Buried voices: Mexican migrants’ views on the question of illegality

How do immigrant Mexican workers perceive the policies and social discourses that regulate their insertion into American society as noncitizens and illegals? Using ethnographic fieldwork and in-depth interviews, evidence is presented that unauthorized Mexican migrants do not consider themselves lawbreakers but rather moral actors responding to difficult socioeconomic conditions. Informed by a keen understanding of the social forces oppressing them, these migrants articulate a discourse of social justice that works as a powerful counterpoint to the hegemonic ideas of citizenship, belonging, and illegality. A careful analysis of migrant social reflexivity offers a much-needed corrective to the prevailing top-down perspective typically offered among contemporary scholars. By looking at the ways in which migrants make sense of immigration policies and articulate their right to have rights, this examination departs from the widespread tendency among scholars and policy makers of analyzing the migrant’s social and civic status as a matter of assimilation and immigration control.     

Pork‐Barreling without Reelection? Evidence from the Mexican Congress

Previous research on term‐limited legislators suggests they have few incentives to engage in pork‐barreling. Using the case of Mexico, where all legislators are term‐limited, I find legislators participate in federal budget negotiations despite the lack of a reelection incentive. I argue term‐limited legislators are progressively ambitious and use interventions into the budget process to further their careers. I find legislators elected in single‐member districts submit more budget amendments than those elected through proportional representation, conditional on where they intend to pursue future office. I also find governors and gubernatorial elections influence the submission of budget amendments, which is related to gubernatorial influence over political careers.     

Mexican‐American homicide in phoenix, 1980–1991: A comparative and descriptive analysis

Race and ethnicity has emerged as one of the most important variables in explaining differences in homicide perpetration and victimization patterns in the U.S. Most research on minorities and homicide has tended to focus exclusively on African‐Americans, while excluding other minority groups such as Native Americans, and Latinos. In this study we examine patterns of homicide among Mexican Americans in Phoenix from 1980 through June 1991. These patterns are compared to those displayed by non‐Latino African Americans, and non‐Latino whites in Phoenix for the same time period.     

Old hacks or new blood? The effects of inter-party competition on PRI candidates for the Mexican chamber of deputies, 1997–2000

This study examines the effects of increased inter-party competitiveness at the district level in Mexico between 1997 and 2000 on changes in the characteristics of Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) candidates nominated to run for single-member district seats in the Mexican Chamber of Deputies. Such characteristics indicate the degree to which these candidates are visibly connected to the party and include prior leadership experience in party/sector organisations, administrative positions and elected office, as well as political ties to influential individuals in the party. Decreases in deputy candidate connectedness are hypothesised to occur in 2000 where district-level competitiveness increased in 1997. Where district-level competitiveness is above the mean in 1997, the PRI leadership attempts to counteract this competition by nominating deputy candidates in 2000 who are less visibly connected to the party. As the results of the 2000 election show, a less connected candidate is no guarantee for success at the polls for the PRI. These results suggest only that a successful candidate is more likely to have fewer connections to the party machine than one with more connections to the party.