The History of the Mexican Contract Labor Program
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE HISTORY OF THE MEXICAN CONTRACT LABOR PROGRAM, 19^2-1966 APPROVED: ZWlV £ Om Major Professor Minor Professor the Departm^dx^f History Dean of the Graduate School TEE HISTORY 0? THE MEXICAN - CONTRACT LABOR PROGRAM, 19^2-1966 THESIS Presented to the Graduate Council of the North Texas State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS By Marion Beth Morris, 3. A-, Denton, Tsia? January, 19c? TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION ..... 1 II. WORLD WAR II PROGRAM: 19^2-19^7 9 III. THE EVOLUTION OP PUBLIC LAW 78 AND THE WETBACK CHALLENGE: 19^7-1955 ^3 IV. DEVELOPMENT OF OPPOSITION AND LIQUIDATION OF THE BRACERO PROGRAM: 1955-1964- ... 79 V. THE POST-BRACERO ERA, 1964-1966: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 107 BIBLIOGRAPHY' 126 111 CHATTER I INTRODUCTION The seasonal movement of Mexican agricultural workers to the United States has ebbed and flowed with the tides of war, depression, and prosperity. Prior to the system of contract labor which began In 19-!-2 and continued until 1964, agricultural laborers had entered, the United States in large numbers, especially sinc^ the turn of the twentieth century. The first significant immigration occurred in the period 191? to 1921. Prior to tne outbreak of World W&r I, farmers borrowed Mexican workers f;» cm railxo&cl conpan5 es which had imported them for temporary maintenance work. With the shortage of agricultural labor which accompanied the war, farmers and citrus fruit growers petitioned Congress to allow large importations of Mexican workers. Although the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1917 prohibited foreign contract labor, the Ninth Proviso of Section Three of the Lot permitted the Commissioner of Immigration, in cooperation with the Secretary of Labor, to establish certain criteria under which -coinporaTy workers could gain on trance to the country. noting under the authority of the proviso, Secretary of Labor ¥. B, Wilson on May 22, 1917, ordered the suspension of literacy tests and. exemption from payment of the head tax for agricultural workers. The modification of the immigration laws created an influx of workers numbering approximately 73>000 during the five-year period 1917 to 1921. Although not so highly regulated as the World War II program, this system represented the informal beginning of the "bracero^ program. In order to obtain, workers, the growers signed a contract with the United S.tates government which specified the conditions of importation and re- patriation. The employers arranged for housing, trans- C< port-ation, and food, the cost of which was deducted from 2 the workers' wages. ' The initial entrance of workers was only the vanguard for a stream of migrants that would. increase in volume throughout the decade of the 1920's. Some estimates maintain that as many as <0,000 workers were admitted yearly along with an unknown number of "wetbacks," or persons illegally entering the United Scates from Mexico,"' "Literally translated from Spanish the term "bracero" means "arms" and has been applied to day laborers. Since the inception of the Lexican farm labor program, the term refers to agricultural laborers in the United States. 2 "U. S., Congress, House, Committee of the Judiciary, Subcommittee No. 1, Study of "Population and Immigration Problems, 83th Congress, 1st Session, 1963. pp. Zh-, 27, Hereafter cited as "Study of Population." See also, Ray N. Gilmore and Gladys W. Gilmore, "The Bracero in California," The Paci f ic Historical liev lew, XXXIT (August, 19637* 263. -^"Study of Population," p. 27, The trend of immigration reversed itself in the 1930's as the abundance of seasonal jobs and high wages vanished with the onset of the depression. Aliens still found employment in the United States but in smaller numbers and at decreased wages. Of the e.stimated 1,^-22,553 Mexicans working on a year-round basis in the United States in 192^, approximately 300>003 to ^00,000 returned to their homeland during the depression. The exodus reached a peak of 155<3'+^ persons in 1931 > but dropped to 31,4-8^ by 1933 • ^ Repatriation of the Mexican workers who were displaced by domestic labor created problems for both the United States and Mexico. Although many returned voluntarily to Mexico, wholesale forced deportation was not feasible since many of the workers' children were American-born citizens. More indirect yet equally effective methods were used to encourage the unemployed workers to return to Mexico, In some cases, they were threatened with the denial of relief allowances; while in other instances, they were bribed with the offer of free transportation to the border. k Robert D. Tomasek, "The Political and Economic Implications of Mexican Labor in the United States under- the Non-Quota System, Labor Program, and Wetback Movement," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of History. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1957, p. ^7. Hereafter cited as Tomasek, "Mexican Labor in the United States." ^Ibid., p. 1^6. k Unless the workers received free transportation, the Mexican government had to subsidize their return trip, since the majority of them had experienced long periods of un- employment and related economic hardships. The added expenses created by the destitute migrants were a strain on the Mexican national budget. Moreover, the situation in the 1930!s influenced the attitude of Mexican officials with respect to the World War II program. Part of the hesitance with which the Mexican government approached the later negotiations was directly related to the distresses its citizens experienced as migrants to the United States.^ One of the interesting similarities between the early immigration of workers to the United States and the contract system developed in 19^2 is the areas of Mexico from which the workers came. In both periods, the central plateau of Mexico provided the largest number of migrants. Guanajuato, Jalisco, and Michoacan were the principal contributors, with fewer migrants coming from Sonera, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Nuevo Leon. States situated in the .coastal regions pro- duced the smallest number of migrants. There were, however, exceptions to the pattern of immigration, In the Imperial Valley of California, approximately 50 per cent of the immigrants originated in Mexican states with borders con- tiguous to the United States, such as 3aja California. °"Study of Population," p. 27 5 There it was estimated that only 35 per cent of the laborers 7 came from the central areas of Mexico. The condition which prompted such large-scale immigration of Mexicans to the United States, particularly during the 1920's, resulted from a combipation of factors, There was the important "pull factor" of the prospect of higher wages in the United States. If the Mexican situation had offered more satisfactory living conditions, higher wages possibly would not have been a sufficient inducement for a £eon to leave his traditional environment and migrate to the United States. But such conditions did not exist and their absence contributed to "push factors," One would naturally think that a dense population would be a push factor, but this was not necessarily true. Of the three most highly populated states in the 1920!s, Veracruz, Puebla, and Jalisco, the latter state was the only one to contribute substantially to the immigration 8 flood. Although many Mexicans doubtless emigrated to escape political insecurities and economic vicissitudes resulting from the 1910 Revolution, the Revolution itself does not account for the tremendous surge in migration. -In fact, the trend of immigration increased in the period 7 Manuel Gamio, Mexican Tmmlgrati on to the United States: A Study of Human Migration and Ad justment (Chicago, 19 30), pp. 21-23. Hereafter cited as Gamio, "Mexican Migration." 8Ibid., p. 21. t) 1923 to 1928 after the violent stage of the Revolution had 9 ended. A more sophisticated answer is found in the system of landholding in Mexico. In the central area of Mexico, as represented by Jalisco, Guanajuato, and Michoacan, and in the northern parts land is distributed in large estates owned by a few wealthy families. Population pressure on the land forces the peon class to emigrate periodically. The coastal and southern areas are not plagued with such extensive landholdings and, therefore, contribute almost -j Q negligible amounts to the migration pattern," ^ The effect of the early migration on the individual worker an<i on Mexico is at best controversial. It was hoped that the money earned in the United States would be used to purchase land and farm equipment, but a majority of migrants spent most of their money in the United States, usually for luxury items, before returning to Mexico. Many of the skills learned in the United States were not applicable to the home siuuatjon In Mexico, In this period, Mexican industry and railroads were not highly developed. The stoop labor skills were used neither on the large estates nor on the small plots of land that belonged 11 to the peones,' 9:Tomasek , "Mexican Labor in the united States," pp. l6-1?'. 10 ],bidSee also, Garni0, '"Mexican Migration," pp. 22-2,3. "^TomaseK, "Mexican Labor in the United States • ,J 7 From the economic viewpoint, Mexico benefited from the migration. Her workers received better wages and improved conditions. But even in the early period of immigration, observers of the trends realized that unregulated migration portended difficulties for both the United States and Mexico, j/one of the observers, sociologist Manuel Gamio, rejected the contention that laissez-faire migration was a more satisfactory policy than controlled migration. He felt that unregulated migration would be acceptable if it was concerned with goods such as cattle; but when related to human beings, the fluctuations of supply and demand were not an adequate gauge.jGamio suggested that border authorities / cooperate to dispense information concerning wages and con- / ditions of employment./ The author also urged, as a part of / the work contracts, that American employers pay trans- portation for the worker from the border to his point of 1? destination and return.