An´ alisis modal

Respondents’ journeys back to Mexico were influenced by their return motivations (including degree of agency), resources and ability to prepare. People who were removed from the USA spent time in detention and, as we saw earlier through Roberto’s experience, were commonly moved to various facilities until their arrival on Mexican soil. People who were deported describe arriving in Mexico in a physical state (e.g. handcuffed, wearing dirty clothes, without shoelaces, with no or very little money, without Mexican ID81_{) and emotional} condition that affronted their human dignity. Those who were able to return by their own means, depending on their time and resources, returned either by air or by land. Those who returned by air came back with minimal belongings, and those who travelled by land tended to bring vehicles that had been purchased in the USA and loaded with furniture, work tools, and other goods in the hope that these possessions would help them to establish their ‘new’ lives in Mexico.

During this journey, returnees experienced their first contact with Mexican authorities. As we will learn from Tere’s (H, 48) experience, their reception by authorities is a significant first step which would impact their post-return experience:

Taking the decision was hard, but once we were clear with the idea we got excited about the return. Once we hit the road we were very happy to get to our town. The problem was when we entered Mexico, one feels very negative about returning. I did not like the way they treated us. Despite that we had all our documents in order [they got the authorisation from the consulate to import their household goods and cars], we were requested to pay a ‘fine’ at the border, arguing that we were missing ‘this and that’. They detained us for eight hours trying to rip us off but we did not give them anything, I contacted the people from the consulate and after talking to them [consulate] they [border authorities] let us go. From the border, you realise how the situation is in the country, you just put a foot in here and you start regretting coming back.

As this research aims to contribute to a better understanding of what role the notion of place plays in the (re)integration experiences of returnees, in this section I will briefly identify how this aspect affected the motivations and decisions to return of migrants living in Huaquechula (rural site) and Mexico City (urban site) differently. With regard to participants in Mexico City, there were similar numbers of people under each category of return. When we compare these numbers with those from Huaquechula, we realise that higher numbers

81 _{Participants mentioned that their appearance made them an easy target for stigma and abuse. On the one}

hand, non-migrants identify them as “the criminals who were kicked out from the USA”, on the other, they are seen by authorities, smugglers, taxi drivers and others as easy targets for extortion.

of people in the urban site were removed from the USA and were compelled to return due to structural reasons. In Huaquechula, there is a higher number of people pulled back to Mexico by family circumstances (compelled to return due to personal and gendered life course constraints) and who returned after completing their (financial) project (‘voluntary’ return).

Except in the cases of those returned by force (deportees), returnees’ places of return seem to be related to their motivations. For those who returned due to personal and gendered life course constraints and/or as the end of their project, the majority went ‘home’ to join their families in Huaquechula. This finding is supported by research conducted by Masferrer and Roberts, who tell us that returnees are slightly more likely to be living in extended families in small rural communities located in non-traditional emigration states, such as Puebla (2012). Furthermore, Escobar (2012), and Rivera-Sánchez (2011) argue that returnees keep arriving in their (rural) communities of origin despite the fact that these are considered to be lagging locations. In addition to their need and desire to be with their relatives, their return ‘home’ may also be related to their social networks, cultural attachment, and financial investments undertaken transnationally (e.g. building houses and buying land) (see also BBVA and CONAPO yearbook of migration and remittances 2015:45).

With regard to post-return migration movements, while the number of participants who re-migrated was low, I found four different patterns. The first was that people returned to their place of origin and stayed there with no further movements planned or executed; hence there was no re-migration. The second was that participants returned to their place of origin and later moved to Mexico City; for example, when Moises (MC, 30) was deported he decided to go straight to his ‘hometown’, but later, due to his cousin’s recommendation, he moved to Mexico City looking for a job where he could make use of his English language skills. The third pattern was that people first went to a place other than that where they were originally from, and later moved to their place of origin, either Mexico City or Huaquechula. For example, Sandra (H, 40) returned from the USA with her family to live in Puebla (capital city) in order to probar suerte (try their luck) with their new business. After a year, the business failed and they moved to Huaquechula, the place where Sandra is originally from and the cost of living is more affordable. The fourth pattern is a mixed experience: people first went back to their place of origin, later moved somewhere else and ultimately relocated to Mexico City. For example, Luis (MC, 32) returned to the state of Tamaulipas, where he is originally from, and stayed there for approximately five years. After completing his university

degree, he applied for a Masters and went back to live in the USA for one year and later, following completion of his studies, he decided to re-migrate to Mexico City in search for better employment opportunities. These post-return movements also highlight the fact that geographies of return may also be influenced by life course and structural constraints. Young people, as students and young professionals, may be compelled to return to urban locations such as Mexico City, where they find greater opportunities as well as more openness to their bi-cultural selves than in other locations. Individuals who intend to settle down with their families move to Huaquechula, where they may have established a business or acquired properties (e.g. agricultural land and/or a house) and the cost of living is more affordable.