Do we care why they left?
Introduction: Migration is at its base a very regular human behaviour. The word migration simply means the movement of animals to a more hospitable environment. Despite its basic instinctual origins, it is and in many ways has always been greatly misunderstood, becoming a point of intense controversy in America during many different periods. Such controversial migrations like The Great Migration of African Americans, from 1915-1960 or The Dust Bowl Migration 1931-1939. While humankind's early gatherer-hunter migrations make for much better examples for the definition, the causation of the aforementioned modern migrations could be seen as less clear. The lack of understanding of migrants reasoning, could be a reason migrants face such intense social stigma. Which points to a lack of understanding about not only migration-but also immigration. The distinction between the two is crucial to the understanding of this paper, because within the parameters of this class, migration means the movement of people within America's national borders. In the next sections, we look into how survey respondents acceptance or lack thereof, towards migrants is shaped by the reasoning of the migrant themselves, ie what caused them to leave their place of origin. This question is the source of the papers title Do We Care Why They Left, asking if someone is anti-migrant are they anti migrant regardless of reasons? Or if someone is pro migrant, is there any reason they would oppose migration?
Review Of Literature
Migration: “seasonal movement of animals from one region to another.”
The internal migrations I found relevant to scope and questions of the survey were The Great Migration, when over 6 million (Wilkerson) African Americans left the south and southwest. Along with The Dust Bowl Migration, a migration caused by ecological disaster during which 300-400,000 (Gregory) people from Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, and Missouri left their homes, and moved to California's Central Valley.
Professor James Gregory of The University of Washington has devoted himself to studying both migrations, publishing much of the accessible data on both, and thus has written a book on each. However selections from Gregory’s book on the Dust Bowl American Exodus: The Dust Bowl Migration and Okie Culture in California, were the primary Gregory works used. In it Gregory not only delves into the variety of “push factors” that drove the migrants, but their experiences once they reached their destinations. The push factors of the dust bowl migrants play into Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, especially physiological and safety based “needs.” A quote from Gregory on how “Some were completely out of funds and food” (Gregory) highlights just how extremely desperate some Dust Bowl migrants were. A quote and fact that influenced question #1. The backlash they faced was also severe, Gregory further showcases how California was extremely unwelcoming to the poor newcomers. “In 1936, the Los Angeles police department established a border patrol, dubbed the ‘Bum Blockade,’ at major road and rail crossings for the purpose of turning back would-be visitors who lacked obvious means of support.” Showcasing the need to ask about approval based on economics as well.
The Great Migration, was the other mass movement of people, this time of mostly African Americans. Who were exiting their situation due to the social, economic, and legal constraints of Jim Crow. The Smithsonian article by Isabel Wilkerson further points out how much economic mobility played a role in the decision to leave the south. Farm workers in the South often made less than $1 a day, compared to cities, where factory workers made as much as 4 times that in a single day. (Wilkerson) These economics heavily influenced the creation of question #2.
In conclusion, both sources served as resources for official statistics, and background on internal migration within the United States. However hearing about direct experience, and interaction with members of both Migrations informed the ideas behind this survey as well.
Methods
Participants: 20 total people, 15 of whom are under age 30, with a gender split of 8 women and 7 men. All respondents for the survey were anonymous, the only personal information collected from each respondent, was self reported age and self identified gender. I intentionally attempted to survey an equal number of people identifying as men or women, with at minimum 7 respondents of both groups. Another intentional group, were the 5 respondents over age 30. This age outlier was created by my research team in order to create a unique subset of people outside of a higher education setting.
Questions: Respondents were presented with a paper survey form, containing five questions, and a space to leave comments. Three out of five questions, asked the respondent on a scale of 1-10 how much they approved of migration based on a 3 different reasons. The fourth 1-10 question asked respondents how well they understood migration. The fifth question asked the respondents to list “What kind(s) of people come to mind when the word migrant is used?” Which allowed respondents the freedom to share how they felt, beyond the constraints of academic questions or a simple scale.
Data Analysis: The purpose of the scaled 1-10 questions were to accumulate statistically viable answers, that could be used for comparison between various different subsets. Firstly, the universal data set containing all respondents answers was analysed for the mean for each question, and possible outliers. After, the data was then similarly analysed according to the different subsets, in order to compare and contrast, based on age,gender, and a combination of both creating 5 viable data sets to interpret. These subsets are: People under 30, People over 30, men, women, and all respondents. It was crucial to have different subsets whose statistical data could be compared and presented.
Results
Approval: The results of the survey did show there was a significant difference in empathy or approval towards migrants based on their reasons for migrating. The results are presented in averages for each subset. Q1 asked respondents: On a scale of 1-10 how much do you empathize with, or approve of migration when the primary cause is a threat to safety?(1 do not approve-10 strongly approve) (All: 9.6, F: 9.82, M: 9.8, M&F(30+):9.8, M&F(-30):9.56). While Q3 asked respondents: On a scale of 1-10, how much do you empathize with, or approve of migration when the primary cause is economic mobility? (1 do not approve-10 strongly approve) (All:8.45, F:8.4, M:8.5, M&F(30+):9.2, M&F(-30):8.2)
Disruption: Another interesting result of the survey was despite the overall approval of migrants regardless of the two situations presented, migration and migrants are seen as disruptive to their destination. Q2 asked respondents: On a scale of 1-10 how disruptive is migration to the destination (1 does not disrupt-greatly disrupts)(All:5.8,F:5.7,M:5.9,M&F(30+):5.6, M&F(-30):5.87)
 |
| All respondent answers to Q2 |
Understanding: Respondents of the survey showed confidence in their understanding of migration, as Q4 asked: On a scale of 1-10, how well do you understand this form of exit? (1 do not understand-10 completely understand) (All:8.5, F:8.2, M:8.7, M&F(30+):9.2, M&F(-30):8.27)
Word Association: The final question asked respondents to What kind(s) of people come to mind when the word migrant is used? Respondents had a variety of answers, however most of the answers inferred that the respondent had confused immigration with migration.
Analysis
From the data accumulated over the course of the study, and informed by the literature read, a few conclusions were reached. In this section we will break down the most interesting and clear conclusions to draw from the data. This section will also be the first time question 5 will be discussed at length.
The first conclusion being that migrants experiencing “threats to safety” in their place of origin are likely to experience far more empathy and approval compared to economic migrants. This is supported by the fact that the entirety of respondents rated an empathy or approval number average (mean) of 9.6 for migrants exiting due to threats to safety. While economic migrants received an 8.45, which shows economic migrants still elicit a high approval empathy rating overall. Yet there was not a single subset that varied from a pattern that showed more approval/empathy for migrants experiencing threats to safety.
Given that both kinds of migrants received approval/empathy rating means above 8, the data from Q2 was confusing. Across all subsets respondents showed that migrants somewhat disrupt their destination city/region/state. With all groups rating migrant disruption between 5-6, there was little variation. However this question did have the largest range of data, with the high being an 8 which indicates the respondent believe migrants cause mass disruption and a 2 indicating another respondent believes migrants cause little disruption. Therefore the only conclusion to draw is that people expect some disruption from migrants, even if they approve of the migrants reasons.
Question 4 was an interesting data set, because when interpreted alone, it shows that respondents believed they have a firm grasp on the concept of migration. However when asked in question 5 to name the kinds of people who were migrants. The respondents listed: “refugees” “People seeking safety from Latin American and Middle Eastern countries” and most obviously incorrect “People migrating from Mexico or other countries.” Which implies error within the survey, perhaps a clear definition of migration is needed.
Conclusion/ Directions of Further study
In truth there are some reasonable conclusions to draw from this study. That the respondents considered “threats to safety” a much better reason for exiting, when compared with “economic mobility.” This too can be seen throughout history, as James N Gregory writes “Poor people crossing state lines would have a clear set of rights in the aftermath of the Dust Bowl migration.” Which begs the question if the impact of The Dust Bowl on American culture may have influenced the respondents of the survey. Considering that America is now 10 years removed from “The Great Recession”, an avenue of further study could focus on the experience of economic migrants of the 2000’s. A field of study that has been explored, but not to my knowledge fully examined in a mass survey format. Further, it is clear some pivotal mistakes were made in the creation of the survey form. Which failed to define migration as internal migration, a mistake that creates a question of validity over the entire survey. However due to time constraints of the semester, it is not reasonable or likely to remedy this situation. A positive to draw from this mistake is the ability to collaborate with my research teammate who was in fact looking into immigration, to see if the similarities held up across our different surveys.
Bibliography
Gegory N James, "The Dust Bowl Migration" Poverty Stories, Race Stories, Poverty in the United States: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, and Policy, eds. Gwendolyn Mink and Alice O’Connor (Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio, 2004)
Wilkerson, Isabel. “The Long-Lasting Legacy of the Great Migration.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 1 Sept. 2016, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/long-lasting-legacy-great-migration-180960118/.
