Mexican Immigrants in South Carolina: A Profile - Arnold School of

40 Pages·2007·3.96 MB·English

MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA: A PROFILE

MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA:
A PROFILE
Elaine C. Lacy- University of South Carolina Aiken
Consortium for Latino Immigration Studies, USC Columbia
January 2007
P A G E 
MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA: A PROFILE
TAbLE Of CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ABOUT THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CONTEXTUALIZING MEXICAN IMMIGRATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
.....History.of.Mexican.iMMigration.to.tHe.Us. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
.....new.iMMigrant.Destinations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
....wHy.tHe.soUtHeast.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
.....Mexican.iMigration.to.soUtH.carolina .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..9
MIGRATION PATTERNS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
.....Migration.anD.social.capital. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
.....wHy.leave.Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
.....wHy.soUtH.carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
....responDants’.genDer.anD.age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
....eDUcation.levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
....faMily.cHaracteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
ECONOMIC PROfILE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
....Jobs.anD.incoMe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
....reMittances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
....HoUsing........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
....Marginalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
....transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
....DiscriMination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
....separation... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
....isolation..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..19
....langUage..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
....HealtH.care... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
....aDaptation,.incorporation,.anD.“assiMilation”.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
APPENDIX I: INTERvIEW QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
REfERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
P A G E 
MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA: A PROFILE
MApS ANd CHARTS
figure.1 ..chart,.country.of.origin,.Hispanic.population.in.south.carolina,.2005. . . . . . . . 9
figure.2 ..Map,.south.carolina.Hispanic.population.growth.by.county,.
1990-2005........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
figure.3 ..Map,.Mexican.states.of.origin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
figure.4 ..chart,.Migration.routes.to.sc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
figure.5 ..chart,.educational.attainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
figure.6 ..chart,.family.characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
figure.7 ..chart,.Male.occupations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
figure.8 ..chart,.female.occupations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
figure.9 ..chart,.frequency.of.remittances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
figure.10 ..chart,.Housing.type... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
figure.11 ..chart,.Household.size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
figure.12 ..chart,.english.language.acquisition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
figure.13 ..chart,.language.spoken.at.home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
figure.14 ..chart,.language.spoken.in.the.workplace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
figure.15 ..chart,.Medical.treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
figure.16 ..chart,.barriers.to.Healthcare.access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
figure.17 ..chart,.church.attendance .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..24
figure.18 ..chart,.frequency.of.phone.calls.to.Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
figure.19 ..chart,.future.plans.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
TAbLES
table.1 ..Hispanic.population.for.six.southeastern.states,.1990-2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
table.2 ..Hispanic.population.as.percentage.of.total.population.of
six.southeastern.states,.1990.-2005.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
PP AA GG EE 
MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA: A PROFILE
ACkNOwLEdGEMENTS

This study was funded by a Research and Productive Scholarship grant from the University of South
Carolina and through the Aiken Partnership Fund at USC Aiken. Additional support was received from
the Consortium for Latino Immigration Studies in the Arnold School of Public Health at USC.
The project was also made possible with the assistance of the Consulado General de México in Raleigh,
North Carolina. I would like to especially thank Consul General Armando Ortiz Rocha and Guido
Arochi of the Mexican Consulate, and Alma Puente Ruiz of Columbia, SC, coordinator of the Consulados
Móviles in the state, where a portion of our research was carried out.
A number of USC students and other researchers assisted in the collection of data during the two-year
project. They include Amanda Elias Vargas, Rosemary Sharples, Kristen Hudgins, Julie Smithwick-
Leone, Alicia Carvajal, Emily Arnold, Eric Hartmann, Silvia Monge, Jon Artz, Kendra Williams, and
Professor Daniel Smith of Clemson University. Some of these researchers also transcribed taped
interviews. Other transcribers include Micaela Montes, Haydée Lavariega, Claudia Stinson, JoAnna
Vargas, and Cíntia Widman. Rosemary Sharples, Kristen Simenson, Amanda Elias Vargas, and Athey
Kauffman assisted in coding data. Thanks also to those who helped with data analysis at various points,
including Dr. Myriam Torres of USC, and demographers Dr. Elena Vesselinov of USC Columbia and
Dr. Trudy Henson of USC Aiken. I also am grateful to Dr. Michael Scardaville of USC Columbia
for his invaluable editing assistance and Jeff Mastromonico of USCA for help with publication
design. I assume sole responsibility for the data analysis, findings, and conclusions of this report.
I am also grateful to many in the community who assisted in various ways during the two year project,
especially Glenda Bunce of the Diocese of Charleston’s Office of Immigration Services and members of
Acercamiento Hispano and the SC Hispanic Leadership Council, among many others too numerous to name.
Cover photos: Craig Stinson

P A G E 
MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA: A PROFILE
AbOUT THE STUdy

Recognizing the significance of the growing Latino presence in South Carolina, a research team led by Dr.
Elaine Lacy conducted interviews with Mexican immigrants, the largest component in the Latino population,
in the Upstate, Midlands and Low Country of South Carolina between 2003 and 2005. The growing
Latino population also led to the creation in 2004 of a research group at the University of South Carolina,
the Consortium for Latino Immigration Studies, to examine various aspects of this growing population.
The Consortium, housed in the Arnold School of Public Health at USC, helped facilitate this study.
The major aims of the study were to provide a baseline profile of Mexican immigrants in South Carolina,
and to establish a record of their migration patterns, reasons for moving to South Carolina, length of
time in the state, demographic features, economic, social and cultural behaviors, and future plans. We
also wished to hear, in their own words, more about the immigrants’ experiences and major concerns.
Another goal of the study is to provide information about this population that can help shape public policy.
Most of the respondents in the study were selected using the snowball method of sampling. We
located some subjects by going door to door in mobile home parks, others through churches, in tiendas,
English language classes, or through other subjects’ social networks. Many subjects were interviewed
in consulados móviles, “mobile consulates” held at least four times annually in South Carolina by the
Consulado General de México representing the Carolinas (based in Raleigh, NC). On these occasions,
Mexican nationals come to the designated location to obtain various types of documentation including
copies of birth certificates, passports, or most commonly, to secure a matrícula consular, a photo ID card
that will enable them to open bank accounts, among other uses. We interviewed subjects in consulados
móviles in Greenville, Columbia, Lexington, Hilton Head, and Charleston, SC over the course of two
years. Respondents’ counties of residence include Aiken, Anderson, Beaufort, Charleston, Dorchester,
Greenville, Jasper, Kershaw, Lexington, Newberry, Pickens, Richland, Saluda, and Spartanburg.
The research team interviewed 200 subjects age 18 and over. The method of obtaining information
was through face-to-face, in-depth interviews conducted in Spanish. Subjects were asked a series of
69 open-ended questions, and each interview was tape recorded and transcribed by Spanish speakers.
The questions asked are noted in Appendix I. After discarding some interviews because of unclear
or damaged tape recordings, missing questions and answers, or other, similar reasons, 181 interviews
remained. These provide the basis of this report.
PP AA GG EE 
MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA: A PROFILE

CONTEXTUALIzING MEXICAN IMMIGRATION

History of Mexican Immigration to the other Latin American nations (setting a 120,000
U.S. cap for the western hemisphere). Mexican
immigration in the 1970s and 1980s was largely
Since the late 19th century a number of push
temporary and of short duration. (Bustamante,
and pull factors have shaped Mexican migration
1997, Gástelum, 1991) Since the late 1980s,
between the United States and Mexico. Mexican
however, Mexican migration to the U.S. has
migrants made their way into the U.S. in relatively
increased dramatically, thanks to economic push
small numbers until the early 20th century, when
factors in Mexico, labor needs in the U.S., and
almost one million Mexican refugees crossed the
provisions of the 1986 Immigration Reform and
border to escape the destruction of the Mexican
Control Act (IRCA). A recent report on Mexican
Revolution of 1910-1917. During World War I
migration to the U.S. termed the flow “one of the
and throughout the 1920s, largely in response to an
largest mass movements of workers and families
official agreement between the U.S. and Mexican
in the modern age” (Center for Strategic and
governments, Mexican workers continued to
International Studies, 2004:1) The 2000 Census
cross the border to fill jobs predominantly in the
revealed that the U.S. foreign-born population
southwestern U.S., mostly in agriculture, railroad
increased by 11.3 million in the 1990s, and
construction, and mining. Over time, many of
Mexican immigrants accounted for 43 percent of
these workers began taking jobs in urban areas
that growth (Census 2000).
including Chicago and New York. By the 1940s,
the Mexican worker recruitment program was
A major factor in this movement is the spread of
reinstated as large numbers of U.S. workers
global capitalism, which has increased the flow
joined the armed forces. This revised “Bracero
of goods, money and people across international
Program” (1942-1964) resulted in the arrival
borders worldwide (Tehranian, 2004). Additional
of 4.6 million Mexican workers to help U.S.
critical factors driving Mexican emigration is
growers and other employers fill jobs mainly in
their economic crisis of the 1980s, devaluation
the western U.S. These programs contributed to
of the peso in 1994, and neo-liberal economic
what some scholars have called the “revolving
policies that since the 1980s have adversely
door” of Mexican migration to the U.S. to satisfy
affected Mexico’s economy, leading to high rates
labor demands and to help meet the economic
of unemployment. After adjusting for inflation,
needs of impoverished Mexicans, especially
Mexico’s per capita GDP since the 1980s has
in rural western Mexico (Lacy, 1988; Canales,
grown at only 0.7 percent, which is less than a
2003).
third of that of the U.S. (De la Garza and Szekely,
1997; Durand et al., 1999, 2001; Alba, 2002,
These flows of Mexican refugees and workers into
Escobar Latapí and Martin, 2006; Portes, 2006).
the U.S. in the 20th century remained unrestricted
States in southern Mexico have been especially
until 1965, when the Immigration and Nationality
hard hit in recent decades. The Mexican
Act set limits on the number of immigrants that
government’s Marginalization Index, which
could legally enter the country from Mexico and
P A G E 
MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA: A PROFILE
reports on Mexican communities’ education New Immigrant Destinations
and income levels as well as basic goods and An important difference in post-1980s Mexican
services such as housing, potable water, indoor immigration and that of earlier periods is
plumbing, and electricity, indicates that the index that recent immigrants are becoming more
of marginalization in the southern Mexican states dispersed, moving into areas of the U.S. outside
increased since the 1990s. Recently, municipilaties the traditional Mexican immigrant gateways of
(similar to counties in the U.S. states) with high Texas, California, Chicago, and New York. Since
to very high levels of marginalization include 94 the early 1990s, six states in the U.S. Southeast
out of 111 municipalities in Chiapas, 59 out of 75 (Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina,
in Guerrero, 431 of 570 in Oaxaca, 141 of 217 South Carolina, and Tennessee) have experienced
in Puebla, and 130 of 207 in Veracruz (Consejo an increase in Latino immigration in general that
Nacional de la Población, 2002). exceeds that of the national increase: between
1990 and 2005 (last available Census data), the
Finally, while many Mexican migrants, both Latino population in these states increased by
authorized and unauthorized, have historically an average of 447 percent while increasing by
returned to Mexico either periodically or 85 percent for the U.S. as a whole (See Table
permanently, the percentage of those coming and 1). The Census Bureau reports that 73 percent
going has decreased since the 1980s. This is the of Latinos in these six states were of Mexican
result of a shift out of seasonal agricultural work origin (compared to 63 percent for the nation as
into more permanent employment in the U.S., a whole).
the amnesty and family reunification aspects of
IRCA, which “anchored families in the U.S.”
(Escobar Latapí and Martin, 2006; Durand et al.,
1999), and increased border enforcement, which
makes return trips to Mexico more risky and
expensive.
Table 1. Hispanic Population For Six Southern States, 1990-2005
STATE 1990 2000 2005 CHANGE
1990-2005
Arkansas 19,876 86,866 126,932 539%
Alabama 24,629 75,830 99,040 302%
Georgia 108,922 435,277 625,028 474%
North Carolina 76,726 378,963 533,087 595%
South Carolina 30,551 95,076 135,041 342%
Tennessee 32,741 123,838 172,704 428%
Source: Census 1990, 2000, American Community Survey data 2005
P A G E 
MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA: A PROFILE
Table 2. Hispanic Population as Percentage of Total Population, 1990-2005
STATE % Hispanic 1990 % Hispanic 2000 % Hispanic 2005
Arkansas 0.09 3 5
Alabama 0.06 2 2
Georgia 2 5 7
North Carolina 1 5 6
South Carolina 0.09 2 3
Tennessee 0.07 2 3
Source: Census 1990, 2000, American Community Survey data 2005
Why the Southeast? Odem and Lacy, 2005; Schmidt, 2003). Many
Latino immigrants entered the Southeast in large of the newly legal immigrants and their family
numbers in the 1990s for a variety of reasons, the members relocated to the Southeast, drawn by
most salient being economic factors. The South’s jobs such as those provided by Olympic facilities
dynamic economy, newly diversified, proved construction for the 1996 games in Atlanta, the
extremely robust in the 1990s, providing jobs at region’s construction boom in general, and by
a rate that exceeded that of the nation as a whole. poultry processing and agricultural jobs (Mohl,
Further, in the face of increasing global economic 2005).
competition, some southeastern companies made
the strategic decision to compete by remaining in The Southeast’s booming economy also resulted
the region and hiring low-cost immigrant workers in the permanent settlement of former Mexican
(Schunk and Woodward, 2000; Kochhar, 2005; agricultural migrant workers in the region. Since
Murphy et al., 2001). the 1980s, migrant agricultural workers, many of
them of Mexican origin, have traveled through
Some Mexican immigrants to the Southeast the Southeast as part of east coast migrant worker
arrive from traditional Latino settlement areas in streams, and with increasing job opportunities
the U.S. (such as California, Texas, New York many of these former migrants “settled out” to
and Chicago), “pushed” by competition over jobs take year-round jobs in the region (Odem and
and housing, and by increasing anti-immigrant Lacy, 2005).
sentiment. Further, IRCA played a role as well: the
act legalized 2.3 million previously unauthorized As Mexican migrants moved into the region from
Mexican migrants living in the U.S. and allowed other states or settled out of migrant streams to
them to send for immediate family members, take jobs and enjoy the relative tranquility and
and as traditional migrant receiving areas lower cost of living the Southeast offers, word
became overcrowded, newly legalized Mexican spread through social networks to communities
immigrants felt the freedom to relocate to new in Mexico where jobs are scarce or wages are
areas of the country (Durand, 2000; Johnson- low. Trans-border networks of job recruiters
Webb, 2002; Kochhar et al., 2005; Hernández- and labor brokers also help create ties between
León and Zúñiga, 2002; Murphy et al., 2001; Mexican and U.S. southeastern communities. As
P A G E 
MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA: A PROFILE
one group of migration scholars put it, “Residents Figure 1: Country of Origin, Hispanic
of these Mexican [sending] communities often Population in South Carolina 2005
Country of Origin, Hispanic Population South
have better information about the availability
Carolina 2005
of certain types of U.S. jobs than do local U.S.
South
residents.” (Escobar Latapí et al., 1997).
America
Other
7%
Mexican Immigration to South Carolina 9%
Central
While the Latino population in South Carolina has
America
not grown as rapidly or reached the same levels
11%
as those in North Carolina and Georgia, South
Mexico
Carolina has remained among the U.S. states
63%
with continued rapid increases in this population Puerto
cohort. The Census Bureau estimates that the Rico
Mexican-born in South Carolina increased by 10%
over 600 percent between 1990 and 2005 (from
roughly 11,000 to 85,000). According to the
2005 American Community Survey, Mexican- MIGRATION pATTERNS
born individuals comprise 63 percent of South
Carolina’s Hispanic/Latino population. (See
Migration and Social Capital
Figure 1.)
Most respondents in this study originated in
states in southern and southeastern Mexico.
It should be noted that for a variety of reasons
Over one-half (54 percent) arrived from the
the Hispanic population is undercounted by
states of Veracruz, Oaxaca, Chiapas, and Puebla.
census enumerators. The most common factors
These states represent new “sending” states
associated with undercount of Hispanics in the
in Mexico, states whose rates of out-migration
census include complex household makeup
have increased dramatically in the last decade
or cultural differences in defining households,
as result of deteriorating economic conditions
individual/family mobility, legal (authorized
(Alba, 2002; Pickard, 2006; Latapí and Martin,
vs. unauthorized) status, fear or distrust of
2006). Other states in the Southeastern U.S.
government, and language barriers (Davis, 1992;
are witnessing similar migration patterns: the
Edmonston, 2002; Romero, 1992). Given the
majority of Mexican migrants to North Carolina,
larger percentage of those of Mexican origin
for example, arrive from southern Mexico rather
within the Hispanic/Latino cohort in the U.S.,
than from the traditional sending states in central
their household characteristics, and the fact
and western Mexico (Kasarda and Johnson,
that their numbers include a high percentage of
2006).
unauthorized persons, we should assume that the
Mexican immigrant population is far larger than
Another significant finding is that the majority
the Census reports.
(65 percent) of Mexican immigrants in the study
came to South Carolina directly from Mexico.
Another 14 percent spent a year or less in another
P A G E 
MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA: A PROFILE
U.S. state before relocating to South Carolina, Figure 2: South Carolina Hispanic
some of them having lived in another state only Population Growth by County,
a few weeks or months.2 1990-2005
This pattern differs from that in North Carolina
and Georgia, at least for those arrivals who came
in the 1990s. In those states, the majority of
Mexican immigrants arrived from other U.S.
states in the 1990s (Kasarda and Johnson, 2005;
Johnson 2002; Zúñiga, 2005).
These new migratory patterns have implications
for Mexican immigrants. Potential emigrants in
traditional sending states in central and western
Mexico can expect to gain information and
support (referred to as social capital) from family,
friends and neighbors who have migrated to the
U.S. (Massey and Aysa, 2005; Lozano Ascencio,
2002). Social capital plays an important role in
migrants’ decisions to migrate and in deciding
Figure 3: Mexican States Of Origin
where to relocate. It also greatly reduces the
risks and costs associated with transnational
migration.
Further, social capital acquired once in the
U.S. affects immigrants’ rate of integration into
new communities. Migrants coming from new
sending areas and/or arriving without having
spent time in other U.S. states have accumulated
less social capital (Leach, 2005; Hernández-
León and Zuñiga, 2002; Dunn Aragones Shivers,
2005; Lozano Ascensio, 2002).
In addition, unlike migrants who settle in Texas,
California, Chicago, and other traditional
immigrant gateways, Mexican immigrants do
not find in South Carolina a multi-generational
ethnic population in place that can provide social
networks (from which one derives social capital).
Accumulation of social capital in new settlement
P A G E  0