By Simon Walker

The House of Representatives passes H.R. 4437, a misguided measure intended to give the appearance of fighting terrorism.

On December 16 of this year the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, a sweeping crackdown on undocumented immigration. Most notably, the bill contains an amendment to build a wall along 700 miles of the Mexican border and study the possibility of erecting barriers along the frontier with Canada. It would also make "illegal presence" in the United States a criminal misdemeanor; the infraction is currently only a civil violation. Furthermore, H.R: 4437 would require businesses to verify the status of all 147 million U.S. workers, restrict court review of immigration decisions, deport violators immediately and deputize local sheriffs along the border to arrest illegal immigrants.

The passage of H.R. 4437 comes at the end of a year in which the already controversial topic of undocumented, or “illegal” immigration has become even more contentious. The emergence of border patrolling vigilante groups such as the Minute Men, as well as the August declaration of a state of emergency in the border counties of Arizona and New Mexico brought attention both to the issue and the absence of a federal government response.

Congressman Sensenbrenner,
Sponsor of H.R. 4437

Many analysts doubt that this draconian legislation will provide any real solutions. According to labor activist David Bacon, H.R. 4437 will “deprive immigrants of important due-process rights and drive the undocumented even further underground.”

The lack of economic opportunities in Mexico and many Central American countries is the main motivating force behind most migrants’ decision to embark on the risky border crossing. “Beefed-up border enforcement doesn't deter people from crossing,” says Bacon. “It does, however, force migrants into the most remote and dangerous areas.” A record 454 undocumented migrants died attempting to cross into the US this year, due in part to an intense heat wave in June and July.

Ruben Aguilar, spokesman for Mexican president Vicente Fox denounced the bill, saying, "A migratory reform that only addresses security will not resolve the bilateral immigration problem. Our countrymen make an enormous contribution to the United States economy." In fact, the Mexican government is planning to block the construction of the wall at the U.S. border and organize an international campaign against it.

Acknowledging this critical contribution, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz stated: "Nobody in this body, not one, is advocating that we round up and deport those who are here illegally now. Unless we have a program for them to go into, we simply won't enforce the law. And that's the dirty little secret here."

According to they New York Times, undocumented immigrants contribute as much as $7 billion annually to the Social Security Administration through falsified social security numbers provided to employers who hire the workers. This is of course above and beyond the invaluable contributions undocumented workers make through their labor in agriculture, service and other industries.

These workers make an equally important contribution to the Mexican economy as well. In 2004, remittances sent back by Mexican nationals working abroad became the country’s number one income source, topping $16.6 billion. It is expected that the remittances will surpass $20 billion this year, again beating out revenues from oil exportation and tourism.

US reliance on the labor of undocumented immigrants has lead many politicians and business types to promote temporary guest worker programs in order to normalize and regulate the incorporation of immigrants into the workforce. Some, however, question if this will really improve migrant worker conditions. Examining the limitations and failures of previous guest worker programs between the US and Mexico can shed some light on what we can expect from future proposals.

US/Mexico Migration History

With the signing the Treaty of Guadalupe in 1848, the Mexican-American War ends, and Mexico cedes 45 percent of its original territory to the U.S. From 1850 to 1880 55,000 Mexican workers migrate north to capitalize on the expanding agriculture, ranching and railway industries, mainly in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas - states that had recently been part of Mexico. The signing of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 increases the rate of Mexican migration north; with the Chinese effectively removed from the labor market, there are more jobs available to Mexicans.

The Mexican revolution also caused a jump in migration, as people sought to escape the turmoil of the conflict. It is estimated that during the revolutionary period of 1910 to 1917 at least 53,000 Mexican workers per year migrated to the US, a trend also stimulated by American involvement in World War I.

The constant complaints of abuse and exploitation at the hands of their bosses by Mexicans working in the US prompted president Venustiano Carranza to develop a contract to guarantee workers’ rights. The contract extended the Labor and Social Security rights (minimum wage, six-day work-week, etc.) guaranteed by Article 123 of the Mexican Political Constitution to nationals working abroad. No worker could depart for the US without a contract signed by an immigration official specifying the rate of pay, place of employment, work schedule and other conditions.

In 1924, by agreement of the US Congress, the Border Patrol is founded. At this point, the immigration status of Mexicans working in the US changes drastically. Un-contracted workers are declared “illegal” and become fugitives of the law. Even despite this change in status, Mexican workers made significant contributions to the US economy in exchange for low wages, bad treatment, discrimination and disdain. After the US sinks into the Great Depression 1929, Mexican workers are required to provide proof of secured employment in order to obtain a visa. At this point, the demolished US economy no longer needs or wants Mexican workers. Those who are deported for lack of documentation are warned that if they return they will be considered criminals.

The Bracero Program

It was World War II that stimulated the creation of a massive guest worker program that brought millions of Mexican workers to the US. With thousands of American young men fighting the war in Europe and Asia, and the bulk of the remaining workforce focused on war production, the US faced severe labor shortages in other sectors.

On August 4, 1942 the governments of the United States and Mexico signed a treaty for the recruitment and employment of Mexican citizens in order to alleviate the shortages of manual labor in the agricultural fields and to help maintain American railways. Ernesto Galarza, a Mexican consulate official in Washington DC, cited the main motivations of the agreement as the “constant demand of agricultural workers anticipating the production for the war; the traditional opinion established in the south [that] Mexico is a natural reserve of agricultural manual labor and railroad maintenance; the increasingly difficult circumstances of the Mexican working class in the cities and rural communities in regards to the scarcity of nourishment, increasing price rates and other economic overturning; and Mexican workers' hope of earning better wages in the United States than in Mexico."

The program, which lasted until 1964, brought close to 5 million highly skilled, hard-working agricultural laborers to work the fields of the US. These workers were the backbone of the most productive agricultural economy on the planet.

Bracero literally means “strong arm,” and is the Mexican equivalent of hired hand. A majority of Braceros were experienced farm laborers from Coahuila and other agricultural regions of northern Mexico. Many of these men stopped working their land and growing food for their families under the illusion that they would be able to earn a vast amount of money on the other side of the border.

Huge numbers of Bracero candidates arrived by train to the northern border where they underwent physical examinations prior to their acceptance to the program. One aspect of these examinations included the worker showing his palms to an official as means of proving work experience. The contracts were in English, despite the agreement’s insistence that they be in Spanish, meaning Braceros would sign them without understanding their full rights and the conditions of employment.

After being contracted, the workers were transported to a processing center to wait to be selected for work. They received little food during this period. All workers were doused with a white powder insecticide at the center; according to the testimony of one Bracero, an American manager told him this was in order to “kill the Mexican fleas.”

Lee G. Williams, the U.S. Department of Labor officer in charge of the program, described it as a system of “legalized slavery.” Indeed, the Braceros would find themselves doing extra work on evenings and Sundays, work for which they received no pay. Working conditions were also severe. The “short hoe,” a weeding tool with a 12 to 18 inch handle used by betableros (beet pickers) required the worker to bend over in a hunched position, often for 10-12 hours a day as a shorter handle tool ensured a more precise cut.

The Bracero agreement also guarantees workers the protections of Executive Order 8802, which prohibited government contractors from engaging in employment discrimination based on race, color or national origin.
But, as with many of the agreement’s other terms, this was hardly enforced. When Braceros complained about their working conditions and went on strike, they were deported. During the 1960s, when U.S. resident farm workers attempted to unionize, growers replaced them with Braceros.

The workers suffered racism and discrimination both on and off the job. Many restaurants and stores in the regions where Braceros worked refused to serve Mexican customers. In one instance, a Bracero was beaten by a police officer after refusing to sit in the section designated for blacks at a movie theater. Farmers and growers in Texas were particularly notorious for their systematic discrimination of Mexican migrant workers.

In 1958, Mexican doctor Ernesto Galarza published the report “Mexican Workers in Foreign Land” after touring Bracero work camps in the United States. The report revealed that the Bracero accords only served to maintain the same exploitation that Mexican migrant workers had suffered many years prior to 1942. Dr. Galarza made various attempts to encourage the Mexican government to stand up for its workers abroad, but to no avail.

Ricardo López traveled to the US 13 times as a Bracero, from 1957 to 1965. Remembering his experience in Stockton, California, he states: “We started work at 5 AM and finished at midnight because the gringos didn’t want to lose the lettuce. We only used our beds one day because all week long we ate dinner at midnight, and after went to get in line, because at 3 in the morning they were already ringing the bell for breakfast. That’s how we were, the 6,000 Braceros at that camp. It seemed like the government had sold us because they did what they wanted with us. We were like their slaves.”

Francisco Vázquez Ramírez, another Bracero, testifies: “The work day was up to 17 hours and they never paid overtime. We suffered a lot, the overseer mistreated us and many began to cry so as to not lose their jobs. It was very ugly humiliation, they treated us like animals, there was never dignity for us.”

Many aspects of agricultural production were mechanized in the 1960s. The development of a mechanical cotton harvester in particular, reduced growers’ demand for Bracero labor. This, along with an excess of “illegal” agricultural workers flooding the industry, led to the termination of the Bracero Program in 1964. Workers continued to be contracted until 1967, but in much smaller numbers.

However, the end of the program did not mean the end of migration. The Braceros and other Mexican workers were still struggling to provide for their families working in Mexico. Thus, they continued migrating to the north yearly to work the fields of the southwest.

In fact, what the Bracero Program did was to create certain favorable conditions for continued migration after it ended. Despite the racism, poor working conditions and “illegal” status that the undocumented workers faced, it was still possible for them to make more money to support their families by working in the US. Those who worked in the U.S. as Braceros were familiar with the area and the growers and some even remained in the U.S. permanently. This existence of Mexican and Mexican-American communities in the U.S. made migration easier for younger generations of migrants, who now had friends and family working and living in the north.

Furthermore, the termination of Bracero contracts did not eliminate the need of US agribusiness for seasonal labor in the fields. This labor was, of course, traditionally provided by Mexican migrant workers, who continued to do so.

Savings Plan

In order to discourage Braceros from remaining in the U.S. each year after their contracts expired, the Bracero agreement created a Rural Savings Fund. Ten percent of each worker’s wages were garnered and held in this fund, with the idea that this sum would be given back upon one’s return to Mexico. The problem is, the funds are currently missing from the now defunct Mexican banks that were supposed to receive them. The Mexican government has said it is unable to trace the deposits.

The agreement states that the US government was responsible for safeguarding the funds and then transferring them to the Wells Fargo Bank of San Francisco. Wells Fargo was then responsible for transferring the funds to the Bank of Mexico and the Mexican Agricultural Credit Bank. Wells Fargo claims that that the funds were indeed transferred to the appropriate Mexican banks, but refuses to open its books to prove this claim.

Two years ago a Mexican Senate commission confirmed that the government did indeed receive the money, which ended up in the Agricultural Bank. “However,” concludes the Senate report, “Mexican authorities never returned the funds [to the Braceros] and actually, over 50 years later, it is argued that they do not even have record of said deposits [to Mexican banks].”

Part of the confusion stems from organizational changes in the Mexican Agricultural Bank, which became Banrural and is currently known as Rural Financial. The money ostensibly could have been “lost” in the transitions between institutions, or during the transfers between the myriad banks on both sides of the border that were involved with its safekeeping.

Luz Rivera, a leader of the National Assembly of Ex-Braceros, states that Mexican politicians “don’t want to investigate where the money ended up, because of the political implications it could have.” After 60 years it is estimated that the funds total anywhere between $500 million and $1 billion.

There would be no investigation at all if not for the organizing efforts of ex-Braceros in the U.S. and Mexico. The workers garnered national attention for the issue in 2004 when a group of them were able to invade a ranch owned by President Vicente Fox. Enraged by the protest, the President was forced to dialogue with the ex-Braceros though it was still difficult to get the government listen to their demands. A week after the trespass, a spokesperson for the president states, “there is no reason to disinter the past, we must look to the future, but you want revenge.”

After the government agreed to negotiate to settle ex-Bracero demand, the movement splintered into several competing groups. The Braceroproa Alliance (AB) is the oldest of the groups, formed in the late 1990s. In the aftermath of the Fox ranch protest, the Binational Union of Ex-Bracero Organizations (UBOB) and the National Assembly of Ex-Braceros (ANB) were formed. There is, unfortunately, infighting and disagreement on tactics and goals between these groups.

The government is now preparing to recompensate some ex-Braceros for the funds that were ever returned to them. A trust was set up to evaluate worker eligibility, and $27 million was set aside by the congress earlier this year for the fund. At this point only those Braceros who worked in the US from 1942-6 are eligible. The Mexican government has recently announced that eligible ex-Braceros will receive 38,000 pesos, which is about $3,500.

Many activists had hoped for $10,000 per worker; although many of the workers and their families are discouraged by the paltry compensation, those who qualify may have no choice but to accept what they can get. Javier Griego, an Arizona resident whose father worked as a Bracero, states that “people are in dire need of [this] financial help - many are elderly and sick.” He pledges to keep fighting until these workers get what they deserve

Ex-Braceros living in the US have largely not been incorporated in the compensation plan, as they have not been able to apply for eligibility. “Our compatriots in the United States should not be discouraged," said Alberto Leyva, legal council for the compensation trust. “No one is going to be left out.” Priority is currently being given to the oldest and disabled ex-Braceros who worked from 1942-6, he stated. Widows and children of deceased Braceros are also able to claim payment by providing the required documents. Leyva says the government is also looking for alternate funding to compensate those that may not meet all criteria to receive payment.

Conclusion

The sad ongoing trials of the Braceros do not give much hope for the prospects of any future guest worker program between the U.S. and Mexico. In any case, it would have to be radically different from the Bracero accord if it intends to improve the conditions of the workers who are providing the manual labor for the billion dollar agricultural industry, as well as other sectors.

Strangely, there is one theme that is never brought up in the immigration debate in the U.S.: the creation of conditions that will allow these workers to provide for themselves and their families in their home country. Lack of well paying employment opportunities in Mexico has long driven workers to migrate to the U.S. This condition has only worsened since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was enacted in 1994. Thousands of Mexican peasants have been forced from their land in the past 12 years due to this agreement; NAFTA allows the US to dump its heavily subsidized corn crop on the Mexican market, and small producers are unable to compete with the cheaper prices. One solution to this problem would be to allow Mexico to protect its agricultural crops and encourage small farmers to remain on the land.

But, as we’ve seen before, there’s a dirty little secret here: as much as U.S. politicians and media vilify and demonize immigrants, they are a cheap source of labor that allow corporations to make record profits every quarter. U.S. businesses desperately need immigrant labor and they need it as cheaply as possible. So until we decide to dig deeper and solve the root causes of poverty that force thousands to migrate to the U.S. each year, they’ll keep on coming to America.

Sources

“House passes major clampdown on illegal immigration.” San Francisco Chronicle, 12/17/2005
“The border -- dividing line or common ground?” San Francisco Chronicle, 12/18/2005
“Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions.” New York Times, 4/5/2005
www.jornada.unam.mx/2005/10/04/019n1pol.php
www.farmworkers.org/benglish.html
www.jornada.unam.mx/2004/02/22/mas-ramirez.html
www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/101100