Mexican-origin indigenous migration to the United States has a long history, overlapping colonialisms contribute to it, and dialectical systems of racial, class, and gender oppression shape its magnitude and form of incorporation, as equals or nonequals. This article specifically seeks to illuminate how the continuous colonial logics and acts shape indigenous migrants’ incorporation and emergent migrant identities in a global context of social inequalities. I provide a social-historical context of Mexican-origin indigenous migration and of the melting-pot concept that obfuscates the internal diversity and indigenous makeup of this long-historical migration rooted to European colonialism and its emergent forms.
AcuñaR. (1988). Occupied America: A history of Chicanos (3rd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
2.
AnzaldúaG. (1987). La conciencia de la mestiza/towards a new consciousness. In Borderlands: The new mestiza (pp. 99-120). San Francisco: Aunte Lute Books.
3.
BarajasM. (2009). The Xaripu community across borders: Labor migration, community, and family. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
BarajasM. (2012). A comparative analysis of Mexican- and European-origin migration and incorporation to the United States: Proposing interactive colonization theory. Societies Without Borders: Human Rights and the Social Sciences, 7(3), 264-295.
6.
BarajasM. (2013). Mexican-origin indigenous immigration to the United States: A historical and intersectional perspective. In NessI. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of global human migration (pp. 1-9). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
7.
BarajasM. (in press). Weaving testimonies of the San Joaquin Valley fields, community, and higher education: Affirming critical knowledge and justice from the bottom up. In CuadrazG.FloresY. (Eds.), Rethinking home: Testimonios from California’s agricultural valles (pp. 1-20). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
8.
BessererJ. F. (1999). Estudios transnacionales y ciudadanía transnacional [Transnational studies and transnational citizenship]. In MummertG. (Ed.), Fronteras fragmentadas (pp. 215-238). Zamora, Mexico: El Colegio de Michoacán.
9.
Bonfil BatallaG. (1996). México profundo: Reclaiming a civilization (DennisP. A., Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
10.
Bravo UgarteJ. (1960). Inspección ocular en michoacán: Regiones central y sudoeste [Visual inspection in Michoacán: Central and southwestern regions]. Mexico City, Mexico: Editorial Jus.
11.
BrycK.VelezC.KarafetT.Moreno-EstradaA.ReynoldsA.AutonA.OstrerH. (2010). Genome-wide patterns of population structure and admixture among Hispanic/Latino populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 8954-8961.
12.
CasanovaP. G. (1963). Desarrollo y subdesarrollo [Development and underdevelopment]. Desarrollo Económico, 3(1/2), 285-302.
13.
CasanovaP. G. (1965). Internal colonialism and national development. Studies in Comparative Development, 1(4), 27-37.
14.
ChavezL. R. (2008). The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15.
CockcroftJ. D. (1998). Mexico’s hope: An encounter with politics and history. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
16.
CockcroftJ. D. (2010). Mexico’s revolution then and now. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
17.
CollinsP. H. (2004). Learning the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. In HardingS. (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 103-126). New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
CorneliusW. A.FitzgeraldD.Hernández-DíazJ.BorgerS. (Eds.). (2009). Migration from the Mexican Mixteca: Transnational community in Oaxaca and California. San Diego: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies.
19.
FenelonJ. V.MurguiaS. J. (2008). Indigenous peoples: Globalization, resistance, and revitalization. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(12), 1656-1671.
20.
ForbesJ. (1979). Columbus and other cannibals. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press.
21.
ForbesJ. (1982). Native Americans of California and Nevada (Rev. ed.). Happy Camp, CA: Naturegraph.
22.
FoxJ.Rivera-SalgadoG. (Eds.). (2004). Indigenous Mexican migrants in the United States. La Jolla, CA: University of California, San Diego, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.
23.
FragaL. R.GarciaJ. A.HeroR. E.Jones-CorreaM.Martinez-EbersV.SeguraG. M. (2010). Latino lives in America: Making it home. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
24.
GalarzaE. (1964). Merchants of labor: The Mexican bracero story. Santa Barbara, CA: McNally and Loftin.
25.
GlennE. N. (2002). Unequal freedom: How race and gender shaped American citizenship and labor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
GoldringL. (2003). The power of status in transnational social fields. In SmithM. P.GuarnizoL. E. (Eds.), Transnationalism from below: Comparative urban & community research (Vol. 6, pp. 165-195). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
27.
GonzalezG. G. (2006). Guest workers or colonized labor? Mexican labor migration to the United States. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
28.
GuarnizoL. E.SmithM. P. (2003). The locations of transnationalism. In SmithM. P.GuarnizoL. E. (Eds.), Transnationalism from below: Comparative urban & community research (Vol. 6, pp. 3-34). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
29.
HallT. D.FenelonJ. V. (2009). Indigenous peoples and globalization: Resistance and revitalization. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
30.
HartJ. M. (2002). Empire and revolution: The Americans in Mexico since the Civil War. Berkeley: University of California Press.
31.
hooksb. (2004). Choosing the margin as a space of radical openness. In HardingS. (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 153-159). New York, NY: Routledge.
32.
JiménezT. R. (2010). Replenished ethnicity: Mexican Americans, immigration, and identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
33.
KearneyM. (1972). The winds of Ixtepeji: Worldview and society of a Zapotec town. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
34.
KearneyM. (2000). Transnational Oaxacan indigenous identity: The case of the Mixtecs and Zapotecs. Identities, 7(2), 173-195.
MasseyD. S.AlarcónR.DurandJ.GonzálezH. (1987). Return to Aztlán: The social process of international migration from western Mexico. Studies in demography 1. Berkeley: University of California Press.
37.
MasseyD.DurandJ.MaloneN. J. (2002). Beyond smoke and mirrors: Mexican immigration in an era of economic integration. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
38.
MenchacaM. (1993). Chicano Indianism: A historical account of racial repression in the United States. American Ethnologist, 20(3), 583-603.
39.
MenchacaM. (1995). The Mexican outsiders: A community history of marginalization and discrimination in California. Austin: University of Texas Press.
40.
MenjívarC. (2000). Fragmented ties: Salvadorean immigrant networks in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
41.
NgaiM. (2004). Impossible subjects: Illegal aliens and the making of modern America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
Pew Hispanic Center. (2009, April15). Mexican immigrants in the United States, 2008: Fact sheet. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/47.pdf
43.
Pew Hispanic Center. (2011, March24). Census 2010: 50 million Latinos/Hispanics account for more than half of the nation’s growth in the past decade. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/140.pdf
44.
PortesA.RumbautR. G. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
45.
RouseR. (1992). Making sense of settlement: Class transformation, cultural struggle, and transnationalism among Mexican migrants in the United States. In SchillerN. G.BaschL.Blanc-SzantonC. (Eds.), Towards a transnational perspective on migration: Race, class, ethnicity, and nationalism reconsidered (pp. 25-52). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences.
46.
RuizN.BarajasM. (2012). Multiple perspectives on the schooling of Mexican indigenous students in the U.S.: Issues for future research. Bilingual Research Journal, 35(2), 125-144.
47.
SmithR. C. (2003). Transnational localities: Community, technology and the politics of membership within the context of Mexico and U.S. migration. In SmithM. P.GuarnizoL. E. (Eds.), Transnationalism from below: Comparative urban & community research (Vol. 6, pp. 196-238). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
48.
StavenhagenR. (1964). Further comment on ethnic relations in southeastern Mexico. American Anthropologist, 66(5), 1155-1158.
49.
StephenL. (2007). Transborder lives: Indigenous Oaxacans in Mexico, California, and Oregon. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
50.
Stokes-BrownA. K. (2012). America’s shifting color line? Reexamining determinants of Latino racial self-identification. Social Science Quarterly, 93(2), 309-332.
51.
TellesE. E.OrtizV. (2008). Generations of exclusion: Mexican Americans, assimilation, and race. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
52.
TorresM. A. (1998). Transnational political and cultural identities: Crossing theoretical borders. In BonillaF.. (Eds.), Borderless borders: U.S. Latinos, Latin Americans, and the paradox of interdependence (pp. 169-182). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
53.
ValenzuelaK. (2009, August). How all the brown people became Mexican and the struggle for Native American ethnic identity in the Central Valley of California. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p307956_index.html
54.
VasquezJ. (2011). Mexican Americans across generations. New York, NY: New York University Press.
55.
WeberD. (1998). Historical perspective on transnational Mexican workers in California. In HartJ. M. (Ed.), Border crossings: Mexican and Mexican-American workers. Latin American silhouettes (pp. 209-233). Wilmington, DE: SR Books.
56.
WolfE. R. (1959). Sons of the shaking earth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
57.
ZabinC.KearneyM.GarcíaA.RunstenD.NagengastC. (1993). Mixtec migrants in California agriculture: A new cycle of poverty (Research report). Washington, DC: Rural Economic Policy Program of the Aspen Institute and the Ford Foundation.
