The Mexican state of Sinaloa has not developed diaspora policies directed to the Sinaloan Diaspora in the United States, even though the economic and social contributions to the state are significant and despite the existence of a significant group of Sinaloans in a situation of extreme vulnerability due to their precarious legal status. Current literature on diaspora policies has not developed a framework to understand atypical cases such as the case of Sinaloa. I developed a mixed method research design case study of state-diaspora relations in the Sinaloa-Los Angeles transnational field. I argue that political, economic, and organizational factors explain the absence of diaspora policies. Findings suggest that this is due to anti-democratic orientations of Sinaloan local governments, lack of strong Sinaloan Hometown Associations, and low remittance dependency at the state level. Only municipalities with few resources have developed a relationship with the diaspora or are willing to do so.

Some subnational governments have enacted compassionate public policies to protect or augment migrant rights. The emergence of these policies is frequently attributed to the racial threat hypothesis (RTH), which explains their development based on demographic variables. However, recent studies indicate that some factors related to RTH do not offer satisfactory explanations. Given that a body of literature considers that supplementary explanatory frameworks can enhance RTH's explanatory power, then more needs to be researched about the intervening variables that need to be integrated.

To address these limitations, I propose the Conjunctural Theory of Subnational Migration Public Policy, contending that the simultaneous confluence of some of the following variables explains the emergence of pro-migrant public policies: regional and global conjunctures, left-leaning or liberal partisanship and ideologies at the state level, state competition, focusing events, and grassroots mobilization. This theory is grounded and was developed throughout my research of three pro-migrant public policies that crystallized in Mexico City from 2011 to 2021. My approach integrates global and regional processes and their impact on domestic and local processes, which I interpret through the lenses of conjunctural analysis. At a more general level, I analyzed subnational pro-migrant policies adopted in other Mexican states. I fielded around fourteen semi-structured interviews, facilitated focus groups with key stakeholders, and conducted ethnographic observations and participatory action research on the migrant caravan. Additional data was drawn from news articles, legal documents, secondary sources, social media, and statistics from various databases.

I found that the Interculturality Law was a product of Mexico City’s progressive ideology and a governor committed to civil rights. These were catalyzed by the "72 massacre" as a focusing event. The sanctuary decree was driven by the regional conjuncture under Trump, state competition, and demographic changes due to increased Mexican deportations. Lastly, granting temporary legal permits to the 2021 migrant caravan members was largely influenced by migrant-led grassroots mobilization, reduced U.S. geopolitical pressure, and the death of over 50 migrants, interpreted as a focusing event. The findings have important public policy implications, as they help identify the conditions leading to the extension of benefits to marginalized populations.