CHARACTERISTICS OF HIERTO RICAN MIGRANTS TO, AND FROM, THE UiaTED STATES*
Eva E. Sondis, Ri.D
Dopartnent of Sociology
Fordham University and Visiting Consiiltant
Center for Educational Research University of liierto Rico
fThis researtdi uas supported by a grant from the United States Office of Education to the Center for Educational Research at the University of ^erto Rico, Rio fledras.
i CHARACTERISTICS OF PUERTO RICAl^ lUG^ilTS TO, AKD FROM,
• THE UiniTED STATES^
I Tho objective of this paper is to assess the current state of our knowleige about the socio-ccomaaic and motivational characteristics of Puerto Rican rd-grants to, and from, the United States. Focussing on these characteristics of the migrants fiiakes it possible to detormino the significance of tho migration for Puerto Rico, by indicating tdiich population segments the Island is losing, and gaining. Ii- also enables one to see the significance of the move for tho migrants themselves.
Perhaps a social mobility process is involved, in idiich the more motivated migrate to tho United States to improve their socio-occnomie status, and the most succossfuj. return to Puerto Rico.
According to the 19^0 Census, there were 617^056 first-generation Puerto |U.cans living in tho United States.^ Althou^ they made up less ti:a;i one per cent jpf the total population of the United States, the rtdgraiits and their 275,it57 Uii^-ted ^atos-bom offspring equalled 27.5 per cent of all Puerto Rlcans—thcco on tho Jsland plus those on the mainland—in 19^0.3 Since they constitute such a largo ^jroportion of the total population of Puerto Ricans, the solostivo charao'Jorxsvi.'.cs pf the migrants have significant implications for Puerto Rico's futuros Perhaps the migration is causing Puerto Rico to lose a stibstantial portion of its bettoripducated, better trained, and more highly motiv'ated people. ik
At the same time, the socio-economic characteristics of migrants may also ^fect their ovm adjustment in the United States. On tho one hrnd, tlieir tralnjng
Irhe author is indebted to Joseph P. Fitzpatrick and IJatlian Kciatroxvitzjjf Fo^iaai University, Robert J. Havigjliurst of the Un.ivorsity of Cliicago, and Jose Lo Vazque: Calzada of the University of Puerto Rico, for thoir comments and criticisms cf farlier drafts of this paper.
I ^Althou^ technically, Puerto Ricans are United States citizens and PucHo Ric: ' politically a part of the Ihiited States, the tsm United States is used here tc Rico is to i refer to the mainland, or continental United States.
^According to the I96O Census, the Island popolatioii comprisod 2,3^9*5^ inhabitants.
and skills may facilitate a rapid entry into the American labor market and improvement of their earning capacity. On the other hand, their edxicational and Ipccupational training may not help them to advance themselves in the United States, and lead to disappointment and frustration. Either eventuality may bo associated rdth a decision to return to Pberto Rico.
IJhatever the motivation to retxim, a steady stream of return migration has compl<an6nted the migratory stream to the United States. Although the return ^grant stream is smaller in size, at least 1'4-5,000—or five per cent—of the Island's inhabitants in 19^5 tiore return migrants, according to a reliable pstinato.
Since the socio-economic and motivational characteristics of the return ^grants also may have significant implications for Riorto Rican society, it is important to determine tdiat those characteristics are. The injection of an jipccupational and educational elite back into the Island, for 63camid.e, xdll create specific demands for jobs, housing, schools for children, and other institutional facilities. In addition, such retiim migrants may have considerable influence ^n the rate and direction of social change.
The remaining sections of this paper present a resume of available data on •|ho socio-economic and motivational characteristics of Rierto Rican migrants to "(ihe United States, as compared idth the Island inhabitants; and a resume of the characteristics of Riorto Rican return migrants, as compared viith those \iho remain on the mainland. Presentation of these ccanparisons ^dll reveal substantive gaps fn wr iqiovlodgo, as well as methodological iToaknesses xMch affect the roliabiUty of the data on idxich the comparisons are based. Hopefully, this discussion xd.ll |ead to a renewed effort to fill the substantive gaps, and overcome the method-
Jose Hernandez Alvarez, P«^tum Ideration to Rterto Rico. Institute for International Stxidies, Univerity of Cilifomia, Berkeley, 1967» 17.
* plo^ical difficultiGs,iMch cu^ently exist in this field of research.
Data Sonrces
The main source of information about tho socio-economic characteristics of Puerto Ricon migrants living in the United States is the U.S. Census of Populatxon. Data on the migrants is contained in tho subject reports on Puerto Ricans in the United States,'^
There is no equivalent Census volume on Puerto Rican return migrants living ^ Puerto Rico. Hotxevor, Hernandez made special tabulations of original data from tho Puerto Rican Census of i960, to obtain data comparable to those for Puerto Rican migrants living in the United States. For puposes of his analysis, return inigrants vxero defined as "persons bom in Puerto Rico, residing in the United States 1955# Q'ld rotmviing to the Island and resettling there prior to April 1, I960 , Tho advantage of Census data for investigating the socio-economic characteristics of migrants is their viido coverage and comprehensive scope. Their greatest draviback, for this purpose, is their static nature. In dealing vxith such variables as the educational and occupational characteristics of migrants, one pmnot detezTidno, from Census data, xhether they are selective—differentiate ^grants from nonmigrants prior to th^r departure to the United States or tho t posult of assimilation, upon arrival on tho mainland.
Ttio surveys are compLementary sources of information about the socio-economic ' characteristics of Rierto Ricans migrating to, and from, the United States,
^he most recent data are contained in: U.S. Bureau of tho Census, U.S. Census of >op»Iation, I960. Subject Roixarts, fUerto Ricans in the United States, Final e^rt ?C(2), Wakiin^on, D,C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. I r Fernandez, op. cit,, 9*
i Beginning in Decmbor 1955, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Commonxiealth of' Puerto Rico Departnont of Labor, conducted a "ramp" survey, of passengers arriving at:p and departir.g from, the San Juan International airport. Although technical and admnistrativo difficulties forced its discontinuance in 1964, this survey was a pionoor attempt to obtain information about the incoming and outgoing population on a continvdng basis.^
A major drawback of the ramp survey, from the standpoint of obtaining informa tion about migrants, was that it sampled flights and passengers, rather than migrants. In reporting on the characteristics of rosidont and nonresident passengers xdxo travelled by air betx-ioon the United States and PUoxto Rico, the survey did not di^inguish botxroen migrants and those xdio travelled for other purposes. The greater the volume of air traffic became, as a result of increased ti'avel botxraen Puerto Rico an4 the United States by businessmen, visitors, etc., the less likely it became thfit the characteristics of the passengers accurately reflected those of the over diminishing proportion of migi-ants among thorn.
In addition, technical difficulties in intorvioxang passengers resulted in overinclusion of young adult in the ramp survey. This produced biased estimates Q of the demographic and social characteristics of the passengers.
In 1964, the Bureau of Economic and Social Analysis of tho Commonwealth of Puprto Idco Plaiming Board, initiated an annual "household" sxirvoy of migrants,
^The reports xiere pxiblishod cumulatively by year, from 1955 to 1964, by tho Dxireau of Labor Statistics of the Commonxxoalth of Puerto Rico Department of Labor, mder tho tiilo of Characteristics of the Passengers Vfxo Travelled by Air Betxreon Puerto Riep and tho United States.
% short history of the ramp survey is contained in an xmpublishod paper of tho Bxiyoau of Labor Statistics, Commonxxoalth of Puerto Rico Dol>artment of Labor, Some Ilo^os about tho History of tho Migration Survey, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Juno 19oo«
^Critiques of the ramp survey en be found in Hernandez, op. cit., 17, and Jopd L. Vazquez Calzada, Tho Demcgraxdxic Bvolution of Puerto Rico, unpublis^ied Ph,3 dissertation, Tho University of Chicago, 1964, 114-dl?^
the household sample of the Eepartment of labor." Kembers of the sampled households are asked about persons In tholr household uho have left for the United States during the preceding year ("out-migrants"), and about persons living in their hpusohold now who returned from the United States during the preceding year ("inmigrants").
Ono consequonco of utilizing this method is that emigrating hous^Ws are lost to the sample. The procedure tends to underestimate the actual number of migrants to the United States, and to glvo a biased picture of the characteristics 11 of those vdio migrate.
The Census, the ramp sur\'oy, and the household survey are the three major sources of infonnation about tho socio-economic characteristics of Puerto Kican n^lgrants to, and from, the United States. Although each source provides valuable information bearing on migration, each has methodological limitations which hamper an evaluation of tho cocio-econoraic selectivity of migrants. The ramp survey does not distinguish clearly between migrants and cthor air passengers. The household survey does not include information on migrating households. Aiid the Census provides ttiT.y static data on the characteristics of migrants.
Infcnnation needed to evaluate the motivaticnal characteristics of migrants is equally difficult to obtain. The one comprohensive study of tho motivations of Riorto Rican migrant.3 in the United States is the survey by Mills and associates,) A v|ios3 findings are ropoid^ed in Tho Puerto Rican Journey. Between January and May tho researchers conducted 1113 somi-structured intorviovjs vdth Puerto Ricauborn adult mlgra.nts. The study was conducted within an area sample of households, in two core areas of Wew York City—Spanish Harlem and Mori'isana.^^
IPThe ear.iple used by the Department of Labor is described in: Bureau of Labor Statis tics, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Department of Labor, Redesign of the Household Sample for the Labor Force Survey. March, 19^3<• critique of the household survey can be feuud in: Jos^ L. Vazquez Calzada, Las CoxTsas y lifectos de la Stiigraclon Fhortorrlquona. unptblishod paper. University of Pi;eji*to~TEco7"Bcrioo'l of iledicilne " DctoBif'19b8,
1% detailed description of the research design is presented in: C. iJright Kills, Clarence Seticr, and Rose K. Goldsen, The Puerto Rican Journey, Kew York: Russell and Russell, :l9o7 reissue, ix and 218 TTl
6,
The Hills study provides data on the content and directional pull of ndgrants* motivations, and on the migrants* information sources about Hew York.
In addition, the study provides data on the occupations of the migrants, both at the tine of their departure for the United States, and at later stages, during their stay on the mainland, thus permitting an analysis of mobility trends.
The greatest drawback of the Mills study, from the standpoint of analyzing the socio-economic and motivational characteristics of today's migrants, is that t|ie investigation is over twenty years eld. The study needs to be replicated, to see hoiij socio-economic developments in Puerto Rico and in the United States since that time are affecting the motivations and experiences of migrants.
One change in the pattern of Puerto Rican migration since its early postUar II days, is the increasing dispersion of Puerto Ricans throughout the United States. VJhereas in 1950, ^^5 cent of all migrants lived in Kew York, in 1964, only 60 per cent wore living there.^3 it ;^uid therefore be interesting to compare the socio-economic and motivational characteristics of migrants in Kpw York \rjith those settling in, or returning to Puerto Rico from, other parts of t|ie United States. Perhaps there are difforencos with regard to initial solectiviity, or subsequent assimilation, or both.
A valuable source of information about the motivations of prospective return migrants are the recently published data of Myers and Hasnick.*^ The findings are derived from a subsample of native-born Puerto Ricans living on the lower east side of Manhattan obtained from a Cornell University Medical School study of air ppllntion. 234 male and female respondents from I36 households were interviewed dpring the last six months of I965.
Tho study provides data on differonoea botHoen migrants vfco plan to rawin III tho Unltod States, snd prospoctlvo return migrants, regarding their attitudes
Sieans? A Perspeotlvo o^SMrn*^InMrnati'o™i'ri°" of Kew York Puerto 80-90. "ouurn, Internationalj^iigration Review^ Spring, 1968,
ib(M-7ards, and social ties tjith, Puerto Rico and the United States* As Hyers and Hasnick themselves observe, it xrould be useful to complement their investigation
Toith studies of other differences between the tt'io groups, in areas outside U^e gcope of their present rtudy, such as the differential assimilation of the two qroups to the United States.
The Socio-IJconcmic Characteristics of Puerto Rican Migrants
Living in the United States, as Compared idth Island In-" habitants and Return Kigrants
This section examines the data on the educational, occupational, and income characteristics of three groups: Puerto Rican migrants living in the United States, Island inhabitants, and return migrants. This makes it possible to study the extent to vAiich a socio-economic selectivity characterizes the two groups of migrants, ^ the possible implications of such selectivity for Puerto Rico, and for the rjigrants themselves.
Ijducational Selectivity
According to the I960 U.S. Census of Population, first generation Puerto Ricans residing in the United States had completed more median years of schooling than the Island inhabitants, but less median years of education than return migrants. Those findings held both for males and females. The figures are given in Table 1i.tTre»Et-:?S3ge^
Ttro additional surveys corroborate the Census findings of educational differences between migrants Uving in the United States, and return migrants. Sven though the three data soiircos vary somewhat in the precise medians for the t^ree groups, the direction of the differences is the same.
According to the 1964 ramp survey conducted by the Commonwealth of I^iorto Rico Bureau of Labor Statistics, "return migrants" (nonresident airline passengers arriving in Puerto Rico from the United States) had completed 12 median years of schooling, as compared tdth 9 median years for "mierants" (resident passanscrs)
iiEBIAi; YIiAI?S OF SCHOOL COEFLiiTED, FOR PUERTO ItECAH FJEGRAMTS
UVIFG III THE lililTED STATES, IIJH/iBITAHTS OF PUERTO RICO, AIJD
RiiTURII EIGRiUJTS, AGED 25 YEARS AliD 0Vi3l, BY SEX, I960
Hican liigrants
-vSources; U.S. Bureau of tho Census, U.S. Census of Population, I960; Volume 1, Characteristics of the.Population, Part 53» fhorto Rico; Subject Repoirts, Rierto Ricans in tho United Statos, Pinal Report PC (2), 'Washington D,C., U, S. Government Printing Office, Uashington, D.C., 1963? and special census tabulations of return migrants by Hernandez, op. cit.
^.oaving lYiorto Rico for tho United Statos.
Similar findings were obtained from tho 196'i- household survey conducted by ■^he Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Planning Board. According to this survey, the median years of schooling woro highest for rotum migrants, tdio had complotod 8.5 years, followed by tho migrants leaving Puerto Rico, T-dth 7.3 years, and lastly,
^ho inhabitants of Puerto Fdco, xdth 5*8 median years of school completed.
Tho question may novx be askedt Do those educational differences represent ^ucational selectivity of migrants, rather than differential educational mobility Upon arrival in the United States? This question has to bo answered before the process of migration and rotum can bo identified as one of upward mobility. To
Statistics, Coimomie.lth of Foorto Idoo Doportmont of labor, by Mr Boteoon tborto Rloo and tho
l6Junta do PLanificacion, Estado Idbre Asociado do Puerto Rico, Informe Aconomico al Gobemador. P^era Parto, Enero de I965, I66, The survey does not between ^erto Ric^-bom and foreign-bom in-migrants. Tho f return migrants, but Americans and J°r,^Sners—chiofly^bans and Dominicans—t^o live in Puerto Rico. However, the retum migrants constitute approximately four fifths of all in-migrants.
anstrer tho question, it is necossarj"- to Ioiot-t xdioro the migrants acquired their education. For selectivity implies that tho migrants differed from the nonmigrants ^ in educational status prior to their arrival in the United States,
Unforttinately, the Census does not provide this information. The household survey asked household members about the educational level of migrants prior to thoir departure from Iherto Rico. According to these findings, it appears that the educational differences exist at the tirao of departvire, and do represent a selective characteristic of roigrants. Therefore, the higher educational status of Pherto Idcan lidgrants living in tho United States, shoxm by the Census, is the result of tho educational selectivity of migrants, rather than of their educa tional mobility in the United States.
The educational selectivity of PUorto Rican migrants probably is not a guarantee of good job opportunities uhen they come to the mainland. For the important fact, as far as their potential socio-'economic raobility in the United States is concerned, is not so much their higher educational status as compared tdth the Islerders, but their loxrer educational status as compared xiith the inhabitants of tho United otates. According to the I96O Census, the median years of school cCTipleted for males 25 years and older are 10,^1 for United States inhabitants as compared vjith 7,9 for the migrants. The respective figures for females are 10,8 and 7,1 median years, Kot only are tho median years of schooling of Puerto Rican migrants living in the United States loxxer than those of the U.S. inhabitants. There is a much smaller proportion of migrants xdth either high school diplomas or college experi ence, x-dxich are increasingly Important for obtaining even rdnor xMte collar jobs on the mainland, tthereas ^!■l,i^ per cent of the U.S. inhabitants 25 years old and over, have at least a high school diploma, this is true of only li^,3 per cent of the Puerto Rican-bom residents in the United. States, This probably means that although the migrants* higher level of education as compared xjith Island inhabitants may help tho migrants get jobs xdien they com© to tho United States, it is definitely not hi^i enou^ to assure their occupational mobility.
Several studies investigating generational mobility among Rierto Ricans in the United States have found that there is an upward movement, both educationally and cccupationally, among second generation Puerto Ricans. A needed complement to those studios is an investigation of the o:ctont of gcnoraticnal mobility among 'U.S. inhabitants, which may or may not bo proceeding at a more rapid rate.
To summarize, there is some evidence that tho educational differential between Puerto Rican migrants in tho United States and tho Island inhabitants roprosonts educational selectivity, prior to their migration. It is questionable how much difforonce the educational selectivity makes for the kinds of jobs the migrants can get on the mainland, since most do not have a high school diploma pr any colloge oxporionco, and thoy aro competing against a labor force where tho educational lovol is higher than theirs.
It should also bo noted that tho higher educational median of tho migrants ps compared x-dth the Island inhabitants reflects tho fact that thoy aro concontratcd in the middle, rather than at the bottom, of the educational ladder, wid not thoir educational suporiority to nonmigrants all tho way up, IJhilo there pro proportionately fexjor migrants than Island inh.abitants aged 25 years and over ^jho have loss than five years of education (29.^ per cent as against 5^.6 por cent), there aro also proportionatoiy fowor migrants than Island inhabitants xolio ^avo beon to college (^,6 per cent as against 7«5 por cent).
This finding is oven more conipolling tjhon one considers that adult migrants lixdng in tho United States are concentrated in the younger age groups. Sovonty throe and a half per cent of tho migrants 25 years and over are loss than 35 yoars pld, as compared with 28.3 per cent of tho Island inhabitants. A comparison of ^ho educational level attained by migrants and Island inhabitants in this 25 to ^ year ago group shows that the migrants aro less likely than the nonmigrants to
"Social ;:obimy of Poorto Ki.oa>!Si Eauoatlon. Occupation, and Income Chafes Among Children of lagrants. Hew York, 1950-1960," Intomatjonal Vol. 11^, Spring, 1968, 5>-71; and Johxi J, Kaks^TSr'— Idemy^l-^?*^ Piierto Ricans on the Hainland; A Sccio-Demcgrai^iic Approach,"
have either very little, or very much, schooling. The data are presented in Table 2 (beloTx).
Those data suggest that it is noro .difficult for those in the middle educational range to find satisfactory jobs in Puerto Rico, than for either those at the top or bottom of tho educational ladder.
TABLE 2
yE.\RS OF SCHOOL COIiPLETSD BY PERSOHS AGED 25 TO 3^^ YEARS, FOR XLTIABITARTS OF PUERTO xttCO AI:D PUERTO KECAII lilGRAITTS IIVIIIG 111 THE UIUTSD STATES, I960 ±/
*•■110 information available for .3 per cent.
^ iSourcos: Ssmo as for Table 1.
It is also possible, as some have suggested, that those idio decide to ^grate are tho more apt and the more highly motivated, as indicated by their educational solectivity. Although this is a i^ausible conjecture, it needs to bo demonstrated, by obtaining independent data on tho aptness and motivation pf migrants as compared tdth tho Island inhabitants.
Data from tho Census, the ramp survey, and tho household survey all indicate ^hat the educational status of return migrants is higher than that of both Island Inhabitants and first generation Puerto Ricans x^iio live in tho United States. This higher educational status of the return migrants may be due mainly to selectivity, prior to thoir doparturo from Biorto Rico, or to differences in
(sducational nobility during their stay in the United States. Again, data are needed on tho educational history of these persons prior to their initial departure from Puerto Pdco, and during their stay in the United States, to dotemine tho extent to tihich educational selectivity is involved.
One must also consider tho consoquoncos of the return of an educational elite to tho Island for Puerto Rican society. It trould be useful to determine to Tjhat extent tho retxim migrants could bo utilized to spur planned social change pn the Island, Discussing tho utilization of rotum migrants as catalysts of social phangQ in developing countries, Kyors and Ilasnick have argued that "carofxil training of, and planning for, return migrants should be a concern of governmental and private agencies in both tho country to which migrants come, and to which they |retum,"^®
Occupational Selectivity
Tho next characteristic to bo examined is the extent of occupational selectivity among Puerto IHcan migrants in tho United States, in comparison tdth Island inhabitants and return migrants. Table 3 (next page) gives the eccupational ^stribxjtion by skill level for tho three groups, according to the I96O Census. Tho data indicate that the occupational distribution of migrants is quite different from that of either tho Puerto Pdco inhabitants or the return migrants. Only 16,7 per cent of tho migrants are in white collar occupations, as compared TJith 32,9 psr cent of the Island inhabitants and per cent of tho return migrants. Tho pattem is sxmilar in tho skilled occupations. On the other hand, substantially more migrants are in semi-skilled work than are Island inhabitants or return migrants. Finally, thoro are fetrar xinskilled—especially farm laborers— among both tho migrants and the return migrants than among the inhabitants of Hierto ^co. -e-ez ^ ^2? . J - t. Hi l8i *' ' jiyosrs cind I'iasmck^ op« 80•
0CCUPATI0I:AL HESTRIBOTION of I3IPL0YED FUERTO RICAI^ IIIGBAIJTS UVIKG IM TH3 m;iTED STATES, IL'Hi\BIT.1i:TS OF FTJERTO RICO, /iKD RHTORII laGRARTS, AGED 14 YEARS AIJD 0VI21, BY SiaiL LEVEL, I960
^Includes private household xjorkors
J Sourcos: Sarsie as for Table 1,
But are the occupational characteristics of the migrants a selective trait, or rather, a product of their stay on the mainland? If the distribution represents pccupational selectivity, it means that the migrants^ come from the rdddlo sector of the skill scale. They are loss likely to bo draxm from either the idiito collar Rector, or from the unskilled labor sector in FUerto Rico. On the other hand, if the occupational distribution of migrants is a product of their stay in the United States, it suggests that white coUar and skilled tjorkers have been doww xrardly mobile, liioroas there has been some uprord mobility among the unskilled.
In order to see tdiether there is an occupational selectivity among migrants. ^ data are needed which indicate their occupation at the time of departure from Puerto Rico. Unfortunately, the Census data do not give this information. Further, inoro. since the Census gives the occupational status of migrants at only one point
in time, one cannot trace, by means of these data, the occupational shifts of the i|iigrants during the course of their stay in the United States, f Although dianges have taken place in the occupational distribution of both Island inhabitants and migrants since the 19^0's, the Mills study throws some li^t on the question of occupational selectivity of migrants. Mills collected data about migrants' occupations boforo they loft fuerto Rico, xjfaon they first came to the US, and at the time of the interviews• The data are presented in Table ^ (below)•
First, a comparison of the occupational distribution of Island inhabitants and migrants at the time of their departure from Rierto Rico indicates little difference l^etvreen them in the proportion of t-jhite collar workers; some selectivity of migrants |n the direction of skilled labor? and substantial selectivity in the direction of |emi-skilled work, and axuay from unskilled work.
Ti\BLE 4
OCCUPATIOUAL DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYED PUERTO RICO ir;HABITAI!TS, AMD OF PUERTO RICy\i: IHGRAiJTS TO THE U.S. FOR LAST JOB IN PUERTO RICO, FIRST JOB B! THE U.S., AND JOB IN THE U.S. AT TIME OF INTERVIEl';
Occupation, by Skill Level
Source: Mills et al, op, cit., 35,66,
Second, a comparison of last job in P\ierto Rico ijith migrants' job in Now York at the time of the interview, indicates that there was a drop in the proportion of xiilte collar wrkors, and an increase in the proportion of semi-skillod vwrkers.
T|iis picture remains essentially unchanged xhon one examines the occupational
distributions separately for males and females• One specification is that the drop in proportion of skilled trorkors is limited to foraalos. Furthermore there is a slight decrease in the proportion of unsldlled among the males. Actually, however, the comparison of these marginal distributions understates the amount of mobility—especially dotmward mobility—which has occurred as migrants moved from Puerto Rico to the United States. A cross-tabxilation of migrants' pccupations at the time of their interview in Kow York, by their last occupation in Puerto Rico, shewed the following occupational mobility patterns for males and females:
TABLE 5
DIRECTION OF OCCUPATIONAL NOBHITY, FROM LAST JOB IN FUEETO RICO TO JOB IN KEJ7 YORK AT TINE OF IKTERVI®/, BY SEX
of Mobilitv
Source: Hills et al., op. cit.. 71, Table IV-10.
About one fifth of the male migrants wore upirardly mobile, but almost twice ^s many experienced downward mobility. Among female migrants, the sarao proportion VOTQ dotmwardly mobile, but even fewer moved up. No cross-tabulations are presented on the extent, and direction, of mobility by former skill level in ftierto Rico; but Hills notes that xrpi^ard mobility was "largely restricted to the climb from unskilled ^o semi-sldllod wage work."^®
I^iills ot al., op. cit.. 66.
underestimated, slightly, low upw^ mobility, since the sai plo was restricted to households in two Rloifly-havHovS'tSt! Puerto
5 16.
• It is clear that the liiills survey needs to be replicated« to ascertain tdiothor the nobility pattern found in 19^8 still holds in I969. If so, it suggests that puorto Pdco is losing its noro highly (though not most highly) trained workers, tdiile the United States is not naldng full use of the occupational training they have. For the migrants themselves, this may involve frustration and disappointment, and my load, in some instances, to a decision to rot^n to Puerto Rico,^ The occupational characteristics of return migrants hove already boon noted. Table 3 (page I3) indicates that over two fifths of the migrants xjho have returned to Riorto Rico are concentrated in white collar occupations, as compared xdth only 16.7 per cent of the first generation Puerto Pdcans living in the United States. .^ Furthermore, substantially fovror return migrants than migrants living cn the mainland. ^
(^ j f^re to bo found in semi-skilled ;jobs.
Although little is knoxm about xdiy adgrants return, it is important to investigate the possible relationship botwcon their return to Phorto Rico and their occupational nobility in the United States. PoAaps those migrants aro persons hold xMto collar jobs in Iberto Rico, lost those in tho U.S., became dis satisfied tdth their changed job status, and returned to Puerto Rico to resume tMte qpllar careers. On tho othor hand, tho return migrants nay be persons who wore HfwatdJy mobile in the United Slates, and having achieved vhlte ccllen status. decided to return te Iherte nice. If tho first hypothesis is true, return mleration
Vl to achieve the goals uhich motivated tho rtgration, if I J q tf® hypothesis is correct, it is a sign of suooess. Since there are no data ^, on the jobs hold by the return migrants either at the time of their departure from M I^erto Rioo. or during their slay In tho United States, it is impossible to determine, at this timo, ;Mch hypothesis is correct, imatever the reason for their return, eno rmst also consider the possible Impaot of the influx of such an occupational elite en Rierlo Moan society. T, an anlmma. extent, they are filling manp„„er needs, or creating a labor surplus, in specific industries.
In thic ooMnectlcns it is rolovr-nt to note tho oxtromely high unenployracnt rr.tc among roturn migrants in the Puerto Rico labor rorco: 18,8 por cent of tho 21 nalosj and i^l-,0 per cent of tho fci.ialos, aged 3/!' oiid ovor, arn 'anoraployed. This is substantially higher than tlio -uiieiaployiaont rato of Rioi>to Pdcan migrants li'.'ing in tho Urdtecl States. and. tf tli-v Islt/.id iiiliabitantse /(cc,e.,yG
ireome
blioroas cccupaticnally-i first generation Riorto Rican migrants in tho United States appear to oxaibit more doTjnward than xipi?ard nobility» their earnings in tho UoSa a.ppear to increase substantiallyo Table 6 gives tho median personal income for PuQi^to Rice inliabitants, Puerto Rican migrants living in tho United States, and return migrants:
TABLE 6
ilUnEAII PI31S01IAL IIICOIIE. FOR PUIHTO RICAII I-UGIUklvTS IIVIL'G III THE UldTED STATES, RETUid^ l-UGRAI-TS, AlID PUERTO RICO II!IIABIT.<\I]TS, 1959
fK ^p
fUorto Pdean idgrants Living in tho United States 2513
Rctr.rn Higti.'ants
Puorte Rico Inhabitants 819
Sources: Sane as for Table 1,
Infcrma.ticn as net axrallable about the earnings of the migi'ants prior to their ^Jepa.rture from Piierto Rico. But it r-ocms likely that they earned more than,tho y.sland inhabitants; this can be inferred from their educational selectivity. Hevortholess, since the median annual income for migrants in tho United States is more than throe tines that for Puerto Hico, it r-'ms clear that the nigrants have con siderably imp-roved thoir oariung^.pa.ii^ subsequent to their move to the nainland.22
JiZ ^ Hernaraea., ■ "it. ^-3, Table 2.2 22,.. that tlie Iherto Pdcan r igrajxfs first job in Rex: York doubled his 1G..iuo... 0a_M r.ng... idll.s ct al,, --.alt,. 7ij.,
Financially, they are probably bettor off in tho Unitod States, despite the fact that their livins oxponsos are also greater.
The median income for return migrants is substantially less than for the migrants living in tho United States, particularly T;hon their differential occupa tional concentration is taken into account. This could moan that other reasons than incorio ai'G important in the decision to return. It is also clear, hotrover, that despite a drop in absolute earnings, tho income of tho rotujm migrants in Puerto llico is still high, relative to tho rest of tho Island population.
So far, this study has oxair»incd the socio-economic selectivity of Puerto Rican migrants in tho U.S. and return migrants, to dctormino tho significance of tho migration for Puerto Hican society, and for tho migrants themselves• Despdto tho methodological lirdtations of the data, it seems safe to conclude that a socioocononic selectivity characterizes migrants prior to their departure from tho Island, iilucationally, occupationally, and Tjith regard to income, they are better off than tho rest of the Puerto Rican xrorldng class. Upon arrival in tho Unitod States, many migrants oxporioncc doTjni:ard occupational mobility, tiiereas tho earnings of most increase substantially.
Return migrants in Puerto Rico arc characterized by higher educational and occupational status, and loxior income, than migrants rdio remain in the United States, One possible explanation is that rot\mi migrants are persons vho wore doxmtmrdly mobile on tho mainland, and returned to Puerto Rico to resume tMte collar, or skillGd blue collar, careers. A socond possibility is that tho return migrants TToro uptrardly mobile in tho United States, and then returned to tho Island. Data on the educational and occupational history of those x;ho return are needed to sort out idiich hypothesis is correct.
19.
J The ilotlvations of i\ierto Hican Ilinrants in tho United ^ Stc-tcs^ as Conpared lAth tho Inhabitants of Puorbo Rico and Return liigrants
iJhy do Puerto liicans decide to nisrato to the United States? And tiliy do .some of "UiOGO migrants decide to return to i\icrto nico? Implicit in tho preceding discussion was tho assumption that liierto Hicans migrate to the United States mainly to improve their lot. If so, it suggests that the migrants are dissatisfied tjith at least some aspects of life in Riorto Pdco, and see life in tho United States as better satisfying some of their needs.
iho fact that they migrated to tho mainland does not necessarily mean, hotfover, that the dissatisfactions tho migrants experienced in Puerto Rico differontiate thor.i from those tjho remain on tlio Island. To some Islanders, alternatives to their present lot simply may not bo visible; or migration to tho United States may not bo the accepted mode of coping idth their dissatisfactions.
Purtnormoro, laany fUorto Ricans on tho Island do migrate, but internally, from tho rural areas to tho metropolitan centers of Puerto Rico.^^ It uovild bo important to laiou uhy some Pberto Pdcans choose to ndgrato intomally, tiiilo others decide to come to tho United States. IIo study has invostigatod this question so far. Porhaps tho motivations of tho tijo groups of migrants are similar, but tho -p^ocus of their social and cornunications notTTorks is different. Internal migrants may have hoard about job openings from relatives in San Jvian, vMlc migrants to tho mainland heard about jobs from relatives in Hew York.
earlier, this study has alluded to tho motivations of return migrants. IJo ^ggestcxl that the migrants' decision to rotum to I-\tcrto Rico may bo motivated either by success or failure in achieving tho goals for tMch they ndgrated to the mainland. But tho migrants' rotum, or plan to return, to Puerto Rico docs not pocossarily mean that in thcdr success or failure, they differ from those migrants
and George C, Ilyors, "iiigration and Ilodomiaation:
20. xho remain in tho United Gtatos. The two groups simply may differ in their per ception of tho economic opportunities auaiting thorn in Riorto Rico, or the strength pf their social ties xd-th the Island.
i
The dearth of data on tho motivations of Puerto IdLcans xiio come to the United States is surprising, especially in the lij^t of the sizeable litoratxiro on the fhorto Pdcan migration to tho United States. Tho 19^ ilills study is tho only comprehonsivo survey of tho attitudes of liierto Idcan migrants on tho mainland. JIotTovor, as already noted, the survey xras done txranty years ago, and needs to be peplicatod.
According to Ilills, only 5^ per cent of tho migrants reported that they ' thonsolvos had made the decision to migrate to Uexr York. Tho remaining ^ per cont o[» Jiad foUoxTod tho decision of others. This suggests that tho migratory movcanent as a xdiolo is determined by only slightly more than half of those xiio migrate. Those 5^ per cont, then, arc a "strategic" public, on xiioso decisions tho movement pf tho remainder depends.
Lore men than x-romon are deciders—72 per cent as compared xjith kZ per cent. Perhaps tho male folloxrors arc adult sons coming at the request of parents, or fathers coning at tho request of their groxm-up children.
Among tho deciders, tho main reason given for migrating xias economic. lliHs reports that 89 per cont of tho male deciders, and 69 per cont of tho female ^ccidors, said they migrated for cconcmdc reasons. The study does not present a |)roal{doxjn of tho content of the economic motivations, although lails illustrates typcLcal rosiJonscs, such as "getting a Job," or "nald.ng monoy."
Tho second major reason for migrating to tho United States, according to Hills* respondents, xms thoir family situation. Sixteen per cont of tho male ^ocidors, and thirty six por cont of the female docidors. gave family reasons in psponse to questions about xihy thoy moved to the mainland. Again, no broaMoxm
K, migrants, cited in the folloxdng paragra^xs, can bo found xn idlls ot al., op.clt.. Chaptor 3.
21. is prosontcd of the content of the family-related motivations. The study notes that the migrants either -crcro dra:m to Hot: York by relatives already settled there, or less often, they "wanted to escape or avoid family situations on the Island."
In addition to .askinc respondents tdiy they loft Puerto Pdco and cane to Ijotr York, idlls also attempted to determine tiiothor the decision tKis subjectively experienced as a "pull" or a "push".^^ The study reports that 6? per cent of the deciders ansrrorcd only in terns of pulls, 2? per cent in terns of pushes, and 1^ per cent reported both pushes and pulls. liConomic reasons wore more likely to be described as inidies than family or other reasons, but despite this, more reported economis -puUs (6(7 per cent) than economic pushes-(501 por jd0nt').:'r.t).
ilill^ data demonstrate conclusively the primacy of economic motivations in migration to tho United States. But any attempt to vmdorstand fully the "economics" of the migratory movement, requires a more detailed inventory of tho economic dissatisfactions in Puerto Rico and tho economic attractions of tho mainland iMch ultimately lead to a decision to migrate. In addition, one has to determine tho cumulative impact of specific attractions and dissatisfactions, balanced against each other, as compared with any ono pull or push, in precipitating tho move.
Tho Hills study reveals salient economic motivations, and apparently these tend to bo of tho "pull" kind. But it must bo romorabored that salient reasons in response to opon-ondod questions about 'hhy" a person moved, need not bo tho only reasons or tho most important ones, in determining tho move. As Peter Rossi 25,Senior has suggested that tho push-pull approach to migrants' motivations may bo too m^harustic a ^ncoptual framework. Soo; Clarence Senior and Donald 0. Uatkins, Toward a Balance Shoot of Puerto Rican Migration," in Status of Puerto Rico: Selected i^ackground Studios Prepared for the D.S.-Fuerto Rico Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico. Washington, B.C., I966. 731ff» ~
26The question tjas: "Can you tell me, in yo\ir own words, idiy you left Puerto Rico and came to How York?" ^uor&o
has observed, in his study, IJhy Families ilovo, a general "x<4iy" question usually produces "a congory of ansxjors, each IcLnd of ansuor corresponding to a different 27 interpretation of the general "xiiy" question by the respondent." The analytic difficulties in the interpretation of reason frequencies, point up the necessity for having an a priori franc or reforonco, outlining the kinds of data considered necessary for the interpretation of nigratory shifts, and the necessity of collecting from respondents infemation on all the relevant points—in other x:ords an'hccounting scheno." iiich respondent has to bo asked xdiether, and to xdiat extent, specific Idnds of dissatisfactions in i\iorto Pdco and specific Idnds of attractions of ■Uie mainland, xxorc operative in foming kis decision to nigrato.
Also needed, as already noted, is a coni5arison of the motivations of those xiio leave the Island, xdth those xdio do not. /inong the latter, it xroxild bo use ful to distinguish botueen the motivations of Island inhabitants xflio have nigratod internally, and those xiho have not.
It is possible that the difforonco botx^oon internal and eternal migrants, on the ono hand, and those xdio havo not novod at all, on tho other, is not one of ocononic motivations, but rathor, of xrisibility of alternatives to thoir present lot, or the acceptability of migration as a xray of coping xdth their dissatisfac tions. Differences botxxjon intomal migrants, and thpso Riorto Idcans xho rdgrato to tho mainland, may also havo loss to do xdth oconomic motivations than xdth the extent to xMch their rospoctivo social notxrorks aro anchored in I\iorto rdco, rathor than in tho United States.
i-any of tho gaps in our laioxrlcdgo about tho motivations of migrants as conparod xdth non-migrants, also exist about the motivations of migrants iho settle doxai in tho United States as compared xdth those xiho rotum to l\ierto Idco.
^ I^o comprohonsiv© study has been done, so far, about tho motivations of migrants xAic have roturnod from tho United States to FUorto Rico, ilyors' and
27Peter H. Rossi, fhy Families Ilovo. Frco I^ssr Gloncoo, Illinois, 1955,
riasniclc's recont invostigation of prospoctivo return migrants is the only existing study xjhich conparos tho attitudes of prospective return migrants tdth migrants T-jho plan to stay in the United States.
According to this explqratorj' study, 33,5 per cent in tho sample of hew York Puerto liicans say they tdll definitely return to Puerto Pdco. The remainder either plan to stay in the United States, or are not sure tdiothor they nill return to Puerto Pdco eventually.
The respondents Txerc aslcod why they xxoro thinldlng—'or not thinldLng-- of returning to iiiorto Idco. Both those tiho planned to stay and thoso who planned to retiim to Puoido Pdco reported pulls rathor than pushes as influencing their plans.
Sixty seven por eont of thoso tSio planned to stay in tho United States gave retentive or "pull" factors as most influencing thoir plans. Among the pulls tho respondents referred to Trore their friends in I.'ow York, having a good job and a good homo thoro, and tho tdsh to oducato thoir children on tho mainland. Only 13.9 per cont gave ropulsivo factors as most influencing thoir plans to remain in the United States.
Similarly, oighty-oight per cont of tho prospoctivo return migrants mentioned attractions of Puerto Idco as most important in influencing thoir plans to return.
As with tho IdUs study, thoso responses may indicate that the respondents intorprotod tho question to refer to pulls, rathor than to pushes, or that tho "pulls" xroro more salient, rathor than roflocting the unimportance of specific pushes. Again, the need is Q\'ident for an accotmting schomo, according to xdiich all rospondonts are asked about specific dissatisfactions with life in tho United States, and specific attractions of life in Rierto Rico. This vdll make it possible
28„ op!cltt?^8lff!°^ follotdng paragraphs arc from Ilyors and Hasnick,
to sauge thoir influence, individually and cmulatively, on the decision to return.
/vlthouch iiyors and llasnick illustrate the reasons voiced by thoir respondents, it is not clear tdiich ones—oconeriiic, faudly-rolatod, etc.,—arc mentioned most frequently, or perceived as most important? nor is it clear hoxj they are related to the initial expectations the migrants had at the time thoy esmo to Ilew York. As suggested earlier, perhaps return migrants are those x&io have accomplished thoir intended goals on the mainland. On the otlior hand, perhaps they are mainly dratm from among those xihoso expectations have not boon fxafilled. The fact that 73 per cent of the prospective return migrants still consider their move to the United States a good idea, suggests that perhaps the former is the correct hypothesis.
Vihatovor the motivation of the prospective return migrants as compared with those migrants who plan to stay in the United States, certain "return-predis posing" factors clearly differentiate botvjeon the tvro groups. Mhen asked to comparo nor; York to Riorto Rico on ton potentially critical aspects of a desirable residence, the prospective return migrants evaluate Puerto Rico more highly on all ton items than do the migrants xAo plan to stay in the United States. Throe items sharply discriminate betxToon the two groups: gcod friends; good hora^nfe; and nice neighbors, The prospective return migrants choose Riorto Rico as more favorable in all those respects, xAoroas those \ho plan to stay in the United States rate the Island as loss desirable xiith regard to all throe traits.
Migrants xdio plan to stay on the mainland differ from prospective return migrants xn the extent to which they orient themselves to persons in Riorto Rico as compared to persons in the United States. They also differ in the extent of thoir «,cial tlfe tdth Puorto moo. first, W por c<mt of thoso *0 piUn to rotum to iiiorto moo, as conporod ,4th only 16.6 per cent of thoso *0 plan to stay on the mainland, Eivo throo or noro persons on tho Island as "taportant pooplo in thoir lives." Second, 10 of tho 15 persons in the sanKlo „ho send money back to fherto
Pdco are prospective return miGrants. Thirdi the prospective return migrants more froquontly associate tdth persons from their "homo toun" than do migrants idio plan to stay in the United States. Fourth, prospective return migrants have made more trips back to Puerto Pdco than have those migrants tiho plan to stay on the mainland. At least one fifth of tlio former have made tiio or more trips back to Puoito Rico.
To summarize, liyors and Ilasnick's findings shovr that tho stronger the migrants* social and psychological ties to Puerto Rico, tho more predisposed they are to return to Puerto Rico. Future studios need to escamino upon ^hich contingencios, such as job opportunities in rboito Hico, tho activation of these pre dispositions to return depends.
Conclusion
This investigation has attempted to assess tho state of current knoxTledge abo^?t tho socio-economic and motivational characteristics of Puerto Idcan migrants to, and from, tho United States. The study exardnod tho ooctont to xMch a selectivity ocdsts among Puorto Idcan migrants to the United States xdth regard to their educational, occupational, and income characteristics. The possible implications of such selectivity for Puorto laco, and for the migrants themselves, wore also indicated.
In order to ascertain the socio-economic soloctlvity of migrants, data are needed about their educational, occupational, and income history, both before their departure from Fhorto Rico and during their stay in the Unitai States. Census data are inadequate for this purpose, since tho Census only provides information about tho socio-economic characteristics of migrants onco they are in tho United States, and at one particular point in tine. One alternative method xjould be cross-sectional surveys, uhich rely on tho recall of migrants about their educational and occupational careers. Ilore desirable xrould bo a panel study, xMch
foHotrs the caroors of the same group of migrants (perhaps beginning Tdth e group of prospoctivo migrants) over a protracted time period. H
According to the currently available data sources, an educational and ^ occupational selectivity appears to charactorize the jnigrants. They are dratm mainly from tlic middle educational and occupational strata in Riorto Rico. Host havo at least somo schooling, but rolativoly foxr have a high school diploma, liost aro dratm from the sldllod and seni-sldllGd occupations, rathor than from the unskilled labor sector.
For Hiorto Pdco, therefore, tho nigration^^volvos
the loss of its more highly trained tierlcor^ But tho migrants* higher educational and sidll level, as compared tiith tho average Puerto Rico inhabitant, appears to bo loss important for their socio-cconcanic status in tho United Statos, than thoir lower level as compared tdth tho average U.S. inhabitant, Occupationally, there aro strong indications that tho novonont is doTmxjard, more ofton than upirard. Thoir income, however, soons to go up substantially upon arrival on the mainland.
Return migrants living in Riorto Rico havo more yoars of schooling completed, a larger proportion of persons in xdiito collar occupations, but lower incomes, than Riorto Ricon migrants \ho sottlo dotm in the Unitsd Statos. Kowovor, data are noodod about tho educational, occupational, and income history of those rotxim migrants, to dotemino xiiethor they are different in this respect from migrants xiio stay in the U. S, alroadj*- prior to departure from Puerto ?dcc, or xiiothor those differences aro the result of thoir varying caroors in tho United States.
It is also important to assess tho impact of such a group of rotxmi migrants, charactorizod by a rolativoly high educational and occupational status, on the institutional facilities of Puerto Rico, and on tho tempo and direction of sociotal change.
This study has also eocardnod the osctonb of current knmrledge about tho motivational characteristics of fberto Rican migrants in tho United States and rotiurn migrants# /J-though economic motivations clearly have played an important part in tho migration of Puerto Fdcanc to tho United Statest the paucity of contemporary data on tho motivational characteristics of migrants is striking.
In tho existing litoraturo, evaluations of migrants* motivations in leaving Puerto Idco and cordns to tho United States have tondod to roly on salient rosponsos to opon-ondod questions about "tiiy** tho migrants camo. Puturo studios should provide a uniform frame of rcforcnco for respondents, in accordance with an "accounting scheme." All rospondonts must bo aslcod about tho cscfont of thoir dissatisfactions tdtli spocific aspects of thoir life in FUorto Rieo^-stezidinoss of mploymont, income lovol, chance for occupational advonccnont. Similarly, all must bo askod about tho coctont to xiiich particular aspects of life In tho United States served as attractions in deciding to como.
Furtliormoro, the motivations of tho migrants should bo conparod "nith those of Puerto Hicans \iio do not migrate to the Unltod States. This Tiould oUotr on investigation of liiothor such migrants arc indeed more notivatod to improve thcaiselvos socio-oconomically than Riorto IHcans viio remain on tho Island.
Among the Island inhabitants, one diould distlnguidi bctxrcon those x4io havo migrated internally, and those tiio havo not. Intomol migrants may b© much more similar, notivationally and in thoir socio-oconordc baclcground, to Puerto id.cans t4io migrato to tho United States, than to Island inhabitants viio havo not Bdgratod at all.
Lo study so far has systematically occplorod tho motivations of migrants xdio havo returned from tho United Statos to Puerto Rico. Data on tho motivations of ppospoctive return migrants indicato that pulls, rather than pushes, influence those Tiho plan to rotum. Rctur»-prodisposing factors, such as strength of tics tdth PUcrto liico, difforontiato bottjoon tho prospoctivo return rdgrants, and those x4»o plan to remain in tho United States.