region of origin, 2006-2016 

Three aspects stand out concerning the distribution of migrants from Chiapas in 2006 (before the 2008 US economic crisis). 1) The three regions above also stood out, although together, they accounted for a smaller proportion of the total outflow (43.5%), indicating that the areas of origin of migrants to the USA were less concentrated. 2) The De los Bosques region (northwest of the Tsotsil Tzeltal Highlands) likewise was the origin of a significant flow to the USA (12.3 thousand migrants, 10.4% in that year), but in the following years it was considerably reduced (in 2016 only 143 people were registered). 3) The Meseta Comiteca Tojolobal region (bordering Guatemala) did not stand out for the volume of migrants it registered in 2006. However, it did in the following years (in 2006, it accounted for 3.4%, in 2012 to 14.0% of the total volume). In this region, the municipality of Las Margaritas stands out (see Figure 1).

The profile of migrants from Chiapas to the USA for labor reasons has changed in recent years. In the first place, the flow continues to be mostly male, and the participation of women, although it has increased in recent years, continues to be low (in 2009, 5.7% of the total flow were women, and in 2016 the percentage was 12.9%). In Chiapas, this gender composition is markedly unequal, considering that in 2016, of the total flow of Mexicans to the USA, 30.3% was composed of women (^{El Colegio de la Frontera Norte et al., 2020}).

Regarding age composition, migrants from Chiapas are predominantly young (in 2009, 67.60% were under 30 years old; nationally, the percentage was 43.8%), although, in recent years, this proportion has decreased (in 2016, it was 59.0%). The share of the population aged 50 and over is also increasing. The average age of migrants from Chiapas increased from 27.4 to 31.6 years between 2009 and 2016 (see Table 2).

Regarding the participation of the indigenous population in the movements to the USA in 2006, more than half of the migrants (55.6%) were people who spoke an indigenous language. Nevertheless, in the following years, that proportion first dropped drastically (in 2009 to only 14.2%) and subsequently increased markedly (in 2016, it reached 42.5%; see Table 2). Although Chiapas is one of the states with the highest proportion of indigenous population in the country (in 2010, 27.3% of its population spoke an indigenous language), in some years, its participation in outflows to the USA has been above the state average.

Regarding schooling, it is generally low. In 2016 only 63.5% had primary education. However, the population with no schooling has been significantly reduced. In 2006 it was 23.1%, while in 2016, it decreased to 7.1%. The population with professional studies increased to 5.8% in 2016. In previous years this proportion was much lower (in 2009, only 0.5% reported these school levels; see Table 2).

Regarding labor characteristics, during the period under analysis, most migrants were part of the employed economically active population (EAP). In 2009, 87.3% were employed in their place of origin; only 2.5% did not have a job, despite having looked for one. In addition, 10.1% were part of the economically inactive population (EIP), of which 4.4% were students, engaged in household chores, or retired.

This composition was modified by 2016 when the employed EAP decreased to 69.6%, the unemployed EAP increased to 10.1%, and the EIP increased to 20.2% (see Table 3). Thus, migration from Chiapas to the USA has recently incorporated sectors of the population that did not have jobs in their place of origin. These labor characteristics can also be recognized at the national level, although more evidently. For example, in 2016, the proportion of EIP comprised 49.7% of all Mexican migrants to the USA, unemployed EAP was 18.0% and employed EAP comprised only 32.2% (^{El Colegio de la Frontera Norte et al., 2020}).

Agricultural activities remain the most important economic occupation of migrants from Chiapas in their place of origin. In 2016, this category comprised 71.3% of the employed EAP, a proportion that, although reduced (in 2006, it was 80.7%), continues to define the labor characteristics of the flows to the USA. In second place was the service sector, with 16.5%, a proportion that increased compared to that registered in 2009 (7.1%). In addition, the construction sector, with 9.8%, is a proportion that has also decreased (see Table 3). In comparison, at the national level, the agricultural sector only represented 31.9% of the total volume, while 32.9% worked in service sector activities (^{El Colegio de la Frontera Norte et al., 2020}).

Within the service sector, most migrants from Chiapas worked in transportation (6.9% in 2016; basically drivers), food preparation (5.9%), repair, maintenance, personal services, and as domestic employees (2.9%; see Table 3). Low-level and low-paying jobs do not require high school qualifications.

Border-crossing areas of the Chiapas migration flow

The flow of people from Chiapas to the USA has been an undocumented process; until 2012, only a minimal proportion (2.1%) reported having migratory documents to enter the USA. In 2016, although this sector increased to 15.7% (11.9% reported having a passport with a tourist visa), it remained a minor proportion. This figure contrasts with the situation registered by the rest of the flow of Mexicans heading to the USA, as 64.3% (^{El Colegio de la Frontera Norte et al., 2020}) had some migratory document to enter the northern country in 2016. Most migrants from Chiapas cross into the USA through border cities in the state of Sonora, which in 2009 accounted for 89.0% of the flow. In second place, they prefer the cities of Chihuahua (4.9%) and Baja California (4.1%), and very few did so through Tamaulipas or Coahuila.

By 2016, certain cities in Sonora continued to be the main entry route, although they accounted for a smaller proportion (77.2%); this change increased the flow through cities in other states, mainly those in Chihuahua (8.6%) and Baja California (6.6%). In addition, there was an increase in the flow of people from Chiapas arriving in the USA through the cities of Tamaulipas (to 5.3%; see Table 4), as it was previously a route that was practically not used. The main reason for deciding on the route to the USA was the ease of crossing (in 2009, it comprised 89.6% of the total). By 2016, this continued to be the main reason, but with a lower proportion (64.1%) and migrants who let guides (“coyotes”) decide the location of the border crossing increased (19.2%). These proportions differ from those of 2006 (the year with the highest flow of people from Chiapas headed to the USA), when the main route for border crossing was the decision of the “coyote” (64.3%) and a lower proportion (27.8%) for the ease of crossing (see Table 4).

Most people from Chiapas traveled alone. In 2016 it was 65.2%, which implies that the remaining 34.8% traveled accompanied. Although these proportions registered small variations in 2009, what did change was the number of companions during the trip; in these years, the number of people who traveled in groups to the USA was reduced. In 2009, 10.2 % of migrants traveled in the company of five or more people; by 2016, this proportion had decreased to 2.5%.⁷

Likewise, the proportion of people from Chiapas who hired a guide (“coyote” or “pollero”) to cross has changed. In 2009 the figure was 67.5%, but in 2016 it decreased to 39.8%, meaning that 60.2% made the trip without help. In addition, regarding the place where the contact with the guide was made, in 2009, 46.1% had not yet made the deal, another 29.6% hired help in the border crossing city, and 17.5% in the place where they lived. By 2016, this distribution was altered: 29.4% contacted the guide on the trip to the border city, 20.5% in the USA, 20.7% had not yet done so, and 18.5% did so in the border crossing city (see Table 5).

The difference concerning 2006, when 70.2% of people from Chiapas made contact from their place of origin, stands out. The cost of travel to the USA increased 2.3 times over the period. In 2009, an average of 1 865 dollars was paid, with a little more than half, 51.5%, paying between one thousand and two thousand dollars, and another 42.5% paying between two thousand and three thousand dollars. In 2016, on the other hand, the average cost increased to 4 418 dollars, and 60.0% paid more than four thousand dollars.

Destinations of people from Chiapas in the USA

The places where people from Chiapas move to in the USA have also changed. In 2009 they went mainly to California (20.6%), Florida (17.0%), and Arizona (14.7%). Other significant destinations were Georgia (3.3%) and North Carolina (3.0%; see Figure 2). By 2016, the top three destinations reduced their share, California to 12.7%, Arizona to 13.5%, and Florida with the largest decrease, to 6.6%. Texas (with 7.3%) and Kansas (with 5.3%) were added that year. Georgia remained a secondary destination (with 4.3% of the flow), but North Carolina no longer registered migrants from Chiapas (see Figure 3).⁸

Source: calculations by the author based on information from ^{El Colegio de la Frontera Norte et al., 2019}

Figure 2 Border crossing state and state of destination in the United States of migrants from Chiapas, 2006 and 2009 

Source: calculations by the author based on information from ^{El Colegio de la Frontera Norte et al., 2019}

Figure 3 Border crossing state and state of destination in the United States of migrants from Chiapas, 2009 and 2016. 

Moreover, when considering the total number of states to which migrants from Chiapas have gone, between 2006 and 2012, the flow tended to disperse. In 2006 they were distributed in 18 states, in 2009, in 29, and in 2012 in 40 (although 16 received less than 100 migrants). However, in 2016, this dispersion contracted, as they only went to sixteen states (only 8 received more than 100 migrants from Chiapas; see Figures 2 and 3). It should also be noted that the proportion of migrants who do not have a clearly identified destination in the USA has increased. In 2006 it comprised only 5.7% of the total flow; in 2009, it rose to 26.5%, and in 2016 to 35.5% (see Table 6).

This information is complemented by the proportion of migrants who have a fixed place of arrival at their destination. In 2006 it comprised 92.8%, but in 2009 it dropped to 64.9% and in 2016 to 58.2% (see Table 6). In addition, although the proportion of migrants who already have a secure job at their destination has increased (from 1.7% in 2006 to 16.1% in 2016), migrants who move to look for work in the USA continue to predominate (from 81.4% in 2006 to 53.6% in 2016; see Table 6).

Regarding the economic sector in which they plan to work in the USA, agricultural and livestock activities continue to be the main economic sector, although in recent years it has decreased (in 2006 it comprised 60.2%, 30.8% in 2009, and 13.4% in 2016). The second sector is construction (in 2009, it comprised 13.3% and 18.6% in 2016). However, in 2016 nearly half of the migrants from Chiapas (47.7%) contemplated working in any economic sector (see Table 6).

Considering the expectation of permanence in the USA, most migrants from Chiapas stated that their stay would be for as long as they could (in 2016, the figure comprised 66.0% of the total). The proportion migrating to work in the USA for less than a year was low (6.6% in that same year, although it increased in previous years), and 19.3% sought to stay a year or more. These values differ from the length of stay expectations of the rest of the Mexican flow to the USA, mainly among those seeking to stay less than one year (26.3%) and one year or more (12.3%; ^{El Colegio de la Frontera Norte et al., 2020}). People from Chiapas will try to stay in the USA longer than other Mexicans.

Throughout the period under analysis, the total flow of Mexican migrants returned by the immigration authorities of the United States increased notably as these authorities implemented an efficient surveillance strategy along the southern border of the United States. This strategy allowed them to identify undocumented migrants, detain them, and deport them (see Table 1). This was also the case for migrants from Chiapas, although with some variations. Thus, in 2006, the number of people from Chiapas returned by the migration authorities was slightly more than a quarter (26.9%); by 2009, it had increased to 66.0%. However, by 2012 it had decreased to 28.0% (in that year, the volume of people from Chiapas heading to the USA increased and was the main outflow at the national level), but by 2016 the volume of returned migrants from Chiapas had doubled (206.3%), as occurred at the national level, although by 2014 it had already surpassed the number of migrants heading to the USA (see Table 7).

In this context, most people from Chiapas were detained before reaching their destination. In 2016 about half (49.4%) were caught in the desert or mountain, another quarter (26.7%) crossing the border, and another significant proportion on the street or highway (12.2%). In comparison, in 2009, the majority (78.4%) were arrested in the desert or mountains. In general, these figures contrast with what occurred in 2006, when the identification of undocumented migrants took place in other circumstances (40.9% occurred in a place other than those considered in the survey and 23.4% on the street or highway; see Table 7).

Regarding the length of stay in US territory, it is noteworthy that most migrants stay a short time, less than a week, before being detained. In 2009 the figure was 92.5%, and in 2016 it decreased to 70.4%, and the proportion of migrants who managed to stay more than a week but less than a month (in 2016 it was 10.5%) and those who managed to stay more than a month, but less than a year (9.1%; see Table 7) had increased. Faced with the authorities’ operations in the United States, Mexican migrants have generated strategies that enable them to stay longer in the USA, which implies longer and more dangerous access routes. In terms of the number of times migrants have been captured in the USA, the flow from Chiapas to the USA has changed. First, the number of migrants crossing the border for the first time has been reduced; in 2006, it represented 91.3% and 56.3% in 2016.

At the same time, the proportion of those who have been deported has increased. Since 2012 the proportion of people from Chiapas who have been detained once comprised one-fifth (20.8%), and increasing proportions reported having two (9.7% in 2016) or more deportations (7.3%; see Table 7)⁹

The effects of migration to the USA: family remittances in Chiapas

There was a marked decrease in the receipt of remittances between 2006 and 2009, from $940.8 million in 2006 (the maximum amount sent to Chiapas and coinciding with the year with the highest flow of people from Chiapas to the USA) to $609.7 million in 2009. After that, between 2009 and 2012, the volume of remittances fluctuated slightly. In the following two years, it decreased again. In 2013 the lowest volume of remittances was registered (with 501.8 million dollars), but from 2015 onwards, a recovery began, with an increase in remittances. In 2018, the volume of remittances was similar to that received ten years earlier (see Figure 4).

Source: ^{Sistema de Información Económica, 2019a}.

Figure 4 Receipt of family remittances in Chiapas, 2006-2018 

On the other hand, although in some years, Chiapas occupied first place nationally for the flow of migrants to the USA, this situation has not been reflected in the amounts of family remittances received in the state. Chiapas has never been among the main receiving states. In 2006 and 2009, it ranked eleventh, with a very low amount compared to Michoacán or Guanajuato, states with a long tradition of migrating to the USA. In 2013, Chiapas ranked thirteenth; in 2016, it dropped to twentieth. On analyzing the distribution of family remittance receipt in the interior of Chiapas, it can be linked to the places of origin of migrants to the USA. It should be noted that since 2013, Banco de México has presented for the first time disaggregated information at the municipal level on the receipt of family remittances throughout the country, which is why this topic is limited to the period between 2013 and 2016.

The socioeconomic regions that stand out for receiving the highest volumes of remittances also sent the most migrants to the USA. However, this relationship is not entirely direct. For example, the Soconusco region received USD 517.8 million in remittances in four years, almost double that of the Sierra Mariscal region (USD $273.7 million).

However, between 2009 and 2016, the number of migrants from the Sierra Mariscal region to the USA (41.0 thousand people, the largest number of migrants in Chiapas) was higher than that from the Soconusco region (34.4 thousand). The Soconusco, Sierra Mariscal, and Meseta Comiteca Tojolobal regions together accounted for 50.2% of remittances received by the state (see Figure 5).

The other region that stands out is the Altos Tsotsil Tzeltal, with 11.1% of the state’s total.

The four regions that receive the lowest volumes of family remittances are in the center and north of the state, accounting for 3.2% of the total. For its part, the Mayan region registers a particular situation; it was the region that registered the lowest flow of migrants to the USA (only 1.7 thousand) between 2009 and 2016 and was the only one that recorded a decrease in remittances (-10.1% annually between 2013 and 2016). However, due to the volume of remittances received (4.1%), it ranks above other regions with higher flows of migrants to the USA.

Source: created by the author based on information from ^{Sistema de Información Económica (2019b)} and ^{El Colegio de la Frontera Norte et al. (2019)}

Figure 5 Receipt of family remittances in Chiapas, 2013-2016, and migrants that headed to the United States of America, 2009-2016, by socioeconomic region