Collision of Cultures:Integration of Mexican Immigrants into Society

It is sovereign right of every nation-state to control its borders. This includes the development and enforcement of policies that regulate the flow of persons coming into as well as leaving the country. Theoretically, a wide range of possible responses can be envisioned, from a completely open border where people enter and exit at will to a completely closed border where no one is allowed to enter or leave. In between these extremes, numerous alternatives can be envisioned, such as permitting a particular racial group, religious group, or nationality to immigrate while excluding others.

Likewise, nation-states can take various stances regarding the social, cultural, structural, economic, and political integratio of immigrants. Again, a wide range of responses is possible. One country, for example, may attempt immediately and very systematically to integrate immigrants, while another may formally exclude immigrants from ever becoming part of the nations fabric--for example, by excluding them from the schools, prohibiting intermarriage, excluding them from the political process, and so forth.

The United States has responded with various policies regarding both immigration and integration. Historically, this country has moved from an open border to a practice closely regulating our borders and in some cases to excluding various groups--for example, Chinese, Japanese, and other nationalities. In short, we have not had a consistent policy on immigration. Nor have we had a consistent policy on the integration of immigrants (and Native Americans). We have moved about among the possible policies in a way that appears almost random. I some periods and for certain groups, the United States has made great efforts to incorporate immigrants into the national culture, political system, economic structure, ad so forth. For example, the country focused much attention on southern and eastern European immigrants at the turn of the century in an attempt to bring them into the melting pot or to Americanize them (Gordon 1964). At the same time, the country enacted and carried out legislation to systematically segregates and thus exclude black slaves, for example, from becoming part of the national life. This history of discrimination is well documented and does not need to be restated here. It suffices to say that our policies have varied historically with different nationalists, races, and religions. We must recall our history because, although laws and policies have changed, many of the erroneous perceptions that led to the enactment and enforcement of discriminatory laws are still held by man y people. Japanese immigrants may no longer be perceived as a threat, but other nationalities are-for example, Mexicans. It should also be recognized that historically our policies have not been applied in a consistent manner to an high immigrant group, i.e., Japanese immigrants were first welcomed, later they were completely excluded, and today they are again welcomed into the United States.

In the case of Latin Americans in general and Mexicans in particular, the United States has done very little to encourage legal immigration or to integrate immigrants from these countries, with perhaps the exception of Cubans. The integration of Cuban immigrants, particularly into the economic system, was facilitated by the federally funded Cuban Refugee Program of the early 1960s, as well as by the support of private charitable organizations. A recent decision by the Department of Justice will assist in the political integration of the most recent wave of Cuban immigrants, the Marielitos, by allowing Cubans who came to the United States between April and October 1980 access to the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966. These Cubans will be allowed to apply up to thirty months of their time spent in the United States prior to their filing a residency application towards the five-year legal residency required for citizenship. It is also important to recall that in 1980 the U.S. National Guard and the Border Patrol were called to Florida to assist in the processing of the Marielitos. These are positive steps toward integration as opposed to Border Patrol agents along the United States-Mexican border who are there to apprehend and deport people.

The federal government also made very concerted and systematic efforts to integrate Asian refugees, specifically Vietnamese, during the seventies. Whether these programs have worked is not our concern in this paper; the point is that the government played an important role in the effort to bring Vietnamese immigrants into mainstream American; Ife. Such has ever been the case with Central American or Mexican immigrants.

In this section I will report on a study that examines one measure of sociopolitical integration--naturalization. It is commonly agreed that naturalization represents a significant level of integration into the social, economic, structural, and economic life of the host country. One study focuses specifically on naturalization and the Mexican immigration experience. It is, however, an important statement on the integration of Mexican and Central American immigrants into America society, By integration we simply mean the full incorporation of immigrants into American society at every level--economic, political, social, educational, and so forth. It is my contention that immigrants can be fully integrated into American society and still retains their ethnic identities. This study, to be sure, does not address the issue of acculturation, nor do we intend to debate the historic American tension between assimilation and pluralism, the melting pot versus the mosaic. We do not except to resolve the debate between ethnic identity and civic identity. We begin with the assumption that a democratic nation-state, the United States in this case, would benefit by addressing the issue of the integration of immigrants into society. The maintenance of marginal classes runs counter to a democratic philosophy and in the long run, may prove to be quite destructive to that society.

Naturalization, to be sure, is but one symbolic example of the no integration of Mexican immigrants into American society. It is an important measure, nonetheless, because of the power of the vote in this society. However, there are many other measures that one could use, for example, level of education, income, occupation, etc., to address the issue of integration. Unfortunately, since the ethnic movements of the 1960s, few scholars have been willing to study this concept and the consequences of nonintegration for fear of being labeled assimilations. Not addressing this issue, however, serves only to perpetuate marginality and second class status for many groups in our society.

Context Of The Problem

Although every immigrant admitted to the United States for permanent residence is a potential candidate for naturalization (full fledged citizenship), immigrants of different nationalities naturalize at varying rates. A study conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service during 1973 found that about 25 percent of those admitted for permanent residence between 1960 and 1965 had become naturalized. The variation, however, among nationalities was very large; the highest rate was among Romanians with over 70 percent compared to a low of les than three percent among Mexicans (Interagency Task Force on Immigration Policy, 1979).

Our own investigations of immigration and naturalization have also led us to conclude that Mexican immigrants have a very low rate of neutralization when compare to other immigrant ethnic groups. For example, the following figures comparing the number of admissions in fiscal year 1971 with the number of naturalizations for fiscal year 1976 (since a "permanent resident alien" generally becomes eligible for naturalization five years after immigration) indicated that Mexicans have a very low rate of naturalization as compared to both European and Asians: (See TABLE1 on following page.)

Clearly, Europeans and Asians are more likely to become U.S. citizens than Mexican nationals are. Looking at figures for another years, we found a similar pattern. From 1968 to 1976, only about 5.5 percent of the Mexican immigrants admitted between 1956 and 1964 had gone through the naturalizations process, compared to roughly 38 percent of non-Mexican immigrants for the same period. Data from even more recent years indicate that the pattern has not changed.

Although very little has been written on the naturalization of Mexican immigrants (only three published articles were located), the pattern of refraining from American citizenship seems to be historical. Walker (1928) descried the differential naturalization rates as early as 1928. She found that out of 934 persons who went through naturalization between 1926 and 1928 in three southern California counties, (Los, Angeles, Orange, and Riverside), only five were Mexican, yet the greatest proportion of southern California's foreign-born population was (and continues to be) Mexican. Grebler (1966) reported variances of 2.4 to 5 percent for Mexicans and 27 to 33 percent for all other immigrants during the period from 1959 to 1965. A later research project (Orozco 1978) traced rates of naturalization for various immigrant groups from 1968 to 1976. Annual rates of naturalization for Mexican immigrants varied from 3.9 to 5.9 percent as compared with 30.2 to 50.6 percent for non-Mexican persons. Similar low levels of naturalization among Mexican immigrants have been noted in passing by several Chicago historians (including Acuna 1972; Camarillo 1979; Garcia 1984; Romo 1975).

The Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) shows that, for 1977, Mexican nationals constituted only a single percent of those securing naturalization is fiscal year 1977, although they comprised over 21 percent of all permanent resident aliens filing alien registration cards that year. Non-Mexican immigrants, generally, are five times as likely to become naturalized as those from Mexico. Stated another way, in any given year, there are 133 permanent resident aliens from Mexico registering with INS for every one becoming naturalized. Similarly low levels can be documented using data from the most current annual reports of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Two more current studies report similar patterns. Using data from a random, national sample of individuals of Mexican origin or descent (the 1979 Chicano Survey, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan), Garcia (1981) found that only 14 percent of the Mexican-born respondents had become naturalized. Baca and Bryan (1980) report on a large survey (over 1,400 respondent) of undocumented (illegal) Mexican immigrants. They found that, if given the choice, only 15 percent of this subpopulation indicated that they would become U.S. citizens. The great majority, 77 percent, said that they would prefer permanent resident status over citizenship.

Not only is the naturalization rate for Mexicans lower than for other groups; it seems that Mexican immigrants show a pronounced tendency to duly naturalization in comparison to other immigrants. Grebler (1966) reports, for example, that more than 73 percent of the Mexican immigrants naturalized in 1965 had resided in the United States ten years or longer, as compared to less than 30 percent of all immigrants obtaining citizenship that year. Also, over 33 percent entered the United States before 1940 compared to only 6.5 percent of all persons naturalized. The figures for earlier years demonstrate a similar pattern of delaying cities ship, as do those for more recent years. In 1977, for example, about one-fifth of all new citizens had immigrated before 1965 compared to over half of the Mexican nationals. Of the 9,307 Mexicans how became citizens during the year sending September 30, 1980, fully 61 percent had entered the United States (as legal residents) prior to 1968 compared to only 8 percent of Africans, 37 percent of Europeans, 7 percent of Asians, 22 percent of North Americans (excluding Mexicans) and 30 percent of South Americans. As Grebler (1966, 28) states:

[H]opes to return to the homeland, possibly with savings to enjoy a better life in Mexico, can persist for a long time--long beyond the period prescribed for eligibility for naturalization.

Proximity to Country of Origin

In many ways, Mexican immigrants are unlike other immigrant groups. Cardenas and Flores (1977), among others, contend that the history of Mexican migration to the United States is predominantly temporary labor migration. This perspective suggests that historically, Mexicanos have immigrated primarily as temporary workers and only secondly as potent till long term citizens, unlike other groups who initially also immigrated for labor/economic reasons. Another striking difference, say, between European or Asian immigrants and Mexican immigrants is the fact that Mexico and the United States share a common border that is relatively easy to cross, whereas Asians and Europeans must across vast areas of water, making it more difficult to move back and forth. Surely, proximity to mother country is a contributing factor in the low rates of naturalization among Mexicans. However, data from INS Annual Reports (1966-1977) indicate that this is only partially the case. (TABLE 2)

Since Canada also shares a contiguous border with the United States, the proximity hypothesis would lead us to believe that Canadian immigrants would exhibit the same relatively low rates of naturalization. The above figures show that Canadians are about one-half as likely as immigrants in general to become American citizens; however, this is a significantly higher rate than that for Mexicans. There may be less of a sociocultural incentive for Canadian immigrants to materialize than other more visible immigrant groups, since Canadians, given simply their physical appearance (and for English speakers--language), can blend into mainstream American society more easily than groups who tend to have different appearances, cultures, and languages, such as Mexicans.

Although Cuba and the United States are not contiguous, the Cuban islands are close enough to American soil that the proximity hypothesis would imply low rates of naturalization for Cuban immigrants as well. In this case, the data provide no support for the proposition siven Cubans have an even higher rate of naturalization than immigrants in general. The Cuban immigrant experience suggests another factor that impacts on naturalization rates; the hypothesis can be advanced that factors that cause persons to immigrate, specifically those we call push and pull factors, are directly related to naturalization. The first wave of Cuban immigrants since the fall of Batista (during the late 1950s an early 1960s) left Cuba for political and economic reasons. These immigrants were primarily middle and upper class Cubans who were against communism in general and Castros politics specifically. The second major wave of Cuban immigrants (during 1980 and 1981), the "Marielitos"), although not economically advantaged, was also forced to leave. Such political-economic push factors in the home country, combined with the host countries reception , clearly have an impact on naturalization rates.

Cuban immigrants, incidentally, recently participated in the largest group ever to take the oath of citizenship of the United States. Most of the 9,706 persons who gathered September 17, 1984, at the Orange Bowl football stadium in Miami, Florida, to be sworn in as new citizens were Cuban immigrants who were enlisted in a campaign by South Florida civic groups to encourage longtime residents to complete the naturalization process.

The phenomenon is more complex and needs to be explored further. Obviously, there are many more factors that are related to naturalization. Unfortunately, the few research articles located on Mexican naturalization (reviewed above) shed little additional light on the topic. They focused primarily on identifying the problem that is, documenting the different rates. The authors of these studies could only speculate about the probvelable causes for the low forts of naturalization among Mexican immigrants since none of the studies had access to data.

Historically, many Mexican American living in the southwestern United States are descended from Mexicans who remained in the newly acquired territories, subsequent to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. Many more people of Mexican origin have since entered in United States, "pushed" by the conditions of poverty and unemployment in Mexico, and drawn by the demand for cheap labor that occurred as a natural concomitant to the rapid economic development in the Southwest (Acuna 1972; Gamio 1930; Samora 1971). In fact, Mexico has been one of the five countries with the highest levels of immigration every year since 1920 (Immigration and Naturalization Service 1978). Mexico has been the highest source country of all sending countries during two periods (13.3 percent in 1961-70 and 15.1 percent in 1971-78). (Of course, it ahs been well documented that Mexicans also lead all other nationalities inn rates of undocumented immigration throughout this century.) Many of these immigrants, despite long residence in the United States, have remained citizens of Mexico. Relatively few have become naturalized. The question arises, "Why do some individuals choose to go though the naturalization process while the majority does not?"

This study contributes to both academic and political dialogue; it provides further understanding and elucidation of the possible fundamental cultural dimensions and particular social, structural, and historical characteristics involved in ononcitizen Mexican naturalization. The emphasis is on identifying structural and cultural variables that impact on naturalization. The issues of naturalizations critical and important, both academically and in terms of developing policy.

Naturalization In a Historical Context

It is believed that the acquisition of citizenship is one of the most important measures of political integration into the recipient society (Blumentahal 1971; Grebler 1966). The act of naturalization constitutes a formal affiliation with the host political system and additional rights and privileges are accorded with citizenship.

In the United States, the first uniform rule of naturalization, enacted in 1790, limited citizenship to any male immigrant, being free and white with two years of residence in the United States. The applicant was required to file necessary documentation to the state court in which he resided. In addition, the applicant had to take an oath to uphold the Constitution and be of good moral character (Fong 1971).

The experiences of Mexican immigrants have ranged from merely crossing the border in 1880 and paying a nominal fee of 50 cents to become a full-fledged American citizen (Anderson 1978) to denial of citizenship status to a Mexican immigrant because he was neither white nor a African descent (Reisler 1976). A large degree of discretion and lack of uniformity existed through the early 1900s until the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization was created in 1906. By 1910 the Bureau had formulated and implemented a uniform rule for the transition from alien status to that of citizen. Prior to this, citizenship acquisition varied by state and specific court rulings (Bernard 1937).

The creation of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization and the enactment of a generally policy did not, however, result in equal access and treatment for all ethnic immigrant groups. Major inequities and discriminatory practices can be readily documented throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Native American, for example, were not considered citizens until the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (Bahr, Chadwick, and Strauss 1979). Other groups were excluded from becoming citizens even longer.

The newly created bureau viewed Mexican immigrants as desirable workers but undesirable as potential citizens. In 1910, for example, the Report of the Immigration Commission stated the following:

The assimilative qualities of the Mexicans are slight. Because of backward educational facilities in their native land and a constitutional prejudiced on the part of the peones toward school attendance, the immigrants of this race have among them a larger percentage of illiterates than is found among any race immigrating to the western country in any considerable number.

Because of a lack of thrift and a tendency to regard public relief as "pension"…many Mexican families in time of industrial depression become public charges.

Thus it is evident that, in the case of the Mexican, he is less desirable as a citizen than as a laborer. The permanent additions to the population, however, are much smaller than the number who immigrate for work. (Quoted in Acuna 1972, 132.)

Full access to citizenship has been slowly expanded for women, Native Americans, Eskimos, Aleutians, Chinese, Filipinos, and Guamanians (Fong 1971). In fact, it was not until the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 that a uniform policy was established stating that "the right of a person to become a naturalized citizen shall not be denied or abridged because of race, sex, or because such person is married" (Fong 1971).

Policy Context

Although this study is not connected to a specific policy result, naturalization is a critical element involved in Mexican American political representation. As Grebler (1966, 17) notes, "Naturalization conveys upon the alien resident the full range of political and civil rights enjoyed at least in principle by native citizens."

While the laws of the United States apply equally to all of the nations residents, only citizens may participate in the political process through which laws are formulated and enacted. The rights of a citizen allow a voice in the units of government in which he or she lives. The right to vote offers each citizen realistic involvement in local, state, and national affairs. In addition to not being able to vote, nonnaturalised nationals: (a) are excluded from jury duty; (b) cannot hold an elective office; (c) are required to carry an alien registration card at all times; (d) are subject to deportation for misconduct; (e) and are subject by statutory exclusion to access of some social services, employment, licensing, and educational programs (although recently most of thee prohibitions have been found unconstitutional).

Procedures

Information on Mexican naturalization was collected through a review of historical and contemporary literature, interviews with naturalization officers, visits to offices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and from in depth oral case histories of naturalized Mexican immigrants as well as Mexican immigrants eligible for naturalization but who had not gone through the process. Again, the idea was to obtain candid images of naturalization as perceived by Mexican immigrants.

Sample

The total sample consisted of sixty legal Mexican immigrants. It was pre determined that the sample would consist of two sub samples based on a ratio of two legal residents who had not sought citizenship to one naturalized citizen. Thus, the sample consisted of forty Mexican immigrants eligible for citizenship but who had not gone through the process of naturalization and twenty naturalized Mexican immigrants. Fifty of the interviews were conducted in or around Los Angeles, California, primarily in East Los Angeles, and ten in Tucson, Arizona. Los Angeles was selected because it has the most Mexican-origin residents of any urban area in the United States. Data from the 1980 census, for example, show that 94.1 percent of the residents of East Los Angeles are of Hispanic origin or descent. Moreover, 45.2 percent of these people are foreign-born, most of them in Mexico. Inn fact, 29 percent of the Hispanics enumerated in the 1980 census were foreign-born; in California and Illinois, 37 percent of the Hispanics were born outside the United States.

The Tucson sample was simply used for purposes of comparison. Since no differences were found between Los Angeles and Tucson when the data were analyzed, the samples were combined and are presented as a single sample in the discussion below.

It was decided a priori that the sample should be as varied as possible in terms of background characteristics, such as sex, age, level of education, length of residence in the United States, and type of occupation. We were able to control for these variables through the referral method used to collect the data. For example, most respondents provided us with several names of acquaintances for further interviews. In the process of obtaining these names, we asked for information that permitted us to learn the sex, approximate age, type of occupation, and approximately length of residency in the United States of potential respondents. If the person had given us three names, for example, one woman and two men, and if we were short on interviews with women, we would only contact the woman. Likewise with the other variables.

We are pleased to report that we were able to obtain a rather representative and varied sample. Half of the interviews were conducted with women. All age groups over 18 (since 18 is the age at which an individual can first file for naturalization) were represented. Several interviews, for example, were with retired persons (over 65). Also, all major job categories were included, from professional to unskilled laborers. Likewise, all levels of education and various lengths of residence in the United States were captured in our data. A number of interviews, for example, were with persons who had been legal residents for over forty years.

Access

Initial informants were selected through personal contacts. Additional participants were generated through the "snowball" method where referrals were obtained from informants and subsequently the informants' names were used when making new contacts. This is considered the most successful approach for overcoming identification and access problems with Mexican immigrants. This procedure has proved very successful in other studies (Baca and Bryan 1980; Ramiraz 1979) since it breaks down suspicion and apprehension on the part of informants. Each successive interview was with a friend, relative, or acquaintance of a previous interviewee who provided the interviewer with the necessary introductions and assistance in making contact with other members of the kinship-friendship network. The use of names of friend s and acquaintances during initial contact with a potential respondent as well as during the interview was important in helping us establish credibility and rapport. Similar procedures were used by Wayne A. Cornelius and his associates in a study of health problems and health-service utilization among Mexican immigrants in San Diego County. Moreover, the use of names of friends and acquaintances by researchers to gain new informants is a standard ethnographic technique (Spradley 1970; Leiter 1980).

In this study we had an additional advantage for gaining access to and establishing rapport with the respondents. Both interviewers (the project director and the research associate) are Mexican-born, and, furthermore, both have gone through the naturalization process. Given the relatively recent date of our naturalization and the fact that the individually initiated act of filing for citizenship, taking an examination, and swearing an oath of allegiance and responsibility to the United States are in most instances a very personal and emotional process, the even was relatively fresh in our minds, and through the use of reflexive analysis (Velez-Ibenez 1979), a presently fairly standard anthropological research technique, we were able to generate a base of knowledge and experience that could be used a basis for establishing immediate rapport with the respondents. Our immigrant status and naturalization experience proved essential components in assuring more reliable information. It should be mentioned that both interviewers and field workers were fully bilingual and respondents were asked which language they preferred for the discussions. Only 5 percent (N=3) indicated that they preferred English. (Interestingly enough, all three of the interviews conducted in English were with naturalized citizens). In other words, 95 percent of the interviews were carried out in the Spanish language. (In several instances where the interviewers were conducted in Spanish, some English was spoken during the interviews, although it tended to be limited to specific words or phrases).

We are pleased to report that we did not have any difficulty in identifying or gaining access to respondents. Only five persons refused to participate in the study. As would be expected from the low naturalization rates, however, it was slightly problematic to identify persons who had become citizens. The fact that we had more difficulty in identifying such individuals serves to further illustrate the need to study the phenomenon we investigated.

Methodology

The interviews lasted anywhere from one to five hours, with the majority running for about three hours. Most of the conversations were tape recorded. Respondents were assured, both orally and in writing, that for purposes of analysis and writing of the report the conversations would be anonymous and confidential. Only 5 percent (N=3) of the respondents chose not to have the interviews recorded; however, they did permit us to take written notes during the discussion.

The standard procedure followed during the initial contact was to explain to the individual who we were, how his or her name had been obtained, what the study was about, and what we intended to gain from the project. At this initial point of contact, we also discussed issues of confidentiality and presented a letter of explanation, in both Spanish and English, from the project director.

Although we had identified a number of matters that each respondent should address, the interviews were conducted more in the fashion of open dialogue and discussion, giving the informants opportunity to express their sentiments, thoughts, and beliefs freely and to share their experiences relative to naturalization. The discussions, as would be expected, frequently drifted to related and unrelated topics. It was up to the interviewer to guide the conversations through the use of open-ended descriptive questions that often called for lengthy responses. The aim of the questions was to elicit a large sample of thoughts and experiences related to the topic of naturalization, further more, to do this in the most natural setting and in the respondents own words. Therefore, all of the interviews were conducted at the time and location most convenient to each respondent. This usually meant during weekends and at the persons home.

Again, although we were interested in obtaining information relative to specific questions and issues, the interviews themselves did not have a rigid, standardized format. To optimize rapport with the participants and to enable the interview to be conducted in an informal, conversational manner, the sequence of questions was altered as necessary. Also, the number of questions varied depending upon the informant's expertise and willingness to share specific and very personal experiences. The same issues were addressed with different questions throughout the discussion order to elicit the full range of thoughts, experiences, and folk terms/concepts regarding naturalization.

Changes were made in the wording of questions to improve the interviewee's comprehension and to smooth the effect of some of the topics, given the sensitivity of some of the issues covered during the conversations. An attempt was made to adopt the interview/discussion format to the particular preferences of the respondent. This flexibility greatly reduced respondent stress and helped elicit more valid and reliable information.

For example, during pretest and training session for the research associate, it became obvious that asking the question "Podria decirme por que no se ha hecho ciudadano?" (Can you tell me why you have not become a citizen?) provided us with very limited answers and information. In most cases, it was simply "Por decidia" (Indecision). Changing this question into several others, "Ud como ve la ciudadania?" (How do you view citizenship?), "Que ideas tiene acerca de la ciudadania?" (What thoughts do you have about citizenship?), "Ha pensado alguna vez en hacerse ciudadano?" (Have you ever thought of becoming a citizen?), resulted in fuller and more varied responses.

It should also be noted that in some cases when we arrived to interview a specific individual the spouse was also prepared to participate in the conversation. These situations made for the most interesting interviews because frequently we found that the couple were not in full agreement on their thoughts, perceptions, and experiences relative to naturalization.

Finally, the immediate identification and rapport established with the interviewers was so great that several respondents invited the interviewers to dinner, fiestas and other gatherings, giving us reason to believe that our data are quite reliable. Several such events were attended by the interviewers.

Data Analysis

Although in ethnographic research, projects, as in most research, there is a period set aside for analysis of the data, the ethnographer must be involved in data analysis continuously. For examples, notes are reviewed several times and cases are reviewed several time and cases are compared during the data gathering phase. Our goal in the analysis was to synthesize the ethnographies and oral case histories in order to look for systematic patterns that emerged. We wanted to be able to describe the cultural meaning system of naturalization as perceived by the two subpopulations--naturalized and nonnaturalized Mexican immigrants. Further more, we wanted to avoid imposing categories from the outside that create order and patterns in the data. Our aim was to discover implicit meanings and assumptions, the kinds of things that people take for granted as they act. This method of qualitative analysis has been described by Glaser and Strauss(1967) as "grounded theory." The theoretical framework, in other words, evolved from the data. Most of the analysis therefore, involves description and interpretation of findings.

Throughout the analysis we searched for answers to the questions and issues guiding this project, those relating to structure, culture, and citizenship. Answers to these questions make a major contribution to the literature and scholarship in this area since the knowledge generated is based on empirical information provided by those experiencing the phenomenon. In addition, we generated a set of policy implications for the naturalization of Mexican immigrants and other disfranchised groups.

Results

Although there are many factors associated with a persons decision to naturalize, they can be categorized into three broad groups: background characteristics, structural conditions, and cultural forces. All of the findings, however, must be interpreted in the context of socio-historical conditions from which the patterns we have identified emerged.

First and foremost one must recognize the economic relationship between Mexico and the United States, a condition that has forced millions of Mexicans to emigrate to the United States. At the same time, it is important to recognize that the host country ahs had a history of discrimination when it comes to the treatment of Mexicans. Unfortunately these are well-documented historical facts that cannot be disputed.

Given the causes of Mexican emigration in combination with the propensity of U.S. policy to discriminate against Mexican immigrants, it is not surprising that the naturalization rates for this group of immigrants is very low and that one finds a large number of factors associated with these low rates. In short, we can confidently state that all three sets of variables--background characteristics, structural conditions, and cultural forces--have acted in the same direction, that is, to keep the naturalization rates for Mexican immigrants extremely low. (The findings presented below have been summarized. For addition details, see Fernandez 1984).

Background Characterstics

Several background characterstics (age, sex, level of education, occupation, and length of time living in the United States) were found to be related to naturalization. Generally, although not in all cases, our findings are consistent with those reported in other studies (Garcia 1981; Grebler 1966; and Ramirez 1979). Our data, however, permit further analysis than that which was presented in earlier studies. Moreover, they provide new insights into how these variables are associated with naturalization.

Level of Education

Both Garcia (1981) and Ramirez (1979) found that educational is positively associated with naturalization. In other words, schooling increases the likelihood of becoming a citizen. Our findings are consistent with this relationship. Yet, the association between the education variable and naturalization is more complex. While Mexican immigrants with fewer years of formal schooling are less likely than those with more years to become citizens, they are not less favorably disposed to the possibility of becoming citizens. Thus, the real issues is not years of education per se but the structural factors that prevent the less educated from obtaining citizenship, it simply becomes much more difficult for persons with little or no schooling to obtain the English-language skills necessary to pass the examination for naturalization. It is not surprising, therefore, to find a positive relationship between level of education and naturalization.

Age

As reported by Grebler (1966) and Ramirez (1979), younger Mexican immigrants are much more likely to become citizens than older individuals. For Mexicans, unlike other immigrant groups, if an immigrant has not become a U.S. citizen by the time he or she reaches the age of fifty-five, chances that the person will naturalize decrease to almost zero.

Immigrants between the ages of twenty and fifty have the highest probability of becoming citizens. One has to keep in mind, of course, that one has to be at least eighteen years of age before filing for citizenship. Yet, if one is under eighteen, one can automatically become a citizen if ones parents are naturalized. It is interesting to note, however, that relatively few Mexicans, about 10 percent of those naturalized, obtain citizenship through their parents.

The younger persons we interviewed tended to support the view that citizenship was more convenient for their age group and that perhaps it was something that should not be pursued by older individuals. In talking about his parents, one respondent summarized it this way:

No, they're fine like that, they don't need it. Citizenship is for younger people.

Sex

Research findings on the relationship between sex and naturalization have been mixed. Ramirez (1979), for example, reports that males are more likely than females to become citizens. Baca and Bryan (1980) found that Mexican men and women were equally likely to prefer permanent residentalien status over other types, including U.S. citizenship. Grebler (1966) found no sex difference when looking at the number of Mexicans who became naturalized during a five-year period. One the other hand, the 1980 Annual Report to the Immigration and Naturalization Service shows that Mexican women outnumbered Mexican men in becoming citizens. In fact, 56 percent of the Mexicans who became naturalized were Mexicans compared to 44 percent for males.

Our study went beyond previous research in assessing the relationship between sex and naturalization and provides insights that indicate the relationship is quite complex. Basically, women emerged as more practical and realistic in their approach to citizenship than men. In short, women were much more interested in becoming citizens; and they were more likely to have thought seriously about the possibility of going through the naturalization process. Women seemed to recognize the utility of becoming citizens and to accept the fact that they now resided in the United States and were probably going to live here the rest of their lives. Men, on the other hand, held on the belief that they were going to back to Mexico to live, implying that they were in the United States only to work. This perspective was summarized by one of the men interviewed:

My body is here [United States] but my heart is over there [Mexico].

We encountered a number of women who told us very frankly that they were ready to become citizens but that their husbands objected to it. Thus, they had not gone through with the paperwork. A few women even said that they were in the process of preparing to become citizens (they were actually enrolled in preparation classes) without the knowledge of their husbands. Whether these women will go through the process still remains to be seen; however, one woman was very adamant about her decision to become a naturalized citizen. She stated several times during the course of the interview that she was going to go through with it and that only after she had become a citizen would she tell her husband.

This finding is even more dramatic in light of the fact that we did not encounter any man who stated, or even implied, that his wife was against his becoming naturalized. On the contrary, women were quite supportive of their husbands seeking citizenship. In most cases where both the husband and wife had become citizens, it was the wife who had provided the initial impetus and it was she who had taken the lead and provided the sustained support during the process.

Occupation

Our findings regarding the relationship between occupation and naturalization are very similar to those for education. While individuals in higher status occupations are more likely to become citizens than those in unskilled positions, they are not any more likely to want to become citizens. In other words, unskilled laborers generally want to become citizens in roughly the same numbers as do persons in professional positions but, like unschooled immigrants, it becomes much more difficult for them to go through the process.

Length of Residence

With few exceptions, an immigrant must have resided in the United States as a permanent resident alien for five years before becoming eligible for citizenship. As noted earlier, Mexican immigrants not only naturalize at lower rates than other nationalities, they also tend to wait longer before becoming citizens. While many immigrants from other countries apply for citizenship soon after they become eligible, most Mexicans tend to wait several more years--in many cases, over twice the number of years required by the government.

In general, length of residence is positively related to the attainment of citizenship status. This finding is consistent with other research (Garcia 1981); however, as with age, there seems to be an upper limit. It was not uncommon, for example, to find persons who had resided in the United States as legal residents for over thirty or forty years who will never become citizens. These respondents frequently stated that, "esas cosas son para los jovenes" (that-naturalization-is for younger people).

Many of these people still held on to the dream of someday returning to live in Mexico. One man stated that, although he and his wife could not return now because their children needed them here,

…perhaps when they [our children ] don't need us anymore, perhaps then we can return.

Structural Conditions

This category incorporates several historical and contemporary factors that have played a major role in the nonnaturalization of Mexican immigrants.

Immigration and Naturalization Laws

The history of immigration and naturalization laws clearly indicates that discrimination based on national origin has been the standard mode of operation. Discrimination based on national origin became part of U.S. immigration laws beginning with the Chinese Exclusion Act of May 6, 1882. The Gentleman's Agreement of 1907 limited the entry of Japanese labor. The Act of 1917 set up the Asia-Pacific Triangle by degrees of latitude and longitude and excluded all persons born in this proscribed area as inadmissible to the United States. This act enlarged the scope of persons banned on the basis of national origin or race to include Hindus and other Asians.

The Act of May 19, 1921, introduced the concept of a general quota based upon nationality. The Act of May 26, 1924, made the national quotas even more restrictive by basing them on 2 percent of the number of individuals of each nationality in the United States as enumerated by the 1890 census. This new measure, in effect, gave preferential treatment to northern Europeans and discriminated against southern and eastern Europeans.

Naturalization law is also filled with discriminatory acts. The first naturalization act, the Act of March 26, 1790, provided for the naturalization of free, white aliens after two years of residence in the United States, thus excluding most of the worlds population. Eighty years later, pursuant to the Act of July 14, 1870, persons of African "nativity" and descent became eligible for citizenship. The Act of May 6, 1882, however, prohibited any State or U.S. Court from admitting Chinese to citizenship. This ban was not repealed until sixty years later, with the Act of December 17,1943.

The Act of October 14, 1940, made Native Americans, Eskimos, and Aleutians eligible for citizenship. Filipinos became eligible in 1946 and Guamanians in 1950. It wasn't until the Act of June 27, 1952, that discrimination for naturalization based on race was removed.

As noted earlier, the experiences of Mexican immigrants have ranged from merely crossing the border in 1880 and paying a nominal fee of fifty cents to become a full fledged American citizen to denial of citizenship status to a Mexican immigrant because he was neither white nor of African descent.

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Historically, INS has not provided information and assistance outreach programs for Mexican immigrants. Information on the requirements and procedures for naturalization have not been made readily available to potential citizens. Generally, the agency has taken the attitude that Mexicans immigrate simply as workers and that they are not interested in becoming citizens. Hence, there has been little encouragement from INS officers, particularly those in the Southwest, for Mexicans to become citizens. It has not been so much a case of overt, intentional exclusion as of simple neglect. The fact that the language requirement is waived for persons over the age of fifty who have resided in the United States for over twenty years, for example, is one of the best-kept secrets. This piece of information is particularly relevant to the Mexican immigrant community since there is a large number of Mexicans in the United States who meet this requirement. Yet no one that we interviewer or mentioned this to was aware of the policy.

A second issue faced by INS is the backlog of cases. Most of the INS offices located in cities with large Mexican immigrant populations such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Antonio currently face a backlog of fourteen to eighteen months. Undoubtedly, this backlog acts as a deterrent in some cases, particularly with individuals who may already be somewhat apprehensive about going through the process.

The backlog, of course, is simply the result of a shortage of staff in these offices. The United States Congress recently approved an additional $6,000,000 for the INS budget for fiscal 1985 to improve program services, a result of the pressure it received from the National Association Officials. Approximately $2.8 million will be spent on the areas of naturalization and adjudication. INS estimates that seventy-six new personnel will be hired and placed around the country to assist with the backlog. As a reflection of the Reagan administrations priority, however, eight hundred fifty new border patrol agents will be hired for fiscal 1985, most of whom will be placed along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Outreach Programs

Although for many years we have had outreach programs to assist Mexican, Central American, South American, and other Latin immigrants to obtain legal residency, no such historical effort has been mounted in a systematic manner to assist potential citizens. While historically naturalization programs can be found in almost every city with a large Mexican-immigrant population, extensive, systematic efforts have been lacking. (We know of one individual in Tucson, for example, who for many years has run citizenship preparation classes. He has done this on his own time and with virtually no funding). We applaud current efforts by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) to address this issue in a forth right manner. On March 15, 1984, MALDEF started on outreach assitance program in San Antonio, Texas, that has proved successful. In the short time since its inception, five hundred seventy-seven persons have enrolled in citizenship classes; four hundred twenty-five (73 percent) have already applied for naturalization.

This type of program would undoubtedly prove equally successful in other locations, particularly in California and more specifically in Los Angeles, San Jose, and San Diego. Local community agencies and church organizations are natural starting points for implementation and/or expansion of similar programs wherever needed.

History of Mexican Immigration and Proximity to Home Country

The patterns that have evolved in the history of Mexican immigration tend to work against naturalization. Specifically, with the exception of immigrants during the Mexican Revolution, the overwhelming majority of migrants from Mexico have come for economic reasons. In other words, they have come as workers and not as residents. The common assumption is that the immigrant will work here for a few years, during which time he or she will save enough money to return to Mexico to live and work. This perception, coupled with fact that crossing the U.S.-Mexican border is relatively to easy, works against Mexicans' coming to see themselves as permanent U.S. residents (Garcia 1984). As Garcia in a study published in 1981 found, the number of return trips to Mexico is negatively related to the propensity to naturalize. In short, the historical pattern of labor migration, coupled with relatively easy access to the home country, works to keep Mexican immigrants perceiving themselves at most as temporary residents planning to return to la patria (the homeland).

Naturalization Requirements

While there seems to be some confusion, and in many case, simply a lack of information about the requirements for citizenship, two of the specific requirements pose a particular deterrence for many Mexican immigrants: language and oath of allegiance.

The language requirement is one that, although not specifically intended to discriminate against Mexican immigrants, certainly works to keep them from becoming citizens. Obviously, immigrants from English-speaking countries have an apriority advantage in meeting the language requirements over immigrants from countries where English is not the native language. In any case, meeting this requirement was perceived as one of the most problematic issues in the decision to become citizens among Mexican immigrants interviewed.

The oath of allegiance also acts against naturalization for Mexican immigrants. Since the oath of allegiance also includes renouncing all allegiance to former country, it is very difficult for Mexicans to "voltiarle la espalda a Mexico" (turn ones back on Mexico). There is a good deal of confusion among some people who believe that this literally means stepping on the Mexican flag and renouncing ones cultural heritage.

This is not to imply that Mexican immigrants are not patriotic toward the United States, the number of non-citizen Mexican immigrants who have served in U.S. military attest to the contrary. The phenomenon, rather, is a reflection of the patriotic socialization received in Mexico. As noted by Walker (1923, 466).

"It would be disloyal to Mexico to adopt another patria [country]; unfaithful, almost treacherous."

Benefits and Costs of Naturalization

Although, as noted earlier, there are a number of specific rights and responsibilities that are acquired through naturalization, for Mexican immigrants they may be normal at best and in some cases actually perceived as costs. Our research indicates that legal residents generally believed it important to become citizens, but they saw citizenship as not providing specific tangible benefits that would immediately enhance their lives. Citizenship, in other words, was not viewed as having a practical value. As noted by Ramirez (1979, 10),

It seems that most legal residents would like to become citizens, but whether citizenship is worth the trouble is another matter. In sum, the fear of institutions in combination with a lack of faith in immediate or tangible benefits from citizenship would lad to inaction-an attitude, subconscious or conscious, to leave well enough alone.

The view is supported by data gathered from our sample of persons who had become citizens. In almost every case, the impetus for becoming naturalized had been a very specific and utilitarian matter-in many cases, because they wanted to vote or to facilitate the immigration of relatives. Given the Mexican political system, where one party has ruled since the Revolution, the general voting practices in Mexico, the absence of an educational outreach program about the U.S. political system, and the meaning and importance of voting, acquiring the right to vote is not enough of an attraction to cause most Mexican immigrants to naturalize.

Moreover, given the historical experience of Mexican immigrants, in particular the large roundups and deportations during the thirties, fifties, and seventies that included legal residents and even U.S. citizens, in combination with the discrimination they have experienced because of their cultural/national background, the attitude that many Mexican immigrants have acquired relative to naturalization is often justified. A frequent commentary observed during our interviews related to the discrimination that Mexicans have experienced in the United States:

What good is it for me to become a citizen? I'm still going to be treated like a Mexican.

This sentiment was documented as early as 1928 by Walker. She overheard a group of Mexican men discussing citizenship, one of them questioned the value of going through the naturalization process:

This sentiment was documented as early as 1928 by Walker. She overheard a group of Mexican men discussing citizenship, one of them questioned the value of going through the naturalization process:

"What is the use anyway? Can't go around wearing papers on your sleeve. How does anybody know if you have had the [naturalization ] examination? We still have to go upstairs in the movie houses, live in the low [poor] parts of town, and send our children to the old ugly schools. We are still Mexicans because we look the same."

It is difficult to argue against this view particularly if one ahs experienced this type of ethnic discrimination. The "bottom lien,' however, is that legal resident aliens from Mexico are generally favorably disposed to becoming U.S. citizens. This finding is supported both by research (Garcia 1981; Ramiraz 1979) and direct demonstrations projects (MALDEF Project in San Antonio, 1984).

Cultural Forces

In asking people to present reasons for becoming or for not becoming naturalized, we were in effect asking them, among other things, to describe the cultural meanings of being "Mexican" and to contrast those with what it would mean to become an "American." To be sure, as described in the previous two sections, there were some non-symbolic, utilitarian structural reasons for shunning naturalization, but the preponderance of the reasoning included cultural/symbolic dimensions. In short, there appear to be a number of cultural factors that contribute to the low rate of naturalization for Mexican immigrants.

Family and Friends

Family and friends as well as a generalized other play important roles in influencing an immigrant's decision to naturlise. Given the immigrant groups strong cultural ties to Mexico (during our conversations the majority of informants identified themselves as being "100 percent Mexican"), it is not surprising to find that Mexican immigrants perceive and are sensitive to pressure from their family and friends toward maintaining a Mexican identity and cultural ties with "lo Mexicano" (Mexican culture).

Although initially our informants stated that family and friends did not influence their decision regarding naturalization, upon probing and further discussion we learned that the perceptions of family, friends, and a generalized other indeed mattered to the individual. Those who had gone through the naturalizaztik process were more willing to discuss the ways in which the popular sentiment influenced their decisions. They had heard from other Mexicanos, as a means of social pressure not to pursue citizenship that one has to deny ones flag. Some say that one has to trample ones flag.

Some of the other comments that reflect a social pressure against naturalization refer to Mexicans who have become citizens:

They think they are big shots.

Some even change their behavior. Some say they even forget Spanish and do not want to speak it again.

Only persons who had an official [government] position in Mexico are the ones who easily become citizens (In order to capture the full meaning of this statement one needs to understand that the Mexican masses do not hold federal government officials in very high regard).

These types of comments were even voiced by respondents who, when asked to describe specifically how their acquaintances who had become citizens had changed, were unable to identify of a particular behavior or other cultural symbol that had indeed changed as a result of naturalization. In most case, it turned out, the individual basically does not change, and any change that may occur is nowhere as radical as might be feared by some people or implied by the above comments.

The relationship between family and naturalization, is however, much more complex. It also turns out that one of the primary incentives for a Mexican immigrant to become naturalized is for the betterment of the family. This ahs become particularly true in recent years since the change in immigration laws, which make it much easier for a United States citizen than for a legal resident to help his/her spouse and other relatives to immigrate. Several of the persons we interviewed were cognizant of this policy change and had either taken advantage of it or were in the process of doing so.

In addition, there are other direct and indirect family benefits that result from naturalization for Mexican immigrants. Some parents, for example, became naturalized before their children reached the age of 18 so that each of the children would not have to go through the process. Other parents became citizens because they thought that it would help their children in school, although perhaps only in a very general way but more specifically so they would not be discriminated against. One respondent asked,

Why does citizenship have to be viewed as something bad? I do not see it like that if one does it for the well being of ones family.

Another individual stated,

It was a release when I acquired citizenship, I could maintain my family well. I could maintain my family well. I continue to be as Mexican as before.

And still another person said.

For our children there are better opportunities here than in Mexico.

Cultural/National Identity

As noted in a previous section, Mexican immigrants tend to have a very strong cultural identity that is directly tied to being "Mexicano." The dominant belief is that if one becomes a United States citizen, one will become less Mexican and, in the worst scenario, one will stop being Mexican altogether. Such a thought cannot be resolved in the minds of Mexican immigrants.

The majority of legal residents we interviewed expressed their preference for retaining their legal status that entails them to work in the United States for long periods of time without having to relinquish their native citizenship. This finding is supported by the earlier work of Baca and Bryan (1980). A frequent comment voiced by the respondent was that,

I was born Mexican and I shall die Mexican.

This was obviously a very popular saying among Mexican immigrants as evidenced by the frequency with which it was heard. In a few cases the cultural/national identity reflects a stubborn pride on the apart of the individual. We were struck by a story that appeared recently in a local publication written by the well-known Mexican American writer, Miguel Mendez M., entitled "Los Viejos Mexicanos de Los Estados Unidos" (The Old Mexican Men of the United States ). Mendez discusses this stubbornness, although he prefers to view it as pride, dignity, and nobleness.

The old Mexican men are stubborn. "Become an American citizen, Papa, you live here, and its to your advantage." No!" Proud of their heritage it offends them to die as renegades. They hold on to their dreams proud and dignified, even if they do not live in Mexico, they will die Mexicans.

They know full well the poverty of their former villages. They are aware of the painful tragedy their brothers live. They are not ignorant of the truth about government officials who betray and steal the bread of the poor,while they make false speeches and promises. Oh, but don't let anyone, their own or strangers, comment on it. Then the veins in their neck swell, and enraged, they scream clenching their fists, "Don't talk about Mexico, traitors, renegades!" Woe to those who do not listen, they risk being struck by a cane or of seeing them die of rage. What Men! What proud old men, so noble and so Mexican!

Although Mendez attributes this cultural pride to los viejecitos (the old men), the same type of phenomenon can be found among the youth. Mexican immigrants indeed are generally proud of their culture and national heritage. One of our informants who was against the idea of naturalization summarized this attitude in the following commentary:

Becoming naturalized is not a treacherous act toward Mexico, it is like turning ones back on Mexico (abandonment and disrespect). One has to renounce ones flag or basically do the same. One swears to defend it [the United States flag] over others. For me it is like doing something to Mexico and that would hurt me very much. I am Mexican and I am proud of it.

It is perhaps within the area of cultural/national identity that we found the most difference between our two sub samples--naturalized and nonnaturalized. Naturalized citizens seemed to have resolved the issue and arrived at the conclusion that their cultural identity need not change as a result of naturalization. Several respondents from this group expressed the sentiment, I continue to be the same person. I only exchanged one card for another. Culturally, I consider myself Mexican, and with Gods willingness, I will continue to do so.

The naturalized citizens also seem to have resolved the issue of worker vs. permanent resident. (she and her husband) realized that they were not going to return to Mexico to live, "soloe para vacaciones' (only on vacations). She went on to describe how they had felt as neither residing in the United States nor in Mexico prior to becoming citizens.

We did not feel as if we were here [United States] or there [Mexico], citizenship sort of made us finally settle and establish ourselves here. In any case, we were not going to return to Mexico [to live] anymore.

Language

Language becomes more of a barrier to naturalization for persons who immigrate as adults (assuming, of course, that they had not learned English in Mexico) than for those who were brought by their parents as children. Several of the respondents stated that they knew of the English language requirement for naturalization, and most of these persons had assumed that their English was not good enough to pas the examination. In discussing their lack of facility with the English language, several persons stated, "apenas me defiendo" (I barely get by). Age as it related to language, however, is not completely exclusionary. We found at least one older couple who ere enrolled in English classes to prepare for citizenship, the husband was in his early sixties and the wife in her late fifties.

Moreover, several of the respondents complained about the lack of formal opportunities made available to Mexican immigrants to learn English. Although they were not clear on the specific details of the program, they had heard that Filipino and other Asian immigrants were given three months of English language classes before they began working. Their information was obviously linked to the integration programs established for Vietnamese refugees. The important point, however, is that Mexican immigrants would take advantage of such opportunities if made available.

Costs And Benefits

We have chosen to place this category under cultural rather than structural factors because costs and benefits frequently are based on perceptions and because of the misinformation and myths that seem to surround the topic of naturalization among Mexican immigrants. In terms of perceived benefits, few could be expressed by the persons we interviewed. The majority of respondents who had to obtained citizenship saw almost no benefits associated with naturalization. Even the right to vote was questioned,

That's fine, one acquires the right to vote through naturalization, but so what? You are going to tell me that the vote will resolve the problems of discrimination? Of course not! Those politicians that go around stirring the people, minorities here and minorities there, that it, and when the elections are over they forget about us. A piece of paper is not going to solve discrimination. Discrimination is based on the color and appearance of people, its based on the darker color and accent that we have.

There are also no benefits to gain in employment matters as perceived by nonnaturalized legal residents. Several respondents focused specifically on this issue.

They are not going to exercise ones salary or give one a better job because one became a citizen. If they were going to pay me five dollars an hour more, then I would become one.

Another respondent expressed this view in very cultural terms:

It would be embarrassing [shameful] to become a citizen only to learn that I would only be hired as a laborer.

Even the persons in our sample who had become citizens could not identify specific benefits of citizenship. They spoke in general terms about voting, schooling, jobs, and other "benefits." However, they could not identity many utilitarian reasons for becoming a citizen.

The benefit of citizenship is not something immediate, it is seen with time. There are more job opportunities.

This last statement was made more in the tone of attempting to convince the speaker himself than the listener. One somewhat more specific benefit identified by several respondents in the naturalized category was that becoming citizens gave them a sense of settling down and becoming part of a society instead of having the feeling that one was neither living in the United States nor in Mexico.

One feels better integrated into society. One feels more secure…one seems to gain more confidence.

Before [I became a citizen] it was like having one foot here [United States] and the other over there [Mexico]; in order to walk [move forward, upward] one needs both in the same place.

On the other hand, the greatest cost of becoming a United States citizen as perceived by the persons we interviewed (those in the nonnaturalized sample) is the fear of losing ones Mexican cultural/national identity. This factor, as noted in the section on structural forces, deters many potential citizens from going through the naturalization process. As discussed earlier, there is a confusion regarding what is implied by swearing the oath of allegiance to the United States and renouncing Mexican citizenship. People tend to believe that they will have to stop being "Mexican" in a cultural sense, they will have to change their values, beliefs, attitudes, and all of the other symbols that make them Mexicanos. The truth of the matter, of course, is that one does not have to change ones culture to become a United States citizen and more specifically one does not have to renounce one culture in the process.

Two other areas where misinformation seems to be influencing a persons decision not to naturalize are: (a) whether a United States citizen may own land in Mexico; and (b) the consequences of crossing the United States-Mexico border with a mica (green card). On the first, it is our understanding that persons who are not citizens of Mexico may own land beyond a certain limited distance from the borders and coasts. On the latter issue, crossing the United States Mexico border in either direction is equally easy (if not easier) as a United States citizen or with a green card. (It is certainly easier to obtain a passport as a United States citizen).

Mexican immigrants also feel that even as citizens they will not enjoy the same benefits as Americans. As noted in the commentaries regarding the right to vote, many of the respondents expressed the view that Mexicans would still be discriminated against. One person expressed the notion that Mexicans who were naturalized would still be treated as strangers (foreigners):

Citizenship is like being adopted. The adoptive mother will never treat the adopted children like she treats her natural children.

Conclusions

Naturalization rates are influenced by many factors. For Mexican immigrants the various factors can be categorized into these broad groups background characteristics, structural conditions and sociocultural forces. All these major forces have worked in the same direction in the case of Mexican immigrants, to produce the lowest naturalization rate of any immigrant group. This pattern emerged very early; it emerged in the context of a social history of labor migration in which both the participants and the host country perceived immigrants from Mexico exclusively as workers and not as residents and potential citizens. Hence, the United States government has never developed a systematic outreach program to integrate Mexican immigrants into American society, not even on a small scale, as it has done for other immigrant groups since the late 1800s. The government's response has been to assume that, because large numbers of Mexican immigrants are not filing for citizenship, they do not want to become naturalized. Yet with other groups (for example, southern and eastern Europeans in the late 1800s and Cubans and Vietnamese most recently), an attempt was made to incorporate them into American society and into the political system through citizenship.

Given our findings, clearly it is time for the federal government (and specifically the Immigration and Naturalization Service) to reevaluate its image of the Mexican immigrant and to develop informational outreach programs to this large and growing group of disfranchised residents. The evidence shows that, although Mexican immigrants may initially resist the idea and several important sociocultural forces work against naturalization, given accurate information and assistance in preparing for the examination, many Mexican immigrants will become United States citizens. This has been demonstrated in San Antonio through a pilot program developed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Our findings predict that similar outreach programs would be equally successful in other communities where large groups of Mexican immigrants reside (i.e., almost every city throughout the Southwest, several in the Midwest, and some in other parts of the country).

A successful outreach program will have to address issues in each of the three broad categories-background characteristics, structural factors, and sociocultural forces. And although each of the categories contains factors that have acted as barriers to naturalization none of the factors is insurmountable.

The pattern among Mexican immigrants of refraining from citizenship can be broken. We are confident that a systematic effort would be very successful in reversing the historical trend. This is not to imply that it could be done easily or that it could occur rapidly. The task requires commitment, support, and time.

The nonnaturalization of Mexican immigrants is a critical issue. A country that prides itself on the political voice of its citizen cannot continue to support a system in which a large group of people are disfranchised from its sociopolitical structure. A large scale, systematic program needs to be implemented to bring Mexican immigrants into the American mainstream. Such an effort would clearly benefit the specific individuals involved, but, equally important, it would benefit the country as a whole.

Naturalization, again, is only one of the many issues that must be addressed in order to fully bring Mexican and other Latin-American immigrants into the mainstream of American society. Clearly, it is in our best interest to develop and implement a plan for integration that would result in acquisition of English-language skills, participation in all American institutions, including politics, and thus naturalization. Our society cannot afford to maintain groups of marginal, second-class residents. Such a situation will come back to haunt us in the form of very costly social disruption.