The issue of migration has been spoken of many times in the history of the United States. The country has been a popular destination for many individuals from Europe, South America, and Asia. In some cases, a massive flood of immigrants led to xenophobia – the intolerance for foreign newcomers. In the middle of the 20th century, a similar issue occurred but toward Mexican workers. Deprived of opportunities to feed their families, millions of Mexicans crossed the U.S. border in search of new life and financial income. This increasing number of Mexican workers allegedly took away jobs from U.S. citizens. Some people shared their distress about this situation, and the statements of one of them were published in your newspaper. The person believed that the only way of handling this situation was to send all Mexican workers back to their home country. Also, it was noted that some Mexicans have American families and that it should not serve as an incentive for keeping them here. In this letter, I would like to express my objection to those words.
Before providing my arguments, I would like to discuss the statements from the document published in 1965 in your newspaper in order to set the context. An anonymous writer sent a letter indicating his disapproval of the Bracero Program that created financial and housing opportunities for Mexican workers in the United States. Also, the person strongly supported the idea of repatriation, when Mexicans are sent back to their home country, along with their families and children, and the Border Industrialization Program. The individual framed the Bracero initiative as dysfunctional but provided no quantitative evidence to support his opinion. In the consequent paragraphs, I will try to explain why this individual was not correct in their assessments and why the idea of repatriation was not appropriate.
Repatriation is returning a person back to where they belong. In the case of Mexican workers in the South, it meant forcibly sending them back to Mexico. Although many people supported massive deportations between 1954 and 1965, I firmly believe the issue should have been addressed differently. As part of a government program, several million Mexican workers returned to their home country. In this context, repatriation served as evidence that the United States favors double standards. It is vital to understand that the nation has reached its current state only by favoring immigration and providing the newcomers with opportunities to excel in their lives. This land has been occupied by people of European descent only for several centuries. Furthermore, the country was founded by the British, and Germans, Italians, Irishmen, and people from other nationalities came later. Collectively, this multinational population comprises the cornerstone of the American nation. If one wants the repatriation to be fair, all people of the United States should be sent back where they came from. In this case, only Native Americans will be left on this land because the rest arrived here only centuries ago.
The Bracero Program was a series of agreements between the governments of Mexico and the United States. The initiative was aimed at providing Mexican farmworkers with decent housing and a minimum wage when they work within the U.S. borders. Many people argued that this program was against American interests. Some individuals, including the anonymous writer of the letter, argued that the initiative brought opportunities for Mexican laborers at the expense of American-born farm workers. However, Clemens et al. (2018) provide quantitative data to dismiss such statements. No adverse effect was inflicted on the labor market opportunities of American farmers. Furthermore, it seems that the anonymous writer had only a limited understanding of the issue. The author claimed that the program brought significant benefits to Mexican laborers, but these advantages existed, for the most part, only on paper. Absence of sanitation and decent housing that the Mexicans were promised led to strikes in Bracero camps (Mize, 2016). Also, soon after the initiation of the program, camps were divided based on the racial background (Mize, 2016). Therefore, the Bracero experience for Mexican workers was challenging and not entirely beneficial.
The Border Industrialization Program (BIP) was set to accompany the repatriation acts and provide a smooth transition for Mexican workers. The aim of the initiative was to allow factories in Mexico to import raw materials from the United States, accomplish one step in the manufacturing process, and returned the processed goods back to the U.S. without paying taxes (Heathcote, n.d.). This scheme allowed borderland regions to grow significantly – such tax incentives motivated many Mexican plants to work with American manufacturers (Adams, 2006). Industrialization decreased unemployment rates significantly and was seen as the most influential foreign policy aimed at decreasing illegal migration (Adams, 2006). The author of the letter mentioned this program and framed it as a humane solution to immigration issues. However, there are many implications regarding the BIP, and some arguments may undermine its achievements.
For more than thirty years, the BIP ensured the perpetual growth of the Mexican borderland regions. A partial reason was the absence of control – the U.S. manufacturers were interested in setting up their twin plants in Mexico because of lower labor costs. Also, regulations were not complicated, which made it easy for companies to operate under the BIP (Heathcote, n.d.). However, uncontrolled growth led to environmental concerns because of waste that is generated on plants. Prior to The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), hazardous substances which resulted from the manufacturing process were to be taken back to the country of origin (Heathcote, n.d.). In other words, American companies that had factories in Mexico had to return the waste back to the U.S. and dispose of it. However, NAFTA reverted this regulation, and the hazardous waste could flow into Mexico (Heathcote, n.d.). Not only did the BIP return Mexican workers back to their home country, but it also sent American hazardous waste to our southern neighbors. The absence of facilities that could handle the dangerous excess adequately made the issue a national health concern in Mexico.
Before expressing a xenophobic mood and blaming Mexicans for taking away jobs from the local population, one should assess the root cause of the issue. Unfavorable economic conditions in Mexico may be a result of decisions made by previous American politicians. For instance, some people regard drug wars on the U.S. streets to be the consequence of failed U.S. fight against Mexican cartels. Gordon (2015) suggests that, as with the establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, American intervention in Mexican affairs led to tens of thousands of deaths and the strong presence of drug cartels within U.S. borders. Therefore, when speaking of the Bracero Program and why Mexicans are coming to the United States, one should consider the Texas Rebellion and contemplate what Mexico would be had it not been deprived of Texas.
References
Adams, J. A. (2006). Bordering the future: The impact of Mexico on the United States. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Clemens, M. A., Lewis, E. G., & Postel, H. M. (2018). Immigration restrictions as active labor market policy: Evidence from the Mexican Bracero exclusion.American Economic Review, 108(6), 1468-87.
Gordon, R. (2015). The failed war on drugs in Mexico (and the United States). Moyers on Democracy.
Heathcote, I. (n. d.). Challenges of industrial growth in the U.S.-Mexico border. Prentice Hall.
Mize, R. L. (2016). The Invisible workers of the US–Mexico Bracero program: Obreros Olvidados. Lexington Books.