Limited access to migrant networks and strong geographic preferences may underlie border migrants' willingness to settle for lower wages on the border rather than seek higher wages by venturing into the U.S. interior.Immigrants ; Emigration and immigration ; Mexican-American Border Region - Economic conditions ; Wages

Madeline Zavodny

Pia M. Orrenius

English

Research Papers in Economics

SouthwestEconomy    FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS • MAY/JUNE 2008 10
Mexican Migrants Stay 
in Border Comfort Zone
By Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny
As Mexican immigration to the U.S. rose 
sharply between 1980 and 2000, a growing 
number of migrants chose to stay in cities 
along the border rather than travel inland 
for better job opportunities. 
The Mexican-born share of the U.S. 
population in the border region rose from 
about 10 percent in 1980 to more than 15 
percent in 2000, with most of the increase 
taking place in the 1990s. Overall, the 
Mexican-born share of the U.S. population 
in 2000 was just 3.3 percent.
Without the more affluent San Di-
ego, per capita income on the U.S. side 
of the border is $22,302, or 61 percent of 
the national average.1 What factors drive 
Mexican migration into one of the poorest 
regions in the U.S.? Why would Mexican 
migrants pass up more lucrative labor 
markets in the U.S. interior for life on the 
border?  
Most of what we know about Mexican 
migration to the U.S. focuses on migrants’ 
experiences in traditional gateway destina-
tions, including Los Angeles, Chicago and 
Houston. Much less is known about Mexi-
cans who choose to migrate to U.S. border 
cities. Research suggests border migrants 
are very different from interior migrants in 
terms of English fluency, education, occu-
pational distribution and earnings.2
Using data from the Mexican Migra-
tion Project (MMP), a long-running survey 
of Mexican households, we take a fresh 
look at border migrants’ sociodemographic 
characteristics and migration patterns. We 
also consider whether migrants who work 
along the border earn significantly lower 
wages than those who work in the U.S. 
interior and why that might be the case. 
The results suggest that limited access 
to migrant networks and strong geographic 
preferences may underlie border migrants’ 
willingness to settle for lower wages on 
the border rather than seek higher wages 
by venturing into the U.S. interior.
Tracking Mexican Migrants
Since 1982, the MMP has surveyed 
about 200 randomly selected households 
in each of 114 migration-prone Mexican 
communities, gathering basic migra-
tion and demographic information for all 
household members as well as complete 
migration histories for household heads. 
The MMP data, while not representative 
of all Mexican migrants to the U.S., is one 
of the few sources of information on the 
characteristics and time-varying migration 
behavior of undocumented and return mi-
grants from Mexico.3
Our analysis focuses on first and last 
U.S. trips made by males and females ages 
12 and over who migrated to the U.S. for 
work between 1980 and 2005. Survey par-
ticipants reported on many dimensions of 
their migration, including where they were 
in the U.S. and for how long, their oc-
cupation and wage, and their legal status. 
Household heads were also asked about 
their English fluency and family’s migration 
experience. Fourteen percent of all individu-
als surveyed had at least one qualifying trip, 
creating a sample of roughly 17,000 trips.
During the sample period, 7.4 percent 
of trips were to the U.S. border and the re-
mainder were to the U.S. interior. We define 
the following cities as border destinations: 
San Diego; Yuma and Tucson, Ariz.; Las 
Cruces, N.M.; and El Paso, Laredo, McAllen 
and Brownsville, Texas.4 
Top destinations for migrants to the 
U.S. interior were Los Angeles (26.7 per-
cent), Chicago (10.7 percent), Houston (4.5 
percent), Dallas (4.1 percent), California’s 
Orange County (3.6 percent) and Fresno, 
Calif. (3.1 percent).
Between 1989 and 1997, the data show 
a rising share of trips to U.S. border cities 
vis-à-vis the U.S. interior (Chart 1). The 
spike in border migration in 1995 is particu-
larly striking. It coincides with the “Tequila 
Crisis,” the Mexican economic downturn 
Limited access to migrant   
networks and strong   
geographic preferences   
may underlie border   
migrants’ willingness to   
settle for lower wages on 
the border rather than seek 
higher wages by venturing 
into the U.S. interior.     FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS • MAY/JUNE 2008 SouthwestEconomy 11
that saw the peso’s value drop 49 percent 
and gross domestic product (GDP) contract 
7.1 percent in one year. During this time, 
the border was an escape valve for Mexi-
cans hurt by the recession.
The drop-off in border migration after 
1997 is largely an artifact of the MMP data. 
The sample sizes become smaller toward 
the end of the time period as communities 
fall out of the sampling frame. The decline 
is particularly severe for border migrants 
because they’re so few.
Migrant Characteristics
Compared with interior migrants, bor-
der migrants have more years of education, 
tend to come from slightly smaller families 
and are more likely to have been domestic 
migrants, moving within Mexico before de-
ciding to work in the U.S. 
Border migrants are less likely to 
report that they speak no English. They 
typically come from communities with less 
migration experience, so they have a short-
er collective migration history overall and 
access to fewer migrant networks. 
Networks are typically defined as rela-
tives who have migration experience and 
may even live abroad. These connections 
provide information to potential migrants 
about crossing the border and finding em-
ployment and housing in the U.S. Networks 
should matter less to border migrants than 
to interior migrants. Visa requirements 
aren’t as stringent, so it’s easier for Mexican 
newcomers to enter U.S. border cities, and 
Spanish is widely spoken, making informa-
tion more accessible.
Mexican migrants who live along the 
border are much more likely to be from 
northern Mexico, with 53 percent from 
northern nonborder states and 22 percent 
from border states.5 Migrants to the U.S. 
interior, meanwhile, tend to be from central 
and western Mexico and from communities 
with significantly more parent and sibling 
migrant networks.  
The border region likely attracts Mexi-
can migrants who prefer to stay close to 
home, either because they have family in 
the northern Mexican states or because 
they’re unwilling to risk venturing into the 
relative unknown of the U.S. interior. Going 
past border checkpoints into the interior 
requires legally admitted migrants to fill 
out additional forms and illegal entrants to 
circumvent the Border Patrol, which is sta-
tioned along all major roads and highways 
leading to the interior. 
Because the border is a closer and 
safer destination, it may not be surprising 
that females are a disproportionate share 
of migrants to U.S. border cities (Chart 2). 
This trend has also been shaped by the na-
ture of border labor demand. Maquiladoras 
have traditionally relied on a predominantly 
female workforce and have acted as a mag-
net drawing them from all parts of Mexico. 
Female migrants have also found work op-
portunities plentiful along the U.S. side of 
Chart 1
Percent of Migrant Workers Going to Border Cities
(Three-year moving average)
Percent
SOURCE: Mexican Migration Project 114.
0
5
10
15
20
25
2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980
Trip year
Mexico recession
Compared with interior  
migrants, border migrants 
have more years of  
education, tend to come  
from slightly smaller families 
and are more likely to have 
been domestic migrants.SouthwestEconomy    FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS • MAY/JUNE 2008 12
the border in domestic service industries 
and, more recently, retail and hospitality.    
Border migrants are significantly less 
likely to cross into the U.S. illegally. The 
region’s high concentration of Border Patrol 
and other immigration and customs officials 
suggests the area attracts migrants who can 
cross the border legally, such as those who 
have temporary visas, including tourist visas 
or border crossing cards.6
The share of illegal trips has been con-
sistently lower among migrants to border 
cities than migrants to the interior (Chart 3). 
The only exception was when the share of 
illegal immigration to the interior hit a his-
toric low in the immediate aftermath of the 
1986 amnesty—more formally, the Immigra-
tion Reform and Control Act.
Another interesting difference between 
border and interior migration is the busi-
ness cycle’s influence. Border migration is 
much more sensitive than interior migration 
to changes in U.S. and Mexican economic 
conditions. A migration regression analysis 
shows that a 10 percent increase in U.S. 
employment leads to a 15 percent increase 
in migration to border cities relative to inte-
rior destinations. 
In addition to U.S. employment, Mexi-
can GDP and interest rates have a significant 
effect on border migration as well. Relative 
to interior migration, a 1 percent decline in 
Mexican GDP and a 10 percent increase in 
Mexico’s short-term interest rate each lead to 
a 0.4 percent rise in border migration.
Jobs and Pay
The border economy’s characteristics 
help shape the region’s labor demand and 
supply. Despite a high incidence of poverty 
and low education levels, the area has ex-
perienced rapid employment growth. The 
number of jobs has risen an average of 2.3 
percent a year since 1990, compared with 
1.4 percent for the U.S., helping push bor-
der unemployment rates down from double 
Chart 2
Percent of Migrant Workers Who Are Female
(Three-year moving average)
Percent
SOURCE: Mexican Migration Project 114.
2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980
Trip year
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Border city
Nonborder city
to single digits.7 Border unemployment 
reached unprecedented lows in the 2000s.
Since the North American Free Trade 
Agreement’s passage in 1993, border job 
growth has expanded significantly in trans-
portation, government, finance and real 
estate, and retail and wholesale trade. Many 
of the new job opportunities are tied to 
the rise in Mexico–U.S. trade, population 
growth on both sides of the border, and the 
strength and stability of Mexico’s currency. 
A strong peso has sustained a growing 
influx of Mexican shoppers to U.S. border 
retailers since the late 1990s. 
The transformation of the border 
economy has meant a dramatic decline in 
the percentage of workers in agricultural 
occupations and a rise in the fraction of mi-
grants involved in service- and sales-related 
employment. 
The share of border migrants who 
worked in agriculture declined from 60 
percent in 1980 to less than 10 percent in 
2004 (Chart 4). During the same period, 
the fraction working in sales nearly tripled 
to 33 percent. Similarly, the share in service 
occupations more than doubled, rising from 
20 percent in 1980 to over 40 percent in the 
mid-1990s.    
The concentration of migrants who are 
professionals is slightly higher along the 
border than in the interior. An important 
subgroup among Mexican professionals is 
factory owners, managers and executives, 
many of whom likely work in maquiladoras 
Chart 3
Percent of Migrant Workers Illegally Entering the U.S.
(Three-year moving average)
Percent
SOURCE: Mexican Migration Project 114.
2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980
Trip year
Border city
Nonborder city
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90     FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS • MAY/JUNE 2008 SouthwestEconomy 13
in Mexico while living on the U.S. side of 
the border. 
What about pay? Wage regressions 
show border migrants earn 16 percent less 
than interior migrants. The border wage 
penalty appears to be largely related to the 
nature of border labor supply. 
Female migrants in the interior earn 25 
percent less than men with similar charac-
teristics, but on the border, the female wage 
deficit is 41 percent. Some of the earnings 
differential is due to the type of jobs Mexi-
can immigrant women along the border 
tend to hold—nannies, housekeepers and 
retail workers. 
 Illegal immigrants in the interior earn 
about 13 percent less than similar workers 
who cross the border legally, but illegal 
immigrants on the border earn 29 percent 
less. Undocumented workers presumably 
face a border-related wage penalty because 
they have to compete with a large bina-
tional pool of workers who have similar 
skills and backgrounds but can work legally 
in the U.S.   
Wages are significantly higher for 
workers with more years of education, 
although an additional year of education 
is associated with only a 1 percent rise in 
wages. While education is relatively scarce 
on the border, the regression suggests that 
returns to education aren’t higher on the 
border—at least not for Mexican migrants. 
This result could be related to the limited 
transferability of education credentials or 
the low quality of schooling in migrants’ 
origin communities.
In sum, the need for fewer migrant net-
works and a desire for proximity to Mexico 
probably outweigh the wage penalty in 
border migrants’ minds and help account 
for their concentration in these areas. The 
cost of living is also lower along the border, 
which somewhat shrinks the real wage gap 
with the interior.
Orrenius is a senior research economist and advisor 
in the Research Department of the Federal Reserve 
Bank of Dallas and Zavodny is an associate profes-
sor of economics at Georgia’s Agnes Scott College.
Notes
This article is based on research Orrenius and Zavodny 
conducted with Leslie Lukens of the University of Texas at 
Austin. Their article, “Differences Between Mexican Migration 
to the U.S. Border and the Interior: Evidence from Mexican 
Survey Data,” is forthcoming in Labor Market Issues Along 
the U.S.–Mexico Border: Economic and Demographic 
Analyses, ed. Marie T. Mora and Alberto Dávila, University of 
Arizona Press.
1 If San Diego is included, per capita income on the U.S. side 
of the border is $30,904, or 85 percent of the U.S. average.  
2 See “English Skills, Earnings, and the Occupational Sorting 
of Mexican Americans Along the U.S.–Mexico Border,” by 
Alberto Dávila and Marie T. Mora, International Migration 
Review 34, Spring 2000, pp. 133–57.
3 For information and data, see Office of Population Research, 
Princeton University, http://mmp.opr.princeton.edu.
4 Tucson and Las Cruces are not generally considered border 
cities since they are not located adjacent to Mexico. However, 
Chart 4
Percent of Migrant Workers in Agriculture Occupations
(Three-year moving average)
Percent
SOURCE: Mexican Migration Project 114.
2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980
Return year
Border city
Nonborder city
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
they are in counties that are adjacent to the border and, given 
our small sample sizes, we chose to include them as border 
cities.
5 The majority of MMP migrants are from western states, 
including Jalisco, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Colima and 
Aguascalientes—states in a region that has traditionally 
contributed large numbers of migrants to the U.S. The other 
MMP states include Baja California Norte, Chihuahua and 
Nuevo León (border states); Sinaloa, Durango, Nayarit, 
Zacatecas and San Luis Potosí (northern states); and Oaxaca, 
Puebla, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Veracruz and the state of 
México (central states).
6 Being able to cross the border legally does not mean that 
these migrants can work legally in the U.S., although many of 
them work anyway. It is also common to overstay these visas, 
at which point the migrant loses legal status.
7 See “Border Region Makes Progress in the 1990s,” by Eric 
Dittmar and Keith R. Phillips, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 
Vista, December 1999.
The need for fewer migrant 
networks and a desire for 
proximity to Mexico probably 
outweigh the wage penalty  
in border migrants’ minds  
and help account for their  
concentration in these areas.

Mexican migrants stay in border comfort zone

http://dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/swe/2008/swe0803c.pdf

Mexican migrants stay in border comfort zone

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics