What explains north-south divide in deported Indians from US?

While the number of illegal immigrants is predominantly from three north Indian states, a high number of illegal agents are from south Indian states. This is mind-boggling.

Of the 332 handcuffed and shackled undocumented Indian immigrants deported from the United States during February, 126 are from Punjab (38 per cent), 110 from Haryana (33 per cent) and 74 from Gujarat (22 per cent). Rest of the 22 (7 per cent) are from Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and other states and UTs.

It is indeed significant as well as striking that South Indians (from the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana) do not feature among these deportees. One is certain that those who have been deported as a result of being apprehended by the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as illegal migrants entering the US have been picked at random and not particularly targeted for having been from the states of Punjab, Haryana, or Gujarat. Since these deportees are Indians, and considering India as a macrocosm, one would expect the deportees to be people from many more Indian states and UTs than almost exclusively just from the above-mentioned three states. But that is not the case at all.

It is pertinent to point out here that 3,042 illegal agents have been identified till June. It is quite mind-boggling, and a sort of converse, that a high number (1,199) of illegal agents happen to be cumulatively from the South Indian states: 498 from Andhra Pradesh, 372 from Tamil Nadu, 206 from Kerala, and 123 from Telangana! Besides, there are 418 agents from Uttar Pradesh, 337 from Maharashtra, 299 from Delhi, 209 from Punjab, 130 from West Bengal, and 450 others.

So, given the above scenario, what can we deduce from what has come to be as regards the deportees? What could we infer from the data on hand? That the potential migrants from the southern states are so law-abiding that they do not attempt illegal migrations at all? That those from the southern states do not engage these illegal agents? That these agents cater exclusively to the non-southern states’ clients? That those from the southern states do not get apprehended at the US borders by the CBP? That those from the southern states get free passage through the US borders and somehow circumvent the CBP? That those from the southern states pay their way through to the CBP and those from the non-southern states cannot do that? That those from the southern states have some exclusive conduits along the borders of the US that those from the non-southern states are not aware of?

There are no straight or logical answers for these questions. Hence, we must deduce that what the data tell us is that predominantly, nay almost exclusively, people from the three said states depend on illegal agents to traffic them to the US, as compared to those from the rest of India; more so from the southern states.

Also, it is crucial to note that ‘Punjabi speakers are the largest group among Indian asylum seekers and also the most likely to have their asylum requests approved in American immigration courts compared with speakers of other Indian languages,’ according to a research paper by political scientists Devesh Kapur and Abby Budiman, published by Johns Hopkins University. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a non-profit data research organisation, has found that 63 per cent of cases involving Punjabi speakers are granted asylum.

We do not have definite answers as to why Punjabi speakers have this, rather high, undue advantage of being preferred in the grant of asylum, and just 37 per cent of all the others put together from the Indian macrocosm succeed in obtaining asylum as compared to the Punjabis. Yet, notwithstanding the purported ‘success rate’ of asylum seekers from Punjab, the Punjabis end up as the largest deportees!

Historically, the earliest immigrants to the US were from the Punjab region of India during the late 1800s. Punjab region here means the erstwhile composite Punjab state which subsumed the later-to-emerge Haryana state (in 1966). The earliest Gujaratis who migrated to the US were from the late 19th century. So, there has been a sort of ‘tradition’ of migration to the US from the three states.

That over time has set a kind of pattern whereby for those who have had emigrants in their families, have not just derived economic benefits from remittances but have also gained the consequent and concomitant prestigious social capital. Acquisition of social capital does play an important role in providing a great level of cultural respect in the lives of the families concerned and local socio-economic settings in the three states. 

The deportees are reported to have paid between ₹20 lakh and ₹1.25 crore each to the traffickers and illegal agents. Does that mean that people from southern states do not have that kind of resource? Or is that those who have that kind of money in the southern states would prefer to use that resource for higher education, or in some business or invest in an entrepreneurial activity?

It is quite significant as to how and why do those from the non-southern states engage the illegal agents from the southern states, besides agents in their vicinity too? One cannot correlate any conjectures or speculations with any events or outcomes that have emerged. 

Going by the South Indian enclaves in the US, it is quite clear that there is no paucity of them there. They are there in large numbers. It is generally held that people from South India go in for planned and legal approaches when it comes to migrations to the US. Besides, on a one-to-one basis, it is also believed that south Indians are better educated and access opportunities in a systematic manner. Overall, south Indians seem to avoid taking risks of the kind that are involved in the ‘donkey routes’ that those from the three northern states undertake. Also, while social capital does accrue to families in the south due to emigration of their kin, the kind of historical ‘tradition’ that has got laid in the case of the northerners, which in some ways acts as a compulsive spur, is conspicuous by its absence in the case of the southerners.

We need to invest in a great deal of research to obtain answers and insights as to why people from the southern states are so different from their counterparts from the three states when it comes to endeavours as regards illegal migrations.

(M A Kalam, a social anthropologist, is visiting professor, The International Institute of Migration and Development [IIMAD], Thiruvananthapuram.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.