North-South Inequalities. Mexican Immigration in the United States’ Labor Market

Throughout the history of the United States, the hardest, most dangerous, lowest-paid, and least socially valued jobs have been performed mainly by those at the bottom of the social scale. For two and a half centuries, people were brought from the African continent and enslaved in the American territory. Starting in 1619, the first African people arrived to work under conditions of slavery. The trafficking of people from that continent constituted a workforce that steadily grew throughout the 17^th and 18^th centuries, and although it was declared illegal in the United States in 1808, it continued clandestinely (Wright, 2008). In 1865, at the end of the Civil War, which led to the abolition of slavery throughout the U. S. territory, another group of people was needed to perform the work that had been assigned to this population. At that point, the coolies, mainly recruited from China, gained prominence. They were voluntary immigrants who worked under conditions of semi-slavery (García, 2006). In 1882, due to pressure from labor unions, among other factors, the entry of people from China and other Asian countries into the United States was restricted (Colectivo Iloé, 2001; García, 2006). The denial of admission to these workers and the United States’ participation in World War I (1914-1918) intensified the mobility of workers that had already been ongoing since the establishment of the border with Mexico. They worked in railroad construction, in Chicago’s small industries, and in agriculture (Verduzco, 1998).

Mexican in United States

Between 1850 and 1924, millions of immigrants arrived from Europe seeking better living conditions. They were primarily people of British, Irish, German, and Italian descent (García, 2006). A large part of this new immigration settled at the lower end of the country’s social and occupational scale and was gradually able to integrate into American society (Caicedo Riascos, 2010). Between 1925 and 1964, once again, pressures from labor unions, among other factors, led to restrictive immigration measures. Nevertheless, people from Puerto Rico and other nations, including Mexico, as well as refugees, continued to arrive in the country.

In 1942, following the United States’ entry into World War II and the resulting labor shortage in the agricultural sector, the Bracero Program was signed with Mexico, through which around 4.6 million people went to work in the neighboring country temporarily, mainly in the states of California, Colorado, Nebraska, and Utah (Verduzco, 1998). The braceros, for the most part, were rural workers with low levels of education. The termination of the Bracero Program, due to the perception that it devalued the wages of native agricultural workers, led to a sharp increase in undocumented immigration (Borjas & Katz, 2005).

Geographic proximity, the amendments to the 1965 Immigration Act, labor demand, economic pressures, and the inability to find a place in the local labor market are some of the factors that have sustained migration flows from Mexico to the United States over time. According to data from the Current Population Survey (CPS, the U. S. employment survey), in 2024 there were 12,679,079 Mexican immigrant individuals and 26,588,446 U. S.-born people who identified themselves as “Mexican American.” Together, they represented 11.7 percent of the total population (African Americans accounted for 13.5 percent and non-Hispanic whites for 75.2 percent). Most of this population is part of the U. S. labor force. Immigrant and Mexican American individuals have higher labor force participation rates than white individuals (67.3 and 61.1 percent, respectively). (box 1).
In the following pages, I will discuss the integration and working conditions of the population of Mexican origin in the United States, compared with white and non-Hispanic Black people, with an emphasis on the young population who, in addition to being the most precarious, faces the greatest barriers to integrating into a society that feels intimidated by the challenges posed by immigration. Kretsos (2010) points out that young people form a “new underclass” characterized as a “precarious generation.” That is, a workforce that enters under highly unfavorable conditions, in low-paying and unprotected jobs.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF IMMIGRATION TO THE ECONOMY
Mexican immigration has several positive impacts on American society from a demographic, economic, and social perspective. Many of the people arriving in the country are young, at ages that contribute to the rejuvenation of the population pyramid (figure 1). Latin American women, and particularly Mexican women, have fertility rates higher than those of white women (Caicedo R., 2012). Immigrants are also mostly young workers with low wages that meet specific market demands. These individuals, in addition to increasing the available workforce, carry human capital and practical knowledge beneficial to the economy. A report by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC, 2019) indicated that 38 percent of the labor demand in the United States recorded between 2000 and 2015 was met by Latin American immigrants, among whom Mexicans and Central Americans accounted for more than 80 percent. Immigration, in addition to contributing cultural wealth, leads to the formation of new generations of people with political rights and greater possibilities of influencing the strengthening of a multicultural society.

JOB PLACEMENT
Three aspects have characterized the labor market integration of Mexican people in the United States: occupational segregation, low wages, and precarious working conditions. Regarding the first aspect, high occupational segregation, immigrants generally perform jobs that are very different from those held by white people. Likewise, men and women are employed in three occupations with gender-specific classifications. 44 percent of Mexican immigrants and 24.7 percent of Mexican Americans are employed in occupations related to construction, extraction, and production, among others of this type, compared to 18.3 percent of white people (table 1). The second aspect is low wage levels: as a result of this occupational concentration, low levels of education and unfair treatment by the market, Mexican and Mexican American immigrants earn significantly lower wages than white people (Caicedo Riascos, 2010). On average, a Mexican immigrant earns about 60 percent of the annual salary of a non-Hispanic white person.

The third aspect is the highly precarious conditions under which they perform their work: many of the jobs occupied by Mexican immigrants are unstable, unprotected, and, in some cases, part-time.

In 1999, the International Labour Organization (ILO) introduced the concept of “decent work” to account for what it means to have a job under conditions of human dignity in the context of economic restructuring that transformed the nature of work, made the labor market more flexible, and deregulated contractual relationships. These transformations created a large mass of unstable, low-paid, unprotected workers with little or no ability to negotiate with capital. Therefore, decent work is that which is sufficient in both quantity and quality. It encompasses an economic dimension related to access to employment and fair wages, a security dimension related to social protection, a normative dimension referring to workers’ rights, and a participation dimension that involves social dialogue. Approximately 27 percent of immigrants work with a deficit of decent work, compared to 19 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 21 percent of African Americans.

THREE ASPECTS HAVE CHARACTERIZED THE LABOR MARKET INTEGRATION OF MEXICAN PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES: OCCUPATIONAL SEGREGATION, LOW WAGES, AND PRECARIOUS WORKING CONDITIONS

But among all working people, young Afro-descendants and immigrants (between 16 and 24 years old) are the ones facing the worst situation in the labor market. It has been argued that the conditions for Black people are partly due to the characteristics of the local labor market: its low growth, economic recessions, the racism and discrimination they face, the unattractive nature of the work performed, involvement in liturgical activities, and the willingness to accept low-wage jobs (Freeman & Holzer, 2008). In the case of Mexican immigrants, factors such as low educational attainment and limited English proficiency compared to other immigrants could be added. Furthermore, although it has been widely documented that individual characteristics are determinants of job placement and wages (Caicedo Riascos, 2010), job erosion is also due to the fact that the market does not offer quality employment. The restructuring of the economy not only made working conditions more precarious but also increased unemployment levels, particularly among less-skilled populations such as African Americans and Hispanics, as it fragmented and moved many manufacturing jobs to other developing countries, where production costs were lower (Sassen, 1997). This transformation not only took jobs away from thousands of working-class families but also made it more difficult to achieve the living standards of the American middle class.

Currently, African American and Mexican American populations are among those with the highest unemployment rates (6.9 and 5.4 percent, respectively) and well above the unemployment rates of white people (3.1 percent). When looking at the distribution of unemployment among the young population, the rates rise to 14.5 percent for young Black people and 9.2 percent for Mexican Americans. Although young Mexican immigrant individuals have lower unemployment rates than their white peers, they make up the highest percentage of the economically active population (EAP) living below the poverty line (13.8 percent). Part-time work for economic reasons refers to all individuals who work less than 35 hours per week, need more hours of work, and are available to work full-time, but cannot do so for “market reasons:” because they work piecework, because the material ran out, due to plant or equipment repairs, because their employment contract was starting or ending during that week, or because they had not been able to find full-time employment. In general, Mexican immigrants constitute the highest percentage of those who need to work full-time but cannot do so due to market reasons or reasons beyond their control (6.2 percent), compared with non-Hispanic whites (two percent). Among young people, Mexican Americans are the ones most experiencing this situation (seven percent).

Wage differences between ethnic groups are also notable: young people are the worst paid. While the median annual salary for non-Hispanic whites is 58 thousand dollars, that of a young person from the same ethnic group is 22 thousand. Although young Mexican immigrants seem to be the best paid among all young people, they are the most unprotected in the labor market: 68.7 percent work without health coverage paid by their own employment or another employer-provided plan. While the percentage of young white people in this situation is also high (40.6 percent), they are the ones with the greatest protection in the market. The absence of a pension and retirement plan is high for all working people. About 66 percent of non-Hispanic white workers are not enrolled in a retirement program, and the situation becomes much more chaotic for Mexican immigrants, particularly young ones.

Mexicans in United States

FINAL THOUGHTS
Given the data described, it is unavoidable to ask ourselves: what is the future of Mexican immigrants and all ethnic groups that are clearly at a disadvantage in the labor market? Will young people from ethnic minorities be able to reach the standard of living of the American middle class? To answer these questions, we must reflect on two aspects that, in my view, are central: a) how the economy and the labor market contribute to the rejection of immigration, and b) who immigrants are and what they represent for the majority of American society.

Labor is a central component in human life; it is the mechanism through which individuals integrate into society. Immigrants who arrived in the United States between the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century found an industrial society capable of absorbing a workforce that, over time, achieved upward social mobility. The new immigrants (who arrived from 1965 onward) encountered an economy in transition and a more flexible labor market that made stable and protected employment disappear for many. This has made it practically impossible for the dream of being part of American society to be achieved even by U. S. citizens themselves. Therefore, it invites us to try to analyze how the economic model and the labor world in which we live increasingly make the vast majority more vulnerable and to stop holding immigrant people responsible for the vicissitudes of the economy.

In general, countries with high levels of immigration resort to deporting certain immigrants as a way to address the social demands inherent to the phenomenon. This approach also seems to provide a temporary solution to the concerns of those who feel threatened by immigrants who “compete” for their jobs. This has been done in times of crisis such as the Great Depression (Massey, Durand & Nolan, 2002) and the financial crisis of 2008 (Durand, 2013), to name a few. The Mexican workforce has proven indispensable and functional to the ebbs and flows of the U. S. economy. It is a labor force that is available to be hired and can be let go at any time without major repercussions. For this reason, it is easier to increase deportations in critical moments than to invest in a long process of social and economic integration. Most immigrants are hardworking people who could not find a place in the labor market of their country; it is not simply a matter of a versatile workforce, but of individuals with aspirations and families who see migration as a chance to achieve better living conditions. If workers were not required according to market needs, and if there were no structural pressures in sending countries pushing people to leave their places of origin, there would be no such flow of migrants. In other words, as long as such deep inequalities exist between the North and the South, migration will continue to flow towards those countries where people can find better opportunities in life.

This suggests working on two fronts: on one hand, promoting the socioeconomic integration of immigrants into host societies, and on the other, approaching the migration phenomenon not as a problem but as a global or, at least, regional issue that offers opportunities for collaboration between nations.

---