Central American Asylum Seekers in Southern Mexico: Fluid (Im)mobility in Protracted Migration Trajectories

Abstract

The search for safety among asylum seekers worldwide is seldom circumscribed to a linear trajectory. Central Americans who arrive in Mexico seeking protection engage in prolonged journeys whether as a part of a predetermined plan or as a result of the changing circumstances they encounter along the way. As people await a response to their claim, they enter a pause that immobilizes them, which influences the decision to stay put or to move on. Difficult conditions in Mexico, the hurdles that the procedure to access asylum imposes on claimants, and the intended plans for ongoing mobility engender fluid migration trajectories

Keywords:

• Asylum seekers, refugees
• human mobility
• (im)mobility
• onward migration
• Central American migrants

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to all interlocutors who shared their time and experiences. Santiago Martínez, Enrique Coraza, Diana P. López, Ana Bertha Mendoza, Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Matías de Córdova, and La 72-Hogar Refugio para personas migrantes provided generous encouragement, collaboration, and support.

Notes

1 I reject the use of terms such as undocumented or illegal aliens to describe the migratory status among this population. As Collyer and de Haas, (2012, p. 472) have put it, “Defining individuals themselves as illegal tends to pathologize illegality as a fixed characteristic of particular populations. This is ethically unacceptable, but it is also inaccurate. Individuals change status frequently, rapidly and in many cases, repeatedly.” The Convention on the Status of Refugees (1951), asylum seekers can be unauthorized without being illegal (Carling, 2007, p. 6). Someone can be irregular, yet authorized, as when a person enters a country with a false passport or a sham visa (Carling, 2007, p. 5).

2 Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of respondents.

3 The role of agency is one among (many) issues linked to fluid (im)mobility that deserve further attention. Under harsh circumstances a migrant’s agentic capacity becomes limited yet not fully restricted. As shown elsewhere (Arriola Vega & Martínez, 2020, p. 203), “Agency, even if it remains at a discursive level … plays a fundamental role in not being stuck in the suffering, the pain, the uncertainty.” Stagnation does not lead necessarily to passiveness. It is at times of stasis when some individuals are best able to enact agency. For example, people may react critically to narratives that portray them as victims. A prolific corpus of literature demonstrates why migrants are not to be considered passive subjects (among others see Triandafyllidou, 2017; Mainwaring, 2016; Gill et al., 2011; Stewart, 2005).

4 The caravans have become, arguably, a turning point in the overall dynamics of unauthorized migration passing through Mexico. This article presents events that took place before the caravans. For analysis on the caravans, up to 2019, see Coraza and Perez (2020).

5 Obviously, narratives are “a ‘here and now product’” (Benezer & Zetter, 2015, p. 313) affected by the context in which the interview takes place (a home, an institution, a public place, etc.) and the position of the interviewer (age, gender, etc.) or the possibility that other truths emerge (e.g., psychological truth (Ibid).

6 Booth et al. (2014) offer a thorough analysis of the historical roots of inequality, poverty, and violence in N.C.A. and U.S. policy’s influence in the region.

7 The origins of Maras can be traced to Salvadorians who escaped from civil war in the 1980s and went to inner-city areas in the United States, notably Los Angeles. Young, marginalized Salvadorian immigrants had to deal with existing gangs in that city, particularly Mexican-origin gangs who controlled Latino-populated neighborhoods. Eventually, Salvadorians organized their own cliques to confront Mexican rivals (see among others, International Crisis Group 2017; Jensen, 2013; Cruz, 2014; Bellanger & Rocha, 2017). As part of tougher immigration policies, in the late 1990s the U.S. government deported foreign-born, convicted criminals. Gang members arrived in large numbers in El Salvador; Maras subsequently spread to Honduras and Guatemala. Marero designates a Mara member. Two major gangs are active in N.C.A.: MS13 (a.k.a. as Mara Salvatrucha) and B18 (Barrio 18) (InSight Crime, 2017). A concise recounting of Maras history can be found at International Crisis Group (2017, pp. 15–17). For a comprehensive description about the way these groups operate see Cantor (2014, pp. 39–40).

8 The link between extortion and forced mobility is difficult to establish because precise statistics are lacking or mobility may be due to more than one reason (International Crisis Group, 2017, p. 16). This same source, which offers details about the way Maras conduct extortion adds, “But the central role played by protection rackets in expressing and maintaining the maras’ coercive control over territories and communities strongly suggests that it is closely related to the violence and fear driving an increasing exodus from … above all El Salvador and Honduras” (International Crisis Group, 2017, p. 16).

9 Insecurity is a subtle, “everyday” reason for flight or displacement in N.C.A. It is about “more diffuse fears for the future, such as the concern of an urban mother that her growing children may attract the attention of the local clika, -generally speaking a gang cell, or simply frustration with the increasing levels of crime and violence” (Cantor, 2014, pp. 48–49).

10 At the time Cantor carried out his research (late 2000s), there was a relatively low number of Central American asylum seekers in Mexico; this author concluded that either most of the forcible displacement was internal or that “those who flee the country due to criminal violence rarely apply for asylum” (Cantor, 2014, p. 60).

11 In a study carried out with “protection visa holders,” 10 out of 17 youngsters who went to Australia as asylum-seeking minors indicated that they had lived in another country, or several countries, prior to their arrival in Australia (Nardone & Correa-Velez, 2016, p. 299).

12 The 2017 figures refer to affirmative asylum claims, in contrast to defensive claims (see USDHS, 2019 p. 6, for definitions). The current decrease in the number of applications is the result of tougher asylum policies. The most restrictive legislation is the Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), colloquially named the Remain in Mexico program. Most sources agree that due to MPP, as of early 2020 close to 60,000 claimants, mostly from N.C.A., remained in northern Mexico waiting for a hearing in the United States.

13 Mexico’s law sets a distinction between refugees and asylees. The category solicitante de la condición de refugiado (refugee seeker) is akin to asylum seeker, as referenced in international jurisprudence. Refugee status is processed through the Ministry of the Interior. Mexico acknowledges political asylum only, a form of protection handled by the Ministry of Foreign Relations (Official Federal Journal [Mexico], October 10, 2014).

14 Five participants had applied for Humanitarian Reasons protection (CVRH by its acronym in Spanish) (Official Federal Journal [Mexico], May 25, 2011). CVRH is granted when people are victims of a crime or witness one. Asylum seekers may apply for CVRH even though, in practice, they seem to be discouraged from doing so. INM decides who is granted CVRH. The status is valid for one year and can be renewed (Human Rights Watch, 2016, p. 74). Many people do not claim CVRH because they are afraid of filing a complaint before the authorities.

15 According to Mexican legislation, people detained at an INM station cannot be held longer than 60 working days.

Additional information

Funding

Funding provided by ECOSUR’s project “MT-Staring at Vulnerability in Southeastern Mexico” (2016–2018).