SciPost Submission Page
Beyond Cooperation: The Role of Origin Countries in Deportation Efforts, Evidence from Mexico (1942 to 1964)
by Guadalupe Chavez
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Guadalupe Chavez |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202412_00015v2 (pdf) |
| Date accepted: | Oct. 14, 2025 |
| Date submitted: | Aug. 27, 2025, 7:06 p.m. |
| Submitted by: | Guadalupe Chavez |
| Submitted to: | Migration Politics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Political Science |
| Specialties: |
|
Abstract
For deportations to be carried out, host countries must secure inter-state cooperation with origin countries where they seek to deport noncitizens. However, origin countries may decide to cooperate or resist cooperation. This paper pushes the scholarship by exploring why some origin countries not only decide to cooperate but also become proactive actors in deportation efforts by encouraging and promoting the deportation of their citizens despite the economic and political costs. This paper unpacks this puzzle by analyzing why the Mexican government became a proactive actor in facilitating the deportation of its citizens from the 1940s to the 1960s. Drawing on state archival research in the U.S. and Mexico, I argue that the Mexican government became a proactive actor as a strategy to address its domestic challenges and to cultivate its diplomatic relations with the U.S. government and the benefits that came with such relation including the continuation of the Bracero Program, the largest guest worker program. This study makes two key contributions. Empirically, the paper offers an in-depth analysis into how Mexico, a country with the highest flows of deportation in the Western Hemisphere, managed inflows of deportations during one of the largest deportation operations in the U.S. Second through introducing the concept of proactiveness, it expands the field of migration diplomacy by showcasing how countries use deportation as a tool to advance their political priorities.
Author comments upon resubmission
List of changes
- I added a new paragraph in the introduction with context on why the 1940s to the 1960s was a period of rapid transformation in Mexico. New paragraph can be found on page 2
- I expanded the definition of proactiveness
- On page 4 I discuss how the paper contributes to the field of migration diplomacy
Methodology section
-As suggested by Reviewer 2, this section was shortened. The section does not focus on how much data was analyzed, but instead, the section describes the nature of the sources collected, how I selected the archival sources, and the type of sources I used for this paper.
The Context: The Bracero Program (1942 to 1964) and managing cross-border mobility
- As suggested by Reviewer 1 in this section, I added a few sentences to address how Mexican consulates responded to the discrimination of Mexican nationals during the 1940s to the 1960s. This update can be found on page 15.
Unpacking Mexico’s Interests
- As recommended by Reviewer 2, I added a few sentences describing how Mexico’s responses varied throughout the 1940s to the 1960s. I mention that Mexico’s degree of proactiveness intensified during the 1950s and explain the conditions that led to such change. These changes can be found on page 26.
Discussion and conclusion
- This section explains how the Mexican case study from the 1940s to the 1960s can help us understand contemporary deportation processes. Furthermore, I explain how Mexico has managed contemporary flows of deportation.
Published as Mig. Pol. 4, 005 (2025)
Reports on this Submission
Report #2 by Delphine Diaz (Referee 3) on 2025-9-30 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Delphine Diaz, Report on arXiv:scipost_202412_00015v2, delivered 2025-09-30, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.12033
Strengths
Weaknesses
The photograph inserted on p. 21 would benefit from further commentary.
Report
Requested changes
- The photograph inserted on p. 21 has to be commented in the text.
- A small detail: on p. 20, in the notes, "Ibid." should be followed by a full stop, not a semicolon after the stop.
Recommendation
Publish (surpasses expectations and criteria for this Journal; among top 10%)
Strengths
Report
Recommendation
Publish (easily meets expectations and criteria for this Journal; among top 50%)
