Mexican Deportations and Emigration from the United States

Home , Bert Corona, Media in Los Angeles, Operation Wetback

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

REPORTING IN TWO LOS ANGELES DAILIES OF 11 MEXICAN DEPORTATIONS AND EMIGRATION FROM THE UNITED STATES

A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in

Mass Communication

Ricardo Chavira /

January, 1976 Short title:

REPORTING OF MEXICAN DEPORTATIONS AND EMIGRATION The thesis of Ricardo Chavira is approved:

California State University, Northridge

December, 1975

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT v

INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER I 8

CHAPTER II 46

CHAPTER III 86

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 106

BIBLIOGRAPHY 115

iv ABSTRACT

REPORTING IN TWO LOS ANGELES DAILIES OF MEXICAN DEPORTATIONS AND EMIGRATION FROM THE UNITED STATES

Ricardo Chavira

Master of Arts in Mass Communication

January, 1976

This study presents a description and analysis of Mexican

~rp.igration and deportation reporting in The Los Angeles Times and

J:.cq~ Angeles' Spanish-language daily, La Opinion.

The 1930's, 1950's and 1970's have been selected as the periods of study because they are decades in which mass deportations ef undocumented Mexicans from the United States have occurred.

These events, as might be expected, attracted a large amount of c;lttention from the media in Los Angeles.

The study explores the changes in repnrting patterns in these three decades. Other areas of concern are the differences

(;lnd similarities between the two newspapers and the e~tent to which they relied upon government and non-government sources of infor-

v mation.

The study concludes that in each of the decades both news papers consistently printed stories in which government authorities detailed the so-called problems caused by "illegal aliens. 11 There is no evidence that the newspapers made attempts to determine the truth of the charges.

It is also concluded that La Opinion generally seemed more concerned with the human impact of the mass deportations. The

Times very often appearyd concerned only with the alleged savings to taxpayers that the deportations represented.

vi INTRODUCTION

The Subject and Its Importance

For hundreds of years Mexicans have moved in, out and

through what is now the Southwestern United States. While this

movement has been continuous, its pace has at times been quickened 1 by developments in Mexico or the United States.

Over the decades Mexican immigrant laborers have been

both vigorously sought by U.S. business interests and governmental

representatives only to be later driven out by mass deportations.

These facts have been chronicled by such authors as Julian Samora. 2

Deportations and emigration is a subject area which these two newspapers, The Los Angeles Times and La Opinion, have been

reporting continuously for at least fifty years. The movement of

"legal Mexican immigrants across the border is rarely considered newsworthy. Thus, for the most part, the study concerns itself with the reporting of Mexican "illegal aliens."

1 Abraham Hoffman, Unwanted Mexican Americans in the Great Depression (Tucson, 1974) pp. 8 - 9.

2 Julian Samora, Los Mojados: The Wetback Story, (Notre Dame, 1971) pp. 49 - 50.

-1- 2

The question of undocumented Mexican residents is of impor-

tance to Mexicans in both countries and to the United States in

general. The periodic mass deportations conducted have sometimes,

according to The Times, resulted in harassment of legal residents by

rmm1gra. . t• 1on agent s. 3 Besides the harassment, Chicanos are

affected in that those deported are sometimes relatives or friends from Mexico. As for the undocumented resident who is deported, he

likely leaves behind a job and, sometimes, a family and is forced to

return to a country with limited economic opportunities.

As for the United States, many of its economic woes have

been said to be caused partially by. ''illegal aliens, 11 or ''wetbacks'' as they are derisively called. Among the charges many times repeated, often in the media, are that undocumented residents take jobs that should be filled by 11 legal 11 residents, avoid paying income taxes, use welfare funds and food stamps and send their children to public schools. These same charges have been made periodically since at least 1930. It has once again resurfaced as a national issue.

In 197 4 then-U. S. Attorney General William Saxbe called the nation 1 s estimated eight million 11 illegal aliens, 11 five million of whom are

Mexican, "a national crisis. 11 In 1975 the "Rodino Bill, 11 which would make it unlawful to hire an undocumented resident, is being debated

3 John Mosqueda and Frank Del Omo, "U.S. Launches Drive Against Illegal Aliens, 11 Times , 27 June 1973, part II, p. l. 3

in Congress. It is truly an issue of concern to large segments of the

United States population.

The purpose of the present study is to offer an answer to the question, What have been the characteristics of The Los Angeles

Times and La Opinion in the reporting of Mexican deportations and

emigration from the United States?

Other questions investigated in the study are: How much did the newspapers rely on government news releases for information on the status of undocumented residents? How often were "unofficiar'

sources used?

The question of how reporting of this issue in the two newspapers changed over' the years is also considered. In effect, the newspapers were compared and contrasted with themselves ..

Furthermore, they were compared and contrasted with each other. What was different and what was the same about the reporting in The Times and La Opinion?

The Research Method

The two newspapers under study were selected for several reasons. First, they have been published continuously during the decades discussed. Secondly, they are published in Los Angeles, an area which for many years has contained a large number of undocumented residents. Finally, it was desired to use an English- 4

language daily and a Spanish-language daily in order to note any apparent similarities or differences between the two.

The years selected for study are the 1930 1 s, the 1950 1 s and the 1970 1 s. These periods were chosen because they were times in which increased deportation activity occurred, 4 and, consequently, attracted much more attention from the press than is usually given.

Sources of information were microfilm reproductions of the newspapers, historical works of the periods, contemporary documents and magazine articles. Each period under study required a distinct sampling approach.

For the 1930 1 s, historical documents, such as senate records, and a book, Unwanted Mexican in the Great Depression, which deals with the deportation and repatriations of that era, were used as resources. The book was of special value in that it gives dates of repatriations and deportations. Further, the author pre sents a somewhat detailed account of reporting of events in La

Opinion, and important dates of governmental action regarding re patriations and deportations are mentioned. These dates served as guides with which reporting could be checked. This method was necessary because the deportations and repatriations of the 1930 1 s occurred over a period of approximately six years and there is no index for this period. There were often months without mention in

4 Hoffman, p. 3. 5

the newspapers of "illegal aliens, 11 but suddenly there would be a

major story on the subject. Dates checked in one paper were al

ways checked in the other paper.

For example, it is stated in Unwanted Mexican Americans

in the Great Depression that an immigration raid took place at "la

placita" in downtown Los Angeles on February 26, 19315 . The

author of the present study then surveyed both newspapers from

February 23 to the 28th. In this way, any advance indication of

deportation activity as well as reporting of the raid itself could be

encountered. In every case, everything except sports and classified advertising was surveyed.

The research method used for the 1950 1 s was more complex.

In the case of known events which occurred in that decade, such as the border rioting of January, 1954 and "Operation Wetback, 11 re search consisted of examining reporting shortly before, during and after the inCidents. For the periodic reporting of "wetbacks 11 The

Times 1 morgue proved valuable. The clippings are arranged by subject. Stories and editorials which appeared in The Times usually were followed a day or two later by stories or editorials on the same subject in La Opinion. Thus, The Times 1 morgue served as an ind,ex for La Opinion. This method overlooks the possibility that stories appeared in La Opinion. that did not appear in The Times. But, since

La Opinion does not have a filing system and there is no newspaper 5 Ibid. , p. 61. 6

i.P.~~~ for this period, it was the best system that could be used.

Two newspaper indexes, The California News Index and

The Newspaper Index, served as the exclusive guides to research

ft;>r the 1970's. Again, as there is no index for La Opinion, referen

ge§ to The Times were cross-checked with the Spanish-language·

f'}q.iJy. Often when cross-checking La Opinion, it was necessary to

check a few days before and after the date on which the study or

e~itorial appeared in The Times. For instance, if an article on

Me~:i.c::an 11 illegal aliens'' was published in The Times on June 10,

1973, La Opinion issues from June 7 to June 13 would be checked.

Sometimes in checking La Opinion, an unexpected story on 11 illegal tJ.li.ens' 1 would be found. That is, a story different than that being checked for would be found.

Any story or editorial which had references to Mexican

"illegal aliens, 11 deportees or repatriates was recorded. Also recorded was the source of information used in the story, a gen eral summary of the story, whether it was a follow-up of an earlier report or an editorial. Obviously slanted reporting was also noted.

As used here, slanted reporting refers to the journalistic practice of excluding facts or other information which might change the im pact of a story. This includes quoting from only one source in a controversial issue. It is the opposite of balanced reporting.

Yet another consideration was the emphasis of the story.

What facts or information was included in the lead. What did the 7

reporter or editorial writers seem to emphasize. What were some

of the recurrent themes?

After stories had been read in their entirity, the above

information was recorded on three by five index cards.

Among the limitations of the study is the survey coverage

given to the issue. Because the study attempted to view the issue

over a great number of years, more detailed analysis had to be

sacrificed. Further, there is no investigation of the decisions

involved in the formulation of the newspapers' editorial policy during

the years under study. This is an important consideration which

clearly would have added another dimension to the study.

Even with its limitations, however, the study is valuable in that it is among the first to explore press-Chicano relations.

While relations between the press and Chicanos, as well as other minority groups, have unquestionably been poor in the past, it is

important to determine to what extent and in what way this has been true. The present study offers answers to these and other questions. I

The 1930's are almost synonymous with the Great

Depression, a phenomenon which resulted in chaotic change in the economies of nations as well as in the financial and social status of millions worldwide. Soon after the stock market crash of October

1929, prosperous nations faced bankruptcy, and once comfortably middle class workers found themselves standing in breadlines. By late 1930 it was obvious that the world was in serious financial trouble.

But for Mexicans residing in the United States it was to be an especially troubled time. As the nation sank deeper into econo mic stagnation, hundreds of thousands of Mexicans, some of them

United States citizens, and many of them long-time residents of the country, took with them whatever possessions they could and left for Mexico. Some were deported by immigration authorities, but many more were coerced or persuaded into leaving by welfare agen cies, immigration officers and even the Mexican government. Still others, especially early in the Depression, unemployed and with no prospect of employment, voluntarily left in the hope they could somehow improve their economic situation by moving to Mexico, which was itself suffering the effects of the Depression.

Overburdened welfare agencies sought to lighten their case

-8- 9

load by either persuading or coercing Mexicans to move to Mexico.

It was determined that it would be cheaper to pay the repatriates' trainfare to the Mexican border rather than keep them on the welfare

rolls~ Mexicans, regardless of their immigration status, were

viewed as foreigners, and welfare agencies were reluctant to see them receive assistance. The plan to repatriate thousands of

Mexicans, from the welfare agencies' point of view, represented the

"take care of our own first" philosophy. 2 Immigration officials, for their part, deported many Mexicans and attempted to create a deportation hysteria in order to frighten other Mexicans back across the border in the belief "illegal aliens" were holding thousands of jobs that could be given to 11 legal'' residents. 3

Before examining this migration and the role played by the

Los Angeles newspapers, it would be well to view Mexican immigration trends up to 1930.

Prior to the 1880's, Mexican immigration to the United

States was minimal. From those years until the start of the First

World War immigration increased. One reason for the increase was the greater facility of travel; railroad construction had made the trip from Central Mexico to the north much less arduous. More

1 Leo Grebler, Mexican Immigration to the United States: The Record and Its Implications, (Los Angeles, 1966) p. 29. 2 Rodolfo Acuna, Occupied America: The Chicano Struggle For Liberation, (San Francisco, 1972) p. 190. 3 Ibid., p. 191. 10

im}?Q:rtantly, the disruptive effects of the Mexican Revolution of 1910 forced many to flee to the United States in search of greater tran- quility and employment. 4

It is impossible to obtain accurate figures on Mexican immi-

g:ration during the years under study, mainly because of the unre- p~:rted entries of "illegal aliens" and Mexicans reentering the United

States. Thus any figures are only approxirr1ations. According to a

:r~port published in 1930 by California Governor C. C. Young's

Mexican Fact-Finding Committee, Mexican immigration increased

~:reatly in 1920. In 1919 immigration to the United States wa·s 28, 844 a,nd emmigration 17, 793. By the next year immigration was up to

~l. 042 with only 6, 412 leaving. The peak of immigration between

1910 ~nd 1929 was reached in ,1924; 87, 648 were admitted, and 1, 878 departed. 5

Once in the United States, these uprooted Mexicans· became an. easily exploitable source of labor. "Illegal as well as legal, and temporary as well as permanent immigrants provided a floating labor supply welcomed by employers and used occasionally to check union efforts to organize domestic workers, 11 write Leo Grebler.

'The railroads, agriculture and mining industry all benefited from

4 Abraham Hoffman, Unwanted Mexican Americans in the Great Depression, (Tucson, 1974) p. 8. 5 Mexicans in California: Report of Governor C. C. Young'~ Fac~-Finding Committee, (San Francisco, 1930) p. 28. 11

the Mexican laborer, primarily because he would work for less than

the domestic worker. 6

By 1930, the start of the Great Depression, Mexican immi-

gration began to decline; only 11, 916 were admitted that year,

while 100,000 left between July 1, 1930 and June 30, 1931.7' Lack of work, coercion and persuasion by welfare agencies and the Mexican

government and the rounding up of "illegal aliens 11 accounted for the

exodus.

The fact that fewer Mexicans were coming to the United

States, however, did not quiet opposition to unrestricted Mexican immigration. The opposition came largely from racist or national- istic groups which objected to the Mexican because " ... the Mexican peon is the most unassimilable of all immigrants, 118 or because of the fear of "the contamination of the Anglo-Saxon race."

The Quota Act of 1924 applied to immigration from certain sections of Europe and Asia, but did not affect immigration from

Western Hemisphere countries. 9 It was not long before a congres- sional battle developed over whether to apply the Quota Act to the

Western Hemisphere. According to Abraham Hoffman, author of

6Brebler, p. 25

7Emon S. Bogardus, The Mexican in the United States, (Los Angeles, 1934) p. 16. 8 Robert Divine, American Immigration Policy, 1924-1952, (New Haven, 1957) p. 78. 9 rbid., p. 53. 12

Unwanted Mexicans in the Great Depression, those favoring restric

11 tion ••• included small farmers, progressives, labor unions, eugenicists, and racists, while large-scale growers of sugar beets, cotton and vegetables, allied with railroads, chambers of commerce and business associations generally favored unrestricted immigra tion. rrlO

Congressman John C. Box of Texas first introduced a bill in 1926 designed to amend the Quota Act. However, it ran into heavy opposition from agribusiness and large industry lobbyists and died in committee. Box reintroduced the bill in 1928, and once again it was hotiy debated.

Opponents of restriction argued that Mexican labor was in dispensible, because Mexicans would do many jobs that "whitemen" would not. Another argument was that " ... since the Mexican was an alien he could be deported, whereas Negroes, Filipinos and Puerto

Ricans, if brought into the Southwest would be there to stay. rrll

Those favoring a quota claimed that the use of Mexican farm labor in agribusiness hurt the small farmer. Labor unions pointed out that Mexicans had been used, and could continue to be used, as strike breakers. Still others worried about the prospects of miscegenation "or of an inundation of a people who could not be

10 Hoffman, p. 26. 11 Ibid. , p. 28. l3 assimilated. 11 Once again the bill was defeated.12

In early 1930 the restriction of Western Hemisphere immigration was again being debated in Congress, just as it had been twice before. By now, as the debate showed, the real target of restriction was Mexico, and not so much the Western Hemisphere.

Although approximately 75,000 Canadians were entering the United

States annually --much greater than the number of Mexicans -- there was no call to limit their immigration. 13 It was the Mexican who was not wanted. Leading the fight for Mexican restriction on the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization were

Chairman Albert Johnson and Congressman Box. The proposed legislation to place Mexican immigration on a quota of 2, 000 per year had now become known as the Box Bill.

Those in favor of restriction and those opposed to it once again engaged in the quota fight in 1930. The major industries of the southwestern United States and the State Department both opposed it

-- the former because of the need for cheap labor and the latter because a Mexican quota would hurt United States negotiations with

Latin American nations for economic trade treaties. 14 The same, interests which had earlier favored it again came out in its support.

12 Ibid., p. 29.

13 D1vine,. p. 5 4 . 14 Acuna, p. 38. 14

As the debating in Washington was taking place, the Los

Angeles newspapers were watching, reporting and making their views known. The Los Angeles Times, founded in 1881, was by 1930 one of Los Angeles 1 leading newspapers. It was known for its sup port of Republican candidates and strong anti-union stance. La

Opinion, a Spanish-language daily in publication since September 16,

1926, was founded by Ignacio Lozano. Directed toward Los Angeles'

Mexican population, it was frequently outspoken in defending the

Mexican interests. By 1931 it was the city's leading Spanish language daily with a circulation of over 14, ooo.l5

With the start of 1930 and. the House committee hearings once again under way, the Times editorially came out against the

Box Bill. The editorial denounced it because it would not apply to

11 Canada. This, it was claimed, was ••• a direct blow at the South western United States and constitutes offensive discrimination against the Spanish- speaking strains from which so many citizens of the region sprang. Such discrimination is flagrantly inequitable. 11

It concluded that if Mexican labor were restricted, the Southwest's labor needs would have to be filled by 11 Porto Ricans. 11 This was an

11 unpleasant alternative, it alleged, because Mexicans ••• are adjust ed to the climate and the soil; the Southwest knows theil\ and welcomes them.. It does not want these Porto Ricans, but it will have to put

15 Hoffman, p. 53. 15

up with them if Chairman Johnson has his way -- for the work of the

Southwest must be done. "16

The Times cartoonist who signed himself as "Gale" also

attacked the bill. One front page cartoon depicted a rolled document

with legs, arms, hands and glasses labeled "Mexican exclusion"

slapping a farmer bearing the words "The Industries of the Southwes-e'

and a man with a Mexican hat called "Mexico. " The caption read:

1117 "The Box Bill. Another cartoon by th~ same cartoonist appeared

on the front page less than a week later in which a Mexican with a

pick and shovel in hand is labeled "The Common Laborer That The

Southwest Cannot Get Along Without. 11 The Mexican is facing a

wooden fence called "The Border," across which are nailed two

boards labeled "Mexican Exclusion. " At the bottom of the fence there is a small box-like opening with the words "The Box Bill and

Its Like. 11 The Mexican is much too large to fit through the opening, and the caption reads "This Way In? 1118

The Times' anti-Mexican restriction sentiment was also

reflected in stories written by reporter Laurence Benedict. A three- deck headline read: "Mexican Labor Defended, House Committee

Told of Southwest's Vital Need for Farm Workers; Seasonal Flow

Across Line Aids Both Sides, Declare L.A. Men." The story told

16 The Los Angeles Times, "The New Exclusion Bills," 17 January 1930, part II, p. 4. 17 Ibid., 14 January 1930, part I, p. 1. 18 rbid., 25 January 1930, part I, column 3. 16 of the testimony before the House committee of three Los Angeles businessmen and Times publisher Harry Chandler. According to

Benedict, the men told the committee that Mexican exclusion "would deprive a larg-e-section of the country of an essential supply of common labor and that it would enlarge, rather than diminish the social and economic problems of the nation. 11 Chandler reportedly claimed that Mexicans were good workers who could be counted on to 11 go home 11 when the harvest season was.",o":

Box Bi~1 sentiment was again apparent in one of Benedict's stories.

The headline announced: 11 Southwest has Inning, Eight Denounce Box

Bill; Only One Witness in Mexico Quota Hearin~ Favors Restriction;

Railroad, Farm and Orchard Men Declare Curb Means Heavy

Loss. 11 20

On April 9, 1930, The Times again ran an editorial favoring increased Mexican immigration. The editorial hit an alarmist note in warning that 11 Mexican laborers of the kind who would be

"-• 19 Lawrence Benedict, 11 Restriction Scheme Hit", Times, 25 January 1930, part I, p. 1. 20 Lawrence Benedict, 11 Southwest Has Inning", Times, 29 January 1930, part I, p. 1. 17 restricted under the quota laws are at the present time entering at the rate of less than 45,000 a year, because of these visa restrictions .. Since some 65,000 migrant and seasonal laborers are needed each year by California agriculture ... alone, it is plain that present immigration is an insignificant dribble. Mexican labor is required extensively in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas ... Under present conditions, if the number of Mexican emigrants is compared with the number of immigrants, it is probable that the Southwest is suffering a net loss of these valuable and useful people. 11 21

The combination of the editorials and the tone Benedict's stories left no doubt as to where the Times stood on the Box Bill.

La Opinion, meanwhile, did not take as clear a stand on the

Mexican quota issue as did The Times. In one editorial the paper expressed distress over the fact that so many people were leaving

Mexico only to work for low wages, and not to make fortunes· like many immigrants from other countries. The editorial went on to deplore the beliefs of many in the United States who did not want

Mexicans because they felt they were " ... endangering their (the

Anglos') race or because Mexicans accept lower wages. 11 In sum, there was no clear stand taken on the issue of the Mexican quota. 2 2

21 "Get the Facts, 11 Times , 9 April 1930, part II, p. 4. 2211 Nuestros Inmigrantes a Los Estados Unidos, La Opinion (Los Angeles}, 3 January 1930, part I, p. 4. 18

Another editorial entitled "Once Again The Quota ... 11 did little to clarify the paper's position. It said that it was unfortunate for proponents of the bill to want to restrict Mexican immigration on racist grounds, but that in any case the bill would be defeated because industry required Mexicans. The editorial also lamented the exploitation of the Mexican worker and added that industry de

11 manded the Mexican because ••• those who produce more for less

,will certainly be prefered. 11 But the thrust of the editorial was the supposed depopulation of Mexico. It claimed that Mexico was losing too many of its citizens to the United States and expressed the wish that more Mexicans would stay and work for the progress of their country. It concluded that once Mexicans realized the benefits to be gained from living and working in Mexico, with or without a quota,

11 Mexican immigration would decline, ••• perhaps even lower than the limit that is being proposed in Congress. 11 23 Again La Opinion did not make its position clear, but only wished there were no need for a Mexican quota.

This was not the last time La Opinion was editorially vague.

An editorial which appeared to direct itself to the Box Bill, instead skirtted the is sue and for the third time in less than a month hoped that "in the not too distant future Mexico will be able to provide its workers with steady and well-paid work" and that there would

2311 0tra Vez La Cuota", La Opinion, 15 January 1930, part I, p. 4. l9

consequently be no need for a quota. 24

The Spanish-language daily appeared alert to racist state-

ments during the Box Bill hearing. For example, a headline on a

front page story read: "California Should Not Be For Mexicans,

That is What Congressman Johnson Said Yesterday in Supporting His

Quota Bill. 11 25 The congressman said a number of other things in

his argument, but La Opinion apparently considered the racist com-

ment the most significant.

The Box Bill was defeated for the final time in 1930, and

26 the Mexican was not to be put on a quota until the 1960's. After the bill's defeat there was in both papers a gradual decrease in

stories on the necessity of Mexican labor. Instead, The Times and

La Opinion when writing of Mexican aliens began to report on their great exodus from Southern California.

This exodus was the result of a drive to remove thousands of Mexicans from the area during the Great Depression. The drive took place on two levels. One was part of a nationwide campaign to deport illegal aliens. The other was a county-supported program to repatriate destitute Mexicans.

24 "La Restriccion a La Inmigracion Mexicana, 11 La Opinion, 27 January 1930, part·l, p. 3. 2511 California No Debe Ser Para Los Mexicanos", La Opinion, 11 December 1929, part I, p. 1. 26 Acuna, p. 143. 20

The Labor Department's Bureau of Immigration under the

guidance of Secretary of Labor William N. Doak attacked the prob-

lem of national unemployment. Doak reasoned that one way to

alleviate the problem would be to deport aliens and give the jobs

they supposedly held to citizens or legal residents. He calculated

there were 100,000 deportable aliens in the United States. As

immigration agents raided private homes and public places across

the nation in search of illegal aliens, Doak proclaimed: "The

Department (of Labor) by vigorous activity within its resources and

restrictions has been able to increase deportations and voluntary Zl 11 11 departures. However, according to Hoffman • • • although Doak

. asserted that the deportation of aliens was essential for reducing unemployment, many of his targets were jobless and on relief. n28.

In Los Angeles, under the auspices of The President's

Emergency Committee for Employment, local relief measures were to be handled by the Los Angeles Citizen's committee on Coordina- tion of Unemployment Relief. The committee was composed of, among others, Mayor John C. Porter, County Supervisor FrankL.

Shaw and Times publisher Harry Chandler. Charles P. Visel was the director. 2 9

27 'Doakery and Deportations, 11 Literary Digest, 22 August 1931, p. 6. 28 Hoffman, p. 40. 29 Ibid., p. 42. ,21

While the committee was to work through "existing agencies" to relieve unemployment, under the directorship of Visel, it took up a peculiar relationship with Doak' s immigration authorities. Hoffman claims that Visel wired Doak requesting that the labor secretary send agents to Los Angeles to create a "psychologi- cal gesture. 11 He added: ''This apparent activity will have the tendency to scare many thousands of alien deportables out of this district which is the result desired. 1130

To implement this scare campaign, Visel planned publicity releases detailing the deportation drive, followed by publicized arrests. The first release was published in Los Angeles papers on

January 26, 1931. It said, in essence, that as part of the struggle against unemployment in Los Angeles, authorities from the

"Immigration Department's Deportation Squad" in Nogales, San

Francisco and San Diego would come to the city to "cooperate with local immigration agents" and police "in rounding up the deportable aliens ... 11 It added that the Deportation Squad agents would arrive

31 in about ten days.

The Times version of the publicity release gave the impression that there were no definite plans to deport illegal aliens on a large scale. The story said that city, county,. state and federal government officials were only considering plans to remove illegals.

30ibid. , p. 170. 31 Ibid. 22

There was no mention of the agents expected arrival. The reporter

obviously accepted the official justification for the campaign which

was that it would relieve unemployment. An unattributed sentence

said of the deportations: "It is part of the campaign against unem-

ployment." In addition to the publicity release the story included a

quote from Visel which clearly indicated that the deportation drive

was intended to create a panic in the Mexican community: 11 Their

{illegals') elimination will give many jobs they are occupying to

natives of this country and aliens who have made legal entry. Also

it will tend to drive out an enormous number of illegal aliens who

are not employed, many of whom are joining in any so-called

'unemployment demonstration' and who are making heavy demands

32 on the relief set-ups now operating."

This belief that illegal aliens, now that the Depression had

struck, were totally undesirable, also extended to The Los Angeles

County Board of Supervisors. According to a Times story that body

endorsed "proposed legislation" to bar illegal aliens from establish- ing a residence, holding a position, or engaging in any form of business." Supervisor John R. Quinn claimed there were "between

2, 500,000 and 3, 000,000 illegal aliens within the boundaries of the

U.S. and 200, 000 to 400, 000 "in California alone. 11 Quinn said"

If we rid ourselves of the aliens who have entered this country illegally since 1921,

32"United Effort to Oust Aliens Being Evolved," Times, 26 January 1931, part II, p. 1. 23

stealing in as burglars might enter our homes, our present unemploytnent problem would shrink to the proportions of a relatively unimportant flat spot in business. In ridding ourselves of the criminally undesirable alien we will put an end to a large part of our crime and law enforcement prob lem, probably saving many good American lives and certainly millions of dollars for law enforce ment against people who have no business in this country.

For good measure Quinn added that "the red problem" would disap-

33 pear "with such riddance. 11

On January 29, The Times published the gist of another

Vise! publicity release. In this story, which was headlined, ''Oust-

ing of Aliens Will Be Speeded, 11 it was claimed that State Depart-

ment officials from Washington would come to Los Angeles to help

in ''accelerating'' alien deportations. Visel was quoted as warning:

"We urge at this time all non-deportable aliens who are without

credentials or who are not registered to register at once, as those

having papers will save themselves a great deal of annoyance and

4 trouble in the very near future. This is a constructive suggestion. 1 ,3

La Opinion, unlike The Times brief summary of Visel' s

release, printed the entire statement and an interpretation of it.

The release, La Opinion noted, said that deportable aliens included

33 "Illegal Alien Bar Sought," Times, 13 January 1931, part II, p. 1. 34 "0usting of Aliens Will Be Speeded, " Times, 29 January 1931, part II, p. 5. 24

"peoples of every nation in the world." Nevertheless, the author added " ... the majority of them are of Mexican nationality."

Rafael de la Colina, Mexican consul in Los Angeles, was also

quoted. He claimed that the deportations were part of an 11 Ameri-

canization11 campaign by local political, social and labor organization

designed to alleviate the unemployment problem. 35

The announcement of the impending deportation campaign

attracted the attention of the Mexican government, which expressed

concern that Mexicans would become the targets of any such cam-

paign. In order to calm these fears, Walter E. Carr, district

director of immigration, wrote a press release which denied that

Los Angeles' Mexicans would be singled out for deportation. 36

Hoffman wrote of the publication of the press release,

II . the manner in which the Los Angeles press treated Carr's

statement failed to clarify the intentions of the immigration service.

If anything, the bureau's motives were confused and misinterpreted all the more." Carr had said in part that aliens convicted of crimes would be deported before deporting aliens here illegally "because of

some technicality. " 3 7 The Times on January 31 erroneously

35 "Proxima Razzia De Mexicanos, 11 La Opinion, 29 January 1931, part I, p. 1. 36 Hoffman, p. 49.

37 Ibid. 25

reported that immigration authorities in the Los Angeles area were

confining most of their efforts "to aggravated cases, especially

where an alien has been convicted of a crime, and (do) not devote

attention to laboring men who technically may be illegally in this 38 country.''

La Opinion, according to Hoffman, co:rrectly interpreted 39 Carr's publicity release. Indeed, instead of summarizing the

statement, it quoted him. Upon careful reading, it can be noted

that Carr only said if aliens with criminal records were encountered,

they would be deported before deporting a working alien illegally

here. Thus by quoting him, La Opinion avoided the misinterpretaticn

of which The Times was guilty.

On February 6, 1931, the Spanish-language daily ran a

story which indicated its perception of the deportaions scare. It told of many Mexican families who had presented themselves to

immigration authorities requesting that they be deported because they were unemployed and had heard of a committee (The Los Angeles

Citizen's Committee on Coordination of Unemployment Relief) which was going to begin massive round-ups of aliens. The authorities, upon investigation, found that all of the families were legal residents, and as such, if they wanted to return to Mexico it would have

38 Ibid., p. 50. 39 "Habra Razzias, Declaro El Director De Migracion Ayer," La Opinion, 31 January 1931, part I, p. 1. 26

to be at their own expense. The author then commented that what

in reality the committee wanted was for 11unemployed foreigners 11

40 to leave the city in order to reduce the relief load. La Opinion,

in effect, placed the blame for the deportation hysteria on the

committee.

When the deportations began, La Opinion was quick to

report them. In a front-page story, headlined 11 The Deportation

Begins, 11 the author claimed that ''twelve or more Mexicans 11 had

been arrested, held incommunicados and put on a bus for Tijuana.

The writer managed to speak to one deported Mexican, I. C. Machado,

who alleged that he had lived in Los Angeles for ten years. To this

11 author added, ••• having lived in Los Angeles for more than five

years, he was not deportable, according to the law. 11 The reported

harrassment in the Mexican section of the city called Sonoratown was also told. 11 In this Mexican suburb within t?-e last few days a marked increase in the number of immigration inspectors has been

noted. They very often detain and interrogate our compatriots, and

some are allowed to go free and others are taken into custody. 11

An unnamed 11 informant11 was also quoted. The statements attributed to this person indicate a clear understanding of how

40 11 Las Razzias Continuan a Debate·Aun," La Opinion, 6 February 1931, part I, p. 1. 27

radically the situation of the Mexican alien in the United States had

changed within the last few years. The "informant" reportedly said that California, like the Sahara, had been a desert. "But with the hand of the Mexican, orchards, ranches, towns, cities, paved high- ways, bridges and buildings had been created.

"Now that all these sandy lands have been built-up and are liveable, thanks to the able and inexpensive labor of the Mexican, he is no longer needed and he is sent incommunicado to his country. 11 41

The use of an unnamed "informant, 11 this writer suspects, may have been a device whereby the paper was able to express its opinion on the deportations. The alleged quotes show careful wording and organization, characteristic of a written statement. The writer claimed these were spoken quotes.

While La Opinion appeared to view the deportations sus- piciously, The Times considered them a positive step in the removal of an unwanted element. For example, one story proclaimed:

"Fugitive Aliens Seized in Drive, 11 and the lede read: "Launching the first big drive to rid Los Angeles County of undesirable aliens

(: illegally living here, thirteen men have been taken into custody ' u'!

Sheriff Traeger's men and agents of the federal government .. II

It concluded with a semi-warning: "Nightly raids on suspected quarters are to be continued until Traeger and the federal

41 ... "Mexicanos Presos en un Aparatoso Raid a La Placita, " La Opinion, 27 February 1931, part I, p. 1. 28

government are satisfied all parts of the county offering a haven for

unwanted foreigners have been covered. rr42

A few days later La Opinion ran an article in which Carr was

quoted as denying that immigration authorities were conducting round-

ups of Mexicans. However, the reporter also included lengthy

quotes from Lucien Brunswig, a representative of the druggists of

Sonoratown. He maintained there was much harassment of Mexicans

which was in turn hurting business in the area. Brunswig report-

edly asked Carr not to deport anyone illegally and to conduct inves

43 tigations in the suspect~ home, not in public places.

A raid on 11 la placita11 (th~ plaza in downtown Los Angeles)

drew the attention of the Spanish-language paper, but not The Times.

According to the account eleven Mexicans, five Chinese and one

Japanese were taken prisoners on the afternoon of February 26, 1931.

, Immigration authorities reportedly blocked all exits from the plaza,

preventing anyone from leaving and conducted a "round-up" of all

persons present to determine if they were legal residents. One

person arrested, identified as Moises Gonzalez, La Opinion asserted,

was here legally and produced a passport to prove it. It was also

reported that according to witnesses 11 various Mexicans" had been

beaten. The raid created such a "panic" that Main Street was

42"Fugitive Aliens Seized in Drive, 11 Times, 15 February 1931, part II, p. 6. 43 "El Consul y El Mr. Carr en Platica, Si Hay Leva, Dicen en La Calle Main," La Opinion, 19 February 1931, part I, p.l. 29

deserted in a few minutes. 44

As Hoffman points out, La Opinion's account suffered from "internal discrepancies. 11 While first correctly reporting that

eleven Mexicans were arrested, the figure given later is thirty. At one point immigration authorities are cited as having said that one

Mexican had confessed to being an illegal alien. Later the writer claimed there was not. . . one single compatriot who confessed

1145 having immigrated illegally.

From the Imperial Valley came another report of deportation panic. According to La Opinion correspondent Jesus Avalos, immigration officers ''raided streets and parks" in Brawley. Some

Mexicans asked the Mexican consul in Calexico to speak with immigration authorities to see if such tactics could be avoided. 46

As the deportation campaign wound down, its accompanying publicity declined and faded away after the summer of 1931. 4 7

Hoffman estimated that between June 1930 and June 1931 "the federal government moved almost 30, 000 aliens out of the United States, either under voluntary departure or as deportees. Most were

Mexican. 4 8

441111 Mexicanos Presos ... 11 La Opinion, 27 February 1931, part I, p.l. 4 5Ibid. 46 11 En el Valle Imperial Hay Gran Panico, 11 La Opinion, 29 May 1931, part I, p. 1. 47Hoffman, p. 81. 48Ibid. , p. 82. 30

In addition to the deportation drive, thousands of Mexicans

left the Los Angeles area in the 1930's through a county-sponsored

repatriation program; many Mexicans were returning to Mexico on

their own. Their return was prompted by several factors: extreme

poverty, discrimination, uncertainty of their immigration status in

the face of the deportations and special "charity rates" offered by the

Southern Pacific Railroad to the border. 49

In the opening days of 1930, while the deportations were

getting under way, the first stories on the unorganized repatriations

began to appear in the pages of La Opinion. One such story reported that 293 persons in the Imperial Valley had asked the Mexican gov-

ernment to repa~i1t:~te them. These persons had struck some of the farms in a wage dispute, and now, after the strike had apparently been broken, and there was no more work for them, they wanted to

50 return to Mexico. Several days later a follow-up story appeared in which the Mexican government reportedly called on Washington to see to it that Mexicans in the Imperial Valley were no longer persecuted for their part in the strike. It was charged that Mexicans "are victims of repraisals as a consequence of the last strike. 11 The

Mexican government also offered land to those wishing to be repatriated and to "colonize" various regions of Mexico. 51 49Ibid, p. 84 50"Numerosas Familias Se Han Inscrito En Las Listas De Los Que .Quieren Repatriarse, 11 La Opinion, 19 Januaryl930, part I, 2 p. · 5l"Mexico Protesta Contra Las Razzias Del Valle Imperial, La Opinion, 23 January 1930, part I, p.l. 31

Another category of repatriates were those who were victims of a drive by county relief officials to decrease their case load.

It did not require much calculating to arrive at the conclusion that if aliens on relief could be made to leave the county -- even if it meant paying the travel expenses -- the savings would be substantial.

Thus, as sociologist Emory Bogardus wrote:

Many Mexican immigrants are returning \ under a sense of pressure. They fear that all welfare aid will be withdrawn if they do not ac cept the offer to help them out of our country. In fact, some of them report that they are told by public officials that if they do not accept the offer to take them to the border no further wel fare aid will be given them, and that their record will be closed with the notation, ''Failed to cooperate. " It takes only an insinuation from an official in the United States to create wide spread fear among Mexican immigrants. ?2

Los Angeles County Supervisor Frank L. Shaw came up with the idea of a county- sponsored program for repatriating indigent

Mexicans. Early in 1931 he determined that California state law,

"if freely interpreted, "would allow a county to transport poor people outside its boundaries at its own expense. Figures indicated 10, 000

Mexican alien relief cases which cost the county $2.4 million a year; by repatriating these families, a good deal of money could be saved.53

According to Hoffman:

52 Hoffman, p. 84 53 Ibid. , p. 86. 32

Mexican families living on county relief were particularly susceptible to suggestion of repatriation for a variety of reasons. There was little likelihood of employment, as the economic de pression progressively worsened. The offer from the board of supervisors, charities and public wel fare committee contained a number of inducements, which were increased when the number of volunteers for repatriation declined. Such benefits as free trans portation, food, clothing, medical aid, and the assurance of cooperation by the Mexican government and railroads, all presented strong temptations to accept repatriation. Plans for repatriation colonies in Mexico were constantly being projected and there were hints, accurate or not, that a return to the United States would be possible after an improvement in economic conditions. 54

Even as the deportation campaign was beginning, plans were being made for the first county-sponsored shipment of repatriates.

The first trip had to be delayed about a month, because the Board of

Supervisors had underestimated the cost of transporting the aliens.

La Opinion, since 1930,in dealing with the Mexican alien had reported on first the Box Bill hearings, early voluntary repatriations and the deportations; it now turned to the reporting of the formal repatriations. The Times' coverage followed the same pattern, except nowhere in the sample taken was there reference to the early voluntary repatriations.

In mid to late 1931 La Opinion reported contradictory stories. More specifically, it was reported that agribusinessmen feared a Mexican labor shortage, and at the same time it was

54 Ibid. , p. 87. 33

reported that Mexicans were leaving for Mexico because of lack of

work. For example, one story claimed that the Central Chamber of

Agriculture and Commerce passed a resolution to request that as

many Mexican workers as needed be admitted to work on the farms

of the Southwest. Ray Leeman, president, said of the necessity of

Mexican workers: "The unemployed of this country will not accept

the work offered by the growers." 55 A front-page story, banner

headlined,"76, 000 Mexicans Needed, 11 quoted Dr. George Clements,

president of the Department of Agriculture of the California

Chamber of Commerce. He said the repatriations could result in an

agricultural labor shortage, because Anglos had not wanted to take

the jobs. In case there were a Mexican labor shortage, he added,

Anglos would have to be induced to do the work, but Filipinos would

be used "!o do the more strenuous jobs. 11 56 Thus, the impression

was given that there was a need for Mexican labor.

However, within the same month La Opinion carried a brief

story on 150 families that had been repatriated. It was claimed that,

"All of the compatriots returning to the fatherland, according to

what they have said, are doing so because of the absolute lack of

55 "Piden Mas Mexicanos Para Agricultura De E. Unidos," La Opinion, 14 December 1930, part II, p. 1.

56 "Gran Exodo de 100, 000 Mexicanos, rr La Opinion, . 2 May 1931, part I, p. 1. 34

work in the last few months, agc:l,_th_~Y-Jl:ave no hope of finding any.'' 57

It would seem obvious for any newspaper carrying such contradictory reports to attempt to resolve the contradiction. Yet, nowhere in the sample taken did La Opinion report on this contradiction.

The Times also reported on this contradiction, but found a way to explain how it was possible for there to be a threat of a

Mexican labor shortage while Mexicans were going to Mexico for lack of work. "Mexican Labor Dearth Fear; Harvesting of Crops

Presents Problems; Transients Exodus Leads to Anxiety of Growers;

Whites May be Induced to Try Hand at Tasks, 11 read the headline of one story. It went on to explain that agribusinessmen feared the

"exodus of :iVlexican nationals" would cause an extreme labor shortage. This exodus, it was explained, was due to the lack of construe- tion work, which Mexican agricultural workers ,did in the off-season, and the fear of deportation. 58

On August 18, 1931 La Opinion carried a front-page account of the repatriation of 1300 Mexicans. The story is fairly routine in giving details of the trip. However, the last sentence shows that the newspaper, or at least the reporter, was aware that the repatriation

57 "150 Mexicanos Saldran Hoy Repatriados, 11 La Opinion, 14 May 1931, part I, p. 1.

5811Mexican Labor Dearth Feared, 11 Times, 6 May 1931, part I, p. 1. 35

was not entirely voluntary. "The repatriates were given the choice, 11 wrQte the reporter, 11 of having their relief payments cut or of being '-.

sent to Mexico, and because of the lack of work, they chose the latter. 11 5 9

In reporting on the departure of another group of repatriates, The Times, in contrast to its Spanish-language counterpart,

clearly indicated that the repatriates were willing to leave the country. The headline read, 11 Mexicans to Leave for Home; Another

Lot of About 1200 Repatriates Accept Offer of L.A. County. 11 To dispel any doubt as to the willingness of the Mexicans to be repatriated, the reporter claimed, "The repatriates, all citizens of Mexico, are county charity cases willing to return to their homes below the border. 11 He added that the Mexican government was "glad" to have

60 them back.

Another major difference between the two newspapers was that The Times only once reported on the repatriates after they had returned "home. 11 La Opinion reported on the repatriates' problems and activities in Mexico several times.

For example, in early 1932 reports from Mexico of repatriates arriving with "little money or clothes, ragged, hungry and many

59 "Salieron 1, 300 Repatriados, 11 La Opinion, 18 August 1931, part I, p. 1. 60 "Mexicans to Leave for Home, 11 Times, 29 October 1931, part II, p. 3. 36

suffering from dangerous illnesses" began to appear in La Opinion.

In one story it was claimed there were 30,000 repatriates "without

roof or bread." It told how many were stranded by the roads without

"money to continue their journey. " It continued, " ... the federal government finds itself in a difficult situation and cannot help such a large number of men, women and children that do not have anything to eat or a roof to shelter them, and in reality it is not known what

61 can be done for the repatriates. 11

The banner headline of another story read: "500 Repatria- tes Sack Store in Jalisco." The correspondent wrote that they were hungry and decided to loot the store. The repatriates also reportedly "wander the streets asking shop owners for 'help' and telling them that their women and children are in danger of dying of hunger. rr62

Even into 1933 reports of desperate repatriates continued to come in. Some were quite tragic, such as the young man who, allegedly driven to insanity because he could not find work and was penniless, killed his wife and family with a hammer and then cut his throat. 63 Other reports detailed efforts of a committee to help returnees because "they lack the bare necessities of 1ife,'P4 and told

61 "30, 000 Repatriados Sin Techo Ni Pan, 11 La Opinion, 10 February 1932, part I, p. 1. 6 2 "500 Repatriados Saquean Una Tienda En Jalisco, 11 La Opinion, 12 February 1932, part I, p. 1. 6 3 "Mato a Su Esposa y a Cuatro Hijos Un Mexicano Repatriado, 11 La Opinion, 19 January 1933, part I, p. 1. 6t 4I"Tam_pico Ayuda A1 Repatriado," La Opinion , 19 January 1933 , par , p. r. 37

of a "good number of repatriates who arrived at Quertaro with no money and 11 empty stomachs. 11 6 5

The Times' coverage of the repatriations did not focus on the human aspect, but rather on the savings they represented to the taxpayers. In one study it was asserted that according to the County

Welfare Department, 50, 000 would leave by the end of 1933; 30, 000 had left as of March of 1933. The county provided transportation for

13,400, and " ... the exodus has saved the taxpayers about

$2,000,000 that otherwise would have been spent in caring for these 66 destitute Mexicans. 11 Again stressing the saving in taxes, another story quoted Rex Thompson, assistant County Superintendent of

Charities. Thompson, at variance with The Times, claimed only

12, 000 Mexican families had been repatriated the previous year.

"This created a vast savings for the County Welfare Department, 11 he boasted, "as it costs approximately $55 a m~mth on the average t_? care for one indigent family. 1167 Still another story announced that

11 • • • it costs the county $12. 66 a person to send them back which is considerably less than it would cost the County Welfare Department 68 to maintain them on the charity list. 11 It should be noted that

65 "La Ayuda a Los Repatriados, 11 La Opinion, part I, p. 3. 66 "Mexican Trek From County to Re~ch 50, 000, 11 Times, 5 March 1933, part I, p. 2. 67 Hoffman, p. 114. 68"Mexicans to Leave for Home, 11 Times, 29 October 1931, part I, p. 3. 38

never in the sample taken did La Opinion make reference to the

alleged savings to be gained through repatriations. Instead, as might be expected, it treated them as a human event of particular

importance to its readers.

On this question of repatriation saving Los Angeles County a substantial amount of money, Hoffman gives a different interpreta tion. He wrote that Rex Thompson believed the repatriation program had saved the county more than $2 million by 1935. However,

Hoffman points out that the " ... figure was based on the assump tions that the relief case would have continued through the entire period of repatriation had the family not returnEd to Mexico, that a case that did return was on relief at the start of 1931, and that costs were static." The problem,he estimates, saved the county about one-half million dollars. 69

It would be unfair to give the impression that The Times only viewed the repatriation of thousands of people from a:::1 economic standpoint. In the sample taken, one feature article was encountered in which the author wrote of the repatriates in Mexico. Jack Starr

Hunt left no doubt that he felt the repatriations were for the best for all concerned; in fact he called them a "semi-relief project. 11 In writing of the repatriates, he made this point clear: "They were poor here. The competitive conditions which have assailed every

69 Hoffman, p. 114. 39

human activity made their existence difficult. So they went home ...

Today, in Mexico, however these repatriates who were poor here bid fair to become an important factor in the progress of the southern republic. They are already introducing into sections which once were untouched by anything American the latest in American educational, agricultural and industrial ideas." The repatriates, then, were even portrayed as carriers of 11 American" culture.

Starr-Hunt also denied that any repatriates were pressured into leaving. 11 Those who have already gone did so of their volition.

No 'pressure' whatsoever was applied in either country. The opportunity was created through the joint accord of both nations ... n A quote from Dr. C. N. Thomas, 11 long a friend of the Mexican people, 11 reflected a more accurate interpretation of the repatriations:

"By helping Mexicans return to their own country, we relieve conditions in this country. These Mexicans are practically doomed here economically unless there is a remarkable re vival of economic manufacture. That means they become charges on the public; furthermore it means deterioration, while, placed in Mexico and aided in getting a start, they will be friends of this country. As they become better estab lished, they will use American machinery and equipment. 11 70

La Opinion did not view the repatriations nearly as positi- · vely. An editorial called nThe Tragedy of the Repatriates" classified

70 Jack Starr-Hunt, "The Mexicans vVho Went Home, 11 Times Sunday- Magazine, 26 March 1933, p. 20. 40

the repatriates as three types: those deported, those driven to

repatriation by severe poverty and those who were homesick. It

went on to tell how Mexico, suffering from the GreatDepression,

was unable to offer the repatriates much in the way of employment

or charity, and, consequently many were suffering. The editorial

ended with the question, "How will the tragedy be ended? 11 71

In early 1933 La Opinion again presented the repatr~iations

negatively. A story told of a letter written by The Union of Repatri- ated Mexicans to Mexican president Abelardo Rodriguez in which it was charged that repatriates had been 11 tricked 11 into returning to

Mexico. They alleged that the Mexican government had promised the

repatriates land and other benefits, but upon arriving in Mexico they were 11 completely abandoned 11 and forced to become 11 parasites of

society. 1172

The publication of the letter prompted an angry editorial

1 11 from La Opinion . The very title (1 The Failure of Repatriation ) was indicative of what was to follow. The blame for the failure was placed entirely on the Mexican National Committee for Repatriation. It was claimed that the committee had engaged in an extensive propa- ganda campaign in which returnees were promised numerous benefits.

This created a migratory movement similar to a 11Gold Rush. 11

7111La Tragedia de Los Repatriados, 11 La Opinion , 19 November 1931, part I, p. 3. 7211 Volvimos Enganados, Dicen Los Repafriados a Rodriguez, 11 La Opinion, 18 February 1933, part I, p. 3. 41

However, the committee never came through on its promises, leaving the repatriates to get by on their own. For this reason it was urged that neither the committee nor the Mexican government en-

11 courage further repatriations. In the words of the editorial, • • the door on repatriation should be shut. . . 11 --at least for the time being. 73

Interestingly enough, the editorial failed to consider that many were persuaded or coerced into repatriating by local government officials. Historians and authors such as Rodolfo Acuna,

Hoffman, Leo Grebler and Carey McWilliams agree that many repatriates returned after being convinced of the wisdom of such a move or given the choice of being taken off relief or being sent to

Mexico.

f' The repatriation of approximately 150, 000 Mexicans from

Southern California between 1929 and 1932 74 would naturally result in extreme disruption in the lives of many of those uprooted. One example of this disruption was the case described in a story which appeared in La Opinion in late 1933. It dealt with Leandro Venegas, a labor leader who had held a high post in the Mexican Labor Party in

Los Angeles. A street car worker, Venegas had reportedly been

7 311 El Fracaso De La Repatriacion, 11 La Opinion, 18 February 1933, part I, p. 3. 74 Hoffman, p. 174. 42 fired and his job given to a "Northamerican" (Anglo). Now, "because of lack of work, 11 Venegas and thousands of others were being repatriated. Venegas had lived in Los Angeles for thirty-one years. 75

The repatriations which ran from 1929 to 1939 gradually tapered off after 1933. The peak year was 1931 with 138, 519 being returned. In 1937 only a little over 8, 000 were returned. All in all, between 1929 and 1937 just over 458, 000 were repatriated from the

United States to Mexico. 76

The 1930's, then, were years which saw hundreds of thousands of Mexicans -- both aliens and citizens -- being actively sought by agribusinessmen and industrialists who saw them as a cheap source of labor, and then the targets of a mass deportation drive and locally-sponsored repatriation programs. Both newspapers re- fleeted this radical change in Mexicans' status. The English- language daily was clearly in favor of unrestricted Mexican irnmigra- tion in early 1930, just as big business was. In fact,, The Times rivaled the agricultural and industrial interests in loudly calling for open immigration for the Mexican laborers. But gradually, again as did big business, the paper became silent on the issue as the bill was defeated in Congress, and it became obvious that in "hard

75 "Lider Obrero Repatriado, 11 La Opinion, 27 November 1931, part I, p. 2. 76 Hoffman, p. 174. 43 times" Anglos would indeed do any kind of work. Shortly thereafter

The Times , in a complete about-face, was pointing out the benefits to all gained by getting rid of the excess Mexicans.

La Opinion never did make its position on open immigration for Mexicans clear. Instead it only wished there were no need for

such a thing.

The papers also differed in their view of the deportations and repatriations. The Times considered the former as only aimed at "undesirable" illegal aliens, never mentioning the disquieting effects of such a campaign on the Mexican community. The repa triations were viewed as a move for the best for all concerned.

Jack Starr -Hunt's feature article on the repatriates and The Times 1 preoccupation with the "savings" created by shipping Mexicans

"back home" are indicative of this.

La Opinion , on the other hand, generally considered both the deportations and repatriations as detrimental to Mexicans. The deportations were presented as an overreaction by the federal government. The use of such words as "round-up, 11 "raid, 11 and

"panic" indicate this. The repatriations were at first pictured somewhat favorably. This was evidenced by references in several stories to 11 compatriots 11 returning "because of lack of work. 11

There was also some publicity given to the M~xican government's claims that repatriates would receive free land. One story which dealt with repatriates even made reference to the 11festive mood 11 at 44

the train station. But when reports of repatriates suffering began to reach La Opinion , no longer were the repatriations viewed favor ably. The blame, however, for the disaster was placed on other

Mexicans, not on the county governments for sending them to Mexico in the first place.

Both papers relied heavily on government sources of infor mation. In fact, The Times relied almost entirely on the govern ment for official releases. This is demonstrated in the stories by the sources quoted. La Opinion, on the other hand, spoke with the man on the street and received reports from Mexico on the status of the repatriates.

Historians, with the benefit of hindsight, have been able to more accurately describe the experiences of Mexicans in the United

States during the 1930 1 s. Unlike The Times, they do not believ~ the deportations to have been very successful in either reducing the unemployment rate or welfare costs. Leo Grebler, for one, writes of the period: "Local agencies, saddled with mounting relief and unemployment problems, used a variety of methods to rid themselves of 'Mexicans'; persuasion, coaxing, incentive, and unauthorized coercion. Special trains were made ~vailable, with fare at least t~. the Mexican border prepaid; the withholding or stoppage of relief_ payments and welfare services was used effectively when necessary, and people were often rounded up by local agencies to fill carloads of human cargo. In an atmosphere of pressing emergency, little if 45

any time was spent on determining whether the methods infringed

upon the rights of citizens." He adds that, with Mexican labor being

"shipped off as a surplus," probably the only major result of the

deportations and repatriations was a worsening of Mexico-United 77 States relations.

La Opinion presented a much more accurate interpretation

of the period than did The Times . The Spanish-language paper, unlike its English-language counterpart, told of some of the suffer

ing and injustices, but was unable to understand the causes.

Itis sometimes said that history runs in cycles, and in the

case of the Mexican in this country it appears to be true. For once again, in the early 1950's, he was to hecome the target of an even more massive round-up.

77 Grebler, pg. 29. II

Following the massive deportations and raids of the 1930's,

there was a period of about fifteen years during which Mexican labor

was generally sought by growers and industrialists of the Southwest.

Various factors favored the massive introduction and utilization of

both legal and illegal Mexican labor. Chief among these factors was the alleged labor shortage created by World War II.

Whether a shortage existed which required the importation

of labor is open to question. Nevertheless, it was the reason given for the first of the informal bracero agreements between Mexico and the United States. Under the terms of the agreement, Mexico as part of its war effort, was to send railroad and agricultural workers to the United States; the agreements were renev:ed yearly.l ·Even after the war, growers claimed they needed Mexican contract labor, and the contracts continued through 1949. It was not untill951, though, with the passage of Public Law 78 that the bracero program, as the contract labor program with Mexico was called, was formaliz- ed. In essence it gave the Secretary of Agriculture authority to recruit as much agricultural labor from Mexico as he thought ne-

2 cessary. Braceros were used increasingly between 1945 and 1954

lErnesto Galarza, Merchants of Labor: The Mexican Bracero Story (Charlotte, 1964), p. 10. zibid. , p. 11.

-46- 47

in Southwest agriculture; only a little over 4, 000 were imported in

·1942, the year the program began, and 309, 000 came in 1954. 3 .

Along with these legal vmrkers came the so-called "illegal

aliens. 11 Just the the number of braceros increased, so did the

number of "illegal aliens. 11 According to writer Ernesto Galarza,

1944 was the "turning point'' in alien apprehensions; over 29, 000 were

caught that year, as compared with 8, 860 for the previous year.

~ From then on, the number of Mexican "illegal aliens" caught in a

4 year has rarely fallen below 100,000.

The "illegal alien" since the mid-1940's has become a,

widely used source of labor in the United States, especially in the

Southwest. His failure to comply with immigration procedures has

made him vulnerable to charges of taking jobs away from legal

residents,spreading disease and crime, not paying taxes and creating undue welfare burdens.

This view is expressed by author John Myers Myers, who writes of the undocumented Mexican worker, "Many have criminal

records ... If historically America has been settled and developed by men hailing from a gamut of countries, the wetback is not of a piece with these. Although willing to claim United States citizenship

3 Ibid. , p. 59.

4 Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1970 Annual Report (Washington, D. C.) p. 11. 48 I '

in pursuit of his designs, he typically has no thought of cutting his 5 ties with his own land by becoming a true part of this one. rr He

adds that the ''illegal alien" sends most of his money to Mexico and

"is no more troubled about being unwanted than yellowjackets at a

picnic." In describing the history of the undocumented Mexican worker, he claims that he was granted "amnesty during World War

II because labor was badly needed. However, even after the war

"illegals" were used. "And county politicos said nothing, because the farmers who paid most of the taxes were satisfied with the situation. For the wetback families formed a labor pool that knocked wages down to within spitting distance of the vanishing point. rr6

Robert Tomasek, who wrote of Mexican labor in the United

States, charges the "wetback" ... "lowered wages, displaced domestic migrants, spread disease and crime, and probably worst of all, set back the assimilation process of the Mexican-American by a generation. 117

Galarza, by contrast, places the blame for the "problem" on political maneuvering, rather than on the Mexican worker. "In

1952, had every Wetback been suddenly removed from California

5 John Myers Myers, The Border Wardens. {Englewood Cliffs, 1971) p. 5. 6 Ibid. , p. 71. 7 Robert Tomasek, The Political and Economic Implications of Mexican Labor in the United States Under the Non Quota System, Contract Labor Program and Wetback Movement, (Michigan, 1957) P. 186. 49

commercial agriculture would have been in a serious predicament.

California agriculture in 1953 offered 25,000 to 30,000 jobs to a

floating population of 50,000 or more illegals. It never appeared to

be the intention of Congress to finance the (immigration) service

ad~quately so that the gateway to illegal labor could be firmly closed.

Even in 1952 and 1954, when the Wetbacks were in full tide, senators

and representatives from the border states took the lead in cutting

back appropriations for the Border Patrol. With the purse half shut

the gate could remain half open. 11 8

This approach to the "Wetback Problem" is taken a step

further by Julian Samora, author of Los Mojados. He believes the

pr~~ence of undocumented Mexican workers is "profitable" to the

1J~~ted States economy for three reasons: II . employment of

officials to apprehend, care for, and expel the aliens; the money that the aliens spend before being apprehended and the cheap labor which the aliens represent. 11 9 Samora sees "the insatiable demand for

cheap labor in the U.S. and the tremendous population increase

occuring in Mexico" as the two most important causes of "illegal" immigration. The Border Patrol, he adds, has worked not to "apprehend and exclude illegal aliens, but to regulate the numbers

8 Galarza, p. 61. 9 Julian Samora, Los Mojados: The Wetback Story, (Notre Dame, 1971) p. 5. 50

already in this country. 11 10 He goes on to conclude that, based on

11 research conducted by him and his associates, ••• the transition from a relatively open border to a relatively closed border occurs in

cycles depending on the demands of the U.S. economy, particularly

as such demands affect the Southwest. The relaxation of immigration policy, the relaxation of enforcement, and the employment of

illegal Mexican aliens appear related to these cycles. The movement of Mexicans over the border appears to be related to the efforts of U.S. employers to encourage the relaxation of immigration re-

striction and enforcement at boom times or in extended periods of prosperity, whereas, the greatest efforts to clear out Mexicans occurs in the anticipation of a recession or during times of widespread unemployment. 11 11

Bert Corona, long-time Mexican activist and more recently involved in protecting the rights of "illegal aliens, 11 sees the undocumented Mexican worker as a victim of United States capitalism.

He points out that the multi-national corporations, which account for

25% of Mexico's gross national product, also are prime employers 12 of undocumented Mexican workers.

While commentators sometimes differ in their evaluations

lOibid. , p. 48 11 Ibid.' pp. 49-50. 12 Bert Corona, Speech at California State University, Northridge, February 11, 1975. 51

of the "illegal alien problem, 11 it cannot be denied that undocumented

Mexican workers have long been exploited by the growers and in

dustrialists of the Southwest. Naturally, these employers have found it economically advantageous to use "wetback11 labor. This is

evidenced by the fact that attempts to make it unlawful to hire un documented workers have been consistently opposed by growers and industrialists. To this day, it is not a punishable offense to hire an

11 illegal alien. 11 13

The early 1950 1 s were, as far as the Mexican 11 illegal alien11 was concerned, similar to the early years of the Great Depression.

In both periods there were efforts to recruit Mexican labor, followed by massive campaigns in which thousands of Mexicans were appre hended and expelled.

Not only were the events of those two periods alike, but the manner in which they were covered in The J,.os Angeles Times and La Opinion changed little in the intervening twenty years.

During the early 1950 1 s, as previously stated, there occured a massive campaign to drive out undocumented Mexican workers.

Prior to the campaign, which was known as 11 0peration Wetback, 11 there was much attention, 'in the form of senate hearings and studies given to the 11 wetback problem. 11

These senate hearings were duly reported in the Los Angeles

13 Ibid. 52

press. The Times, for example, reported in September 1951 that

Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota introduced a resolution seek-

'" ing $600, 000 to "continue the deportation by airplane" of undocument-

ed Mexican workers. He reportedly said the money was essential

for the "Immigration Service's fight against an 'invasion' by the

Mexicans. " 14

In the atmosphere of the "Red Scare, " even the "illegal

alien" came under suspicion. Reports of "reds" coming in from

Mexico disguised as workers first appeared in the Los Angeles

Daily News. These reports brought reactions from government

officials and representatives.

The Times and La Opinion both carried what could best be

termed 11 straight news accounts of these reactions, but still there

were differences between the two. For example, The Times report-

ed on February 26, 1951 that assistant Secretary of Labor Robert T.

Creasey said, "The complete disregard for lawfulness by Texas

employers (of Mexican aliens) has paved the way for Communists to

the U.S. from Mexico. 11 The next day it ran a story in which

Chairman John Woods of the House Committee on Un-American

14 "Deportation Fund Sought," Times, 12 September 1951, part I, p. 23. 15 "Reds From Mexico?" Times, 26 February 1951, part I, p. 16. 53

Activities was quoted as saying, "Communists are entering the U.S.

disguised as Mexican farm laborers. 11 16

La Opinion, interestingly enough, beat The Times with the

"Red Scare" story. The sources used were sometimes also different.

On February 20, Clyde Doyle, a congressman from Long Beach and a member of The House Committee on Un-American Activities report-

edly called for a committee investigation of the 11 red 11 braceros. La

Opinion apparently thought there was something to the charge, because it was pointed out that Doyle received his information from

"trustworthy" sources. 17 The next day H. R. Landon, Los Angeles

District Director of Immigration ap.d Naturalization, according to the

Spanish-language daily, repeated the charge and offered as proof

"Communist literature" found in the pockets of the braceros.l8 In its story in which Chairman Woods was the source, La Opinion was more complete in providing details than was its ,English-language counterpart. Some of the additional information included a quote from Woods in which he alleged that the "Reds" were being sent to

Baja California, and that from here they were slipping into the U.S. disguised as honest workers. He also said this represented a

16 11 Disguised Reds Work In U.S., Woods, 11 Times, 27 February 1951, part I, p. 8. 17 "Que Han Entrada Corriunistas Con Los Braceros," La Opinion, 20 February 1951, part I, p. 8. 18 "Comunistas Vienen De Braceros, Afirma El Sr. Landon, 11 La Opinion, 21 February 1951, part I, p. 8. 54

11.$~r_ious situation. 11 19

As in the early 1930's, The Times in 1951 published several

,stories which were generally unfavorable to the so-called "wetback".

:0Jl__e such story appeared Sept. 16, 1951 and was datelined Somerton,

-~-ri~o_na, "exclusive. 11 It dealt with "the wetback invasion" of the

;tl;w;;t :there is no room left for domestic criminals ... who have legi-

;tilXlJ;l;:te business there, 11 wrote the reporter. "Mexicans, eager to

':'i

-wa_ges, 11 the writer continued, "have little trouble getting across into

.A:rizo_na. But since Congress has prescribed severe penalties (sic)

~ ~_roployment of illegal entrants, it isn't always easy for them to

:fi:nd jobs. 11 Because they could not find jobs, the reporter claimed,

1:h.e.s.e "wetbacks" became pests. "The police are always picking them

-u:P as they beg around town, or from where they lie down in alleys and school yards. Every morning the officers haul a load of Mexi- cans to San Luis. The U.S. Immigration Service shoos them over to San Luis, Sonora. That night, in all probability, the same wetbacks slip into Yuma Valley again. 11 20

19 "Que Los Comunistas Estan En B. C., 11 La Opinion , 27 February 1951, part I, p. 1.

2011 Wetbacks Flood Arizona Town, 11 Times, 16 September 1951, part I, p. 12. 55 f '

The story contains elements which merit some analysis.

First, it contains a factual error. It was not then, nor is it now a

punishable offense to hire an 11 illegal alien. 11 Secondly, the author's

choice of words has the effect of equating Mexicans with animals.

One does not ''haul a load 11 of people, and one usually 11 shoos 11 dogs,

cats or fowl. Finally, the story presents the undocumented Mexican

worker as a persistent pest.

From California's Imperial Valley came a report of a ser-

ious ·"wetback invasion. 11 In the words of The Times correspondent,

''Imperial County is on the front line of an invasion of illegal aliens from Mexico, creating serious law enforcement and health problems which are multiplying rapidly. . 11 It was also charged that the county's crime rate was the highest in the state, and, according to

Ed Parker of the Border Patrol, it was "due in part to the wetbacks.''

In addition, County Health Officer Austin Mathis is attributed as

saying that "wetbacks" are responsible for many of the county's dangerous diseases, 11 including women who come across the border to work in restaurants and bars. 11 The reporter made the intriguing observation that the Valley was 11 invaded11 by more than 500,000

"illegals" in 1952, 11 237, 000 of whom were caught; it is not indicated

21 how the figure of 500, 000 was arrived at.

21 "Border Area Cites Cost of Wetbacks, 11 Times, 3 September 1953, part I, p. 22. 56

In another story which appeared in The Times in the summer

of 1951, an undocumented Mexican worker was again presented in an

unfavorable light. The lede read, "Federal Judge Peirson Hall today

demonstrated that Uncle Sam means business when he flies an illegal

Mexican immigrant several hundred miles back to his home in

Mexico." The worker, who reportedly admitted re-entering the

United States, was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $250. Thus

the "criminal" was again a persistent pest. 22

Furthermore, it was the Mexican "illegal alien" who was viewed unfavorably. This is made clear in a story headlined,

"Swedish Youth Jailed Because He_Loves U, S. 11 The tone of the article is sympathetic. The Swedish boy reportedly said he loved the U.S. so much he would do anything to become a citizen .. He is not referred to as a "wetback" or even an "illegal alien;" instead he is called an "illegal entrant. 11 There is even mention made of the boy's 11 cultured accent." Nowhere in the sample taken were undocumented Mexican workers called illegal entrants, nor were they reported to have cultured accents. 23

The use of the term "wetback" without quotes is also indicative of The Times' unfavorable portrayal of the undocumented

22 11 Judge Means Business," Times, 21 July 1951, part I, p. 5. 23 "Swedish Youth Jailed Because He Loves U.S., Times, 7 February 1952, part II, p. 7. 57

Mexican worker. It is a term considered offensive by many

Mexicans, and The Times certainly could have avoided its use.

·However, on a few occasions The Times presented Mexican

"illegal aliens" somewhat sympathetically. In mid-1953 staff repor-

ter Charles Hillinger wrote a two-part series based on his experi-

ences with immigration agents as they conducted round-ups of undocumented Mexican workers in the Los Angeles area. The stories included quotes from "illegal aliens" and the agents. One quote from an immigration agent is revealing of the sympathetic tone of the articles. He is reported to have said, " ... We're not apprehending criminals when we chase wetbacks ... We're dealing with victims of misfortune and circumstance. 1124 Although it rarely happened, The

Times sometimes did break its pattern of negative portrayal of the undocumented Mexican worker.

Meanwhile, La Opinion was carrying its share of anti-

Mexican "alien" information. In reporting on the passage of the

Walter-McCarran immigration act, the paper claimed that the new law made it unlawful to hire illegal aliens;" this in turn facilitated their apprehension by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Furthermore, the law was considered good because it would cut job competition, which Ln the past had lowered wages. 25 The writer

24 Chuck Hillinger, "Wetbacks Lured By Higher Wages," Times, 27 April 1953, part I, p. 2. 25"Ley Contra Los Braceros Ilegales, 11 La Opinion, 28 March 1952, part I, p. 2. 58

left no doubt that he thought the law, which was aimed at the undocumented Mexican worker, was beneficial. However, the story was based on the erroneous belief that the Walter-McCarran act outlawed the hiring of "illegal aliens. 11 Actually, the law made the harboring and concealment of "illegal aliens" a punishable offense; hiring them was not to be considered harboring and concealment. 26

On August 18, 1953 a banner headline in La Opinion announced: "They Will Fight The Illegal Workers." The United Press dispatch reported that President Eisenhower told United States

Attorney General Herbert Brownell, in the words of the reporter,

"to use all means necessary to halt the growing wave of illegal workers." Brownell also reportedly said undocumented Mexican workers contributed to the drug and prostitution problems, because they were "victims" of these vices, but he did not explain how. 27 ·

The very next day Brownell was again the source for another page one anti-Mexican alien story. This time La Opinion quoted

Brownell that "Mexican illegal aliens" had created "a problem of the first magnitude" in enforcing immigration laws on the West Coast.

Thus, for two ccnseru1ive days, the Spanish:-1anguage daily gave front-page space to anti-Mexican "alien" stories, but did not print

28 follow-up stories to determine if the charges were true.

26Galarza, p. 62. 27"Combatir~n A Los Braceros Ilegales," La Opinion, 18 August 1953, part I, p. 8. 28 11 Medidas Contra Los Braceros, 11 La Opinion, 19 August 1953, part I, p. 1. 59

In January, 1954, Mexico and the United States were again

engaged in negotiations to extend the bracero program for another

year. However, the talks were soon broken off when the two coun-

tries could not reach an agreement on the wages to be paid to the workers. Consequently, the United States decided to carry on the program unilaterally, hiring "legal" workers only. Mexico, for its part, closed the border to those seeking work in California's Imper- ial Valley. What followed next revealed how swiftly United States immigration policy could change when it was economically expedient.

It also revealed that newspaper coverage of 11 wetbacks" could also quickly change.

On January 24, The Times reported in a front-page story that "over 3, 000 workers are on order for work in the Imperial

Valley," but because of "Mexico's sudden 'Iron Curtain' border

policy, II the growers might have trouble filling ~hat order. However, the next day, according to another page one story, undocumented workers were slipping across the border. The reporter claimed,

"Despite the 'iron curtain' policy, hungry and jobless braceros eluded police to be accepted by American officials for work iri U. S. fields. "29 It is interesting to note that the word "wetback" had now been substituted with "bracero. " A bracero was a worker who went through "proper" immigration procedure, but a "wetback" snuck

29rviolence Halts Wetback Crossing, 11 La Opinion, 24 January 1954, part I, p. 1. 60

across the border to work. Clearly, those coming to work were

11 11 11 "wetbacks , not brac eros.

By contrast, La Opinion did not change its definition of what

was a "legal11 and 11 illegal11 worker. For instance, a January 23

story told of 700 11 stubborn Mexicans'' who "illegally11 jumped the

border to be 11 enlisted11 by United States labor contractors. 30

For nearly two weeks both The Times and La Opinion gave daily coverage of the border incident. Stories describing the rioting

by Mexicans eager to cross the border appeared almost exclusively

on the first page, thereby indicating that the papers considered it a major news event.

Times reporter Bill Dredge wrote several dispatches from

Mexicali. The language used gave the impression that the rioting had taken on the proportions of a major battle. "3000 Mexicans Riot to

Enter U.S.; Fire Hoses and Charging Autos Disperse Angry Farm

Workers, 11 read the headline of one front page story in which Dredge wrote: 11 More than 3000 Mexican braceros, their tempers frayed by days of waiting for work in the promised land across the border, rioted unchecked for more than an hour this morning.

11 They finally were dispersed by desperate Mexicali police, firemen and immigration officials. Fire hoses and charging auto- mobiles were brought into play to keep the surging mob from

30 11Motin de Braceros, 11 La Opinion, 23 January 1954, part I, p. 1. 61

bursting through a seven foot-high wire fence which marks the closed

doors of the United States frontier. 11 It is important to note that

Dredge used the term bracero (which in this context means farmworker) to describe Mexicans seeking work. 31

La Opinion's coverage of the rioting of January 27 was.

~ssentially the same as The Times' except for additional elements in the former's version of the event. The Spanish-language daily reported that the Mexican government was now allowing any Mexi- ean freepassage across the border. Mexican immigration authorities were also quoted as saying that United States immigration officials had created a situation which forced Mexico to abandon its own immigration restrictions. 32 Neither of these elements were included in Times' coverage for that day.

La Opinion considered unwise the United States' decision to hire "braceros" unilaterally and said so editorially. The United

States, the editorial charged, had through its action forced many

Mexicans to violate the immigration laws of their land and, thus, become "wetbacks." The hiring of braceros under the present conditions, it added, went against the spirit of "The Good Neighbor

Policy. 11 The editorial further reasoned that Mexicors attempts to

31 Bill Dredge, "3000 Mexicans Riot to Enter U.S. 11 Times, :Z8 January 1954, part I, p. 1.

32.11 Hubo Varios Lesionados se Asegura, 11 La Opinion, ~8 January 1954, part I, p. 1. 62

close the border would fail, and 11 wetbacks 11 would continue to be

arrested "and returned to their country after being exploited by

growers without conscience who see the opportunity to obtain cheap

labor. 11 Finally, the editorial claimed that the border problem could

be solved through new negotiations between Mexico and The United

States, but a more lasting solution would be for Mexico to create the 33 means for offering employment to all of its citizens.

Several things are revealed in this editorial. First, La

Opinion clearly blamed the United States for border rioting. Sec-

ondly, the newspaper was not blind to the exploitation of the undocu-

mented Mexican worker. In addition, the theme of Mexico providing

work for its own as an alternative to its citiz.ens coming to the

United States to be exploited appears, just as it did in the editorials

of the 1930 1 s. La Opinion seemed to somehow blame Mexico for

"the wetback problem, 11 because that country could not offer work to many of its citizens. But it was never suggested how Mexico

could solve its economic problems.

By January 28, the situation at the Mexicali-Calexico border had become serious and prompted Bill Dredge of The Times to write

"This hustling border town continued its perch on a keg of human dynamite today as more than 6000 migrant farm workers milled and

stampeded against the international border fence. They were

33 11 Dos Aspectos De Un Problems, 11 La Opinion, 26 January 1954, part I, p. 4. 63 waiting for orders to work which never came." What had created the explosive situation, Dredge concluded, was the fact that The

United States was letting in Mexicans according to the labor needs

34 of Imperial Valley growers. If no workers were needed on a particular day, none were admitted. When work was available, it resulted in over 6000 men competing for 500 jobs. Thus, Mexicans desperate for work literally stood at the border hoping they would be given the opportunity to work in the fields of the Imperial Valley.

La Opinion's coverage of that day's rioting differed significantly from The Times'. For instance, it reported the use of fire hoses and cars to drive back those seeking to storm the border; no mention of this is made in The Times.

In an earlier dispatch from the troubled border, reporter

Dredge described the method by which Mexicans who slipped across the border "legalized" their entry in order to be hired. Of those who got across he wrote, "They did it by resorting to wetback methods of sneaking through the border fence." After the initial crossing, he explained, the potential workers had to play "foot tag" before the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service would allow them to be hired by growers. "The game, 11 he continued, "involves putting two feet on Mexican soil and then leaping back in the U.S.

It must be done before armed Mexican border guards can snatch the

34 Bill Dredge, "6000 Mexicans Mill About Fence At Border,n The Times, 29 January 1954, part I, p. 1. 64

braceros all the way into their homeland. If the wetbacks fail, they

are slapped, pushed and kicked into waiting patrol wagons and hustled back into Mexicali -- perhaps to jail. The more nimble of foot are declared, somewhat hypocritically, official migrants by the

Immigration Department and The U.S. Department of Labor. 11 35

In this story we see the term "wetback 11 used again in place of

"bracero 11 or 11 farmworker. 11 Dredge also commented that 11 wetbacks11 were declared legal ''somewhat hypocritically. 11 While it is of course

speculation, it may have been that Dredge, after a few days at the border, realized that what he had been calling 11 farmworkers, 11 were in reality so-called 11 wetbacks. 11

Both papers considered the situation in Mexicali as explosive. In La Opinion Mexicali was described as "a house on top of a barrel of dynamite, 11 while The Times said the town was sitting 11 on a keg of human dynamite. 11

While the Spanish-language daily had reported it earlier, on

January 30, the two papers carried U. P. dispatches announcing that

Mexico would allow its citizens free passage to come to the United

States for work. 36 The Times' much more edited version was only about half as long as La Opinion's.

35 "Braceros Contend For Jobs, 11 Times, 26 January 1954, Part I, p. 1. 36 "Podran Ya Salir Los Braceros, 11 La Opinion, 30 January 1954, part I, p. 1. 65

Reporter Bill Dredge, during the course of the border riot

ing, wrote several stories on the disturbances. A certain pattern

can be degected in them; i. e. , the early ones were superficial

accounts of the violence, with little analysis, while the later ones

looked at the causes of the violence. An example of these later,

more in-depth reports is one which appeared on January 31. In this

article, Dredge emphasized the desperation and explosiveness of the

situation. He also hinted that the Mexicans who were rioting for

work were pawns in United States agricultural manipulations.

These points are made clear in the following passage: "On the worn patience and frayed tempers of 12, 000 ragged Mexican farm workers, stranded here in desperate search of work, may depend the future of millions of dollars in Pacific Coast field and orchard

crops. The answer to this question will be delivered at dawn on

Monday.

"These 12, 000 Mexicans, welcomed at first, then pushed back from the United States, will rush against the unbending steel of American border fences when the sun comes up. Every man will grasp at one of the 500 harvest jobs to be offered by California farmers.

''If their conduct is orderly -- if 11, 500 men stand by --to see 500 recruited for jobs, success of the current border hiring plan is probably assured.

"But if the swarming mass of humanity stacked behind the 66

fence dividing the two nations' cities of Mexicali-Calexico follows an

earlier pattern of rioting, success of the experimental labor supply measure may be doomed. "

References were also made to the "explosive" and "tense''

situation in Mexicali as preparations were made for the expected rush. Both Mexican and United States immigration authorities, according to the reporter, feared a repetition of earlier violence.

In the final two paragraphs Dredge reveals some understanding of the dimensions of this episode in Mexican immigration.

He wrote: "So the big test of the border hiring plan will come on

Monday. At stake are the immediate futures of 12, 000 waiting braceros. They are tired, hungry, a little angry and totally in ignorance of the role they will play when they rush to the iron net- work of the border fence. They will seek only work to ease their hunger and grubstake their future.

"But also at stake will be the ripening, waiting crops of thousands of farmers in California, Arizona, Oregon and Washington, whose supply of labor -- if it comes at all must come through this border port. There are 10 times as many braceros in Mexicali as can be hired today. But not half enough workmen are here to supply the peak needs of farmers as the harvest season swells to its peak." 37

37Bill Dredg~, "Deadline Nears On Border," Times, 31 January 1954, part I, p. 1. 67

As for La Opinion, its January 31 story of the rioting bore

some similarities to Dredge's. The story, which carried the banner

headline: 11 New Bracero RiotFeared, 11 used much the same lang-

uage and stressed the same things as the Times' story. Specifically,

it spoke of the 11 explosive situation11 and the fact that neither Mexican v no United States authorities were predicting what would happen when

12, 000 men were left to fight for 500 jobs. But La Opinion reporter

believed it was 11 certain11 that the men who were not hired would riot.

He added that the fact that reinforcements had been ordered for the

United States immigration office in Calexico indicated that the U.S.

authorities shared his belief. 38

When the expected rioting broke out on February 1, it was

amply reported the next day on the front pages of both papers. The

headline on the Bill Dredge story announced, 11 Guns, Tear Gas Drive

Back Mexicans Storming Border. 11 The Times reporter told how

between 8, 000 and 10, 000 11 desperate Mexican farm laborers 11

charged the border fence repeatedly in efforts to get across. Dredge,

in this story, again took to calling the unemployed Mexicans 11 farm

workers. 11

But more significantly, the rioting was described in terms of

11 a battle. Dredge wrote, ••• American border patrolmen, exhausted

at continued pushing against the mass of humanity, dropped to their

38' 1Se Teme Un Nuevo Motin, 11 La Opinion, 31 January 1954, part I, p. 1. 68 knees. Then they scrambled for their lives as each wave of bodies

swept against the barrier. 11 In another paragraph, Dredge related that the border was opened for twenty minutes, during which time the alotted 500 to 800 were hired, and then the U.S. authorities readied for the onslaught. "Spread out across the roadway at the border port, more than 40 ... officers stood back, pistols, shotguns and gas bombs ready, in case the stampede should worsen.''

Unites States immigration officer, Richard L. Williams, quoted in the story, sounded much like a soldier involved in battle:

11 'I hope we don't have to go through a mess like this every time there's an admission quota. There might come a day when we won't be able to hold them back.' 11 Even Dredge's description of the debris left after the rioting was reminiscent of a description of a battlefield.

"Scattered across the trampled clay compound where thousands had milled in desperation were scores of articles of _clothing and ·scraps of cloth. They had been clawed by work-hungry braceros from the 39 bodies of their fellows. 11

La Opinion's coverage of that day's rioting was, in most respects, the same as the Times'. However, the Spanish-language paper chose to report that Mexican authorities did not approve of the

United States hiring plan. One paragraph read: "The Mexican authorities felt disheartened and displeased to see the thousands of

39 Bill Dredge, 11 8000 Mexican Rioters Held Back At Border," Times, 2 February 1954, part I, p. 1. 69

Mexicans willing to suffer all types of injuries in the struggle for a 40 few jobs in the United States. 11

The next outbreak of rioting was reported by Bill Dredge on

February 3, and again the story sounded like a dispatch from the front lines of a military encounter. The headline gave one the impression that the United States was being invaded by a foreign army:

"9000 Storm U.S. Border at Calexico; Patrolmen Turn Back Charges by Braceros Hurling Firebrands." This battle-like theme was carried throughout the story. "A yelling mob of more than 9000

Mexican braceros stormed the U.S. border again today, tossing firebrands and barrages of rocks as they came, 11 wrote Dredge. "They made two charges and both times came sprawling onto U.S. territory before border patrolmen turned them back.

Describing the first attack of the day, Dredge claimed, "At

6:25, just as the sun peeped over buildings, one knot of 15 men emitted war whoops and charged wildly for the U.S. border.

"They were joined in a flash by a large contingent of their compatriots ... 11 The use of the term "war whoops 11 suggests a comparison to an Indian attack. 41

This marked the end of the 11 Mexican border riot" stories

4 0 11 0tro Tumulto De Braceros En Mexicali, 11 La Opinion , 2 February 1954, part I, p. l.

41 "9000 Storm U.S. Border at Calexico," Times, 3 Februa:z.y 1954, part I, p. 1. 70 in both papers. In covering this violent episode in Mexican immigra tion, the newspapers displayed some similarities and differences.

Both considered the rioting important; almost all the stories which dealt with the violence were printed on the front page. Both consi dered the atmosphere around Mexicali ''tense" or ''explosive. n They differed in that the Times displayed inconsistency in the use of the term ''braceron or ''farmworker'' and ''wetbackn. Those Mexicans who were rioting in Mexicali could not be called ''farmworkers'' or

"braceros'' until they had actually been hired, yet Dredge at times called them that. Once they were across the border, Dredge called them either nbracerosn or nwetbacks"; it may have been that Dredge was confused by the changing U.S. immigration regulations of what constituted nlegaln immigration during the panic hiring of Mexican laborers in January, 1954.

Furthermore, The Times on ocassion viewed the riots as battles, while La Opinion did not. The most important difference, though, is that La Opinion clearly placed the blame on the United

States for the trouble because of that country's decision to begin a unilateral program of contract labor. The Times, through its reporting alone, suggested the disasterous situation at the border was a result of a misunderstanding between the two countries. In sum, it could be said that both papers, while displaying the differen::e already mentioned, realized the importance of the rioting and gave it ample coverage. 71

As was the case in the 1930's, in early 1954, United States

economic interests had facilitated the importation of Mexican labor.

By mid-1954 it was no longer economically desirable to have so many

"wetbacks" around, and a drive to get rid of the excess was planned.

Grebler calls "Operation Wetback", as the drive was called,

II . the most massive and highly organized effort in our history to apprehend and repatriate illegal migrants." The intensity of the drive is demonstrated by the fact that in 1953 there were approximately 875, 000 Mexican aliens apprehended, while in 1954, the year 42 of "Operation Wetback," 1, 035,282 were caught.

In summer 1953, President Eisenhower appointed former comrade-in-arms General Joseph M. Swing as Commissioner of

Immigration and Naturalization. After a tour of the Mexico-U.S. border to view first-hand ''the wetback problem, 11 U.S. Attorney

General Herbert Brownell decided an anti-"wetback" campaign would solve the problem. Thus, in typical military fashion Swing set

"Operation Wetback" for June 17 at 9 a.m. Groups of 12 border patrolmen were to conduct raids of farms and factories and set-up roadblocks in their effort to catch "illegal aliens" wherever they might be. 4 3

What prompted "Operation Wetback?" Government officials

42 Grebler, p. 33. 43 Tomasek, p. 269. 72

would answer that "wetbacks" had "flooded" the Southwest and were aggravating the crime problem, taking jobs they had no right to hold, bringing disease and just generally making a nuisance of themselves.

But, Galarza offers a more truthful answer when he points out that the bracero program offered all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages of 11wetback labor. 11 The program was 11 a practical and safe alternative 11 to the use of "illegals; 11 thus the growers, during Operation Wetback 11 cooperated mainly by identifying Wetbacks

44 they had not been able to recognize before. 11

Just as the deportations and repatriations of the 1930 1 s were

11 11 preceeded by published warnings, , 0peration Wetback, which was to begin in California and later move to Texas, received coverage in the Los Angeles press up to a week before the- drive began. For instance, La Opinion on June 10 ran a front-page story which warned of the planned drive. Herman R. Landon, Los Angeles area director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, reportedly informed the newspaper that Attorney General Brownell was to launch 11 a special program to apprehend and deport foreigners illegally in this country... " Furthermore Brownell 11 announced11 that he would ask

Congress to make it illegal to hire 11 illegal aliens 11 and provide for the confiscation of vehicles used to transport undocumented workers.

44 Galarza, p. 70. 73

While it can best be classified as ''straight news account'' of the announced campaign, the fact Landon would go through the trouble to inform La Opinion, leads one to suspect that the published story was actually part of a plan to scare away ''illegals. 11 45

''Operation Wetback" was not scheduled to begin until June

17, yet on June 15, a banner headline in La Opinion claimed, 11 The

Round-up of Illegal Workers Begins." It was reported that Mexican

"illegal aliens" were being 11 arrested and deported" and "many thousands" were crossing back into Mexico, presumably out of fear of being deported. It was also emphasized that even though thousands were returning to Mexico, "Operation Wetback" would go on as scheduled and that it would be the biggest campaign against "illegal workers" in history. Furthermore, "all of the Southwest" would be covered by the drive. 46 In all probability, the Spanish-language paper was only reporting news, but may have been unknowingly parti- cipating in a pre-"Operation Wetback" campaign to scare away

11wetbacks. 11

The Times, meanwhile, was informing its readers of the coming anti-"wetback" campaign. One would think a military battle were being reported in the Times' June 15 story: 11 Wetbacks in

Retreat as Raiders Near. 11 The story continued its battle-like

45 11 Medida Contra Los Braceros Ilegales, 11 La Opinion, 10 June 1954, part I, p. 1. 46"Se Inicia La Batida Contra Los Braceros Ilegales," La Opinion, 15 June 1954, part I, p. 2. 74

terminology: ''The flow of wetback Mexicans into California was suddenly reversed yesterday in the face of reports that full scale raids will be started against them by an army of immigration agents recruited from all over the United States. 1147 Two questions which come to mind, and which are not answered, are, How was it known that the 11 wetback'' flow was ''reversed? 11 and, if indeed it was, how was it known it was 11 reversed 11 because of reports of 11 0peration ·

Wetback? 11

Two days before the publicized 11 0peration Wetback, 11 La

Opinion editorialized that the campaign was only a partial 11 solution11 to 11 the problem of illegal workers. 11 What was really needed was to make it a punishable offense to hire undocumented workers and provide for the confiscation of vehicles used to transport 11 illegals. 11

As things were now, all the penalties fell on the workers, "who attracted by the enticement of high salaries crossed the border, putting their lives in danger and exposing themselves to all types of exploitation, being that they are not covered by authority of any country... 11 Thus, the 11 wetback problem, 11 it was. concluded, could never be solved by massive round-ups. 48

The Times, for its part, continued to view and describe

4711 Wetbacks in Retreat as Raiders Near, 11 Times , 15 June 1954, part I, p. 2.

48 11 El Problema De Los BraceroB Ilegales, 11 La Opinion , 15 June 1954, part I, p. 8. 75

relations between the United States and undocumented Mexican work-

ers as a military action. This is revealed in stories such as the one

which appeared one week before the big drive. The headline set the

tone of the story: "Government Maps War on Wetbacks," and the use

of military jargon is clearly shown in the lead: "A major war on

wetbacks, employing a reinforcement corps of 491 immigration

officers recruited from all parts of the country, will be launched

along the California-Mexico border next Thursday to send tens of

thousands of illegally entered Mexican aliens back into Mexico. 114 9

It was made clear that the drive was not to be aimed at

"legal contract labor, 11 but ''at the increasing flow of line-jumping

Mexicans -- a flow that has increased at a fantastic rate during

recent months until local border patrolmen have been swamped by the hordes that stream across the international boundry nightly. 11

Attorney General Brownell is also attributed as saying that he was concerned about ''the possibility of large numbers of subversives who may be entering the country under the guise of farm laborers. '' To leave no doubt about the undesirability of undocumented Mexican workers, Brownell reportedly said that they displaced domestic agricultural and industrial workers, were contributing to "the increasing crime rate11 and were spreading 11 communicable diseases. 11 50

4 9"Govt. Maps War On Wetbacks, 11 Times 10 June 1954, part II, p. 3.

50Ibid. :u

Judging from the pre-"Operation Wetback" coverage, it coukl

be expected that the actual round-up would receive fairly extensive

coverage. It did. The Times announced on June 17, "The big

federal round-up of Mexican nationals illegaly in the United States is

scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. today with a force of nearly 100 men

forming a dragnet here to ferret out wetbacks who are living and

51 working in the Los Angeles area. 11

The next day, both papers carried at least one front-page

story on the results of the first day's activities. The Times head-

lined, '500 Nabbed By L.A. Wetback Raiders. 11 52 But La Opinion's

reportage was much more extensive; it carried three lengthy stories,

while its English-language counterpart had one brief one.

Besides length and number, there were other differences

between the stories in the two papers. The Times limited itself to

giving numbers and a few general facts about the round-up, whereas

La Opinion gave the names of some of those apprehended and went

into greater detail. On June 18, the paper bore the banner headline:

"Hundreds of Braceros Arrested'' and three front-page stories on

"Operation Wetback. 11 One of these stories told that more than 500

"braceros" had been deported "by bus, after being held prisoners for

51 "Wetback Drive Set", Times, 17 June 1954, part I, p. 28.

52"500 Nabbed By L.A. Raiders, 11 Times, 18 June 1954, part I, p. 1. 77

a few hours in a concentration camp in Elysian Park." The use of

the term "concentration camp" has rather strong connotations, and

this author feels its use may be indicative of La Opinion's negative

view of the round-up. The Times, by contrast, did not even mention

the detention center. Further in the story, the reporter related how

one Raul Diaz, a "wetback, " sustained injuries in his attempt to

escape immigration agents. Also mentioned were a man, his wife

and their two children "and many women" who were apprehended in

raids in other parts of the city. The fact that the reporter considered

it important enough to include incidents involving individuals in his

story, demonstrates that La Opinion perceived the round-up as a

human event, not as a campaign against a faceless horde, as The

Times seemed to. 53

In an interesting question and answer story involving the

Mexican consul general in Los Angeles, La Opinion, by the questions

it asked, demonstrated that it was concerned, at least to some deg-

ree, with the well-being of the Mexican community during "Operation

Wetback." For example, the reporter asked, "Can the consulate

demand . . . that immigration authorities have restraint at the time

of apprehension of our people? 11 Another question was, "Can the

consulate prohibit the publicity that this matter is receiving in the newspapers .and television stations. " The consul replied that he

53"Centenares De Braceros Arrestados," La Opinion, 18 June 1954, part I, p. 1. 78

could not, of course, control what was printed. But he had been

·promised by immigration officials that there would not be television

coverage to which the consulate "might object. 11 54

On June 19, La Opinion staff writers Nicolas Avila and

Enrique De Alva reported that many of those deported were paying

their bus fares to the border, supposedly to make them eligible for

"legal" immigration in the future.· It was alleged that by paying their

way, the "illegals" were voluntarily leaving, and not being deported.

It should have been obvious to the reporters that those apprehended

were not leaving voluntarily, regardless if they pay their fares, yet

Avila and De Alva did not delve into the matter as they should have.

However, they did report that many of the men were "bitter"

at being " 'locked-up like animals' " and sent to Mexico. They re-

portedly were especially bitter with Mexico because it did not give

them the" 'opportunity to make a living. ' 11 One ~eportee, Jose

Gutierrez, said he was returning 11 .'worse than when I came.' "

Another added that he and the others would not be in the United States

55 1"f th ere were a way t o earn enoug h money 1n . M extco. . Thus, 1"t was

an extremely superficial account of a complex event. The deportees

could have been asked if they were indeed voluntarily leaving and

54Ibid.

55Nicolas Avila and Enrique De Alva, ''Muchos De Ellos Estan Pagando Sus Pasajes, 11 La Opinion, 19 June 1954, part I, p. 1. 79

whether they thought they were being dealt with fairly. Here was an

opportunity to engage in important investigative reporting, but La

Opinion chose not to.

Times reporter Bill Dredge was once agains sent to the

Mexico-United States border, this time to cover the anti- 11wetback11 d:rive. Dredge, while writing of human suffering, seemed to be

saying: "These Mexicans are used to suffering; they can take it. 11

His story, headlined, "Wetbacks Herded at Nogales Camp; 1187 Wait in Blistering Heat for Last Leg of Journey Home, "told how the vi~tims of "<:::peration Wetback11 were made to wait for a train in the

11 Mexican desert. He wrote, ••• a! midpoint in the morning's misery their tempers flared into a half humorous Mexican kind of anger born o! frtistration. 11 The men then reportedly threw rocks and fruit at tf:nited States newsmen, injuring one of them. Dredge concluded that the undocumented workers would return to 11 the Golden Land. 11

"Among them all there is not one happy' heart. By the same token, there is hardly a one discouraged by this heavy rebuff. Almost to a

56 man, they're coming back. 11 Dredge, based on what was necessarily limited observation, asserts that most of the 1187 men would return, and indeed were anxious to do so. There was, of course, little evidence upon which he could have made such a broad general- ization.

56 Bill Dredge, "Wetbacks Herded at Nogales Camp, 11 Time~, 20 June 1954, part I, P• A. 80

La Opinion was silent on 11 0peration Wetback 11 until June

22nd. On that day an editorial appeared which harshly criticized

Attorney General Brownell for the way in which the round-up was conducted. Specifically, it attacked the 11 sensationalism 11 which accompanied the raids. The editorial said that if it had been

Brownell's intention to create an atmosphere of 11 sensationalism11 about the round-up 11 to provoke the voluntary repatriation of thousands ... and to discourage many others who were thinking of entering illegaly ... then it can be said that, for the most part, he accomplished his objective. 11 However, he was to be criticized for this. The editorial pointed out that it was inappropriate to have a detention center so near to downtown Los Angeles and in a public place (Elysian Park). Further, the editorial objected to the 11 semi military11 way (the use of a zero-hour and concentrations of immi gration agents in 11 strategic locations 11 ) in which 11 0peration Wetback 11 was carried out. But what was most deplorable was the 11 great publicity given to the campaign in cameras fihning the arrests. 11 It continued, these scenes viewed 11 in millions of homes 11 across the country, gave the impression it was 11 a war against criminals. 11

A somewhat disappointing aspect of the editorial was the placing of the blame for 11 the wetback problem 11 on Mexico. This familiar theory, which had appeared in La Opinion editorials from the early 1930's, was used to explain how it was possible for millions of

Mexicans to be lured away from their homes. Mexico, it was 81

charged, was entirely responsible for the problem simply because that country could not provide work for the majority of its residents.

Finally, the editorial mentioned the possibility of violations of constitutional rights of the deportees and called for an investigation by Brownell. 57

The editorial was commendable for its criticism of the round-up methods used. But a major shortcoming was its condem- nation of Mexico for not being able to give its people work. The editorial failed to see the role played by the United States, which actively solicited cheap Mexican labor.

"Operation Wetback" brought protests even in this era of extreme repression-- from various segments of society. La

Opinion reported these protests, but The Times did not. One such story which appeared in the Spanish-language paper dealt with a protest se~t by Los Angeles attorney J. Widoff to Attorney General

Brownell. The lawyer objected to the violation of constitutional rights of the deportees. Immigration agents, he said, were going to people's homes without authorization and arresting them on suspicion of being "illegal aliens. 11 To illustrate his charge of constitutional violations, Widoff cites the case of a client, Hilario Duran. The client had been picked up and detained as an "illegal alien. 11 As soon as the Immigration and Naturalization Service office opened the next

5711Un Criticable Sensacionalismo, 11 La Opinion, 22 June 1954, part I, p. 8. 82

day, Widoff served notice that he would represent Duran in deportation proceedings. He was told he would hear from immigration authorities. When he did not, he called and was told Duran "had probably been sent to Mexico. 11 Widoff was quoted as saying that it appeared as though "all the constitutional rights had been suspended in California and homes were being subject to forceable search without proper orders and the documents of those arrested seized.

There people are arrested and thrown out of the country without being given the opportunity to exc ercis e their legal or constitutional rights."

He also claimed that all those detained should be given the chance to defend themselves against charges, but because they were not, all deportations and round-ups should be stopped. 58

On June 23rd, La Opinion reported that Kenneth Temple of the Los Angeles office of immigration said although the round-ups were hardly needed, because so many "illegals" had been caught, they would continue until all the "illegal residents" had been "made to leave. 11 Temple also claimed that ''95% of those apprehended left ''voluntarily;'' that is, they paid their fares to Mexico. But what was most important was the mention of pickets in front of the Rowan

Building in Los Angeles. Members from "The Office of the Defense of the Foreign Born" were there to protest "the round-up tactics. 115 9

58 11 Protesta For La Redada De Braceros", La Opinion, 20 June 1954, part I, p. 1. 59 11Redada De Braceros En Su Fase Final", La Opinion, 23 June 1954, part I, p. 1. 83

No further mention is made of the protest. The reporter certainly could have interviewed some of the protesters; instead, La Opinion again failed to follow-up on a matter of obvious news value.

Nevertheless, the paper did at least give some coverage to the protests over "Operation Wetback. 11 If one had read only The

Times, it would have appeared as though everyone was accepting the raids and round-ups.

Shortly after the anti-"wetback" campaign began, newspaper coverage diminished to almost nothing. But about two months later success was being attributed to the campaign. For example, on

August 13th The Times reported that as a result of getting rid of

40, 000 ''wetbacks" in California, the state was saving $325, 000 a week in unemployment funds. A somewhat remarkable and incredible statement was attributed to William A. Burkett, director of

Employment. He reportedly said that "at the pr,esent time 'all domestics have work' and Mexican nationals will be used only 'to prevent crop losses.' 11 60 It would seem highly unlikely that every domestic should have work; yet The Times apparently did not question this allegation.

Thus ended another period of intensive coverage of Mexican immigration in the Los Angeles press. In review we can see some similarities and.many differences in the coverage given to Mexican

60 · "Wetback Drive Saves Taxpay-er Dollars', 11 Times, 13 August 1954, part I, p. 18. 84

immigrants in the two papers. Generally speaking coverage in the papers changed little in the intervening twenty years. This is clear when one considers their similarities and differences.

The most obvious similarity is that both portrayed the un documented Mexican worker negatively, The Times much more so than La Opinion . The English-language daily frequently used the term 11wetback11 without quotes, whereas La Opinion, in the sample taken, never did.

Another similarity is that both newspapers appeared to have been used to publicize 11 Q:>eration Wetback. 11 That is, they carried press releases put out by Attorney_General Brownell, complete with the thinly-veiled threats of deportations. Neither paper, prior to

11 0peration Wetback, 11 questioned the desirability of such a drive, they just printed the releases on the front page.

On the other hand the papers differed in many ways. The

Times , with the exception of a few stories, played-up what could best be termed the sensational. This is demonstrated in Bill

Dredge's coverage of the rioting at the Mexican border. La Opinion , by contrast, made attempts through its editorials to analyze the situation at the border as well as "Operation Wetback. 11 Finally, the

Spanish-language paper reflected more concern with "Operation

Wetback" and its effects on the Mexican community than did The

Times. This is demonstrated by the greater number of stories and 85

the subjects covered in those stories. A case in point is the question and-answer interview with the Mexican consulate. The questions asked him reflect this concern. The Times, as it was in the 1930's, saw the removal of masses of Mexicans as a great saving for tax payers. Further, La Opinion harshly criticized the methods used in the round-up of "illegals." The Times, as might be expected, never even hinted that there might be questionable practices employed in

"Operation Wetback."

The anti-Mexican immigrant sentiment which culminated in "Operation Wetback, 11 the largest deportation drive in the nation's history, up to that time, subsided s9mewhat, as reflected by the lack of attempts to regulate immigration from Mexico. However this sentiment resurfaced by the early 1970's. We are presently witnessing a repeat of the anti-Mexican alien feeling of the early

1930's and 1950's. The next and final chapter will analyze stories dealing with Mexican immigration in the 1970 1 s. III

After the wide- scale deportations of the early and mid

19501 s, the "illegal alien problem" did not become a national concern

again until the early 1960 1 s. This is evidenced by the number of

aliens apprehended during this period. According to Samora, the

number of undocumented Mexicans in the United States dropped con tinuously between 1955 when 242, 608 were "located" and 1962 when the figure was 30, 272.

However, since the early 1960 1 s the number of "illegal alien" apprehensions has increased steadily " ... shooting past

100, 000 in 1967, reaching 250, 000 by 1970 and 300, 000 in 1971." As the figures began to climb, the "illegal alien problem" received much the same kind of coverage in the Los Angeles press as it did in the

19 3 0 1 s and 19 50 1 s .

The coverage for the 1970's began on a sensationalistic note when it was reported nationwide on October 6, 1971 that 36 "illegals" had been found by immigration authorities working in a Mexican food plant owned by United States Treasurer n0minee Romana Banuelos.

Ti.J:nes reporter Harry Bernstein wrote that the plant had been raided five times before and that George K. Rosenberg, district director of the INS had reportedly sent a letter to Banuelos 11 1 plead ing' 11 with her to stop employing illegals. 11 Banuelos was quoted as

-86- 87

saying, 11 1 If I asked every person who came to us for a job about

their immigration papers, I'd start a fight. 11 The company's general

manager, Samuel Magana, according to Bernstein, said that undocu-

mented workers " 'work hard because they know the risk they take

when they come here.' 11 Rosenberg had the last word saying that

it was 11 'easy' 11 to find out about a person's immigration status, and

11 1 if an employer continues to hire illegal aliens in large numbers, then I have to conclude as a reasonable person that they don't give a damn.' 11 The effect of the story was to tarnish Banuelos' reputa- . 1 tlOll.

La Opinion's account of the raid, in contrast to The Times, contained no· quotes and Banuelos' son, Carlos, was attributed as

2 saying he did not know the wherabouts of his mother. In short, The

Times got the story, and La Opinion did not.

Frank Del Omo, a reporter for The Times, told of two undocumented Mexican women workers. He described one as "extremely pretty" and "vivacious" and reportedly lived with 11 'friends! 11

One can only speculate as to why he placed quotes around the word friends. The other worker, by Del Omo' s account, had a "plain face, 11 was "quiet... shy" and lived with an aunt. Both, he added,

~arry Bernstein, "Raid on Plant of Treasurer Nominee Nets Illegal Aliens, 11 Times, 6 October 1971, part I, p. 3.

2 "Redada de Illegales en la Planta de la Senora Banuelos, 11 La Opinion, 6 October 1971, part I, p. 2. 88

sent "a good portion of their wages back to their families in

Mexico. 113 This story seemed to back up the claim that "illegals 11 contribute to the balance of payments deficit by sending money out of the United States.

On October 7, "the illegal alien problem" was once again presented in sensationalistic fashion when it was reported than an undocumented Mexican worker 11 managed to get past the Secret

Service and was employed at the Western White House ... 11 The reporter continued, "The disclosure dramatizes not only the problem of security for President Nixon, but also the substantial increase in the number of aliens illegaly enter~ng this country in recent months. 11

In the same story it was reported that the American Federation of

Government Employees estimated that there were between 1. 5 and

2 million "illegals 11 in the United States who cost the country

"billions of dollars 11 to send them back. Furthermore, these

"illegals 11 11 1drain the nation1s finances by sending at least $500 million a year to their native countries, thus creating huge balance- of-payments deficits.' 11 The AFGE concluded that the White House

11 case ' ••• helps prove our point that the situation is now getting entirely out of hand, and quick governmental action is urgently 4 needed.' "

3 Frank Del Omo, 11Alien Girls Tell of Brief Life In U.S., 11 Times , 6 October 1971, part I, p. 3. . 4Harry Bernstein, "Illegal Alien Hired as Western White House Gardner, Times, 7 October 1971, part I, p. 3. 89

The bias in this story is quite evident. The reporter claims that the apprehension of one undocumented worker dramatized the big increase in the number of "illegals" coming to this country. The apprehension of this worker, who was not paid for his two day's work, could perhaps more appropriately dramatize the extent to which undocumented workers are exploited. AFGE' s anti-alien statements were not balanced with comments from those working to protect the rights of undocumented workers. The tone of the story was clearly anti-"illegal alien. 11

With so much attention being paid to the "illegal alien pro blem, 11 it seemed natural for The Times to take an editorial stand on the issue. Thus, on October 8, the editorial staff called for

11 justice" in the question of the undocumented Mexican worker. The editorial pointed out that it is an is sue that affects the entire Chicano community, because many, although U.S. citiz~ns, have relatives or friends who are "illegals. 11 Undocumented workers were referred to as " ... substantial citizens, contributing their share to society, yet deprived of civil rights and always under the threat of deportation... " However, "· .. justice must be done American citizens on welfare rolls who have been displaced by illegal immigrants."

How, then, could there be "justice" for both the "illegal immigrant" and the "American citizen? 11 The Times suggested that a law be promulgated making it an offense to hire and exploit "illegal immigrants. 11 Furthermore, "amnesty" should be granted to those 90

5 who entered the United States "illegaly" before 1960.

The editorial is significant for several reasons. First, it marked the first time the daily called for "amnesty" for certain undocumented workers. Second, The Times (in this editorial) was no longer using the designation "wetback. 11 But it still bought the

story that "illegals" somehow forced many United States citizens to go on welfare. The editorial left one with the feeling that undocumented workers were a problem that this country must tolerate, but only to a certain point. In effect it was saying that those whom came

' here to be exploited before 1960 should be pardoned for their crime, while those who came later must still be punished.

The Times followed this editorial with an anti- 11 alien11 story by labor writer Harry Bernstein. In the story Bernstein described the huge profits being made by smugglers of aliens. He also claimed that there were between 200, 000 and 300, 000 un9-ocumented Mexican

11 1 11 workers, ••• commonly known as 'Wetbacks ... living in Los

Angeles "with far more coming in each day than are being caught and returned ... 11 Bernstein continued, "Even sympathetic Mexican-

Americans complain that the wetbacks are taking jobs from U.S. workers. Authorities estimate that up to $5 billion a year is earned by the illegal aliens, with $1. 5 of that going back to Mexico.

5 "Justice In the Immigration Problem, 11 Times, 8 October 1971, part II, p. 6. 91

Despite the high unemployment problems in this country, an estimated 1. 5 million illegal aliens hold jobs in the U.S. 11 6

Once again The Times, in this story, portrayed the undocumented Mexican worker negatively. Bernstein left no doubt that

11wetbacks" were a problem. While he held undocumented Mexican workers partially responsible for the balance-of-payments deficit and the unemployment problem, he could have easily found many know- ledgeable Chicanos to contest these charges. Instead, he chose to cite only "authorities. 11

In January, 1972 La Opinion, after a lengthy silence on the subject, reported "illegal alien"-related stories. One story announced a demonstration to be held by CASA, an organization which works to protect the rights of undocumented Mexican workers. It told who would speak and what would be discussed at the meeting. The "theme' of the protest was 11 'No more deportations! 1 117

La Opinion co-rrespondent Aurelio Garcia reported that

Mexican residents of San Diego and Tijuana had been subjected to unjustified searches of their person and cars by United States immigration officers. Many of those who resisted the searches, it was

6Harry Bernstein, "Illegal Alien: Growing Peril to U.S. Worker, 11 Times, 22 October 1971.

7 "Recortadorio A Todos Los Extranjeros, 11 La Opinion, 26 January 1972, part I, p. 2. 92 reported, were beaten, Marco Antonio Cuevas, a United States citizen was accused of being an "illegal" and was allegedly beaten by

United States immigration officers when he would not "tell the truth" about his immigration status. A community worker was quoted as saying that his agency has received many similar complaints. 8

At about this same time, the so-called Dixon Arnett (Ass.,

R-Redwood City) bill, which would fine up to $500 those who knowingly hired an "illegal alien, 11 was receiving a fair amount of support from The Los Angeles Times. It came out editorially in favor of the law, calling it "a good first step" in solving the "illegal alien prob 9 lem. 11 Even after the bill had been passed, The Times continued its support of it. One Times reporter said of the ~egislation, "The law... was intended to give first crack at jobs to Californians and to U.S. citizens and to discourage the hiring of unlawful aliens who

10 would work cheaper. " The reporter more accurately should have written that this was the stated intention of the law, for he could not have known its true intention. A few days later Harry Bernstein reported that, according to Donald Williams, deputy director of the

INS in Los Angeles, "Nearly 90 illegal Mexican aliens a day have

8 Aurelio Garcia, "Denuncia Contra Aduaneros de E. U. en San Ysidro, " La Opinion, 26 January 1972, part I, p. 5 9 "Penalty for Hiring Illegal Aliens, " Times, 3 November 1971, part II, p. 6. 10 "Committee Rejects Bill to Repeal Alien Hiring Law, 11 Times, 16 March 1972, part I, p. 3. 93

been voluntarily surrendering themselves to federal authorities here

as a result of a new state law which is still not being enforced. The implication of the statistics is that many employers who have been knowingly using illegal aliens are ready to comply with the new law

... " He concludes, "The measure was designed to slow down, if not halt the dramatically increasing flow of illegal aliens into this

country ... 11 Frank Del Omo reported that a "split" between those in the Latin American community in favor and those against the

Arnett law was in danger of developing. Del Omo claimed that while many sympathized with those who come to this country seeking em-

11 ployment, ••• they must also face the fact that those same aliens adversely affect employment opportunities for Mexican-Americans, lowering their wages by competing for work if not taking potential 11 jobs outright. 11

From these passages it is obvious that The Times editorial staff and at least three of its reporters saw good in the Dixon Arnett law. Bernstein went so far as to suggest that the law was directly responsible for undocumented workers turning themselves in. The law was eventually declared unconstitutional.

While The Times in its reporting of the Arnett controversy relied heavily on 11 authorities 11 for information, La Opinion used CASA as its source of information. In reporting on a CASA press confer-

11Frank Del Omo, 11 Chicanos Divid-ed By Sympathy For Aliens, Fear For Own Jobs, 11 Times, 25 March 1972, part II, p. 1. 94

ence in which the Arnett law was termed 11 anti-Mexican, 1 11

La Opinion correspondent Aurelio Garcia exhibited a strong pro-

CASA sentiment. He wrote of the organization, 11 CASA has become a defender of the rights guaranteed by the United States constitution to anyone in the country, regardless of their citizenship. They maintain a constant struggle against violations, oppression or unjust treatment that police, judicial, immigration or other official authorities rnay commit against Mexicans or descendants of Mexicans in

California. 11 Bert Corona, formerly associated with CASA, was quoted as saying that thousands of Mexicans were being 11 robbe.d of their jobs, separated from their families, persecuted as if they were criminals and deported to Mexico, often illegally11 as a result of the 12 law. Garcia also used the term undocumented Mexican worker in contrast to The Times' use of illegal or unlawful alien.

At another CASA press conference reported in La Opinion, but not in The Times , it was alledged that an orchard worker was

13 unjustifiably killed by immigration authorities. Several months later Garcia told of the 11tr emendous social and economic problen1s 11 being created in Baja California by the return of thousands of deportees.l4 Again, this was not reported in The Times. 12Aurelio Garcia, 11 Lideres de CASA Hablan Con La Prensa En Tijuana, 11 La Opinion, 16 February 1972, part I, p. 5.

13 Antonio Mendez, 11 Piden La Anulacion de La Ley Dixon Arnett, 11 La Opinion, 17 February 197 2, part I, p. 1. 14 Aurelio Garcia, 11 En Aviones Y Autobuses Repatrian a los Deportados, 11 La Opinion, 25 June 1973, part I, p. 3. 95

The Times on occassion chooses to describe the United

States Border Patrol as a group of rugged cowboy-types, shorthanded,

but nevertheless struggling to stop the flood of "illegals. " This is

exactly how the Border Patrol is portrayed in "The Border Game, " an article which appeared in a Sunday supplement in September 1972.

The author wrote, "· .. The outnumbered Border Patrol does little but track down the few hundred wetbacks it can grab daily, process them for 'voluntary return, 1 load them on buses and ship them home to Mexico. There is little to prevent the aliens from trying again.

The cost to the American economy in terms of lost jobs, squandered

15 welfare funds and unfair competition is incalculable. 11

Border Patrolman Ab Taylor, "The Hunter, 11 expressed satisfaction in hunting undocumented Mexicans. When they were caught, Taylor explained , Mexicans were "reconciled and resigned. 11

He continued, "The Mexican people are more aqle to take adversity in their stride than we are. They don't show their frustration so much 16 at having their plans spoiled. 11 The implication, of course, was that Mexicans did not mind too much enduring hardships to get across the border only to be caught and sent back to Mexico.

In a somewhat disjointed article which appeared in The

Times in late 1972 11 widespread corruption" on both sides of the

15 Tim Baskerville, "The Border Game", Times: West Magazine, 17 September 1972, p. 12.

16Ibid. 96

border is described as victimizing undocumented Mexicans. From

here, the article jumps to a discussion of "illegals" awaiting

11 'Voluntary deportation, which means simply they are willing to get

on the bus and go back home rather than fight it through the courts.

For most, they have been in that glass cage before, and they know they will probably be back.

"There is no way out except by bus and that leads only in one direction -- Baja. But some of the aliens fight back with a tragic sense of desperation. Hunks of plaster have been knocked out of the walls -- or clawed out by hand. The ceiling was repaired recently because aliens had tried t<:> claw their way through it, thinking they could somehow climb through the walls to freedom. But those who have been there before know there's no way out. Except by . 17 bus. And they know that someday they'll be back again. 11 In this overly dramatized presentation, undocumented Mexican workers are depicted as desperate and hopeless beings. But no attempt is made to explain the causes of this desperation and hopelessness.

Judging from news accounts in the Los Angeles press, wide- scale round-ups of undocumented Mexicans began within the first few months of 1973. A report in The Los Angeles Times told of a class action suit by the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund and The

17 . . . . . Lee Dye, "Corruption Plagues U.S. Along Mexican Border," Times, 17 December 1972, part I, p. 1. 97

American Civil Liberties Union "seeking to halt alleged indiscrimi- nate round-ups of persons suspeCted of being illegal immigrants ... 1 ~ 8

Four days later, June 27, The Times took a stan:d on the issue of 11 alien round-ups.'' The editorial said that the Supreme Court action of placing some restrictions on the INS' search operations was a "good decision. 11 It continued, "The decision coincides with widespread complaints in the Los Angeles area of excesses by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service during a recent round-up of aliens. There have been charges that Mexican-Americans have been abused, that constitutional rights have been violated, that illegal searches and arrests have been effected. It will take time to sort out the truth of these accusations. But the court decision will serve to remind all involved in the enforcement of the law that the

Constitution must not be set aside amid the enthusiasm for that enforcement. "l9

While the editorial applauds the court decision, it nevertheless casts some doubt on Chicano complaints. The phrase "sort out the truth of these accusations 11 implies that the truth of these charges was obscured by lies. That a Supreme Court decision was handed down is its elf indicative of the seriousness of these charges.

l8Gene Blake, "Halt to Deportations Sought, 11 Times, 22 June 1973, part II, p. 1. 19 "Illegal Raids on Illegal Aliens, 11 Times, 25 June 1973, part II, p. 6. 98

If The Times' editorial staff doubted the validity of the accusations, La Opinion did not. Their editorial claimed that the round-ups "have caused very serious alarm in our communities and have provoked public demonstrations by such organizations as CASA

11 ••• It added that many citizens had been harrassed by immigration authorities "only because of the bronze color of their skin. 11 The editorial concluded that, backed by the court decision and by "the concrete cases of the violation of the inalienable human rights ... we have confidence that the federal courts will act quickly and justly, stopping once and for all the excesses committed by immigration agents. n 20 The major difference between the two editorials is that

The Times' seemed to be saying, "These charges, in general, are not true, but it's good there's a court decision on the matter.in case they are true. 11 La Opinion took the position :that the charges were true and serious and hopefully the court ruling would put an end to these excesses.

The raids which in part prompted these editorials were reported by Times writers John Mosqueda and Frank Del Omo.

Interestingly enough, unlike the editorial staff of their paper, they seemed to believe the charges of constitutional violations. The raids in the Los Angeles area during mid-June, 1973 netted 11,500

20 11 nLas Redadas de Extranjeros Ilegales, • La Opinion , 28 June 1973, part I, p. 8. 99 undocumented people, mainly Mexicans. One Border Patrol agent

speaking of the raid -- reportedly the biggest in the Los Angeles area in the last twenty years -- said, " 1 This is one hell of a monu-

1 mental accomplishmnet. " The reporters commented, "he might have added that it also was a very controversial one. 11 Noting that the class action suit charged immigration authorities with "coercion and duress, denial of access to counsel, forcible removal from homes and jobs and acts of physical assault," the writers asserted,

"It is not difficult to find people in the local barrios who claim they 21 can document such charges." This statement stands in sharp contrast to the editorial printed a few days before the story, in which readers were told that the truth would have to be "sorted out."

It is often charged that "illegal aliens" place a heavy burden on the welfare system. In November 1973, The Times reported that

"A new system aimed at halting welfare payments of millions of dollars to illegal aliens in California was announced by state welfare director David B. Swoop." The plan was for the INS to screen

"aliens" applying for welfare to make sure they were legal residents.

That the reporter considered welfare payments to "illegals 11 a crucial problem is evident in the next sentence: "Currently, about 45,000 aliens in California are receiving public assistance, but a review of the state welfare board strongly suggests that the count is high enough'

21 John Mosqueda and Frank Del Omo, 1'U. S. Launches Drive Againstillegal Aliens, 11 Times, 27 June 1973, part II, p. 1. 100

to demand action. 11 22

A story reported in both La Opinion and The Times in

March, 1974 sounded much like a pre-"Operation Wetback" press release. The Spanish-language paper quoted Richard Batchelor, deputy chief patrol agent in the San Diego area as saying that the

Border Patrol had caught 19,000 "illegals" during February, "and each month the problem grows. 1123 The Times' version of the story was much longer, more detailed and somewhat alarmist. The Border

Patrol in San Diego, it was reported, was apprehending 11 as many as

600 illegal aliens a night this year as compared with an average of

300 a night in 1973 ... " The 19, 000 caught was a record high for a

February. Batchelor reportedly said, 11 'People think there has to be a limit, but the number of illegal immigrants keeps rising every year. ' 11 Another agent added, 11 'It's just about getting to the point where they run over us every night. 1 11 Batchelor concluded that there had been 11 'no significant increase in the number of border patrol agents since early last year. The only thing we can do is

24 work as hard as we can to contain the flow.' " The Times , just as it had in the early 1950's, by using only "authorities" as news

22"Welfare Director Announces Plans to Halt Welfare Pay ments to Illegal Aliens, 11 Times, 4 November 1973, part I, p. 2. 23 "Miles Caen en Redadas de Migracion, 11 La Opinion, 23 March 1974, part I, p. 1.

24 "U.S. Alien Seizures in SD Co. Double '73 Figures, " Times, 23 March 1974, part I, p. 25. 101

sources, made it seem as though the state were being innundated by

''wets.·"

In April, 1974 it was reported in The Times that a Mexican

woman, a government witness in the trial of an accused smuggler of

"illegal aliens, " had been in jail for 37 days because an assistant

U.S. attorney feared she would go back to Mexico if set free. The

Times, in its editorial of April 28, agreed with the judge's decision

to free the woman and claimed that by jailing her, she "was treated

like an object stored in a warehouse. 112 5 La Opinion took no notice

of the incident.

However, about the same time, the Spanish-language daily

ran a cartoon on its editorial page which depicted a man labeled

"illegals" with a large stake through him upon which was written:

"embezzlement, robbery, coyotes (smugglers of "aliens") and

"immigration matters. "26 It was clear that the cartoonist felt that

undocumented people were being victimized.

In what was undoubtedly the most significant government

proclamation relevant to undocumented people in the United States,

the then-United States Attorney General William Saxbe called for the

. deportation of one million "illegal aliens" in one year. As Saxbe' s

comments were of extreme importance, especially to the Mexican

25 "People are Still People," Times, 21 Aprill974, part II, p. 6. 26La Opinion, 22 March 1974, part I, p. 9, column 6. 102

community, it would be well to analyze the two newspapers 1 coverage of the incident. On October 31, 1974, The Times headlined: "Saxbe

Calls Aliens aU. S. Crisis; Cites Job, Crime, Welfare Costs, Wants to Deport One Million in Year. 11 Saxbe was attributed saying, "The illegal aliens hold millions of jobs, draw on social services ranging from schools to welfare, drain funds from the nation's troubled economy by sending away large amounts of money and mock our system of legal immigration. 1 11 The reporter added that, "Saxbe stressed that 1no prejudice of any kind exists 1 in efforts to shut off the flow of illegal Mexicans. 11 Saxbe' s comments sound remarkably similar to those made by government officials in the early 1930's 27 when speaking of "illegals. 11

La Opinion , meanwhile, as it usually does in national and world-wide stories, printed a wire service account of Saxbe 1 s statements. The story covered basically the same g!ound as The Times:

While the story was carried on the front page, it is significant to note that the banner headline was "President Ford in L.A. 1128

Of greater significance still is that The Times saw fit to re- ply to Saxbe's remarks, while La Opinion did not. The English- language daily's main editorial of November 1, 1974 charged that

Saxbe' s comments "have an unwelcome shrillness and simplicity to 27Ronald Ostrow, "Atty Gen. Saxbe Calls Illegal Aliens U.S. Crisis," Times, 31 October 1974, part I, .p. 1.

28 11 El Presidente Ford En Los Angeles," La Opinion, 31 October 1974, part I, p. 1. 103

them. This is not, as he suggested, a 'national crisis. 1 It is a prob- .

lem, but largely a regional problem most affecting the states border-

ing Mexico. "

The editorial continued, "The most chilling part of his ...

speech was his commitment to ferret out and deport 'Those who have

burrowed' more deeply into our society. 1 These are the very people

who are not, for the most part, a burden. They are a blessing. To

go after them, years after they have settled into constructive lives in the United States, would be an act of injustice and cruelty."

It was added that "the flood of illegal immigrants" represent-

ed "unfair competition" to "American" agricultural and industrial workers. "But to mount a massive drive, with a goal of a million deportations a year, is only to encourage more abuses by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service, which has too often ignored the constitutional rights of Mexican-Americans and has denied due process to the illegal immigrants themselves.

"As President Luis Echeverria of Mexico acknowledged to

President Ford at their border meeting last month, " the editorial concluded, "this is a problem that will not be solved until the economic gap between Mexico and the United States is narrowed. It takes more than wars of conquest and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to seal a frontier and divide a people. 112 9

29"Shrillnes s From the Attorney General, " Times, 1 November 1974, part II, p. 6. 104

This editorial represents some apparent change in thinking of the editorial staff. Whereas sixteen months earlier the staff had in effect questioned the truth of complaints against the INS, now it was saying that the INS was often guilty of constitutional violations and denial of due process. Furthermore, the staff, for the first time, recognized that immigration laws and arbitrary borders, such as the one which divides Mexico and the United States, can never solve "the illegal alien problem. 11 Rather, a solution would come in the form of a basic change in the relationship between Mexico and the

United States. The staff suggested narrowing the economic gap between the two countries. While much easier said than done, it nevertheless revealed more intelligent thinking than a suggestion to increase the number of Border Patrol officers and thereby "solve" the ''illegal alien problem. 11

As mentioned previously, La Opinion d,id not respond to

Saxbe' s remarks. Undoubtedly a large portion of the newspapers readers would be affected by a drive to deport one million, mostly

Mexican, aliens. Yet, for some reason, La Opinion let these threats pass unanswered.

In the early 1970's, the "illegal alien problem," in many ways, was covered by The Los Angeles Times and La Opinion in the same manner as it had in the previous decades-discussed in this report.

As in the early 1930's and early 1950's the alien round-up 105

of 1973 was preceeded by stories in The Times detailing the burden and troubles created by 11 wetbacks. 11 In all of these stories, The

Times relied almost exclusively on immigration 11 authorities 11 for information on the latest developments in the fight against the alien

11 invasion. 11

La Opinion , while no longer as staunch a defender of the rights of undocumented people, as evidenced by its lack of response to the Saxbe incident, still quoted community workers, such as members of CASA, more often than it did 11 authorities. 11

In the final incident cited in this report, Saxbe' s comments, it was the English-language daily, :v;ith undoubtedly few 11 illegal alien11 readers, rather than La Opinion, which spoke out against these threats to the Mexican community.

La Opinion's failure to take an editorial stand on an is sue so vital to its readers is an action incongruous with the paper 1 s editorial policy of denouncing excesses in immigration policing. The

Times 1 editorial and La Opinion's lack of one represented a step forward for the former and a step back for the latter.

While this report must necessarily end with October, 1974, undocumented people in this country continue to be a concern to the general public and the subject of news stories and editorials. It will be interesting to see which direction this coverage takes. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this historical overview, the performance of two metro politan dailies in covering Mexican deportations and emigration during three decades has been studied. The study has produced several conclusions about the newspapers which are clearly supported by the research presented here. Many of the conclusions apply only to a specifiC decade; others are general conclusions.

In the 1930's, the Box Bill and the deportations/repatriations were the events representative of Mexican emigration. The Los

Angeles Times, in both its reporting and editorials, made it clear that it was against the Box Bill, which would have restricted Mexican immigration. Although it was 1930, and at least three months after the stock market crash, The Times joined big business in calling for unrestricted Mexican immigration, lest there be a labor shortage in the Southwest.

La Opinion was never clearly in favor of nor against the bill. It only wished more Mexicans would stay in Mexico and that there were no need for the Box Bill.

In the case of the deportations, The Times did a flip-flop.

First it stressed the need for a large supply of Mexicans when it was thought they could be used to labor in the industries of the Southwest.

-i06- 107

But, when it became clear that there would be no jobs for them, The

Times favored deportations.

La Opinion reported questionable practices by immigration authorities, which The Times did not. Quotes from an unnamed informant may have been the newspaper's way of expressing its opinion. There was also a comment by a reporter which suggested that The Los Angeles Citizen's Committee on Coordination of

Unemployment Relief was partially responsible for the deportation hysteria.

The Times saw the repatriations as a great saving for the county. Several stories emphasiz~d that shipping the Mexicans

11 back home" was saving taxpayers money that would otherwise have been spent in caring for them. One story also claimed that the re patriated Mexicans were much better off in their "native land. 11

Finally the paper gave the impression through its reporting that the repatriates were all "willing" to return to Mexico; it was never even hinted that coercion might have been used.

In contrast to The Times, La Opinion, after first viewing the repatriations somewhat favorably, came to present many negative reports of the repatriates' condition. There were hints.that not all the repatriations were voluntary, stories of repatriates suffering in

Mexico and an editorial deploring the suffering. Is is also important to note that never in the sample taken were there reports of how much 108

money was being saved by the repatriations.

While both papers used government sources of information,

The Times relied on this source almost entirely. La Opinion, while

it often unquestioningly printed whatever government had to say, did

use unofficial community sources as well as reports from Mexico.

In the 1950's, both papers appeared to rely almost exclus

ively on "official" sources of information. This was most notable in

La Opinion , which twenty years earlier had often used community

sources. In both newspapers, but more obviously in The Times, the influx of undocumented Mexicans took on the proportions of a war

between "wetbacks 11 and immigration authorities. There were frequent references to the "wetback invasion. 11 This ''war against the wetbacks'mentality was clearly manifested in the reporting of the border incident of early 1954. The Times reported the incident in terms of "wetbacks" attempting to "storm" The United States border, while immigration authorities held them back. La Opinion's coverage largely paralleled the English-language daily's coverage, although there was an editorial which criticized the Unites States decision to hire without an agreement from Mexico.

Both newspapers, carried a number of stories which por'"' trayed "wetbacks" negatively. Prior to "Operation Wetback," there were a number of stories, primarily in The Times , which detailed the "problems" caused -by undocumented workers in this country; In most instances, the sources of information were immigration 109 authorities.

Following the deportation drive, in The Times the focus of

11 illegal alien11 stories changed. Now it was being alleged that the drive had saved taxpayers thousands of dollars, and the anti- 11 wet- back11 stories ceased. While the drive was extensive, it probably required many more months of action to significantly lower the undocumented population. But 11 authorities 11 were soon saying what a tremendous success in saving taxpayers 1dollars the deportations had been, and The Times unquestioningly reported these 11 facts. 11

It appears that both papers, La Opinion to a lesser degree, often simply reported, as they did in the 1930's, what the 11 authorities11 had to say about 11 wetbacks. 11 There was little evidence that either paper made any real efforts to investigate the truth of the charges being made against undocumented resider:i:s . Instead, in the tradition of "good journalism, 11 they dutifully attributed the charges to

"authorities, 11 and thus gave the allegations a ring of truth.

Coverage in the two papers during this decade differed significantly also. La Opinion appeared more concerned with the human aspects of the deportation drive. This is shown by a strongly-worded editorial denouncing many of the practices used by immigration ager:i:s.

The Times, as it did in the 1930 1 s, maintained a policy of never questioning immigration procedures.

The final period under study, 1970 through October, 1974, is

\ truly significant_ Many will assume that while the papers coverage J.lO of Mexican deportations and emigration in past years may have been po:>r in many areas, it now is certainly much better. This, in part, is the case. Generally, coverage in The Times is better, while coverage in La Opinion has deteriorated. However, this has been true only fairly recently, as the papers continued to follow the reporting patterns of the two previous decades studies.

For instance, The Times, in the first few years of this decade, still carried sensationalistic stories on "illegal aliens. 11

The coverage of the Romana Banuelos raid is an example.

There were also the familiar anti-alien stories in The Times during this decade. An excerpt from a Harry Bernstein story is - . typical: "Even sympathetic Mexican-Americans complain that wetbacks are taking jobs from U.S. workers. 11 The reporter does not attribute the belief to anyone in particular, but chooses to generalize, and thus make it appear that this is a widespread feeling.

The use of the term 11 wetbacks 11 is particularly negative in the many

Chicanos find the term offensive, even when applied to someone from

Mexico.

La Opinion , meanwhile, during the first few years of this decade continued to report cases of alleged abuses by INS agents which were not reported in The Times. In these stories, community- based organizations, such as CASA, were the sources of information, rather than INS officials. This practice was a carry-over from the

1930's. 111

Both papers carried editorials on the Supreme Court ruling which placed some restrictions on INS search operations. While

The Times questioned the truth of some of the charges being made against the INS, La Opinion did not.

A story printed in both papers which had a high INS official as the source sounded much like the scare stories preceeding a

4eportation drive. The official was quoted as saying that the United

States was being flooded by undocumented Mexicans. Again, as had happened so many times in the past, there was no investigative re porting to determine the accuracy of the charge.

Attorney General Saxbe1 s comments on "illegal aliens 11 represent a point of departure for both newspapers. For The Times, it was a marked improvement over previous coverage of Mexican immigration and emigration. While it had been guilty of accepting as true anti-"alien" charges, it now came out strongly against Saxbe' s call for the deportation of one million. It showed that The Times was perhaps starting to consider this a matter involving human beings, not just numbers.

La Opinion, which frequently had spoken out against INS ab uses and threats to peoples' rights for many years, now strangely fell silent on this vital issue. Based on the paper's past performance, o:p.e would have expected an indignant editorial. Instead, there was only silence. This may be a sign of the demise of this Spanish language paper. 112

In a reversal of roles, The Times, in its editorial, for the first time openly acused the INS of "abuses. 11 It was also the first time La Opinion chose to say nothing on an issue so important to its readers.

La Opinion, until recently, has been somewhat of a spokes man for the Mexican population of Los Angeles in the question of immigration developments. When there was what they saw an an unjust situation, a strongly-worded editorial often followed. They consistently were much more sensitive to the human impact of de portations than was The Times. Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that the newspaper is owned at;d staffed by Mexicans and other

Latins, and, thus, feel a good deal of identification with those being deported.

The English-language daily, despite its relatively recent denouncing of Saxbe1 s speech, has showed little concern for the status of undocumented Mexican residents. Mass deportations have almost always been viewed as being for the good of the country. Time and again, the financial savings represented by the deportations have been pointed out.

Obviously, The Times has been relatively unconcerned with the condition of "illegal aliens. 11 They have been content to take at face value whatever government representatives have to say about undocumented residents. Nowhere is there any evidence that The 113

Times, noted for its journalistic excellence, has ever made an

attempt to investigate the truth of charges made against "illegal

aliens" by immigration authorities. Even today, The Times continues to duly report government news releases on "illegal aliens: 11 But the

reported 11 facts 11 are never the subject of an investigative story.

Unfortunately, this pattern in coverage of Mexican 11 illegal aliens 11 has

been followed for at least the last forty-five years. It is hoped that

someday The Times will recognize its journalistic responsibility and break its dependence on the government for information of this type.

As for La Opinion, its coverage of undocumented residents has generally declined in both quantity and quality within the last few years. For whatever reason or reasons, the newspaper no longer seems as concerned as it once was with developments in the area of immigration. This may be a sign that the newspaper has lost contact with the community it supposedly serves. If this is the case; it cannot survive long.

Thus, The Times, while more aware of the human impact of the issue, still does not see the area of undocumented residents as worthy of investigative reporting. A series of investigative articles on the truth or inaccuracy of the charges made against "illegal aliens, 11 and less indignant editorials, are what is needed in The

Times.

La Opinion, if is to truly serve the Spanish-speaking com munity, must return to its former role as spokesman, or better 114

still, vehicle of communication for that community. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Acuna, Rodolfo, Occupied America: The Chicano Struggle For Liberation. San Francisco: Canfield Press, 1972.

Divine, Robert, American Immigration Policy. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1957.

Galarza, Ernesto, Merchants of Labor. Santa Barbara: McNally andLoftin, 1964.

Gamio, Manuel, Mexican Immigration to the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930.

Grebler, Leo, Mexican Immigration to the United States: The Record and Its Implications. Los Angeles: University of California, 1966.

Hoffman, Abraham, Unwanted Mexicans In the Great Depression. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1974.

Lopez y Rivas, Gilberta, The Chicanos. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973.

McWilliams, Carey, North From Mexico. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968.

Myers Myers, John, The Border Wardens. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971.

Samora, Julian, Los Majados: The Wetback Story. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1971.

Rak, Mary, Border Patrol. Cambridge: Riverside Press, 1935.

Theses

White, Alfred, The Apperceptive Mass of Foreigners As Applied To Americanization, The Mexican Group. University of California, 1923.

-115- 116

Dissertations

Martinez, John, Mexican Emigration to The United States, 1910 - 1930. University of California, 1971.

Tomasek, Robert, The Political and Economic Implications of Mexican Labor in The United States Under The Non Quota System, Contract Labor Program & Wetback Movement, University of Michigan, 1957.

Pamphlets

Governor C. C. Young's Mexican Fact-Finding Committee, Mexicans In California. San Francisco: California State Printing Office, 1930.

Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1970 Annual Report. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, Whom We Shall Welcome. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953.

Periodicals

Literary Digest, "Doakery and Deportations." 22 August 1931.

Documents

Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, Sixty-Ninth Congress, Jan. 28 and 29; Feb. 2, 9, .11 and 23, 1926.

Newspapers

La Opinion (Los Angeles)

Los Angeles Times