Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Voting: Why Latinos/Hispanics/Chicanos should vote: Reason #1, The Bracero Program!
Note from me before I begin with the actual lesson: It was the U.S. (again) who needed assistance from Mexico to do those jobs that Americans clearly will NOT perform, the U.S. brought over people from Mexico here first then decided they were "persona non grata". It was wrong for the U.S. to use Mexicans like they did and worse to rid the country of them as they did in such an inhumane manner. The U.S. started this present-day so-called immigration issue and now certain Americans want to further use cruel and unusual punishment to keep ridding our country of people (Mexicans) who have more of a right to exist here than most of them (Americans whose ancestors are from other continents) do.
The Bracero Program (from the Spanish word brazo, meaning "arm") was a series of laws and diplomatic agreements, initiated by an August 1942 exchange of diplomatic notes between the United States and Mexico, for the importation of temporary contract laborers from Mexico to the United States. U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Mexican president Manuel Ávila Camacho, in Monterrey to discuss Mexico as part of the Allies in World War II and the Bracero Program. After the expiration of the initial agreement in 1947, the program was continued in agriculture under a variety of laws and administrative agreements until its formal end in 1964.
In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, over 500,000 Mexican Americans were deported or pressured to leave, during the Mexican Repatriation (***reviewed in another post below). There were thus fewer Mexican Americans available when labor demand returned with World War II.
The Bracero Program was initially prompted by a demand for manual labor during World War II, and begun with the U.S. government bringing in a few hundred experienced Mexican agricultural laborers to harvest sugar beets in the Stockton, California area. The program soon spread to cover most of the United States and provided workers for the agriculture labor market (with the notable exception was Texas, who initially opted out of the program in preference of an "open border" policy, and were denied braceros by the Mexican government until 1947 due to perceived mistreatment of Mexican laborers). As an important corollary, the railroad bracero program was independently negotiated to supply U.S. railroads initially with unskilled workers for track maintenance but eventually to cover other unskilled and skilled labor. By 1945, the quota for the agricultural program was more than 75,000 braceros working in the U.S. railroad system and 50,000 braceros working in U.S. agriculture at any one time.
The railroad program ended with the conclusion of World War II, in 1945.
At the behest of U.S. growers, who claimed ongoing labor shortages, the program was extended under a number of acts of congress until 1948. Between 1948 and 1951, the importation of Mexican agricultural laborers continued under negotiated administrative agreements between growers and the Mexican Government. On July 13, 1951, President Truman signed Public Law 78, a two-year program which embodied formalized protections for Mexican laborers. The program was renewed every two years until 1963, when, under heavy criticism, it was extended for a single year with the understanding it would not be renewed. After the formal end of the agricultural program lasted until 1964, there were agreements covering a much smaller number of contracts until 1967, after which no more braceros were granted.
The program in agriculture was justified in the U.S. largely as an alternative to undocumented immigration, and seen as a complement to efforts to deport undocumented immigrants such as Operation "Wetback" (***also reviewed in another post below), under which 1,075,168 Mexicans were deported in 1954. Scholars who have closely studied Mexican migration in this period have questioned this interpretation, emphasizing instead the complementary nature of legal and illegal migration. Scholars of this school suggest that the decision to hire Mexicans through the Bracero Program or via extra-legal contractors depended mostly on which seemed more suitable to needs of agribusiness employers, attributing the expansion of the Bracero Program in the late 50s to the relaxation of enforcement of regulations on Bracero wages, housing, and food charges.
The workers who participated in the Bracero Program have generated significant local and international struggles challenging the US government and Mexican government to identify and return deductions taken from their pay, from 1942 to 1948, for savings accounts which they were legally guaranteed to receive upon their return to Mexico at the conclusion of their contracts. Many never received their savings. Lawsuits presented in federal courts in California, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, highlighted the substandard conditions and documented the ultimate destiny of the savings accounts deductions, but the suit was thrown out because the Mexican banks in question never operated in the United States.
Even though the United States had made use of migrant Mexican labor in its agricultural sector since the early 1900s, such labor tended to be both migratory and seasonal with many workers returning back to Mexico in the winter. The situation changed with the involvement of the United States in WWII that created a massive labor shortage in all sectors of the economy with the withdrawal of much of the nation's active labor force into the various armed services. The extreme labor shortage forced a change in immigration policy for the United States that resulted in development of the Bracero Program in conjunction with Mexico. The Bracero Program was a guest worker program that ran between the years of 1942 and 1964. Over the twenty-two year period, The Mexican Farm Labor Program, informally known as the Bracero Program, sponsored some 4.5 million border crossings of guest workers from Mexico (some among these representing repeat visits by returned braceros).
The growing realization among businesses was that provisions within the program ensured an increase of costs for the imported labor. The program mandated a certain level of wages, housing, food and medical care for the workers (to be paid for by the employers) that kept the standard of living above what many had in Mexico. Not only did this enable many to send funds home to their families, but it also had the unintended effect of encouraging illegal immigration when the USA's workers quotas were met. These new illegal workers could not be employed "above the table" as part of the program leaving them open for exploitation. This resulted in the lowering of wages and not receiving the benefits that the Mexican government had negotiated to insure their legal workers well being under the bracero program. This in turn, had the effect of eroding support for the program in the agricultural sector for the legal importation of workers from Mexico in favor of hiring Illegal immigrants to reduce overhead costs. The advantages of hiring illegal workers were that they were willing to work for lower wages, without support, health coverage or in many cases legal means to address abuses by the employers for fear of deportation. Nevertheless, conditions for the poor and unemployed within Mexico were such that illegal employment was attractive enough to motivate many to leave in search of work within the United States illegally, even if that directly competed with the legal workers within the bracero program leading to its discontinuation.
Labor unions which tried to organize agricultural workers after WWII targeted the Bracero program as a key impediment to improving the wages of domestic farm workers. These unions included the National Farm Laborers Union (NFLU), later called the National Agricultural Workers Union (NAWU), headed by Ernesto Galarza, and the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC), AFL-CIO. During his tenure with the Community Service Organization, César Chávez was given a grant by the AWOC to organize in Oxnard, California which culminated in a protest of domestic U.S. agricultural workers of the U.S. Department of Labor's administration of the program. In January 1961, in an effort to publicize the effects of bracero labor on labor standards, the AWOC led a strike of lettuce workers at 18 farms in the Imperial Valley, an agricultural region on the California-Mexico border and a major destination for braceros.
The end of the Bracero program in 1964 was followed by the rise to prominence of the United Farm Workers, and the subsequent transformation of American migrant labor under the leadership of César Chávez. Dolores Huerta was also a leader and early organizer of the United Farm Workers. According to Manuel Garcia y Griego, a political scientist and author of The Importation of Mexican Contract Laborers to the United States 1942-1964, the Contract-Labor Program “left an important legacy for the economies, migration patterns, and politics of the United States and Mexico.”
Griego’s article discusses the bargaining position of both countries, arguing that the Mexican government lost all real bargaining power after 1950. The guest worker program continued until 1964.
The Bracero Program (from the Spanish word brazo, meaning "arm") was a series of laws and diplomatic agreements, initiated by an August 1942 exchange of diplomatic notes between the United States and Mexico, for the importation of temporary contract laborers from Mexico to the United States. U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Mexican president Manuel Ávila Camacho, in Monterrey to discuss Mexico as part of the Allies in World War II and the Bracero Program. After the expiration of the initial agreement in 1947, the program was continued in agriculture under a variety of laws and administrative agreements until its formal end in 1964.
In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, over 500,000 Mexican Americans were deported or pressured to leave, during the Mexican Repatriation (***reviewed in another post below). There were thus fewer Mexican Americans available when labor demand returned with World War II.
The Bracero Program was initially prompted by a demand for manual labor during World War II, and begun with the U.S. government bringing in a few hundred experienced Mexican agricultural laborers to harvest sugar beets in the Stockton, California area. The program soon spread to cover most of the United States and provided workers for the agriculture labor market (with the notable exception was Texas, who initially opted out of the program in preference of an "open border" policy, and were denied braceros by the Mexican government until 1947 due to perceived mistreatment of Mexican laborers). As an important corollary, the railroad bracero program was independently negotiated to supply U.S. railroads initially with unskilled workers for track maintenance but eventually to cover other unskilled and skilled labor. By 1945, the quota for the agricultural program was more than 75,000 braceros working in the U.S. railroad system and 50,000 braceros working in U.S. agriculture at any one time.
The railroad program ended with the conclusion of World War II, in 1945.
At the behest of U.S. growers, who claimed ongoing labor shortages, the program was extended under a number of acts of congress until 1948. Between 1948 and 1951, the importation of Mexican agricultural laborers continued under negotiated administrative agreements between growers and the Mexican Government. On July 13, 1951, President Truman signed Public Law 78, a two-year program which embodied formalized protections for Mexican laborers. The program was renewed every two years until 1963, when, under heavy criticism, it was extended for a single year with the understanding it would not be renewed. After the formal end of the agricultural program lasted until 1964, there were agreements covering a much smaller number of contracts until 1967, after which no more braceros were granted.
The program in agriculture was justified in the U.S. largely as an alternative to undocumented immigration, and seen as a complement to efforts to deport undocumented immigrants such as Operation "Wetback" (***also reviewed in another post below), under which 1,075,168 Mexicans were deported in 1954. Scholars who have closely studied Mexican migration in this period have questioned this interpretation, emphasizing instead the complementary nature of legal and illegal migration. Scholars of this school suggest that the decision to hire Mexicans through the Bracero Program or via extra-legal contractors depended mostly on which seemed more suitable to needs of agribusiness employers, attributing the expansion of the Bracero Program in the late 50s to the relaxation of enforcement of regulations on Bracero wages, housing, and food charges.
The workers who participated in the Bracero Program have generated significant local and international struggles challenging the US government and Mexican government to identify and return deductions taken from their pay, from 1942 to 1948, for savings accounts which they were legally guaranteed to receive upon their return to Mexico at the conclusion of their contracts. Many never received their savings. Lawsuits presented in federal courts in California, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, highlighted the substandard conditions and documented the ultimate destiny of the savings accounts deductions, but the suit was thrown out because the Mexican banks in question never operated in the United States.
Even though the United States had made use of migrant Mexican labor in its agricultural sector since the early 1900s, such labor tended to be both migratory and seasonal with many workers returning back to Mexico in the winter. The situation changed with the involvement of the United States in WWII that created a massive labor shortage in all sectors of the economy with the withdrawal of much of the nation's active labor force into the various armed services. The extreme labor shortage forced a change in immigration policy for the United States that resulted in development of the Bracero Program in conjunction with Mexico. The Bracero Program was a guest worker program that ran between the years of 1942 and 1964. Over the twenty-two year period, The Mexican Farm Labor Program, informally known as the Bracero Program, sponsored some 4.5 million border crossings of guest workers from Mexico (some among these representing repeat visits by returned braceros).
The growing realization among businesses was that provisions within the program ensured an increase of costs for the imported labor. The program mandated a certain level of wages, housing, food and medical care for the workers (to be paid for by the employers) that kept the standard of living above what many had in Mexico. Not only did this enable many to send funds home to their families, but it also had the unintended effect of encouraging illegal immigration when the USA's workers quotas were met. These new illegal workers could not be employed "above the table" as part of the program leaving them open for exploitation. This resulted in the lowering of wages and not receiving the benefits that the Mexican government had negotiated to insure their legal workers well being under the bracero program. This in turn, had the effect of eroding support for the program in the agricultural sector for the legal importation of workers from Mexico in favor of hiring Illegal immigrants to reduce overhead costs. The advantages of hiring illegal workers were that they were willing to work for lower wages, without support, health coverage or in many cases legal means to address abuses by the employers for fear of deportation. Nevertheless, conditions for the poor and unemployed within Mexico were such that illegal employment was attractive enough to motivate many to leave in search of work within the United States illegally, even if that directly competed with the legal workers within the bracero program leading to its discontinuation.
Labor unions which tried to organize agricultural workers after WWII targeted the Bracero program as a key impediment to improving the wages of domestic farm workers. These unions included the National Farm Laborers Union (NFLU), later called the National Agricultural Workers Union (NAWU), headed by Ernesto Galarza, and the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC), AFL-CIO. During his tenure with the Community Service Organization, César Chávez was given a grant by the AWOC to organize in Oxnard, California which culminated in a protest of domestic U.S. agricultural workers of the U.S. Department of Labor's administration of the program. In January 1961, in an effort to publicize the effects of bracero labor on labor standards, the AWOC led a strike of lettuce workers at 18 farms in the Imperial Valley, an agricultural region on the California-Mexico border and a major destination for braceros.
The end of the Bracero program in 1964 was followed by the rise to prominence of the United Farm Workers, and the subsequent transformation of American migrant labor under the leadership of César Chávez. Dolores Huerta was also a leader and early organizer of the United Farm Workers. According to Manuel Garcia y Griego, a political scientist and author of The Importation of Mexican Contract Laborers to the United States 1942-1964, the Contract-Labor Program “left an important legacy for the economies, migration patterns, and politics of the United States and Mexico.”
Griego’s article discusses the bargaining position of both countries, arguing that the Mexican government lost all real bargaining power after 1950. The guest worker program continued until 1964.
Voting: Why Latinos/Hispanics/Chicanos should vote: Reason #2, Operation Wetback!
Operation Wetback was a 1954 operation by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove about one million illegal immigrants from the southwestern United States, focusing on Mexican nationals.
Burgeoning numbers of illegal Mexican immigrants prompted President Dwight D. Eisenhower to appoint his longtime friends, John Cox and General Joseph Swing, as INS Commissioner. According to Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., Eisenhower had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration upon taking office. In a letter to Sen. J. William Fulbright, Eisenhower quoted a report in The New York Times that said, "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican "wetbacks" (rooted from the watery route taken by the Mexican immigrants across the Rio Grande) to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."
The operation was modeled after a program that came to be termed the Mexican Repatriation, which put pressure on citizens of Mexico to return home during the Great Depression, due to the economic crisis in the United States.
Operation Wetback in action: The effort began in California and Arizona, and coordinated 1075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies, to mount an aggressive crackdown. Tactics employed included going as far as systematic police sweeps of Mexican-American neighborhoods, and random stops and ID checks of "Mexican-looking" people in a region with many Native Americans and native Hispanics. In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born minor dependent children. Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions per day. By the end of July, over 50,000 immigrants were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal immigrants are claimed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimated that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their own accord. To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory prior to releasing them. Tens of thousands more were deported by two chartered ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (800 kilometers) to the south. Some were taken as far as 1,000 miles. Deportation by sea was ended after seven deportees jumped overboard from the Mercurio and drowned, provoking a mutiny that led to a public outcry in Mexico.
Burgeoning numbers of illegal Mexican immigrants prompted President Dwight D. Eisenhower to appoint his longtime friends, John Cox and General Joseph Swing, as INS Commissioner. According to Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., Eisenhower had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration upon taking office. In a letter to Sen. J. William Fulbright, Eisenhower quoted a report in The New York Times that said, "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican "wetbacks" (rooted from the watery route taken by the Mexican immigrants across the Rio Grande) to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."
The operation was modeled after a program that came to be termed the Mexican Repatriation, which put pressure on citizens of Mexico to return home during the Great Depression, due to the economic crisis in the United States.
Operation Wetback in action: The effort began in California and Arizona, and coordinated 1075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies, to mount an aggressive crackdown. Tactics employed included going as far as systematic police sweeps of Mexican-American neighborhoods, and random stops and ID checks of "Mexican-looking" people in a region with many Native Americans and native Hispanics. In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born minor dependent children. Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions per day. By the end of July, over 50,000 immigrants were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal immigrants are claimed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimated that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their own accord. To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory prior to releasing them. Tens of thousands more were deported by two chartered ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (800 kilometers) to the south. Some were taken as far as 1,000 miles. Deportation by sea was ended after seven deportees jumped overboard from the Mercurio and drowned, provoking a mutiny that led to a public outcry in Mexico.
Voting: Why Latinos/Hispanics/Chicanos should vote: Reason #3, The Repatriation Movement!
The Mexican Repatriation refers to a forced migration that took place between 1929 and 1939, when as many as one million people of Mexican descent were forced or pressured to leave the US. (The term "Repatriation," though commonly used, is inaccurate, since approximately 60% of those driven out were U.S. citizens.) The event, carried out by American authorities, took place without due process. The Immigration and Naturalization Service targeted Mexicans because of "the proximity of the Mexican border, the physical distinctiveness of mestizos, and easily identifiable barrios.". The Repatriation is not widely discussed in American history textbooks; in a 2006 survey of the nine most commonly used American history textbooks in the United States, four did not mention the Repatriation, and only one devoted more than half a page to the topic. In total, they devoted four pages to the Repatriation, compared with eighteen pages for the Japanese American internment. These actions were authorized by President Herbert Hoover and targeted areas with large Hispanic populations, mostly in California, Texas, Colorado, Illinois and Michigan.
Voting: Why Latinos/Hispanics/Chicanos should vote: Reason #4, Operation Gatekeeper!
Operation Gatekeeper - was a Clinton-era measure aimed to halt immigration at the United States–Mexico border near San Diego, California. According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the goal of Gatekeeper was "to restore integrity and safety to the nation's busiest border." Operation Gatekeeper was announced in Los Angeles on September 17, 1994 by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, and was launched two weeks later on October 1. In the United States Congress, additional funds were allocated to the United States Border Patrol and other agencies. By 1997, the budget of the Immigration and Naturalization Service had doubled to 800 million dollars, the number of Border Patrol agents had nearly doubled, the amount of fencing or other barriers more than doubled, and the number of underground sensors nearly tripled. The merits of Operation Gatekeeper have been debated extensively, including during Congressional hearings. The Department of Justice, the INS and the Border Patrol have maintained that Operation Gatekeeper is a success. However, various Congressmen and newspaper articles have sharply criticized the program and declared it a failure.
Voting: Why Latinos/Hispanics/Chicanos should vote: Reason #5, SB1070!
Everything about this bill should be bothersome and worrisome to all of us who want true,
just Immigration Reform. If you are not familiar with the bill, click on the title above to read about it. I am totally against it. For one - immigration issues are federal issues. The issues are NOT for each state to decide how to deal with it. I am AGAINST SB 1070 because it is demeaning and takes the meaning of the word "human" out of human being. Letting such a cruel and crude bill exist and worse yet to be implemented, to me, is like letting each state go back post 1964/1968 to decide how or if they will allow or disallow persons of color their civil rights.
just Immigration Reform. If you are not familiar with the bill, click on the title above to read about it. I am totally against it. For one - immigration issues are federal issues. The issues are NOT for each state to decide how to deal with it. I am AGAINST SB 1070 because it is demeaning and takes the meaning of the word "human" out of human being. Letting such a cruel and crude bill exist and worse yet to be implemented, to me, is like letting each state go back post 1964/1968 to decide how or if they will allow or disallow persons of color their civil rights.
The Dream Act:
This act is one I am in favor of for various reasons. We cannot and should not punish children of undocumented workers/immigrants who did not obtain their residency or citizenship here in the U.S. as they should have. The children have been in the U.S. for most of their lives and know life only here in their beloved United States. Denying them a right to attend college so that they may obtain their residency or citizenship to better their lives is a terrible thing to do. Giving them a "hand up" by financially assisting them to obtain a college education is a good thing provided they agree, immediately upon graduation, to: 1) obtain their legal status 2) give back to their community. But never, ever should it be okay to send these students back to the country which they were born in but do not know. They know the U.S. The U.S. has been their home. Give them a chance to stay in their home. Let them serve in a branch of the armed forces or to sign up with a civil service program. Don't make them suffer for being in the U.S. illegally because of their parents. Allowing the Dream Act to be inspires people who would otherwise have no dreams the ability to have dreams, to set goals, to help better our country. As I gave an analogy above for being against SB 1070, let me give an analogy for being FOR the Dream Act: It would be very much like enacting Affirmative Action all over again for minorities in this country to have an equal opportunity to attend college. The rich people have their legacy programs, voila, minorities have affirmative action...let the children of undocumented workers have their dream act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)