©2005 by Elizabeth Burke

In the summer of 2002, when I worked with Mexican domestic workers in San Juan, Texas, I learned that some people’s sacrifices and struggles allow others to enjoy countless comforts. Although I took many interdisciplinary courses in college that discussed issues that directly affect people of color in the United States, seeing their experience first-hand put valuable classroom learning in perspective with an out-of-classroom experience. Through an internship the following summer in the Philippines, I interviewed women and children to learn more about the effects of labor migration on the women who work abroad and the children who are left behind in the Philippines. These experiences helped me better understand the sacrifices people make all over the world to have a better life for their children, if not for themselves. Although it is impossible to describe a single migrant experience or equate one person’s experience with another’s, there are many similarities between Filipina and Mexican women who work as domestics. Even though these women are employed in lower wage jobs in the U.S., they currently yield great economic power in their home countries, with the potential of further influence in the future through the electoral process.

Census records show that the number of Mexican women who settle in the U.S. is now equivalent to the number of men. For decades, it was mostly men who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, but recently, more women have been making this journey. The changing roles of women in a traditionally patriarchal Mexican society partially explain the increased levels of female migration. The newly found independence they enjoyed in Mexico, however, is sometimes reversed when they work in the U.S. as domestic workers.1

As Mary Romero explains in her essay “Domestic Service in the Transition from Rural to Urban Life: The Case of La Chicana,” historically, domestic work carries the image of an “occupational ghetto,” particularly for women of color. Whereas Caucasian women used domestic work during a transitional phase in their lives and as a method of social mobility, for women of color, working as a domestic has been more permanent. Many continue such work even after getting married and having children. Historically, the mistress was white and the domestic servant was a woman of color. It was understood that the lighter in skin color the mistress was, the darker the servant would inevitably be. Through her interviews with Chicana domestic workers, Romero learned that domestic work allowed women to earn money while also meeting the needs of their own families. Since most of the women she interviewed had little education and employable skills, however, they did not have many employment opportunities available to them. Women often obtained these jobs through friends or family members who also worked in this area.2 This also holds true for Filipina women. Their experiences are the culmination of the intersection of race, class and gender. All three of these factors influence, guide, and, at least to some degree, determine how much education the women obtained, what types of employment they could secure, and how much money they were capable of making.

Although the concept of domestic workers is not new, the demand for domestics has risen in recent years. Since 1980, in southern California alone, the number and percentage of migrant women working as domestics has risen in the three largest cities. This is particularly noteworthy because a mere twenty years earlier, domestic work was on such a decline that people anticipated it being eliminated all together. Three main factors are responsible for this increase. With the increasing polarization of the U.S. economy and the creation of more high-powered and demanding jobs, there is more need to support these positions. Moreover, the number of women entering the workforce, either out of necessity or interest, also increased. Since men have failed to pick up the household responsibilities that women are incapable of doing because of work, they need to hire someone to help. Finally, since the life expectancy continues to rise, there is an increased demand to help not only working mothers but also the elderly who need extra attention.3

In response to this increasing demand for domestics, Filipinas and Mexicans travel great distances to provide services in the U.S. while also supporting their family at home. Currently, there are approximately 7.5 million Filipinos who work abroad in over one hundred countries. Perhaps because of the shared historical relationship between the U.S. and the Philippines, and despite the complicated and disturbing historical past of American colonialism there, the U.S. continues to be the most popular destination for Filipinos to work abroad.4 Mexicans also travel to the U.S. in great numbers to work.5 Due to proximity and the U.S. and Mexico’s shared histories, Chicana women serve as domestic workers more than any other ethnic group. The domestic workers support the economies and lifestyles of two countries: the U.S. and their home country. Without the tireless, often unseen and unrecognized work of these Filipina and Mexican domestic laborers, the U.S. way of life and functioning of society would not be the same. The 2004 film entitled “A Day Without a Mexican” hints at Americans’ reliance on Mexicans through the title alone. The entire film revolves around Americans’ reliance on the work Mexicans do and the utter chaos that ensues when Mexicans disappear for a day. This concept of our society being unable to survive a single day without the work of Mexicans shows our great dependence on all the functions they occupy to make the rest of our lives easier.

Filipinas and Chicanas also help to support their home countries. In 2003 alone, overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) sent back 7.6 billion dollars, which composes roughly 10 percent of the Filipino domestic product.6 Similarly, Mexican workers outside of Mexico sent back 10 billion dollars in 2002 alone. The only thing in Mexico that tops these remittances is oil.7 These domestic workers do not let their lower social status get in the way of their right to vote. Filipinas working and living outside the Philippines only obtained the right to vote in elections within the Philippines last year. The Filipinas who work overseas are usually heads of families, which means that their votes will likely influence the way other family members vote as well. Some argue that every vote cast by a Filipina living outside the Philippines influences the votes of at least three other people in the Philippines.8 The voting power of overseas workers is thus tremendous—

approximately 300,000 OFWs registered to vote. Migrante, one organization in the Philippines that advocates on behalf of OFWs, even designed a T-shirt for OFWs to wear, which reads, “Because we are worth more than the dollars we send,” thus acknowledging both the role they currently have in society and their desire to make it something more.9

Currently, Mexicans living outside of Mexico are fighting for the right to vote in Mexican elections. Although the Mexican constitution does not distinguish Mexicans living outside Mexico from those living within the country, Mexican immigrants are still unable to vote in elections because the constitution states that each vote must be made within the country. The concept of absentee ballots exists in over 60 countries, but not in Mexico. Mexicans living outside their home country resent that they are unable to vote for the politicians who use the millions of dollars they send back each year to improve Mexican infrastructure and communities. As one Mexican woman living in Los Angeles explained, “Democracy in Mexico will never be complete until it includes all Mexicans living abroad.”10 Similar to Filipinas, Mexicans want to see a change in their home country to a more democratic system. Their votes may also significantly affect election results, especially considering that there are approximately 1.5 million Mexicans in the U.S. with Mexican voting cards. As a result, Vicente Fox and other Mexican leaders have campaigned in California, concentrating on issues that directly affect these workers, such as the cost of money transfers from the U.S. to Mexico and corruption at the U.S.-Mexico border. There have also been measures to allow Mexicans in the U.S. to vote in Mexican elections until a more permanent ruling is in place. For example, buses have been organized to travel from U.S. cities, as far away as Chicago and Washington, over the U.S.-Mexican border to polling stations.11

The fight for the vote could be classified as a strategy and tactic for workers to gain more power and control over their own lives. These women are continuing the long historical tradition of women fighting against discrimination for their survival and improvements in their lives. As Vicki L. Ruiz showcased in her book, From Out of the Shadows: Mexican Women in Twentieth-Century America, it has been, and continues to be, women who provide and create opportunities for social justice. Historian Mark Saad Saka writes, “Rather than assimilating and disappearing into the shadows or simply ‘contributing’ to Western history, women proved the core movers and shakers of history, a subaltern force in the making of the modern world.”12

Given that Mexicans working outside Mexico cannot vote in Mexican elections, and Filipinas just recently received this right, one can question the status of migrant workers in their home countries. In particular, if women in both the Philippines and Mexico are regarded as heroes for the work they do abroad, it is difficult to understand why this voting right has come so late for Filipinas and is still unavailable to Mexicans. Disenfranchisement closes an additional avenue with which to protect oneself from exploitation and vulnerability. Without the ability to vote for parties and candidates that advocate migration policies to serve and benefit the workers that keep the economies afloat, workers have one more burden to carry. After working in a country such as the U.S. where there may be less corruption, or less overt corruption, Filipina and Mexican citizens may be even more distrustful of their home government and officials’ concerns for their people. This can further discourage the workers from returning, which has multiple far-reaching effects, including the separation and breakdown of the family. If their voices cannot be heard through their votes, their home country has essentially forgotten and ignored them.

There is no doubt that changes need to be made to better provide for and improve the lives of domestic and migrant workers in the U.S. However, as the following passage written by Carlos Bulosan, one of the first Filipino writers to write in English in the U.S., proves, it is equally as important to remember the strides that have been made and the reasons why people come to the U.S. Although there are many divisions between Filipinas, Mexicans, and people of other ethnicities, there are also grounds for unity:

America is in the hearts of men that died for freedom; it is also in the eyes of men that are building a new world. America is a prophecy of a new society of men: of a system that knows no sorrow or strife or suffering. America is a warning to those who would try to falsify the ideals of free men. America is also the nameless foreigner, the homeless refugee, the hungry boy begging for a job and the black body dangling from a tree. America is the illiterate immigrant who is ashamed that the world of books and intellectual opportunities is closed to him. We are the nameless foreigner, that homeless refugee, hat hungry boy, that illiterate immigrant and that lynched black body. All of us, from the first Adams to the last Filipino, native born or alien, educated or illiterate—We are America!13

1. Tim Golden, “Evolving Roles of Mexican Women Evident in Rising Illegal Migration,” Austin American Statesman, 26 July 1992, C1.
2. Mary Romero, “Domestic Service in the Transition from Rural to Urban Life: The Case of La Chicana,” Women’s Studies 13 (1987): 200-214.
3. Maria de la Luz Ibarra, “Mexican Immigrant Women and the New Domestic Labor,” Human Organization 59, no. 4 (2000): 455.
4. Carlos Bulosan, America is in the Heart (Seattle: University of Washington, 1973), xxiii.
5. Romero, “Domestic Service,” 200-214.
6. Chris Hogg, “ Philippines: Fighting for the Migrant Vote,” BBC News UK Edition, 22 March 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3545989.stm.
7. Tessie Borden, “Migrants seek voice in Mexico politics,” AZ Central, 25 January 2003, http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special03/articles/0125migrantvote25.html.
8. Norman Bordadora and Martin P. Marfil, “300,000 overseas Filipinos may swing vote in tight race,” Inquirer News Service, 2 October 2003, http://www.inq7.net/nat/2003/oct/02/nat_8-1.htm.
9. Hogg, “Philippines,” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3545989.stm.
10. The Associated Press, “Mexicans in U.S. intensify voting campaign,” The DesertSun ( Palm Springs), 8 November 2004, http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2004/election/20041108014643.shtml.
11. Ken Ellingwood, “Getting Out the Cross-Border Vote; Mexican Candidates Working Hard for Migrants’ Ballots,” Los Angeles Times, 28 June 2000, p. 1.
12. Mark Saad Saka, review of Refusing the Favor: The Spanish-Mexican Women of Santa Fe, 1820-1880, by Deena Gonzalez, in The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education 14, no. 8 (Jan. 2004): 48.
13. Bulosan, America is in the Heart, xxiv.

Back