The battle for the border: notes on autonomous migration, transnational communities, and the state.

Rodriguez, Nestor

Introduction

The global landscape in the late 20th century presents a dramatic socio-geographical picture: the movement across world regions of billions of capital investment dollars and of millions of people, and concerted attempts to facilitate the former and restrict the latter. Capital, in its various forms, e.g., corporations and financial funds, circulates among core countries and peripheral regions of the world economy. In the former setting, international funds finance such enterprises as real-estate development, service industries, and stock and money markets. In the latter, it gravitates to a host of financial and production activities, including banking, mining, manufacturing, and the exploitation of natural resources. Numerous international economic agreements (GATT, NAFTA, EC, etc.)(1) emerge to facilitate the transnational movement of capital. Two agreements (the EC and NAFTA) attempt to establish regional economic communities with few or no restrictions on the transnational movement of capital. Human movements across nation-state borders are just as dynamic: 100 million people relocate across the world regions of Eastern and Western Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and North America (Migration World, 1994).

For some, this global scene represents a fundamental change threatening the established world system of nation-states. Among the most urgent issues listed by the vocal leaders of those concerned with these dynamics are the relocation of jobs to less-developed countries and the loss of control over national borders. In the United States, dramatic measures are being implemented to halt the immigration of people who enter the country without papers (the "illegal aliens"). In workplaces, these measures include the enactment of federal regulations to create a new worker status of "authorized worker," pilot projects to verify authorized-worker status through centralized computer data in Washington, D.C., and pilot projects to draw on the collaborative support of employers in replacing unauthorized workers with authorized workers. At the U.S.-Mexico border, the measures include a large increase in the number of U.S. border agents, a human fence of Border Patrol agents in El Paso, construction projects to erect fences, ditches, walls, and other physical barriers, and calls by visiting political candidates for the deployment of U.S. troops. In California, voters approved a referendum to exclude undocumented residents from public-supported services, and in other regions of the country, county and city officials acted to rid undocumented immigrants from public social welfare programs. Across the country the anti-immigrant mood raises the issues of the need for a national identification card and the denial of citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented parents.(2)

These attempts to halt undocumented immigration and to curtail legal immigration I refer to as "the battle for the border." On the U.S. government side, the principal actors include the large bureaucracies of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Border Patrol, the National Security Council Working Group on Illegal Immigration, units of the National Guard and Army Reserves, well-financed special-interest groups and think tanks, and university scientists developing new border surveillance technology. On the migrants' side, the principal actors include men, women, and children from mainly working-class backgrounds with little education and income, as well as persons fleeing political persecution. The migrants' side also includes smugglers, who often share a social background with the immigrants they bring, and sometimes employers. Before it became illegal in 1986 to hire undocumented workers, big and small employers played a major role in attracting these migrants.

The battle for the border is more than just a struggle to "stem the tide" of an undocumented migrant wave; the battle for the border is fundamentally about social-historical development. It is about the changing significance of nation-states in the global order, and thus of the changing relevance of nation-state boundaries. It is a struggle to maintain nation-state borders in a global context made increasingly fluid by the heightened transnational migration of capital and labor. Although the nation-state system expedited the political-administrative consolidation of the world economy in an earlier era (Cohen, 1987), by the late 20th century the presence of multinational capital and international labor has increasingly countered this function.

Globalization has usually been conceptualized in terms of capital's ability to mobilize and integrate economic resources and activities among different world regions (e.g., see Dicken, 1992). However, the autonomous social action of working-class and peasant communities in developing countries also has significantly increased transnational development. Autonomous international migration organized by workers, their families, and communities has significantly challenged the status of the U.S.-Mexico border by making it increasingly irrelevant. By the late 20th century, large numbers of migrants had constructed transnational communities between U.S. settlement areas and places of origin back home (e.g., see Hagan, 1994). In many ways, these transnational structures functioned as if the border did not exist. The battle for the border, which will eventually be lost, is thus a reaction to this worker-led transnational sociospatial reconfiguration. The battle for the border is more than just a move to control illegal immigration; it is a struggle to resist attempts by working-class communities in peripheral countries to spatially reorganize their base of social reproduction in the global landscape. This attempted change by foreign working-class communities seriously challenges the established stratified sociospatial global order.

In the sections below I discuss the battle for the border in the southern United States from three perspectives. The first involves what I term "autonomous migration," that is, the movement of peoples into the U.S. independent of state authorization and regulation. The second concerns the growth of transnational communities, which circulate resources between migrant points of destination and origin for social reproduction. The third is the reaction of the state to reinsert the border as a meaningful divide in community lives. I end the article with critical remarks concerning social-scientific research on undocumented migration and with comments regarding the prospects of the battle for the border.

Autonomous International Migration

By "autonomous international migration" I mean international migration organized by workers, their families, and communities independent of intergovernmental agreements. It is the movement of people across nation-state borders outside state regulations. Autonomous migration means that working-class communities in peripheral countries have developed their own policies of international employment independent of interstate planning. As such, autonomous international migration can be considered to be state-free migration, i.e., a process that decenters the state as the regulator of human movements across international boundaries. Through autonomous migration undocumented workers themselves have created a guestworker program, which many U.S. employers have supported.

It is important to understand that autonomous migration means more than unauthorized ("illegal") border crossings: it means a community strategy implemented, developed, and sustained with the support of institutions, including formal ones, at the migrants' points of origin and U.S. points of destination. Precisely. because core institutions (legal religious, local governmental, etc.) support this migratory strategy, undocumented migrants do not perceive its moral significance as deviant. Migrants may see their autonomous migration as extralegal, but not necessarily as criminal. (Thus, while some migrants may use the Spanish term ilegal to refer to an undocumented worker, they never use the term "criminal.") It is also important to understand that migrant communities do not formally acknowledge autonomous migration as policy; this policy is neither written in any legal document nor declared by any official. It emerges as popular policy as families and other community institutions adopt autonomous migration as an approved course of action for social reproduction.(3)

Autonomy as Self-Activity

While the concept of autonomy as self-activity can be traced back to Marx' writing in Capital, several unorthodox Marxist groups have used the concept since the 1930s to analyze the former Soviet bureaucracy and workers' autonomous struggles against unions and the Communist Party (Cleaver, 1979). From the 1930s to the 1950s, C.L.R. James and Raya Dunayevskaya in the Johnson-Forest Tendency movement used the concept to analyze autonomous labor struggles in the United States, including independent black struggles, and in the Soviet Union. From 1949 to 1967, Cornelius Castoriadis and Claude Lefort, founders of a French revolutionary group and journal called Socialisme ou Barbarie, also used the concept to critique the Soviet bureaucracy and reified concepts of orthodox Marxism. Since the early 1970s, several Italian Marxist theorists (e.g., Mario Tronti, Toni Negri, and Sergio Bologna, Franco Piperno, and Oreste Scalzone), working together in the group and magazine Potere Operaio (Workers' Power) have used the concept to analyze independent and spontaneous worker struggles in Italian northern factories (Cleaver, 1979). According to these theorists, these worker struggles, which involve many migrants from southern Italy, are waged not only against capital, but also against their "official" organizations, i.e., the Communist Party and unions. In the late 1970s and 1980s, Harry Cleaver and several co-analysts in the United States used the concept of autonomy to analyze workplace struggles of Latino immigrant workers, and, more recently, the Zapatista revolt in the southern Mexican region of Chiapas.(4)

In an essay entitled "The Return of Politics," Lotringer describes the growth of autonomous struggle among Italian working-class groups as a characteristic of postindustrial social conflict in which the division between the factory and society is increasingly disappearing. Lotringer's comments on the Italian Autonomy movement characterize some of the basic features of autonomous struggles:

Autonomy is a "body without organs of politics, anti-hierarchic, anti-dialectic, anti-representative. It is not only a political project (sic), it is a project for existence" (Lotringer and Marazzi, 1980: 8).

To paraphrase at the level of workers' struggles, the workers' self-activity is not channeled through political parties; it challenges the hierarchies of organizational labor, refuses to follow capital's plans for (dialectical) development, and seeks to express its own voice. The purpose of the workers' self-activity is survival.

Some comparisons between Lotringer's characterization and autonomous migration are obvious: undocumented migrants are not organized into political groups,s they contradict capital's global stratification, they articulate their own international policy, and their purpose is survival. Autonomy, according to Lotringer (1980), refuses to separate economics from politics, and politics from existence. From the perspective of the many large and culturally dynamic Latino migrant settlements in the United States (e.g., see, Pedraza and Rumbaut, 1996: Chapters 25-28), one can observe that undocumented migrants refuse to separate economics from community, and community from ethnicity.

Though autonomy as self-activity has been analyzed mainly in the form of industrial worker struggles, it is also present in other arenas of social life. In Latin American rural areas, for example, landless peasants have a history of autonomously taking over plots of land for farming (e.g., see Foley, 1991), and in Latin American cities, poor working-class people have created shantytowns of callampas, favelas, pueblos jovenes, and villas miserias through autonomous invasions of land for self-built housing (Green, 1991). Lucio Kowarick describes the conditions that lead to autonomous, sudden eruptions for improved neighborhood services among shantytown residents in Sao Paulo:

These movements [are] nurtured by a series of social bonds forged in neighborhood interactions, in the common experience of living in neglected districts, in the delays in public transportation, in accidents, illness, and floods... (Kowarick, 1994: 37).

For Kowarick (1994), "micromovements" among shantytown residents occur when, under certain circumstances, subjective accumulated experiences link conflicts and demands.

Autonomous Migration as Human Agency

It is one thing to argue that marginalized populations participate collectively in independent and spontaneous demands for change, but it is quite another to posit that these activities constitute social forces that are altering or even restructuring global structural arrangements. Yet, the latter is precisely the basis for my thesis of the battle for the border, that is, that autonomous migration has recomposed the settlement space of communities in peripheral countries in a manner that pays little heed to the nation-state divide. This has occurred not only through the migration of millions of undocumented migrants, but also through these migrants' development or fortification of community structures that transcend the border and at various levels (social, cultural, economic, etc.) unite U.S. settlement areas with communities of origin back home. From this perspective, the state's battle for the border concerns more than controlling the border it is about maintaining a border.

Studies of social change that remain wedded to the structural level of impersonal forces have often failed to recognize the transformative power of human agency by ordinary men and women, including undocumented immigrants. At the structural level, according to Michael Peter Smith (1989), the social actions and struggles of ordinary men and women remain invisible as mediums as well as outcomes of social structures. Smith comments on the human dimension of structural change as follows:

Although impersonal conditions constitute the historical context within which people act, people are not merely passive recipients of these structural economic and political conditions. They are creators of meaning, which is also a wellspring of human action and historic change (Smith, 1989: 355).

Commenting on the unrecognized condition of this human role, Smith states:

[S]cant attention has been paid to the varieties of agency exercised by popular classes and to the dynamics of their resistance to dominant structural tendencies in the larger political economy (Ibid.).

Smith's words are a late 20th century restatement of what unorthodox Marxists had earlier termed autonomous straggles. This is illustrated by Cleaver's comments on studies of worker autonomy by Italian New Left theorists:

From the study of the reality of autonomy among rank-and-file workers...they were able to articulate with new sharpness and depth the position that the working-class is not a passive, reactive victim...and that its ultimate power to overthrow capital is grounded in its existing power to initiate struggle and to force capital to reorganize and develop itself (Cleaver, 1979: 52).

Cleaver points out, however, that studies that remain confined to the "economic" sphere are sure to miss the major social conflicts that affect societal change through other arenas. When social scientists and political groups do recognize social struggles in other arenas (e.g., shantytown housing), there is often a tendency to devalue these conflicts as mere appendages to workplace movements (Kowarick, 1994).

From the perspective of autonomous migration, human agency means more than the formation of undocumented work forces. As undocumented migrants participate in activities of the larger immigrant community, it also means the development of community forces that, while marginally situated, eventually affect core institutional sectors in mainstream society. This includes various examples, such as political activism to counter proposed restrictions against immigrant populations and the organizing of soccer leagues that socially appropriate and culturally recompose public spaces in many U.S. cities. In some cases, the migrants' impact of human agency is mediated by mainstream institutions. For example, constituting a large consumer market, undocumented migrants also have attracted considerable attention from mainstream businesses. In some cases, the Spanish-language and Latin themes used in the advertising by these businesses have substantially restructured the symbolic aspect of social environments previously regulated by the dominant culture.

Viewing autonomous migration as a source of human agency contradicts the perception of undocumented migrants as a docile, job-happy, helpless population. Instead, from the perspective of human agency, undocumented migrants take on the role of historical actors restructuring sociospatial contours across global regions. Several conditions are at the base of this social action. One condition, undocumented status itself, seemingly affects this social action in opposite ways. On the one hand, the restrictions of undocumented status motivate undocumented migrants to implement survival strategies that through social networks recompose work forces and settlement spaces (Hagan, 1994). On the other hand, undocumented status keeps many migrants unattached from bureaucratic systems, allowing them short-term benefits to maneuver and survive with greater ease. The benefits of this include entering the country without state approval, locating jobs without applying for worker certification, and in some cases circumventing income-tax systems to keep a greater share of their usually low incomes.

The human agency associated with the autonomous migration of undocumented migrants is reminiscent of the experiences of earlier U.S. immigrants, who arrived and adjusted with little state intervention. Describing the rise of mass immigration from Europe in the 1815 to 1860 period, Maldwyn Allen Jones (1992) concludes,

The mass immigration of the nineteenth century originated as a self-directed, unassisted movement.... Here lies a key to the patterns both of distribution and of adjustment. That immigrants moved entirely as individuals or in family groups, that they received virtually no aid or direction, and that they were subject to control neither by European nor by American agencies or governments would largely determine their destination in the New World and the nature of their reaction to it (Jones, 1992: 98-99).

As Jones describes (1992: Chapter 6), nativistic movements soon emerged to counter the large-scale immigration patterns of the mid-1800s. The tactics used by these movements to discredit new European immigrants were fairly similar to today's methods.

A variety of immigrant characteristics, e.g., racial, linguistic, and religious, have been associated with the rise of anti-immigrant movements, but it is also the rise of immigrant settlement space that draws heated controversy as it forms the basis for the growth of immigrant communities. In attacks against new Irish immigrants in the 1830s and 1840s, for example, nativist Protestants entered Irish districts to burn down Catholic religious centers (Ibid.).

Transnational Communities

In the late 20th century, many new immigrant settlement spaces in the United States, as well as in other countries, have developed into transnational communities. These communities span between the migrants' settlement spaces in the U.S. and their communities of origin. Transnational communities maintain constant interaction across nation-state boundaries. Containing a host of formal and informal sectors, transnational communities are products of human agency. Many transnational communities were developed mainly by autonomous migration before the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. These communities play a major role in facilitating the migration, settlement, and survival of many undocumented persons who enter the U.S. In many ways, transnational communities carry out functions of social reproduction across international boundaries as if these boundaries did not exist (see Goldring, 1995; Smith, 1994; and Kearney, 1991).

Transnational communities challenge the relevancy of the border because they constitute an alternative to a state-supported global order of nation-state divisions that attempts to correlate national space with race and ethnicity. For Michael Kearney (1991: 54, 55), today's transnational communities, and the transnational age in general, represent a passing beyond the "modern age" in which forms of "organization and identity...are not constrained by national boundaries." Kearney also refers to this phase as a post-national age.

What also should be recognized about the transnational age from the perspective of transnational communities is the role of self-activity by mainly low-income migrants. While broad economic and political forces pressured populations to migrate, the social and individual actions of migrants, however, played a central role in building transnational communities. This involved developing neighborhoods, creating formal and informal organizations, opening ethnic businesses, and establishing linkages with institutions in the larger society, e.g., labor markets and school systems. It was a phenomenal task, considering that before the enactment of IRCA these processes were accomplished mostly by migrants who not only lacked legal immigrant status, but often also faced heated opposition from established residents (e.g., see Rodriguez and Hagan, 1992). The intensification of opposition, such as through Proposition 187, in the 1990s further turned some transnational community settings in the United States into contested terrains.

To be sure, through their promotion of technological development in transportation and communication, two economic sets of mainstream actors in the U.S. also played a major role in the emergence of transnational communities. One set consisted of highway construction firms that lobbied aggressively to promote government expenditures on highway development. A result, initially promoted as a national defense weapon, was the interstate highway system of over 45,000 miles built at a cost of over $129 billion (Koch and Ostrowidzki, 1995). Interstates and other superhighway systems developed over the last 40 years greatly facilitated travel not only for U.S. citizens, but also for newcomers. The ability to journey on a single highway for hundreds of miles through unknown areas greatly facilitates travel for many new immigrants seeking to reach distant destinations. Texas' well-developed highway system, the largest in the country, no doubt played a major role in attracting the many Mexican bus lines that now transport thousands of migrants yearly between Texas cities and Mexican localities.

While superhighways improved the ability to travel, high-tech electronic systems revolutionized the ability to communicate, greatly enhancing transborder telecommunication in transnational communities. Along with jet travel, high-tech communication enabled transnational community members to substantially transcend the spatial separation between communities of origin back home and immigrant settlement areas in the United States. Many migrants in transnational communities now enjoy same-day, if not instant, communication with family members back home, even in some of the most remote areas of Latin America (Rodriguez, 1995b). Indeed, in some cases migrants stay continually in touch with friends and relatives as they make their way to the United States through Central America and Mexico. Also, after entering the country, new Latino migrants are able to continue viewing their favorite television programs through international Spanish-language television systems and thus maintain a cultural continuity with communities back home. For Mexican migrants, two mega-wattage radio stations, one in Monterrey and one in San Luis Potosi, provide continuous evening and early morning musical and news programs reaching from southern Mexico to the U.S. interior.

The actions of several members of a Maya immigrant group in Houston demonstrated how migrants can appropriate high-tech telecommunication technology to strengthen transnational community ties and maintain traditional practices. Using two fax machines, one in a migrant's home in Houston and the other in the group's Guatemalan home municipio of San Cristobal Totonicapan, members of the Maya group organized an elaborate quinceanera celebration for a family member back home. Through faxes sent between Houston and the municipio, families in both settings were recruited to participate in the event's religious ceremony and to assist in preparing a feast for several hundred invited guests. The migrant organizers of the event used faxes not only to recruit families, but also to select traditional background motifs and to schedule payments for ceremonial materials and food supplies.

The use of high-tech communication in transnational communities will continue to increase substantially in the 1990s, since telecommunication companies are investing billions of dollars to expand their operations in the United States and abroad (see CWA News, 1993). In some Latin American countries, telecommunication companies are among the fastest growing industries and have greatly enhanced the capacity of the local communities' residents to communicate with relatives abroad. In Mexico, for example, the ratio of telephones per 100 population increased from 5.4 in 1976 to 9.6 in 1986, a 78% increase (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992; 1978).

In addition to providing a host of functions for social reproduction among migrant households in the United States and in communities of origin, transnational communities also constitute a social political space (Smith, 1994), enabling the transnational circulation of migrant struggles in various relational spheres. Nagengast and Kearney (1990), for example, report the formation of a pan-Mixtec transnational association developed by Mixtec migrants to defend themselves in California and Oregon on issues regarding discrimination, exploitation, health, and human rights. The Mixtecs, who migrate from Oaxaca, also meet with Mexican officials on the U.S. side of the border to discuss abuses Mixtecs face as indigenous communities in Mexico. Conflict between Sprint Long Distance and Latino telemarketers in the San Francisco area showed another political dimension of transnational communities. When Sprint fired 235 Latino telemarketers in its San Francisco facility in July 1994 for demanding a union election, a Mexican telecom union offered to care for telemarketers' families that lived in Mexico until the case was reviewed by U.S. authorities (CWA News, 1994). The Mexican union also obtained the Mexican government's commitment to investigate the firings of the Latino telemarketers under the NAFTA labor agreement (CWA News, 1996).

At another level, transnational communities represent political space for gender relations. To the extent that female migrants use transnational communities to leave traditional gender roles back home and seek self-defined opportunities through their migrant roles, it is possible to conceptualize transnational communities as a means of empowerment for some women (e.g., see Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994). Of course, this opportunity may vary among migrant women according to factors such as age and marital status. Undoubtedly, however, for many women, whether migrant or abandoned wives back home, the transnational community remains one more social structure exploited by men.(6)

Finally, transnational communities, as outcomes of human agency, represent the lengthy straggles by migrant workers to reunite with their families and communities, against the designs of an international capitalist system that values foreign migrant labor but provides no assistance for its maintenance and reproduction (see de Brunhoff, 1978; Burawoy, 1976). The Bracero Program, which imported five million Mexican farm workers from 1942 to 1964, epitomized this labor system (see Garcia, 1980; Olivas, 1990). Organized through the state, the program yearly imported thousands of Mexican workers for seasonal work in the fields of U.S. agribusiness. When the braceros completed the harvest, they were sent back to Mexico until the next season. Braceros, all men, were not allowed to bring their families to the United States. The poor communities from which the braceros originated bore all the costs of developing and reproducing this migrant labor force (Burawoy, 1976). Undocumented Latino immigration since the late 1960s, in which whole families migrate and community structures are extended north of the U.S.-Mexican border, represents a different system of migrant labor. It is a system of autonomous migration where working-class migrants themselves determine which resources for the social reproduction of their families and communities are brought to the United States and which resources are maintained back home.

State Strategies Against Autonomous Migration

The state in capitalist society is not a monolithic institution mindlessly following the plans of capital. On many social issues, various agencies of the state may offer different goals and agendas. In some cases, it is even possible to think of state policies as negotiated outcomes among different state offices (Skocpol, 1985). The operation of the Bracero Program, for example, involved disagreements between the Department of Agriculture, which generally favored it, and the Department of Labor, which at the end worked to curtail the program (see Craig, 1971; see also Calavita, 1992). Yet it is possible, I believe, to conceive of a capitalist state in terms of the tendency of state agencies in capitalist society to work within policy contours that historically have favored the reproduction of the capitalist system. Of particular significance has been the state's role in regulating or attempting to regulate immigrant labor, formally and informally.

I contend that the goal of current state activities to control undocumented immigration goes beyond an attempt to regain control of the border. It is more an attempt to end autonomous migration, which for many years has been a creative power of transnational communities. Stopping the self-directed migration of communities across the border will end the transnational survival strategy for many migrant families who have yet to achieve legal immigrant status. It will also limit the social resources of the many legal immigrant families who have undocumented family members.

Recent state strategies to control autonomous migration have included several approaches. The implementation of IRCA in 1986 had a three-pronged approach: bring undocumented immigrants into the legal system through amnesty and legalization, close the labor market for undocumented labor by prohibiting the hiring of undocumented workers, and increase the number of border enforcement agents (Hagan and Baker, 1993). Although undocumented immigration apparently slowed down for a few years after the passage of IRCA, by 1990 the INS was apprehending as many illegal Latino entrants as it had in pre-IRCA days.(7) IRCA actually strengthened autonomous migration by enlarging, through legalization, the support base consisting of immigrants with legal residence in the United States. The 2.7 million migrants (mainly Mexicans) who legalized under IRCA made the transnational community stronger for undocumented members by becoming more stable sources of social support (Hagan, 1994).

In the 1990s, the state moved with greater interest to control undocumented immigration by restricting the access of undocumented migrants to the social wage, i.e., the "indirect wage" of public human service programs used mainly by working-class persons (Withorn, 1981; de Brunhoff, 1978). While the federal government moved to restrict undocumented residents from public housing subsidized by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, local governments acted formally or informally to restrict undocumented persons from indigent health and medical care in public institutions (e.g., see Asin, 1995). Many public-supported colleges and universities also acted to exclude undocumented students (Rodriguez, 1994). Although undocumented migrants felt the restrictions, for many it did not represent a dramatic change since they depended on internal survival strategies more than on social wage programs. Indeed, through social networks, transnational communities provided assistance to those in need (Hagan, 1994), though this is not always a given (see Menjivar, forthcoming).

A third state strategy to emerge in the 1990s was to forcefully confront autonomous migration at the border, i.e., to impose physical barriers at the U.S.-Mexico borderline to stop illegal entry. The barriers varied by region, but included barbed wire and steel fences and a human wall of Border Patrol agents in El Paso. More than stopping undocumented entry, the strategy attempted to reimpose the border as a major divide in the lives of transnational Latino working-class people. As such, the strategy became a space war, as the state struggled to politically reinforce international boundary space to restrict the autonomy of foreign migrant labor. Additionally, the U.S. state attempted to deter undocumented Central American immigration by mobilizing the Mexican state to apprehend U.S.-bound Central Americans in Mexico.

Similar to the interdictions of Haitian migrants at sea, the campaign to stop Central American migrants in Mexico reflected, in my view, the U.S. state's desire to avoid legal and political struggles in the United States with activist organizations that work in defense of migrants and political refugees inside and outside transnational communities. Throughout all the major border points and immigrant settlement areas, numerous community-based organizations have developed to take on the state in legal and political struggles on behalf of migrants (Rodriguez and Urrutia-Rojas, 1990). Many of these organizations involve immigrant residents of transnational communities, but some are composed mainly of U.S.-born activists. When community organizations working to protect undocumented Central Americans came together to form the Sanctuary Movement in the 1980s, the state attempted to suppress the movement through its Operation Sojourner, which gathered information to prosecute movement members (Crittenden, 1988). By the mid-1990s, transnational communities contained numerous broad-based organizational networks working to mobilize community sectors on behalf of migrant and refugee rights and against proposed state policies to restrict immigrant populations. One network has called for and organized toward a massive immigrant march on Washington on October 12, 1996, the Latin American Dia de la Raza (Columbus Day). The plan is to recompose immigrant political struggles from the local level to the level of the country.

Even state actors do not think that border enforcement alone is sufficient to control undocumented immigration. In their promotion of NAFTA, Mexican and U.S. state representatives viewed sustained economic growth in Mexico as essential for halting this immigration (Teitelbaum and Weiner, 1995). From the perspective of NAFTA, the state strategy for control of undocumented migration is thus inter-regional development. Yet, the strategy faces very uncertain prospects, even without considering the vacillating conditions of the Mexican economy. NAFTA's long-term success, for example, will require an agricultural restructuring that will undoubtedly release a massive army of rural migrants (Barry, 1995). This scenario, cited by zapatista rebels in Chiapas as one reason for their revolt (Ross, 1995), is reminiscent of the rural enclosure movements that accompanied Europe's Industrial Revolution. Displaced from their peasant livelihoods, many of Europe's unemployed rural people made their way to the United States (Jones, 1992). This option remains a viable one for the Mexican case.

Conclusion

The late 20th century has inaugurated a new age of global capitalist development. Just as capital has expanded globally to seek new resources for its existence, many working-class communities in peripheral regions of the world economy have extended their base for survival across nation-state boundaries. They have done so autonomously through undocumented migration. This has created a new transnational person, a person who out of necessity has become very adaptable to new settlement environments (Kearney, 1995). Undocumented migrants have developed transnational communities that recompose the global spatial contours of class structures and class relations. They have accomplished this through self-activity and through capital's developments of new communication and transportation technology. This transnational development seriously challenges the continuing existence of rigid nation-state boundaries.

If the depictions of working-class transnational man and transnational woman sound farfetched, it is because social science has failed to capture the self-activity and human agency of undocumented migrant communities. This failure has resulted from at least two methodological factors. One factor has been the constant use of the individual as the unit of analysis in research of undocumented immigration. At this level, the reconstructive power of undocumented migration is limited to the individual; when the higher aggregate level of the household is used, it is usually examined as a unit struggling for existence and not as a source of structural social change. The resulting picture is one of a victimized population of docile, job-happy migrants in settings where only capital has power and workers passively suffer the consequences. A second factor has been the almost permanent use of the nation-state as the moral unit of analysis (Sjoberg and Vaughan, 1971). What benefits the nation-state is taken as a fixed value, and thus the effects of undocumented migration are measured against the "national interest," not from the standpoint of what benefits migrant communities or humankind in general. As Kearney (1991) maintains, this is an official social science that is dependent on conceptual categories provided by the dominant system and that works in the service of the nation-state. It is also a social science theoretically unprepared to capture important transnational changes in a post-national era.

What does the future of the battle for the border hold? It will continue and more than likely become a war for the border as even more potential institutional actors (e.g., international banks and health-care systems) also wear down nation-state boundaries in search of greater markets. Certainly, migrants, legal and undocumented, will continue to play a major role in this development, as U.S. employers will continue their historical role of attracting migrant labor. This was evidenced by California Governor Pete Wilson's trip to the U.S. Congress, soon after Proposition 187 was passed, to recommend the reintroduction of a bracero migrant program. Wilson's recommendation clearly indicated that the purpose of the battle for the border is not to end labor immigration, but to terminate its autonomous origin.

NOTES

1. See Cornelius, Martin, and Hollifield (1994) for a description of the policy context of international migration in different world regions. This context includes the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the European Community (EC).

2. The calls and proposed measures to limit undocumented immigration are listed regularly in major U.S. newspapers. Also, see examples in Migration World, a magazine of the Center for Migration Studies in Staten Island, New York.

3. I base these comments on my observations, since 1988, in the Guatemalan highland municipio of San Cristobal Totonicapan (see Rodriguez, 1995a; 1995b). The municipio and other surrounding ones in the Guatemalan highlands have sent a large number of undocumented migrants to the United States since the early 1980s.

4. Many papers and publications using an autonomous perspective are listed in Cleaver et al. (1991). Also, see Cleaver (1994).

5. I do not mean to imply that undocumented migrants do not participate in political groupings, which they certainly do. What I mean is that the undocumented have not organized into a formal political group, such as a political party.

6. For example, see "Irma's Story: The Life of an Illegal Alien" in Nathan (1991). For comparative materials from Britain, see Mama's (1993) "Women Abuse in London's Black Communities."

7. See INS apprehension figures in U.S. Bureau of the Census (1994: Table 323). INS apprehension figures are poor indicators for estimating how many migrants enter the country because nonmigrant factors, e.g., the number of border enforcement agents, affect the number of apprehended entrants. Yet, the trends shown by apprehension statistics may represent changes in actual undocumented migration.

REFERENCES

Asin, Stefanie 1995 "A New Look at Gold Card Safeguards: Closer Checks Ahead for Hospital District." Houston Chronicle (February 23): A-21.

Barry, Tom 1995 Zapata's Revenge: Free Trade and the Farm Crisis in Mexico. Boston: South End Press.

Burawoy, Michael 1976 "The Functions and Reproduction of Migrant Labor: Comparative Material from Southern Africa and the United States." American Journal of Sociology 81,5: 1050-1087.

Calavita, Kitty 1992 Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration, and the I.N.S. New York: Routledge.

Cleaver, Harry 1994 "Introduction." In !Zapatista!: Documents of the New Mexican Revolution. Brooklyn, New York: Autonomedia: 11-24.

1979 Reading Capital Politically. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Cleaver, Harry, Jim Fleming, and Conrad Harold (eds.) 1991 "Bibliography." Jim Fleming (ed.), Harry Cleaver, Michael Ryan, and Maurizio Viano (trans.), Antonio Negri, Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse. Brooklyn, New York: Autonomedia: 222-242.

Cohen, Robin 1987 "Policing the Frontiers: The State and the Migrant in the International Division of Labor." Jeffrey Henderson and Manuel Castells (eds.), Global Restructuring and Territorial Development. Beverly Hills: Sage: 88-111.

Cornelius, Wayne A., L. Philip Martin, and James F. Hollifield (eds.) 1994 Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press.

Craig, Richard B. 1971 The Bracero Program. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas Press.

Crittenden, Ann 1988 Sanctuary: A Story of American Conscience and the Law in Collision. New York: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

CWA News 1996 "Sprint/La Conexion Familiar Workers Tell of Rights Abuses at International Forum." Vol. 56,3 (March): 12.

1994 "Sprint Long Distance Shuts Latino Telemarketing Office to Avoid Union Election, Spread Fear." Vol. 54,7 (September): 3.

1993 Vol. 53,9 (November): 7.

de Brunhoff, Suzanne 1978 The State, Capital, and Economic Policy. London: Pluto Press.

Dicken, Peter 1992 Global Shift: The Internationalization of Economic Activity. New York: The Guilford Press, 2nd Edition.

Foley, Michael W. 1991 "Agenda for Mobilization: The Agrarian Question and Popular Mobilization in Contemporary Mexico." Latin American Review 26,2: 39-74.

Garcia, J.R. 1980 Operation Wetback: The Mass Deportation of Mexican Undocumented Workers in 1954. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

Goldring, Luin 1995 "Blurring Borders: Transnational Community, Status, and Social Change in Mexico-U.S. Migration." Paper presented at the 1995 meetings of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C.

Green, Duncan 1991 Faces of Latin America. London: Latin American Bureau.

Hagan, Jacqueline Maria 1994 Deciding to Be Legal: A Maya Community in Houston. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Hagan, Jacqueline and Susan Gonzalez Baker 1993 "Implementing the U.S. Legalization Program: The Influence of Immigrant Communities and Local Agencies on Immigration Policy Reform." International Migration Review 27,3 (Fall): 513-537.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette 1994 Gendered Transitions: Mexican Experiences of Immigration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jones, Maldwyn Allen 1992 American Immigration. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2nd Edition.

Kearney, Michael 1995 "Theorizing Transnational Personhood and Community in the Age of Limits." Unpublished paper.

1991 "Borders and Boundaries of State and Self at the End of Empire." Journal of Historical Sociology 4,1 (March): 52-74.

Koch, Wendy and Vic Ostrowidzki 1995 "Paving a Way of Life: Interstate Highway Revolutionized America, But at What Cost?" Houston Chronicle (November 19): A-6.

Kowarick, Lucio 1994 "Introduction." Lucio Kowarick (ed.), Social Struggles and the City: The Case of Sao Paulo. New York: Monthly Review Press: 31-40.

Lotringer, Sylvere and Christian Marazzi 1980 "The Return of Politics." Semiotext(e) Italy: Autonomia, Post-Political Politics 3,3: 8-23.

Mama, Amina 1993 "Woman Abuse in London's Black Communities," Winston James and Clive Harris (eds.), Inside Babylon: The Caribbean Diaspora in Britain. London: Verso: 97-134.

Menjivar, Cecilia 1996 "Immigrant Kinship Networks: Vietnamese. Salvadorans, and Mexicans in Comparative Perspective." Journal of Comparative Family Studies. Forthcoming.

Migration World 1994 "International Migration Growing in Size and Importance." Vol. 22,4: 3.

Nagengast, Carole and Michael Kearney 1990 "Mixtec Ethnicity: Social Identity, Political Consciousness, and Political Activism." Latin American Research Review 25,2, 61-91.

Nathan, Debbie 1991 Women and Other Aliens: Essays from the U.S.-Mexico Border. El Paso, Texas: Cinco Punto Press.

Olivas, Michael A. 1990 "The Chronicles, My Grandfather's Stories, and Immigration Law: The Slave Traders Chronicle as Racial History." St. Louise University Law Journal 34: 425 - 441.

Pedraza; Silvia and Ruben Rumbaut (eds.) 1996 Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America. New York: Wadsworth.

Rodriguez, Nestor 1995a "The Real 'New World Order': The Globalization of Racial and Ethnic Relations in the Late Twentieth Century." Michael Peter Smith and Joe R. Feagin (eds.), The Bubbling Cauldron: Race, Ethnicity, and the Urban Crisis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 211-225.

1995b "Lessons on Survival from Latin America." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy (Fall): 90-93.

Rodriguez, Nestor and Jacqueline Hagan 1992 "Apartment Restructuring and Latino Immigrant Tenant Struggles." Comparative Urban and Community Research 4: 164-180.

Rodriguez, Nestor and Ximena Urrutia-Rojas 1990 "Impact of Recent Refugee Migration to Texas: A Comparison of Southeast Asian and Central American Newcomers." Wayne H. Holtzman and Thomas H. Bornemann (eds.), Mental Health of Immigrants and Refugees. Austin, Texas: Hogg Foundation for Mental Health: 263-278.

Rodriguez, Roberto 1994 "Central American Students Organize to Be Seen and Heard." Black Issues in Higher Education (April 21): 26-30.

Ross, John 1995 Rebellion from the Roots: Indian Uprising in Chiapas. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press.

Sjoberg, Gideon and Ted R. Vaughan 1971 "The Sociology of Ethics and the Ethics of Sociology." Edward Tirayakian (ed.), The Phenomenon of Sociology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crafts: 259-276.

Skocpol, Theda 1985 "Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research." Peter R. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol (eds.), Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 3-43.

Smith, Michael Peter 1994 "Can You Imagine?: Transnational Migration and the Globalization of Grassroots Politics." Social Text 39 (Summer): 15-33.

1989 "Urbanism: Medium or Outcome of Human Agency?" Urban Affairs Quarterly 24,3 (March): 353-357.

Teitelbaum, Michael S. and Myron Weiner 1995 Threatened Peoples, Threatened Borders: World Migration and U.S. Policy. New York: W.W. Norton.

U.S. Bureau of the Census 1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1994. Washington, D.C.

1992 Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1992. Washington, D.C.

1978 Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1978. Washington, D.C.

Withorn, Ann 1981 "Retreat from the Social Wage: Human Services in the 1980s." Radical America 15,1-2 (Spring): 23-32.

NESTOR RODRIGUEZ is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Houston and the director of the university's Center for Immigration, 492 PGH, College of Social Science, University of Houston, TX 77204-3472, (713) 743-3946. He has conducted research in the areas of Mexican and Central American immigration and settlement and on evolving inter-group relations in new immigrant communities in the Houston area, as well as on historical urban specialization in the world economy. His present research focuses on the growth of transnational communities among migrant populations. The author is grateful to Rosa Davila, Tatcho Mindiola, and Michael A. Olivas for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.