Sin Coyote Ni Patrón: Why the “Migrant Network” Fails to Explain International Migration

The “migrant network” concept cannot explain large-scale international migratory flows. This article goes beyond a critique of its ahistorical and post factum nature. First, I argue that restrictions on its composition and functions also render the migrant network unable to explain why such migratory flows continue or expand even further. Second, a review of five studies illustrates why this concept, the propositions on which it rests, the methods it employs, and the conclusions that it imparts must be reconsidered. Third, the network analysis literature, along with my research data from the Mexico-U.S. case, suggest an alternative approach. “International migration networks” include those from the labor-sending hometowns who are emphasized in migrant network studies, as well as a variety of other actors based in the militarized border zone and the labor-receiving regions. I conclude that accurate studies of migration must include the employers that demand new immigrant workers, as well as the labor smugglers and all other actors that respond to this demand. Immigration studies that fail to do so provide erroneous analyses which camouflage the activities of many network actors, and furnish an academic fig leaf behind which unintended, counterproductive, and even lethal public policies have been implemented. By and large, the effective units of migration were (and are) neither individuals nor households but sets of people linked by acquaintance, kinship, and work experience who somehow incorporated American destinations into the mobility alternatives they considered when they reached critical decision points in their individual or collective lives (Tilly, 1990:84, emphasis added). Migrant network connections constitute a form of social capital that people can draw upon to gain access to foreign employment (Massey et al., 1993:448, emphasis added)