# Mexico-U.S. Migration and Labor Unions: Obstacles to Building Cross-Border Solidarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite persistent Mexican migration, deepening North American economic integration, and the recent predominance of migration on the U.S.-Mexico bi-national agenda, cross-border labor union efforts to collaborate on immigration policy and migrant worker rights have been sporadic, reactive, and lacking in concerted action.Based on recent interviews conducted with U.S. and Mexican labor union representatives, migration scholars, immigrant advocacy groups, and government officials, Watts examines the historical, political, and institutional obstacles to cross-border labor union solidarity on migration issues.Over the last decade, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has deepened economic integration between the U.S. and Mexico by lowering barriers to trade and investment.Since 1993, the value of trade between the U.S. and Mexico has almost tripled from $81 billion to $232 billion and Mexico is now the second largest trading partner for the U.S. after Canada. 1 Although not facilitated by NAFTA, 2 Mexico-U.S. migration also has increased and is equally vital to the region.Between 1994 and 2001, annual legal and illegal Mexico-U.S. migration increased from 300,000 to 500,000. 3 Over a 10-year period, the Mexican-born population in the U.S. increased by 53% to reach 20.6 million in 2000.Of these Mexican-born, those who are immigrants totaled just over 9 million. 4 Finally, an estimated 4.8 million undocumented Mexicans are in the U.S., a 58% increase from 1990. 5 1 Griswold, D.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".