RÉSUMÉ
Mexican immigrants to the United States have better reproductive outcomes than do U.S.-born non-Latina whites. Explanations offered for this "epidemiologic paradox" include (1) poor outcomes among Mexican women may be hidden by their return to Mexico; (2) Mexican women may have a higher fetal death rate that alters the pattern of live birth outcomes; (3) Mexican women may have socioeconomic characteristics which, if properly measured, would explain the outcome; (4) Mexican women may have personal characteristics which would explain the outcome, if properly measured; (5) there may be ameliorative or salutogenic "protective" effects of culture; and (6) migration may be selective of healthier women who are thus more prone to positive outcomes. We test these explanations, with an emphasis on the last one, using a data set that combines reproductive histories and birth outcomes for Mexico-born women delivering in San Diego, California and Mexican women delivering in Tijuana, Mexico. These data are compared with U.S.-born Latinas and U.S.-born non-Latina Whites. Multivariate logistic regression analysis suggests that when controlling for birth history (stillbirths and miscarriages), socioeconomic characteristics (education and prenatal visits), personal characteristics (age, parity, time in area, history of family problems), and health characteristics (history of smoking, alcohol use, drug use, anemia, vaginal bleeding, urinary infection), the adjusted odds of a positive birth outcome (measured as a live birth of 2500 grams or more) is highest for women delivering in Tijuana, implying that migrants may not be so selective when compared to the country of origin. The number of prenatal visits was an important explanatory variable.
RÉSUMÉ
PIP: Even though fertility in the US is 2, the population grows each year by 2.5 million people due to natural increase and immigration. The US has never had a formal population policy to influence its birth rate. Yet the US government advises other nations, especially developing nations, how they should go about reducing their fertility. Instead the US can learn from population policies of direct disincentives, such as no income tax allowance for 3 children. In Indonesia, the president and Islamic religious leaders strongly support family planning. In Mexico, both the public and private sectors provide family planning services. The US does not have experience in influencing fertility declines, since fertility declined due to economic development over a period of time. Some scholars claim that there are 3 preconditions for a sustained decline in fertility, all of which have significance for setting population policies. The 1st is called rational choice in which conditions are such in a society that women can make their own decision. For example, the existence of legislation that guarantees women the right to act in their own interest, including the right to make their own reproductive decisions. The 2nd involves policies or conditions that motivate individuals and/or couples to limit family size. Incentives and disincentives can provide the needed motivation. For example, the government pays a woman for not having a child for a specific interval. The last precondition includes the necessity of having means available to limit family size. These means include knowledge of contraceptive methods and accessibility to them.^ieng