Immigrant Integration vs. Transnational Ties?: The Role of the Sending State

Recent work on transnationalism provides evidence to support the argument that transnational ties to the home country and integration into the host state are not mutually exclusive processes (Levitt and Glick-Schiller, 2004). Moreover, connections to the home country attenuate over time and by the third generation immigrants are usually fully integrated into the receiving country. Given that some of the existing transnational ties are encouraged and facilitated by the home country, critics of sending states' diaspora engagement activities argue that their promotion of ongoing transborder connections limits immigrants' integration into the host state. The case of Mexico shows that there are stated and unstated objectives in the state's diaspora engagement policies, including the promotion of the government's political and economic interests, the need to maintain its legitimacy at home and abroad, and the interest in facilitating and securing remittance flows. But since the 1990s the programs developed by the Mexican government directed to migrants in the U.S. also seek to improve their living conditions in the host country. An issue that requires further exploration and is addressed in this paper is whether and how the services that Mexico provides to emigrants through its 50 consulates and the Institute of Mexicans Abroad (IME) contribute to or limit migrants' process of integration in the United States. Such services include, among others, preventive health care and medical referrals, adult education programs, and leadership development. This paper examines the effects of the Mexican government's programs on the integration of Mexican immigrants based on interviews in various U.S. cities. It also examines the response in the U.S. to the Mexican government's active role in this regard.