Immigration Throughout the Years

Miguel Diaz
Professor Lallier
College Critical Thinking 103
15 February 2013
Immigration Then & Now; an Unchanged Pattern Since the inception of immigration policies, The United States has fostered upon itself a variety of deviations from the results it subtly desires. If there is one thing that has been certain throughout the decades, it would be that at anytime the economy is operating at satisfactory levels, the issue of immigration fades away and is avoided as much as possible. However, soon after problems such as recession, wars, or unemployment arise, the topic spawns again and becomes more controversial the longer its duration. The most prominent detail about these policies is that the United States favors immigration when workers are needed, but as soon as conditions are back to normal, it opposes it once again. The powerful enforcement of immigration laws during times of tranquility suggests that the need for immigrant workers is conditional and only accepted at times when labor is at a low supply. It can be noted by Mexican migration patterns that those of Latin descent go north of their home land in order to find work so that they can provide financial support for not only themselves, but mostly for their families. Looking back at the year 1942 when the world was in the middle of an intense war and the Unites States had just recently joined after the events at Pearl Harbor, we can notice the initiation of a program that would take regulatory control of immigration out of America’s hands. This program known as no other than the Bracero Program, was a series of laws and diplomatic agreements between the neighboring countries of the United States and Mexico that was intended to have temporary importation of Mexican contract laborers sent to America. However, the Mexican government, under the administration of Manuel Ávila Camacho, was reluctant to sign an agreement without making a few arrangements first. This skepticism was completely justified as the Mexican government was aware of the previous mistreatment its workers had received at the start of the 20th century. After the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Gentleman’s Agreement of 1907, cheap laborers from China and Japan became scarce and American employers did not find this to be accommodating to their production needs. In order to bring back cheap labor, agents known as Enganchadores (Hookers) set off on expeditions to the most heavily populated Mexican cities to convince laborers to go north and provide their services there. Promises of good wages and riches were made in vain, and the laborers did not discover this until they had already settled in America. The nickname for these agents suited them perfectly since the end result for Mexican laborers was one equivalent to being “hooked”. Why was labor so desperately needed though? This event was indeed going on during the time of rapid U.S. development and also right before the start of the First World War, so domestic worker supply was already at full capacity but was still not enough to meet the needs of a country whose number one goal was to triumph above all. This was the exact same case when the Chinese were brought in to build the Transcontinental Railroad when it was needed, but banned when the gold from the Gold Rush started becoming scarcer. Even right before the start of the program, during the times of the Great Depression, many Mexican workers were deported; another indicator that when the show is running smoothly, immigrants are tolerated, but as soon as bad times hit, action to get rid of them are executed. With the onset of a Second World War being imminent, and the previous deportation of Hispanics during the depression, workers to ensure a victory in the war became a necessity. Under these conditions, proper treatment of foreign workers seemed somewhat possible, but that was not the case. With the history of these events at the forefront of the Mexican Government’s thinking process, the decision to set forth rules with the American Government arose. Such regulations included: "adequate housing" and living expenses, equal to that of domestic farm workers in the area; pay "prevailing area wages" no less than 30 cents per hour; guarantee a minimum number of working days; pay transportation from recruitment centers in Mexico to places of employment in the United States and return to recruitment centers after the contract was fulfilled, to protect the workers from any sort of discrimination and to exempt them from American military service. Since Mexico is in fact right next to the United States, it can be noted why Mexican Immigrants would be favored in this case. First of all, transportation would be cheaper, and supply of workers would be available upon request. Secondly, the United States was already up against some powerful enemies, and having another one was not a desirable outcome, especially when that enemy would be literally right in their front yard. After the Zimmerman Letter event from the First World War, the U.S. made sure to prevent that from happening again by making diplomatic agreements with Mexico, another reason why the Mexican Government agreed to the newly developed Bracero Program. This new partnership however, did not stop American employers from breaking every point set forth in the agreements made. The camps they were taking to did not provide quality food, they did not have Spanish translators, and the workers were known by numbers instead of names. Since the unjust treatment by employers became well known to those South of the border, immigration broke free of regulations and started to switch to illegal methods. Even those who still crossed through Bracero methods would break their contracts and flee in order to stay in the United States. Throughout the decades following the end of the war, the number of illegal immigrants coming to the U.S. increased significantly to the point where Border Control had to build a fence reinforced by strict officers. Up to this day, the fence and Border Control enforcement remain strong and fierce, but the population has changed dramatically since the Bracero Program. Mexicans have migrated in numbers so great that they have become crucial for American Government to get their legislation passed and for candidates to win election. In the most recent election in which President Barack Obama won re-election by a slight margin, the issue of immigration arose once again, but this time not only because the economy isn’t well, but because Hispanic voters had enough influence to change the outcome of the election. While Governor Romney advocated deportation of all illegal immigrants, incumbent Obama took a more political and American approach. Obama favored the Dream Act, which would legalize undocumented aliens who had come to America as children if they enrolled in college or joined the U.S. military. He also supported deporting only immigrants who were guilty of committing crimes. The traditional pattern that was seen throughout previous immigration policies can be seen here as well, except this time it is under circumstances not so intense. America needs people who will bring benefits in the long run, and in today’s society, the key to success lies in education and military. The American Government is choosing to keep only those immigrants who will present a positive outcome in the future and get rid of those who only bring the economy down. This isn’t surprising though, since it is something that most people tend to do. This approach, known as the selective approach is elaborated by Brunner Lawrence and Steve Colarelli, who state that, “The key feature of a selection approach to immigration is that immigration officials admit immigrants based on characteristics empirically linked to success in outcomes a nation desires. Therefore, to establish such an approach, it is necessary to identify characteristics that (1) predict desired outcomes, (2) can be measured, and (3) can be assessed, given large numbers of applicants for immigration.”(401). This is the exact same approach that has been taken in every single immigration policy issued, it does not matter if the immigrants are Mexican, Japanese, Chinese, Irish, or Polish, as long as they can do something for America, under American conditions and regulations, then they can stay. If not, then they are not wanted and either restricted from entering or deported. Due to the mistreatment and spread of talk about the harsh conditions that follow American immigration policy, migrants have decided to take a different path, one that is illegal but also frees them from having to deal with the false promises made. Although today the situation is not as terrible as it once was, immigration has once again risen as an important issue, but this time, getting rid of the immigrants that present problems for America has become more prominent since keeping immigrants out has fallen under more secure control. As stated by Jeane Houston in “A Tapestry of Hope”, America is a place full of opportunity where people with hope and faith can accomplish their dreams. Houston says that, “when the contract (Constitution) is broken, it is not just the right of individuals that is threatened, but the very fabric of this nation. If one of those threads (representing different groups) is cut, stretched out of proportion, or bleached of color, the design becomes listless and in danger of unraveling”(150). She prides herself in knowing that although she was an immigrant, she was able to become successful and graduate from De Anza College. This however falls under the same category of immigrants that America favors today, those that enroll in college. The opportunity may have been given to Houston, but in prospect, the opportunity was truly for America. A listless tapestry is what America would appear to be, one that has always been inn danger of unraveling, but for some reason has not up to this point although the same approach, pattern, and policies toward immigration have remained unchanged.

Works Cited

Bankston, Carl L. Encyclopedia Of American Immigration. n.p.: Salem Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 15 Feb. 2013.

BRUNNER, LAWRENCE, and STEPHEN M. COLARELLI. "Immigration In The Twenty-First Century A Personnel Selection Approach." Independent Review 14.3 (2010): 389-413. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.

Fang, Bay. "Between Two Lands." U.S. News & World Report 135.3 (2003): 18. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.

Heisler, Barbara Schmitter. "The Bracero Program And Mexican Migration To The United States." Journal Of The West 47.3 (2008): 65-72. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.

Houston, Jeanne Wakatsuki, and Ann Watters. "A Tapestry of Hope." Creating America Reading and Writing Arguments. Ed. Joyce Moser. 4th ed. New Jersey: Person Hall, n.d. 146-50. Print.

LIZZA, RYAN. "The Second Term." New Yorker 88.17 (2012): 44. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.

NACHMAN, DAVID Phulwani, Michael. "Governor Romney Creates Turmoil For Potential Deca Beneficiaries." News India Times 02 Nov. 2012: 28. Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.

Cited: Bankston, Carl L. Encyclopedia Of American Immigration. n.p.: Salem Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 15 Feb. 2013. BRUNNER, LAWRENCE, and STEPHEN M. COLARELLI. "Immigration In The Twenty-First Century A Personnel Selection Approach." Independent Review 14.3 (2010): 389-413. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Feb. 2013. Fang, Bay. "Between Two Lands." U.S. News & World Report 135.3 (2003): 18. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Feb. 2013. Heisler, Barbara Schmitter. "The Bracero Program And Mexican Migration To The United States." Journal Of The West 47.3 (2008): 65-72. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Feb. 2013. Houston, Jeanne Wakatsuki, and Ann Watters. "A Tapestry of Hope." Creating America Reading and Writing Arguments. Ed. Joyce Moser. 4th ed. New Jersey: Person Hall, n.d. 146-50. Print. LIZZA, RYAN. "The Second Term." New Yorker 88.17 (2012): 44. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 15 Feb. 2013. NACHMAN, DAVID Phulwani, Michael. "Governor Romney Creates Turmoil For Potential Deca Beneficiaries." News India Times 02 Nov. 2012: 28. Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.