Motherhood across Borders

by Gabrielle Oliveira

  As stated in the opening paragraphs of this chapter, the reality is that children and youth’s experiences with education and social opportunities are more nuanced and deserve a critical look. Building on data from previous chapters, this study uses the transnational care constellation to show how emotional and financial stability coupled with place of residence largely contributed to the type of experience separated siblings had in Mexico and in the United States. The literature presented above is extensive in its attempts to document the lives of children who have migrant parents. More often than not, these distinguish between children on each side of the border in attempts to quantify the impacts or effects of migration, remittance, and parents’ level of education on the educational attainment of children and youth. Remittances on their own don’t always result in higher academic performance in Mexico, and studies looking at paths of upward or downward assimilation for the sons and daughters of migrants neglect myriad factors that influence and shape the experiences of children and youth in New York City. This research is based on the idea that ideologies of care and motherhood, schools, teachers and principals, social networks, and relationships hold these constellations together as their everyday interactions take place.

  The story of Maria and her children—Joaquín, Florencia, Mariana, Rosa, and Cecilia—makes clear the fact that the social and education trajectories of the children both in Mexico and in the United States depended on both the support of their mothers and their own decisions. It is important to keep in mind that the separated siblings had obvious differences in age. In New York City, the US-born children’s ages varied from newborn to 12 years old; undocumented youth’s ages were between 15 and 18; and children in Mexico were aged between 9 and 18 years.

  Mothers in New York City

  After two years of participant observation and interviews, I found that Mexican migrant women in New York City were able to provide for children in Mexico and in the United States only if they were able to experience stability in their homes. As I went back and forth looking at women’s income numbers, occupation, and number of years living in New York City, stability was always associated with all of these factors. Thus, stability derived from three key factors: living in a secure, stable home with some physical space that was not crammed with different extended family; having stable occupations and financial stability that allowed them to save money and keep homes in the United States and in Mexico afloat; and finally, having a supportive, nonviolent partner who contributed financially or with childcare. The combination of these factors provided mothers with resources to be financially and emotionally present in the lives of all children here and there.

  Housing and Sharing Space

  The four transnational constellations in the South Bronx had an imminent fear of housing displacement. Violeta moved twice because of issues in the building such as bed bugs, drug trafficking, and poor construction. The structure of the building where she lived had been compromised by leaks and had multiple rat infestation incidents. Emilia lived with her family of four in a two-bedroom apartment that she shared with six other people. Her family stayed in one of the bedrooms while the other six people lived in the living room and second bedroom. Sharing the rent was paramount to making ends meet. The people who lived in the apartment generated stress and were a source of constant gossip. Her son Alonso had nightmares at night and sometimes urinated in the bed. In their living room two men alternated sleeping in a makeshift tent and screamed when Emilia made noises in the middle of the night or early in the morning. This dynamic resulted in Alonso’s bed being wet for longer periods of time, and the bedroom’s smell bothered Emilia, her husband Alonso, and their one-year-old daughter Alondra. Aruna, also a South Bronx resident, changed apartments twice because they lost their government rent subsidy and her family was evicted with only three hours’ notice. These living arrangements left women and their families in a constant state of fear of being evicted or robbed by outsiders or by the very people with whom they shared their homes.

  Micaela, a mother in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, lived in an apartment with her seven-year-old son Dino and her husband Orlando. It was a two-bedroom apartment above a grocery store. Dino had been diagnosed with autism and Micaela was very active in getting him the help he needed. Through the New York City Department of Education she was able to find a tutor who came after school to help Dino with his homework. Dino was happy when Kristin, his tutor, came to work with him. They worked in his bedroom, which had a desk and a laptop. Dino told me one day after Kristin left, “I like that I have my bedroom to do my work and Kristin says that it’s very good I have my space, right mamá? Not like my cousins.” I followed up with a question about how his cousins lived and Dino replied, “One on top of the other.” Micaela smiled at me and told me it was not always like that, they had lived in the South Bronx before with six other people, and she had especially struggled with the lack of tranquility for Dino to sleep. She told me, “When you have a son like Dino, with autism, the teachers told us it’s better to have a home that is calm and spacious so the child doesn’t lose control, you know?” These families and women valued space and children struggled when they had to live with more people.

  Both Maria Fernanda and Gemma had partners who held steady jobs that paid well. Both households earned more than $3,000 a month. Paying rent consumed a third of their joint income. Maria Fernanda was a nanny and Gemma cared for the elderly. When they had to work while children were out of school they could rely on neighbors and friends to look after their own children. These mothers’ expectations for the education future of their children were extremely high. Both families enrolled their children in after-school programs and summer camps. They found tutors for their children that the city subsidized and took advantage of any other programs available. In addition, Sunset Park had a small but organized public library where Gemma and Maria Fernanda took their children constantly. Gemma’s Yazmin (age 11) and Alejandro Jr. (age 10), and Maria Fernanda’s Mariana (age 8) and Rosa (age 6) always had books in their homes and constantly discussed with me what they had learned by reading. Maria Fernanda’s oldest daughter, Florencia, also described having had an inclusive positive experience with peers and teachers while she was in school. Teachers spoke Spanish and were in tune with many of the Mexican traditions. Teachers in one school in Sunset Park organized a celebration for Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead) where parents were welcome to come in and tell stories about how the party is celebrated in their hometowns in Mexico. They allowed children to write holiday or festive cards in whatever language they preferred and encouraged the children to share new words in their own languages.

  The positive outlook and positive experiences within the neighborhood’s schools did not guarantee high academic achievement. All of the children mentioned performed with average grades, except for Alejandro Jr., who had to repeat third grade and performed below average. They all struggled to do homework as they faced language barriers with their parents. Maria Fernanda had help from Florencia, who spoke English better than Spanish and explained instructions to her little sisters. Gemma depended entirely on the tutors or on me when I was doing home observations. Children in both of these households would speak in English with me, but as soon as their mothers entered the room they switched to Spanish. As Yazmin (11) told me, “I want her to understand me … I need to include her … I feel bad if she doesn’t, because she feels bad.” Both Gemma and Maria Fernanda asked for help from neighbors and friends who could speak English and also used the Center for Family Services as a source of help and assistance.

  In comparison with the transnational constellations that lived in Sunset Park, Brooklyn or Jackson Heights, Queens, the income of families in the South Bronx was significantly lower. Latinos represent half of the population in both the South Bronx and Sunset Park, but Sunset Park had a larger Mexican population, with many Mexicans from Puebla. Though the median rent in Sunset Park was $1,035 compared to $831 in the South Bronx, the homes of the pa
rticipants were more spacious in Sunset Park and less crowded. The number of reported crimes in Sunset Park was 1,206 in 2013 compared to 1,760 in the South Bronx (NYPD Crime Statistics, 2012) and the median household income in Sunset Park was $41,912 compared to $20,867 in the South Bronx (WNYC Median Income NYC Neighborhoods, 2010–2012).2 All families in this research study that lived in Sunset Park did not share their apartments with extended family or friends, as was the case in the South Bronx. Children in Sunset Park experienced more quiet time when they did their homework at home.

  Occupation and Financial Stability of Mothers

  Caregivers and children in Mexico experienced the difference when women had more stability in terms of housing and occupation. Caregivers described the ebbs and flows of remittances as worrisome for the well-being of their daughters and grandchildren, which corresponded directly to difficult moments described above. When mothers in New York City enjoyed financial stability through constant and consistent income, their top investment was to hire tutors and psychologists to help their children in Mexico and in the United States. However, when faced with decisions between whom to “help” first, mothers struggled with their priorities. Maria Fernanda was the only participant who was always able to “keep the promise” to help her son, Joaquín. Other women in this study went back and forth, first prioritizing the children in Mexico and sending any extra money they received to their children there, then switching attention and investment to children in New York City. Their rationale was that in New York City, if you had absolutely no money, your children were still US citizens and the government would assist you with food stamps, child support, and public schools. In Mexico, on the other hand, women worked on the assumption that their families could not count on the government for assistance, and guaranteeing school supplies and money for school fees was a requirement for children in Mexico to have a shot at obtaining an education. This idea was enhanced by the guilt many mothers felt. However, this strategy was in some ways perverse. In Mexico, even when mothers were not able to send money, most of the families were able to eat. Most of them raised chickens, turkeys, and donkeys, and knew enough people in their community they could turn to if necessary so that the children would not go hungry. Caregivers would accumulate debt if they needed to in order to acquire school material and uniforms. In New York City, the lack of financial resources affected the living arrangements of children, which in some cases prevented them from sleeping, feeling safe, doing homework at home, or having a place to study. Children and youth in the United States absorbed much of the anxiety mothers had.

  Every dollar counted toward the children. This point was driven home to me by my experiences with Violeta’s family, as described in my field notes:

  We were walking from Violeta’s house to school to pick up the children. Tatiana, Violeta’s mother, had called Violeta to say, “If you don’t send money your boy can’t go to school.” Violeta entered a lottery store and used $10 to buy lottery tickets. She held the tickets in her hands and prayed. After a few minutes she started scratching each ticket. As she scratched each ticket she asked for the Virgin of Guadalupe to help her. Finally one ticket seemed promising.

  Violeta won $120. I was in disbelief. She turned to me and said, “Now I can feed the kids and send $20 to Andrés so he can buy his books and enroll in school.” Violeta owed money to different “loan sharks” and she had to cover for her sisters who were part of the loan group but were not paying back the loans.

  The fact that Violeta took a chance on a lottery ticket meant that she was pursuing financial reward in every way that she could. Just like that, Andrés received money to buy books and pay enrollment fees. It was astounding to me how public schools requested so much paperwork and extra fees from children and youth for things such as new pictures, renewed documents, fees for books and uniforms, donations for classroom materials, after-school programs, etc. Even though Andrés would have been able to go to school without the $20, he would not have newer books or uniforms that fit, or been able to go on field trips. Violeta could not help but compare this reality with that of her children in New York City, who had all of those things and opportunities, which was the context for her anxiety about remitting money for Andrés’s school expenses.

  Relationship with Partners

  The second component of stability for mothers was a positive relationship with their partners in New York City. Financial and emotional support were interrupted or fragmented every time women were in a relationship that was abusive or negative in some way. Maria Fernanda’s partner, Armando, was the father of Mariana and Rosa. Armando described himself as a “functioning alcoholic.” He worked long hours at a factory and needed to drink a few beers in order to fall asleep. That was the case of at least five other families in my study. In the bedrooms, family size bottles of beer were kept on shelves. The men in these families described feelings of anxiety regarding work and paying bills and thus counted on the help of alcohol to relax. In the case of Maria Fernanda and Armando, he was not violent or abusive. Rather, Armando was mellow and caring. He never opposed Maria Fernanda’s goal of sending money to Joaquín and from the beginning treated Florencia like his own daughter. He had two other daughters from a previous marriage who lived in New Jersey. Maria Fernanda also got along with them and the half-siblings were always happy when their half-sisters would come from New Jersey for sleepovers. Even though Maria Fernanda seemed to be in a happy union and have stability, that had not always been the case. As I mentioned previously, Maria Fernanda had tough years when she first arrived in New York City and her relationship with Florencia suffered from the anxieties that came with unstable work, housing, and relationships. It is important to mention that the narratives were predominantly coming from the women about their husbands, as their work schedules precluded my ability to spend any extended time with them.

  Camila, a mother in Brooklyn, was married to Ezequiel, a man she met after she migrated to New York City to be with her first husband. In her first two years in New York City, Camila stayed with her first husband, Fred (the father of three daughters she had left in Mexico), who had been living with another woman already and she was pregnant. Camila lived with them in the same house and experienced high levels of depression and anxiety. Even though Fred was the father of her three daughters in Mexico, he did not send any money to the children. At the same time, it was hard for Camila to save money and send any money back home. The living arrangement in which Camila had to share her husband with a pregnant woman was incredibly tough on her and, according to Camila, part of the reason she could not keep a job for long. Two other mothers in this research experienced similar situations. Camila described those two years as “lost” for her girls in Mexico. She worried that she could not support them and that lack of support would impact the rest of their educational lives. Her older daughter did stop going to school for a year in order to help her grandmother-caregiver who sold chicken at the main plaza of the town. Ana, her daughter, eventually went back to school, but dropped out when she became pregnant at sixteen. Ezequiel, Camila’s second husband, supported her commitment of sending money to her daughters, but his priority was making sure their three children in New York City had everything they needed.

  Ezequiel was from Guatemala. He worked 18–20 hours a day from the moment he arrived in New York City 12 years prior. His boss, an older Jewish man in the neighborhood who owned multiple stores, always encouraged Ezequiel to open his own bodega. Ezequiel did just that with the money he had saved and that’s where Camila worked before and during her pregnancies. After she had all three children Ezequiel opened another bodega closer to their home, where Camila assumed the manager position and was able to work flexible hours in order to be with her children. According to Camila and her daughters, as soon as Camila got together with Ezequiel, they thought their mother was “breathing better,” that she was more relaxed and confident about working and saving money. As Ana described, “She felt balanced.”

 
Eleven of the 20 mothers who were part of the core transnational constellations had been married at least twice in their lives. Seventeen of them reported suffering some kind of verbal or physical abuse from their first partners, and four of the 20 reported suffering sporadic abuse from their current partners. The women who had non-abusive relationships with their husbands tended to save more and remit more money to their children in Mexico. Seven women out of the 20 did not have partners. They worked longer hours and were able to send less money to Mexico. The women who did not have partners had to share their apartments with more people on average in order to make ends meet. The four women who had only married once and had all their children with the same partner had fewer discussions about the importance of sending money to Mexico and were able to be more consistent. It is important to mention that the amount of money varied from US$50 per month to more than US$1,500 per month. The families in Mexico were more concerned with the consistency of remitting money than with the amount. Very quickly, caregivers in Mexico started to count on the money that came in every month; interruptions thus represented major changes in household spending in Mexico.