Despite talk of higher border walls and increased patrols in the southern United States, physical infrastructure does not change our nation’s present reality. Even with significant immigration impediments – that extend beyond walls and human guards - national borders in the United States are truly fluid. As a result, many migrants are living transnational lives as they never have before – often without ever leaving the United States once they arrive.

On May 1, 2006, officially billed as "Un Dia Sin Inmigrantes" in the United States, we saw hundreds of thousands of immigrants and immigrant advocates take to the streets to demand that the U.S. Congress enact legislation that acknowledges the important role that immigrants play in this country’s economy, rather than legislation that simply pushes them further into the shadows of our nation’s day labor and manufacturing sectors. These demands are couched in the language of a world where globalization is an everyday part of people’s rhetoric. In his 2004 article, Migrant Transnationalism and Modes of Transformation, Steven Vertovec addresses this changing human landscape and attributes migrants’ increased likelihood of maintaining transnational ties to improved technology, accessible travel options, and financial capacity.1

In order to consider the economic and social implications of these transnational lifestyles, this article briefly illustrates some of the "who" and "why" behind recent upsurges in migration to the U.S. from Mexico and Central America. Then, it examines the realities of one of these nations' diasporas here in the United States. Finally, the article articulates several differing approaches to diaspora relations in order to identify the most applicable lessons-learned that Central American governments would be well advised to heed in policymaking. The article concludes with a summary of the impact diaspora groups can and will have on remittance flows to their country of origin if the necessary policy shifts happen both here and in home countries.

From Bananas To Border-Crossings

Gone are the days of any one banana-republic’s hold on the world agricultural market. Yet many people still associate large areas of Mexico and Central America solely with agricultural subsistence and exports. The reality is that most Central American countries have undergone serious transformation in the last few decades. Many Central American economies are now more focused upon labor-exportation than they are on agricultural production. While Mexicans and Central Americans may still be harvesting crops, they are often doing so in California and Florida rather than in their own pueblo in Mexico, Honduras or Nicaragua.

Mexican officials have recognized this reality and numerous public-private partnerships tied to the Mexican diaspora are emerging daily – HTAs, Tres Por Uno and other matching grant government programs; availability of the matricula consular; a U.S.-Mexico Central Bank collaboration; and the list goes on. All of these programs seek to increase the ease with which Mexicans can send remittances home. However, the same is not true, on any large scale, for Central American governments.

While there may always be a need for investment in the agricultural sector in Central America, closed economies and self-sufficiency are a thing of the past. With the realities of free trade and fast moving labor migration, nations must look to their most valuable export - their citizens - as economic and social resources. Before they can expect results though, governments must make an investment upon which they can then see a return. As Manuel Orozco writes in his article The New Realities for Central America:

Transnational linkages among Central Americans now go beyond family remittances. Migration is driving the creation of a new economic infrastructure in the region. Immigrants are increasingly investing in Central America, transnational ties are stimulating the creation of social groups across the region, and individual migrants are seeking greater political participation in the political process of their home countries. With the passage of laws in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua allowing citizens to have dual citizenship, the strengthening of transnational ties will continue. As a result, transnational politics are playing a major role in defining political debates in home country dynamics.2

Such initiatives are a great start, and the potentially enormous role remittances can play in the development of labor-sending countries is now clear. We know nations must seek to facilitate lower-cost remittance transfers through formal channels. We know that areas lacking basic infrastructure will likely see less of a macroeconomic benefit from remittance flows. Yet, a significant development impact by remittance flows is never a foregone conclusion. Central American nations must further support "human capital" abroad in order to guarantee that remittances play a positive and significant role in their nation's development.

In her 2004 article Beyond Remittances: The Role of Diaspora in Poverty Reduction in their Countries of Origin, Migration Policy Institute founder Kathleen Newland writes, "the dense web of ties between Diaspora and country of origin is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the creation of individuals and groups acting on their own initiative, rather than a product of government intervention."3 Beyond individuals and families, Newland points out that Diaspora organizations include migrants from the same region of a home country, ethnic groups, alumni associations, churches, professional associations, charitable organizations, NGOs, investment groups, political party affiliates, and even schools and clubs for the preservation of culture.

In the United States, there is a great variety among Central American diasporas in terms of the strength of these networks. As Newland points out, "Diaspora communities often reproduce the divisions of class, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, language and region that are found in their countries of origin."4 If there are major divisions on the basis of one or more of these distinctions, a diaspora may have limited interest or power to act as a collective agent for development.

Honduras– A Snapshot of the Diaspora

Let us briefly consider Newland’s claim in the context of one Central American country in particular. Honduras is a nation of approximately seven million people that has experienced significantly less political upheaval than some of its neighbors. Nonetheless, a large percentage of Hondurans live in poverty and there is a racial divide that extends beyond the country’s borders and into Diaspora relations as well.

Garifunas (Hondurans of African descent who live primarily along the Caribbean coast of Honduras) have been coming to the United States since the days of the booming banana trade. Signing on as Merchant Marines, many of them disembarked in New Orleans and set down roots in the United States. Entire communities in Honduras have grown to depend on the remittances these individuals, the majority of whom have been in the States long enough to become legal residents, send back. Often English-speaking to begin with, Garifunas easily blend in with African Americans in the United States and are less likely to be identified as "Central American."

The following excerpts are from an article, NY Garifuna Protest Honduran Prez’s Broken Promises, published in New York City’s Amsterdam News in December 2004 following the unexpected dismissal of the Honduran Consul, a Honduran Garifuna woman:

"This is a bad move by the Honduran government, to get rid of its only person of African descent," Moíses Perez, president of Alizanza Dominicana, said as he joined protestors in front of the Honduras Consulate. "It’s simply an issue of inclusion and presence; it is only right for every government in Honduras to acknowledge the presence of African people in their country. Because otherwise, what do they say: Out of sight, out of mind?"

"As far as I’m concerned, everyone is avoiding the main issue here," Dr. Waldaba Stewart said. "First, Hondurans of African descent are an important source of remittances to Honduras. That was the reason they agreed to having the presence of someone of African descent in the government in the first place! As far as I’m concerned, this is just the same old colonialism," Stewart continued: "You take from us and you don’t even have the decency to include us."5

Mestizo Hondurans, on the other hand, have only been coming to the United States in large numbers over the last decade or so. In fact, while U.S. Census data from 2000 suggests that there are approximately 250,000 Hondurans in the United States, informal estimates suggest that the real number is closer to 800,000 (more than 1/10 of the country’s overall population); and that many Hondurans not accounted for in the census data are undoubtedly Mestizo Hondurans who came to the United States illegally in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch in 1998. Unlike some other Central American groups, Mestizo Hondurans are dispersed throughout the United States rather than being primarily concentrated in a few neighborhoods or cities.

While the Honduran Diaspora lacks overall solidarity and a majority of individuals likely earn paltry wages, the reality is that collectively this group accounted for most of the more than $1 billion in remittances to Honduras in 2004.6 This flow represented more than fifteen percent of the country’s overall GDP in that same year and it was therefore no surprise to read in a recent edition of Honduras This Week that "according to the Central Bank of Honduras, remittances are becoming one of the principle supports of the Honduran economy."7

Yet, what of Hondurans’ lives here in the United States? I recently visited the Honduran Consulate in New York City to speak with the Acting Consul about remittances and the Honduran diaspora. The Acting Consul kindly spoke with me and a colleague for over an hour. He was eager to share what he knew. However, his knowledge of remittances was limited as was his awareness of social service organizations and other resources available to help Hondurans. He openly discussed the staffing shortage issue faced by the Consulate and had no knowledge of any plans by new Honduran President, Manuel Zelaya (inaugurated in January 2006), to increase outreach to the Honduran Diaspora in order to better serve their needs or encourage further participation in the development of their country.

Despite the many infrastructure challenges that Honduras faces and despite the general lack of resources available to the Diaspora, there are a number of entrepreneurial Hondurans who, as Newland suggests is typically the case, have taken matters into their own hands to form an investment group that is looking to channel investment remittances into Honduras. A group of 100 Honduran-Americans, under the leadership of a Honduran Garifuna – have created a group called the New Horizon Investment Club. Collectively they are investing in real estate both in Honduras and here in the United States. Their emphasis on responsible investment is the type of effort that, to date has been far too limited in Central America.

Where does this leave us?

Lessons Learned

In her article, Newland cautions that one-dimensional thinking about Diasporas as only a source of funds can be counterproductive. She provides evidence of diaspora impact beyond remittance flows - impact on political development, social attitudes, foreign relations, conflict resolution, technology transfer, cultural preservation, leadership development and philanthropy – to name just a few.

While it is important to acknowledge that the formation of a Diaspora is a process that is unique for each country or group, there are still some general lessons that can be gleaned from other countries' successes:

India recently launched a multi-faceted program that taps the nation's U.S. Diaspora to target direct investment, portfolio investment, technology transfer, market opening and out-sourcing opportunities. This initiative was introduced by the government after many years of simply ignoring the Indian Diaspora and after outreach to encourage Indians abroad to purchase bonds was highly successful. Newland reports, "In September 2000, the Indian government tasked a High Level Committee on the Indian Diaspora to analyze the location, situation and potential development role of the estimated 20 million non-resident Indians (NRIs) and Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs). The report of the High Level Committee on the Indian Diaspora was released to great fanfare by the Indian government in January 2002. The report recommended a 'new policy framework for creating a more conducive environment in India to leverage these invaluable human resources.'"8

In Mexico in 2001, President Vicente Fox’s administration created the Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad. This Office's stated purpose is strengthening ties between Mexican emigrants and their communities of origin. At the same time, the Mexican government introduced legislation allowing Mexicans living abroad to have US dollar accounts in Mexico and to maintain dual nationality. The Mexican government clearly has at least two objectives: to expand opportunities for Mexicans abroad and to facilitate remittance flows.

China and Taiwan, like India, are focusing more on business-oriented models for Diaspora contributions to development than on remittances. Taiwan is focusing upon attracting human capital from the Diaspora through their “brain trust” model. China is continuing its long term efforts to tap Chinese communities abroad in order to attract direct investment and to open trade opportunities.

Differences To Be Remembered

There are inevitably some lessons to be learned from these other countries. But the lessons will only be useful to Central America if governments acknowledge the realities of their own diasporas and look to develop policies and programs that will strengthen them in order to encourage greater support from those diasporas in the future.

In some of the countries mentioned above, like Mexico and India, there are huge inequalities that are similar to the disparities that exist between rich and poor in most Central American nations. However, due to the sheer size of their populations, the Mexicans and Indians in the United States both come from a much larger pool of potential migrants than those from Central America. Furthermore, Indians making the decision to travel to the United States face a long journey (that is discouraging for those without resources) whereas, Mexicans, even those in southern Mexico who are now migrating in larger numbers than ever before, face fewer travel challenges (until they reach the border, that is).

There is also a lesser likelihood of brain drain from Mexico than there is from Central America, since significant incentives now exist for well-educated Mexicans to return and invest at home. Many Central American migrants are likely from poor communities where someone at home is relying upon the migrant to send remittances as a means of subsistence; yet the small number of university graduates from many of these nations often emigrate in order to find opportunity that doesn't exist at home. Therefore, neither a focus solely on the “brain drain” population nor an emphasis solely on the needs of unskilled Central American migrants will likely return the needed results.

Recommendations

Generally speaking, Central American nations must strive to more effectively reach out to all of their migrants through diverse yet targeted efforts. In the instance of those migrants who most appropriately fit into the category of “brain drain candidates” nations must seek to leverage their capacity to participate in more formal investment opportunities like those pursued by both public and private entities in China, India and Taiwan. As Newland points out, many Diasporas "are experienced in the use of networking to build connections among their communities abroad as well as with their countries of origin."9 In the instance of less-skilled migrants, efforts must be made to provide them with access to photo identification, to connect them with relevant social services, and to further facilitate their access to other social and financial sector services available in the United States so that they can focus on building solidarity and leadership potential for future endeavors related to supporting their home country.

While Newland’s article, much cited here, aims to demonstrate the steps necessary to guaranteeing that a Diaspora plays a role in the development of the home country, this paper aims to highlight a need that precedes those efforts. As mentioned by a representative of the Fifth Avenue Committee during a presentation at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, most Central American nations have seen tremendous increases in the number of migrants leaving for the United States over recent years. Yet, in most instances, little has been done by home countries to tend to the needs of these migrants once they arrive in the United States.

Since many of these migrants will choose to stay in the United States, it is in the best interests of Central American nations to tend to their needs here since as Vertovec illustrates, “transformation” is a much deeper process than the simple “change” associated with moving to a different country. By capitalizing upon the transformative process in which migrants live lives that are simultaneously rooted both “here” and “there”, cultural and social connections can be positively exploited to the benefit of those on both sides of the border. However, in order for this to happen, nations must accept that their responsibility to citizens extends beyond simply helping them to secure Temporary Protective Status or to have access to paperwork that will facilitate their return home.

It is not only governments that must play a role in this process - but they must play a leadership role. Donors too have a responsibility to provide the seed money and technological assistance necessary to strengthen Diaspora networks. Ultimately, a government's thoughtful investment in building a strong diaspora will undoubtedly return great economic and social benefits, even if the United States continues to consider legislation that criminalizes the presence of our neighbors from the South. Concerns about diminished remittance flows resulting from people becoming more established here are a concern of the past. Strengthening migrants’ home country social networks and improving their access to formal financial channels will undoubtedly result in increased (or at least more efficient) remittance flows, improved development efforts back home and improved migrant living conditions in the U.S. – a win win situation for all involved!

Citations

1) Vertovec, Steven. The International Migration Review; Migrant Transnationalism and Modes of Transformation: 2004. p971.

2) Terry, Donald F. and Steven R. Wilson. Beyond Small Change: Making Migrant Remittances Count, Chapter 8: The New Realities for Central America by Manuel Orozco. P205.

3) Newland, Kathleen and Erin Patrick. Beyond Remittances: The Role of Diaspora in Poverty Reduction in their Countries of Origin. July 2004. A Scoping Study by the Migration Policy Institute for the Department of International Development. July 2004. pV.

4) Newland. P36. ibid.

5) http://www.indypressny.org/article.php3?ArticleID=1790

6) IDB Regional Data Survey (2004)

7) Honduras This Week (online), April 17, 2006 http://www.marrder.com/htw/

8) Newland. P8. ibid.

9) Newland. P39. ibid