SciPost logo

SciPost Submission Page

Beyond Cooperation: The Role of Origin Countries in Deportation Efforts, Evidence from Mexico (1942 to 1964)

by Guadalupe Chavez

This Submission thread is now published as

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:
  • Migration Politics

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

I want to thank the reviewers for taking the time to engage with my work and for providing valuable feedback. I have carefully addressed their comments and suggestions. In particular, as suggested by Reviewer 2, I shortened the methodology section and specified the nature of the sources I collected and how I selected those used for this paper. Second, I provided more context about the period the paper examines and why it was a significant period in Mexico. This information can be found in the introduction. Third, in line with Reviewers 1 and 2, I address what the broader public can learn from this case study and the value it adds to understanding contemporary deportation processes from the perspective of origin countries. Lastly, to address the editor’s comments, the revised version discusses how the paper contributes to the field of migration diplomacy through its rich content and by introducing the concept of proactiveness. I have also created a separate document in which I directly address the questions and comments provided by the reviewers.

List of changes

Introduction
- 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

I appreciate the revisions made, and I find that the author has genuinely sought to address our questions and comments.

Weaknesses

That said, it seems to me that she could still provide more detail on the archival series consulted (NARA on the U.S. side and AGM on the Mexican side). On p. 9, the choice of collections consulted could be explained more explicitly. But this may simply reflect my historian's perspective, whereas Guadalupe Chavez comes from another discipline.


The photograph inserted on p. 21 would benefit from further commentary.

Report

These are minor suggestions, and in my view, they do not require further validation by this reviewer.

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%)

  • validity: top
  • significance: top
  • originality: top
  • clarity: high
  • formatting: excellent
  • grammar: perfect

Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2025-9-2 (Invited Report)

Strengths

I am happy for the paper to be published with the changes made.

Report

I am happy for the paper to be published with the changes made.

Recommendation

Publish (easily meets expectations and criteria for this Journal; among top 50%)

  • validity: -
  • significance: -
  • originality: -
  • clarity: -
  • formatting: -
  • grammar: -

Login to report or comment