Aspectos ideológicos del PP

The social dimension concerns how migrants maintain and develop social bonds and bridges, for example relationships with family members, or with non-migrant groups. The majority of participants reported that the most meaningful bonds they had while in the USA were often limited to their household members, composed of their nuclear families, close relatives and/or friends. While often family members were key to achieving their goal of reaching the USA and were extremely supportive during the settlement phase, participants often mentioned experiencing rivalries and facing conflicts soon after their arrival. It is worth highlighting that even though I heard complaints of this nature in both sites, there was a stronger affiliation to family and community amongst migrants originally from the rural site than from the urban site. As an example, Patricia (MC, 38) complained that soon after her arrival and initial settlement, her relatives withdrew their support. She said that often she felt that, through their actions, they were telling her "if I struggled, you have to struggle too", and "the fact that you are ‘getting ahead’, represents a threat to me.” Consequently, participants sought to establish bonds with other ‘Latinos’ outside the household or close groups that participants considered to be more supportive than their fellow conationals. As often ‘Latino’ migrants shared similar experiences due to their undocumented status, they would be empathetic with the newcomers, thereby replacing the support lacking from close household members.

In some other cases (mainly for those who had a good command of English), people also established good relations (bridges) with members of other ethnic groups such as African- Americans or Asians. For example, Nadia (MC, 35) migrated when she was nine years old and lived in a neighbourhood in Los Angeles with a large African-American population; she therefore developed strong friendships outside of the ‘Latino’ community. Particularly in the case of the 1.5 generation, school was a place where they socialised. While some of them, like Charly (MC, 22), decided to “stick to my [their] own people”, some others, like Nadia (MC, 35), “…felt I [she] had to be separated from my [her] own people so I [she] could salir

adelante (get ahead)”. Alternatively, there were cases such as that of Elba (MC, 23) who

went through a phase of “wannabe gringa”, when she thought that by neglecting her Mexican identity she would be able to ‘merge’ with the mainstream ‘white’ group. As we learnt from Luis’ (MC, 32) experience, for many participants their undocumented status represented an additional obstacle while establishing new relationships. Experiencing feelings of shame, worry and/or fear impacted their everyday lives and shaped the way and with whom they

were able to relate. Undocumented status often became an ‘illegal’ identity (Gonzales 2011), impossible to disclose to everyone. Regarding this issue, Damian (MC, 23) said: “Yeah, I had some girlfriends but I never told them about my [undocumented] immigration status, only one knew about it. Actually, very few people knew, this girlfriend, my best friend, and another friend from high school. They were very few, you could count them with one hand.” As Damian highlights, romantic relationships were also a key aspect of interviewees’ lives. As the majority of participants migrated at a young age, almost half of the sample established intimate partner relationships during their time in the USA. Despite their exposure to a great diversity of ethnicities while in the USA, almost all participants chose a Mexican partner either living in the USA or back in Mexico. Some reasons for that were described by Ricardo (MC, 36), “I liked being among people with my same culture, I wanted my children to be raised with Mexican roots.” One of the differences between sites is that those interviewed in Mexico City established more relationships with people who were not originally from their locality. As an example, we have Juan (MC, 53) who married someone from Zacatecas, and Diego (MC, 38) who established two relationships with Mexican- Americans.

Conversely, migrants from Huaquechula commonly engaged in relationships with people originally from el pueblo (their town) who were living in the USA, but also with people living back ‘home’. These relationships were established either while on a break in Mexico or in a long-distance fashion. Interestingly, all the participants who established relationships with people at ‘home’ were men. While there might be several interpretations of this, perhaps the most obvious reason could be that generally men were more likely to cross the border multiple times without documentation, therefore they had more contact with people back ‘home’. Two other reasons mentioned by my participants were that male migrants were very popular amongst women back in the community as they were considered to be a ‘good catch’. Another explanation is that men preferred women from el pueblo as they were typically more conservative than women living in the USA and less ‘empowered’. In the words of Rebeca (H, 33) “women from back ‘home’ are considered as ‘better’. You know, they stay at home, do the chores, have children and do everything that the husband wants, while they [men] also do what they want over there [the USA]. They are more manageable.” Lastly, some participants established relationships with non-Mexicans, the majority being Latin-American, and in a minority of cases with other nationalities such as Filipino, Chinese and Russian.

Interviewees described how their ability to relate to others was limited by their lack of time and language skills. Therefore, in addition to schools, interactions with others took place in work places and locations within their neighbourhoods, such as church or the local laundrette. Locations for socialising and networking would also vary depending on the locality. Interviewees living in ‘new states’ of migration, like Charly (MC, 22), often reported that their lives were more focused on their families and on work colleagues who were often not part of the ‘Latino’ community. Consequently, people living in areas with high numbers of migrants, such as New York or Los Angeles, would more often develop relationships with members of the ‘Latino’ community.

Some participants were more active than others in maintaining their networks in Mexico. Particularly those who left their families behind, and were the main breadwinners of their household, had frequent communication with their networks in Mexico and sent remittances. Conversely, those who migrated at a very young age, were unmarried or did not have children, did not have such a strong attachment to ‘home’ and their communication with networks in Mexico was considerably less frequent. Those participants who had an ongoing ‘project’ back home, either building a house or establishing a business, mentioned being in constant communication with networks in Mexico to monitor their projects’ progress. As communication became easier and more affordable with time, the migration patterns between Mexico and the USA were also modified. For the specific case of Huaquechula, migrants who left in the early years mentioned having problems communicating due to lack of telephones in their communities; in order to talk to them their relatives had to travel approximately 30 kilometres to reach the closest phone. This situation encouraged more return visits to el pueblo in comparison with the urban site. In general, people mentioned being in communication either with close relatives but very few were in touch with friends or members of the wider community. As mentioned earlier, limited time left little room for socialising.

As Elba’s and Luis’ testimonies have shown us, the strength and transformation of participants’ (local and/or transnational) social networks affected their local integration. This, in conjunction with the other multiple changes experienced, often led to participants’ need to question their identity and sense of belonging. In more than one case their social interactions in the new environment led to their need to negotiate and adjust to their new realities, and learn how to become, in the words of my interviewees, “less Mexican and more

American”, “an exemplary migrant”, “a modern woman”, “good father” or “an ‘illegal’ migrant.”