(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Migrant and seasonal farmworker powerlessness. Hearings, Ninety-first Congress, first and second sessions .."

AMHERST COLLEGE 



io^^ 



3io2i2lui 4557 6 SEASONAL FARMWORKER 
POWERLESSNESS 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGRATORY LABOR 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 
ON 

BORDER COMMUTER LABOR PROBLEM 



MAY 21, 1969 



PART 5-A 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 




MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER 
POWERLESSNESS 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGEATOEY LABOE 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 
ON 

BORDER COMMUTER LABOR PROBLEM 



MAY 21, 1969 



PART 5-A 



Printed for the use of tJie Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 




U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
36-513 O WASHINGTON : 1970 



COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE 

RALPH YARBOROUGH, Texas, Chairman 
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia JACOB K. JAVITS, New York 

HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, Jr., New Jersey WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont 
CLAIBORNE PELL, Rliode Island PETER H. DOMINICK, Colorado 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts GEORGE MURPHY, California 

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania 

WALTER F. MONDALE, Minnesota WILLIAM B. SAXBE, Ohio 

THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri HENRY BELLMON, Oklahoma 

ALAN CRANSTON, California 
HAROLD E. HUGHES, Iowa 

Robert O. Harris, Staff Director 

John S. Forsythe, General Counsel 

Roy H. Millenson, Minority Staff Director 

Eugene Mittelman, Minority Counsel 



Subcommittee on Migratory Labor 

WALTER F. MONDALE, Minnesota, Chairman 
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, Jr., New Jersey WILLIAM B. SAXBE, Ohio 
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts GEORGE MURPHY, California 

ALAN CRANSTON, California RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania 

HAROLD E. HUGHES, Iowa HENRY BELLMON, Oklahoma 

BOREN Chertkov, Counscl 

A. Sidney Johnson, Professional Staff Memher 

Eugene Mittelman, Minority Counsel 

(II) 



Format of Hearings on Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker 

powerlessness 

The Subcommittee on Migratory Labor conducted public hearings 
in Washington, D.C., during the 91st Congress on "Migrant and 
Seasonal Farmworker Powerlessness." These hearings are contained 
in the following parts : 

Subject matter HeariiKj dates 

Part 1: Who are the Migrants? June D aiidlO, 1969 

Part 2: The Migrant Subculture July 28, 1969 

Part 3-A: Efforts to Organize July 15, 1969 

Part3-B: Efforts to Organize July 16 and 17. 1969 

Part 4-A: Farmworker Legal Problems Aug. 7. 1969 

Part 4-B : Farmworker Legal Problems Aug. 8. 1969 

Part .VA: Border Commuter Labor Problem May 21, 1969 

Part r>-B : Border Commuter Labor Problem May 22, 1969 

Part 6; Pesticides and the Farmworker Aug. 1. Sept. 29 and 30. 1969 

Part 7 : Manix>wer and Economic Problems Apr. 14 and 15, 1970 

Part S: Who is Responsible? July 20, 21, and 24, 1970 



CONTENTS 



CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 
Wednesday, May 21, 1969 

O'Hara, Hon. James G., a Representative in Congress from the State of ^^e^ 
Michigan 1949 

Velasco, Peter, union organizer, the United Farm Worlcers Organizing 

Committee, Delano, Calif 1954 

Hennessy, James L., executive assistant to the Commissioner, Immigra- 
tion and Naturalization Service ; accompanied by Charles Gordon, Gen- 
eral Counsel ; and James F. Greene, Associate Commissioner 1973 

STATEMENTS 

Hennessy, James L., executive assistant to tlie Commissioner, Immigra- 
tion and Naturalization Service ; accompanied by Charles Gordon, Gen- 
eral Counsel; and James F. Greene, Associate Commissioner 1973 

Prepared statement, with attachments 1989 

O'Hara, Hon. James G., a Representative in Congress from the State of 
Michigan 1949 

Velasco, Peter, union organizer, the United Farm AVorkers Organizing 
Committee, Delano, Calif 1954 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

Articles, publications, etc., c^ititled : 

"The Border Crossers — People Who Live in Mexico and Worli in the 
United States," by David S. North, prepared for the Manpower 

Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, April 1970 2194 

"The Impact of Commuters on the Mexican-American Border Area," 
by Anna-Stina Ericson, Foreign Manpower Policy Staff, Manpower 

Administration, from the Monthly Labor Review, August 1970 2184 

Communications to : 

Chertkov, Boren, counsel. Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, from : 
Averbuck, David S., United Farm AVorkers Organizing Commit- 
tee, Delano, Calif. : 

May 29, 1969 1966 

June 2, 1969 1968 

Mitchell, Hon. John N., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Washington, D.C., from Hon. AValter F. Mondale, chairman. Sub- 
committee on Migratory Labor, June 4, 1969 (telegram) 1969 

Mondale, Hon. Walter F., chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory 
Labor, from : 

Hodgson, J. D., Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Washington, D.C., September 23, 1970 (with enclosure) 2183 

Kleindienst, Richard G., Deputy Attorney General, Washington, 

D.C., March 26, 1970 2001 

Shultz, Hon. George P., Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, June 

11, 1969 1969 

Shultz, Hon. George, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Washing- 
ton, D.C., from Hon. AValter F. Mondale, chairman. Subcommittee 

on Migratory Labor, June 4, 1969 (telegi-am) 1969 

Memorandum from Robert C. Goodwin, Administrator, Bureau of Employ- 
ment Security, U.S. Department of Labor, AVashington, D.C., October 

13, 1967 1970 

Questions posed by the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor to the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Justice Department con- 
cerning the border commuter labor problem 2002 

Response to questions 2013 

(V) 



MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER 
POWERLESSNESS 

(Border Commuter Labor Problem) 



WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1969 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee ox Migratory Labor of the 
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met at 9 :40 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2228, 
New Senate Office Buildin<2;-, Senator Walter F. Mondale (chairman 
of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Mondale (presiding), Kennedy, Cranston, Mur- 
phy, and Schweiker. 

Committee staff members ])resent : Robert O. Harris, staff director 
of full committee; Boren Chertkov, majority counsel; A. Sidney 
Johnson, professional staff member; and Eugene Mittelman, minor- 
ity counsel. 

Senator Mondale. The meeting of the Migratory Labor Subcom- 
mittee will come to order. 

This morning the Migratory Labor Subcommittee begins a series of 
hearings on migrant and seasonal farm labor problems in the United 
States. 

The theme for the hearings will be powerlessness. The subcommit- 
tee will examine the depth of powerlessness among migrants and the 
reasons for this powerlessness. 

Our hearings will explore the extent to which migrant workers are 
powerless to influence decisions in both their home base communities 
and in so-called user States. We will examine the degree to which, 
and the ways in which, migrant and seasonal farniAvorkers are de- 
prived of political ])ower, deprived of economic power, deprived of 
cultural identity and pride, deprived of rights and privileges that most 
Americans take for granted. 

We will consider the extent to which the migrant and seasonal 
farmworker is powerless to affect his OAvn unemployment and under- 
employment, powerless to fight job displacement, and powerless in 
union or community organization efforts to improve his living and 
M'orking conditions. 

In this week's hearings we begin our inquiry into powerlessness by 
examining the scope of the border commuter labor problem, and its 
broad nationwide economic impact. This problem area appears to il- 
lustrate one way in which powerlessness is imposed on migrant and 
seasonal farmworkers. 

Every morning thousands of campesinos come across the border 
from Mexico into Texas, Arizona, and California to work in our 

(1947) 



1948 

fields. They obtain entry into the United States by displaying either 
a form 1-151 — penwanent alien registration card, commonly referred 
to as a green card — or a certificate showing a U.S. birthplace, or a 
temporary 3i-clay visa (white card), or a baptismal certificate. Large 
numbers of illegal entrants are also coming across the border to per- 
form farm work. 

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, of Massachusetts, a member of this 
subcommittee, maintains a special interest in the commuter problem 
that we are considering this morning. He has again in this Congress 
introduced legislation (S. 1694) which would amend the Immigration 
and Nationality Act to refine the commuter labor system by requir- 
ing that every 6 months the Department of Labor certify that the 
presence of a commuting green card holder in the LTnited States to 
seek or continue employment does not adversely affect the wages and 
working conditions of American workers similarly employed. Senator 
Kennedy's bill would also remove the present exclusion of the agri- 
cultural industry from the provisions making it a criminal offense to 
W' illf ully and knowingly employ aliens who are in the coimtry illegally. 

It is my understanding that the Judiciary Committee, which has 
legislative jurisdiction in this area, and on which Senator Kennedy 
serves, will be holding hearings on S. 1694. 

The purpose of our hearings this week is to gain an understanding 
of the impact that the border commuter labor problem has on migra- 
tory and seasonal farmworkers specifically. Our hearings will ex- 
plore the extent to which commuter problems illustrate and explain 
the social and economic deprivation — and the powerlessness — faced 
by migrants. 

To do this, we need to understand the legislative and administra- 
tive background that permits these border crossings, and more im- 
portantly, the effects of the border commuter labor. We need to know 
the extent to which the availability of border commuters depresses the 
living and working conditions in the ITnited States, the extent to 
which it explains the fact that border areas resemble the 1930's depres- 
sion economy, and the extent to which it causes LT.S. citizens to mi- 
grate north in a desperate search for work. 

Border commuters are allowed indiscriminately to work in the 
American economy and take their wages back to the low-cost Mexican 
economy. These hearings will seek to discover the degree to which the 
availability of this low-wage work force underminCvS the wage stand- 
ards of migrant and seasonal farmworkers throughout the country, 
damages their job opportunities, and their organizing and collective- 
bargaining efforts. 

Following an examination of the border commuter labor problem, 
we look forward to hearings on a number of other subject areas that 
will further define and describe the pix)blem of migrant powerless- 
ness. Additional hearings will study and investigate — 

Who migrant and seasonal farmv>orkers are, why they migrate 
and what their plight is, described in their own words ; 

What the nature of the migrant subculture is, and what the 
effect of migrancy on the child is ; 

What the nature and scope of the rural employment and man- 
power problem is ; 

What efforts toward community and union organization have 
been made, and why they have succeeded or failed ; 



1949 

What the effect of pesticides on the farmworkers is ; 
How extensive racism, discrimination, and the denial of civil 
rights in rural areas is ; 

AVliat the limitations of current Government service programs, 
and social and worker benefit programs are ; 

And finally, what the future of migrant and seasonal farm- 
workers is. 
And so today we began this series of hearings on powerlessness ; and 
we begin with a discussion of the border commuter labor problem. 
We have a most distinguished panel of witnesses. 
We are pleased this morning to have as our lead witness the dis- 
tinguished Congressman from Michigan, James O'Hara, who has 
shown a great interest in this particular issue, and who serves on our 
companion committee in the House, the House Committee on Educa- 
tion and Labor. 

He has shown not only interest, but a great deal of creative concern, 
about the problems of the farmworkers and migrants of our country. 
Congressman O'Hara. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES G. O'HARA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Let me first congratulate you for taking the initiative in these hear- 
ings, and examining the several aspects of this problem of powerless- 
ness. Powerlessness is certainly much broader than the simple subject 
of inclusion of farmworkers under the National Labor Relations Act, 
or broader even than the particular subject of today's hearing, which 
is the nature and extent of the competition for jobs and impact upon 
the domestic labor market of commuter labor, particularly in the field 
of farm labor. 

I would like to address myself to two particular facets of the prob- 
lem for the moment, particularly the latter. 

First, Mr. Chairman, I think I ought to report to you that following 
our conversations in the Imperial Valley and on the road between El 
Centro and Calexico, and in Calexico on Sunday 

Senator Mondale. Let the record show that Congressman O'Hara 
is referring to the visit that he. Senator Kennedy, Senator Yarborough 
and I made to the Imperial Valley of California last week. 

How are your feet ? 

Mr. O'Hara. My feet are in good shape. Mr. Chairman. 

After your departure at the airport, as I returned to Calexico, we 
clocked the distance, and I can report to you that we marched 5 miles, 
give or take a tenth or two. 

Senator Mondale. I thought it was 25. 

Mr. O'Hara. I think if you multiply that by the factor of heat, it 
would turn out to be about 25. 

Following that, Mr. Chairman, I went, as I indicated to you I 
would, and following your example of several months ago to the bor- 
der. That night at 2 a.m. I arose and went to what they call the Ciailexico 
"hole," the hole at the border where commuters enter and leave, the 
border- crossing point. 

I watched the commuting farmworkers come across the border hav- 
ing their credentials checked. I went to the border to those places 



1950 

where farm labor is recruited by the labor contractor, by the crew- 
boss, or the crew leader, and transported to farms in the Imperial 
Valley or in the Coachella Valley. 

I went to the offices of the Farm Labor Division of the California 
Employment Service, which are located near the '"hole," and are open 
from 3 to 4 a.m. to assist in the recruitment of day haul labor for 
the fields of the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. 

I talked to a number of labor contractors and a number of workers 
who had entered the United States that early mornino: from Mexico 
in an effort to find work for that day. 

I agree with you that the impact of the commuter laborer upon the 
entire situation is very, very oreat. It poses a very difficult problem, 
because, of course, the simple way to attack the problem would be to 
merely say, "Well, we won't let these people in any more. We will cut 
off this flow," 

But I talked to some of these workers, Mr. Chairman, who had 
been coming and ffoing; for 15 to 20 years, and who have been work- 
ing in the fields of the Imperial and Coachella Valleys all that time, 
who were raising families and had six, seven, eight, nine children. One 
of them, Mr. Chairman, was a man who had sfotten his visa for per- 
manent residence and who had come to the United States and who 
had found that he couldn't support his family in the United States 
on the amount of money that he made as a farmworker, who then 
moved his family back to Mexico and became a commuter. 

That is, when he received his visa, he had every intention of becom- 
ing a permanent resident of the United States, but he found he 
couldn't do it. 

Senator Mondale. So, in effect, he lived in Mexico, where the cost 
of living is substantially reduced, and made his livino: in the United 
States. 

Mr. O'Haka. That's right. 

Senator Mondale. And had commuted in that fashion for years. 

Mr. O'Hara. Exactly, and there is much to be said for the theory 
that these people are as much a part of the labor market and the farm 
labor force, and have this longstanding attachment to it, as one who 
commuted the same day, ])erhaps, who got his visa the same day, 8, 
10, 15 years ago, and who managed to create a permanent resi- 
dence in the United States. 

But another thing, after that statement of the complication of this 
problem and the difficulties that would be created for many, many 
persons with long attachment to the farm labor force, if we were to 
simply cut off the opportunities that they now enjoy to work in agri- 
culture in the United States, let me make another point, and that is 
that the flow of such commuters must be reduced somehow. 

I would very strongly suggest, Mr. (^hairman, that you give con- 
sideration to approaching this problem from several standpoints. 

First, I think that from this date henceforward, we ought to say that 
an alien who applies for and obtains a visa for permanent residence in 
the United States, who fails to establish such permanent residence, or 
who fails to maintain his principal place of residence in the United 
States during the time of the visa, that he will, in effect, lose his visa. 

Senator Mondale. Is it your understanding today that the regula- 
tion now in effect requires that ? 



1951 

Mr. O'Hara. It is my understanding that green carders avIio have 
obtained their visas since 1961, who are entering and leaving, must ob- 
tain certification at reguhir intervals that their entrance for the pur- 
pose of employment does not depress the conditions of labor. 

Senator Mondale. That is different than the permanent residency 



provisions 



Mr. O'Hara. Yes ; those are the commuters. 

I am not aware, Mr. Chairman, if commuters must maintain their 
residence in the United States. 

Senator Mondale. Your first recommendation is the permanent res- 
idency requirement. 

Mr. O'Hara. Yes. The second recommendation I have is that we find 
some Avay to make it an unfair labor practice for an employer involved 
in a labor dispute to replace employees who are involved in that laboi* 
dispute with nonresident aliens. 

Senator Mondale. That is a position which I think has a great deal 
of merit. I can't imagine any modern industrial plant that is unionized 
that would have been unionized if it Ivad been exposed to the limitless 
supply of desperately poor labor from Mexico willing to be used as 
strikebreakers. 

The farmworkers have often proclaimed that in their efforts to 
organize certain table grape growers, each time they call a strike, 
even though they have a majority of the members working in the field, 
they pull their people out of the fields and the next morning all those 
jobs and more are replaced by Mexican farmworkers who have been 
hauled up from the border to the scene of the strike. By the next morn- 
ing the strike is over insofar as the employees are concerned. 

Would you say, based upon your observations, that that could 
happen ? 

Mr. O'Hara. No question about it, Mr. Chairman. I think one of 
the great obstacles to conducting an organizational drive and obtaining 
collective-bargaining agreements in agriculture in those areas in close 
proximity to the border of the United States especially, and to a lesser 
extent in areas somewhat removed from the border, is the availability 
of a ready supply of labor that can be used to replace those who are 
conducting a work stoppage in an organizational effort. 

Mr. Chainnan, we had considered saying, "You can't employ non- 
resident aliens if you are engaged in a labor dispute." 

But I rejected that idea, because perhaps it is a nonresident alien 
who has been working for that grower for 5 years — a regular part of 
the work force who should be treated no different from one who lives 
down the road a ways. 

But in terms of hiring as replacements for workers who are not in 
the field because of a labor dispute, I think that clearly, there, we ought 
to make that an unfair labor ])ractice. 

I would recommend, Mr. Chairman, if we do so, that we provide the 
same kind of mandatory injunction and extraordinaiy relief provisions 
that are now provided under section 10 (k) or is it — 10(f) or 10(1) ? 

I don't have it before me. 

Senator Mondale. I know, l)ut I am not going to help you out. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. O'Hara. The provisions that say when a complaint was made 
that there is a violation of this new subparagraph of 8(a), that an 



1952 

immediate investigation shall be made, and if it shall appear that the 
the complaint has merit — you don't have to go out and establish it — 
yon shall immediately be able to apply for, and obtain, an injunction. 

Senator Mondale. The point is to provide an immediate remedy. 

Mr. O'Hara. That's right. Otherwise, it is no good. The harvest 
season is the only time there is a great need for labor in the fields. 
The harvest season is very short. The question would be moot very 
quickly. So I woidd recommend that. 

Finally, I think, Mr. Chairman, and most evidently what we need to 
do for the long-term health and success of this industry, grower and 
worker alike, is to apply the same rules and regulations, the same modus 
operandi that has been applied to all U.S. industry and labor under 
the Wagner Act, the agriculture industry. 

.1 think that is the great need, and I would strongly suggest that we 
do that. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me rej^ort to you a very recent devel- 
opment in the grape boycott. My wife, who is my mentor in these 
matters, reports to me that in her visit to the Giant Supermarket 
yesterday she found grapes on the counter labeled "imported African 
Valencia grapes,'' 49 cents a pound. 

She said they were not only imported African Valencia grapes, 
but came in wrappers that said "Safco, Chile,'' and in boxes from 
California. [Laughter.] 

Senator Mondale. That must be a very tired and neurotic grape. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. O'Hara. It is a well-traveled grape, Mr. Chairman, that we 
now find on our market shelf. 

Senator Mondale. Perhaps you could describe a little bit more 
than you did in your opening testimony what you saw on the border, 
which I assume to be a rather typical morning, because they didn't 
know you Avere coming, and you were just there to see who came 
across. What kind of indications of legitimacy in terms of entrance 
into the American labor market did commuters have? 

Could you tell us something about the number of persons, about 
the indications of citizenship, or green-card status, or baptismal certifi- 
cates, and so forth, that were accepted by the Immigration officials? 

Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Chairman, I was out on this sort of inspection 
tour between 2 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. At that time, the people coming 
across the border are almost entirely those who are farmworkers. It 
is not until later in the morning that the town workers, as it were, 
commuting town workers are coming across the border. 

At this hour, it is almost entirely farmworkers who are hoping 
to make contact with a crew leader or who have a regular foreman 
that they have an ongoing relationship with, who have to be trans- 
ported some distance before they are at tlie fields at wliich they are 
going to work, and who want to be in the helds by dawn. 

So Avith that qualification, I will describe to you the kind of creden- 
tials presented by them and the kind of people I saw^ coming across. 

They were men and women of all ages, really, from about 16 or 17 
upward into the sixties. At the time I was observing their passage, 
ahnost all of them, I would say 90 percent, were presenting green 
cards, so-called green cards, as their credentials for passage. 



1953 

Tlie Immioration inspector would, if any of the ^reen cards looked 
somewhat discolored or had anything odd about their appearance, 
the inspector would stop, take the green card, and try to determine 
if it was legitimate and genuine by a quick visual examination and 
an examination by touch with the fingertips. 

He said that there was a considerable problem at that point in the 
border with forged credentials. 

Senator Mondale. Forged credentials were a serious problem ^ 

Mr. O'Hara. He said it was a serious problem at that particular 
point. 

Of those who did not have green cards, there were several types of 
documents. First, a Mexican passport with a visa stamped in it was 
sometimes presented, with a picture of the holder of the passport. 

Senator Moxdale. Would that be a Mexican citizen ? 

Mr. O'Hara, Yes, who had a visa for admission into the United 
States and was showing that. They would accept that. 

A number of them would have U.S. passports showing that they 
were U.S. citizens, and gaining their travel back and forth in that way. 

Senator Mondale. Would that be evidence of U.S. citizenship? 

Mr. O'Hara. Yes. Others presented birth certificates or baptismal 
certificates. 

Senator Mondale. The birth certificates that I saw would usually 
be a certified copy or a photostat, presumably to evidence birth in 
the United States. But I find baptismal certificates a peculiar instru- 
ment to use to establish identity as a U.S. citizen. 

Mr. O'Hara. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I inquired about that, and I no- 
ticed that some of these documents had thumb prints on them. I in- 
quired about, ''How do you determine the genuineness and validity of 
these things?'' xVnd I was told that, "Well, when such a document 
was first presented, they would sometimes take up the document, give 
the entrant a receipt for it, attempt to determine its validity, and 
then once the determination of its validity had been made, they would 
then have the applicant come in and give them a thumb print on the 
document itself — initially that, and that was sort of an indication 
that it was a valid document, and would be recognized as such from 
henceforward." 

I might add, Mr. Chairman, some came through simply on their 
say-so. 

Senator Mondale. "Wliile you were there ? 

Mr. O'Hara. While I was there. They would walk up to the immi- 
gration officer, indeed as we do, those of us from the States of Minne- 
sota and Michigan, certainly, who are fairly close to our Canadian 
border. When we go across to Canada and return to the United States, 
we stop at the border. The Immigration officer says to us, ''What is 
your citizenship?" We tell him. He might ask us where we were born. 

If the answers seem to him satisfactory, we are admitted. 

The same practice is followed on the Mexican border with respect to 
these farmworkers. They ask what is their citizenship. They respond 
that it is the United States. They ask where they were born, they tell 
wdiere, and quite often that is all that is asked. 

At other times, the immigration officer may be a little suspicious of 
this particular person who has given these responses and he may ask 
further questions. 



1954 

Then if he isn't satisfied, he may ask for some sort of identification 
and ■\vhat-have-yoii. But for the most part, he simply says, "What is 
your citizenship?'' The response is, "The United States." "Where were 
yon born," and tlie response is "Brawley,"' or "Los Angeles,'' and they 
go on throngh. 

I think we should greatly tighten np the border. The entry of 
illegals has been expanding at a fantastic rate in recent years since 
termination of the Public Law 78, the Bracero Program, and it is 
becoming quite easy because the amount of personnel and funds de- 
A^oted to preventing illegal entry is not as great as it must be if we are 
going to really effectively prevent illegal entries. 

Mr. Chairman, I have taken a lot of your time, and the caucus of 
House Democrats began 4 minutes ago. 

Senator Mondale. Fine. I wouldn't want to interrupt proceedings 
in the other House. It is screwed up enough the way it is. [Laughter.] 

Mr. O'Hailn.. Mr. Chairman, I want to hasten to assure you that if 
you are concerned about that, I have no plan in mind as I go to the 
caucus. I have nothing I want to propose. I just want to make sure 
nobody else proposes anything else I object to. 

Senator Mondale. Let me say how much Ave appreciate your appear- 
ance here, and your willingness to go to the border and make a first- 
hand appraisal of the circumstances as you see them. This was essen- 
tially the same thing I saw Avhen I went to the border in Texas. 

The other day Avhen there Avas a hearing, I brought up the baptismal 
certificate issue, and afterAvard a Catholic priest came doAvn to me and 
he said there Avas a very serious problem along the border, and that 
they tried to encourage the nonissuance of baptismal certificates AA'hen 
they don't accurately reflect the situation. 

He said he kncAv of cases Avhere people held baptismal certificates 
that make it appear they AA'ere LIS. citizens, Avhen in fact they are not. 

Senator Murphy, Congressman O'Hara Avas supposed to be in cau- 
cus 5 minutes ago. 

Mr. 0'Har.\. If the Senator has any questions, I Avill be happy to 
ansAver them. 

Senator Mukphy. I have none. 

Mr. 0'Har.a. It Avas a pleasure to talk Avith you. 

Senator Mondale. Thank you. 

Our next Avitness is Peter Velasco, avIio is Avith the United Farm 
Workers Organizing Committee of Delano, Calif. 

I unclerstand you do not have a Avritten statement, but that you 
Avould like to make an opening extemporaneous statement, and then 
haA-e us ask questions. 

Mr. A'elasco, AA-e are pleased to have you here this morning. You may 
proceed as you Avish. 

STATEMENT OF PETER VELASCO, UNION ORGANIZER, THE UNITED 
FARM WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, DELANO, CALIF. 

Mr. Velasco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
^ My name is Peter Velasco. I am a farniAvorker and a striker since 
September 8, 1965. 1 Avas appointed by the director of the ITnited Farm 
Workers Organizing Committee in Coachella this year. 



1955 

Our strike as of today is nearly 4 years, since September. There is 
a rejrnlation about o-re'en card holders, that they cannot cross the 
border to break this strike, but the oroAvers have used oreeu carders to 
break our strike, and they were not told they are to work in the strike 
areas. 

For instance, they strike at the Giumarra Vineyards Corp. There 
were 950 farmworkers who walked out on strike, out of about a 1,000 
work force, and they were replaced by green carders. 

Senator Moxdale. How quickly were they replaced ? 

Mr. Valesco. Green-carders were recruited to replace the strikers, 
because at the time the grape picking was in swing, and then again in 
June 1968 we struck in Coachella, and there the growers were notified 
to sit down and talk with our director and representatives of the 
United Farm "Workers, but the growers refused to sit down with them. 

So a representation election was held, and 1,500 voted for union 
representation, and about 37 voted against. 

Senator Moxdale. Would you please repeat those numbers? 

Mr. Velasco. 1,500 voted for union representation. 

Senator Mondale. And how many voted against the union ? 

Mr. Velasco. Thirty-seven voted against. 

Senator Moxdale. Thirty-seven. 

]\Ir. Velasco. The people, when we figured it in the fields that people 
walk out, and thus the growers could not get no workers, and for that 
reason the growers went to court and — and Judge Pierson Hall had 
issued an injunction giving 21 days for the growers to recruit green 
carders. 

The green carders broke our certified strike. Mexicali is only 100 miles 
away from the border, from Goachella, I should say. In the border, 
since I was there in Goachella, I had tlie experience of watching per- 
sonally what transpired every morning. About '21 organizers in my 
group, by two's, and we went down there about 12 o'clock in the 
morning, one Sunday morning, and we observed that about 1 o'clock 
in the morning green card holders start to come in, and about 2 o'clock 
there are more coming in. 

Right there in the pit located where people come across were buses 
for transporting workers, and along with those buses were station 
wagons owned by contractors. So about 4 o'clock the buses are loaded 
with green card holders, and they are transported from the pit into 
the different areas in Coachella, which the organizers, they follow a 
bus in different areas, and made a report in the morning, say, about 
7 :30, when we came home. 

They were hauled back from rhe pit into the Coachella ranches, and 
returned in the afternoon, which gathering from the figure of — say, 
they get up at 1 o'clock in the morning and return about 4 o'clock in 
the afternoon. They practically spend 16 hours for a work of 8 hours 
a. day with pay, and then there is the situation that makes it difficult 
to form a luiion under such circumstances or conditions. 

Domestic workers are afraid to walk out, because they know that if 
they walk out, they are replaced by green cardholders. 

Unless something can be done about contractors and growers ille- 
gally recruiting green carders, there will be escalation of nonviolent 
involvement of the farmworkers' union. 



1956 

Also, there is the Immig:r{ition and Naturalization Service not fully 
enforcing the law to stop the green carders breaking our strike. For 
instance, in the case of Mr. Giumarra Vineyards Corp., where 950 out 
of 1,000 walked out and were replaced by green carders, and the Immi- 
gration Service refused to tell the union who recruits these illegal 
strikebreakers. 

Also, the Filipinos have a peculiar problem. The Filipinos are skill- 
ful workers, and they are a No. 1 asset to the growers, and they do all 
forms of f armwork. 

In the early 1930's, laws were passed and deprived them of getting 
married interracially with Caucasians, and they can't own homes and 
own property, and these laws were supported by the growers so that 
the Filipinos live in community — live a community life in the camps, 
and by so doing, they are at the growers' disposal to be used to work 
for them with low wages. 

Then there is the attitude of the growers like paternalistic attitude 
toward the Filipinos. They call the Filipinos "my boys," and "my boys 
are happy," they speak of them like they own them, you know. 

Also, there is the attitude of the growers of pitting the races against 
races a sort of dividing the unity of the farmworkers in such a Avay 
that they cannot organize as one strong body. 

Today, most Filipinos are still without homes and unmarried. 

Senator Moxdale. I might add that when many of the present 
Filipino farmworkers came to the United States, we had an Asian 
exclusion law which established a ratio of 280 males to one female. 
There would be 280 male Filipino workers admitted to one Filipino 
woman. Secondly, the hiAvs in California prohibited you from 
owning property. The miscegenation statute was amended to prohibit 
a marriage between a Filipino and a white woman, so that many of 
the Filipino workers are now in their late fifties and sixties. They have 
never owned property, and they have never been permitted to marry 
until just recentlv. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Velasco. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Mondale. I don't know when those discriminatory laws were 
changed. 

Senator Kennedy. Of course, just developing that point, as Sena- 
tor Mondale said, even beyond the point of the percentages that 
were able to come on into the United States, the McCarran-Walter 
Immigration Act, which referred to those who come from the Asian 
Pacific triangle, constituted some of the most discriminatory laws 
that ever existed on the U.S. statute books. 

We were able to change that in 1965 so that the accident of birth 
would not be reflected in the entrance requirements into the United 
States, but I think what Senator Mondale has touched on here is a 
whole history of the U.S. laws which were on their very face, many 
of them, the most blatant kind of discrimination that we have ever had. 

I think all of us are aware of the hidden kinds of discrimination 
which existed in our society, but here was something that was just 
written right into the statutes, and existed from the late 1920's, when 
the early immigration law passed, right up to only a few years ago. 

So I think that it is appropriate for us to keep this in mind when 
we are talking a.bout this background which you relate to the com- 
mittee today. 



1957 

Mr. Velasco. It was only after the war that the Filpinos were 
granted the privilege to get married interracially, and for all these 
reasons, on May 10 through May 18, the farmworkers held a march 
from Indio to Calexico, on the border of Mexicali. 

The purpose of this march, it was a 100-mile march to the border, 
is to protest against illegal recruitment of green carders by contractors 
and growers, and to appeal to the brothers in Mexico to unite with us 
in our struggle. 

We feel that our fight as domestic workers here in the United 
States is also their own fight, and just wages and better living condi- 
tions and the future of our children will also benefit them. 

The rally won a very strong support by campesinos, or the farm- 
workers. There were about 400 marchers from El Centro down to 
Calexico, and were joined by over 2,000 supporters right there at 
Calexico. 

Then the rally was so successful that everybody had expressed their 
opinions on behalf of the farmworkers. I can say many guests around 
here, like Senator Kennedy and Senator Mondale were there, and 
Congressman O'Hara was there, and Senator Yarborough was also 
there, and other representatives from the AFL-CIO and the United 
Auto Workers were there. 

In order that the farmworkers can have a union of their own, it is 
necessary to bring the farmworkers' union up to the living standards. 

Strong legislation is needed to protect the union. You see, the farm- 
workers' union is just like a newborn baby, and it needs all the 
protection until it becomes strong, like legislation under the Wag- 
ner Act. 

We need all kinds of protection, and we also need legislation to pro- 
hibit the importation of green cardholders to break our strike, and 
we need also in that legislation a freedom of speech in a way that we 
can communicate with the workei-s, and the right to strike to put 
it on a level of power equal to the power of the growers. 

So those are the basic points which we want legislation to help the 
farmworkers form a union of their own. 

That is all I have to say, gentlemen. 

Senator Mondale. Thank you, Mr. Velasco, for excellent testimony. 

I recently received a report from California, and I would like to 
read it and ask you if this would be an accurate description of what 
goes on at the border. 

This is a report by David Averbuck, one of the unions' lawyers to 
Jerome Cohen, counsel to UFWOC. Mr. Averbuck reported : 

On April 27th, 1969, 10 separate investigations were made on the border at 
Calexico and Mexicali. At 11:00 P.M., 20 organizers and myself went down to 
the border and stationed ourselves at the corner of Imperial Avenue and Third 
Avenue in Calexico. We had ten automobiles with us, and thus were prepared 
to follow ten vehicles north to the Coachella Valley carrying green card holders 
from Mexicali who were breaking our strike in the grapes. 

At 1 :00 A.M., the people started crossing the border in groups of around five 
or six. Many went parallel to the border and ended up in the "Hole." The "Hole" 
i.s a fiat area where dozens of trucks and buses line up to haul Mexican nationals 
to the fields in the Coachella Valley, the farms near Brawley and Calipatria, 
and the ranches in the Imperial Valley. Most of the contractors who bring the 
green carders to break our strike line their buses and trucks on Imperial 
Ave. and in a vacant lot on that street between Second and Third Avenues in 
Calexico. 

36-513 O — 70 — pt. 5A 2 



1958 

By 2 :00 A.M., the recruiting i.s begun by the contractors and the foremen. All 
that the green carders are usually told is that there is a job in the grapes, that 
the pay is between $1.50 to $1.65 per hour, and that the job is for a grower in 
the Coachella Valley. The workers ask no questions because it is a buyer 
market — by the end of the morning hours, many farmworkers will have to go 
back across the border to Mexicali without a job. Of the dozens of farmworkers 
that we talked with, none were told that there were cei-tified labor disputes at 
the ranches to which they were to be taken ; none were told that under the law 
tliey were in jeopardy of losing their green cards. 

At 3 :00 A.M., the buses and trucks start for the north. There usually is no 
charge for the workers who go on the buses during the hours of 3 :00 to 5 :45 A.M. 
(actual travel time varies, but with the bus I followed it took 2 hours and 45 
minutes to get the green carders from Calexico to the vineyards near Mecca. 
For those workers who come in private cars and pickup trucks, the fee is usually 
$2.00 round trip. 

Approximately 700 green carders from Mexicali came up to the Coachella 
Valley vineyards from the Imperial Avenue area. In the "Hole," although I 
had to leave early and did not see how many more came, thousands of green 
carders were packed in trucks and buses like cattle. In some trucks, there are 
four rows of people (with each two rows facing each other) packed in like 
sardines, women placed indiscriminately among the men, some of whom are 
drunk or sleeping. Should there be an accident or fire, there would be no escape 
and we would have the same tragedy that occurred in Salinas, California, a few 
years ago when several dozen farmworkers were trapped in their burning vehicle 
and died. 

The bus we followed came up Highway 111 and made only one stop at the 
Immigration and Naturalization outpost north of Nieland, California. The bus 
was driven by a green carder named Eliseo Biscara. The bus was owned and 
operated by a farm labor contractor fi-om Indio named Oscar Ortega. Ortega 
has admitted to me in front of four witnesses that he hauls workers from the 
border to Bianco Fruit Corp., Coachella-Imperial Distributors, Karahadian and 
Sons, Inc., Cy Mouradick and Sons, and Richard A. Glass, Inc., and that he 
and his men have not informed the workers that there are labor disputes at these 
ranches. 

At each of these ranches, as you now are quite aware, we have certified labor 
disputes by the Secretary of Labor. Five days before I followed the bus, I in- 
formed Henry C. Felchin (Head of El Centro Office of Border Patrol) that 
Ortega was illegally recruiting workers in Mexicali to break our strike. Despite 
the fact that the bus was clearly marked ("Oscar Ortega"), the border patrol 
officer detained it for only four minutes ; that works out to 6 seconds per pas- 
senger. Biscara later told me that the border patrol officer did not ask where 
the bus was going. Ortega is now hauling approximately 300 workers alone. 

The bus arrived at the field at 5 :4o A.M., and the workers were told to work 
at six in the morning. When we talked with the workers from Mexicali, none 
were aware that they were breaking the strike or that a dispute existed. 

The ranches which all the vehicles went to were around the Coachella Valley, 
and included: Bianco Ranch #3 (1968 Dodge stationwagon with ten green 
carders, license No. CRE 825) ; Heggblade-Marguleas (we have a certified strike 
here; 1959 Chevy stationwagon with nine workers, license No. KO 443) ; Hopper 
Ranch (ten i>eople there, 50 more from Mexicali) ; etc. 

Finally, the green carders return to Mexicali at 6:00 P.M. after leaving 
around 3 :30 in the afternoon. Since most of the green carders live in the out- 
skirts of Mexicali, they don't get home until around 7 to 7 :30. Then up at one 
in the morning on the next day to start all over again. 

Signed : David Averl)uck. 

Would tliat be, in your opinion, an accurate description of Avhat is 
going on along tlie Mexican border ? 

Mr. Velasco. This is correct, Senator. 

Senator Mondale. Was that the reason for your march and rally at 
Calexico, to try to demonstrate these facts and the need for reform 
along the border ? 

Mr. Velasco. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Mondale. In your opinion, if the situation along the border 
is not corrected, would it ever be possible for farmworkers to have 



1950 

the same opportunity to orj^anize, and have collective bargaining, as 
has been available to all other workers in this country for nearly 34 
years ? 

In otlier words, will we need reform along the border if we are 
going to have liope for collective bargaining and the right to organize ? 

Mr. Velasco. Yes; we need that. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Murphy ? 

Senator Murphy. How many immigrants would you say come 
across the border illegally ? Would you liaA^e any knowledge of that ? 

Mr. Velasco. I believe there are over a thousand of these people 
from Mexicali crossing the border. 

Senator Murphy. Crossing illegally? 

Mr. Velasco. It would be illegal on the viewpoint that they are not 
told they are working in strike areas. 

Senator Murphy. That isn't what I mean. I am not speaking of the 
green card holder. Under the present law, the green card holder comes 
in legally, and he has all the rights of citizenship except that he can't 
vote. I am referring to the illegal immigrants who come in without 
green cards? 

Mr. Velasco. I presume there are some people who do not have a 
green card among those people. 

Senator Murphy. Is the condition worse now than it used to be? 

Mr. Velasco. I believe that it is much worse now than it was. 

Senator Murphy. How^ do you designate the strike? Do you just 
decide that you will strike or do the workers in the vineyards have a 
vote? 

Mr. Velasco. When the workers walk out of a vineyard, that is a 
strike. They are walking out on a strike. 

Senator Murphy. When we held hearings up in the San Joaquin 
Valley 2 years ago, we had great difficulty in understanding this to be 
the case. I had a list of vineyards that were supposed to be on strike. 
I picked out six of these vineyards at random and called the State 
Labor Office to find out if there had been an official notification of a 
strike. I was told that none of them had been officially notified. 

This is why I am wondering how you notify the employer at the 
vineyard that there is a strike. 

Mr. Velasco. This is the way it happened in June 1968, Senator 

Senator Mltrphy. Where was this? 

Mr. Velasco. In Coachella. 

We had some pickers in a vineyard, for example, and some workers 
walk out from the vineyards, and along with us, along with us were 
two from the Department of Labor, taking the names of the people 
who walk out and to certify that there is a strike going on in there. 

That is a certification by the Department of Labor that the strike 
had been declared in that vineyard. 

Senator Murphy. The fact that the Department of Labor person- 
nel witnessed the men walking out is all you need to certify that there 
is a strike condition existing? 

Mr. Velasco. That is right, Senator. 

Senator Murphy. Were the 2,000 persons that joined in the march 
in Calexico green card workers ? 

Mr. Velasco. Many, or most of those people are green card hold- 
ers, Senator. 



1960 

Senator MuRniY. Are you. sayiii": that the green card holders would 
also like to have a union as much as the domestic worker would ^ 

Mr. Velasco. That is correct. 

Senator Murphy. Has the system of recruitment changed much dur- 
ing the last year, or is it practically the same as it has been, to my 
knowledge, for 20 years ? 

Mr, Velasco. It hasn't increased very much since the strikes have 
begun. Senator. 

Senator Murphy. You say there was great interest exhibited by the 
AFL-CIO. Is it generally known that the AFL-CIO is strongly be- 
hind the attempt to organize? 

Mr. Velasco. Correct. 

Senator Murphy. I read often about Mr. Chavez, but I don't read 
much about Mr. Meany or Mr. Reuther. Would that be a fair statement 
to say they are just as interested? 

Mr. Velasco. I would like to answer it this way, Senator. I know 
that the AFLhCIO is backing us by financial means, and the orga- 
nizational man, AVilliam Kircher, has been working along with us. 

Senator Murphy. As you know, Walter Reuther is no longer part 
of the AFI^CIO ; he is with the Auto Workers. 

Mr. Velasco. Yes. 

Senator Murphy. Is financial assistance coming from the United 
Auto Workers as well ? 

Mr. Velasco. That's right. Senator. 

Senator Murphy. I don't have any other questions. Actually, Mr. 
Chairman, there is not too much about this subject that I am not 
familiar with and, as you know, I introduced legislation yesterday 
which would make it possible for farmworkers to organize and bar- 
gain collectively. I hope it will be successful, because I know the social 
and economic problems facing the worker. 

I am sorry to say that I wasn't as knowledgeable as I should have 
been about the conditions of entry and the restrictive laws. I certainly 
will look these up and do my utmost to see that if there are any that 
haven't been changed, that they wdll be soon. 

Thank you. I have no more questions. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Schweiker ? 

Senator Schweiker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask a few questions. One is the pay that the green 
card holders usually get. Is this pretty standard, or does it vary quite 
a bit? 

In the areas in which you work, what is the starting pay for a green 
card holder? 

Mr. Velasco. Before the strike, they were not paid as much as 
domestic workers were paid, you see. 

Senator Schweiker. Could you give me some figures? You were 
paid about what, and what were they getting before the strike? 

Mr. Velasco. We were paid — it ranges m wages from different 
growers. Dalatan, $1.15 and $1.30 an hour. 

Senator Murphy. Can I ask another question ? 

Was there also a piece rate over and above that ? 

Mr. Velasco. Yes, Senator. There is also a piece rate per box. It is 
25 cents a box. 



1961 

Senator Murphy. In other words, you get a minimum of $1.10 plus 
a piece rate of 25 cents a box ? 

Mr. Veilasco. And the piece rate is just solely a piece rate. It is 25 
cents a box, or 32 cents a box. It all depends on the contractor. 

Sometimes the contractor is one who gets the big slice, and says, 
"That is what I can give you, boys." 

Senator Murphy. Does he also offer more money to the better 
workers ? 

Mr. Velasco. For the green card workers, you say ? 

Senator Murphy. No; the better workers. When the contractor goes 
to the pit down there, doesn't he generally know the best workers 
and try to get them on a piece rate ? 

Mr. Velasco. Usually those who work on piece rate are the younger 
ones. Piece rate is something that you have got to work like hell, you 
know. You triple your effort, as when you work by the hour, because 
you want to make money, and you have to be able to make that money. 

Senator Murphy. I am working harder now than I ever did. I wish 
I was working on a piece rate. 

Mr. Velasco. And when the hourly rate is concerned, $1.10 an hour, 
there is an incentive of 5 cents per box that you are paid for the box 
that you pack, you see, and usually a picker makes an average of 
three to four boxes an hour, so if you make four boxes an hour, you 
have 20 cents on top of your $1.10, and some of the farmworkers who 
make beyond four boxes, the quality of the job is not as good as when 
you make three or four boxes an hour. 

You see, you try to cheat some way if you make beyond four boxes 
an hour. 

Senator Schweiker. I would like to come back to my original 
question. 

You were starting to tell me the difference between what you were 
getting and what the green carders were getting before the strike set 
in. You started to tell me, if I have it straight here, that you were being 
paid $1.10 minimum, plus how much a box, 5 or 25 cents ? 

Mr. Velasco. 5 cents. 

Senator Schweiker. Which would probably be another 20 cents per 
hour, four boxes, so you are really talking about roughly, $1.30. 

"What were the green carders getting before the strike, or were they 
getting the same pay ? 

Mr. Velasco. Again, like I said previously, it all depends upon the 
contractor that hires them, you know. 

Senator Schweiker. Could you give me an average, a couple of 
figures to get a feel for what we are talking about? Were they being 
paid substantially less than yon folks, or not ? 

Mr. Velasco. In most cases, the contractor cannot blindfold these 
green carders, too, you know, so he has to meet this squarely, or he 
cannot produce workers for the grower. But there are some vicious 
contractors, and he will slice a little bit for his own bread and butter 
from the green carders. 

Senator Schweiker. What happened to the wages after the strike? 
You implied there was some change. 

Mr. Velasco. Yes. After the strike, there was a raise in wages. It 
used to be $1.10, $1.15, or $1.20. The reason for that is for the growers 
to attract the workers to come in. 



1962 

Senator Schweiker. How much of an increase an hour was this ? 

Mr, Velasco. The increase up to this point — I know the growers are 
paying $1.50 or $1.65 an hour. 

Senator Schweiker. So you are saying it went from $1.10 to $1.60 
now ; is that right ? 

Mr. Velasco. $1.65. 

Senator Schweiker. Do you set up a certain area as a miion or- 
ganizer; is that right? How many strikes are there at places of em- 
ployment in the area that you covered? In other words, how many 
strikes do you have going in the area that you are responsible for? 

Mr. Velasco. This year we have not declared a strike as yet. 

Senator Schweiker. What ? 

Mr. Velasco. We have not struck this year as yet. But last year, we 
had about 22 certified strikes. 

Senator Schweiker. Twenty-two ? 

Mr. Velasco. Yes. 

Senator Schweiker. When will the strikes come this year, during 
the season, during the harvesting season? Will that be the normal 
time? 

You say you are not on strike now. When will the strikes probably 
occur, what time of the year? Does it relate to the crop when it is 
harvested ? 

Mr. Velasco. I am not going to tell you that. [Laughter.] 

Senator Schweiker. I assure you I won't be down there picking 
them. [Laughter.] 

When did the strikes occur last year ? 

Mr. Velasco. We came late last year. Senator, and this year we 
came 2 months early, but still I am not going to tell you wiien we 
are going to strike. 

Senator Schweiker. When you have these strikes occurring, what 
efforts do you as a union organizer make to inform these green carders 
that they are breaking a strike and to go to the places like the Hole 
and tell them not to break the strike and educate them and hand out 
literature making them aware of what they are doing ? 

In other words, the testimony here of the Chairman was that most 
of the people didn't know they were breaking a strike. 

Now, what does your union do to inform the people that they are 
strikebreakers, and how do you educate them? How do you deal 
with a problem like that, if you can tell me now? I don't want to 
ask any trade secrets. 

Mr. Velasco. Well, it is OK. I am not keeping this a secret. We 
have different kinds of media by which we can reach these people, like 
loudspeakers, leafleting, and telling them we are going to strike on a 
certain day, or telling them for their own benefit why they should 
come in with us. 

Senator Schweiker. Do you feel it is effective, or not? In other 
w^ords, are you successful, once you launch a campaign, to stop the 
strikebreakers, or is it a pretty difficult thing to do ? 

Mr. Velasco. If this influx of green card holders will be stopped, 
I think it Avill be very, very effective, Senator. 

Like I said a while ago, the domestic workers, no matter how deep 
from their hearts they want to join our union, you see, and they walk 
out knowing when they walk out, they will" be replaced by green 



1963 

card holders say, "So what the heck do I have to walk out for ? I have a 
family to support." 

The grapes will be picked by nonresident people, so they sort of 
feel reluctant to walk out. 

Senator Schweiker. In the district you are responsible for, roughly, 
how much membership does your union have, or have you organized? 
Do you have any rough idea? 

Mr. Velasco. Roughly we have over 2,000 who have signed cards. 

Senator Schweiker. In that same area, how many green card 
workers would be brought in? In other words, you have 2,000 that 
you have organized so far. During the course of a cycle of harvesting, 
would you give me an estimate of how many green card workers come 
in and "break the strike? How many people are we talking about who 
might come into the area where you have 2,000 signed up ? 

I know it is pretty hard to guess on this, but all I am asking for 
is a guess. 

Senator Mondale. May I interrupt just a second. Senator Schweiker. 

I think it is fair to say that Mr. Velasco's comments have been 
directed toward the nonresident green card holders. There are other 
green card holders who are residents. So when we talk about green 
carders coming in for strikebreaking purposes, I think we are talk- 
ing about the ones coming across the border who don't live in the 
United States. 

So when you are talking about green carders, I think that distinc- 
tion has to be made. 

Senator Schw^eiker. In other words, what would be the numbers 
of strikebreakers Avho might come into an area that your 2,000 or- 
ganized people are working in? Could you give me a rough idea? 

Mr. Velasco. As many as walk out of the grape vineyards will be 
replaced by that number, easily [snapping fingers] like that. It is 
only 100 miles, to Mexicali. 

Senator Mondale. Let the record show that the witness snapped 
his fingers. 

Senator Schweiker. Of the membership of your union, I under- 
stand from Senator Mondale's point, are all of them living in the 
United States, or do some of your members also live in Mexico? Of 
those who join your union, who sign up ? 

Mr. Velasco. I can tell you we have green carders who are now 
members of our union, and they reside in the United States. 

Senator Schweiker. And who reside where ? 

Mr. Velasco. Who reside in the United States. 

Senator Schweiker. Do you have members of your union who com- 
mute every day, or is this difficult to get, or is that the purpose of 
your union? That is what I am trying to find out. In other words, 
do people join your union who cross the border every day, or are 
they not members of your union ? 

Mr. Velasco. They are not members of our union. 

Senator Schweiker. In other words, you concentrate on those who 
physically reside in the United States, although they may be green 
carders. Is that what you are saying ? 

Mr. Velasco. The ])urpose of the paraganacion y' suplica to Mexicali 
is to sort of convey the message that our problem as domestic workers 
liere in the United States is also their problem. 



1964 

So we ask them to unite with us and join with us in our struggle, 
so it is just like the same as us here in the United States, you know. 
They want to be a member of our union, they can be a member of 
our union and reside in the United States. 

Senator Schweiker. How long have you worked as a union orga- 
nizer in this area ? 

Mr. Velasco. I have been an organizer since September 8, 1965, 
when we struck. I was a picket, chairman, dispatcher, and I work 
hard every day dispatching captains to go and picket the vineyards, 
and for 3 years I was organizer in the Bay area, Oakland, San Fran- 
cisco, and Marin County, Berkeley. 

Senator Schweiker. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Murphy ? 

Senator Muephy. You started in Richmond and Delano. Is that 
your home, Delano ? 

"Mr. Velasco. That is my home base. I don't have a home. I am a 
farmworker. I cannot afford to buy a home. I migrate from Delano 
to Coachella. 

Senator Murphy. Let me ask you this : Were there many green card 
workers who came into Delano ? 

Mr. Velasco. Would you repeat that, sir ? 

Senator Murphy. Were there many green card workers who came 
into Delano ? 

Mr. Velasco. Yes. 

Senator Murphy. What is the farm rate of pay in Delano now, do 
you know ? Could you tell me ? 

Mr. Velasco. In Delano ? 

Senator Murphy. Yes, for grape pickers. 

Mr. Velasco. I believe they are paying $1.50 in some places and 
$1.65 in other places. 

Senator Murphy. Plus the piece rate ? 

Mr. Velasco. There is no piece rate there yet, Senator, because they 
have not started harvest. 

Senator Murphy. Was there a piece rate last year ? 

Mr. Velasco. Yes, they did pay piece rate. 

Senator Murphy. Were you at the hiring hall when we came to 
visit 2 years ago ? 

Mr. Velasco. Yes. I saw you, Senator. 

Senator Murphy. I remember. I thought I saw you there, too. 
Why did you select workers on table grape farms as those to be 
organized? I am sure that you are not going to limit your union just 
to them. Won't the union encompass all farmworkers? 

Was there any reason for the concentration of interest toward 
table grapes ? 

Mr. Velasco. The table grape is a crop in Delano that is the No. 1 
crop there in Delano, so in May 1965 a strike had been declared 
here locally against Mr. Friedman, and in that strike the strikers 
had demanded from $1.20 to $1.40, and Mr. Friedman had agreed 
to pay them $1.40, so the strike was called off, and the workers went 
back to work. 

But what was wrong with that strike is that when Mr. Friedman 
agreed to pay them $1.49, the strikers did not see to it that a contract 
should have been signed, and when Mr. Friedman went to Delano, 



1965 

you know, and he refused to pay what he had paid the boys here in 

Coachella 

Senator ISIurphy. How many dues-paying members do you pres- 
ently have in your union ? 

Mr. Velasco. According to a report from our hiwyer, he said we 
have 17,000 members in the State. 
Senator Murphy. 17,000? 

Mr. Velasco. Yes. Some of these 17,000 members are not dues- 
paying members, just like myself. I am a member, but I am not 
paying no dues, since I am still not earning any money. 

Senator Murphy. Are all 17,000 in the State of California between 
the Imperial and San Joaquin Valleys ? 
Mr. Velasco. That is correct. 
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much. 

Senator Moxdale. Mr. Velasco, could you tell us how the life of 
the farmworker who works for wine grape growers, and has organized, 
and is subject to a signed contract, has changed? How did the life of 
the farmworker engaged at those places change, in terms of job 
security, rest breaks, field toilets, et cetera ? 

Mr. Velasco. Yes. There was a change. The change was that we 
have contracts signed by our union, and the grower contracted, and 
the wages are higher, $1.90 and $2.35, depending on the different kinds 
of categories of work that they do. 

We have fringe benefits, union benefits, health insurance, and paid 

vacations, and 

Senator Mondale. Is there job security, in other words, from one 
season to the next? Are some of the employees assured of a job the 
next season ? 

Mr. Velasco. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mondale. Has that ever been true before? In other words, 
this is the first time in the lives of many of these workers that they 
have been assured as a matter of right that they would have a job next 
season ? 

Mr. Velasco. That is correct. Senator. 

Before then, you know, a farmworker could be fired on the spot, you 
know, and replaced by somebody new. 

Senator Mondale. And that often happened, did it not ? 

Mr. Velasco. Yes, those without contracts, sometimes somebody 

don't like anybody's way of working, and things like that, and so- 

Senator Mondale. Could an employee be fired for union activity? 
In other words, if you were working for a grower and you did not 
have a union contract, and the grower discovered that you were try- 
ing to organize his workers, would it be uncommon to be fired for that 
reason ? 

Mr. Velasco. No, you won't be fired, sir. 

Senator Mondale. I am talking about where you don't have a con- 
tract. I am not talking about the wine grape-pickers now, but before 
the contracts, if a wine grape grower discovered one of his employees 
was engaged in trying to organize the workers into a union, was it 
unusual to have him fired for his union activity ? 

Mr. Velasco. No. If he is discovered as a member of the union, he 
can't be fired. He can't be fired. 

Senator Mondale. Just one final question. 



1966 

The purpose for this hearing is to determine -whether there is such 
a large available source of nonresident alien labor available across the 
Mexican border so as to effectively deprive the farmworkers of the 
right to organize. For this reason, if you call a strike and your mem- 
bers come out of the field, the grower can quickly replace all these 
workers with foreign labor. Is that your testimony? 

Mr. Velasco. That is correct, Senator, 

Senator Mondale. And there have been many examples at various 
points where strikes have been called, workers on strike have come 
out of the fields, the union has represented the vast majority of the 
workers in the fields, only to have the workers replaced in the next 
day, or by the snap of a finger, as you put it, by strikebreakers brought 
across from Mexico ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Velasco. That is correct. Senator. 

Senator Mondale. And is it your testimony that until something is 
done to regulate this problem in one way or another, that it will 
continue to be extremely difficult to organize and bargain collectively 
in the area in which you are organizing? 

Mr. Velasco. We would be forced to escalate our own activity, non- 
violently, you know, if this should continue, Senator, this replace- 
ment of the farmworkers walking out of the fields. 

Senator Mondale. Thank you very much, Mr. Velasco, for very, very 
fine testimony. We are most appreciative to you for coming here all the 
way from California to give us this important contribution. 

(The following correspondence relates to the testimony of the pre- 
vious witness, Mr. Peter Velasco:) 

United Farm Workers 
Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, 

Delano, Calif., May 29, 1969. 
Mr. BoREN Chertkov, 
Counsel, Migratory Labor Subcommittee, 
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 

Dear Boren : The following is relevant information concerning our strike in 
the Coachella Valley : 

The United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO has always been 
desirous of acquiring governmental certification of our labor disputes on both 
state and federal levels. In California, when the State Department of Employ- 
ment certifies a labor dispute, the farm labor ofiices of that department cannot 
send workers to the struck ranches. On the federal level, when the Secretary of 
Labor determines a labor dispute, the federal regulation on green carders is 
activated and the growers cannot import strike breakers from Mexico. 

We have had dozens of strikes certified on the state and federal level, but re- 
cently we have been subjected to irrational decisions and delays by the Reagan 
and Nixon administrations. Prior to Reagan's ascent to power, we had several 
dozen strikes certified by the State Department of Labor. Immediately upon his 
election as governor, the strikes were decertified despite the fact that we asked 
the Department of Employment to send investigators to Delano to interview 
numerous workers who were on strike at the certified ranches. Unfortunately, 
these workers were never given interviews, and in spite of or because of our 
protestation, all but one strike was decertified. This was obviously a political 
decision by the Reagan administration since the then Secretary of Labor, Willard 
Wirtz, continued to hold that valid labor disputes were in existence at those 
ranches. In other words the State Department of Employment said there was 
only one strike at Giumarra Vineyards Corporation, while the Federal Depart- 
ment of Labor held there were dozens of strikes in the State of California. 

The Department of Labor on the other hand has customarily sent investigators 
to our picket lines, and there they interview the workers .«o that the Secretary 



1967 

of Labor can promptly and accurately determine and announce bona fide labor 
disputes. In the Coachella Valley where strike activities have begun this year, ten 
separate labor disputes were recognized by then Secretary of Labor, Willard 
Wirtz. This year, however, we are confronted with the Nixon Administration 
which has publicly taken a stand against our organizing activities. We expectefl 
harassment and delaying tactics in strike certification by the Department of 
Labor in the Coachella Valley this year. Our exi>ectations have been fulfilled. 

On Monday morning. May 26. I telephoned Mr. Norm Lueck, Regional Admin- 
istrator of Employment Security, Federal Dei>artment of Labor, San Francisco, 
California. As usual, I requested investigators from the Department of Labor 
to be present for our picketing activities to be commenced on Wednesday, May 
28. Mr. Lueck informed me that as usual two investigators would accompany our 
picket lines to interrogate strikers and prepare rejwrts so that the Secretary 
of Labor could determine and announce the existence of labor disputes. I ex- 
plained to Mr. Lueck that this process was necessary to prevent growers from 
illegally recruiting strike breakers in Mexicali, Mexico, ninety miles away. 

At 11 :30 P.M. on Tuesday, May 27, 1969 I responded to an urgent call from 
Mr. Lueck who informed me that the Department of Labor would no longer make 
independent determinations on labor disputes, but instead would depend upon the 
recommendations of the California Department of Employment. I exjilained to 
Mr. Lueck that this was the first time we had ever been subjected to this process, 
and that the Department of Labor was literally turning us over to the wolves 
(since the State Department of Employment had already shown its bias and an- 
tagonism against the federal certified strikes). Further, I pointed out that the 
harvesting and picketing activities in the Coachella Valley would only last for a 
period of approximately six weeks, and this obvious delaying tactic would render 
any federal determination negative in stopping the growers from illegally re- 
cruiting strike breakers in Mexico, because the determination would come too 
late. This problem is comix)unded by the fact that most growers do not inform 
the Mexican strike breakers that a labor dispute is in progress, and thus most 
green card strike breakers become unknowing violators of their fellow farm 
workers' struggle. Mr. Lueck's response was that he had received orders from 
Washington and that he would have to abide by them. I asked him to send me in 
writing his Department's jwsition regarding the entire matter. He then re- 
sponded that he would have to check with Washington before he could put 
anything in writing. 

That same afternoon of May 27th, Pete Velasco (Strike Director in Coachella 
for UFWOC, AFL-CIO) sent the following telegram to the California Depart- 
ment of Employment : 

"We have been informed by Mr. Norm Lueck, U.S. Dept. of Labor, that 
certification of labor disputes by US Govt, will depend on your recommenda- 
tion. Request your office immediately send investigators to the Coachella Val- 
ley for inspection of UFWOC, AFL-^CIO strike activities." 
AVe received the following response from Peter Weinberger, Director, Califor- 
nia Department of Employment : 

"Your telegram this date received. Calling trade dispute team to report 
our Indio office as soon as possible. Most of them should be there tomorrow 
morning. They will consult with you as to information required." 
On the day that the picketing activities began two observers from the Depart- 
ment of Labor, Mr. Me.stre and Mr. Feliz, spoke with me on the picket line and 
said that they would not interview any workers who came out on the strike but 
would observe our activities. 

Around four hours after the picketing activities began, Mr. Jack Ward of the 
State Department of Employment appeared with five other men at our picket line. 
They refused to examine declarations signed by 100 farm workers who came out 
on strike that very day. Mr. Ward and his entourage also refused to interview 
the people who had come out on strike. Instead, they informed Ron Hosie, re- 
porter for the Riverside Daily Enterprise, that no one seemed to be coming out 
on strike, and then left the picket line. 

Later that afternoon, Pete Velasco and I met with Mr. AVard, Mr. Charles 
B. Belvin, Mr. Gilbert "Gil" Kastoll and Mr. Jack A. Lewis (all representatives 
of the State Department of Employment). Mr. Ward and his associates requested 
a list of the workers who left their jobs according to employer, but were unable 
to guarantee that the list would not be used as a blacklist against these employ- 
ees. They were unable to promise that the names would be kept confidential. 
They were unable to say if they had authority to have observers at the site of 
our strike so as to interview the workers. They were unable to tell us the time 



1968 

delay which their invest! g'ations would take and could make no promises as to 
the exi>editing of the certifications. 

Finally, I received a telephone call from Mr. Lueck that same afternoon at 
which time he told me that his office had checked with Washington, D.C. and 
that Mr. Donnachie (his superior) had instructed him not to put his verbal com- 
munications in writing. 

United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO is prepared to present 
the numerous declarations signed by striking farm workers to your office for 
inspection since we are confident that you wi,ll guarantee that the workers' 
names shall not be used as a blacklist. Unfortunately, we do not have that 
guarantee from the Federal Department of Labor or the California State De- 
partment of Employment. 
Sincerely, 

David S. Avebbuck 



United Farm Workers 
Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, 

Delano, Calif., June 2, 1969. 
Mr. BoREN Chertkov, 
Counsel, Migratory Labor Subcommittee, 
Senate Office Building, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Boren : By way of a brief follow-up to my letter of May 29, 1969 please 
be advised as follows : 

On the afternoon of May 29, Jack Ward, State Department of Employment, 
returned with three other representatives of the Department for a second meet- 
ing. They informed me that they had discussed the situation with Sacramento 
and wished to advise me as follows : 

(1) They could not guarantee that the names of strikers, given to them by 
US, would not be used for a blacklist. 

(2) They had received orders not to interview farm workers as they came out 
of the fields on strike — contrary to the practice of the Department of Labor in 
the past. 

(3) That they did not recognize The Desert Grape Growers League at the 
present time as the bargaining representative for the growers in the Coachella 
Va.lley. 

They informed me that they would not be able to recognize The Desert Grape 
Growers League as bargaining representative for our opposition until their 
lawyers could jnake a complete determination and investigation which would 
take some time. Despite the fact that demands have been made on The Desert 
Grape Growers League as well as on individual growers, the Department of 
Employment is not going to certify any strikes against members of the League 
until the question of its status as a bargaining representative for its members 
is cleared up. 

Jack AVard did volunteer that he and his cohorts have spent a great deal 
of time with the grape growers and, more particularly, with Mike Bosick, 
President of The Desert Grape Growers League. AVhen I asked Mr. Ward why 
he selected Mike Bosick as the party with whom he should deal in this dispute, 
if he did not recognize the League of which Mr. Bosick is president as a bargain- 
ing agent, he replied only that this was a matter of his personal choice. Despite 
the fact that Mr. Ward and his assistants spent 45 minutes in the field talking 
to the grape growers, he refuses to talk to any one of the dozens of individual 
farm workers who come out on the strike. 

On June 2, 1969, A. M. Parker, of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
informed Frank Denison, a volunteer attorney for the Union during the strike, 
that it was his understanding that the Department of Labor was also contem- 
plating decertifying the strikes which were certified last year if and when the 
California Department of Employment requests that the Department of Labor 
so act. 

Sincerely, 

David S. Avebbuck. 



1969 

(Western Union Telegram) 

June 4, 1969. 
Hon. John N. Mitchell, 

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Washington, B.C.: 

Recent hearings of the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor revealed how the 
massive influx of commuters across the Mexican-United States border depresses 
the living and working conditions of the migrant and seasonal farmworkers who 
are ligitimate residents of this country. They revealed how questionable birth 
and baptismal certificates, and green cards issued on an unverified assumption 
of permanent and stable employment in the United States are used by alien 
strikebreakers to circumvent the intent of our immigration and labor laws. In the 
interests of justice and law and order, I call upon you to do everything within 
your power to require the Immigration and Naturalization Service to more vigor- 
ously and effectively enforce the existing laws and regulations regarding border 
crossings along the U.S. -Mexican border. 
Sincerely, 

Walter F. Mondale, 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, 
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate. 



(Western Union Telegram) 

June 4, 1969. 
Hon. George P. Shultz, 
Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, 
Washington, D.C.: 

Recent hearing of the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor has revealed the criti- 
cal importance of preventing holders of greencards from acting as strikebreakers 
during labor disputes affecting migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Existing regu- 
lations prohibit the employment of greencard holders where a labor dispute has 
been certified. The effectiveness of this regulation depends on the prompt certifi- 
cation of labor disputes by the U.S. Department of Labor wherever they exist. 

I am extremely disturbed to learn that you have broken precedent in this area 
and ruled that the U.S. Department of Labor will no longer make independent 
determinations on agricultural labor disputes in the State of California, but 
instead will depend upon the decision of the State of California. The significance 
of this retreat is evident from a review of the facts — last year the U.S. Depart- 
ment of Labor certified 45 disputes on California ranches, while the State found 
that only a few certified disputes existed. 

I urge you to reconsider this decision and return complete and direct re.sponsi- 
bility for certifying labor disputes as they affect federal regulations on the em- 
ployment of greencard holders to the U.S. Department of Labor. 
Sincerely, 

Walter F. Mondale, 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, 
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate. 



U.S. Department of Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, D.C., June 11, 1969. 
Hon. Walter F. Mondale, 
U.S. Senate, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Senator Mondale : I am writing in reply to your telegram of June 4, 
1969, expressing concern over the possibility of green card holders serving as 
strike breakers during the California farm labor disputes. 

As you know, a number of disputes have occurred in California since 1965. The 
Department's policy during these previous disputes has been to allow the State 
of California to make a determination as to whether a dispute actually exists 
in accordance with the requirements of the Wagner-Peyser Act. The Department 



1970 

of Labor also has a responsibility under the Wagner-Peyser Act to review the 
State's detennination and, where necessary, independently determine that a 
labor dispute exists. This Federal responsibility is presently being carried out 
by our Regional Manpower Administrator in San Francisco. 

During the past few years the following determinations of farm labor disputes 
have been made in California : 

1967— 

1 determination by the State of California. 
1 determination by the Department of Labor. 
[These findings involved the same dispute.] 

196&— 

21 disputes were found to exist by the State of California. 

23 additional disputes were found to exist by the Department of Labor. 

1969— 

1 dispute has been found to exist by the Department of Labor (as of 
June 6, 1969). 

In 1968, my predecessor, W. Willard Wirtz, decided that it was necessary to 
depart from the usual procedure of allowing the State of California the first 
opiX)rtunity to determine whether or not a farm labor dispute exi.sted. He sent 
a team of Department officials to California to make on-site inspections of those 
California farms where labor disputes were alleged to exist. 

In late May of this year our San Francisco Regional Ofiice was notified by the 
American Farm Workers of California, headed by Mr. Ceasar Chavez, that it 
was their intention to strike the graiie growers in the Cochella area of Cali- 
fornia. The Department of Labor notified the State of California of this pro- 
posed activity. Anticipating the need to immediately certify whether or not 
labor disputes existed, the State of California dispatched investigative teams 
to make the neces.sary determinations. These determinations will be carefully 
scrutinized by the Department's Regional Manpower Administrator. 

Representatives of the State of California have asked Mr. Averbuck, an at- 
torney representing Mr. Chavez, to furnish the State with names of workers, 
alleigedly leaving the farms because of a labor dispute. Mr. Averbuck stated that 
he could not furni.sli tlie names of the workers unless authorized to do .so by 
Mr. Chavez. At this point, the State is awaiting a reply from Mr. Chavez which 
would enable their investigators to make the necessary determination as to 
whether a labor dispute exists. 

The Department of Labor fully intends to meet its obligation under the Wag- 
ner-Peyser Act to certify that a farm labor dispute exists whenever the facts 
support such an allegation. Meeting this obligation includes both the careful re- 
view of State determinations of alleged labor disputes and the taking of inde- 
pendent action where necessary. This responsibility, of course, includes prompt 
notification of the Immigration and Naturalization Service when a labor dispute 
does exist. 

I hope that the above information will be helpful to you and the members of 
the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. If I can be of further assistance, please 
let me know. 



Sincerely, 



George P. Shultz, Secretary of Lahor. 



U.S. Department op Labor, 
Bureau of Employment Security, 

Washington, D.C., October 13, 1967. 
Regional memorandum No. 1334. 
Functional file classification : 710. 
To : All regional administrators. 
From : Robert C. Goodwin, Administrator. 

Subject : Revi.sed instructions concerning holders of forms 1-151. 
References : 8 CFR part 211.1. 

Purpo.se : To provide a revised procedure for processing requests for issuance 

of determination of the existence of a labor dispute in which holders of 

form 1-151 are, or may become, involved. 

The Department of Justice has revised 8 CFR 211.1 to provide : 

"When the Secretary of Labor determines and announces that a labor di.spute 

involving a work stoppage or layoff of employees is in progress at a named 



1971 

place of employment, Form 1-151 shall be invalid when presented in lieu of 
an immigrant visa or reentry permit l)y an alien wlio has departed for and seeks 
reentry from any foreign place and who, prior to his departure or during his 
temporary absence abroad has in any manner entered into an arangement to 
return to the United States for the primary purpose, or seeks reentry with the 
intention, of accepting employment at the place where the Secretary of Labor 
has determined that a labor dispute exists, or of continuing employment which 
commenced at such place subsequent to the date of the Secretary of Labor's 
determination. 

"The basis and purpose of the above prescribed rule is to preclude the use 
of Form 1-151 by a lawful permanent resident alien in lieu of his obtaining 
a returning resident immigrant visa or, prior to departure, of his obtaining a 
reentry permit, when such use would adversely affect a domestic labor dispute." 

Below are instructions for processing requests for the issuance of a determi- 
nation of the existence of a labor dispute involving a work stoppage or layoff 
of employees when such a dispute involves, or may involve, holders of Form 
1-151. This may include labor disputes at places of employment in an area be- 
yond commuting distance of the border (over 100 miles from the border) when 
there is an indication that the employer is .seeking to employ holders of Form 
1-151. These instructions sui>ersede any previously issued instructions on the 
subject. 

The effectiveness of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (I»&NS) regu- 
lation will depend greatly on the siieed with which the Secretary of Labor is able 
to determine and announce the existence of a labor dispute in which holders of 
Form 1-151 are, or may become, involved. 

Request 'for Determination of Existence of Dispute 

The Secretary of Labor, on its own initiative or upon request, will consider 
the appropriateness of issuing a determination pursuant to 8 CFR 211.1 that 
a labor dispute involving a work stoppage or layoff of employees is in progress 
at a named place of employment. The request may be oral or written. It may 
be made to the Secretary of Labor or his designated representative in Washing- 
ton, D.C. ; to a BES regional administrator who has jurisdiction over the location 
where the dispute is reportedly in progress ; or to the director of a State employ- 
ment service or his designated representative who has jurisdiction over the 
area where the dispute is reportedly in progress. If such a request is made to a 
director of the State employment service or his designated representative, the 
director should communicate immediately, by teletype, all available information 
concerning the alleged di-spute to the BES regional administrator having juris- 
diction over the area where the dispute is reportedly in progress. 

The request may be made by any interested party, such as a representative 
of a labor union or other organization, or a representative of workers. The 
person or organization making the request should supply as much of the fol- 
lowing information as possible ; 

1. The name, address, and telephone number of the employer involved, and the 
location of the alleged dispute. 

2. The date the dispute began ; the date and place of any alleged work stoppage 
or layoff ; the number of employees involved in any such work stoppage or 
layoff, and their identities. 

3. A brief summary of the issues involved in the dispute. 

4. The identity of the labor union involved, if any. 

5. The name, address, and telephone number of the person or organization re- 
questing the issuance of a determination pursuant to 8 CFR 211.1. 

6. If the dispute is beyond commuting distance (over 100 miles from the 
border), the basis for believing that holders of Form 1-151 will be or are in- 
volved. 

Confirmation of Extstenec or Non-Existcnec of Dispute 

The BES regional administrator having jurisdiction over the area where a 
labor dispute involving a work stoppage or layoff of employees is reportedly 
in progress will take the following action when a request for the issuance of a 
determination pursuant to 8 CFR 211.1 has been made : 

1. Contact the employer involved in the alleged dispute, by telephone or tele- 
gram, if possible, and furnish him the information which the regional admin- 
istrator has received concerning the alleged dispute. Request the employer to 
comment on the accuracy of this information and to provide any additional 
information which will aid in determining whether or not a labor dispute in- 
volving a work stoppage or layoff of employees is in progress. 



1972 

Notify the employer that all available information about the alleged dis- 
pute will be transmitted to the BES national office for consideration of the 
appropriateness of issuing a determination pursuant to 8 CFR 211.1. It should 
be made clear that the finding will not be delayed to await the employer's re- 
sponse. 

2. Contact the appropriate State agency, by telephone or telegram, and re- 
quest it to furnish any information already available which will confirm or refute 
the allegation that a labor dispute involving a work stoppage or layoff of em- 
ployees is in progress at the named place of employment, or information which 
will aid in determining if sucli a dispute exists. 

3. Contact appropriate representatives of any labor union involved in the 
alleged dispute, when applicable, to obtain any additional available information 
or to resolve any conflicting information. 

4. When a request for the issuance of a determination has been made with rf 
spect to a place of employment which is located over 100 miles from the border, at- 
tempt to determine if the employer employs or is likely to employ holders of 
form 1-151. If the place of employment is located less than 100 miles from the 
border and there is evidence that the employer does not employ and is not likely 
to employ holders of Form 1-151, include such information in the report. 

After obtaining and reviewing available information concerning the alleged 
dispute, endeavor to determine if such information supports the issuance of a 
determination pursuant to 8 CFR 211.1 that a labor dispute involving a work 
stoppage or layoff of employees is in progress at the named place of employment. 
The regional administrator will communicate to the BES national office (Atten- 
tion : FLC, by teletype, his determination as to whether or not there is a labor 
dispute and ail available information concerning the dispute. 

To facilitate handling and to the extent possible, the regional administrator 
should provide the national office with the following information concerning the 
dispute in the following order : 

1. The name, address, and telephone number of the employer involved, and the 

location of the alleged dispute. 

2. The identity of the labor union involved, if any. 

3. The date the dispute began, the date and place of any work stoppage or lay- 

off of employees, and the number of employees involved in any such work 
stoppage or layoff. 

4. A brief summary of the issues involved in the dispute, including whether or 

not the dispute involves agricultural or nonagricultural issues. 

5. The identity of the person or organization requesting consideration for the 

issuance of a determination pursuant to 8 CFR 211.1. 

6. The sources of the information obtained concerning the dispute. 

7. His views on whether or not holders of Form 1-151 are, or may become, in- 

volved in the dispute. 

8. His recommendation concerning the appropriateness of issuing a determina- 

tion pursuant to 8 CFR 211.1. 
.If unable to determine, due to the lack of readily available information, wheth- 
er or not a labor dispute involving a work stoppage or layoff of employees is in 
progress at a named place of employment, report all available information con- 
cerning the alleged dispute to the national office promptly for review. 

When the Secretary of Labor has issued a determination pursuant to 8 CFR 
211.1, the concerned regional administrator should remain in contact with the 
disputants. Any labor disputes declared in the area should be reviewed not 
less frequently than every 2 weeks to determine whether or not they are still 
in progress. Upon receipt of information which indicate? the dispute has ended 
or has been abandoned, the regional administrator should make every effort to 
confirm this information. This may require a communication to the union and 
the employer involved. The national office .should be informed, by teletype, of the 
termination or abandonment of any such dispute. This notice should include the 
source of the information received. 

In most cases there will be no need to inform the national office of a labor 
dispute pursuant to 8 CP^R 211.1 unless an interested party requests considera- 
tion for the issuance of a determination. However, if the regional administrator 
learns of the existence of a labor dispute which he considers will be of interest 
to the Secretary of Labor and which involves, or may involve, holders of Form 
1-151, he should obtain the information requested in this memorandum about 
the dispute and forward the information promptly to the national office. 

The above procedures are effective immediately. 

Rescissions : RM 1325. 



1973 

Senator Mondale. Our next witnesses are Messrs. Greene, Hennessy, 
and Gordon. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES L. HENNESSY, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO 
THE COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 
SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES GORDON, GENERAL 
COUNSEL; AND JAMES F. GREENE, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER 

Mr. Hennessy. Thank you, Senator Mondale. 

The committee is interested in the numbers and chasses of individ- 
uals whom the Immigration Service examines and permits to enter 
the United States across the Mexican-United States border. With full 
appreciation that some of this information is very elementary and is 
Avell known to the committee, the following outline of our procedures 
and practices is submitted for incorporation in your record. 

In the past fiscal year ending on June 30, 1968, the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service examined and passed for entry into the 
United States across the Mexican border a total of 135,844,365 indi- 
viduals. Of these 53,776,297 were citizens and 82,068,068 were aliens. 

The mandate of the Immigration and Naturalization Service is to 
inspect aliens to determine their admissibility under 31 separate and 
distinct statutory grounds of excludability. Our examination of per- 
sons claiming to be U.S. citizens is strictly limited to determining 
that fact. If an individual, by response to questions or the submission 
of various docmnents, establishes to the satisfaction of the examining 
inspector that he is a citizen of the United States, the jurisdiction of 
this Service over him ceases and he is not subject to any further ques- 
tioning as to his purpose, intended length of stay, et cetera. 

Senator Mondale. Would you yield there please ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes, of course. Senator. 

Senator Mondale. Does your Service reach the problem of illegal 
wetback entrants that don't go through your official gates, that sneak 
across the border ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes, Senator. I will get to that later. 

Senator Mondale. You talked about o3 million citizens who crossed. 
Do you include people who produce a baptismal certificate as being 
U.S. citizens without further explanation ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Not necessarily without further explanation. I am 
including in the citizens those who have determined to the satisfaction 
of the inspector that they are citizens. 

Senator Mondale. Is it your understanding that the legitimacy of 
the baptismal certificates is being checked ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes. As a matter of fact, we maintain a special 
fraudulent document center in Yuma, and have maintained such a 
document center for 10 years. 

Senator Mondale. I ask that question, because I had never heard of 
this until I went down to the border myself and stood and watched 
people come across — 45 percent of the people that morning, and I 
assume that was a sample morning because at least I didn't pick it — 
45 percent of them produced baptismal certificates, and they are com- 
ing through there so fast that if they bothered to check one out of 
every 20 of them, they would have had Mexicans backed up to Mexico 
City. 

36-513 O— 70— pt. 5A 3 



1974 

Mr. Hennessy. A baptismal record is obviously not the best primary 
proof of birth in the United States. 

Senator Mondale. It is not an official record at all. 

Mr. Hennessy. No, it is secondary evidence. There are persons born 
in the United States, particularly those not born in hospitals, and not 
attended by physicians, where no formal record is created in the 
State archives of the person. 

They are born frequently with midwife attendance. However, these 
people are baptized in the local churches, and that baptismal certificate 
is the best available evidence of their place of birth. 

Senator Mondale. Do you have any evidence on how many baptismal 
certificates are presented as evidence of citizenship within the figures 
that you have given us ? 

Mr. Hennessy. No, I do not. 

Senator Mondale. Are you in a. position to make a rough estimate or 
express an opinion ? 

Mr. Hennessy. I could accept your statement as to your observation 
at that particular port at that particular time as certainly typical of 
that area. 

Senator Mondale. Of the baptismal certificates that are presented, 
how many can you say are authenticated ? In other words, how many 
of these certificates that are presented are actually checked out to de- 
termine whether it is a fair representation of persons of U.S. citizen- 
ship or not ? 

I am very suspicious in this field, as you know. I must say I am sym- 
pathetic with the immigration officer. I have some question whether the 
baptismal certificate should be used at all. I saw persons 18 or 20 years 
of age, who had new crisp baptismal certificates. A Catholic priest 
told me it was a major problem in and around the border area. 

A person who forges a green card is in bad trouble, but if you forge 
a baptismal certificate, it doesn't mean a thing. 

There is no reason a person who wants to work in the United States 
who isn't eligible can't prepare himself a baptismal certificate, because 
the worst that can happen is that he would get caught and make another 
one out the next day. 

Mr. Hennessy. May I read from our annual report in June of 1968 
a statement which I think bears on this, and obviously was not prepared 
in response to this query. 

It says that the fraudulent documents center was established in 1958 
as a repository for documents used by Mexican aliens to support false 
claims to U.S. citizenship. The records maintained consist of birth 
certificates, baptismal certificates, and other documents relating to 
citizenship. 

The information is readily available to all service officers and all 
other Government agencies to aid in conducting investigations and 
obtaining evidence where a false claim of citizenship is indicated. 

The record is so organized that an inquiry can be made in a matter 
of minutes. The workload in 1968 was greater than in any — than in 
the 10 years of its existence. 

The total cases received and indexed amounted to 17,753. Inquiries 
of record checks increased by 8 percent. Positive responses to inquiries 
rose from 482 to 588. The affirmative responses were made with re- 
spect to 21 percent of the inquiries. 



1975 

For the seventh consecutive year there was an increase in the number 
of chaims to false citizenship encountered by the border patroL These 
false claims were made by 2,025 Mexicans, 27 of other nationalities. 

Senator Mondale. That doesn't indicate how many of those in- 
quiries are related to baptismal certificates. 

Mr. Hennessy. No, but I would think it would be the majority. 
I will try to provide that in the additional information I will submit. 

Senator Mondale. Will you try to provide for the record how many 
bai^tismal certificates have been presented as evidence of citizenship 
at Hidalgo, and how many of those have been checked ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. You may not have that now, and I appreciate 
that. 

Mr. Hennessy. I do not have that now^, but I will submit it for 
the information of the subcommittee. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Murphy ? 

Senator Mukph y. Was this condition aggravated after Public Law 
78 was terminated ? 

Mr. Hennessy. The number of citizens that were born in the United 
States occurred in large part during Public Law 78, and the illegal 
entry period, when the large wetback drive occurred in the 1950's. 
Many of these families were returned to the Mexican side. 

Senator Murphy. Are you saying that the wetback problem doesn't 
exist any more ? 

Mr. Hennessy No, sir; I am not making any such statement. It 
does exist. 

Senator Mondale. As a matter of fact, it got worse. 

Mr. Hennessy. That is true. 

If I may continue the statement. 

The aliens who apply for admission are divided into two classes. 
First, immigrants. These are aliens who have been accorded the right 
to reside permanently in the United States. Usually they have received 
an immigrant visa from a U.S. consul abroad. 

Once they have made an initial entry with that visa, which is sur- 
rendered to the immigration officer at the port of entry, they are issued 
a green/blue laminated alien registration card. This card serves a dual 
purpose of being an identity document and also a travel docmnent 
Avhich enables them to reenter the United States, following departures 
to Mexico or any other foreign place, without the necessity of obtain- 
ing a new consular-issued immigrant visa. 

According to the alien address reports filed in January 1969, there 
were 3,506,359 such permanent residents in the United States. Of these 
701,979 were Mexican nationals. The preliminary figures, an analysis 
of the January 1969 report, indicate that 369,606 of these Mexican 
nationals resided in California, 198,886 were in Texas, 35,725 were 
residents in Arizona, and 10,339 were in New Mexico. The 45,309 in 
Illinois constituted the largest number of Mexican nationals in a non- 
border State. 

Senator Mondale. Would you describe for us the criteria that must 
be established for a greeen card before it is issued ? 

Mr. Hennessy. The applicant for a green card is an applicant for 
an immigrant visa. 

Senator Mondale. What does he have to establish to obtain that 
green card? 



1976 

Mr, Hennessy. The current practice, and I ffiiess that you would 
prefer that I respond to the Mexicans as such : By the act of October 
1965, that became fully effective last July 1 

Senator Mondale. I'^^nder your present re^dations ? 

Mr. Hennessy (continuino;) . Yes. There is a ceiling of 120,000 aliens 
who may enter the ITnited States from all of the Western Hemisphere, 
and no numbers are specifically allocated to any national or residential 
group. 

The visas are issued on a first -come, first-served basis. As a matter 
of fact, the suj^ply of visas, 120,000, is not adequate to meet the current 
demand, and there is approximately a 7- to 8-month delay from the 
time a person initially registers for a visa before his case may be 
considered by a consular ofiicer. 

■ To obtain a visa, he has to establish evidence of his nationality. He 
establishes his freedom from any criminality or political subversive 
sections, meets various health requirements, and unless he is a spouse, 
parent, or child of a citizen or a resident alien, must obtain a certifica- 
tion from the Department of Labor that the position to which he is 
coming in the United States will not adversely aft'ect wages and work- 
ing conditions in the United States. 

This is the so-called labor certification. 

If he satisfies the consular officer on all of those grounds, the visa 
is issued. He surrenders it upon the occasion of his first entry, as I have 
earlier indicated, and the green card is issued. 

Senator Mondale. That determination of adverse effect is made only 
once, am I correct ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Only on occasion of the original entry. 

Senator Mondale. So he might get a job with employer A which 
qualifies the immigrant under that standard, and the day after the 
green card is issued, he may change employment, and he may take a 
job at a rate which, in fact, does advei-sely affect the labor market, but 
there is no further check on that by your service ? 

Mr. Hennessy. There is. I would say, that possibly the 1-day busi- 
ness is largely on the theoretical side. It could happen. Frequently it is 
a longer period of time, such period of time as not to enable us to 
establish that he obtained the labor certification in a fraudulent way. 

In most cases, it is hard for us to establish that that was his intent. 
This becomes an "after acquired'' intention. He is free to go anywhere, 
and there is no check. 

Senator Mondale. There is no requirement or present effort by the 
Immigration Service to determine whether this essential finding of 
no adverse effect upon which the green card is issued is any longer 
being applied ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes, we are out investigating these cases frequently 
to see that the individual goes to the initial employment. 

Senator Mondale. In the first instance, but after tliat ? 

Mr. Hennessy. After that, no, because there is no requirement in 
the statute. 

Senator Mondale. As a matter of fact, that could go on for 25 years, 
couldn't it? ^ 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes, and to pinpoint it to our precise issue, an in- 
dividual could come into the United States with a certification that 
he was going to employment, we will say, in a factory that needed 



1977 

a person with his particular skills, and after he had worked there 
for a few months, he could then transfer over into agricultural 
employment. 

Senator Moxdale. There is nothing in your requirements that pre- 
vents him from residing in Mexico, using the green card daily to come 
across, and after the first determination, to roam at will. 

So it is really, in that regard, more or less a work permit, is it not, to 
permit him to work in the" United States where he pleases? 

Mr. Hexnessy. The green carder for all practical purposes, I would 
say, with the exception of his right to run for office or his right to vote, 
has all the rights of a U.S. citizen. 

Senator Moxdale. I understand we do accord the right to serve in 
Vietnam to these peoj)le. 

Mr. Hexxessy. We certainly do. 

Senator Moxdale. Is there any provision in the green card regula- 
tions about labor disputes ? 

Mr. Hexx^essy. Yes, I cover that. 

Senator Moxdale. All right. 

Mr. Hexxessy. The Mexican commuter immigrant is a Mexican 
national who, unlike the 8.5 million other immigrants in this country, 
maintains his home in Mexico and enters the United States for em- 
ployment on an almost daily basis. This practice of commuting in its 
current form has continued, with the approval of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service and with the knowledge of the Congress, since 
at least January 1, 1930, following the Supreme Court decision of 
Earn nth v. Alhro, 279 U.S. 231. 

The better to identify the "commuter," commencing early in Novem- 
ber 1967, the Service arranged for and did, in fact, insert in the green 
card relating to these commuters a metal grommet and this has been a 
continuing check, and our figures up to April 1969, indicate there are 
46,756 such traditional commuters, those living on the other side of 
the border, commuting on an almost daily basis into the United States. 

Now, a more responsive reply to your particular question, on the 
regulations of the Service 

Senator Moxdale. Is there also a requirement that a holder of a 
green card cannot be unemployed ? 

Mr. Hexxessy. For more than 6 months. They are permitted to 
maintain that residence abroad. If they are out of employment for 
more than 6 months, they must abandon their status or move into the 
. United States. 

Senator Moxdale. Is that being checked ? 

Mr. Hexxessy. This is being checked by the grommet program. 

Senator Moxdale. Would you submit for the record the number of 
green card commuters who have been so checked, the number who have 
been found, the number who have l)een found not to any longer qualify 
under the 6-month rule, and the percentage who have yet to be checked 
among those who hold the green cards 'I 

Mr. Hex^x'essy. I will submit tliis for the record. I think we have 
identified all the commuters. 

In response to your question about the adverse effect on the com- 
muters, early in 1967 there were conversations between the Department 
of Labor and the Department of Justice concerning the possible ad- 



1978 

verse effect of the commuter, and the alleged strikebreaking potential 
of this reservoir of workers on the other side of the line. 

It was determined that there is nothing- in the statute that would 
relate this initial certification to subsequent entries of commuters. 

There is, however, a provision in the statute that an immigrant has 
to obtain an immigrant visa on the occasion of each entry, except the 
Attorney General may substitute other documents. 

The green card, as I indicated, has been substituted for the document. 
So we placed a limitation on the use of the green card, that it would 
not be valid as an entry document for a person coming to the United 
States primarily to engage in employment at a place where the Sec- 
retary of Labor had found that a labor dispute exists. 

That regulation was initially proposed in May of 1967. It was 
finally published on June 10, 1967, and became effective on July 9 of 
that year. 

The Department of Labor has since that time issued various findings 
as to labor disputes. There are currently 61 such findings outstand- 
ing. There had earlier been 32 additional findings that had been with- 
drawn. 

Senator Mondale. Does the Immigration Service check the sites of 
these labor disputes to determine whether green carders are, in fact, 
being used ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes, we have investigators and border patrolmen 
who are constantly alert for illegal aliens in the United States. These 
are in a new class. 

Senator Mondale. Do you go to the grower and check the fields? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes. 

Senator Mondai^e. How often do you do that ? 

Mr. Hennessy. I would suggest in some of these fields we have been 
over those fields more often than the grapepickers have been over 
them. 

Senator Mondale. Would you give us a report on the number of 
enforcement officers you have checking that data in the fields, the 
method by wdiichyou in fact do check them. 

Also, I believe I am correct that there is no responsibility, as there 
is in other industries, upon the grower to determine whether he is 
hiring illegally 

Mr. Hennessy. This is all too true. 

Senator Mondale. So that the grower can either decide not to 
check that fact, or he can ignore it, and freely use green carders or 
illegals without having a penalty ? 

Mr. Gordon. Except when he harbors them. If he harbors tliem, 
there is a penalty. 

Senator Mondale. There is an exemption in the present law with 
preference to the agriculture industiy in this instance against almost 
any other kind of employer ; am I correct ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Correct. 

Senator Mondale. The present administrative regulations could be 
called inadequate in that commuters are prevented from being hired 
only after a Department of Labor certification that a labor dispute 
exists. 

Is this not limiting, because a person could be hired after a labor 
dispute exists and before a certification is made. And, an employer 
can circumvent the regidation by hiring just before a strike is called. 



1979 

Mr. Hennessy. This is true, but I think to penalize the individual, 
who hasn't received any knowledge from any agency of the Gov- 
ernment that a strike is in progress or one has been found, and then 
retroactively to say that his employment with this organization is 
such that could make him deportable, I think that would be going 
too far. 

Senator Mondale. Are you satisfied that we now have an adequate 
system for the implementation of the rule that green carders can't 
be used in the strike ? 

Mr. Hexxessy. I am never completely satisfied. 

Senator Moxdale. Are you able to testify that there is not a substan- 
tial use of green carders in labor disputes today ? 

Mr. Henxessy. I can state that within the 61 i)laces that have 
been certified our unremitting effort to try to locate individuals who 
are in the United States in violation of this regulation has been much 
like the mountain laboring to produce a mouse. 

Senator Moxdale. We have had testimony here that at a Giumarra 
farm the Avorkers Avere called out on strike and the next morning 
they were replaced by Avorkers brought up from the border, and Ave 
hear this repeatedly in those areas. 

Do you think that is not accurate ? 

Mr.' Hexxessy. I think that there could possibly be a situation 
Avhere both statements could be correct. There could be green carders 
brought up from the border in substantial numbers, not necessarily 
those in violation of the regulations. 

They could have been persons Avho had previously Avorked there. 
They could luxA-e been persons Avho Avere not primarily coming in for 
that purpose at the time they crossed the border. This is one of the 
difficulties. 

Senator Moxdale. In other Avords, they say, "I am here Avorking, 
but that isn't the primary reason I came,"' and they are OK? 

Suppose 600 people leave a field, and the groAver goes doAvn to 
Calexico and picks up 600 Mexican green carders, or those holding 
baptismal certificates and so on, and takes them up to his farm, aiid 
the next morning replaces those on strike. 

Assuming you send your inspectors up there, is it adequate for the 
Avorkers to say, '"We are Avorking, but that Avas not our reason?" 

Mr. Hexxessy. No ; if they Avere Avorking and had no home in the 
United States. 

Ten cases appeared to fall Avithin the ban that Ave have found, and 
Ave issued orders to shoAv cause Avhy those persons should not be de- 
ported from the United States on the grounds that they basically 
had a home in Mexico; they had entered the United States subsequent 
to the Secretary of Tabor's determination ; and they Avere Avorking di- 
rectly on that farm. 

The case Avent in for action in the U.S. District Court for the Cen- 
tral District of California, the Cermeno-Ceriuu et ah v. Farrell case, 
in Avhich the court found the reaulations — and it Avas explained in an 
affidavit by our general counsel that this regulation related to those 
persons avIio had a home in Mexico and not to the general run of 
the green carders — Avas a proper exercise of the attorney general's 
authority Avith respect to controlling that particular class. 

But he found that the 10 individuals Avere not Avithin the scope of the 
regulation because on the occasion — they had previously Avorkecl at 



1980 

these farms — of their departure back to Mexico, they had left various 
indicia, clothing, tools, et cetera, in a rented facility, or in a bunkhouse 
or dormitory maintained there, such as to find that they were, in fact, 
returning residents and not the class of person who had a home in 
Mexico and would be subject to the regulation. 

That case is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court. 

With respect to another class of individual, the nonimmigrant who 
arrives from Mexico, usually in a visitor classification : In recent years 
we have taken over the documentation from the State Department of 
issuing cards to persons coming into the United States temporarily to 
visit and there are currently in excess of 2 million cards outstanding. 

Holders of cards are limited to an area 25 miles from the border for 
a i^eriod not exceeding 72 hours of entry. 

Senator Mondale. Is this the so-called 72-hour pass you are talking 
about ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. Does that pass disclose the time of entry, so you 
know when it expires? 

Mr. Hennessy. Not within the border area, and formerly it did not 
beyond the 25 miles. Now when a person indicates he wants to go be- 
yond the 25-mile border area or stay here more than 72 hours, he is 
issued another card or paper on safety paper, indicating the date of liis 
admission, and thus if he is found beyond the 25-mile area solely with 
the card, he is illegally in the United States, having gone beyond. 

If he presents the other piece of paper with it, this will establish when 
he entered and whether he is beyond the 15-day period that has been 
authorized. 

Senator Mondale. You have figures of how many of these 72-hour 
pass holders that go across the border and actually have employment 
and do so on a regular basis, or who go over on a 72-hour pass and stay 
for much longer periods of time !? 

Mr. Hennessy. It would almost seem there has been collaboration 
by way of the statement and your question, because in the next para- 
graph I discuss that. 

A second function of the Immigration and Naturalization Service is 
the location, apprehension, and expulsion of aliens illegally in the 
United States. During the same fiscal year 212,057 aliens were located 
illegally in the United States. Of this number 151,705 were Mexican 
nationals. Of these, 117,184 acknowledged entry without inspection and 
25,943 acknowledged that after admission as visitors they had either 
remained for a longer period of time than permitted or had accepted 
unauthorized employment. 

Senator Mondale. Does that mean that none of them were caught 
in 6 months for a violation ? In other words, according to your figures, 
none of those come within the 6-month unemployment provision. 

Mr. Hennessy. No, these are visitors to the United States, for 
whom employment in the United States is prohibited. 

I am not talking about the green carder. The green carder is a 
person who has a right to remain permanently or indefinitely. The 
72-hour pass is a visitor, but a visitor comes into the United States 
frequently. I would suggest. Senator, that in the subject in which 
you are interested, the illegal alien who crosses the border as a wet- 
back, or the one who comes in, in the guise of a visitor, and remains 



1981 

longer can probably have as great or a greater impact upon the con- 
ditions of the domestic migrant worker as can the 40,000 green card 
reservoir. 

In fact, one of the greatest difficulties in our enforcement of this 
law, and I am not in any sense criticizing the practice, but any in- 
dividual may obtain a social security card. Any person may obtain a 
social security card. 

It is popularly believed that a social security card is a license to 
work; popularly, but erroneously. But I think the average person 
who stopped to think of it would believe it was. 

These visitors can come in, apply for a social security card, obtain 
one, and present that to their prospective employer. Lord knows the 
immigration laws are technical enough, even for the alleged expert, 
and for the employer to attempt to gage these various clauses is well 
nigh impossible. 

The presentation of the social security card is usually enough to 
satisfy the employer he is going to comply with the social security 
laws, income tax withholding, and so forth. This has been one of our 
greatest obstacles. 

Senator Mondale. You have certain tables that you might put in 
the record ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes; tables 19, 27-B, and 35 of the annual report, 
and, of course, any such tables in that annual report as would further 
support the inquiry of the committee, but these, at least, are amplify- 
ing the statements that I made earlier and may be found printed as 
an attachment to my prepared statement. 

(See tables at the close of the testimony.) 

Senator Mondale. Is a commuter supposed to have employment be- 
fore he is permitted to come across ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Xo, because by definition he can be out of employ- 
ment for a period of less than 6 months. 

Senator Mondale. Is a green carder supposed to have employment 
when he comes across the border ? 

Mr. Hennessy. I am sorry. A green carder commuter ? 

Senator Mondale. Yes. Is he supposed to have employment when 
he comes across ? 

Mr. Hennessy. He usually has employment, but he may stay out 
of employment for a period not exceeding 6 months. 

Senator Mondale. I think you indicated that it is very difficult to 
determine the employment history for that 6 months, and that point 
is not checked. 

Mr. Hennessy. We are naturally, in line with so many of the other 
agencies, expanding, and studying the possibilities of various things 
under automatic data processing- and other things that will enable a 
quicker return of this information when you are dealing with some- 
thing up in the hundred million range. 

Tlie manual operation of these various cards does create problems, 
and we are canvassing various ways of using electronic data equip- 
ment to better control the A^arious classes of persons who would cross. 

Senator Mondale. How many new green cards were issued last 
year ? 

Mr. Hennessy. In the last fiscal year, there were 454,448 persons 
admitted to the United States as immigrants. That, incidentally, was 



1982 

the largest year since the 1924 act. There were 43,563 Mexican aliens 
included in that figure. These are persons who made their initial entry 
into the United States as immigrants Last year. 

Senator Mondale. Would those all be green card holders. 

Mr. Hennessy. They are all now^ green card holders. 

Senator Mondale. Is that 43,000 new green cards that were issued 
last year to Mexicans ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. What is your estimate of the total number of 
green cards in existence today ? 

Mr. Hennessy. The total number of green cards in existence today 
would be 3,506,359, of whom 701,979 are Mexicans. 

This information was obtained in accordance with the address- 
reporting feature of the law. 

Senator Mondale. How many green card holders have had their 
certificates canceled last year because of the violation of the 6-month 
rule, or for any other reason ? 

Mr. Hennessy. I think this was a statement that you had asked, 
and we said we would try to get the information to incorporate in the 
record. It will be small, very, very small. 

Senator Mondale. We know that many of our green card holders 
are farmworkers, do we not ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. And we know that work is highly seasonal. We 
know that many of them work during the harvest season or when 
peak employment is required. 

Isn't there a presumption, then, that many of them who reside in 
Mexico would not have worked in the interval? 

Mr. Hennessy. For the immediate border commuters, I have some 
figures here that I think would be partially responsive, and I would 
amplify them. 

When we conducted this original survey in November and Decem- 
ber 1967, we had 40,000 of what I call the classic commuter, one who 
comes in daily; 6,800 were industrial workers; 3,140 were building 
trades and construction workers ; 10,700 were sales and service Avork- 
ers; 2,700 were private household workers; and 17,000 — the largest 
figure — were agricultural workers. 

Senator Mondale. That is an annual figure, is that right ? 

Mr. Hennessy, No, that is a figure of the persons who were coming- 
in as commuters during a period we were trying to identify them. 

Senator Mondale. Can you break down the number of green card 
holders engaged in f armwork on a monthly basis ? 

I assume during the peak of the growing season you have your high- 
est number of farmworkers, and I assume at other points you have a 
drastically smaller percentage. 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes, I would think this is true, but I cannot docu- 
ment it with precise figures. 

Senator Mondale. You have no percentages ? 

Mr. Hennessy. No, Senator. We know generally, apart from the 
daily commuter. 

Senator Mondale. If the purpose of the green card, among other 
things, is to prohibit its use by people who have not been working here 
for a period of 6 months, certainly you must have some idea how many 
of those farmworkers fall into that category. 



1983 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes. I am sorry. In this particular group I think 
we can do that. 

Senator Mondale. 16,000 have permanent farmwork in the United 
States ? 

Mr. Hennessy. The bulk of those do. 

Senator Mondale. Permanently, day-in and day-out ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes, Senator. Tliese are not the same as the sea- 
sonal workers who may have been on the Mexican side who enter in 
the spring of the year and move north with the harvest, possibly until 
September or October or November, and then return. 

Senator Mondale. You mean those figures are different from the 
16,000? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. In other words, in addition to the 16,000 
there 

Mr. Hennessy. There are other persons besides, and these are the 
type against whom the orders to show cause were issued. 

Senator Mondale. Do you have figures of those who fall into that 
category ? 

Mr. Hennessy. We have something in the neighborhood of 4,000 
who have been presently identified. It is a much more difficult task 
to identify the person who makes one entry in the course of the year 
and moves north witli the harvest season, rather tlian the one who 
enters daily. We are in the process of identifying those, and we have 
identified 4,000 of those. 

This is a new creature that has come into our vocabulai-y, the so- 
called seasonal workers. 

Previously, when Ave talked of a commuter, we talked of a person 
who lived on the Mexican side, came across for almost daily employ- 
ment, in an occupation right on the border. 

We have now come to talk of an additional class of persons 
who have their base home in Mexico, and went to the United States 
for a season of employment, returning to Mexico only when em- 
ployment in the agricultural area is no longer available, and they 
usually come in in March or April, and move north with the harvest 
until the late fall or early winter, when they will return for a period 
of unemployment. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Schweiker? 

Senator Schweiker. Mr. Hennessy, just briefly, would you de- 
scribe the procedure when a green carder crosses the border from 
Mexico to the United States. What, if anything, do we check? Do 
we just look at his green card, and that is it? 

Mr. Hennessy. That is basically about it. The ordinary average 
entry that is it. 

Senator Schweiker. Do we record anything about him? 

Mr. Hennessy. We do not record anything. 

Senator Sciiweikeb. If you go out to a farm where there is a strike 
in process and check, do you actually check there ? 

Mr. Hennessy. To find the person is within the scope of the reg- 
ulation. We have to find that he has a basic home in Mexico, that 
he entered the United States primarily to go to work at that struck 
institution or farm, and that he entered the United States subsequent 
to the finding by the Secretary of Labor that a labor dispute did exist 
at this particular point. 



1984 

Senator Schweiker. How do you determine that? 

Mr. Hennessy. We know the dates on which the Secretary has 
made his particuLar finding. This becomes a most onerous task. 
We go to the records of employment to find out whether lie had 
previously been employed, so that prior to the certification by the 
Secretary 

Senator Schweiker. Who are the employers, the growers? 

Mr. Hennessy. This particular grower. We find out if he had been 
employed prior to this certification by the Secretary. 

Senator Schweiker. How can you be sure that that is accurate? 

Mr. Hennessy, We cannot, except those are the same records that 
are going to be submitted for income tax, social security, and various 
other purposes. The records have all the outward indicia of credibility. 

We are by nature cynical disbelievers. 

Senator Schweiker. Why couldn't we install a time stamp system 
on green cards so that the green card itself has a time stamp to verify 
immediately when the person came into this country? 

Mr. Hennessy. Part of the problem is just the sheer volume, par- 
ticularly the green carder on the border who makes 365 entries a year. 
He comes in each morning and goes out each night. You can't stamp 
something physically on the laminated card. 

We are studying the prospects of trying to have this done in con- 
nection with the automatic data processing. This would be merely 
one facet of what is quite a problem of controlling various classes of 
entries. 

Senator Schweiker. There are two basic loopholes. That is obviously 
one, and the other is, why do you under the regulations permit someone 
who is a green-card holder to come to work at a place of employment 
where there is a strike if it is obviously a green carder ? 

As I understand it, as long as he can verify, or certifies that he 
worked somewhere else first, it doesn't matter whether he comes after 
the strike started or not. But under the intent of the law, it seems to me 
he is violating that. 

By regulation, why do you permit the person to work there? 

Mr. Hennessy. I am sorry. Senator. The literal language of the 
law provides this particular prohibition solely to an initial entry, and 
specifically exempts the person who is returning to the United Stater; 
following the initial entry. 

In fact, there have been various bills that have been introduced 
Avhich I think is a recognition on the jmrt of tlie Congress that legis- 
lation is required rather than administrative ruling. 

There have been bills introduced to require us to make the labor 
certification provisions apj^licable once each fi months to a person 
who doesn't have a basic home in the United States. 

Senator Schweiker. You are saying Ave liave to change the law 
because of that loophole? 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes. 

Senator Sciiwp:iker. And it is against people in tliis category ? 

Mr. Hennessy. It specifically relates to the initial entry of a person 
into the United States as an immigrant, and the person who is making 
a return is exempt. 

Senator Schweiker. It seems to me if we put in a time stamp sys- 
tem and we prohibit people from going to a place that had struck, 
I think we have solved the problem. 



1985 

Mr. Hexnessy. I think we would. I must point out the caveat of 
the court that we might be exceeding our authority. 

Senator Schweikee. That is all. Thank you. 

Senator Mondale. Those were excellent questions, Senator Sch- 
weiker. 

Are there green card applicants that are exempt from the immigra- 
tion provisions ? 

Mr. Hexnessy. Yes; any person in the Western Hemisphere who 
is the spouse, parent, or child of a U.S. citizen, or a green cardholder. 

Senator Mondale. I think that is an important point. 

Mr. Hennessy. This is a pyramid that you can build on. 

Senator Mondale. Once a father of a large family is granted a 
green card, his wife and his adult children all receive green cards im- 
mediately, with no finding whatsoever that they have been unem- 
ployed or employed, or that they adversely affect the labor market. 

Senator Schweiker. I think that is a third loophole. 

Senator Mondale. Yes; and it can be any number. I am impressed 
by the sizes of some of the Mexican families. 

Do you have any numbers on the green cards issued when there is 
no certification ? 

Mr. Hennessy. I would have to refer to the Department of State, 
which issues the original visa, but I would say the bulk of cases 
coming in from Mexico are exempted. 

This has become a part of the investigation of frauds that I have in- 
dicated earlier, persons attempting to establish relationships to holders 
of green cards that would exempt them. 

Senator Mondale. Someone could say, "I am the son of the green 
cardholder," and he may not be ? 

Mr. Hennessy. Thatis right. 

Senator Mondale. Is that a substantial problem ? 

Mr. Green. It is a growing problem. 

Senator Mondale. I would like any figures that you have got to 
show the number who come under the nonpreferenc-e exemptions; 
also, you have mentioned the problem of fraud. 

Mr. Hennessy. In addition to this, yes. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Schweiker suggested that a green card 
might hold within it a requirement of a stamp giving times of entry 
and employment. 

Why couldn't that be done '? 

Mr. Hennessy. With respect to the classic commuter^ I think it 
possibly can. But frankly, those persons down on the border who 
are coming in for daily employment, when the regulation was written, 
this was the class that we primarily had in mind. 

Senator Mondale. That is an enormous source, and could have an 
enormously adverse impact on this situation. 

Mr. Hennessy. Yes. The commuter who is making a daily entry, 
we have a better chance of locating and identifying him with respect 
to the particular struck plant. 

Unfortunately, most of these places are far from the border, and 
the person is not making a daily entry. 



1986 

Senator, we are adverting to the possibility, when your bill is passed, 
that we will be required by statute to set up a very definite machinery 
for the control of these persons, because a new labor certification 
will be required at least once each 6 months, and that it will go 
beyond the requirement of the initial certification. 

Senator Mondale. Could you do that under your present authority? 

Mr. Hennessy. No, no, sir. 

I think that that was wh}^ the need for legislation w^as recognized. 
I understand there is a similar bill in the House with a number of 
sponsors. 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, could I correct something that came up 
earlier? 

You stated that when the bajDtismal certificates come up, the person 
can use them. There is a statute that makes a willful claim of citizen- 
ship which is false, a felony. 

Senator Mondale. Would you supply the number for the record 
of those prosecuted under that statute ? 

Mr. Gordon. This is 18 U.S.C. 1001, and a person who makes a 
fraudulent claim for citizenship, there is an offense. 

Mr. Hennessy. It Avould indicate there are no shortages of statutes 
being violated in this field. 

Senator Mondale. I think you made reference earlier to the illegal 
problem and the false claims problem. Aren't these problems getting 
worse, and not better ? 

Mr. Hennessy. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. Can you describe portions of this trend ? 

Mr. Hennessy. I think I will be in a position to submit a chart to 
you showing the escalation of this figure over the last decade, or two 
decades. 

Senator Mondale. Can you tell us how adequate you think the fund- 
ing is for your Department to fulfill the spirit of the rules that you 
are supposed to be enforcing ? 

Mr. Hennessy. I can only say that the Appropriations Committees 
have in both instances in both Houses appropriated the funds that the 
Department of Justice has asked for this particular purpose. 

Senator Mondale. You are beginning to sound like a politician. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. Hennessy. I am sure you intended that as a compliment. 

Senator Mondale. What I am getting at is that I stood along the 
border, and I have some sympathy for the immigration officials. Farm- 
workers come across frqm Mexico in a massive human wave. They 
present various kinds of certificates for admission. 

I doubt that the border officials I was watching had more than 20 
seconds a person at the most. If they had taken more, vou would 
have 

Mr. Hennessy. A line backed up to Mexico City. [Laughter.] 

Senator Mondale. It would have taken hours. This was one point I 
picked at random in southern Texas. Congressman O'Hara testified 
to the same thing. 

They can't possibly know whether it is a valid baptismal certificate. 
Whenever there is a factual determination involved, I don't think 



1987 

these officials can possibly do a thing about it. Thus, the only hope is 
that later on that we should refuse to accept certain kinds of certifi- 
cates, like a baptismal certificate. My personal opinion is that you 
shouldn't accept a baptismal certificate as evidence of citizenship until 
it has, in fact, been investigated and determined to be true and stamped 
in some way, so that it is an official document. 

You would have authority to do that, wouldn't you ? 

Mr. Hennessy. There is some question that a person, being a citizen, 
that we can require specific documentation. We make available to a 
citizen crossing the border 

Senator Mondale. That begs the question. If he is a citizen, I agree. 
As I have indicated, I am very skeptical that many of these are citi- 
zens. Otherwise, they would produce an official birth certificate, which 
many of them did. 

Mr. Hennessy. Senator, I must point out, however, we are talking 
about one problem on the Mexican border with respect to one par- 
ticular grouj). 

I would suggest that as far as both borders are concerned, for all 
groups I am not too sure that we should require every U.S. citizen 
to carry with him, in effect, a passport when he would merely be mak- 
ing a trip across the borders. 

Senator Mondale. Well, as I understood your somewhat oblique 
answer to my question, you are vastly underfunded and understaffed to 
enforce the factual detemiinations that had been made. 

Mr. Hennessy. We could find more illegal aliens if we had more 
bodies on our staff. There is no doubt about it. 

Senator Mondale. I assume that the nonresident alien commuter 
knows that, just like every other law Violator knows, and he plays his 
odds, and he figures the odds are jDretty good. 

He also knows that that border official doesn't have time to check 
these things, so that his chances of being caught are, if he wants to 
play the odds, relatively remote. 

In light of the fact that j^our budgets are inadequate, and laws are 
highly technical and exceedingly difficult to enforce, would you not 
feel that — and the problems with illegals is a rapidly rising problem — 
would you not feel that this is an area, then, that cries out for reform 
and increased assistance? 

Mr. Hennessy. I could not possibly quarrel with it, of course. 

Senator Mondale. Mr. Mittelman. 

Mr. Mittelman. This might be out of your bailiwick. I was wonder- 
ing if there have been any j^roblems in connection with these alien 
commuters paying their income taxes and registering for the draft 
and perfonning the general obligations that are attached to perma- 
nent alien status. 

Mr. Hennessy. The employer pays the taxes, withholding taxes, in 
most instances. I would suggest that this could possibly be done with 
respect to the Internal Revenue and social security services. 

Senator Mondale. That is right. 

Mr. MiraiLMAN. It is my understanding that they do not withhold 
income taxes from agricultural workers. 



1988 

Mr. Hennessy. I am not too sure of my expertise on immigration, 
but I am vastly incompetent on taxation. 

Senator Mondale. It is true that a Mexican commuter may claim 
15 kids, and you don't know how many lie has, and you don't collect 
any income tax. 

We talked to many of tliese workers — we talked to one girl who 
made $2 all day, and the crew leader took 50 cents out of it for what 
he said was social security, no form or anything documenting the with- 
holding was provided. 

Mr. MiTTELMAN. Just oue more (question. 

I would like to explore a question Senator Schweiker asked you a 
little further. Assume that you go to check a farm that is certified as 
having a labor dispute, and you find a worker who began work on 
July 15, when the strike started on July 10. 

The worker tells you he crossed the border on June 15, and worked 
for various employers. Can you check on that ? 

Mr. Hennesst. Yes, we will check on the previous employers, and 
check with the Mexican authorities with respect to his records down 
there. 

We have spent hundreds of man-hours trying to run down a case 
and have come up with a meaningless cipher at the end. 

Mr. MiTTELMAN. You caii call up an airline and find out where any- 
one is in the world. They have thousands of passengers. 

Is it really so complicated to get a machine, so that someone crossing 
the lx)rder would drop the green card in and a record made of his 
name and the date and place of crossing? 

Mr. Hennessy. It is not difficult. It is expensive. It runs in the 
neighborhood of $15 million. 

Senator Mondale. And it might save this country and contribute 
substantially to a profound human problem wliich is costing the f arm- 
%vorkers of this country millions and millions of dollars and depriving 
them of a decent life. 

Mr. Hennessy. I am not indicating the cost figure is too high, but 
I am saying this is a subject that, unfortunately, in this whole data 
processing, a machine is obsolete — I know you reach the mafiana busi- 
ness of eventually you have to fish or cut bait and go into it. 

Senator Mondale. This would require a fairly early generation 
computer. It is not anything important like circling the moon or shoot- 
ing at the Russians. 

Mr. Hennessy. I can't quarrel with that. 

Mr. MiTTELMAN. You doii't need a computer, if you do what they do 
at the parking lot at National Airport. It seems to me that a green card 
could be issued in such a form that it is able to be put into a machine 
and the machine actually time stamps it. Anyone can tell when tlie 
worker last crossed tlie border just by looking at his card. That would 
also solve the 6-montli problem that was explored earlier. If, when 
the man tries to cross the border you see from liis card whether this 
man last crossed the border more than 6 months ago. 

Mr. Hennessy. In that particular instance, yes. 

Mr. MiTTELMAN. It shouldn't be that complicated. 



1989 

Mr. Hennessy. I -would like to say that everything you have said, I 
would be in complete agreement with, and I would hope that we will 
have additional ways of getting some i)arts of it, and I could go into 
this later in more detail. 

Senator Moxdale. I have a host of questions, and it is now that I 
would like to submit to you for the record, and ask you to place your 
written responses in the record at the conclusion of our hearings. 

Also, in view of the interruptions of your prepared statement, I order 
it printed in full at this point in the record. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hennessy. Thank you. 

(The prepared statement of Mr. Hennessy follows:) 

Prepared Statement of James L. Hennessy, Executive Assistant to the 
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service 

The Committee is interested in the numbers and classes of individuals whom 
the Immigration Service examines and permits to enter the United States across 
the Mexican-United States border. AVith full appreciation that some of this infor- 
mation is very elementary and is well known to the Committee, the following 
outline of our procedures and practices is submitted for incorporation in your 
record. In the past fiscal year ending on June 30, 196S, the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service examined and passed for entry into the United States 
across the Mexican border a total of 135,844,365 individuals. Of these 53,776,297 
were citizens and 82,068,068 were aliens. 

The mandate of the Immigration and Naturalization Service is to inspect aliens 
to determine their admissibility under thirty-one separate and distinct statutory 
grounds of excludability. Our examination of persons claiming to be United States 
citizens is strictly limited to determining that fact. If an individual, by 
response to questions or the submission of various documents, establishes to the 
satisfaction of the examining insi>ector that he is a citizen of the United States, 
the jurisdiction of this Service over him ceases and he is not subject to any further 
questioning as to his purpose, intended length of stay, etc. 

The aliens who apply for admission are divided into two classes. First im- 
migrants. These are aliens who liave been accorded the right to reside per- 
manently in the United States. Usually they have received an immigrant visa 
fi-'om a United States Consul abroad. Once they have made an initial entry 
with that visa, which is surrendered to the immigration officer at the port of 
entry, they are issued a green/blue laminated alien registration card. This 
card serves a dual purpose of being an identity document and also a travel 
document which enables them to reenter the United States, following departures 
to Mexico or any other foreign place, without the necessity of obtaining a new 
consular-issued immigrant visa. According to the alien address reports filed in 
January 1989, there were 3,506,359 such permanent residents in the United 
States. Of these 701,979 were ^Mexican nationals. The preliminary figures indi- 
cate that 369,606 of these Mexican nationals resided in California ; 198,886 were 
in Texas : 35.725 were resident in Arizona : and 10,339 were in New Mexico. 
The 45.309 in Illinois constituted the largest number in a non-border state. 

The Mexican "commuter" immigrant is a Mexican national who, unlike the 
three and one-half million other immigrants in this country, maintains his home 
in Mexico and enters the United States for employment on an almost daily 
basis. This practice of commuting in its current form has continued, with the 
approval of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and with the knowl- 
edge of the Congress, since at least January 1. 1930, following the Supreme Court 
decision of Karnuth v. Albro, 279 US 231. The better to identiy the "commuter," 
commencing early in November 1967 the Service arranged for the insertion of 
a metal grommet in the "green card" of each "commuter". The cumulative 
report on "commuters" for the month of April 1969 indicates there are 46.7.56 
such on the Mexican border. 



36-513 O — 70 — pt. 5A- 



1990 

The second general classification of alien is the nonimmigrant. The nonimmi- 
grant arriving from Mexico is usually in the "visitor" classification. In recent 
years the Service has taken over from the Department of State responsibility 
of documenting the nonimmigrant visitor from Mexico, and issues upon applica- 
tion, a finding of admissibility, and a determination of the alien's bona fides, a 
non-resident border crossing card. Currently there are outstanding in excess 
of two million such cards. 

Holders of these cards are currently limited to an area within twenty-five 
miles of the border and for a jjeriod not exceeding seventy-two hours follow- 
ing any entry. Holders of the cards, who seek to enter for a period up to fifteen 
days or to visit anywhere in the four border states, who satisfy the examining 
officer of their bona fides, are given a small printed notice, on safety paper, 
which refiects the date and place of admission and the serial number of the 
card. A Mexican citizen who satisfies the officer that he has a legitimate need 
to go beyond the border states or to remain in excess of fifteen days is given 
the same type entry control card given to an alien entering the United State.s 
from any other area of the world. 

A second function of the Immigration and Naturalization Service is the loca- 
tion, apprehension, and expulsion of aliens illegally in the United States. Dur- 
ing the same fiscal year 212,057 aliens were located illegally in the United States. 
Of this number 151,705 were Mexican nationals. Of these, 117,181 alleged entry 
without inspection and 25,943 acknowledged that after admission as visitors 
they had either remained for a longer period of time than permitted or had ac- 
cepted unauthorized employment. 

There are introduced for the record the following statistical tables, which 
are a part of the 15)68 Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, and which expand on the figures which I have already given. 

Table 10 — Entries of Alien and Citizen Border Crossers. 

Table 27-B — Deportable Aliens Located. 

Table 35 — Aliens Who Reportetl under the Alien Address Program. 

(The tables referred to follow : ) 

TABLE 19.— ENTRIES OF ALIEN AND CITIZEN BORDER CROSSERS OVER INTERNATIONAL LAND BOUNDARIES 
BY STATE AND PORT: YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1968 

[Each entry of the same person counted separately] 



State and port 



All persons crossing 



Total 



Aliens 



Citizens 



227 
60 

393 
4,137 
5,109 

362 

2,071 

2,871 

3,498 

67 



144,768 



Allportsi 205,762,516 119,673.849 86,088,667 

Canadian border 69,918.151 37,605,781 32,312,370 

Alaska 163,563 18,795 

A nchorage. . , _ 505 

Eagle _. 1,484 

Fairbanks.- _ 4,994 

Haines... 26,514 

Hyder 6,615 

Juneau 4,284 

Ketchikan _ 16,589 

Skagway 24,821 

Tok... 77,413 

Wrangell ._ _ _.. 344 

Idaho 

Eastport 

Porthill ._ 

Illinois ._ 

Chicago 49,481 16,557 32,924 



278 

1,424 

4,601 

22, 377 

1,506 

3,922 

14,518 

21,950 

73 915 

277 





399, 767 


239, 388 


160, 379 




240.027 
159,740 


135,403 
103,985 


104,624 




55,755 








49,481 


16,557 


32,924 








stale and port 

10,291,579 

■^''"^ —- " -IT^" 

Bangor... ---- 157,994 

Bridgewater,.- - (2,798,652) 

Calais --- " 2,412,012 

Ferry Point... 386,640 

Milltown Bridge - 101,869 

CoburnGore 42,748 

Daaquan 30,589 

Easton...- - 16,503 

Eastport. - - 14,410 

Eastcourt - 17,195 

ForestCity - 522,810 

Fort Fairfield " 872,996 

Fort Kent " 244,306 

Hamlin 539,519 

Houlton. 396,563 

Jackman - -- 209,194 

Limestone " ' 300,169 

Lubec..-- - 2,575,296 

Madawaskas. - 4 547 

Mars Hill-Knoxford Ime 6,329 

Monticello..-- 30,042 

Orient - 38,933 

St. Aurelie "'" 841 

St. Juste "" 22,300 

St. Pamphile 875,550 

VanBuren "_ 410,832 

Vancebo ro - " " _ 

16,080,912 

Michigan.- --- "'" -— 

91,205 

Algonac ""'' 148 

Alpena - - 44,885 

Amherstburg' - - - "" 38 

Cheboygan*. — -- 214 

Detour 6 (10,774,641) 

Detroit --.-- " 3,832,927 

Ambassador Bridge 6,903,868 

Detroit & Canada Tunnel - 4_703 

DetroitCity Airport.. -..-.- 3,397 

Detroit Metropolitan Airport. . - ----- v - 18, 962 

Detroit River and River Rouge Terminals jq' 784 

Michigan CentralDepot 189 

Houghton - "'"" 281 

Isle Royale - 6 

Mackinac Island*. - - - 105,378 

Marine City - " ' 377 

Marquette 373 

Muskegon -- """ (3,496,129) 

Port Huron 2 - 3,413,026 

Blue Water Bridge .-.-------- 83,103 

Canadian National Railway Station 112,002 

Roberts Landing 1,788 

St. Clair County Airport.... 1,453,258 

SaultSte. Marie. -- - - " 

1,909,164 

Minnesota - -■— 

159,150 

Baudette2 - ■ 7,887 

Crane Lake 6,478 

Duluth -- 25,067 

Ely 4,058 

Grand Marais - "" 312,311 

Grand Portage ---- "' 252 

Indus ' 896,292 

International Falls 2. 59,770 

Lancaster...- ---- 240,731 

Noyes - 2,219 

Oak Island' " "'"" 33,206 

Pine Creek - 7,433 

Ranier - - " 42,364 

Roseau.. ---- - 3,804 

St. Paul - :"; 108,142 

Warroad - " 



6,518,223 

30, 198 
101,198 
(1,755,585) 
1 505,228 
250, 357 
70,946 
39,280 
18,853 
10,778 
9,419 
11,174 
344,852 
540, 287 
194, 582 
345,753 
211,849 
111,948 
183,818 
1,627,570 
3, 209 
4,559 
17,371 
36,809 
800 
20,910 
545,392 
281,083 



3,773,356 

31,194 
56,796 
(1,043,067) 
906,784 
136,283 
30,923 
3,468 
11,736 
5,725 
4,991 
6,021 
177,958 
332,709 
49,724 
193, 766 
184,714 
97.246 
116,351 
947,726 
1,338 
1,770 
12,671 
2,124 
41 
1.390 
330,158 
129,749 



7,489,345 8,591,567 



64.729 
20 
32, 508 
7 
51 
(4,940,483) 
1,392,803 
3,535,782 
1,065 
675 
1,662 
8,496 
22 
166 
6 . 
67,315 
35 
56 
(1,625,944) 
1,581,661 
44,283 
62,932 
597 
694, 474 

849, 24r 

106,105 

1,607 

2,620 

1,839 

61 

107,558 

122 

318,109 

38,950 

134,248 

390 

21,311 

482 

29 384 

609 

85, 847 



26,476 

128 

12,377 

31 

163 

(5,834,158) 

2 440. 124 

3, 368 086 

3 638 

2 722 

17 300 

2.288 

167 

115 

38^063' 

342 

317 

(1 870 185) 

1,831 365 

38 820 

49 070 

I 191 
758,784 

1^059^922^ 

53,045 

6,280 

3,858 

23,228 

3 997 

204 753 

130 

578 183 

20, 820 

106,483 

1 829 

II 895 
6,951 

12,980 
3,195 
22,295 



1992 

TABLE 19.— ENTRIES OF ALIEN AND CITIZEN BORDER CROSSERS OVER INTERNATIONAL LAND BOUNDARIES 
BY STATE AND PORT: YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1968— Continued 



State and port 



All persons crossing 



Total 



Aliens 



Citizens 



104, 162 


24, 802 


79,360 


874 


254 


620 


12,155 


4,579 


7,576 


35,023 


15,731 


19,292 


456 


128 


328 


15,981 


11,703 


4,278 


14,682 


8,481 


6,201 


162,239 


77, 843 


84, 396 


82,778 


55, 469 


27,309 


70, 192 


28,357 


41,835 


22,283 


16,790 


5,493 


350, 307 


203, 857 


146,450 


19,614 


12,174 


7,440 


13,915 


11,392 


2,523 


3,425 


1,742 


1,683 


10,629 


5,425 


5,204 


7,769 


5,880 


1,889 



24, 610 


13,769 


10, 841 


24,610 


13,769 


10,841 


24,633,959 


12, 494, 666 


12, 139, 293 



Montana.... -- 926,484 484,607 441,877 

Chief Mountain 3 

Cut Bank (airport) 

Del Bonita.. - -- 

Great Falls (airport) 

Havre.. 

Morgan. - - 

Opheim 

Piegan .-- 

Raymond 

Roosville 

Scobey 

Sweetgrass 

Tu rner 

Whitetail 

Whitlash. -. 

Wild Horse 

Willow Creek 

New Hampshire .-- 

Pittsburg 

New York 

Alexandria Bay? 9,578 4,854 

Black Rock....: 57,976 35,982 

Buffalo (7,415,814) (3,382,937) 

Buffalo Seaport 47 26 

Greater Buffalo International Airport 9,224 2,397 

Peace Bridges 7,406,543 3,380,514 

Cannons Corners 39,392 28,452 

Cape Vincent 36,069 14,457 

Champlain. 4,371,964 1,944,402 

Chateaugay. 105,571 70,657 

Churubusco 44,330 22,462 

Clayton* 115,683 45,885 

Fort Covington 356,893 163,532 

Heart Island 3 85,083 46,767 

Hogansburg 298,176 183,003 

Jamison's Line 17,490 10,723 

Lewiston-' 1,677,988 1,006,782 

Massena 939,357 597,519 

Mooers 229,254 130,441 

Niagara Falls.... (5,200,883) (3,063,762) 

Municipal Airport 1,191 231 

Rainbow Bridge^ 4,300,374 2,552,430 

Whirlpool Rapids Bridge 2. 899,318 511,101 

Ogdensburg 535,220 312,098 

Oswegos 138 109 

Rochester (1,270) (345) 

Municipal airport 1,268 344 

Port authority 2 1 

Rouses Point 646,009 410,413 

Syracuse. 10,598 6,094 

Thousand Island Bridge... 1,697,306 604,746 

Trout River.. 726,364 402,387 

Watertown (airport) 2,669 465 

Youngstowns 12,884 5,392 

North Dakota 1,272,711 6517267 621,444 

Ambrose 15,648 8,974 6,674 

Antler 19,341 12,150 7,191 

Carbury.... 15,765 12,611 3,154 

Dunseith 199,932 56,035 143,897 

Fortuna... 32,570 19,335 13,235 

Grand Forks (municipal airport) 3,537 838 2,699 

Hannah 12,347 7,690 4,657 

Hansboro.. 20,816 9,878 10,938 

Maida 30,338 18,725 11,613 

Minot (airport) 2,439 555 1,884 

Neche .. 100,443 60,015 40,428 

Noonan 64,424 38,372 26,052 

Northgate 48,886 25,030 23,856 

Pembina 273,787 146,676 127,111 



4,724 

21,994 

(4,032,877) 

21 

6,827 

4,026,029 

10,940 

21,612 

2, 427, 562 

34,914 

21,868 

69, 798 

193,361 

38,316 

115,173 

6,767 

671,206 

341,838 

98,813 

(2,137,121) 

960 

1,747,944 

388,217 

223, 122 

29 

(925) 

924 

1 

235, 596 

4,504 

1,092,560 

323,977 

2,204 

7,492 



1993 

TABLE 19.— ENTRIES OF ALIEN AND CITIZEN BORDER CROSSERS OVER INTERNATIONAL LAND BOUNDARIES 
BY STATE AND PORT: YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1968— Continued 



State and port 



All persons crossing 



Total 



Aliens 



Citizens 



North Dakota— Continued 

Portal2 --- 

St. John 

Sarles 

Sherwood 

Walhalla - 

Westhope . _ 

Williston, Sloulin Field 

Ohio 

Cleveland 

Sandusky 

Toledo - - 

Vermont. 

Alburg 

Alburg Springs. 

Beebe Plain 

Beecher Falls 

Burlington Airport.. 

Canaan. 

Derby Line 

East Richford 

H ighgate Springs 

Morses Line 

Newport 

North Troy 

Norton 

Richford 

St. Albans 

West Berkshire 

Washington 

Anacortes 

Bellingham... 

Blaine 

Pacific Highway 

Peace Arch 

Boundary 

Danville 

Ferry 

Frontier 

Laurier 

Lyndens 

Metaline Falls... 

Neah Bay 

Orovllle 

Point Roberts 

Port Angeles 

Port Townsend 

Seattle 

Spokane (Felts Field) 

Sums 

Tacoma 

Wisconsin 

Green Bay... 

Milwaukee... 

Racine 

Canada 

Montreal, Quebec 

Prince Rupert, B.C 

Toronto, Ontario (Malton Airport) 

Vancouver, B.C 

Victoria, B.C 

Winnipeg, Manitoba.. 



251,742 


136, 455 


115,287 


42, 299 


22, 988 


19,311 


20, 732 


7,542 


13, 190 


25, 987 


16,785 


9,202 


57, 172 


29, 237 


27,935 


33,790 


21,214 


12,576 


716 


162 


554 



43,553 


14, 444 


29, 109 






26,249 


13,027 

1,151 

266 


13,222 


16,144 


14, 993 


1,160 


894 






5,263,809 


3, 085, 201 


2, 178, 608 







134, 073 

78, 020 

250, 079 

239, 195 

10,871 

120,724 

, 265, 542 

120,845 

,044,723 

35, 163 

10, 449 

367, 449 

852, 220 

512,561 

6,129 

215,766 



7,054,585 



76,015 

5,313 

,577,867) 

204, 521 

,373,346 

24, 697 

55, 900 

26,061 

149,763 

62, 480 

392, 358 

57,285 

151 

508, 843 

,186,970 

2,025 

820 

72,298 

6,726 

848,907 

106 



80, 000 

65, 101 

156,374 

147,606 

1,607 

69, 273 
747,778 

76,611 
487,974 

18, 809 
8,536 
222,801 
546,703 
321,213 
2,805 
132,010 



4, 680, 567 



12,014 

1,619 

(2,352,250) 

141,559 

2,210,691 

17,398 

28, 240 

19,284 

103,687 

29,601 

208, 639 

28, 198 

13 

268, 697 

1,082,521 

793 

73 

21,829 

2,887 

502, 735 

89 



54, 073 

12,919 

93,705 

91,589 

9,264 

51,451 

517,764 

44, 234 

556, 749 

16, 354 

1,913 

144, 648 

305,517 

191,348 

3,324 

83, 756 



2,374,018 



64,001 

3,694 

(1,225,617) 

62, 962 

1,162,655 

7,299 

27,660 

6,777 

46, 076 

32,879 

183,719 

29,087 

138 

240, 146 

104, 449 

1,232 

747 

50, 469 

3,839 

346, 172 

17 



1,372 




530 


842 


150 

1,137 

85 




78 

443 

9 


72 
694 
76 






1, 802, 602 


1,049 


,180 


753, 422 



530, 296 


331,691 


198, 605 


28,131 


2,086 


26, 045 


703,306 


528, 558 


174,748 


195, 096 


109, 531 


85, 565 


293, 815 


51, 436 


242, 379 


51,958 


25, 878 


26, 080 



1994 



TABLE 19.— ENTRIES OF ALIEN AND CITIZEN BORDER CROSSERS OVER INTERNATIONAL LAND BOUNDARIES 
BY STATE AND PORT: YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1968— Continued 



State and port 



All persons crossing 



Total 



Aliens 



Citizen; 



Mexican Border 135,844,365 82,068,068 53,776,297 

Arizona.. - 19, 126, 974 12,368,316 6,758,658' 

Douglass _ _... 3,976,828 2,184,559 1,792,269 

Lochiel... 11,300 7,358 3,942 

Lukeville - 415,392 113,915 301,477 

Naco 1,186,620 617,504 569,116 

Nogales... (9,020,581) (5,860,845) (3,159,736) 

Grand Ave 5,839,995 3,784,041 2,055,954 

MorleyAve 3,119,593 2,038,414 1,081,179 

Nogales International Airport 6,844 1,927 4,917 

TruckGate 54,149 36,463 17,686 

San Luis 4,394,775 3,512,527 882,248 

Sasabe 106,462 70,639 35,823 

Tucson International Airport 15,016 969 14,047 

California 39, 626, 879 24,026,952 15, 599, 92r 

Andrade 571,766 371,541 200,225 

Calexico 13,422,482 10,179,305 3,243,177 

Los Angeles (Airport) 135,215 14,156 121,059 

San Diego 11,575 1,443 10,132 

SanVsidro2 24,778,592 13,024,470 11,754,122 

Tacate 707,249 436,037 271,212 

New Mexico 

Antelope Wells... 

Columbus 2 

Texas 

Brownsville 9,086,640 5,904,021 3,182,619 

Corpus Christi 242 54 188 

Dallas Airport 37,225 1,042 36,183 

Del Rio _ 2,468,146 1,108,456 1,359,690 

Eagle Pass 5,570,942 3,724,110 1,846,382 

EIPaso2..._ _. (35,555,447) (18,834,479) (16,720,968) 

El Paso Airport 6,983 1,749 5,234 

Avenue of Americas (Cordova) 2... 13,997,045 5,924,398 8,072,647 

Santa Fe Bridge 2 _ 18,687,329 11,762,695 6,924,634 

Ysleta Bridges 2,864,090 1,145,637 1,718,453 

Fabens 511,766 336,961 174,805 

Falcon Heights 2 _ 600,322 156,021 444,301 

Fort Hancock 50,463 35,711 14,752 

Hidalgo2 _ _. 6,418,832 4,491,724 1,927,108 

Houston Airport.. 23,778 968 22,810 

Laredo (11,904,125) (7,940,491) (3,963,634) 

Laredo 11,887,345 7,932,194 3,955,151 

Municipal Airport 5,884 2,888 2,996 

Railroad Bridge 10,896 5,409 5,487 

LosEbanos 66,857 40,015 26,842 

Marathon _ 8.059 4,876 3,183 

Presidio 477,323 285,949 191,374 

Progreso 987,572 590,968 396,604 

Rio Grande City 2 255,666 196,013 59,653 

Roma2 2,690,637 1,879,797 810,840 

San Antonio Airport 98,455 3,784 94,671 

San Ygnacio 356 324 32 



277, 659 


137,036 


140 623 






4 971 


3,564 
133,472 


1 407 


272 688 


139' 216 






76,812,853 


45, 535, 764 


31,277,089 







' Figures include arrivals by private aircraft at border ports. 

2 Partially estimated 

3 July-September 1967 and May-June 1968. 
< July-September 1967. 

5 July-November 1967 and May-June 1968. 
5 July-November 1967 and January-June 1968. 
" July-October 1967. 

8 July-October 1967 and May-June 1968. 

9 July-December 1967 and April-June 1968. 



1995 






^3 



r^ I CD oo •-< CT» in ^ ^• 
un CO o CO CT> o t— " CO 



o oo csj o» 00 m oo 
cocsj •-« r^^H o> 



—ir-^ .cocsjcsjr^ 



>^^^H 11 o 



CMO m o m ,— t CO 

CD"— ' O «3" CO r^ 



■— « a> u> CO (D CO <^ 



C3 oo 00 a> r^ Csj •— I 

ir-LOOOCOr^ r^ 
C*g OO"— •■^ 1^ 



^^ r^ oo to ^t in ^^ 

CN r^ CM CM CO .— ' CO 



CO ■— ' Ol OO CM O 00 



POCM^ ^ 



^OOOPO «— t 



OC^CNIO^ •— ' 



Csjr^CM r-t 



^H CO ,— . r*. 



r-.co 



co^^^ oo 



C3r-.Lr)^H 



O^C0 00=3>-O 









1996 



I CM .— " ( 



30 to OO --< to .— » 



l-OOOOiT) tOu 



^^^ OOO 



1 to CD ^J- -^ f 



> ri to .— ' o ^ r- oi 

* rsj O to r^ CM to fO — < 



s:°s^o5= 



in C5 LO r-.u 



i-oo^-tDO^OCTJtOtOr^ro<sj^j-(Mr 
.ocvjtocoOCT>inir>t£)cou-)__,tef 



to ^ 



JCT)eNjLrirotOootocDtDor> 



)c^Ocnoor^a>or^r^ 



s-^^oo; 



icsjcsj^^ooooor-^po 

'ItOCsl'^CsjOO'— 'tO^TCTi 



to ■— ' tooj m to 



,— < ro^r 



-OOtOC*^CT>CMf^OcsiCvJCOO> 

o^ oo CO f^ "^ "o mcsjcNj 



E"i 



O^ ^ (^ 52 "^ °° J^ *^ '^ '^ t^ t^ "^ CNJ r-> v-^ s-^ -^^f-^ . ,v*, 

fn4^aif^tDi^°"ooLnootor-.oor-^ooai^coc3toto^s- 



J I — OO to C^ Ol CT> ^J- ( 



r-~<Ni CO oo <5 *3- ^ oTcsTro". 



r in'^'oo 00 1^ to a> oo to CM 

Csl CSI .— '^^COCOfO 



(.^j-.— <mtoj^^*-ro.__t^esi' 



^S-?^^'^^^: 



^ ^ ro ^ ^'^ -^ LT) p-- - 



i-L0^3-C5rr)OLn<riL 
r'evj" oo' ^ ^ *o czT en ij 






1997 



J m -^ r- ^^r 



^ oo ^^ CM oo en 00 c 



oocDtJ*a)tOfOforor^C5oou^L 

csjtocs ir> irxo r-. m C3 ^ 



laioooo^J-tocsin-^r^-^tocsi 
r C3 — " CT) CO (£» C3 csj m en r^ in CTi »-« 



rmm^HoooootO'<3-r^c 






Csj .— . 



r^^-cvj^s-cDincMinosoou^r 
r-a^cMtooooo-— '-^ — 



,_<_,,— ,r^ to ^^ to 



-toa>CTno^a>**Lf>a>fooocooor>.« 

— e3-(0 m-^OOm.— lOOtDC" 



^ _ ,_, rv 00 <o eg 



^tocsjOfooocom^e 



^t^T— t^TCT>tD^"^*''^m'*csiCT>r^tootr>'-H 



., . _ _ _ tOOCOO^irSCT) OOPOCM 

— .— «r-.LOCsjr^t£>CT)^*"^^^^CT)tDcz)Csjtr)LOoo(o coO.— < 



oiCNj r^ - 



r-^oo^"^eM^-C5rocNJtor-."^"^CTJtooom 



1 CTl^HiT) — .Ci 



o> r- oo ro 00 CT> o o ^ _ 

" ■< O 00 U^ lO ^^ '^ to ^^ CM 



to '-« oo est ^^ .— . .-H 



> •— « 'S- to CNJ 



«^,_fncsio^^oiror«.a»CT»o.— '^^cotocoto^omooooirjcor^L 

0>oooe^oo'3"CNioor-^to^^C)— 'U^CDcsjtor-.'^cNiror^— 'inroin' 
^CNjr^coin^rOoommcoajmr^r-.oomtocsjai^rtO'— '•^oocsjr 

***" *-H ^ f-T pC od o" <— T oo" to~ m" csT ^ ^ in cC <o c 



CO oo a> to po CO to t 



*— T^o^rCTi-HCNj^^— .tO" 



.CO— «mcsjC3to^-r^CMrn^a-ootocsj^-CMOOc 
) csi o m vncsiCTJr-H r-o^mm 



g to — « r^ CO .— « ,— 1 — . * 



.—I 1— . .— t Org — t «— ' 



to r-4 CO <^ a> ■< 



i*^ a>r-^oo r 



0000 CSlCM 



i^^oootDOto^j-tomm— t 



)totooooO'— >'— ^moomc 



r oo to oi — ■ L 



- — < CD a> m r-N oo o 



^lOcsj^^otncM.— I.— (U 



.<— 'incooi-^c\jcotDOcoCT>m<— 'toocsr 
.— . r-N. — . CNj — 1 00 CSJ oi •— • CO — 1 



^^^ *3- oo •— ' 



o»r*«.^fOirv.*9'to<N(oococMinoiocsj.— .CO— 'Om^a-cMcomto^- 

c> Q r^ icno oo m c^ csi c ■ '~' " — _^ -^ ^ --^. --^.^ 

too*— 'CMtc>-^< ' 



r-. '^ oo r-v CSJ to CNJ — ' CM p^ -^ CO totOru 
>oooo^^^^coior^csjcoin'^oa>oooocococsjo cm^^^ 



— .(v^cM-^tooocNoomoococoroO) 



^^CD —.C3 r-H 



O^ CM C> CM 



- r-. (O •— ' 00 CM ' 



- — . CM m 



3 -o 2: -=; S >- _^ ^ 

i > 5 5 5 srr.e 



— oQ ; 

_ - O 3 3 I 

k- a>.c o o ' 



ciO.i:"^ c ^ ™ 



0} oo 

Q_> 



SSSSz2:2:zz2ZzoooQ-o=oocot— f— =3>>S5S5r3 



1998 






III 

O CL 



)aD in -H ( 



J.-HtDOOOOtDfSl^POtjO.— . 



J .— t ^ to CO —< CO 



mOOCSJCSjCT>Otr>CMC3<rfSICD^r^-OtD*!:*'U-lCT>CT)CO'*l-r)CDL 

F-^tDLnc3ooco<r^r— •cor-.r-Ln^ooCTsr^exDoouo— 'Cscsif 



J-— «C3tOCSJ.— .—^OO— iC 



* OO CD ^^ *^ C3 ' 

r CM to ^o <a- m - 



to^-oo^CT>roCT>r^tO'— 'I 
^ cTi ltj oo ^o ^ *^ CTi r^ r^ c 



) — 1 ro ^- cor^ to 
J r^ r-^ — csi CM P^ 



t CT>0 CO to 

g --H t£3 ^ 

tocMr-. 

CO ^ 



OOrOClCMCO.— .eMCO':rtDCD 



LOCOC 
,^ ^^ _. CM C . >w - 
.— . ^-^ CO O CO ^^ 

^ltTcm 



^^^CMj-Hr 



-oo^*— T^^.oocococscsjLne' 
rocMOiLnoocooo^^r-coc 
^_« r^ ^- p-^ ^_^ ,^ (£, ,_, 



jCD^-0^00^'*^-tDO»e^JCsJ^ 

)CsjOLnr-.^cocotca-r-.oo5^ 



CO oo CO CD ■-< in ^- . 
oo oo ** CD OltD ^ r 






CO oocvjoocooooocnunm^-oo* 

O^ .— t CsJ -H .— < lO CO CM ' 



icsjLnCTJ^rr^m.aiootofoOO 



^ r^ IT) ITS ro oo .^ e 

to CM CT> CM (3 — < CD r 



-OOCDOOCTJOO 



co^o^-<d-a>tDr^r«».o2 

^^OOC3CMOOt-<U->OOOOr^O> 



ooc^— ' — ^^ 



CD CT> CD ffJ UO CT» CO ^f oo LT) CM Ol .— < O f^ L 
C3eMOOOOCT)OCD0^3-0000«:tO^OOtOe 

.-* ^ to CM CO .— « to CO .— t ^a- r^ CO » 



^^^CMLDOOO^Hr^CD^O 

-OiOcococDocoro^ 

■« CsJ CD oo ,— . CO Csi CO 

—rcM't-r 



'.-^^ c-x Q..-: 



JSJSC ^"^"5 ©"aJ.-; ° a> «j^:= 
<<<<tOOOQQLJ-CJi: — = 



1 °5^J 



1999 



r^cococDr-.'OooootOCD 
moor^C30u^r-^r-Lnooir>oo 



i-ooor 
^ in to CO c 






- ^csjr--a^roc 
to vD •— « r-^ oo c 



CNJ ro to 
LD -^ CT» 

irT^irT 



oooo<o«Njcooooor 



>cnunoocDLnCT)^r«*csi>J^*^oocDesjoc 
irocsjf^o^^j-iritDoo-— ■CD^CD'— 'unroc 
>ooir)ooa^uocsiuDu^oo<^toor^Lnooc 

— Tr-T^oo'csj".— T ^cj'e^T r-'— ' -—Too' 



m -H csi CN ooi— 10)0^ 



c^ oo c^J <x> oo r 



J — -OOiTjU^ " 



•J oo csi f^ cNi — ' WW m wj ■ 



,_ CO CM CO 



T r^ CNj i-fJ crj QO C_) V 

r CNj (O CO ,— 1 ^■ 



iin csj -d- dc 



^tOPOcocsjOT^^oOr^ano'a-t^tD--ur)co*3-oomooLr)tOCT>f 



.-H.cr o 



cvj i£5 00 ^ o r-. < 



rcoi-ocaoo'S-co.— « 



CsiO ^3-1 

00«M>^i 



3 C£)U^gOOc)00 f 



l^ CACTI'S- OOl 



-< *^ r-. cvj C3 ■ 
-1 c^ oo <£> -- 1. 



mtoLnCT)csj^*jooco 



CM iS-— ' OO—TOaiCD 



^ (O CO CM ^ to 



^ 00 o.-« to 



^ tNJ I'J n*. U") w.* 1-^ ^O- U J •— < lAJ \ 

J^^COoOtO'^'""^'^'^'"^ 



a>r-CNCT>«*.— 'i^u^d**«^to 



CStOCM'^tO.— <i— '"^O^ 



CTJtOO^f^-tOf^CsJCMCsjOOtOCMi.nO'— 'CMUOtno^CS 









O O.OJ.OJ — 



:zzzooocLCec/3coi-i— 






2000 

Senator Mondale. At this time I order printed in the record such 
additional material as may enlighten this committee, including the 
responses from Government officials to the many questions that have 
been raised by this investigation, 

(The information referred to follows:) 



2001 




OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20530 



MAP 2 6 1970 



Honorable Walter F. Mondale 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor 

Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 

United States Senate 

Washington, D. C. 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

There are returned herewith, as requested in your 
letter of January 28, 1970, responses to fifty-one of the 
fifty-two questions which accompanied your letter. 

The eighth item on your questionnaire will be the 
subject of a later communication. 

Sincerely, 

Richard G. Kleindienst 
Deputy Attorney General 



2002 



QUESTIONS POSED BY THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGRATORY LABOR 

TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE OF THE JUSTICE 

DEPARTMENT CONCERNING THE BORDER COMMUTER LABOR PROBLEM 



1. Would you please explain all of the different ways by which persons 
enter the United States from Mexico? What, exactly, is the statutory, 
historic, or other basis for: 

a. U.S. citizens coomuting daily from Mexico (using birth or baptismal 
certificates or other documents)? 

b. temporary visitors (3 day passes)? 

c. alien coonuters (daily green card commuters)? 

d. permanent resident alien commuters (seasonal green card commuCers)? 

e. illegal entrants? 

f. foreign contract workers? 

g. any other? 

2. How does a person qualify for each of the permits or papers that may 
be used to cross the border? How does a person qualify for a green 
card, and what is required to keep a green card once received; for a 
temporary visitor's card, etc.? 

3. How many persons are in each category of border coonuters? 

A. What differences are there in the law, and in its administration, between 
the seasonal commuter and the daily commuter? 

5. What differences are there in the law, and in its administration, betwean 
the alien commiter and the actual resident alien? 

6. What are the rights and privileges, and obligations and responsibilities, 
of all classes of border commuters? Can they vote , are they subject to 
the draft , must they pay taxes , can they collect social security , and for 
what Federal programs, such as commodity food, etc., are they eligible? 

7. It has been established that the daily commuter alien has a different 
status by administrative regulation than a permanent resident alien 
because: (1) the commuter alien with a green card (as a visa) may not 
reenter If he is unemployed in the U.S. for six months; and (2) he nay 
not enter with the purpose of working at the sight of a work dispute. 
If this distinction is perpetuated by administrative regulation, why 
then can not an administrative regulation be promulgated which would 
prevent the commuter alien from coming to this country to vrork In an 
area where it would adversely affect the wages and working conditions 
of U.S. workers? 

8. The Subcomnittee requests the Service to conduct at each port on the 
Southern Border, at least once a mooth, two one-day counts of the 
morning border crossers, one on a Monday morning, and one on a weekday 
morning other than Monday. The Subcomnittee requests that the following 
data be secured in each of these counts: (Please supply the information 
on a port by port basis.) 



2003 



a. number of green card holders conmuting, by age and sex? 

b. number of U.S. citizens commuting, by age and sex? 

c. number of 72-hour card holders crossing into this country 
between 2 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., by age and sex? 

d. number of apparent farmworkers (indicated by dress and crossing 
hour) in categories a and b (above)? 

e. the kinds of documentation, such as birth certificates, baptismal 
certificates, citizen's cards, and other documents, offered by Che 
U.S. citizens? 

9. The Immigration Service marked green cards with metal grommets during 
November and December, 1967. 

a. How many were grommeted at that time? 

b. Are the green cards of new commuters grommeted on a continuing 
basis? 

c. How many grommeted cards are now being used? 

d. How many cards have been grommeted since January 1, 19687 
(Please answer questions c and d on a port by port basis.) 

10. The Subcommittee requests the following information by filing location 
or geographic location, from the I-53s filed in January, 1969, by both 
seasonal and daily commuters. 

a. What was the average age (or age range) and sex of filers? 

b. What were the responses and totals to questions 11, 12 and 13? 

c. How many alien registration card (1-53) filers are employed, or not? 

d. How many agricultural laborers that commute are employed, or unemployed? 

e. Is a routine check made to determine whether or not commuters are 
employed? If so, by whom, and explain the procedures used. 

f. How many commuters lose their status each year? 

g. If a green card holder works in the fields for five months in this 
country, and returns to Mexico for seven months, does he lose his 
right to come back into this country the next year? If not, why not? 

h. What does the Service plan to do about coimtuters who check box one 
of question 11, indicating that they have never worked in the United 
States, or who indicated that they work seasonally in the United 
States for periods of less than 6 months? 

i. What does the Service plan to do with workers who check box two 
of question 12, indicating that they were unemployed in January? 

j. Is it true that commuters at the Detroit, Michigan, port are 

checked regularly on their continued employment, or lack of it, 
while this is not routinely done along the Mexican border? If so, 
please explain. 

11. The Service, because it is seeing a large number of individuals dally, 
has an immense collection of potentially useful information which should 
be made available to interested Federal agencies. 

a. Please submit the rules, regulations, and program guidelines that 
you have to implement such inter-departmental, or inter-agency, 
cooperation. 

b. To what extent is wage information, gathered from apprehended 



2004 



illegal inmigrants, turned over Co the minimum wage law enforce- 
ment personnel in the Department of Labor? 
c. To what extent is this information given to, or shared with, State 
authorities? 

12. Many of the workers crossing the border are allegedly U.S. citizens, and 
many of them offer birth certificates and baptismal certificates as proof 
of citizenship. Many of these workers are seeking agricultural jobs, and 
are hired by labor contractors within a couple of hundred yards of the 
crossing point. Significant numbers of youngsters under 16 cross the 
border for farm employment, while local schools are in session. The 
Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits employment of children under 16 

while school is in session. What is the Service doing to give information 
on this situation to the Labor Department? 

13. Green card holders must pay U.S. income taxes. To what extent, and in 
what manner, is the Service cooperating with the Internal Revenue Service 
to help collect income taxes from Green Card Commuters? 

a. Have there been conversations between the Immigration Service and 
the Internal Revenue Service about the desirability of requiring 
an annual tax clearance, like the so-called "sailing permit" 
required of other non-resident workers, from Green Card commuters? 

b. It is our understanding that annual tax clearances are not now 
required of most commuters, though there may be a nominal require- 
ment that such forms must be filed by farmworkers (and others who 
do not have taxes withheld by their employers). Is this true? 

14. When apprehended illegals are caught while working, the Service must 
note the name of the employer and the worker's wage rate. To what 
extent is this information made available to the Social Security system 
so that it can make sure that contributions are made by worker and 
employer for this work--which, though illegal, is still covered by 
the Social Security law? 

15. Although the Service has social security numbers on some of its forms, 

we understand that the Service's files are maintained on the "A" numerical 
filing system, not by Social Security numbers. Meanwhile, the Federal 
income tax, social security, and unemployment insurance systems, to name 
a few, are all keyed to the social security number. Has the Immigration 
Service thought about converting its filing system to that used by Social 
Security? 

16. What is the Service's policy on the acceptance of birth and baptismal 
certificates as proof of citizenship by commuting U.S. citizens? 

a. How many birth and baptismal certificates have been validated in 
the last six months? 

b. At what rate does the Service plan to check them? 

c. How many birth certificates have been found to be fraudulent in 
the last three months? six months? year? 



2005 



d. To what extent are pregnant Mexican women coming to the U.S. to 
give birth to children, thus guaranteeing U.S. citizenship for them? 

e. How widespread is the reported practice of midwives along the 
border, for a fee; fraudulently claiming to attend the birth of a 
child in the U.S.? Have there ever been any prosecutions of this 
practice? 

17. When the Service apprehends an illegal with a Social Security card, 
what is done with the card? If Social Security employment offices 
are not informed, please explain why not. 

18. Please submit a map of the U.S. - Mexico border, showing the number 
of Border Patrolmen stationed along the border, at the point of the 
lowest staffing level (presumably the middle of the night). Please 
prepare the map to show the length of territory covered by each group 
of Patrolmen. Show only those men who are actually working the 
border, on foot, in cars, and in the air, but do not include men 
stationed at the crossing p>olnts. Please supply a similar map, by 
port, showing the maximum nuaber of employees stationed at the border, 
either temporarily or permanently, during operation Intercept. 

19. The Subconnnittee understands that a group of illegals, detained in 
California to testify in trials of smugglers, are allowed to do farm 
work. 

a. What steps has the Service taken to assure that these detained 
illegals, a totally controllable work force, do not cause an 
adverse effect on the resident labor force? 

b. Is it true that some of these detainees are allowed to stay in 
this status for as much as a year? 

c. Are these workers allowed to work at places found to be in a 
labor dispute status by the Secretary of Labor? If so, please 
explain, 

d. How does this compare with the government policy on prison labor? 

20. The Subcommittee heard testimony that every morning, at about 3 a.m., 
buses leave Calexico, California, loaded with green card holders, headed 
for grape ranches in the Coachella Valley, where strikes have been 
certified by the Secretary of Labor. What is being done to enforce 

the Service's regulations that relate to this matter? 

21. It is well known throughout the border area that so-called "wet 
maids" are numerous and badly underpaid, sometimes getting as little 
as $8 to $10 a week plus room and board for long, long hours of work. 
What is the Service doing to change this situation? 

22. What are the Service's regulations regarding registration for the draft? 
When the Service apprehends a commuter who does not have a draft card, 
does the Service turn his name over to the draft system on the grounds 
that he should be registered for the draft, and isn't? Please explain. 

23. To what extent do green card commuters and illegal workers contribute 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 5 



2006 



to the flow of narcotics across Che border? 

a. Did Operation Intercept reveal any evidence to support the theory 
that farmworkers were the chief smugglers of drugs into the U.S.? 

b. How many persons identified as farmworkers were picked up during 
Operation Intercept? 

24. The Subconmittee has been told that border area officers of the U.S. 
Employment Service do not require job applicants to show proof that 
they are in the U.S. legally, nor do Social Security offices require 
such proof before issuing Social Security cards. Hence an illegal 
entrant could show up for a job, particularly a farm job, with a nice 
new social security card, and a reference from the U.S. Employment 
Service. What has the Service done to try to change this pattern? 

If you are not aware of this, please explain. 

25. Please submit the following information, for each of the past five 
years, by geographical area: 

a. the number of smugglers of illegal entrants apprehended? 

b. the number of convictions secured? 

c. the kinds of sentences handed out? 

d. What additional legislation or enforcement resources are needed 
to further control these practices? 

26. During Subcommittee hearings on May 21 and 22, 1969, a number of 
questions were raised regarding the lack of a computer system for 
recording the movements of aliens across land borders. During the 
hearings. Senators and their counsel spoke of various systems used 
in roughly comparable situations, ranging from the ticket punching 
techniques of commuter railroads, to the airline seat reservation 
system. 

a. Does the Service now have the authority, under law, to implement 
such a computer technique or system? 

b. How much would such a system cost? 

c. Has the Service requested the needed funds from the Bureau of 
the Budget? 

d. Wouldn't such a system (if it dealt with both border crossing 
card holders, and green card holders, and used an electronically 
activated card) substantially improve the Service's control over 
the movements of non-resident, non-citirens? 

e. Wouldn't such cards, particularly if tied to a thumb print system, 
be harder to forge than the current plethora of documents used 

by border crossers? 

27. What is the Service's policy on the acceptance of baptismal certificates 
as proof of citizenship by commuting citizens? 

a. Are such certificates still acceptable at the Hidalgo bridge? 

b. Is it true that over the past five years, the certificates were 
accepted at some parts, but not others? 



2007 



28. What is the process by which illegals apprehended by the Service 
are escorted back to Mexico? 

a. How many are simply transported across the border? 

b. How many are taken into the interior of Mexico? 

c. Were the charter flights from Port Isabel to Central Mexico 
abandoned at any time in recent years? If so, please explain. 

29. With regard to Section 212(a)(14) labor certification provisions 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act: 

a. Do the provisions requiring certification of employment apply 
to all aliens who seek legal entry as permanent residents and 
whose entry is based on employment providing their financial 
responsibility? Please explain. 

b. Under what circumstances must a commuter show that he has 
permanent employment? What definition does the Service use 
for permanent employment? 

c. Which aliens are exempt from the provision of Section 212(a)(14)7 

d. Has the State Department, or the Service, compiled any statistics 
on the number of aliens admitted for permanent residei)pe during 
each of the last three years who were exempt from the provisions 
of 212(a)(14)? If so, please provide. 

e. How is the exemption established? Please outline the procedure. 

f. What instructions have been issued to those officers granting 
the exemption, particularly as to sufficiency of proof in 
establishing preference by citizenship of a relative \tlK> claims 
birth in the United States? 

30. With regard to statistics compiled, if any, on fraudulent applications 
for preference status: 

a. How many cases of such nature were investigated for each of the 
last three years? 

b. What types of fraud have been uncovered? 

c. How is the State Department and the Service meeting the problem 
of fraud? 

31. With regard to the investigation of fraud: 

a. Who is in charge of investigation? 

b. How are the offices responsible for the investigations staffed? 

c. How many cases of fraud have been uncovered before a visa is 
issued during the past five years, and in 1960 and 1955? 

d. How many cases of fraud have been uncovered after the visa has 
been issued during the past five years, and in 1960 and 1955? 

e. What efforts are made to deter the continuation of th» frauds? 

32. With regard to preference categories: 

a. What are the advantages of the preference categories? 

b. Of those admitted under the preference categories, how many 
have entered with offers of employment? 

c. What is considered a sufficient offer of employment uhder the 

preference category? 



2008 



33. With regard to offers of employment: 

a. What evidence, conditions, or requirements are required to 
establish the sufficiency of an offer of employment? 

b. Who makes the final determination on sufficiency requirements? 

c. What is considered the minimum offer, in order to qualify, for 
example, for a family of two, three, four, etc., up to ten? Are 
instructions as to sufficiency different for each immigration 
district, or each consular area? If so, why, and how are they 
different? 

d. If an offer of employment is suspected of being false, what 
action is taken? Is any information of this nature ever pub- 
licized, and if so, when was the last time? What were the cir- 
cumstances? 

e. Have extensive frauds been uncovered in offers of employment? 
Who generally engages in such frauds? Give examples. 

f. If the fraud is uncovered after the visa is issued, what action 
is taken? What procedures apply? How many such frauds were 
uncovered during the past five years? 

g. How does a Consular office go about trying to prove that a work 
offer is fraudulent? What procedures are established to cope 
with this problem? 

h. Once a visa has been granted, does either the State Department 
or the Service conduct any investigations as a matter of course 
to determine how many offers of employment, both under certification, 
or under preference, are actually bona fide? Who is responsible 
for insuring compliance? 

i. If so, who conducts such investigations? How many service personnel 
are used, for example, in the Los Angeles Immigration district, 
and how many in the San Antonio district? What instructions do 
they operate under? 

34. Is it the policy of the Service to ever determine whether there is 
either an oversupply or an undersupply of farm labor in the U.S.? 
If so, in the opinion of the Service, is there an oversupply, or is 
there an undersupply, of farm labor in the United States? 

33. Have many frauds been uncovered in regard to establishing preference 
by marriage to a citizen, or legal resident spouse? By the birth of 
a U.S. citizen child? If so, how many? 

a. How are those cases handled? How many personnel are engaged in 
investigating this type of case? 

b. How extensive are these cases publicized? Is it fair to conclude 
that some problems along the border are traceable to permissive 
policy with regard to enforcement of regulations? 

36. Does a commuter have the same standing as a bona fide legal resident 
to establish preference for a visa applicant? 



2009 



37. Is there any way in which the Consular Office or the Service can, 
under present policies .prevent an already non-bona fide legal resident 
from establishing more non-bona fide legal residents? Are there any 
statistics kept of such cases? 

38. Would the offer of employment of a grower, or business, which has been 
certified as being on strike under the 1967 regulation of the Secretary 
of Labor, to a preference applicant for a visa, be considered sufficient 
if the minimum wage is offered? 

39. If his offer is not considered sufficient, and the applicant obtains 
an offer from someone not certified on strike, can such an applicant 
after admission, then go to the struck farm and work, alleging that 
he was not a commuter but a bona fide legal resident when he applied 
for, and obtained, work on the struck farm? 

a. If such employment is not permissible, what has been done by the 
Service to Insure that no violations have occurred? 

b. What instructions have been given to Insure that such cases do not 
occur? Has any publicity been given to this kind of situation? 

If so, where? 

c. How many personnel in the Starr County, Texas, area, were assigned 
to such investigations. If any? 

d. In other words, what has the Immigration Service done, as positive 
action, to (1) prevent violations in this respect; (2) Implement 
actual enforcement? 

e. At a district level, who has been given the responsibility to take 
positive enforcement action? What specific action has been taken? 
How many persons are actually engaged in such action? 

f. If checks were made at struck farms, who made the checks for 
violations? How many checks were made in Starr County, during 
1968? How many checks were made in the Coachella Valley of 
California in 1968 and 1969? 

g. When the checks were made, what was the procedure used? Was each 
worker checked individually, and were employment records checked? 
Were the records of truckers under contract, or paying piece rates, 
also checked? 

40. With regard to form 1-186, Visitors' Passes, or the equivalent of 
said form: 

a. How many have been issued to Mexican Nationals in each of the 
last ten years? 

b. How many of such passes are outstanding at present? 

c. How many of such passes were revoked in each of the past five 
years? For what reasons? 

d. Why isn't the form 1-186 issued for a specific term requiring 
periodic renewal? 

e. Why aren't all visitors' dates of entry and departure stamped on 
a supplementary document, as Is now required for visits outside 
the twenty-five mile border zone? 

f. Is the form 1-186 often used as an entry document by persons who 
subsequently return it to Mexico and proceed beyond the border 
as illegal entrants? 



2010 



g. Isn't it true that it is presently impossible to match apprehended 
illegal entrants with persons who crossed the border using a form 
1-186, yet returned the card to Mexico prior to apprehension? If 
the answer is negative, please provide an explanation. 

41. If dates of entry and departure were required to be stamped on a docuneat 
carried by all visitors, would the abuse of the visitors permit be 
minimized? 

a. Would a separate form stamped with the date of entry to be 
returned to the inspector on exit, provide a better means of 
determining whether or not a bearer of the visitors permit had 
violated its terms previously at the time of an attempted reentry? 

b. Could all information relating to violations be computerized so 
that on reentry a permit could be checked within a matter of 
minutes in the same way that banks computerize data pertaining to 
checking accounts? 

c. Would this create an inordinate delay at the border? If the 
answer is affirmative, please explain giving particulars. 

42. Is it true that at this time holders of form 1-186 are not fingerprinted? 

a. Would not fingerprinting bearers of the 1-186 facilitate matching 
the fingerprints of apprehended illegal entrants with 1-186 card 
holders for the purpose of revocation of the card? 

b. Isn't it true that this might be undertaken by the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation as an incident to their national fingerprinting 
clearinghouse activities? If the answer is negative, please provide 
an explanation. 

c. Please indicate in detail why a fingerprint is not obtained from 
visitors. 

d. Does the Immigration Service presently intend to institute finger- 
printing for the purpose of curtailing abuses of the 1-186? If 
the answer is affirmative, when will such change be affactive? 

If the answer is negative, state the reasons for not using the 
fingerprint identification. 

43. With regard to illegal entrants: 

a. How many were apprehended by the Border Patrol in 1960, 1965, 1966, 
1967, 1968, and 1969? 

b. How many illegal entrants were formally deported in each of the 
above listed years? 

c. How many illegal entrants were subjected to criminal prosecution 
in each of the above listed years? 

44. State the policy of the Service and the Justice Department In detail 
with reference to waiver of prosecution, and waiver of deportation. 

43. State in detail the circumstances which give rise to a formal deportation 
proceeding, or a criminal prosecution. 

46. Indicate the percentage of formal deportations and prosecutions to 

apprehensions during the period of Operation Wetback, 1953, 1954 and 1955. 



2011 



Is it true chat Operation Wetback prevldad an effective deterrent 
to sobseqtient Illegal entry for a period of years? 

47. Indicate the number of apprahcnsloaa of Illegal entrants, and the 
nuaber of prosecatlons and formal deportation proceedings arising oat 
of tbose apprehensions In the San Antonio District, and In the Llver- 
■ore district. In 1968t Indicate the reason* why the Justice DeparCannt 
did not resort to further nse of Coraal precedures. 

48. Indicate specific plans If any to Increase the ooaber' of crlalnnl 
prosecutions and foraal deportation proceedings utilising the n«« 
federal aaglstrate. Reflect a schednle for l^pIeiMntatlon of such 
plans. 

49. Does the Service have. In the opinion of counsel, the power to levy 
adalnlstratlve fines agalnafi illegal entrants or persons who harbor 
or assist Illegal entrants? 

a. If the answer Is negative. Indicate froa a legal standpoint th* 
grounds underlying thnt opinion. If the answnr Is afflraatlvn. 
Indicate the clrctoMtancas under which the agency has the pownr 
to levy Inforaal adalnlstratlve fines. 

b. Would such power be useful In deterring Illegal entrants If 
aonles In their possession were subject to partial oonflseatlen 
to aeet such finest 

50. Would It not be possible to peralt Illegal entrants to sign a stipu- 
lation acknowledging violation of laalgratlon laws as a condition to 
voluntary departure, to be used to expedite subsequent foraal deporta- 
tion or crlalnal prosecution in the event of apprehension subsequent 
to reentry? 

a. If the answer to this question is negative, please specifically 
enuaerate authority substantiating the negative response. 

b. If the answer is affiraatlve, indicate why such practice or a 
siailar practice Is not now the policy of the Service. 

51. Indicate the nuaber of special hearing officers available in the 
Southwest Region for the purpose of processing foraal deportation 
proceedings. 

a. Indicate the nuaber of deportation proceedings or other adalnlstra- 
tlve hearings conducted by nuch special inquiry officers in 1960, 
1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969. 

b. Indicate the nuaber of deportation proceedings for Illegal entry 
conducted by special Inquiry officers in those saae ynars. 

c. Indicate the increase in the staff of special inquiry officers 
during the previous three years. 



2012 



52. Indicate Che actual Increase in ftiads allocated directly to the Sorter 
Patrol in each of 1960. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969. 

a. Indicate the percentage of tha budget of the laaigration 
Service allocated to the Bor4«r Patrol in each of the abova 
year* . 

b. Indicate the average alsa af tka Border Patrol on duty in Che 
Southwest legion for each of tha abova years. 

c. Indicate efforts on CIm pare of Che JosCice DeparCaenC or Cha 
Service Co incraaae I) Cha ri— b>r of special hearing officers, 
and 2} Che sisa of tha Berdar PaCrol in Che SouChvest Region 
in the past several yaars. 

d. Indicate circwastaacaa which have iapeded the expansion of Cha 
Border Patrol aad the special inquiry officers sCaff , if any. 



2013 



SttbeoBalttee Inquiry 

1. Would you ploas« •zplaln all of the different ways by which 
persoas emter the United States froa Mexico? What, exactly. 
Is the statutory, historic, or other basis for: 

a. U.S. citizens coiamutlng dally froia Mexico (xislng birth or 
baptismal certificates or other docTusents)? 

b. ten^orary visitors (3 day passes)? 

c. alien comuters (dally green caxi eoiBHuters)? 

d. pergHuoent resident alien coonniters (seasonal green card 
cooButers ) ? 

e. Illegal entrants? 

f. foreign contract workers? 

g. any other? 

Response 
a. laaigratlon authorities are enpowered to exclude aliens only. 
The exclusion provisions of inmlgratlon laws are concerned 
exclusively with aliens. However, every person seeking to 
enter the United States Is presuiqptlvely deemed an alien, 
until he produces evidence to remove himself from that 
category. U.S. v. Sing Tuck , 19!* U.S. I6I, I69, 2k S.Ct. 
621. 1*8 L. Ed. 917 (1904). A person who satisfactorily 
establishes that he Is a citizen of the United States can- 
not be barred troa entering the United States. Worthy v. 
U.S.. 328 P. 2d 386 (C.A.5, 196!*). This right of entry may 
be claimed by any citizen of the United States, Incliidlag 
those who do not reside In this country. 

The fo3J.owlng docvunents. In possession of the rightful holder, 
constitute prima facie evidence of United States citizenship: 



1-1 



2014 



United States Passpoirt 

birth certificate 

baptisaal certificate 

certificate of naturalization 

certificate of citizenship 

Identification Card (I-I79) 

Identification Card (I-I97) 

State Department Report of Birth abroad ('FS~2kO) 

State Departnent Certificate of Identity (FS-225) 

State Departnent Card of Identity (FS-255-A) 

U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariaes Documat (CG-2838) 

Air Crevaan Identification Card 

Under 22 CFR 53.2(b), however, a United States citizen who 
is travelling between Mexico and the United States ordinarily 
is not required to bear a valid U.S. passport to enter or 
depart froa the United States. Consequently^ applicants 
claiolng United States citizeaship at the Mexican border 
can substantiate their claim by presenting one of the fore- 
going docvuasnts or by any other evidence which satisfies 
the lanlgratlon officer, 
b. Section 10l(a)(l5)(B) of the InsLgration and Matioaallty 
Act (8 use 110l(a)(l5)(B)) classifies as a noalaalgrant an 
alien who is visiting the United States teiQ>orarlly for 
business or pleasure. Section 212(a}(26) of that Act (8 USC 
ll82(a)(26)) makes a noninnlgrant excludable if he Is not 
in possession of a valid passport and a valid aoalaMlgrant 
visa or border crossing identification card. Section 101 
(a)(6) of the Act (8 USC 1101(a)(6)) deflaas a border crossing 
identification card as "a docvueent of identity bearing that 
designation issued to an alien... who is a resident in foreign 
contiguous territory, by a consular officer, or an laaigra- 
tion officer for the purpose of erossiag over the border 



1-2 



2015 

btttiftfta %lM Uld.t«d St*t«c sad foreign coKtlguous tarritory 
im aoe«rdAae« vlth tueh cowlltlOBs for Its Istuaac* unl 
us* M m^ ta frMoribttd ^7 rtffalatlOM." 

3«etlo« 212(4)(^)(1) of tHo Act (8 USC 1182(4)(1*)(B)) 
ftuthorlM* ttM 9««r«t«r7 of 3t«to aad tho Atton*/ OoMral 
to ««ltt tiM |Mff«r% ftsA Tltft r«talr«at«t of teotlox 212 
(a) (26) «i^ r«sp*et to MttloaaLi of forolgm oostlgams 
t«rrlt«r7 tr Adjacost IslMds, cm th« basis of roelprodtj. 

Uaior 9MtiM 21% of tho Act (8 USC ll8>^), tho adBlsslom of 
a moalflilfTaat Is for such tlaa aad uadar such oondltloas 
as ttaa Attarnax Qaatral aajr by ragulatlons prasorlba. 

Ualar ragulatloas of tha laalgratloa aad Naturallsatloa 
Sarrlea (8 CTR 212.1(e)) aad tho Dapartaant of Stata 
(22 cn Vl.6<o)) tha Tlsa aad passport raqulraasat Is 
valTOd far a Warlfaa aitlonal applylag for adaissloa 
from coatlguous tarrltory as a temporary visitor who is 
la possassloa of a Hoarasidaat Msxlcaa Bordar Crossiag 
Idaatlfloatloa Card (Fom I-186). 

Upon approrml of an application for issuance of Form 1-186, 
that card aay he issued hy a consular officer at a United 
States ooaaular post in the interior of Mexico or hy a 
United States iMd.gration officer at a port of entry at the 
MerLoaa bordar. Pursuant to 8 CFR 212.6(a), the rightful 
holder of a Fora I-186 applying for adalsslon as a temporary 

1-3 



2016 



Ylsltor at th« Mexican 'border aay be adoltted without fuirblier 
docunentatlon If he vlll reaaln Im the United States no 
longer than 72 hours and will not proceed beyond 23 miles 
froB the border. If he Intends to stay within the 23-Bd.le 
dlstcAce fros the border for aore than J2 hours but not 
■ore than 15 days^ or he Intends to rlslt beyond the 23- 
■lle distance but within the State of California, Arizona, 
New Msxlco or Texas for not more than 1^ days, he Is Issued 
a Form SW-^3^ upon admission. If he wants to remain more 
than 13 days or to proceed beyond the four border states 
he Is Issued Form 1-9^ (Arrlval-Departvire Record) upon ad- 
mission. 

The dally comuter Is an alien who resides In a contlguouis 
foreign country and who crosses the border dally or several 
times a week to stable esQ>loyment In the United States. 
This Is a special status under the lamlgratlon laws, with 
deep historical roots. 

Until 1921 there were no numerical limitations on Immigra- 
tion, and aliens were free to come to eiQ>loynent in this 
country. If they did not infringe the contract labor restric- 
tions or the other exclusions of the ianigratlon laws. 
Numerical limitations on immigration were introduced in 1921, 
but those restrictions did not apply to aliens who had been 
in Canada or Mexico for 1 year, section 2(a)(7)i •c* o^ 
May 19, 1921, k2 Stat. 5> * period raised to 5 years by sec- 
tion 2 of the act of May 11, 1922, k2 Stat. 5^0. 

1-J* 



2017 



The ter5>orftry legislation of 1921 was succeeded by the act 
of May 26, 19214-, 43 Stat. 153* which established a peraa- 
nent system of quota allocation and control. Natives of 
Western Henlsphere countries were excepted froa quota 
llBtLtatlons, although Inmigrants from those countries were 
required to obtain and present limlgration visas or equiva- 
lent docunents. But the most slgnlflcauit innovation relating 
to the border-crossing workers was the system of classifylBg 
entrant aliens as loBiigrants and nonlaoigrants . lamigrants 
were defined as all entrants except certain designated 
nonlnodgrant classes coning temporarily. Among the desig- 
nated nonlBBigrant classes were tenporary visitors "for 
business or pleasvire". Section 3, act of Iifaiy 26, 192.kf 
k3 Stat. 153. 

In administering the 192'i- act, commuters first were con- 
sidered tenporary visitors "for business" and were free to 
continue to cobm to their employment in this country. How- 
ever, on April 1, 1927, the Inaigration authorities promul- 
gated General Order 86 which reversed their former position 
and declared that aliens coming to work were mot temporary 
visitors "for business" but were classified as immigrants. 
This interpretation was upheld by the Supreme Court in 
Karnuth v. Albro » 279 U.S. 23I, 2k2-2kh, 1929, which found 
that the statutory reference to business was limited to 
"intercourse of a commercial character." 

1-5 



2018 



In itxidylag the problsm at that tJjM th« lHd.gratioii 
authorltlas ooacludad that Coagrass had aot lataadad to 
latarfara vlth tha aatabllshad pattara of racular bordar 
cross lags by vorkars from adjacaat eouatrlas vhe ooamtad 
to Jobs in tha Unltad Statas. Such alians, alaost with- 
out axcaptloa, could obtain imigrant risas vlthoat diffi- 
culty. But thay would ba faced with an iapoasibla task if 
they ware required to obtain a new Tlsa far each daily 
reentry. Therefore, the laKlgration authorltiaa da-rised 
a border-crossing Identification card which could ba 
obtained by aliens Vho frequently crossed the Ixtematioaal 
boundary. Such cards were issued to inalfrants and noniJHi- 
graats. Rule 3, subdivision Q, paragraph 1, laKLgration 
Rules of March 1, 1927 and January 1, 1930* Aair issuance 
and use later received express sanction in saetlon 30 of 
the Alien Registration Act of 19ifO, 3^ Stat. 673* 

Thus, a coaoniter was able to procure an iaalgrant visa and 
lawful adaission as an inaigrant. Ibareafter he would obtain 
a border-crossing identification card, and with that card 
was admitted each day as returning to hi* imdgrant status 
in the United States. This arrangaiiBnt was in harmony with 
the good neighbor policy with Canada and Naxlea endorsed 
la the provisions of the 192^ act which coafarrad nonquota 
status on persons bom in those countries. Moreover, it 

1-6 



2019 

fadllta-tod trftTsl across th« C«a«dlaa and MsxlcaB l>orders 
aad. aTOldad aarlooa dlslocatlom la tha bordar araaa. 

Tha cosButar program was wall known to Coagrass aad waa 
dlscussad aad andorsad, at laast Implicitly, in tha c<nq>ra- 
hanaiTa stady ^ tha Saaata Judiciary Coaaittaa which pra- 
cedad tha 19^2 act. This waa in the Sanate Raport 1515 of 
tha Slat Coagrass, second session, at page 535. 

Ifothiag in tha laidsratloa and nationality Act or ita lagis- 
latiTi antacadants indicated that Congress was dissatisfied 
with this program or desired to change it in any way. Like 
the 192lf aat, the 1952 legislation did not define "iaiigraat", 
except to specify that every alien was an imaigrant who waa 
not within tha aoniaaigraat classes. Section 10l(a)(l5), 
iHigration and nationality Act 8 USC 110l(a)(l5). 

In detervLning thoae who are at a given time to be deemsd 
iafBigrants care aost be taken to avoid tha requirement of 
"residence", "domicile", or place of "al>ode," since by 
specific definition an imslgraat is any alien not a aoalaii- 
grant, without regard to place of resideace, domicile, or 
abode. The right to reenter the United States to eoatiaue 
a prior status after a temporary absence is accorded to 
those who have bean "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" 
Ihla la fMmd in seetlon 10l(a)(2T)(B}, iHigratloa and 
EatioBMlty Act, 8 USC 110l(a)(27)(B), and that term is 

1-7 



2020 



defined as "the status of having been lawfully accorded 
the privilege of residing penaanently la the United States." 
Section 10l(a)(20), Iimtlgratlon and Nationality Act, 8 USC 
110l(a)(20). It is significant that this statute speaks 
of one who has been accorded the privilege of residence and 
does not require that the person having that status mist 
actually reside here. 

Thiis, the congressional definition has heen deemd to coin- 
cide with the long established adainistrative Interpretation 
as reflected in the comniter program. 

AJTter enactonnt of the 19^2 Act the Imlgration and Naturali- 
zation Service concluded that no change in the coaauter pro- 
gram was intended and that program continued thereafter 
without Interruption. Its •ontinuing validity was endorsed 
by the Board of Immigration Appeals in the Matter of H. 0. , 
9 I. 8e N. Dec. 716, 195*^. 

Subsequent to the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act there was litigation challenging the validity of the 
alien commuter program. Particularly, it was contended that 
section 212(a)(llj-), larndgration and Nationality Act, 8 USC 
ll82(a)(li»-), could bar the admission of commuters, notwith- 
standing that returning lawful resident aliens are \inques- 
tlonably exempted from the operation of that section. In 
Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Rogers , l86 P.Supp. Ilk (D.C., 196O) 



1-8 



2021 



the court held that covoniters vere not lawful peraanent 
resldenta for the purpose of section 212(a)(l't^) \riien th« 
Secretary of Labor had issued an adverse certification 
against the employer under the section as it read {66 
Stat. 183) prior to its ai»gnd»ent in 196^. This ruling 
was not appealed, since it had virtually becoae moot by 
the tine a final Judgaent was entered. In a later suit 
challenging the legality of the alien conniter program^ 
Texas State AgL-CIO v. Kennedy. 330 P.2d 21? (C.A.D.C. 196'^), 
cert* den. 379 U.S. 826, the court disslssed the suit with- 
out reaching the aerits, holding that the plaintiffs did 
not have legal standing to sue. 

On October 3, 196^ Congress aade several aaendsents to the 
Imigration and Nationality Act (P.L. 89-236, 79 Stat. 916). 
Sections 211(b), 8 USC ll8l(b) and 212(a)(l'^), 8 USC II82 
(a}(l'4-)^ were aaong the sections amended. Subsequent adoln- 
istrative decisions by the Board of laiigration Appeals 
have concluded that the conniter systen continues, unaffected 
by the I965 legislation. Matter of Burciaga-Salcedo , 11 I. 
& N. Dee. 665 (1966); Matter of Bonanni , 11 I. & N. Dec. 791 
(1966); Matter of Gerhard . 12 I. & N. Dec. 556 (1967); Mat- 
ter of Weindl , 12 I. & N. Dec. 621 (1968). Since I965 there 
have been new court challenges to the validity of the con- 
MUter prograa. In Ctooch v. Clark , Civil Ho. ^9,500 N.D. 
Cal., the coTirt, on June I9, 1969 in "n unreported decision 
held that Congress had not abolished the coimuter system in 

1-9 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A -6 



2022 



1965 «ni rejected • challeoge to the legality of the prograai. 
An appeal is pending before the United States Court of 
Appeals, Ninth Circuit. A similar suit challenging the 
legality of the coBomter prograa Is Bustos t. Mitchell j 
Civil No. 3386-69, Instituted In Deceitber I969 and pending 
In the United States District Court, District of Columbia. 

d. The seasonal irorker or seasonal conBiuter Is a relatively 
nev concept under the laalgratlon lavs. It developed after 
the end of the bracero prograa In 19614-, and the status of 
such aliens has been analogized to that of the dally com- 
■uter, discussed In paragraph c, supra. As used here and 
throughout the responses to the Suboomlttee ' s questions, 
a seasonal worker or seasonal comtater Is an alien lawfully 
admitted to the United States for permanent residence, who 
resides in a contiguous foreign country, who comas to the 
United States solely to perform seasonal work for extended 
periods, but whose annual stay in the United States is for 
less than six months. The seasonal worker's situation 
should be contrasted with that of the resident alien, who 
is lawfully admitted to the United States and lives in 
the United States for the preponderance of each year, even 
though he nay spend substantial time in the contiguous country 
of his origin. 

While there has been much discussion and characterization 
of green card holders as seasonal cosiuters, experience has 

1-10 



2023 

d«BDiittrat«d that fev of such vorkcrs eaa b« elassiflsd as 
coHUters. Th« difficulty la atta^ptlng to lasigaat* such 
•liens as coaiutsrs Is that th« graan card vorkar vho coaes 
for seasonal eiployatnt usually Is physically presest la 
the United States a preponderance of the year la oonaeetloa 
with his e^ployaent. 

e. In addition to Illegal entries through surreptitious entry 
at other than ports of entry, and ooncealaent in rehleles 
at ports of entry, other nethods to affect Illegal entry 
are atteiQ>ted. 

Many persons are Intercepted each year attevptlag entry 
vlth counterfeit or altered Allen Registration Receipt 
Cards (Form I-I51), or MerLcan Nonresident Allen Border 
Crossing Cards (Form I-I86), or U.S. Citizen Identification 
cards (Form 1-179) or fraudulent dociiaentatlon as eyldeace 
of eaployvent vlth Mexican national, state, or Kinidpal 
goyeraaents. Many alien iaposters are also Intercepted 
with unaltered stolen or purchased Forms 1-151^ I-I86 or 
I-179» posing as the rightful holders of those foxvs. 
Otherratte^pt illegal entry by falsely claiming United 
States citizenship, supporting their allegations with various 
doeumsntatlon such as stolen or altered or fraviduleatly 
obtalaed birth or baptismal certificates or other documenta- 
tioa, or with false affidavits or testimony. A large number 
of 1-186 holders succeed in effecting entry as te^orary 

1-11 



2024 

rLsltors, with preconceived iatestlon of vorklag in the 
United States. 

f. The Contract Labor Act of I885, 23 Stat. 332, was designed 
to protect workers in this country froai coapetltion of 
laported foreign laborers. Subsequent legislation prior 
to 1952 continued the prohibition against bringing eon- 
tract laborers to the United States. By then the contract 
labor legislation had becoae obsolete because workers vere 
protected through the strength of the labor union organiza- 
tions and the advance of socIilL legislation. The contract 
labor laws vere repealed by the laslgratlon and Nationality 
Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 279. 

Since Deceaber 2k , 19^2, the effective date of the latter 
Act, the tei^orary admission of foreign workers has been 
governed by Sections 10l(a)(l3)(H) and 21^(c) of the Act, 
8 use 1101(a) (15 )(h) and ll81^(e). The Imd.gratlon and 
Naturalization Service suet approve a visa petition by the 
prospective eiq>loyer before the temporary worker aay be 
Issued an appropriate visa by the consular officer and be 
admitted to the United States. Two classes of tsi!|porary 
workers ax>e enbraced by this section. The first, known as 
H-1, relates to aliens of distinguished asrlt and ability 
coving hei*e temporarily to perform teapozury services of an 
exceptional nature requiring such Bierlt and ability. The 

1-12 



2025 

second, knows as H-2, relates to aliens coadng teii?>orarily 
to the United States to perform other temporary services 
or labor. If une«?)loyed persons capable of performing such 
services or labor cannot be found in this country. Foreign 
contract workers for agricultural eaployment are usually 
brought pursuant to the H-2 category. 

Under 8 CFR 2lJt.2(h)(2)(ii) the petitioning employer seeking 
to ii5)ort H-2 workers is required to submit as a supporting 
document with the petition, either a certification from 
the Secretary of Labor to the effect that qualified persons 
are not available in the United States to perform the services 
in quebtion and that the eB?)loy»8nt of the H-2 workers would 
not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of 
workers in the United States similarly eiqoloyed, or a notice 
from the Secretary of Labor to the effect that such a certi- 
fication cannot be issued. 

Between 19l^9 and 1961^ large numbers of contract workers, \iho 
were known as braceros, were brought from Mexico under special 
statutory authorization and pursuant to agreement with Mexico. 
However, Congress ultimately refused to extend this special 
program, which expired December 31, 19614- . 

As noted above, the law still permits the iaportation of 
agricultural workers from Mexico as H-2 tei^oraxy workers, 
upon petition of the prospective enployer, supported by a 



1-13 



2026 



labor certification. Hov»T<r, th« aumbttr of labor eertlfl- 
catlou Istuad for MezLean agricultural vorkars has steadily 
deereasad slaca 196^^. As a rasult, la Fiscal Tear I969 oaljr 
229 Msxleaa agricultural irorlcars vera adalttad as H-2 bob- 
laalgraats . 

Msaibars of tka follovlag addltloaal classes of persons 
eater tke Ualted States froa Mexico: 

(1) U.S. dtlxens vho reside 1b the United States and 
are retviralag from tenporary Tlslts to Mszleo. 
The eoHasBts sade In the respoase to question la 
are pertlaent to persons In this class; 

(2) ijBBlgrants eealng to reside In the United States, 
entering with visas Issued by U.S. consular 
officers pursuant to section 211 of the Act, 

8 use 1201; 

(3) nonlHBlgrants entering with nonl^d.grant rlsas 
Issued by a U.S. consular officer under the various 
BonlMMlgrant classifications defined la section 
10l(a)(l5) of the Act, 8 U3C 110l(a)(l5). These 
■ay include diplonats, visitors, transits, crew- 
■en, treaty traders, students, representatives to 
intematloaal organizations, tesporary workers and 
trainees, lnfor»ation media representatives and 
exchange visitors; 

(1*^) Mexican local, state and federal governaent officials 
entering under a waiver of noninaaigrant visa and 

1-llf 



2027 



passport requireasnts, in aceordasea with the authority 
oontalaed la sectloa 212(d)(lt)(B) of tha Act, 8 USC 
ll82((i)(l^)(B), aad Jolat ragulatloas of the Serrica 
and the Departveat of State, 8 CFR 212.1(e) aad 22 
CFR U.6(c); 
(5) lawful peraaaeat resldeat alleas whose actual resl- 
deace Is la the Ualted States aad are returalag 
froa a tei^orary abseaoe. Most of these ladlrLduals 
preseat Pom I-151> which Is accepted as a trarel 
docuaeat In lieu of a rlsa pursuaat to 8 CFR 211.1(b) 
(l) If the rightful bearer has beea abseat aot sore 
thaa oae year. la soae lastaaces, he say be adaltted 
If otherwise adaisslble, upoa preseatatloa of aa 
unexpired permit to reeater the United States Issued 
by the Service pursuaat to the authority coatalaed 
la sectioa 223 of the Aet, 8 USC 1203, aad i^pleaeat- 
iag regulatioas la 8 CFR 223. Whea aot la possessloa 
of either Form 1-151 or a per«it to reenter, such aliea 
■ay preseat a special laHlgraat Tlsa Issued by a U.S. 
coasular officer, classlfylag the aliea as a returning 
resldeat wlthla the coate^platioa of sectioa 10l(a)(27) 
(B) of the Act, 8 USC 110l(a)(2T)(B)j alteraatlTely 
a rettiralBg resldeat aliea aay, as a aatter of discre- 
tloa, be readnltted pursuaat to seetioa 211(b) of 
the Act, 8 USC 1181(b), aad 8 CFR 211.1(b)(3) with 

1-15 



2028 

a waivttr of the docuaeatary requlreasat speelflad in 
•ectloa 212(a)(20), 8 USC U82(a)(20), if the district 
director of the SerrLee hariiig Jurisdietioa orer the 
port of entry is satisfied there is good reasoa for 
the alieB*s failure to present the required doeuasst. 



1-16 



2029 



Snbeoidtteg Inquiry 

2. II«ir do«s a person qualify for each of the pcmdts or papers that 
■ay be used to cress the bonier? Hov does a person qualify for 
a green card, and vhat is required to keep a green card once 
receired; for a tenporary Tisitor*s card, etc .7 

RespwMO 

An alien qualifies for an iasigrant risa required by secticm 211 

of the iJHBigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1181, pursuant to 

22 CFR 42, vhich is adainistered by the Bureau of Security and 

Consular Affairs, Separtsent of State, and (biited States consular 

officers stationed in foreign countries* An application for such 

an ianigrant -visa is aade to the appropriate United States Consulate 

in a foreign country, and, if granted, the iaadgrant risa is issued 

by the ttiited States Consul* 

The responsibility for adjudication of risa petitions to classify 
an alien as an "i—ediate relatire of a United States citizen" 
(spouse or child of a U* S* citizen or parent of an adult U* S* 
citizen), or as a preference innigrant is rested in the Attorney 
General pursuant to Section 204 of that Act, 8 U.S*C. 1154 * A 
ccmsular officer aay not issue an "iMaediate relatire" or preference 
iiHigrant visa until he has been notified by the lasigration and 
Naturalization Senrice of the approval of a petition according the 
i— [grant such classification* 



2-1 



2030 



An aliM vfao is adaitted as an isnigrant or irfio adjusts his 
status within the United States to that of a lavfol poraanent 
resident, is thereafter famished a laainated Pora 1-151, Alien 
Registration Receipt Card, frequentlj referred to as a "green 
card**. The groon card is issued to ereiy alien who has been 
granted lawful admission for porwuient residence* Ihe rightful 
holder of Font 1-151 is mtitled to retain it until he either 
abandons his iaaigrant status^ or is deported, or is naturalised 
as a United States citizen* 

A citix«i of Canada, a British subject residing in Canada, and a 
citixen of Mexico who is seeking entrj as a teaporary risitor for 
business or pleasure and is not inadaissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C* 
1182 maj be issued a border crossing card. 

A citisen of Canada and British subject residing in Canada aako 
application for a border crossing idcatifieation card to an Issd- 
gration and Naturalization Serrice officer at a port of entry on 
the Canadian border. A citisen of Mexico makes application either 
to a U. S. consular office in the interior of Mexico, or to a 
Serrice office at a port of entrj on the Mexican border. 



2-2 



2031 



Up«n approral of tke applieation, the border crosaiac identification 
eord is iosned. nie card facilitates iasjpoctioB and eatrx of a bona 
fide Tisitor for kosiAOSs or pleasvre, and is ralid until rereked or 
Toided. It mMj be declared roid withovt notice for Tiolation of 
iaHigratlsB lavs or IMication of inadaissibilitj. 

An ali«i seeking adalssion as a noniaaigrant maj applj to a consular 
officer for a naaijHid.graat Tlsa* If the ceosnlar officer issnes the 
Tisa parsvant to section 221(a) «f the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1201(a), the 
Tisa is staaped into the alien's passport, fhe rise is ralid for 
a specific period and for a specific nueber of entries. It maj be 
reroked by the consnlar officer or the Secretary of State, in accordance 
with 8 U.S.C. 1201(i). 

An application for a reentry pendt is svtaitted prior to departure 
to the district director of the Serrice baring jnrisdictien orer the 
Alien*s #osidence in the United States. Upon a deteiaination that 
the applicant is in fact a lawful penument resident of this country, 
that the application is Bade in good faith, that the alien intends to 
preserre his lawful penunent residence status after a teaporary absence, 
and that the proposed departure is not contrary to the interests of 
the United States, the application is approred and the reentry pendt 
is issued by the Serrice. The penilt maj be initially ralid for no 
■ere than one year, and say be extended for no nere than one additional 
year under the tenu of section 223 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1203. 

2-3 



2032 



A retumiag resident alien arriTing at a port of entry without 
docoaents aaj apply for adBissimi under a wairer of the docuaentarj 
reqaireaent* If the district director deteraines that the applicant 
is indeed a returning lawful penianent resident, and that there is 
good reason for failure to hare the required docanent, the district 
director maj grant the wairer. 



2-4 



2033 



Subcommittee Inquiry 
3. How many persons are in each category of border commuters? 

Response 

The Service has not maintained statistics on the number 
of aliens who commute to work in the United States on 
a regular basis, except in the Southwest Region, In 
the Southwest Region, as of January 31, 1970, 50,202 
aliens were identified as daily commuters and h,S6Z 
as seasonal workers. However, the latter figure includes 
aliens engaging in seasonal employment for periods in 
excess of 6 months, whose status is that of resident 
aliens, as stated in the response to question Id. 



3-1 



2034 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

What differences are there in the law, and in its adminis- 
tration, between the seasonal commuter and the daily com- 
muter? 

Response 

There are no differences in the administration of 
the immigration law, or the regulations made there- 
under, between the seasonal commuter and the daily 
commuter, as defined in Ic and Id. 

A commuter whose residence is in contiguous territory 
is deemed to have abandoned his status as an alien 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence if he has 
not been employed for six months, lonless his unemployment 
was due to circumstances beyond his control, such as 
illness. If a commuter applies for admission to the 
United States, and it appears that he has abandoned his 
status pursuant to the foregoing, he is referred to a 
Special Inquiry Officer for an exclusion hearing. 



^-1 



2035 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

5. What differences are there in the law, and in its 
administration, between the alien commuter and the 
actual resident alien? 

Response 

As previously noted, there is no specific reference in 
the immigration law to an alien commuter. The response 
to question Ic. and d. discusses the difference between 
a daily commuter, a seasonal commuter or seasonal 
worker, and a resident alien. 



5-1 



2036 



Subcommittee Inquiry 



6. What are the rights and privileges, and obligations 
and responsibilities, of all classes of border com- 
muters? Can they vote , are they subject to the draft , 
must they pay taxes , can they collect social security , 
and for what Federal programs, such as commodity food, 
etc., are they eligible? 



Response 

Alien commuters have the same rights and privileges in 
exclusion or deportation proceedings before a special 
inquiry officer and the Board of Immigration Appeals 
and courts as other aliens lawfully admitted for per- 
manent residence. They are entitled to the same 
benefits and subject to the same penalties administered 
by the Service londer the immigration laws as other aliens 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 

They are required, as are other aliens lawfully admitted 
for permanent residence, to notify the Attorney General 
each January of their current address and of each change 
of and new address within ten (lO) days of such change 
pursuant to section 265 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1305. 

Whether alien or citizen commuters may vote is a matter 
for the determination of the political jurisdiction in 
which they live and work. The applicability of the 
draft laws and regulations to commuters is a matter 
within the jurisdiction of the Director, Selective Service 
System. While at one time that agency considered commuters 

6-1 



2037 



to be exempt from the draft laws, more recently 

that agency has reversed that position and now 

deems them subject to Selective Service requirements. 

The applicability of local, state and federal taxes 
to commuters is a matter within the jurisdiction of 
those political entities. The Internal Revenue Service 
has indicated that commuters are subject to federal 
income tax on income earned in the United States. 

Eligibility of commuters for social security benefits 
or for benefits under other federal programs are matters 
within the competence of the agencies administering such 
programs. We are unable to express any view regarding 
their eligibility for such benefits. 



6-2 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 7 



2038 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

7. It has been established that the dally commuter alien has 
a different status by administrative regulations than a 
permanent resident alien because: (l) the commuter alien 
with a green card (as a visa) may not reenter If he Is 
unemployed In the United States for six months; and (2) 
he may not enter with the purpose of working at the . 
sight (sic) of a work dispute. If this distinction is 
perpetuated by administrative regulation, why then 
can not an administrative regulation be promulgated 
which would prevent the commuter alien from coming to 
this coiintry to work in an area where it would adversely 
affect the wages and working conditions of United States 
workers? 



Response 
In section 212(a) (l4) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (l4) Congress provided 
specific controls for the protection of American workers. 
Section 212(a) (l4) applies to specified classes of immi- 
grants. This statute is explicitly inapplicable to the 
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who is 
returning from a temporary absence, as described in 
section 101(a) (27) (B) . It has been and continues to be 
the position of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
that a commuter is classifiable under the latter section 
when he is applying for readmlssion to this coxintry. It 
is our view that the adoption of a regulation in the 
manner proposed would be tantamount to extending the 
provisions of section 212(a) (l4) to a class of immigrants 
whom Congress has excluded from its terms and would be 
contrary to the law. 

7-1 



2039 



On the other hand, it is our view that the so-called 
strikebreaker regulation (8 CPR 211.1(b)(1) Is within 
the ambit of authority specifically granted by Congress, 
In section 211(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
8 U.S.C, 1181(b), to define the documents which may be 
presented by returning resident Immigrants, including 
commuters. We can find no basis for expanding this 
statutory authority to support the imposition of a positive 
entry requirement which the statute precludes. 



7-2 



2040 



Subconmlttee Inquiry 



9. The InmLgratlon Service maii^ed green cards with metal grommets 
during November and Oeceniber 1967. 

a. How many cards were gronmeted at that time? 

b. Are the green cards of new commiters grommeted on a 
continuing basis? 

c. How many grommeted cards are now being used? 

d. How many cards have been gromneted since January 1> 19^8? 
(Please answer questions c and d on a port by poirt basis.) 



Response 

a. During the period Hbveniber 1 throu^ December 31, 1967, the 
muuber of commuters who were identified axid. whose Fomis I -1^1 
were grommeted asxntnted to UOfl'jS, 

b. Identification of commiters and gronmeting of their Forms I-l^l 
is conducted on a continuing basis. 

c. Service records indicate that at the end of January 1970> 

there was a total of ^,202 commiters with grommeted Forms I -1^1. 

The number of these commuters crossing at the various ports on 

the Mexican border is as follows: 

San Ysidro, California 11,777 

Tecate, California 6k 

Calexico, California 8,97^ 

Andrade, California l^i- 

San Luis, Arizona 3»6l6 

Lukevllle, Arizox^ 1 

Sasabe, Arizona 7 

Mogales, Arizona 1^386 

Naoo, Arizona 113 

Douglas, Arizona 522 

Columbus, New Mexico 31 

KL Paso, Texas 13#'*81f 

Fabens, Texas 321 

Fbrt Hancock, Texas 5^ 

Presidio, Texas kf 

Del RLo, Texas 53'^ 



9-1 



2041 



Ea^e Pass, Texas 2,091 

Laredo, Texas 3t^*6k 

Roma, Texas lOd 

Hidalgo, Texas 1«0^9 

Progresso, Texas 82 

Brownsville, Texas 2,^53 

Total 50,202 » 
« An additional 970 former commuters are knovn to have lost that 
status throxigh January 31, 1970. 

d. Between January 1, I968 and January 3I, 1970 the niariber of 
Porms 1-151 grommeted at the various ports of entry was as 
follows: 



San Ysldro, California k,2k2 

Tecate, California I3 

Calexlco, California 1*321 

Andrade, California 11 

San Luis, Arizona 63 

LukevlUe, Arizona 1 

Sasabe, Arizona ^i- 

Hogales, Arizona 369 

Naco, Arizona I9 

Douglas, Arizona 155 

Columbus, New Mexico ^ 
El Paso, Texas 
Fabens, Texas 
Fort Hancock, Texas 
Presidio, Texas 
Del RLo, Texas 
Eagle Pass, Texas 

Laredo, Texas ucw 

Roma, Texas 39 

Hidalgo, Texas l^h 

Progresso, Texas 3^ 



2 

2,^19 

50 

1 

21^ 

217 

k66 

BSD 



Progresso, Texas 
Brownsville, Texas < 



595; 

Total 10,996 



9-2 



2042 



Sabcomalttee Inquiry 



10. The Subcomalttee requests the following Information by filing 
location or geographic location, from the I-53s filed in Janu- 
ary 1969, by both seasonal and dally commuters. 

a. What was the average age (or age range) and sex of filers? 

b. What were the responses and totals to questions 11, 12 and 13? 

c. Hbv many alien registration card (l-^3) filers are eniployed, 
or not? 

d. Hbv many agrlctiltural laborers that commute are employed, or 
unemployed? 

e. Is a routine check made to detexmLne whether or not coBBmiters 
are eniployed? If so, by whom, and explain the procedures used. 

f . How many commuters lose their status each year? 

g. If a green card holder woxics In the fields for five months In 
this country, and rettims to Mexico for seven months, does he 
lose his right to come back into this country the next year? 
If not, why not? 

h. What does the Service plan to do about comnuters who chec]^ 
box one of question 11, indicating that they have never 
worked in the United States, or who indicated that they 
work seasonally in the United States for periods of less 
than 6 months? 

1. What does the Service plan to do with workers who check box 
two of question 12, indicating that they were unemployed in 
January? 

J. Is It true that commuters at the Detroit, Michigan, port are 
checked regularly on their continued employment, or lack of 
It, while this is not routinely done along the Mexican border? 
If so, please explain. 



Response 
In January I969 26,189 perso3as claimed status as daily commuters, 
6,865 claimed status as seasonal commuters. 
The attached reports, set forth as Exhibit A, contain all the 
Information requested for item (a) through (d), listed for each 
category by filing office. Exhibit B Is a map identifying the 



10-1 



2043 



geographical areas and symbols referred to In SxMblt A. Age 
and sex and occupation totals do not match status totals, because 
SOBS respondents did not answer Items or listed some categories 
more than once. In addition, the following suaniaries respond 
to the Subcommittee's sx>eclflc inquiries, 
a. (age & sex) 
Conmuters 



Bom 








After 


Between 


Between 


Prior to 


i??o 


1930-1950 


1920-1930 


1920 



l,30i* 11,636 



7,kkk 



Sex 



Male 



Female 



Sex 



592 

Male 
5,054 



3,111 



Female 



1,518 



1,618 



5,512 



16,679 9,210 






SeasoncLL Ck>mmaters 






Age 






Bom 






After Between 


Between 


Prior to 


1950 1930-1950 


1920-1930 


1920 



1,316 



10-2 



2lt,289 


3,889 


6lk 


3,653 


15,800 


2,991 


2,101 


2,095 



2044 



b. (axialysls of answers to ccuestlons 11, 12 and I3 on Form 1-53) 

(11) Bsployment In the United States 

Ctomauter Seasonal 

1. never eniployed kl6 I56 

2. eniployed (see Esdilblt C 

for occupational 
brealcdown) 
3* vork seasonally 

(12) 1. has present eiiq>loyer 
2. has recent employer 

(13) Prior employment (See Exhibit 

C for occupational breakdown) 26,920 5,858 

c. Only 17,901 of the daily commuters responded to question 12 out 
of a total of 26,189 who reported. Of this nuafcer 15,800 listed 
a present esiployer. 2,101 listed their most recent employer. 

Of the seasonal commuters, 5,086 out of 6,865 fileirs responded 
to question 12. 2,991 listed a present employer and 2,095 
listed a recent employer. 

d. Of the 3,05!^ farm laborers who reported, in excess of 98^ are 
eniployed as is shown by the less than 2^ response to question 
11 (1) by conmnters who have never been esiployed. 

e. A determination is made of the admissibility of each person 
seeking admission to the united States. This, in the case 
of commiters requires a determination by the inspecting iani- 
gration officer that the alien has continued to qualify as a 



10-3 



2045 



eonauter and has sot abandoned bis loirrul peraanant resident 
status . 

In the Southwest Region the interrogation of the coBiButer 
hy the Inspecting officer, starting in Bbvember I967, has 
culminated In the grometlng of the alien's Form I-l^l upon 
a determination that the alien Is a connuter. At some Canadian 
border ports in the Northvest, notably at Detroit, the alien 
coBButer has been required to exhibit evidence of his U.S. 
einployment every six months. The system used In the Southwest 
depended upon oral interrogation of the holder of a gromneted 
Form I-I5I to establish his continued eligibility for connuter 
classification. The "Detroit system" Is lacking in assurance 
that the hoMer of a Form I-I3I is in fact a commuter and 
therefore, under that system, should be required to e:dxlbit 
evidence of U.S. employment. The Service has therefore 
devised and is putting into effect a system which combines 
the better features of the procedures heretofore in use on 
each of the two borders, under the new system. Forms I-15I 
presented by comnuters on either border will be gronneted 
for ready identification, and the conmuter at either border 
will be required to present evidence of his U.S. employment 
every six months. 



10-l^ 



2046 



f . There are vindoubtedly a number of Identified commuters whose 
commuter status has terminated without knowledge of the Service, 
by death or by the alien's relinquishment of his U.S. eniployment 
and abandonment of intention to resume such employment. The 
Service iisually becomes aware of such terminations only if 
reported by some Interested party. In addition to such 
rei>orted cases, the Service also notes when a commuter loses 

that status by actually moving his residence to the Uhited States, 
or when a commuter is found to be no longer entitled to that 
status because he has not been employed in this country for 
over six months. Statistics on the number of commuters on 
the Mexican border known to have lost that status each month 
are not available prior to August I968. Prom August 1968 
through Deceniber 1966 there were 271 such commuters known to 
have lost their stat\is. During calendar year I969 there were 
629 such commuters known to have lost their status. 

g. The seasonal woriters presenting Form I-I51 whose cases have 
come to attention of the Service have not had an interruption 
of more than 6 months in their employment in the United States. 
Consequently their claim to residence status was not incon- 
sistent with established criteria. If such a case involving 
consecutive absence from employment in the united States for 
more than 6 months were to come to Service attention, the 



10-5 



2047 



Service voiild contend, in appropriate adMnlstratlve and 
Judicial p3X>ceedlngs that the alien's corasuter status had 
been abandoned. 

h. Vfhlle the foira includes self -identification of commuters 
and information concerning their employment, it has been 
determined that the utilization of Fbrms 1-^3 to identify 
aliens ineligible for coiOButer status is inipractical, more 
expensive, and less effective than interrogation by immi- 
gration officers of aliens seeking entry as commuters. More- 
over, the Service has made provision for more effective check- 
ing of eligibility for admLssion of aliens seeking admission 
as coQDiuters at ports of entry, by gronsneting their FOzms I -1^1 
for ready identification and requiring semiannual submission 
Of evidence of their U.S. employment. 

1. As indicated in the response to item (h) above, the Service 
has msule provision for a more effective check at ports of 
entry, to Identify commuters and determine their continued 
eligibility for that status, in preference to tising information 
furnished on Form 1-53 es a basis for making such determinations. 

J. Yes, it is true that conmuters at Detroit are required to present 
evidence of U.S. employment semiannually. At Mexican border 
ports, it has not been the routine practice to require such 
evidence, and reliance has been had upon oral interrogation 



10-6 



2048 

for the aost part to establish a coBButar's oontlxmad 
eligibility for that status, once he has been issued 
a gronmsted Fonn I-151> As indicated in the response 
to Item 10 e above, the Sez^rice feels that a procedure 
vfalch coflibines gromesting of Forms I-151 of coiamzters 
for ready identification, with a requirement for presenta- 
tion by the eonmuter periodically of evldenee of his U.S. 
eii^loyment will be an ImproTsment over the procedures 
heretofore used either at Detroit or along the Mexican . 
border. Accordingly the Service is placing the nev 
procedure into effect. 



10-7 



2049 



EjaHMt - "A", qoBstloa 10 

Tablas showlBg age, aex, occupation aad prior ooctq^tloa 
of eoBBTtor voxiEers, by geographical ar^as 



(Material referred to may be found in the files 
of the Subcommittee) 



2050 




2051 




8 



2052 



OCCUPATION 
CODE 



1 - Professional 
and technical 
workers 



(11)2 Present Occupation 


13 - Prior Occupation 


Coaunuter 


Seasonal Worker 




Seasonal Worker 



3,557 



2 - Farmers , man- 

agers, officials 

and proprietors 839 

3 - Clerical and 

sales workers 3,151 

4 - Craftsman and 

foreman 3,033 

6 - Operatives and 

Kindred workers 1,690 



8a 



Private house - 

hold workers 1,321 



8b - Service workers 
except private 
household 1,395 



9a 



Farm laborers 

and foreman 3,034 



9b - Labors , house- 
wives, children 
and not elsewhere 
classified 6,716 



TOTALS 



24,976 



319 

54 
162 
386 
250 
169 

109 
1,745 

3,190 
6,384 



1,975 

2,760 
6,094 
2,369 
1,722 
1,299 

766 

1,446 

8,489 
26,920 



206 

66 
134 
278 
222 
142 

111 
1,301 

3,398 
3,838 



ftdiibit "C" 



2053 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

11. The Service, because it is seeing a large number of indi- 
viduals daily, has an immense collection of potentially 
useful information which should be made available to 
interested Federal agencies. 

a. Please submit the rules, regulations, and program guide- 
lines that you have to implement such inter-departmental, 
or inter-agency, cooperation. 

b. To what extent is wage information, gathered from appre- 
hended illegal immigrants, turned over to the minimum 
wage law enforcement personnel in the Department of Labor? 

c. To what extent is this information given to, or shared 
with. State authorities? 

Response ? 

a. The £ollowing guidelines have been issued relating to 
cooperation with other agencies: 

"The jurisdiction of the investigator does not extend 
beyond the limits of the jurisdiction of the Service as 
provided by the laws it administers and enforces. For 
that reason, he must confine his activities within the 
limits of his authority. It is, however, important to 
cooperate with other investigative agencies of the 
Federal Government, and with the investigating officials 
of state and local authorities. For example, the 
investigator may come upon evidence of a Federal criiiii- 
inal offense which iSs within the jurisdiction of another 



11-1 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A 



2054 



agency. He should not attempt to develop the lead 
himself because he would be encroaching on the jur- 
isdiction of the other agency and in addition might 
carry the investigation to the point which would 
embarrass the further proper development of the case 
by the other agency. 

"In the situation described above the investigator 
should submit a full report of the offense to the 
appropriate authorities through his immediate supervi- 
sor. In an emergency dictating prompt action, he may 
submit the information himself, directly to the in- 
terested authorities." 
For information furnished to the Social Security Administra- 
tion and to the Selective Service authorities, the Subcom- 
mittee is referred to our response to questions 17 and 22, 
respectively. 

To implement cooperation with the Internal Revenue Service 
concerning "Alien residents or certain nonimmigrants seek- 
ing to depart without evidence of compliance with the Fed- 
eral income tax laws in violation of 26 U.S.C. 6851(d) (l)," 
the Service has issued the following instruction: 

"Any alien, other than a nonimmigrant in status who 
is an A, C-2, C-3, G, or NATO alien, seeking to depart 



11-2 



2055 



from the United States temporarily or permanently, in whose 
case a district director of the Internal Revenue Service has 
advised in writing that information indicates that the alien 
may be designing to depart from the United States in violation 
of the Internal Revenue Code, and prevention of the alien's 
departure without a certificate of compliance with 26 U.S.C. 
6851(d)(1) is requested, shall be served with a written temper- . 
ary order pursuant to 22 CFR 46.2, directing him not to depart, 
or to attempt to depart, from the United States until notified 
of the revocation of the order. A final order preventing de- 
parture shall be revoked upon notice by the district director 
of Internal Revenue that the subject alien's presence in the 
United States is no longer required (under 22 CFR 46.3(g) or 
(h)), or upon the alien's presentation of a certificate from 
the district director of Internal Revenue Service that the 
alien has complied with the income tax laws." 
Wage information is not generally obtained from apprehended 
illegal aliens ixnless in an individual case such information 
is necessary in determining the alien's deportability . 

However, as requested by that department, the Service furnishes 
the Department of Labor, at Washington, D. C, copies of 
Service Form 1-213 (Record of Illegal Alien Apprehended or 
Located) in cases involving all deportable aliens located at 
place of employment in the United States who entered without 
inspection or were admitted as nonimmigrants and remained 
beyond the period of authorized stay or whose employment was 

11-3 



2056 



in violation of such status. These forms are also submitted 
for Mexican aliens who are located employed in agriculture in 
the Border Patrol Sectors with headquarters at Livermore, Chula 
Vista, and El Centre, California and Yuma, Arizona. If a group 
of deportable aliens is simultaneously located in the employ- 
ment of the same employer, a single copy of the Form 1-213 cover- 
ing one such alien, noted to reflect the number of other such 
aliens located, is sent. 

c. Information is furnished State and locat authorities in accord- 
ance with the following guidelines : 

"Where the investigator comes upon evidence of viola- 
tions of state or local laws or ordinances , the informa- 
tion should be furnished through official channels to the 
state police, local police, sheriff, or other official." 
The Subcommittee is referred to our response to question l6, 
for information furnished State registrars concerning false 
registrations of birth in the United States uncovered by 
Service investigations. 



11-4 



2057 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

12, Many of the workers crossing the border are allegedly 
United States citizens, and many of them offer birth 
certificates and baptismal certificates as proof of 
citizenship. Many of these workers are seeking agricul- 
tural Jobs, and are hired by labor contractors within a 
couple of hvmdred yards of the crossing point. Signifi- 
cant numbers of youngsters under l6 cross the border 
for farm employment, while local schools are In session. 
The Pair Labor Standards Act prohibits en^jloyment of 
children under l6 while school Is In session. What Is 
the Service doing to give Information on this situation 
to the Labor Depeirtment? 



Response 
The Immigration authorities are empowered to exclude aliens 
only. Therefore, once an Immigration officer Is satisfied 
that the applicant for admission Is a citizen of the United 
States, that citizen Is free to pass. The Immigration 
officer must be satisfied that the birth or baptismal 
certificate presented by the claimant to American citizen- 
ship Is authentic and relates to the claimant. An 
applicant who cannot establish that he Is a citizen of 
the United States Is Inspected as an alien. 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service has no authority 
to prevent the entry or control the employment of United 
States citizens. Employment has no bearing on a United 
States citizen's right to enter the United States, and 
therefore the Service maintains no Information on the 
employment of United States citizens. 

12-1 



2058 



SubconuDlttee Inquiry 

13. Green card holders must pay U.S. Income taxes. To what 
extent, and In what manner. Is the Service cooperating 
with the Internal Revenue Service to help collect Income 
taxes from Green Card Commuters? 

a. Have there been conversations between the Immigration 
Service and the Internal Revenue Service about the 
desirability of requiring an annual tax clearance, 
like the so-called "sailing permit" required of 
other non-resident workers, from Green Card commuters? 

b. It Is our understanding that annual tax clearances 
are not now required of most ccanmuters, though 
there may be a nominal requirement that such forms 
must be filed by farmworkers (and others who do not 
have taxes withheld by their employers). Is this 
true? 

Response 

a. There have been no discussions on this subject. 

b. When an alien Is detained In a Service detention facility 
he Is required to disclose the amount of fiinds he has 

on his person. If the amount Is considerable the local 
Internal Revenue Service office Is Informed. The alien 
Is then interviewed by an agent of that Service to 
determine tax liability. Any tax due is collected by 
the Internal Revenue agent directly from the alien. 
Otherwise, the Service has not been in a position to 
check on compliance by alien commuters with Internal 
Revenue requirements. 



13-1 



2059 



Subcommittee Inquiry 



ik . When apprehended illegals are caught while working, 
the Service must note the name of the employer and 
the worker's wage rate. To what extent is this infor- 
mation made available to the Social Security system 
so that it can make sure that contributions are made 
by worker and employer for this work — whic h though 
illegal, is still covered by the Social Security law? 



Response 

The Service does not normally note the wage rate of 
aliens who entered without inspection. Apprehended 
aliens are afforded the opportunity to collect any 
wages due, or to arrange for the money to be sent 
them, or to refer their claims to the appropriate 
foreign government consul. No arrangement has been 
made, nor has one been requested by Social Security 
to notify that agency of illegal aliens apprehended, 
except as outlined in the response to Question 17. 



lit-1 



2060 



Subconmilttee Inquiry 

15. Although the Service has social security numbers on some 
of Its forms, we understand that the Service's files are 
maintained on the "A" numerical filing system, not by 
Social Secvirlty numbers. Meanwhile, the Federal Income 
tax, social secvirlty, and unemployment Insxirsmce systems, 
to name a few, are all keyed to the social security 
number. Has the Immigration Service thought about con- 
verting Its filing system to that used by Social Security? 

Response 
The Service has considered the use of social security 
numbers for Its file system. However, It has concluded 
that such conversion would not be feasible. 

To the extent possible Service files are keyed to the 
subject's alien registration number. Ordinarily this 
number appears on the alien registration receipt card. 
Form I- 151 (referred to as the green card), which Is 
Issued upon entry, A new Immigrant ordinarily does not 
have a social security number at the time of entry and 
therefore it would not be feasible to set up his file 
under a social security number at that time. Changing 
his file nxanber when he ultimately gets a social security 
number would be costly, time-consuming, and unsatisfactory. 
Since there would be no assvirance of complete coverage 
or coordination, such a plan would result in having two 
filing systems covering the same indlvidtials. 



15-1 



2061 



Additionally, the Service opens files on persons who 
have not come to the United States (posting lookouts, 
visa petition cases, etc.), and on many nonimmigrants who 
are prohibited from working and who therefore should 
not apply for a social security number which might Induce 
a belief that they were entitled to work. 

Consequently It has been concluded that conversion to 
social security numbers would not be advantageous to the 
Service and would not be as economical or as effective 
as the present system. The Inclusion of the social 
seciirlty number on various forms provides sufficient 
information to agencies that use the social security 
number for their records and files. 



15-2 



2062 



Subco—iittee laquirr 

16, What is the Serrice^s policy on the acceptance of birth and 
baptismal certificates as proof of citizenship by ceuntting 
U. S« citixens? 

a. Hov many birth and baptismal certificates have been 
validated in the last six months? 

b. At what rate does the Service plan to check them? 

c. How many birth certificates have been found to be 
f raodulmt in the last three months? six months? 
year? 

d. To what extent are pregnant Mexican women coming to the 
U, S. to give birth to children, thus guaranteeing U, S. 
citiz«iship for them? 

e. How widespread is the reported practice of midwiTes along 
the border, for a fee, fraudulently claiming to attend 
the birth of a child in the U. S.? Hare there ever been 
any prosecutions of this practice? 

Response 
As indicated in the response to question l.a, a birth or baptismal 
certificate presented by the rightful holder is considered as prima 
facie evidence of citizenship, but is not conclusive evidence since 
the inspecting officer must be satisfied that the applicant for oitry 
is a United States citizen, 
a. and b. The Service has no plan or program of validating birth certificates* 
Birth and baptismal certificates used to support false claims to 
United States citizenship and other data are indexed at a central 
location as a means to identify suspected violators. 



16-1 



2063 



c. During calendar year 1969 the Service Fraodolent Docinoit Center 
in Tmui, Arisona, received 3,263 birth certificates found by 
Service officers to be fraudulent or were being used by other than 
the persons to wfaon the certificates referred. There were also 411 
baptismal certificates received under the sane circumstances o 

During the last six months of caloidar year 1969, 1,765 of these 
cases were received, and 781 cases in the last three months of that 
year. 

The Fraudulent Decum«it Center has now received and indexed some 
22,688 cases involving Mexican aliens irtio made false claims to United 
States citizenship supported by birth or baptismal certificates* 

d. Ihe situation does occur but the exteit of such activity is unknown^ 
although it is believed to be infrequent. Admittedly, the possibility 
for such incidents exists, since many female Mexicans have nonimmi- 
grant documents for admission to the United States, and pregnancy is 
not a ground of inadmissibility unless the alien is found likely to 
become a public charge when applying for admission. Many Mexican 
citisens use medical facilities and doctors in the United States. 

e. Investigations of false birth cegistrations have thus far identified 
22 Texas midtrives who falsely registered births in the United States 



16-2 



2064 



•f Ofrer 1500 children iHao were actually bom in Mexico. The parents of 
these children were all applicants, or intended applicants, for 
iandgrant Tisas. The Department of State and local state registrars 
are being kept fully infomed of results of these investigatiwis* 
lite local authorities are being requested to note or purge the false 
registration records to preclude their illegal use in the future, 
whether to support risa or United States passport applications by 
the purported U.S. citizens. 

Investigations are continuing looking to the proseciiLon of these Bidwives 
for TiolatiMis of 18 U.S.C. 1425(b) (procnreaent of citizenship or 
naturalization unlawfully). The crininal prosecutions have been coi»- 
pleted in the following cases, but the inrestigations are continuing 
to clear up all of the false birth registrations. 

Catalina Hernandez was indicted by a federal grand jury at Dtel Rio, 
Texas on Septenber 5, 1968 on five counts charging her with violations 
of 18 U.S.C. 142S(b). She pleaded not guilty at arraignment, but 
later changed her plea to guilty as charged. On July 24, 1969 she was 
sentenced to serre nine months with execution of sentence suspended 
for five years. She was placed on probation with superrision for the 
first two years conditioned on her good behavior and continued cooper- 
ation with the Service in identifying and clearing up the false birth 

16-3 



2065 



registrations created by her. This subject and her aether, 
Joaaita Redrigaes, together filed a total of 1700 birth regis- 
trations during a period f roa 1958 to 1969. She has estiaated 
that 800 of these were false. lorestigation to date has verified 
that 90 are false registrations. On Septeaber 6, 1968 a coqtlaint 
was also filed against her aether, Jnanita Rodrignes, charging her - 
with Tiolatien of 18 U.S.C. 1425(b). Due to her adranced age and 
as a result of her daughter's cooperation, her case has nerer been 
presented to the federal grand Jury. 

Rosalia Sanches 9e Granillo, also known as Rosalia Granillo, was 
indicted by a federal grand jury at EL Paso, Texas on April 1, 1969 
on ten counts for riolations of 18 U.S.C. 1425(b). On July 1, 1969 
she entered a plea of guilty to one count. On July 31, 1969, iaposition 
of sentence was deferred until June 4, 1970 contingent upon her cooper- 
ation with the Serrice in identifying all false U.S. birth registrations 
filed by brer on bdtialf of alien<4>om children. This subject filed 300 
birth registrations during a period froa 1962 to 1968. InTestigation 
to date has rerified that 132 out of 255 are false registrations. 

Guadalupe Arellano was indicted by a federal grand jury at Del Rio, 
Texas on Septcaber 5, 1968 on six counts charging her with violations 
of 18 U.S.C. 1425(b). Arellano pleaded not guilty at arraignaent, 

16-4 



2066 



but later entered a plea of guilty as charged. On July 24, 1969 
she was sentenced to serre nine iMnths, with execution of sentence 
suspended for fire years. She was placed on probation for fire 
years, with supervision for the first two years conditioned on her 
good behsTior and continued cooperation with the Serrice in identifying 
and clearing up the false registrations created by her. This subject 
registered 298 births at Eagle Pass, Texas during the period froa 
1965 to 1968. She has acknowledged that 278 of the registrations are 
false, and inrestigation to date has verified that 102 are false 
registrations . 

Guadalupe San Miguel was arraigned in Federal Court, Del Rio, Texas 
on October 11, 1968 and pleaded guilty to four counts imder 18 U.S.C. 
1425(b). On Norember 26, 1968, she was sentenced to six nonths 
iij^risonaent and fined $500. The execution of the sentence as to 
confinement was suspended and she was placed on probation with 
supervision, for five years. This subject registered 416 births at 
Eagle Pass, Texas during a period froa 1965 to 1966. Forty-three 
registrations have been verified as being false and fron the investi- 
gation to date it appears that more than half of the total registratiwis 
are false. 

Matiana Castillo was indicted by a federal grand jury at Brownsville, 
Texas on May 26, 1969 on nine counts for violations of 18 U.S.C. 1425(b). 

16-5 



2067 



She pleaded gailtj to two counts of the indictaent. On Noreaber 7, 
1969 she vas sentenced to two years « suspended and placed on pro- 
bation for three years conditioned on her cooperation with the 
Senrice in clearing up the false registrations created by her. 
She acknowledged that 45 of the 476 registrations filed by her 
during a period from 1965 to 1969 a;re false* 

Flora Calderon was indicted en seren counts under 18 U.S.C. 1425(b) 
and two counts under 18 U.S.C* 1324(4)(1) and (a)(4). On March 6, 
1964 in the U.S. District Court, Laredo, Texas, she pleaded guilty 
to (me count of the indictment and was sentenced to serre 13 souths • 
She had filed 300 birth registrations during a period f ron 1956 to 
1964* Imrestigation to date has rerified that 11 such registratitms 
are false* 

Alejandra Hemandex was indicted April 30, 1968, by a state grand 
jury, Brownsrille, Texas, on one count for violation of Texas Penal 
Cede Section 781 (false birth registration). She pleaded giiilty and 
was fined $50, with payaent of fine suspended. She acknowledged that 
■ore than 200 of the 350 birth registratieos filed by her were false* 
Inrestigation to date has verified that 62 such regis tratims are 
false. 



16-6 



2068 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

17. When the Service apprehends an illegal with a Social Security 
card, what is done with the card? If Social Security employ- 
ment offices are rot informed, please explain why not. 

Response 

The Service participated in a meeting at the headquarters of 
the Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, on 
March 15, 1968. At that meeting, in response to a request 
from the Department of Labor that the issuance of Social 
Security cards be withheld from aliens who are in the United 
States in a status under which they cannot work, the Social 
Security officials stated that, insofar as they knew, a 
Social Security account number had never been withheld from 
an applicant and that they knew of no authority under the laws 
governing the administration of Social Security which would 
authorize them to withhold the issuance of such a card to any 
applicant. The same view was expressed in response to earlier 
representations by this Service. (See attached copy of letter 
dated August 6, 195^ from the Secretary of Health, Education 
and Welfare to the Attorney General.) In the circumstances, 
the Service does not believe that it has authority to lift 
Social Security cards obtained by an alien illegally in the 
United States. Moreover, in light of the views consistently 
expressed by the Social Security Administration, the Service 

17-1 



2069 



believes that no purpose would be served by informing the 
Social Security employment offices in such cases > and 
ordinarily they are not notified. 

However, when any alien has a social security card which 
apparently relates to another person and for which the 
possessor had not applied under an assumed name, the card 
is lifted and forwarded to the District Director, INS, 
Beiltimore, Maryland, for delivery to the Social Security 
Administration. Lifted cards are stapled to a copy of re- 
lating Form 1-213, sworn statement, or other report which 
reflects the circumstances under which the alien obtained 
the card and the card was lifted. 



17-2 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 9 



2070 



DEPARIMENr OF 

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AMD 1HELPAHE 

WASHINGTON 

Zone 25 



AUG -6 195i^ 



Dear Mr. Attorney General: 



This refers to your letter of July 7, 195^^ with which 
you enclosed a memorandum from General SvriLng, Commissioner of 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, as well as a letter to 
him from Mr. W. Heeblng, Chief of Police, San Fernando, California, 
relating to the Issuance of social security account nmnbers to 
aliens who are Illegally In this country. You requested advice 
as to whether It would he possible and feasible for social security 
field offices to Institute procedtires which would prevent the 
Issuance of social security cards to such aliens. It was your 
feeling that It would be difficult for most of these aliens to 
obtain employment without social security account numbers and as 
a result the major Inducement for their seeking illegal entry 
would be removed. 

This Department under the law and regulations has no 
discretion either as to the coverage of services of aliens 
Illegally resident in the United States or to the Issuance of 
account numbers to such persons. Title II of the Social Security 
Act, as amended, makes no distinction between citizens, aliens 
legally resident in the United States or eillens Illegally here 
to detennine whether services perfonned in the Ifiiited States by 
an individual constitute "employment." Section 210(a) of the Act 
specifically provides "The term 'employment' means any service 
performed after 1936 and prior to 1951 which was employment for 
the pxirposes of this Title under the law applicable to the period 
in which such service was perfonned, and any service, of whatever 
nature, performed after 1950 either (A) by an employee for the 
person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence 
of either. . . or (b) outside the Uhlted States by a citizen of 
the United States as an employee for an American employer. . ." 
Section UO4.10O3 of Sociaa Security Administration Regulations 
No. h states "... With respect to services performed within 
the Uhited States, the place where the contract of services 
entered into and the citizenship or residence of the employee or 
of the employer are Immaterial. . ." Thus, under the law if 
services constitute "employment" ordinarily the remuneration 
therefore is taxable and must be reported and the individiial is 
entitled to wage credits on his social security account. 

C 

"o 

P 

"y 



2071 



The social security acco\mt number Is the means "by which 
an individual's social security account is distinguished from »^n 
others and serves to insure the accurate reporting and recordation 
of his wages. In this connection you may wish to refer to 
Sections l4O8,502 through '♦08.50lf of U.S. Treasury Department 
Regijlations No. 128, which in substance reqviire employees to 
secure social seciarlty account numbers and employers to identify 
eniployees for whom they report wages by their account numbers. 

You are no doubt aware that H.R. 9366, enacted by the 
House of Representatives on June 1, 195^^ provides that wages and 
self -employment inccme derived by an individual during any period 
that he is unla w fully in the Ublted States shall, be deleted from 
his wage record and shall not be counted for purposes of deter- 
mining entitlement to or amount of benefits. The bill eilso 
provides for a termination of benefits payable on the account of 
an individual who has been deported under certain provisions of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, Such action will be talsen by 
this Depeirtment vipon notification from the Attorney General. 
H.R. 9366 does not except the services of such persons from 
coverage nor does it exclude the amounts earned from "wages" or 
"self -employment income." Such amounts will remain taxable under 
the Federal Insuremce Contributions Act or the Self-Eniployment 
Contributions Act. Therefore, it will still be necessary that 
social seciarlty accounts be maintsdned to record earnings for 
those persons who may be affected by these provisions as well £is 
other workers. 

Vfe do not believe that an adjudication of the q.uestion as 
to whether an IndlvidueLL is legally resident in this country is 
within the jurisdiction of this Department. However, apart from 
the q.uestlon of jxirisdiction, any effort by the Department to 
participate in such an adjudication would, we believe, involve the 
establishment and maintenance of laborious and expensive procedures 
without the acccmplishment of the objective of keeping aliens 
Illegally in the United States from obtaining employment. Each 
week the SocisLL Security Administration Field Offices receive 
approximately 80,000 applications for social security account 
numbers sind a comparable number for req[uests of diiplicate account 
numbers. Although many of the applications are filed in person 
with representatives of the Social Security Administration a 
substantial number are Issued without personal contact. The 
application for account nxmiber does not elicit information as to 
citizenship as it is not necessary for the administration of the 
social security program. It would be only reeLLlstic to assume 
that if it were revised to require such information those persons 
Illegally in this country would furnish fictitious names and other 
data. Incorrect infoimation as to large numbers of social security 
account number holders would seriously interfere with the "basic 



2072 



operations and services of the old-age cmd survivors Insurance 
program wblle at the same time frustrating the purpose of 
Identifying aliens Illegally residing In this country. The 
Inpaliment of social security records eurlslng fron erroneous 
reportlngs and eeurnings dlscrepemcles, and the annoyance to 
many applicants who an citizens or vbo etre legally In this 
country would not appear to he waxranted under these circumstances* 

You may he Interested In the fact that we have recently 
had a discussion with Mr. Relmel of the California Department of 
Bnployment In which various phases of the "wetback" problem and 
possible solutions were discussed. We have also had corre- 
spondence with Senator Kuchel In response to his Inquiry on 
behalf of Governor Khlght of California and with a representative 
of the Cedlfomla State Chamber of Caensrce relating to the 
sane problem. From our discussions and ovir correspondence It 
appears that the California problem might be most effectively 
resolved by a more direct approach such as encouraging CcLLlfomla 
eniployers to discontinue employing persons not legedly residing 
In the United States or encouraging unions not to Issue union 
cards to such persons. 

I regret that the Depeurtment is not In a position to be 
more helpful in this matter. Should you feel, however, that a 
further discussion of the various facets of this problem would 
be desirable I shall be pleeised to arrange for such a meeting 
at a time convenient to you. I am returning the copies of the 
correspondence which you enclosed with your letter. 

Sincerely yours, 

(S) Oveta Gulp Hobby 

Secretary 

The Honorable 
Attorney General 
Depeurtment of Justice 
Washington 23, D.C. 

Enclosure 



2073 



Subcommittee Inq\iiry 

18. Please submit a map of the U. S. - Mexico border, showing 
the number of Border Patrolmen stationed along the border, 
at the point of the lowest staffing level (presumably the mid- 
dle of the night). Please prepare the map to show the length 
of territory covered by each group of Patrolmen. Show only 
those men who are actually working the. border, on foot, in 
cars, and in the air, but do not include men stationed at the 
crossing points. Please supply a similar map, by port, show- 
ing the maximum number of employees stationed at the border 
either temporarily or permanently, during Operation Intercept. 

Response 

Attachment A is a map showing the Border Patrol Sectors covering 

the Mexican Border, the number of officer personnel assigned as of 

January 31, 1970, and the number of miles of land border covered 

by each sector. 

Border Patrol operations along the border designed to prevent the 
illegal entry of aliens and apprehend those who do so along with any 
persons engaged in the smuggling of such aliens includes linewatch, 
signcutting, traffic check, transportation check, patrol and city 
patrol, and farm-ranch check. Thus the actual visual watching of 
the border is only one phase of the work. 



18-1 



2074 



Personnel is assigned according to the areas of highest illegal entry 
potential. Generally, the highest potentieils exist where there are 
greater densities of popvilation on both sides of the border. Work 
assignments cover twenty-four hours per day when required for ad- 
equate coverage, with the bulk of the officers being assigned to work 
during the hours of darkness as the period of dusk xintil approximately 
midnight and at daybreak or shortly thereafter is when the highest inci- 
dence of illegal entries occur. Thus, the actual assigned hours varies 
at different times of the year. 

A sample survey of the work assignments along the entire border 
showed approximately 64% of the on duty personnel assigned to shifts 
falling within all or part of the 6:00 p. m. to 6:00 a. m. period of the 
day. The lowest number of personnel is assigned during the period 
2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. followed closely by the period of about 1:00 
p.m. until 4:00 p.m. which is the period after the early morning 
shift goes off duty and before the bulk of the evening shifts begin 
which generally start at 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. 

As of February 1, 1970, the Border Patrol had an on-duty officer 
force in field operations of 1,454 men. Of these, 1, 205 were 



18-2 



2075 



assigned to the Mexican Border area and all of these were assigned to 
the ten sectors along the border except 70 officers assigned to the 
Livermore, California, Sector. 

Appropriation for fiscal year 1970 provides for an Increase of 115 
officers in the Border Patrol force. The Service is now in the pro- 
cess of recruiting the additional officers and 71 have entered on duty. 
All but tw^o of these additional officers are being assigned to the 
Mexican Border area. 

Attachment B is a map showing the number of Immigrant Inspectors 
stationed at ports of entry on the Mexiccui Border during Operation 
Intercept. 

There was no increase in the number of officers assigned to these 
ports during Operation Intercept. In order to increase Service man- 
power during that Operation, immigrant inspectors worked seven 
days a week with the sixth day worked on an overtime basis. Sun- 
day inspection is always covered on an overtime basis \xnder exist- 
ing law. 



18-3 



2076 



ATTACHMENT I8-A 

(The map requested by the Subcommittee has been retained in the 
files of the Subcommittee. The following data are extracted 
from the map) 

BORDER PATROL SECTORS, OFFICER FORCES, AND INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY 
MILEAGES - SOUTHWEST REGION. Note: Officers refers to On-Duty 
force on January 31, 1970. Miles refers to estimated distance on 
U.S. - Mexican Border within each sectors' boundaries (Livermore 
Sector has no U.S. -Mexican Border area). 



SECTOR 



CALIFORNIA 
Livermore 
Chula Vista 
El Centre 

ARIZONA 
Yuma 
Tucson 

TEXAS 

El Paso 
Marfa 
Del Rio 
Laredo 
McAllen 
Port Isabel 



OFFICERS 


Mi: 


70 
232 
169 



66 
82 


79 
62 


118 
265 


157 

79 ■ 
122 

66 


342 
364 

168 


^§ 


152 
117 



2077 



ATTACHMENT I8-B 

(The map requested by the Subcommittee has been retained in the 
fiDsB of the Subcommittee. The following data are extracted 
from the map) 

IMMIGRATION INSPECTORS AT BORDER PORTS DURING OPERATION INTERCEPT 



CALIFORNIA 

San Ysidro - 38 
Tecate - 3 
Calexico - 16 
Andrade - 3 

ARIZONA 

San Luis - 7 
Lukeville - 3 
Sasabe - 2 
Nogales - 15 
Naco - 4 
Douglas - 7 

NEW MEXICO 

Columbus - 3 

TEXAS 

El Paso - 46 
Fabens - 3 
Presidio - 3 
Del Rio - 10 
Eagle Pass - 9 
Laredo - 19 
Roma - 10 
Los Ebanos - 1 
Hidalgo - 14 
Progreso - 3 
Brownsville - 21 



2078 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

19. The Subcommittee understands that a group of Illegals, 

detained In California to testify In trials of smugglers, 
are allowed to do farm work. 

a. What steps has the Service taken to assure that these 
detained Illegals, a totally controllable work force, 
do not cause an adverse effect on the resident labor 
force? 

b. Is It true that some of these detainees are allowed 
to stay In this status for as much as a year? 

c. Are these workers allowed to work at places fovind 
to be In a labor dispute status by the Secretary of 
Labor? If so, please explain. 

d. How does this compare with the government policy on 
prison labor? 



Response 

These witnesses are needed to testify at trials where the 
defendant Is charged with alien smuggling. Within the 
Jurisdiction of the United States District Coxirt for the 
Southern District of California, Southern Division, 
San Diego, such witnesses are farmed out pursuant to 
court order, a copy of which is attached. The Service 
has sought to have the court relieve it of its responsi- 
bility to supervise the farming out of such witnesses, 
but the court has directed the Service to continue exercising 
such responsibility. 



19-1 



2079 



a. No witness Is farmed out to an employer unless that enrployer 
has a cvirrent work order with the State Labor Department, 
and the f armed-out worker Is paid the "adverse effect" 
wage, which Is equal to the wage that must be paid to 
immigrants seeking to enter for employment. Consequently, 
there is no adverse effect on local labor, 

b. At the end of December 1969, there was a total of 85 
witnesses ftirmed out throughout the State of California. 

Of these, there were four in that status since April 1963, 
two since May, two since June, l4 since July, fovir since 
August, 11 since September, 25 since October, and the 
remaining 23 had been farmed out less than 60 days. 

c. No. 

d. They are not susceptible to comparison. The farmed-out 
witness is not detained for criminal prosecution or 
punishment nor is there any criminal charge pending against 
him, and he is receiving the going wage rate for his 
labors. He is permitted to work, at his own option and 
pursuant to court order, while he is being detained as 

a material witness in a pending criminal prosecution. 

Attachment 



19-2 



ivvK-V^'"* 



2080 



'(^■^ '■■ ^ APR 2 3 b,;; 

UNITED STAT/OS DISTiaCx JOUlVx' 
!c-jf>t^'^ ^roTV^'^ SOUTHEKK DISTRICT OF ChLlVOlV.UA SO'jrHim WSL'.'MC: CV" 

JK T-:R M?iTTKi< OF ADTDVn.NG ALIEN ) 

) GENElVkL ORDER I.'O. 85 
WITIs^SSSES TO V:ORK PENDING TUIAL ) 
\ ) 

I Until further order of the court, and unless spc-cial circuin- 
Etancer. requ.iro oLhcrv/ise, in order to save the Govf;rniv.cnt expen?;c 
incurred by Icaythy incarceration of material \;itnr.sscp and to keep 
such witnciSBo:; segregated from defendants, 

IT IS OKOICPJ^D that ,materiiil alien witnesses in ciliu^n sinugcjlliij 
cuid transi^orl in^j ci;r,os be allo\\'ed to work, pendincj trial, on Soul he ;v4i 
California faiins if t))ey manifest i\ desire to do so.. 

Arrancjemonts for farm work and transportatio)i to place of 
cmp.l oyjiiont and return of said material witnes^scs to tcf:fcify at trial 
shall bo the ];esponsibility of the Iiiunigration and Naturalizatio.i 
Service. Pending arrangements for farm work and tran5;iiortation 
, to place of e:nployiiK;nt, and after rc^turn to testify at trial, tlie 
said materia] al.ren v/itnesses shall remain in the custody of the 
Im!iiig).-ation and Naturalization Cervj.ce .until completion of trial 
a>id for tlift purpose of effecting their removal from the United 
States upon completion of the trial. 

Any material witness for whom work is secured shall exocux o 
a liersona.l apjioarance bond in the amount of $?,000.00, and shal] 
asf;ign fifty porctMit (50%) of his net wages ar. security for the 
parformance o.' the conditions of said bond. Tlic said fifty percent 
of the witness's wages shall bo held, by the employer unl.il rcloaiod 
in writing by an agent of the Immigration and Naturalisation Service. 

In event said inaterial witness fails to appear at the trial, 
or loaves his cinployinent v/ithout the written conf.^enl of an a'gent o:C 
the liiiinigration and Naturalization f.crvicc, the employer 'shikll, 
upon order of the Clerk of this court, pc^y any retained wages into 
the registry c-f this court. 

A copy of tliis Oi'der, appearance bond, and assign-.nent of 
wages, shall be delivered to each employer, who shall acknowlcdgo 
receipt of said documents and consent to the terms thei.eof. 

This order will supersede General Order No. 72, dated Octob::r 
D;.Vi^r>-: April 22, 19G9. 

.■ ■:' ■ ■• . \:^:::<LcU<-:r..A.. 1.. 

VrcC Kun:-.el, Cliief o'. S. i).i ritj.ict vlixlic 

Tlf^Q :.l...: 

Kdv?;;:r:d O'. .£i; W^;.' ■ '., b. ;;. h'^.-lr^cl ■!:.•■ ■ 



2081 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

20. The Subcommittee heard testimony that every morning about 
3 a.m. buses leave Calexico, California, loaded with green 
card holders, headed for grape ranches in the Coachella 
Valley, where strikes have been certified by the Secretary 
of Labor. What is being done to enforce the Service's 
regulations that relate to this matter? 



Response 

20. All Service offices are promptly informed where the Depart- 
ment of Labor announces that a labor dispute or layoff of 
employees is in progress at a named place of employment. 
Applicants for entry coming to be employed at the named 
place will not be admitted with Form 1-151, if such appli- 
cants are found to be within the purview of 8 CFR 211.1(b) (l) 

During peak harvest seasons truckers go to the vicinity of 
the port of entry at Calexico to transport workers to the 
harvest area. If green card holders seeking work pass 
through the port of entry, they are checked by inspecting 
officers to determine their admissibility and warned of 
being deportable if they obtain employment on struck farms. 
The workers on trucks also are checked at traffic check 
points, which are between the border and the Coachella Val- 
ley. Their destination is determined and if not destined to 
struck farms they are told of the regulations about working 
on struck farms and furnished a current list of such places. 



20-1 



2082 



If it is determined that any of the workers have entered 
from Mexico and are inadmissible under outstanding regu- 
lations, they are not permitted to proceed. 

Traffic check points pass on information to other Patrol 
units to insure the various trucks go to non-struck farms 
as stated by the drivers when being checked. Patrol 
Inspectors also go into the fields and check workers to 
determine if they are legally in the United States ajid 
also whether green card holders are admissible under present 
regulations. If they claim homes in the United States, this 
information is checked out and indices are maintained by the 
Service for identification purposes. 

The Service has obtained no evidence that green card holders 
are being picked up in the border towns and transported to 
struck farms. All allegations as to such activity are 
investigated, including verification of residence of green 
card holders located on struck farms. Over 840 field 
interviews of green card holders have been conducted in the 
Coachella Valley since March 1, 1969. 



20-2 



2083 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

21. It Is well known throughout the border area that so-called 
wet maids" are numerous and badly underpaid, sometimes 
getting as little as $8 to $10 a week plus room and board 
for long, long hours of work. What is the Service doing 
to change this situation? 

Response 

The Service Is continuously attempting to Identify and 
expel any alien who is in the United States Illegally, 
including "wet maids". Since the controlling considera- 
tion in such cases is the alien's Illegal presence in 
the United States, the Service is discharging its 
responsibilities by seeking to locate and remove such 
illegal aliens. 



21-1 



2084 



SubcoMBdttee Inquiry 

22. What are the Serrice's regulations regarding registration for the 
draft? Whan the Serrice apprehends a coauter lAo does not hare a 
draft card, does the Serrice turn his name over to the draft sjattm 
on the grounds that he should be registered for the draft, and isn^t? 
Please explain. 

Response 

Foreign Serrice Form FS-549, Selectire Service Registration Notice 

(copj of which is attached), is attached to the Tisa of erery male 

person required to register under the Selective Serrice laws upon 

entering the United States as an immigrant. The loBigratien officer 

staiqts this font with the Serrice admission stamp when the alien is 

admitted, staples this form to the front of the inaigrant Tisa, and 

forwards it to the office having jurisdiction over the alioi's 

intended place of residence. That office prints the alien's name 

and address in the United States on the face of FS-549 and mails it 

to the state director for Selective Service in the respective state 

of the alien's intended residence. Similarly, the Service also 

notifies Selective Service when an alien is granted adjustment to 

permanent residence status in the United States. 

Wheh the Service appreh«ids a commuter vho does not have a draft 
card and it appears that there has been a violation of the Selective 
Service Act of 1948, as amended, an immediate report is made to the 



22-1 



2085 



state director of Selectire Serrice for the state lAere the 
indlTidnal is registered or resides* All ayailable infonutioa, 
inclodinf any ezplanatioo of the apparent Tiolation, is furnished. 
Ibat officer will refer appropriate cases to the FBI for inrestiga- 
tion and/or prosecution. The state director of Selectire Senrice is 
requested to infora the subaitting office of his decision so that 
Serrice action say be coapleted on the case. Ihe FBI is charged with 
the responsibility of inrestigating riolations of the Selectire Act 
of 1948, as amended. 

If a ceaanter or any other alien has a Selectire Serrice Registration 
Card, it is lifted at the tiae he is deported or roluntarily departs 
f roa the Dnited States and the card is returned to the issuing Selectire 
Serrice office. 



22-2 



36-513 O - 70 • 5A 10 



2086 



APPENDIX D 
Part IV 



VOL. 9 - VISAS 



Form FS-549 



DEPARTMENT OP STATE 

SELECTIVE Sf RVtCE ReCJSTRATIOH NOTICE 


PLACK 


OATI 


. HEGISTRATION INFORMATION 

Eveiy male person 18 years of »ge or aider who was bom on or after September 15, 1923 must register with a 
local board of the Selective Service System within six months following the date on which he entered any part 
of the United States and may be subject to service in the Armed Forces of the United States under applicable 
laws and regulations. Under present law persons over 26 years of age are not subject to service except persons 
in a medical, dental or allied specialist category who may be subject to such service until they are 35 years 
old. 

I have read and understand the above information. 

(Poti, HiAen itteestaty, ikall imuliua tht tngUsh text into iht local (ai^wge <a <A« following tpace.) 


nMn (Jrp» — r^tt 


OATI Of aillTH 


StONATUKK or IMtMORANT 


AOOMSS TO WHICH OESTINtO IN U.S. 



r^FS-54» 



Visa TLVOS 



FOREIGN AFFAIRS MANUAL 



1/5/68 



2087 



Subconunittee Inquiry 

23. To what extent do green card commuters and illegal workers 
contribute to the flow of narcotics across the border? 

a. Did "Operation Intercept" reveal any evidence to 
support the theory that farm workers were the chief 
smugglers of drugs into the United States? 

b. How many persons identified as farm workers were 
picked up during "Operation Intercept"? 

Response 
Although commuters and illegal workers may bring narcotics 
into the United States, it is not believed that this group 
smuggles narcotics to any great extent. 

a. The Service has no evidence that any of the persons 
(United States citizens or aliens) involved in 

marijuana, narcotics, and dangerous drugs smuggling 
were farm laborers . 

b. During the period of ""Operation Intercept" (Septem- 
ber l4, through November 2, 1969), the Border Patrol 
apprehended, in the immediate Mexican border area, 
22,237 deportable aliens and 428 alien smuggling 
principals involving 1,770 smuggled aliens. These 
aliens were apprehended at time of entry or shortly 
thereafter and were not employed. 

During October I969, which was two- thirds of the 
time of "Operation Intercept", the Service apprehended 
2,797 Mexican aliens employed in agriculture with 
2,4^^8 of these being apprehended in the Southwest Region. 



23-1 



2088 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

24, The Subcommittee has been told that border sirea officers 

of the U.S. Employment Service do not require Job applicants 
to show proof that they are In the U.S. legally, nor do 
Social Security offices i*equlre such proof before Issuing 
Social Security cards. Hence an Illegal entrant could 
show up for a Job, particularly a fann Job, with a nice 
new social security card, and a reference from the U.S. 
Employment Service, What has the Service done to try to 
change this pattern? If you are not aware of this, please 
ejqplaln. 

Response 
Social Security offices do not require proof that an alien 
Is In the United States legally before Issuing Social 
Security cards. This Is discussed In the answer to the 
Subcommittee's question No. 17. 

From time to time employers In California have alleged 
that to require an alien applicant for employment to 
present his Allen Registration Receipt Card would be a 
violation of the California Pair Employment Practice Act. 
As a result of an exchange of correspondence between the 
Service Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, the Senior 
Legal Counsel of the California Fair Employment Practice 
Commission, on September 1, I967, concluded that It was 
not a violation of the California Pair Employment Practice 
Act to ask a non-cltlzen who Is an applicant for employment 
to present his Allen Registration Receipt Card. Following 



24-1 



2089 



this exchange of correspondence, the Division of Farm 
Labor Service, California Department of Employment, on 
October 25, I967, amended its Operations Manual as 
follows: 

"3. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization 
Service requested the Fair Employment Practice 
Commission to reconsider their policy regarding 
the interviewing of a professed alien regarding 
his legal status during the pre-employment 
interview. 

As a result of this request, the Pair Employment 

Practice Commission has modified their policy as 

follows: 

•To request presentation of the 
Allen Registration Receipt Card 
from the applicant, who says he 
is not a U.S. Citizen, would 
not be violative of the spirit 
and letter of the Fair Employ- 
ment Practice Act. This is 
true since the card does not 
disclose the national origin 
or other information prescribed 
by the Act. ' 

"4. This amendment revises the manual instructions 

pertaining to the registration and referral of a 

professed alien to agricultural employment. 

Under this new policy and procedure you will 



24-2 



2090 



not: (1) complete an application card for such 
an applicant unless he can produce a valid 
Allen Registration Receipt Card, or (2) during 
the Individual selection Interview, determine 
to refer the applicant If he states he Is a 
non- citizen, vmtll he produces his Allen 
Registration Receipt Card as proof of right 
to work. This procedure will only be followed 
in those Instances where an individual 
selection interview is used in the placement 
process, " 

As a result of this determination by the California Pair 
En5)loyment Practice Commission, the District Director of 
this Service at Los Angeles sent a letter, copy of which 
is attached, to all employers within the territorial 
Jurisdiction of the Los Angeles District where Service 
records indicated illegal aliens had been found employed, 
advising those employers that they are permitted by law 
to inquire of their employees as to their right to be 
employed in the United States. 

On December 30, 1968 the Department of Labor, at Washington, 
D.C., wrote to all of their regional administrators con- 
cerning aliens legally eligible for employment, pointing 



24-3 



2091 



out that Section 60.6(J) of Title 29 of the Code of Federal 
Regiilatlons provides that one of the matters that will be 
considered in determining whether the admission of an 
alien worker will have any adverse effect on U.S. workers 
similarly employed pursuant to section 212(a) (l4) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act is the following: 

That such employment is not with an employer who 
has within three years prior to the offer hired 
an alien who (1) entered the United States without 
inspection, or (2) was in the United States as 
a nonimmigrcint and whose employment violated his 
nonimmigrant status, unless such employer demon- 
strates that he did not know, had no reasonable 
grounds to know, or could not by reasonable inquiry 
have ascertained knowledge of these circumstances. 

The Labor Department stated that it was important to keep 
in mind that at no time should an employee of the Department 
of Labor or of an affiliated State Enrployment Security 
Agency refer to an employer for employment an alien in 
the United States on any visa which does not permit the 
alien to enter into paid employment, and that it would 
be most embarrassing shovild an alien not legally qualified 
to work be referred to an employer in view of section 
60.6(J) of Title 29 CPR. 



24-4 



2092 

This Instruction contained the following Information: 
The new Form ES-511 - Application Card - will 
Include Items which will serve to alert local 
offices that a Job applicant may be Illegally 
seeking employment, Vflienever an entry on an 
application card or Information developed In 
an Interview Is such as to raise questions as to 
the alien's status, his alien registration 
card should be examined to determine whether he 
Is legally eligible to work. 

Since It Is the policy of the U.S. Employment 
Service to refer to employers only persons 
'legally qualified to work'« local offices should 
make a special effort to determine whether an 
alien applicant for employment may legally work. 
If there Is anything questionable about the 
alien's status. Inquiry shovad be made of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service has 
prepared a booklet, "Documentary Requirements for 
Aliens In the United States", containing facsimile 
registration cards showing when an alien may 
legally work. The Immigration and Naturalization 



24-5 



2093 

Service is forwarding to all regional offices 
sufficient copies of the booklet for distribution 
to local offices. Should additional booklets be 
required for use of the Department of Labor, they 
may be obtained from any District Director of 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

Please disseminate this Information to the State 
agencies. 

In response to an Inquiry of September 2, I969 frcxa the 
Hunt-Wesson Poods, Inc., Pullerton, California, the Senior 
Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Equal 
En^)loyment Commission, Washlngtcm, D.C., concluded that 
"It would appear that questioning applicants and employees 
who are aliens as to their legal right to be In the United 
States, and requesting proof of such right. In order to 
cooperate with law enforcement efforts of the Justice 
Department would not constitute a violation of Title VII" 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 



2h-6 



2094 



UHTED STATES DEPARTME'ff OF JITSTICE 

Iininlgr?.tion and Naturalization Service 

300 i^rth Los Angeles Street 

Los Angeles, Calif oriiia 90012 



LOS 50/20 



Oentlensn: 

Reports from several sources are being received at this office alleging 
your emplojnvient of aliens not permitted to be emplcr^ed in the United 
States. Vfliile the reliability of these reports are as yet unlcnoim, our 
past erqperience supports th--ir general authenticity* As pa-'b of t'.iis 
agency's laxv-enforcement rerponsibilities, unannounc-'d visi:^* of our 
officers to your establishment would be necessary'- to ■v3rif7' these com- 
plaints and apprehend the offending aliens, Miile ev^.-y effort is made 
to minimize the resulting dicourbance of your operatjoii, of necessity, 
some r^st be anticipated from the sheer nature of our task. 

This letter is to advise you of the information being received, to solicit 
your cooperation in terminating the employment of such aliens, and to 
offer the services and facilities of this agency in accomplishing this 
objective. Employers are permitted by law to inquire of their employees 
as to their right to be employed in the United States „ Those claiming 
United States citizenship should present birth certificates evidencing 
birth in the United States or certificates of citizenship or naturaliza- 
tion. Those claiming to be noncitizens must present an Alien Registra- 
tion Receipt Card (Form I-l^l, a blue-green laminated card bearing a 
photograph) or other documents issued by the Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion Service authorizing employment or stating that "Employment Vj'ill ;^bt 
Affect Immigration Status," The enclosed boolclet, -'-97, contains samples 
of the several documents issued to aliens by this agency. Upon your re- 
quest, one of our officers will resolve anj'" doubtful case either at youi' 
place of business or at this office, as j'-ou prefer. 

The employment of illegal aliens not only serves to encourage additional 
aliens' to enter the United States illegally or to violate laxrful status, 
but deprives United States citizens and lawful resident aliens of neces- 
B3Ty employment. Over 20,000 aliens were apprehended last year in the 
Los Angeles area alono, Tae cost of their apprehension to the taxpayers 
in salaries of our enforcement officers, necessarj'- equipment, the housing 
and feedinr^ of tliese aliens and their transportation to thoir ov;n ccuntrj',and 
welfare costs of lawful residents and citizens unable to find employment, 
is staggering. These funds could more properlj'" and effectively be spent 



2095 



for much needed schools, hospitals, and low-cost homes for the economi- 
cally disadvantaged, I am certain that as substantial taxpayers you 
share with me the desire to minimize the cost of Government and see that 
our tax dollars are expended in a direction to produce the best maximum 
return. 

Please feel free to discuss tW s problem with me at my office (Room 810't^) 
or by telephone (213 688-2780), Your assistance and cooperation toward 
achieving good government and effective law enforcement are sincerely 
appreciated. 



t 



Very truly yours 



George K. Rosenberg 
District Director 




Enclosure 



2096 



Subco«ri.ttec Inquiry 

25* riease sufaodt the felloving infonutien, for each of the past fire 
years, by geographical areat 

a, the mnber of smugglers of illegal entrants apprehended? 

b. the aunber of conrictions secured? 
c» the kinds of sentences handed out? 

d* What additional legislation or enforcement resources are needed 
to further control these practices? 

Response 

a. (apprehensions) 

1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 

2.048 1.210 1.219 959 525 

Northeast Region 119 72 46 41 54 

Southeast Region 20 4 8 28 3 

Northwest Region 10 6 10 13 8 

Southwest Region 1,899 1,128 1,155 877 460 

b. (conrictions) 

563 395 322 371 177 
Northeast Region 3 3 2 5 4 
Southeast Region 3-644 
Northwest Region 41 41 9 5 8 
Southwest Region 516 351 305 357 161 

c. (sentences) * 

Months .... 7,447 3,357 2,395 3,286 1,738 
Fines .... $43,000 $31,500 $13,150 $18,850 $10,550 



25-1 



2097 



NertheMt Regiea 
Months • • • 4 
Fines • • • 


9 


3D 


24 


54 

$3,000 


87 
$750 


SoothMst RegiM 
Months • • • 
Fines . • • 


8 
$500 


„ 


96 


30 
$2,500 


66 
$500 


Northwest Region 
Months • • • < 
Fines • • . < 


560 


246 
$100 


84 
$250 


12 
$1,000 


22 
$100 


Southwest Region 
Months . . • . 
Fines • • • < 


6,850 
$42,500 


3,081 
$31,400 


2,191 
$12,900 


3,190 
$12,350 


1,563 
$9,200 



* Prior to Janoarj-, 1969, the Serrice did not collect statistics as 
to the portion of sentences idiich were suspended. A reriew of the 
sentmces ijspesed in the Southwest Region during the first six souths 
of Fiscal Year 1969 (July 1968 to Jan. 1, 1969) shows that of the 
2,220 aonths sentences giTcn in 244 cases, 1806 aonths were suspended. 
The average sentences actually is^osed was 1.7 aonths. During the 
period Jan. 1, 1969 throu^ March 31, 1969, an aggregate of 2,524 
■enths wns iivosed in 117 such cases, with 937 aonths suspended. The 
arerage sentence actually iaposed was 13.6 aonths. Ihe increased 
arerage during the latter period was attributable to the sentences in 
two aggrarated cases t - one in San Antonio, Texas inrolTing a siggling 
operation in which three aliens died of suffocation in a closed Tan 
and the three defendants receiTed a total of 43 years actual sentence; 
and the other in Southern California, where the defendant rec^^red a 
total of 45 years actual sentence. 

During the period April, 1969 through June 30, 1969, the aggregate 
sentences totaled 2,106 aonths, and were iaposed in 155 cases, with 
1,812 aonths suspended. The arerage sentence actually iaposed again 
dropped to 1.9 aonths. 



25-2 



2098 



d. The present statute directed against aliens smugglers 
is section 27^ of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
8 U.S.C. 1324, which prescribes criminal penalties for 
smuggling, harboring, transporting or inducing illegal 
entrants. This is a comprehensive statute, which is 
utilized to attack those engaged in smuggling aliens 
into the United States. It is an effective tool to 
accomplish this purpose, and in our view no additional 
legislation to penalize such smuggling is needed. 



25-3 



2099 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

26. During Subcommittee hearings on May 21 and 22, I969, a 
number of questions were raised regarding the lack of a 
computer system for recording the movements of aliens 
across land borders. During the hearings. Senators and 
their coi^nsel spoke of various systems used in roughly 
comparable situations, ranging from the ticket punching 
techniques of commuter railroads, to the airline seat 
reservation system. 

a. Does the Service now have the authority, under law, 
to implement such a computer technique or system? 

b. How much would such a system cost? 

c. Has the Service requested the needed funds from 
the Bureau of the Budget? 

d. Wouldn't such a system (if it dealt with both border 
crossing card holders, and green card holders, and 
used an electronically activated card) substantially 
improve the Service's control over the movements 

of non-resident, non-citizens? 

e. Wouldn't such cards, particularly if tied to a thumb 
print system, be harder to forge than the current 
plethora of documents used by border crossers? 

Response 
a. Section 103(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
8 U.S.C, 1103(a), confers on the Attorney General broad 
powers in administering and enforcing the immigration laws. 
In our view this grant of authority is sufficiently 
expansive to authorize the adoption of a computer technique 
or system. Procurement authority is subject to the normal 
Congressional and Executive Branch clearances. 



26-1 



2100 



b. System costs vary In proportion to the complexity of the 
system to be Implemented, and the costs are not confined 
to computer hardware. A system that contemplates the 
capture of data relating to the entry and departure of 
aliens across land borders also entails the cost of 
Issuing machine readable documents, expansion of existing 
border and airport facilities to permit the orderly 
flow of traffic through departure checks, and additional 
personnel needed to man the departure lanes. The combined 
costs for a system would be approximately $18,000,000. 

c. No, 

d. Such a system would Identify cards as valid or questionable 
and could thus reduce the nvimber of admissions by persons 
not entitled to entry with the cards presented. It 

would also give a more accurate accovmting of admissions 
and departures of aliens across the land borders. 

e. A thumb print on a document could be of value in a 
questionable case, if tied to a fingerprint system, to 
identify the rightful holder of the card. However, there 
is no machine In production, at the present time, that 
has the ability to compare fingerprints automatically at 
the speeds required to operate a border crossing system. 



26-2 



2101 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

27. What is the Service's policy on the acceptance of baptismal 
certificates as proof of citizenship of commuting citizens? 

a. Are such certificates still acceptable at the Hidalgo 
bridge? 

b. Is it true that over the past five years, the certifi- 
cates were accepted at some parts (sic), but not others? 

Response 

a. Yes. As indicated in the response to question l.a., a 
baptismal record, in possession of the rightful holder, 
is deemed prima facie evidence of United States citizen- 
ship. 

b. There is no basis for refusing to consider valid baptis- 
mal certificates, showing birth in the United States, 

if presented by the rightful holder in support of 
claimed United States citizenship. Any variation from 
this procedure would have been contrary to Service policy, 
Where fraud is suspected, the certificates are lifted by 
the Service to facilitate necessary interrogation, inves- 
tigation, and indicated action. 



27-1 



36-513 O - 70 - 5A - 11 



2102 



Subcommittee Inquiry 



28. What is the process by which illegals apprehended by the 
Service are escorted back to Mexico? 

a. How many are simply transported across the border? 

b. How many are taken into the interior of Mexico? 

c. Were the charter flights from Port- Isabel to Central 
Mexico abandoned at any time in recent years? If so, 
please explain. 



Response 

Following apprehension in the interior of the United States, 
illegal aliens are transported by Service transport aircraft. 
Service bus, and chartered bus to Service-operated staging 
areas - El Centre, California; El Paso, Texas; Port Isabel, 
Texas - for onward movement to Mexico. Women and children 
illegally in the United States usually are foixnd near the 
border and are permitted to return to Mexico voluntarily. 

a. During calendar year 1969 » about 55>250 Mexican residents 
were granted voluntary departure to adjacent Mexican ports 
of entry. These were aliens who have their residence on or 
in close proximity to the border. Included in this group 
were 23 > 000 women and children and a substantial number who 
were aged and infirm. 

b. 129»257 illegal aliens were removed to the interior of 
Mexico during calendar year 1969. 



28-1 



2103 



The charter flights from Port Isabel to Central Mexico were 
discontinued in February 1969. The flights were replaced 
by a buslift. The buslift permits the Service to move the 
aliens to the same general area in Mexico at lower cost. 



26-2 



2104 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

29. With regard to Section 212(a) (14) labor certification pro- 
visions of the Immigration and Nationality Act: 

a. Do the provisions requiring certification of employ- 
ment apply to all aliens who seek legal entry as 
permanent residents and whose entry Is based on 
employment providing their financial responsibility? 
Please explain, 

b. Under what circumstances must a commuter show that 
he has permanent employment? What definition does 
the Service use for permanent employment? 

c. Which aliens are exempt from the provision of 
Section 212(a) (14)? 

d. Has the State Department, or the Service, complied 
statistics on the niimber of aliens admitted for 
permanent residence during each of the last three 
years who were exempt from the provisions of 212(a) 
(l4)? If so, please provide. 

e. How is the exemption established? Please outline 
the procedure. 

f . What instructions have been issued to those officers 
granting the exemption, particularly as to sufficiency 
of proof in establishing preference by citizenship 

of a relative who claims birth in the United States? 



Response 
No. By its specific terms, section 212(a) (l4) is made 
applicable only to those immigrants who are (a) non- 
preference immigrants as described in section 203(a)(8) 
of the Act; (b) immigrants who have been granted an 
occupational preference under section 203(a)(3) or (6); 
and (c) aliens classified as special immigrants under 
section 101(a) (27) (A) by reason of birth in an Independent 



29-1 



2105 



No, 29 « a (continued) 

Western Hemisphere country or the Canal Zone, and their 
accompanying or following to join spouses and children. 
An exemption from the certification requirement is 
prescribed for any Western Hemisphere special immigrant 
who is the parent, spouse or child of a citizen or lawful 
permanent resident of the United States, Under the 
explicit language of the statute, returning lawful resi- 
dents, designated as special immigrants under section 
101(a) (27) (B), are not subject to the labor certification 
provisions of section 212(a) (l4), 

b. There is no requirement that a commuter's employment be 
permanent. However, he must have reasonably regular and 
stable emplojnnent in the United States, In Matter of 
Bailey , 11 I&N Dec, 466, the Board of Immigration Appeals, 
whose decisions are binding on the Service, held that the 
regularity and frequency of a commuter's temporary 
employment in the United States could be taken into 
accovint in determining whether his employment was stable. 
The Board fovind that an alien could be admissible as a 
retvirning resident commuter if his employment in this 
country was reasonably regular and stable, even though 
such employment is only part-time, is self-employment, is 
intermittent, or does not require daily entries. 



29-2 



2106 



since section 212(a) (14) by Its ovm terras Is made appli- 
cable only to certain classes of immigrants, it is not 
applicable to the following classes of aliens: 

(1) Nonimmigrants 

(2) Western Hemisphere special immigrants who 
are the parents, spouses or children of 
citizens or of lawful permanent residents 
of the United States 

(3) special immigrants described in section 101 
(a) (27) (B), (C), (D) and (E) (returning 
lawful residents, former citizens, ministers, 
employees and former employess of U.S.) 

(4) preference immigrants (on basis of relation- 
ship to citizens or residents) under section 
203(a)(1), (2),(4), (5) 

(5) conditional entrants under section 203(a)(7) 
(refugees) 

(6) immediate relatives of United States citizens 
\inder section 201(b) 

In addition, by regulation (8 CPR 212.8(b) and 22 CFR 42.91 

(a)(l4)(ii)), the following classes of persons are 

declared to be exempt from the labor certification requirement; 



29-3 



2107 



(1) An alien who establishes he does not Intend to 
seek employment In the United States, 

(2) A member of the Armed Forces of the United States, 

(3) A spouse or child accompanying or following to 
Join his spouse or parent who either has a 
labor certification or does not require such 
certification, 

(4) A female alien who Intends to marry a citizen 
or alien lawful permanent resident of the 
United States, who establishes that she does 
not Intend to seek employment In the United 
States and whose fiance has gviaranteed her 
support, 

(3) An alien who will engage In a commercial or 

agricultural enterprise in which he had Invested 
or is actively in the process of Investing a 
substantial amount of capital, 

(6) An alien who establishes satisfactorily that 
he has been accepted by an institution of 
learning in the United States, that he will 
be pursuing a fvill course of study for at 
least two full consecutive years, and that 
he has sufficient financial resources to support 
himself and will not seek employment during 
that period. 



29-4 



2108 



d. Year ended June 30: I967 I968 1969 

Immigrants admitted: 361,972 454,448 358,579 

Labor certificates Issued: 93,324 1/ l4l,827 1/ 102,913 1/ 



Immigrants exempt from labor 

certification requirement: 268,648 312,621 255,666 

1/ SOURCE: Table A-1; Immigrant Worker Certification Program , 
prepared by the Manpower Administration, U.S. Department 
of Labor, Fiscal Years 1967, I968, and I969. 

Data in Table A-1 includes alien workers precertified for 
permanent employment by the Department of Labor and pro- 
cessed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and 
the U.S. Consular Office on the basis of schedules pro- 
mulgated by the Department of Labor. 
NOTE: Usage of the labor certification document will 
not necessarily fall in the same year as that of immigrant 
admission because visa numbers may not be immediately 
available to visa applicants. 

e. An immigrant visa Is not Issued before the applicant has 
been Issued a labor certification or establishes to the 
satisfaction of the issuing consular officer that he is 
exempt from the labor certification requirement. Visa 
Issuance is a function of consular officers of the Depart- 
ment of State, and the Immigration and Naturalization 

29-5 



2109 



Service Is not Involved In the case of a Mexican native 
claiming exemption from the labor certification require- 
ment in connection with an application for an immigrant 
visa, with one exception. That exception is when the alien 
claims to be an "immediate relative" of a United States 
citizen (spouse or child of a United States citizen, or 
parent of an adult United States citizen). In that case, 
the citizen is required to file a visa petition with the 
Service to classify the alien as an "immediate relative" 
and thereby exempt the alien from the numerical limitation 
of 120,000 per anniim applicable to Western Hemisphere immi- 
grants. Documentary evidence of the claimed relationship 
must be submitted in support of such a petition. The 
approval of the petition merely serves to classify the 
alien beneficiary as an "immediate relative". However, 
since parents, spouses and children of United States citizens 
are also exempt from the labor certification requirement 
applicable to Western Hemisphere natives, consular officers 
may accept the approval of the petition as evidence of 
the alien beneficiary's exemption from the certification 
requirement on the basis of his relationship. In other 
cases the consular officer presvunably requires suitable 
evidence of a claimed exemption from that requirement. 



29-6 



2110 



With respect to Eastern Hemisphere natives. Service approval 
of a visa petition to classify such an alien under the 
first, second, fourth or fifth preference, or as "an 
immediate relative, " based upon specified relationships 
to citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United 
States, is accepted by the consul as evidence that 
section 212(a) (l4) is not applicable. Before approving 
a visa petition for third or sixth preference (occupational 
preference), the Service ascertains that the labor 
certification requirement has been met. The approved 
petition is forwarded to the consular officer where the 
beneficiary will apply for his visa, 

f . Every immigration officer engaged in examining and adjudi- 
cating petitions or applications has received training 
and instruction in the immigration laws, and in applicable 
regulations and inspection techniques. These techniques 
include interrogation of the applicant for admission, and 
examination of the documents he presents, including the 
labor certification or evidence of exemption from the 
certification requirement. 

Every alien who seeks to establish immediate relative 
classification or preference as a relative of a United 



29-7 



2111 



states citizen or alien lawful permanent resident of the 
United States, which classification woxild provide exemp- 
tion from the labor certification, must have a visa 
petition filed on his behalf by the citizen or resident 
alien on Form I-I30 (Petition to Classify Status of Alien 
Relative for Issuance of Immigrant Visa). The Instruction 
on that form must be carried out and the required 
documentation must be furnished with the petition. No 
petition oay be approved until the examining officer is 
satisfied that the relationship exists. 

Form I-I30, including instructions regarding documenta- 
tion, is attached. 



29-8 



2112 



PETITION TO 
CLASSIFY STATUS OF 
ALIEN RELATIVE FOR 
ISSUANCE OF IMMI- 
GRANT VISA 




To THE SECRETARY OF STATE: | 


The petition was filed on ; 


Remarks 


The petition Is approved for status under 


SPOUSE. 
1 1 201 (b) CHILD 1 1 203Ca; 12) 


DATE 




1 1 201^; PARENT 1 1 203r<i;(4l 


OF 
ACTION 
□ D 




1 1 203fo)«H 1 1 203 fo; (51 


DISTRICT 





(PETITIONER IS NOT TO WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE) 



1. Petition Is hereby made to classify the status of the alien beneficiary for Issuance of an Immigrant visa as: (Check one) 

I I The spouse, child (regardless of age), parent, brother, or sister of a United States citizen. 

I I The spouse or unmarried child (regardless of age) of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 

residence. 



Block L — Information About Allen Benefklary 



2. Nan>e(Lut,lDCAFS) (Flnl) 



5. Other names used; Married woman give maiden name 



3J)oNotWriteinThis Space 



7. Place of birth (Couniiy) 



8. Date of birth (Month, day, year) 



10. Petitioner's name (Last in CAPS) (Flrsi) 



4. Relationship of beneficiary to petitioner 



6. Is beneficiary related to you by adoption? 



9. Beneficiary's marital status: 

n Married □ Widowed Q Divorced n Single 



11. Has this beneficiary ever been in the U.S.' 
□ Yes n No 



12. Name of beneficiary's spouse, if married, and date and country of birth (Omlt this Item it petition is for your spouse) 



13. Names, birthdates and countries of birth of beneficiary's children. If any 



14. Full address of beneficiary's spouse and children, if any (Omlt this item if petition is for your spouse) 



15. If this petition is for your spouse or child, give the following: 

"■ Date and place of your present marriage t. Number of your prior marriages c Number of prior marriages of spouse 



d. Last address at which you and your spouse resided together From To 

(Town or dly) (Slate or Province) (Country) (Apt No.) (Number and street) (Month) (Year) (Month) (Year) 



16. If this petition Is for a child, Ca;. Is the child married? (bjli the child your adopted child?. If so, give 

the names, dates, and places of birth of all other children adopted by you. If none, so state 



17. If this petition Is for a brothe 
statement giving full details ai 



sister, are both your parents the same as the alien's parents? If not, submit a separate 

parentage, dates of marriage of parents, and (he number of previous marriages of each parent. 



18. If separate petitions are also being submitted for other relatives, give names of each and relationship to petitioner 



19. Have you ever filed a petition for this alien before? If so, give place and date of filing and result: 

i-oim I nn UNITKD STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE— Immigration and Nalurallzallon Service 



2113 



Block I.— Information Aboul Allcp Bcncllclary (Continued) 



20. Address in the United States where beneficiary will reside 



21. Address at which beneficiary is presently residing <AptNo) .Number and street) ,To,*a,orcl,y) (Province or State. (Zip Code. It in US) 



22. If beneficiary is in the United States, give the following information concerning beneficiary: 
a. He last arrived in the U.S. on (Month) (Day) (Year) b. He last arrived in U.S. as (Vlattor.Mudent.eichangeallen.crewman.stowaway.etc) 



c. Show date beneficiary's stay expired or will expire as shown on his Form 1-94 or 1-95; 



d. Name and address of present employer Date alien began this employment 



23. Checlt the appropriate box below and furnish the information required for the box checked: 

□ Beneficiary will apply for a visa abroad at the American Consulate In .- — 
(City In foreign country) (Foreign country ) 

I — I Beneficiary la In the United SUtea and will apply for adjustment of statua to that of a lawful permanent reaident In the 

Omce of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at r,—\ ' „ 

It the application for adjuatment of status Is denied the beneficiary will apply for a visa abroad at the American Consulate In 
rcItyln"ForeigtrCountry) ('ForeigB Country) 



Block IL — Information About PeUdonef 

First) (Middle) 25. If you are a married woman, give your maiden na 



24 My name Is (Last) 



26. I reside to the United States at (Apt. No.) (Number and su-eet) 



27. Address abroad (if any) (Number and atreei) 



28. 1 was bom: (Month) (Day) (Year) In: (City or town) (SUIe or Province) 



29. If you are a dUren of the United Statea, give the following: 
0. Cltlsenahlp wa« acquired: (Check one) 

O through birth In the U.S. D through pareota 

D through oaturallxatloo Q through marriage 

(1) ir acquired through naturalization, give name under whldi nafurallxed. number of naturalization ceatlflcate and date and place 
of naturalization: ^ 

(2) If acquired through parentage or marriage, have you obtained a certlflcale of citizenship In your own name based on such 

acqulaltlon? (a) If so, give number of certificate and date and place of Issuance: 

(b) If not, submit evidence of dttxenshlp In accordance with InstrucUoD 3a.(2). 

b. Have you or any person through whom you claim cltlzeashlp ever lost United Slates citizenship? 

If so, attach detailed explanation on separate sheet. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 



30. If you are a lawful permanent resident alien of the UnilM States, give the following: 

a. Allen Registration Number: b. Date, place, and means of admission for lawful permanent residence 



c. Have you ever lost status as a lawful permanent resident alien? If so, explain: 

(V you are married to a clUzen of the United Stales, read Instruction lb carefully) 



Block IIL — Oath or Affirmation of Petitioner 

I swear (affirm) that I know the contenU of thU petlUon signed by me and that the statements herein are true and c 

Signature of peUUoner (See Instruction No. 5) 

Subscribed and sworn to (affirmed) before me this day of , A.D. 19 , at 

(SEAL) My commission expires 

(Signature of oflicer administering oath) 



Block IV. 


— Slgnahire of Person Preparing Form, If Other Than Petitioner 


I declare that this document wa 
which I have any knowledge. 


5 prepared by me at the request of the petitioner and is based on all information of 


(Signature) 


(Address) (Date) 



2114 











* 


Name (Last, In CAPS) (First) (Middle) 


Alien Registration Number [ 

1 

■ 


Other names used; Married woman give maiden name 


SNDX Code 


Race of birth (Country) Date of birth (Month, day, year) 


Petitioner's name (Last In CAPS) (First) (Middle) 


DATE AND ACTION ON VP 


SECTION 


DATE PETITION FILED 


DATE 
OF 
ACTION 
DD 

DISTRICT 




□20tr6/JP2- 
1 |20l(6;(Parent) 

1 l203fa;(l) 
1 |203(aJ(2) 
1 1 203 fa; (4) 
1 1 203 fa; (5) 




Relative Petition Card 
Form I-130-A 
(Bev. 10-15-69) 


Sent to Consul at: 


I 



2115 



(PLEASE TEAR OFF HERE BEFORE SUBMITTING PETITION) 

INSTRUCTIONS 
READ INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY. FEE WILL NOT BE REFUNDED. 

Not all of these instructions relate to the type of case which concerns you. Please read carefully those which do relate. Failure to follow 
instructions may require return of your petition and delay final action. 

1. Eligibility. A petition may be filed by a citizen of the United Stales or a lawful permanent resident thereof to classify the status of specified 
alien relatives as follows: 

a. By a citizen of the United States: Except as noted in paragraph 2, a citizen of the United Stales may submit a petition on behalf of a spouse, 
child (regardless of age), parent (if the citizen is at least 21 years of age), brother or sister. 

h. By a lawful permanent resident alien: Except as noted in paragraph 2. an alien lawfully admitted to the Ujiited States for permanent resi- 
dence may submit a petition on behalf of a spouse or an unmarried child regardless of age. However, if a lawful permanent resident alien is 
married to a United Stales citizen and wishes to petition for an unmarried child, such alien should consult the nearest office of the Immigration 
and Naiuraliiation Service for advice as to whether it would be preferable, or necessary, for the United Slates citizen spouse to submit the 
petition instead. 
(IMPORTANT: Except as noted in the next sentence, petitions by United States citizens or lawful permanent residents should not be submitted 
for alien relatives bom in any independent foreign country of the Western Hemisphere or in the Panama Canal Zone. However, a citizen of the 
United States must file a petition on behalf of his parent (if the citizen is at least 21 years of age), or on behalf of his spouse or unmarried minor 
child, even though such parent, spouse or child was born in an independent foreign country of the Western Hemisphere or in the Panama Canal 
Zone.) 

2. Peritiona which cannot be approved. Approval cannot be given to petitions on behalf of — 

a. A parent, unless the United States citizen petitioner is at least 21 years of age. 

b. An adoptive parent, unless the relationship to the United States citizen petitioner exists by virtue of an adoption which took place while the 
child was under the age of 14. and the child has thereafter been in the legal custody of, and has resided with, the adopting parent or parents 
for at least 2 years. 

c. A stepparent, unless the marriage creating the status of stepparent occurred before the citizen stepchild reached the age of 18 years. 

d. An adopted child, unless the child was adopted while under the age of 14 and has thereafter been in the legal custody of, and has resided with, 
the adopting parent or parents for at least 2 years. The same petitioner may not petition for more than two such children unless necessary to 
prevent separation of brothers and sisters. 

e. A stepchild, unless the child was under the age of 18 years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred. 

/. A wife or husband by reason of any marriage ceremony where the contracting parlies thereto were not physically present in the presence of eacli 
other, unless the marriage shall have been consummated. 



g. A prospective wife or husband. 

h. A grandparent, grandchild, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, cousin or in-law. 

3. Supporting documenta. The following documents must be submitted with the petition. 

a. To prove United States citizenship of petitioner (where petition is for relative of a citizen). 

(1) If you are a citizen by reason of birth Jn the United States, submit your birth certificate. If your birth certificate is unobtainable, see 
"Secondary Evidence" below for submission of document in place of birth certificate. 

(2) If you were born outside the United States and became a citizen through the naturalization or citizenship of a parent or husband, and have 
not been issued a certificate of citizenship in your own name, submit evidence of the citizenship and marriage of such parent or husband, 
as well as termination of any prior marriages. Also, if you claim citizenship through a parent, submit your birth certificate and a separate 
statement showing the date. port, and means of all your arrivals and departures into and out of the United States. (Do not make or submit 
a photostat of a certificate of citizenship. See Instruction No. 8.) 

(3) If your naturalization occurred within 90 days immediately preceding the filing of this petition, or if it occurred prior to September 27, 1906. 
the naturalization certificate must accompany the petition. Do not make or submit a photostat of such certificate (see Instruction No. 8). 

b. To prove family relationship between petitioner and beneficiary. 

(1) If petition is submitted or behalf of a wife or husband, it must be accompanied by a certificate of marriage to the beneficiary and proof of 
I of all previous marriages of both wife and husband. 



(2) If a petition is submitted by a mother on behalf of a child (regardless of age) the birth certificate of the child showing the name of the 
mother must accompany the petition. If petition is submitted by a father or stepparent on behalf of a child (regardless of age* certificate 
of marriage of the parents, proof of termination of their prior marriages, and birth certificate of the child must accompany the petition. 

(3) If petition is submitted on behalf of a brother or sister, your own birth certificate and the birth certificate of the beneficiary, showing a 
common mother, must accompany the petition. If the petition is on behalf of a brother or sister having a common father and different 
mothers, marriage certificate of your parents, and proof of termination of their prior marriages must accompany the petition. 

(4) If petition is submitted in behalf of a mother, your own birth certificate showing the name of your mother must accompany the peti- 
tion. If petition is submitted on behalf of a father or stepparent your own birth certificate and marriage certificate of your parents must 
accompany the petition, as well as proof of termination of prior marriages of your parents. 

(5) If either the petitioner or the beneficiary is a married woman, marriage certificate(st must accompany the petition. However, when the 
relationship between the petitioner and beneficiary is that of a mother and child (regardless of age), the mother's marriage certificate 
need not be submitted if the mother's present married name appears on the birth certificate of the child. 

(6) If the petitioner and the beneficiary are related to each other by adoption, a certified copy of the adoption decree must accompany the 
petition. 

3 (over) 



2116 



c. Secondary evidence. 

If U is not possible to obtain any one of the required documents or records shown above, the following may be submitted for consideration: 

(1) Baptismal certificate. — A certificate under the seal of the church where the baptism occurred, showing date and place of the child's birth, 
date of baptism, the names of the child's parents, and names of the godparents, if shown. 

(2) School record. — A letter from the school authorities having jurisdiction over school attended (preferably the first school), showing the dale 
of admission to the school, child's date of birth or age at that time, place of birth, and the names and places of birth of parents, if shown 
in the school records. 

(3) Census record. — Suie or Federal census record showing the name(s) and placefs) of birth, and date(s) of birth or age (s) of the 
person (s) listed. 

(4) Affidavits. — Nourized affidavits of two persons who were living at the time, and who have personal knowledge, of the event you are trying 
to prove — for example, the date and place of a birth, marriage, or death. The persons making the affidavits may be relatives and need not 
be citizens of the United States. Each affidavit should contain the following information regarding the person making the affidavit: 
His (Hert full name and address; date and place of birth; relationship to you, if any; full information concerning the event; and complete 
details concerning how he (she) acquired knowledge of the event. 



d. Documents and secondary evidence unavailable. 

If you are unable to submit required evidence of birth, death, marriage, divorce or adoption because the event took place in a foreign country 
which does not record such events, and secondary evidence is unavailable, attach a statement to thi? effect, setting forth therein the following: 
the date and place of each of vour entries into the United States. Also attach any letters, photographs, remittances or similar documents which 
tend to support the claimed relationship and three passport type photographs of yourself. 

e. Documents previously submitted. 

If your birth abroad was registered with an American consul on Form FS-240. submit that form with this petition. If any required documents 
relating to your claim of citizenship were submitted to and retained by the American consul who issued FS-240 and you wish to use them in 
connection with this petition instead of submitting new documents, list such documents in an attachment to this petition and show the location 
of the consulate. If you wish to make similar use of required documents contained in any Immigration and Naturalization Service file, list 
them in an attachment to this petition and identify the file by name and number. Otherwise the documents required in support of this petition 
must be submitted. 

/. Documents in general 

All supporting documents must be submitted in the original. If you desire to have the original returned to you, and if copies are by law per- 
mitted to be made, you may submit photostatic or typewritten copies. Photostatic copies unaccompanied by the original may be accepted if the 
copy bears a certification by an immigration or consular oKcer that the copy was compared with the original and found to be identical. A foreign 
document must be accompanied by a translation, certified by the translator as to the accuracy of the translation and as to his competency to 
translate. (Do not make a copy of a certificate of naturalization or citizenship.) 

4. Preparation of petition. A separate petition for each beneficiary must be typewritten or printed legibly, with pen and ink (one copy only). 

(If you need more space to answer fully any questions on this form, use a separate sheet, identify each answer with the number of the correspond- 
ing question, and date and sign each sheet.) 

5. Execution of petition. You must sign the petition in your full, true, and correct name and affirm or make it under oath. 

a. In the United States the petition may be sworn to or affirmed before an immigration officer without the payment of fee, or before a notary public 
or other officer authorized to administer oaths for general purposes, in which case the official seal or certificate of authority to administer oaths 
must be affixed. 

b. Outside the United States the petition must be sworn to or afirmed before a United States immigration or consular officer. 

c. A member of the Armed Forces of the United States, either in the United States or abroad, may swear to or affirm the petition before an officer 
of the Armed Forces authorized to perform notarial acts under Article 136, Uniform Code of Military Justice His wife or other dependent, 
abroad only, may swear to or affirm the petition in like manner. 

6. Submission of petition. If you are residing in the United States, send the completed petition to the office of the Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion Service having jurisdiction over your place of residence. If you are residing outside the United States consult the nearest American consulate 
as to the foreign office of this Service designated to act on your petition. If you are a United States citizen petitioning for an immediate relative 
classification in behalf of your unmarried child, the petition must be submitted in sufficient time for action to be completed on the petition and for 
the child to obtain a visa and reach the United States before the date on which he will be 21 years of age. 

7. Fees. A fee of $10. payable in United States currency, must accompany this petition. The fee is required for filing the petition and is not return- 
able regardless of the action taken. If you mail this petition, attach money order or check. DO NOT SEND CASH. Money order or check should 
be drawn on a United States bank to the order of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice." If residing in Guam, draw re- 
mittance in favor of the 'Treasurer, Guam." If residing in the Virgin Islands, draw remittance in favor of the "Commissioner of Finance of the 
Virgin Islands." 

8. Penalties. Title 18, United States Code, section 1546. provides: "Whoever knowingly makes under oath any false statement with respect to a 
material fact in any application, affidavit, or other document required by the immigration laws or regulations prescribed thereunder, or knowingly 
presents any such application, affidavit, or other document containing any such false statements, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned 
not more than 5 years, or both." 

Title 18, United States Code, section 1426(h), provides: "Whoever, without lawful authority, prints, photographs, makes or executes any 
print or impression in the likeness of a * * * certificate of naturalization or citizenship, or any part thereof, shall be fined not more than 15.000 
or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." 

tV U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1969 — 361-117 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402 



2117 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

30. With regard to statistics complied. If any, on fraudulent 
applications for preference status: 

a. How many cases of such natvu?e were investigated 
for each of the last three years? 

b. What types of fraud have been uncovered? 

c. How Is the State Department and the Service meeting 
the problem of fraud? 

Response 

a. Service records are not maintained with a breakdown of 
the number of Investigations Involving fraudulent appli- 
cations for preference status. The following figures show 
the total number of fraud Investigations conducted In the 
United States dviring the fiscal years Indicated. 

Fiscal Year Fraud Investigations Completed 

1969 10,231 

1968 6,641 

1967 5,337 

b. The new types of fraud developed after the I965 amendment 
requiring labor certification of immigrants, are largely 
responsible for the record number of fraud investigations 
completed during Fiscal Year 1969. Various schemes evolved 
to acquire immediate relative status and thereby evade 

the labor certification requirements, e.g., "sham" 
marriages to United States citizens or resident aliens, 

30-1 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 12 



2118 



use of counterfeit marriage and birth records, and false 
birth registrations In the United States of foreign born 
children whose parents are Inunlgrant visa applicants. 
Other schemes Involve actual connivance to obtain labor 
certifications by fraudulent applications and supporting 
documentation. Other frauds Involved the preparation and 
submission of fraudulent visa petitions and other applica- 
tions for Service benefits. These Include applications 
for extension of temporary stay of nonimmigrant visitors, 
change of status from one category of nonimmigrant to 
another nonimmigrant status, and adjustment of status 
from a nonimmigrant status to that of a permanent resident. 

c. Close liaison, both on a local and headquarters level, was 
established by the Service with the Departments of State 
and Labor for prompt exchange of pertinent information 
developed on frauds, so that a three-pronged offensive 
might be launched — to Identify fraudulent applications, 
to initiate deportation proceedings, and to initiate 
criminal prosecutions. 



30-2 



2119 



Subconanittee Inquiry 

31. With regard to the Investigation of fraud: 

a. Who is in charge of investigation? 

b. How are the offices responsible for the investigations staffed? 

c. How many cases of fraud have been tincovered before a visa is 
issued dixrlng the past five years, and in I96O and 1955? 

d. How many cases of fraud have been uncovered after the visa has 
been issued during the past five years, and in I96O and 1955? 

e. What efforts are made to deter the continuation of the frauds? 

Response 

a. Under the executive direction of a regional commissioner, the 
37 District Directors of this Service are in charge of investi- 
gations within their jurisdiction. In the 18 larger districts 
they are aided in the discharge of their responsibilities by 
Assistant District Directors for Investigations. 

b. The attached list shows investigators on duty as of December 
31, 1969, which shows how our various offices are staffed. 
Adjustments are made periodically to meet varying workloads. 

c. & d. Service records are not maintained with separate categories 

for frauds uncovered before and after a visa is Issued. The 

following figures show the number of fraud investigations 

conducted in the Ifeited States during the fiscal years indicated. 

Fraud investigations were not recorded separately prior to 

Fiscal Year 1956: 

Fiscal Years Fraud Investigations Completed 

1969 10,231 

1968 6,61+1 

1967 5,337 

1966 h,967 

1965 5,233 

i960 3,231^ 

1956 3,182 



31-1 



2120 



e. The Service is constantly concerned with combatting frauds. 
Various programs have been initiated. Operating procedures, 
which include a vigorous criminal prosecution policy, were 
established and field offices have been directed to follow 
them closely. Close liaison is maintained with the Depart- 
ments of State and Labor, locally and in Washington. Liaison 
is also maintained with State and local authorities at all 
levels. 



31-2 



2121 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
Immigration and Naturalization Service 



On Duty Force of InveBtigators - December yi, I969 



NORTHEAST REGION 


SOUTHEAST REGION 




NORTHWEST REGION 




SOUTHWEST REGION 




♦Burlington 


5 


♦Richmond 


h 


♦St. Paul 


3 


♦San Pedro 


k 


♦♦Boston 


16 


♦♦Atlanta 


k 


♦♦Chicago 


5k 


♦♦Denver 


k 


Providence 


1 


Memphis 


2 


Hammond 


6 


Salt Lake City 


3 


Springfield 


1 






Milwaukee 


5 










♦♦Baltimore 


9 






♦♦El Paso 


11 


♦♦Buffalo 


12 






♦♦Detroit 


18 


Albuquerque 


1 


Albany 


3 


♦♦Cleveland 


11 






Marfa 


1 


Ogdenaburg 


1 


Cincinnati 


2 


♦♦iTelena 


2 














Boise 


1 


♦♦Honolulu 


k 


♦♦Hartford 


8 


♦♦Miami 


22 














Jacksonville 


1 


♦♦Kansas City 


1+ 


♦♦Los Angeles 


83 


♦♦Newark 


29 


Tampa 


2 


St. U-uis 


3 


Calexico 
San Diego 


7 


♦♦New York 


136 


♦♦New Orleans 


5 


♦♦Omaha 


3 


San Luis Obispo 1 














San Ysldro 


2 


♦♦Portland, Me. 


2 


♦♦Philadelphia 


11+ 


♦♦Portland, Ore. 


k 










Pittsburgh 


k 






♦♦Phoenix 


1* 


♦♦St. Albans 


k 






♦♦St. Paul 


6 


No gales 


1 






♦♦San Juan 


10 






San Luis 


2 






Christiansted 


2 


♦♦Seattle 


12 


Tucson 


2 






St. Thomas 


2 


Spokane 


3 







♦♦Washington I3 
Norfolk 7 
Wilmington 1 



♦♦Port Isabel 3 
Brownsville 1 
Houston 5 



♦♦San Antonio 


16 


Dallas 


6 


Del Rio 


1 


Hidalgo 


2 


Laredo 


2 


♦♦San Francisco 


42 


Fresno 


2 


Las Vegas 


2 


Reno 


1 


Sacramento 


2 



♦Regional Office 
♦♦District Office 



31-3 



2122 



Subcwittee Inquiry 
32. With regard to preference categories: 

a. What are the adrantages of the preference categories? 

b. Of those adadtted under the preference categories^ how uanj 
hare altered with offers of eapleyaent? 

c* What is considered a sufficient offer of eaploTKent under 
the preference category? 

Response 

a. Ihe preference categories are established within the nuaerical 
lioitation for the Eastern Henisphere. Their purpose is to 
giro priority in the issuance of isadgrant Tisas to applicants 
who hare close faadly ties to United States citizens or 
resident aliens, and to tkose lAose skills or services would 
be beneficial to this country, 

b. See it«n 29d. Of the 102,913 iaaigrants who were issued labor 
certifications during fiscal year 1969, soae were required to 
obtain Job offers in order to obtain those certifications* 
Many others, including persons qualified as iaad>ers of the 
professions or who were qualified in occupations on the 
Departaent of Labor's"Schedule C - Precertification List", 
were not required under regulations of that Departaent 

(29 CFR 60.3 (b) and (c)) to obtain job offers in connection 
with their applications for labor certifications* The total 



32-1 



2123 



nunber of iaaigrants who entered with labor certifications 
is net broken down to show whether the certifications were 
issued with or without a job offer* 

c. Of the preferoice categories of indLgrants described in 
section 203(a) of the Ladgration and Nationality Act only 
the third and sixth preference categories are subject to 
the labor certification requireaent. Ihe third preference 
category (neaibers of the professions and persons with 
exceptional ability in the sciences or arts) are able to 
obtain a labor certification without a job offer, under 
Departsent of Labor regulations. Biccept for aliens quali- 
fied in occupations on that Departaent*s **Schedule C - 
Precertification List**, sixth preference aliens generally 
■Hst hare a job offer before that Departsent will issue 
a certification* The Service takes no action on petitions 
to accord aliens third or sixth preference classification 
until the labor certification requireaent, including 
subaittal of a job offer to the Department of Labor, lAere 
required, has been met* Consequently, you may trish to 
direct this question to that Department* 



32-2 



2124 



SubeoBmittee Inquiry 

33. With regard to offers of employment: 

a. What evidence, conditions, or requirements are required to 
establish the sufficiency of an offer of employment? 

b. Who makes the finsil determination on sufficiency requirements? 

c. What is considered the minimum offer, in order to qualify, for 
example, for a family of two, three, fovir, etc., up to ten? 

Are instructions as to sufficiency different for each immigration 
district, or each consular area? If so, vhy, and how are they 
different? 

d. If an offer of employment is suspected of being false, ^at 
action is taken? Is any information of this nature ever publi- 
cized, and if so, when was the last time? What were the cir- 
cumstances? 

e. Have extensive frauds been uncovered in offers of employment? 
Who generally engages in such frauds? Give examples. 

f . If the fraud is vmcovered after the visa is issued, what action 
is taken? What procedvires apply? How many such frauds were 
uncovered during the past five years? 

g. How does a Consular office go about trying to prove that a work 
offer is fraudulent? What procedures are established to cope 
with this problem? 

h. Once a visa has been granted, does either the State DepEurtment 
or the Service conduct any investigations as a matter of course 
to determine how many offers of employment, both under certifi- 
cation, or \inder preference, are actually bona fide? Who is 
responsible for insuring compliance? 

1. If so, who conducts such investigations? How many Service 

personnel are used, for example, in the Los Angeles Imnigratlon 
district, and how many in the San Antonio district? What instruc- 
tions do they operate \inder? 



Response 
Offers of employment made in connection with visa issuance are 
considered \uider two sections of the law. 'JSne first, under 
section 212(a)(l'^) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Il82(a)(l4), is 
primarily determined by the Labor Department. The second. 



33-1 



2125 



relating to the "public charge" ground of inadaLsslbility 
under 212(a)(15), 8 U.S.C. Il82(a)(15), is primarily deter- 
mined by the U.S. Consiil. Consequently the Service defers 
to the Lalxjr and State Depeurtments with respect to parts 
a> b, c azid g of this question, 
d. ThB Labor Department has promulgated the foLLovlng regulation 
In 29 CFR 60.5: " Validity . Certifications issued pursuant 
to this part are invalid if the representations upon which 
they are based are incorrect. They are applicable only to 
the positions as described on Form ES-57^ or as defined in 
the applicable schedule." 

Labor certifications presented to the Service with petitions 
or applications are carefully scrutinized. If found to have 
been issued on false clcdjas with respect to the conditions of 
the Job offer or the qualifications of the beoeficieury, the 
certification may be declared inveLLld and the petition or 
application is denied on the basis that the required certifi- 
cation is lacking. Since July k, 1967, in accordance with 
the Freedom of Infoirmation Act, the Service has made available 
in public reading rooms copies of unpublished decisions on 
various types of petitions and applications. Published 
decisions may be purchased from the Superintendent of Doctaaents, 
Dhlted States Government Printing Office. Decisions are published 



33-2 



2126 



when it appears they may be of precedent value and. serve 

as guidance to Service officers, aliens, attoxneys and other 

Interested persons. 

Sxanples of decisions where the Service concluded that the 
petitioner would not employ the beneficiary in the manner 
set forth in the offer of employment on which the labor 
certification was beised are Matter of Izdebska , 12 I. & H. 
Dec. 5^ (1966), and Matter of Desi , 11 I. & N. Dec. 817 
(1966). Petitions for sixth preference classification 
were denied in those cases. 

Where it comes to Service attention that an alien entered 
the united States with the preconceived idea of not proceeding 
to the employment specified in the labor certification presented 
in support of the immigrant visa, the Service institutes expulsion 
proceedings on the charge that the alien was inadmissible at 
the time of entry. See Matter of Hernandez -Urlarte , I3 I. & H. 

Dec. (I.D. 1956, 1969); Matter of Poulin , I3 I. & H. 

Dec. (I.D. 1973, 1969). 

Early in Calendar Year I966, an lzu;rease was noted in the number 
of complaints from employers who had secured labor certifications 
for alien employees, particuleurly live-in domestics, that such 
eniployees either failed to appear for the certified positions 
or shortly after taking the positions depeorted therefrom and 



33-3 



^ 2127 

took «>re lucrative Jobs. Investigation disclosed that many 
of the aliens entered the United States as temporary visitors 
and then engaged in enploymeotas domestics, in violation of 
their status, while awaiting processing of applications for 
labor certifications and iamigrant visas. Every effort is 
made to locate and reawve such aliens from the United States 
as quickly as possible. 

Investigation further disclosed widespread abuses in the 
obtaining of labor certifications. Many aliens, either alone 
or with assistance of a third party, obtained labor certifi- 
cations and admission to the united States as isBnigrants 
ostensibly to take employment as live-in domestics when, in 
fact, they were entering to seek employment as sewing machine 
operators or unskilled factory workers. Some of the live-in 
donestic labor certifications (which contained numerous mis- 
representations) were filed as a convenience to the aliens by 
relatives or friends who were financially unable to pay the 
required salaries and/or had no actual need for domestics, 
f . If any fraud is uncovered, including a fraudulent offer of 
employment, after the visa is issued but prior to the time 
the applicant applies for admission as an iamigrant at a 
Utoited States port of entry, the consular offficer or the 
Secretary of State is authorized to revoke the visa pursuant 
to section 22l(i) of the Imaigration and Nationality Act, 
8 U.S.C. 120l(i). 



33'^ 



2128 



If the alien applies for admission at a United States port 
of entry In possession of an Inmlgrant visa, and It appears 
the visa was fraudulently obtained, he vovOLd. be referred to 
a Special Inquiry Officer pursuant to sections 235 and 236 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225 and 1226, for a hearing on his 
adMssibility, on the groiuad that the alien appeared to be 
inadmissible under sections 212(a)(l4) and (19) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. ll82(a)(ll^) end (19). The latter sections deal with 
ina dmi ssibility for lack of a required labor certification 
and for obtaining a visa by fraud or misrepresentation. 

If an alien is admitted to the United States as an immigrant 
in possession of an iimlgrant visa, and it is later discovered 
that he was not eligible for admission at the time of entry 
because of inadmissibility on the aforementioned grounds, or 
any other grounds of inadmissibility, the Service may institute 
depoziiation proceedings on the charge that the cLLlen is a 
member of the deportable class specified in section 241(a)(1) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1). The expulsion hearing is 
held before a Special Inquiry Officer in accordance with 
section 242 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252. 

The Service is unable to furnish statistics on the number of 
fraudulent offers of enqployment uncovered dxiring the past five 
years. 



33-5 



2129 



h. On June 2, I967 an active program agsdnst violators was 
initiated. Provision was made for the publication of 
precedent decisions involving labor certifications where 
an alien falls to engage, or only works briefly, in the 
labor field for which certified, and then aoves on to a 
non-certified position. Field offices were directed to 
screen recently etrrived or currently arriving sixth prefer- 
ence and other imalgrant cases, particularly where the 
record indicates that an Inmlgrant visa was Issued on 
the bGisis of a live-in doaiestic labor certification, and 
to expedite the investigation of selected cases. Deportation 
proceedings against violators have been brought under sec- 
tion 2lH(a)(l) of the Imaigratlon and nationality Act, 
8 u.s.c. 1251(a)(1). 

As a result of this program, precedent decisions have been 
obtained from the Board of Innlgratlon Appeals which have 
established clear-cut guidelines for all field offices to 
follow, thus ln8\iring uniformity in Service efforts to 
combat violations of the labor certification requirement 
of section 212(a)(lU) of the Act, as amended. 

This screening process is continuing. Some offices detected 
a hl^ incidence of fraud in cases of aliens from certain 



33-6 



2130 



Central and South Anerlcan eountrles vbo obtained IntLgrant visas 
on representations that they were qualified dressoakers, one of 
the occupations included in the Schedule C— Precertification 
List, and therefore not requiired to obtain individual labor 
certifications under section 212(a)(l'>t-). In order to detemlne 
the extent of the fraudulent activity in this area, separate 
lists were coaipiled of all alien dressmakers coming from 
Ecuador, El ScLLvador and Costa Rica >rt)o were admitted as 
immigrants during the period January through Jline I968. The 
lists were fonrarded to the district offices for investigation. 
Due to the successful results reported, plans were fomilated 
to furnish the Service field offices with similar lists involving 
other occui>ations . Lists of tailors and bakers who were admitted 
as inmlgrants during specified periods were also forvarded to 
the district offices of the Service for investigation on 
Itovember 25, I969. 

The Department of Labor has primary responsibility for the 
investigation of frauds practiced in the obtaining of labor 
certifications. This Service has the responsibility to 
determine if aliens involved in such activities are amenable 
to exclusion or deportation. After conferences vith the 
Depaortment of Labor, this Service agreed to conduct investi- 
gations for the purpose of determining if fraud was involved 



33-7 



2131 



in tbe procurement of the labor ceirtlficatlon. After investi- 
gation, if warranted, the facts are presented to the appropriate 
united States Attorney for consideration of prosecution of the 
parties Involved for violations under l6 U.S.C. 1001. If fraud 
in obtaining the labor certification is not involved, cases 
involving possible failure of eoployers to coniply vlth the 
terns of their contracts with the aliens are referred to the 
Department of Labor for such action as is deemed to be appropriate, 
i. During fiscal yeeu: I969, I'l' investigators con^leted a total of 
2,06^ fraud investigations in the Los Angeles district, and k 
investigators completed a toteuL of 28^ fraud investigations In 
the San Antonio district. No separate statistleeLl breakdown 
is maintained for the various types of investigations mentioned 
in the Subcommittee's inquiry; they are Included in the total 
of 2,065 and 23'(' fraud investigations coispleted in the Los Angeles 
and San .Antonio districts, respectively. 

Fraud investigations azid other investigations Initiated by this 
Service are conducted for the purpose of establishing whether the 
alien Involved is in the United States in violation of any provi- 
sions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and, where appropriate, 
to establish whether there has been a violation of the criminal 
statutes under the Jurisdiction of this Service. 



33-8 



2132 



Subcommittee Inquiry 



3^^. Is it the policy of the Service to ever determine 
whether there is either an oversupply or an under- 
supply of farm labor in the United States? If so, 
in the opinion of the Service, is there an over- 
supply, or is there an iindersupply of farm labor in 
the United States? 



Response 
The Service usually is guided by the research and 
advice of the Department of Labor in determining the 
adequacy of the supply of farm labor in the United 
States. 



3^-1 



2133 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

35' Have many frauds been uncovered in regard to establishing 
preference by marriage to a citizen, or legal resident 
spouse? By the birth of a United States citizen child? 
If so, how many? 

a. How are those cases handled? How many personnel are 
engaged in investigating this type of case? 

b. How extensive (sic.) are these cases publicized? Is it 
fair to conclude that some problems along the border 

are traceable to permissive policy with regard to enforce- 
ment of regulations? 

Response 

Service records concerning fraud investigations do not par- 
ticularize the information requested. See answer to questions 
31c and d for total fraud investigations completed during the 
last five fiscal years. 

a. See answers to questions 31b and 31c and d. Currently 

there are approximately 73 investigators assigned to all 
types of fraud investigations. The Service makes every 
effort to expeditiously conduct all fraud investigations. 
Particular emphasis is given to the identification and 
prosecution of third parties who aid the aliens in such 
activities. Many of the investigations disclosed crim- 
inal violations, including conspiracies, involving the 
aliens and other persons who for substantial fees 
assisted them in their efforts to circumvent the 



35-1 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 13 



2134 



immigration laws. The principal criminal statutes 
violated are 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. 911 
(false claims to United States citizenship), 18 U.S.C. 
1001 (false statements), and 18 U.S.C. X5'*6 (fraud), 
b. The results of this prosecution policy are publicized in 
American newspapers and in the foreign language news 
media. We believe this publicity materially assists in 
the curtailment of these frauds. We are not aware of 
permissive policy in the enforcement of the regulation, 
and our answer to the second portion of this question 
is negative. 



35-2 



2135 



Subcomalttee Inquiry 

36. Does a commuter have the same standing as a bona fide legal resi- 
dent to establish preference for a visa application? 

Response 

Siere are no preferences vlthln the numerical llnitation of 120,000 
on the number of natives of Independent Western Hemisphere countries 
(and their accompanying or followlng-to-Joln spouses and children) 
vho may be Issued Immlgrcuit vlsap in any one year. 



36-1 



2136 



Subcommittee Inqiilry 



37- Is there any ■way in which the Consular office or the Service can, 
under the present policies, prevent an already non-bona fide legal 
resident from establishing more non-bona fide legal residents? 
Are there any statistics kept of such cases? 



Response 

The concept of non-bona fide legal resident does not exist under 
the Immigration lavs. If the Subcommittee's question deals vlth 
alien commuters, the answer is that a commuter can confer that 
exemption from the labor certification to the same extent as a 
lawful permanent resident who maintains a physical presence in 
the United States. However, if the parent, 8i>ouse or child of 
a commuter continues to reside physically in Mexico after obtain- 
ing an immigrant visa and being admitted to the United States 
for permanent residence, such parent, spouse or child would be 
subject to the same disability as other commuters, losing lawful 
permanent resident status if unemployed in this country for more 
than six months except for circumstances beyond his control. 

No relevant statistics are kept hy the Service. However, when 
evidence of fraud is uncovered with respect to a lawful permanent 
resident, which may affect the eligibility for immigrant visas 
of other members of his family, it Is the Service's practice to 
notify the Department of State. 



37-1 



2137 



Subcommittee Inquiry 



38. Would the offer of employment of a grower, or business, 
which has been certified as being on strike under the 
1967 regulation of the Secretary of Labor, to a prefer- 
ence applicant for a visa, be considered sufficient if 
the minimum wage is offered? 



Response 
Since this is a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Labor, you may wish to direct the ques- 
tion to that Department. In any such case where the 
Service receives a certification, the validity or propriety 
of which is in question, such certification is retiirned 
to the Department of Labor for further inquiry. 



38-1 



2138 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

39. If his offer is not considered sufficient, and the applicant 
obtains an offer from someone not certified on strike, can 
such an applicant after admission, then go to the struck farm 
and work, alleging that he was not a commuter but a bona fide 
legal resident when he applied for and obtained work on the 
struck farm? 

a. If such employment is not permissible, what has been done 
by the Service to insure that no violations have occurred? 

b. What instructions have been given to insvire that such 
cases do not occur? Has any publicity been given to 
this kind of situation? If so, where? 

c. How many personnel in the Starr County, Texas, area were 
assigned to such investigations, if any? 

d. In other words, what has the Immigration Service done, 
as positive action to (l) prevent violations in this 
respect; (2) implement actual enforcement? 

c. At a district level, who has been given the responsi- 
bility to take positive enforcement action? What 
specific action has been taken? How many persons are 
actually engaged in such action? 

f. If checks were made at struck farms, who made the checks 
for violations? How many checks were made in Starr Cotinty 
during I968? How many checks were made in the Coachella 
Valley of California in 1968 and I969? 

g. When the checks were made, what was the procedure used? 
Was each worker checked individually and were employment 
records checked? Were the records of truckers under 
contract or paying piece rates also checked? 



Response 

As previously stated, the labor certification applies to 
the initial entry only. If such an entrant is admitted and 
then proceeds to a place of employment other than that 



39-1 



2139 



specified in his labor certification, an investigation is 
„.ade in order to determine his intent at time of entry. 
If it is determined that such alien's intent at the time of 
his admission was to obtain work at a place of employment, 
whether struck or nonstruck, other than that specified in 
his labor certification, then deportation proceedings are 
instituted against him. If the question of intent at the 
time of entry is resolved in his favor, a :^ful permanent 
resident is not restricted by law or regulation from accepting 
any employment of his choice. However, if such person 
acqTkires commuter status after his admission he becomes 
subject to 8 CFR 211.1(b) (l). 
a. Immediately upon receipt of an announcemnt by the 

Secretary of Labor that a labor dispute exists, the 
ports of entry on the Mexican border are notified and 
directed to take the necessary steps to implement the 
regulation. Aliens applying for admission as resident 
aliens in possession of Forms 1-151 entering to work 
are screened to determine whether they are entering in 
violation of the regulation. Holders of Form 1-151 
and residents of Mexico entering the United States to 
work are furnished lists of locations where it has been 



39-2 



2140 



certified that labor disputes exist. Announcements 
are posted at ports of entry advising of restrictions 
to accepting employment on farms where labor disputes 
exist. Border Patrol traffic checks and backup 
stations are also alerted to the labor dispute and 
begin checking holders of Form 1-151 to determine if 
they are proceeding to employment in areas involved 
in the labor dispute. 

b. Internal instructions have been issued to operating 
divisions within the Service. As stated above, aliens 
entering from Mexico to work are advised individually 
as to restrictions on accepting employment at struck 
farms, annoioncements are posted at ports of entry, 
holders of I-I51 encountered in field and traffic checks 
are furnished lists of farms where labor disputes exist, and 
Service representatives have metwith growers associations 
and representatives of labor unions and explained the 
regulations and procedures in detail. 

c. Following the announcement by the Secretary of Labor 
on July 10, 1967, that a labor dispute was in progress 
on six farms in Starr Country, Texas, Service officers 
at the ports of entry in the Lower Rio Grande Valley 
area carefully screened all aliens seeking admission as 



39-3 



2141 



returning residents with Forms 1-151 to insure 
that none were entering for the purpose of 
accepting employment at the places where labor 
disputes existed or of continuing employment at 
such places which began after July 10. Any alien 
intercepted at the port who came within the purview 
of the regulation was refused admission; however, 
in all known instcinces such aliens arranged for 
employment at nonstruck farms and were thus admis- 
sible lander the regulation. The struck farms have 
been checked periodically by the Border Patrol. 
The place of residence of each holder of a Form 1-151 
was verified, and in the case of commuters holding 
Forms 1-151, payroll records were checked to deter- 
mine the date on which employment commenced and to 
determine that employment had been continuous. 
Personnel ^^ssigned varied from time to time as the 
number of workers varied as the labor needs of the 
farms. The majority of the work was seasonal and 
varied considerably between seasonal activities. 

d. In addition to actions outlined under c. above, 

the Border Patrol force has been augmented during 
periods of peak activity by details of additional 
officers. The on-duty force was increased in those 
areas of greatest activity and an investigative force 
was detailed into the most active areas to handle 

39-^ 



2142 

investigative matters. 

e. District Directors of the respective districts 

have the responsibility for examining aliens apply- 
ing for admission to determine their admissibility 
and to conduct investigations of aliens when it is 
alleged the alien is in the United States in an 
illegal status. Chief Patrol Inspectors of the 
respective sectors of the Border Patrol are 
responsible for maintaining traffic checking points 
on roads leading from border areas to intercept 
illegal aliens and checking aliens employed on fkrms 
as to their right to be in the United States. 

The entire inspection force at ports of entry is 
engaged in examining alien applicants for admission. 
In those areas where it has been certified that labor 
disputes exist the entire Border Patrol force is 
engaged in intercepting any illegal alien in treinsit 
or employed on a struck farm. The force necessary 
to investigate aliens allegedly in the United States 
illegally will vary considerably because of the 
fluctuation in seasonal agricultural activities. 
However, sufficient force is assigned such duties 
in order to keep inspections eind investigations cur- 
rent. 

39-5 



2143 



f . Checks of struck farms were made by Patrol Inspectors 
and Service Investigators. During 1968, the six struck 
farms in Starr County were checked approximately 72 
times or an average of each farm once a month. There 
is no record of the nvimber of persons questioned; how- 
ever, checks during the period January 25 to October 2, 
1968, there were 208 workers questioned including 81 
holders of I-151'8. 

In the Coachella Valley there were 10 farzns checked 77 
times during the periods June 19-20, 1968, and July 11- 
18, 1968. There were 544 persons questioned, including 
271 holders of Form 1-151. During this period there was 
a restraining order in effect from Jiine 19, 1968, to Jxxly 11, 
1968. 

In calendar year 1969 the 10 farms were checked 136 
times and there were 2, 542 persons questioned, includ- 
ing 1, 655 holders of Form 1-151. 

g. Struck farms were systematically checked by the Border 
Patrol. Every resident alien 1-151 holder encountered 
was investigated to determine whether he was in violation 
of 8 CFR 211. 1(b). A thorough and comprehensive 



39-6 



2144 

investigation was conducted on a priority basis, includ- 
ing verification of residence in the United States, if al- 
leged, or in Mexico. Payroll records (including labor 
contractors) are checked, school records are checked 
if school children accompany the cilien, and utility 
records, etc. are checked. 



39-7 



2145 



Subcommittee Inqvilry 

40. With regard to form 1-186, Visitors' Passes, or the 
equivalent of said form: 

a. How many have been Issued to Mexican Nationals in 
each of the last ten years? 

b. How many of such passes are outstanding at present? 

c. How many of such passes were revoked in each of the 
past five years? For what reasons? 

d. Why isn't the form 1-186 issued for a specific term 
requiring periodic renewal? 

e. Why aren't all visitors' dates of entry and departure 
stamped on a supplementary docvunent, as is now 
required for visits outside the twenty-five mile 
border zone? 

f . Is the form 1-186 often used as an entry document by 
persons who subsequently return it to Mexico and 
proceed beyond the border as Illegal entrants? 

g. Isn't it true that it is presently impossible to 
match apprehended illegal entrants with persons who 
crossed the border using a form 1-186, yet returned 
the card to Mexico prior to apprehension? If the 
answer is negative, please provide an explanation. 

Response 

1/ 
a. Border Crossing Cards Issued in the Southwest Region: 

Years ended June 30, 1960-1969 







Number by 


Number by 2/ 


Year 


Total 


I as N Service 


Consular Offices 


Total 


2.222.112 


1.684,941 


537.171 


i960 


127,579 


127,579 




1961 


125,800 


125,800 




1962 


135,560 
145,194 


135,560 
145,194 




1963 




1964 


163,372 


163,372 




1965 


179,065 


179,065 




1966 


260,570 


186,311 


74,259 


1967 


373,948 


210,463 


163,485 


1968 


357,394 


206,116 


151,278 
148,149 


1969 


353,630 


205,481 



1/ Border Crossing Cards Issued by nationality of aliens to whom 

issued not available. 
2/ Consular Offices began issuing border crossing cards in 
Mexico in August 1965. 

40-1 



2146 



b. The Service estimates that as of the end of Fiscal Yeau:* 
1969 there were In actual use 546,000 forms I-I86, It 
arrived at this figure by subtracting from the number of 
forms I- 186 Issued since the beginning of the program the 
estimated attrition (deaths, disability. Immigration, etc.)« 
the reissuance of forms I-I86, the denials and change of 
names, and cards voided for cause. 

c. Forms I-I86 voided: 

1965 12,346 

1966 24,281 

1967 28,347 

1968 29,247 

1969 31,121 

The reason for voiding these documents has not been a 
reportable requirement. However, the principal grounds 
for voldance are: violation of the conditions on which 
the card was Issued, discovery after Issuance of the 
existence of grounds of Inadmissibility, and alteration 
and tampering with the card. 

d. Until January 10, I969, the regulations relating to 
border crossing cax>ds provided limitation of validity to 
a four- year period from date of Issuance, Effective 
January 10, 1969, the regxilatlon was amended to provide 
validity of such cards xuitll revoked or voided notwith- 
standing any expiration date which may appear thereon. 
This change was made because It was concluded that the 
cost of m£uipower. If manpower were available, required 

40-2 



2147 



to reissue cards In regular use^ estlraated to be In excess 
of one-half million, could not be Justified by the 
anticipated minimal benefits to be derived from such a 
program, 

e. The question suggests that dates of entry and departure 
are stamped on a supplementary document In the cases of 
all visitors who proceed outside the twenty-five mile 
border zone. No supplementary docxunent (Form 1-9^, 
Arrival- Departure Record) showing the date of entry or 
departure was required for the 39*000,000 Canadian citizens 
and British residents of Canada crossing the border for 
temporary visits In this country. Similarly, over 89,000,000 
nonimmigrant border crossers were admitted across the 
Mexlccm border without supplementary documents to show 
arrival and departure dates. 

In view of the tremendous nvunber of nonimmigrant border 
crossers, which Is Increasing with each year, the delays 
In Inspection and the traffic backups at border ports If a 
supplementary document were required to be prepared and 
stamped for such aliens, can readily be foreseen. We 
do not believe the possibility that Mexican nonlmmlgritnt 
border crossers encountered within the 25 mile zone, will 
remain beyond the 72- hour admission period Is serious 



40-3 



2148 



enough to warrant the Issxiance of a supplementary document 
bearing the date of entry. In the cases of Mexican 
nonimmigrant border crossers who are admitted for more 
than 72 hours or to proceed beyond the 25 mile limit, the 
Service does Issue a document (Form SW-434 or 1-9^) which 
Indicates the date to which the alien Is authorized to 
stay. 

f. To some extent this Is true. Form I-I86 holders also 
occasionally mall their cards home In order to prevent 
their loss. In Service experience this practice has 
diminished since the change In regulations making the I-I86 
valid only within 25 miles of the border for less than 

72 hovirs vinless an additional permit (SW 434) Is Issued, 
The Service tries to determine the true means of entry 
for all aliens claiming entry without Inspection, If 
It Is determined that the alien entered with a border 
crossing card and he does not have the card In his 
possession when apprehended, efforts are made to recover 
the 1-186 so that It can be voided. 

g. It Is not Impossible to match apprehended illegal entrants 
with persons who crossed the border using Forms I-I86. 
Applications for Forms I-I86 are on file In the Central 
Office and records of apprehension are sent to the Central 



40-4 



2149 



Office to determine if an alien claiming entry without" 

inspection had ever made an application for an 1-186. 
This is based on the premise that the alien uses the same 
name and date and place of birth. This, of course, 
is not always the case; however. Service officers can 
very often determine the alien's true name by documents 
in his possession such as Mexican draft cards, letters, 
etc. 



40-5 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 14 



2150 



Subconunittee Inquiry 

4l.If dates of entry and departure were required to be stamped on 
a document carried by all visitors, would the abuse of the 
visitors permit be minimized? 

a. Would a separate form stamped with the date of entry to be 
returned to the inspector on exit, provide a better means 
of determining whether or not a bearer of the visitors per- 
mit had violated its terms previously at the time of an 
attempted reentry? 

b. Could all information relating to violations be computerized 
so that on reentry a permit could be checked within a matter 
of minutes in the same way that banks computerize data per- 
taining to checking accounts? 

c. Would this create an inordinate delay at the border? If the 
answer is affirmative, please explain giving particulars. 

Response 

a. Form 1-9^ » Arrival -Departure Record, is required as a part 
of the manifest furnished for most vessel and aircraft 
passengers. It is endorsed at the port of entry to reflect 
the date, place, and period of admission and nonimmigrant 
classification. 

Form 1-9^ is surrendered when the alien departs . However, 
departure control is not authorized except in time of war 
or declared natural emergency. Section 215> Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1185. Under present condi- 
tions and procedures, a departing alien ordinarily is not 
required to present himself or surrender his Form 1-9^ to 
an immigration officer. The alien who is issued a Form 
1-9^+ on arrival is informed that he is to surrender it upon 



2151 



departure. But, because there is ordinarily no authority 
to exercise departtire control, the Service has enlisted 
the aid of airlines, steamship lines, Ceinadian immigration 
officers, and bridge and tvinnel operators to assist in re- 
triving the Forms 1-9^ of departing aliens. 

Form 1-9'* is not required for nonimmigrant border crossers 
who are Canadian citizens or British subjects residing in 
Ceinada, and who are consequently entitled to a waiver of 
visa requirement pursuant to 8 CFR 212.1(a). Neither is 
the form required for holders of Form 1-186 admitted as vis- 
itors to the Southwest border states for not more than 15 
days. 8 CFR 235.1(f). 

The limited scope of the requirement for Form 1-9'+ elim- 
inates its use for the 38,953*525 nonimmigrant alien border 
crossers admitted at ports of entry on the Cauiadian border 
and the 89»123,180 nonimmigrant alien border crossers 
admitted at ports of entry on the Mexican border during 
fiscal year 1969. Such admissions are expected to increase 
steadily in the future. 

Because of the volume of these border crossers and the 
space and manpower limitations at border ports of entry, 

41-2 



2152 



and to avoid crippling congestion at those ports, the 
Service believes it not feasible to require Forms 1-9^+, 
or a similar document, in these cases. In addition, 
requiring such a document for these border crossers 
would result in a monvimental amount of paper handling. 

It is improbable that a check-out procedure would assist 
in arriving at a determination at the time of a subsequent 
application for entry that the applicant had violated the 
terms of admission as a visitor during previous visits. 



b. Yes. 



An inordinate delay in border clearance would be inevitable, 
particularly in the clearance of vehicles. The following 
examples illustrate the volume of traffic encountered at 
various border points. Thus, normal afternoon and evening 
hourly volume at the Paso del Norte Bridge, El Paso, in- 
cluding substantial nonimmigrant traffic, is in excess of 
2,000 pedestrians and vehicular passengers. Volume of over 
3,000 persons hourly is not unusual at that port of entry. 
The vehicular traffic at the Avenue of Americas inspection 
point at El Paso is about double that of the Paso del Norte 
Bridge on a normal Sunday. Traffic volume at San Ysidro 
has exceeded 9,000 persons in a single hour. During peak 

^1-3 



2153 



periods at that port, volLune of over 8,000 persons in 
hour is not unusual. Use of computers would certainly 
result in long delays at these and other border points. 



kl-k 



2154 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

42. Is It true that at this time holders of Form 1-186 are 
not fingerprinted? 

a. Would not fingerprinting bearers of the 1-186 
facilitate matching the fingerprints of appre- 
hended lllegaa entrants with 1-186 card 
holders for the pxirpose of revocation of the 
card? 

b. Isn't It true that this might be vindertaken by 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation as an 
Incident to their national fingerprinting 
clearing house activities? If the answer Is 
negative, please provide an explsmatlon. 

c. Please Indicate In detail why a fingerprint Is 
not obtained from visitors. 

d. Does the Immigration Service presently Intend 
to Institute fingerprinting for the purpose of 
cvirtalllng abuses of the 1-186? If the answer 
Is affirmative, when will such change be 
effective? If the answer Is negative, state 
the reasons for not using the fingerprint 
Identification, 



Response 

After enactment of the Allen Registration Act of 1940 
applicants for Immigrant and nonimmigrant visas were 
required to be fingerprinted at U.S. consular offices. 
Through the years many foreign governments protested 
this requirement, particularly Insofar as It pertained 
to applicants for nonlramlgrsmt visas. Congress responded 
to these protests by enacting section 8 of the Act of 
September 11, 1957, 71 Stat. 641. That statute authorized 

42-1 



2155 



the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, as a 
natter of discretion to waive the fingerprint requirement 
for nonlnmilgrant visa applicants who were nationals of 
countries which did not require fingerprinting of United 
States citizens visiting such countries ten^orarlly. 
Pursuant to the authority contained In that section, the 
Secretary of State Issued regulations waiving the finger- 
print requirement for nonimmigrant visa applicants, 22 
CFR 41.116(b). 

For some time after the promulgation of those regulations, 
the Service continued to require fingerprinting of appli- 
cants for Mexican Nonimmigrant Border Crossing Cards. 
In 1965, In an effort to reduce the workload caused by 
the large number of applicants for visitors' visas at the 
U.S. consular posts In the Interior of Mexico It was 
agreed by the Department of State and the Service that 
those consular posts covild Issue Forms I-I86 Instead of 
visitors' visas. 

Furthermore, since the Forms I-I86 were being Issued In 
place of visitors' visas, and consular officers had not 
been requiring applicants for nonimmigrant visas to be 
fingerprinted, consular officers did not require flngei*- 
prlntlng of aliens who applied to them for Issuance of 
Forms I-I86. This resulted In the situation whereby an 



42-2 



2156 



applicant for a Form I- 186 was not fingerprinted If he 
applied at a consulate, but was fingerprinted If he 
applied at a Service office. 

In 1965 the Service Initiated a svirvey to determine 
whether fingerprint checks of applicants for Form I-I86 
should be continued. The survey disclosed that In less 
than 1^ of the cases was the check productive of any 
Information not already In Service records. Moreover, 
the little new Information which was obtained was rarely 
of such significance as to affect the determination of 
the applications. For example. In four random samplings 
made between October I965 and January 1966, which Included 
13,000 referrals to the FBI during a period of 19 days, 
every one of the 374 FBI Identifications reported con- 
tained Information already reflected In Service records 
or of no consequence In the adjudication of the applica- 
tion. 

The survey cast a doubt on the practical value served 
by such checks. The Service requested the views of the 
Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice 
as to the desirability or necessity for the checks. 
After consideration, that Division advised that It would 



42-3 



2157 



not object to their discontinuance, with the iinderstandlng 
that checks would be required In those Instances where 
the Service officer suspected the alien applicant may have 
assvimed another Identity or otherwise concealed an arrest 
or Inunlgratlon record. 

In consideration of the views expressed by the Internal 
Secvirlty Division and the vinproductlveness of these 
checks, the Service Issued Instructions to discontinue 
them except when. In the Judgment of the adjudicating 
officer there Is reason to believe the fingerprint check 
might be productive. 

The Service has no plans to relnstltute the fingerprinting 
of Form 1-186 applicants for the reasons Indicated above. 

It should be pointed out that there Is usually no diffi- 
culty In Identifying an apprehended alien If he Is In 
possession of a Form 1-186. However, even If Form 1-186 
holders were fingerprinted, and the fingerprints of an 
apprehended alien were Identified through an FBI check 
with those of an 1-186 holder, there Is a very practical 
difficulty in physically voiding that Form if the appre- 
hended alien does not have It in his possession. 



42-4 



2158 



8uhco— ittee Inwlry 

43. With reg«rd t« illegal entrants: 

a. Hew aanj were apprehended by the Border Patrol in 1960^ 1965, 
19M, 1967, 1968, and 1969? 

b. Hov aaay illegal entrants were foraally deported in each of the 
above listed years? 

c. Hov aaaj illegal entrants were subjected to criainal prosecntion 
in each of the abere listed years? 



** (apprehensions) 




Fiscal Year 1960 


14,134 


1965 


29,713 


1966 


53,179 


1967 


68,863 


1968 


95,159 


1969 


138,729 


b. (Deportations) 




Fiscal Tear 1960 


2,940 


1965 


4,881 


1966 


3,615 


1967 


3,947 


1968 


3,777 


1969 


4,983 


e« (criminal proseeotions) 




Fiscal Tear 1960 


520 


1965 


266 


1966 


468 


1967 


459 


1968 


488 


1969 


1,177 



43-1 



2159 



Sri»co— ittee laqnlry 

\, State the policy ef the Serrice and the Justice Departaeat in detail 
with refer«ice to miTer of prosecation, and wairer of deportation. 

Response 

The Senrice has no authority to mire prosecution for Tiolation of 

any of the criainal prorisions of the lanigration and Nationality 

Act. Respoisibility for iaitiating and conducting prosecutions is 

reposed in the United States Attorneys* under the direction of the 

Criainal Dirision of the Departaent of Justice* The TarLons United 

States Attorneys issue guidelines as to general or blanket vairer of 

prosecution for certain criainal Tiolations and the Serrice abides by 

these waiTorv. The United States Attorneys are often influenced in 

the types of eases prosecuted by the attitudes of the United States 

District Courts* Past iasigration records, faaily relationship to 

suspected riolators, and rarious kiaaanitarian aspects are factors 

considered by United States Attorneys in prosecution cases* Also 

taken into account are the large niad>er of ijacLgration Tiolations « 

and the knovledge that the prosecution of all such Tiolations would 

OTerburden the courts* 

Hie largest ntasber of cases falling under blanket waiTor directions 
of the United States Attorneys iuTolTo illegal entries (8 U*S*C* 1325), 



44-1 



2160 



Generally such cases are not prosecuted unless theni are repeated 
offenses, or vfaere ether aggrarated factors are present. 

Next in Tolane of cases under blanket waivers are Tiolatiens of the 
alien registration prorisions of the Ladgration and Nationality Act^ 
for which the United States Attomejrs seldoac authorise prosecution, 
in the absence of aggravated circuastances. 

As a^jeneral rule, if an alien returns illegally to the United States 
after being granted Toluntaty departure, he is placed under fenaal 
deportation proceedings* If he is deported and returns, he is prosecuted 
under 8 U.S.C. 1326 for reentry after deportation, which is a felony* 

VaiTer of deportatim can be effected through a nuBd>er of remedies 
prorided by statute, such as adjustment of status (Sec* 245, 8 U*S*C* 
1255), registry (Sec* 249, 8 U*S*C* 1259), and suspension of deportation 
(Sec. 244, 8 U.S.C* 1254). Because of statutory limitations some of 
these roMdies are not available to natives of adjacent countries* In 
addition, deportation may be withheld by the Attorney General if he 
finds the alioi would be subject to persecution on account of race, 
religion, or political opinion and for such period of time as he deems 
necessary for such reason. (Sec* 243(h) of the Act, 8 U*S*C* 1253(h))* 



44-2 



2161 



Moreorer, the Attorney Gmeral has the usual prosecutor's discretion 
to withhold or terminate deportation proceedings where the inf racti<n 
was Binor, or the consequences would be excessire, or where hiaanitarian 
considerations are present. 

Probably the SubcoMdttee's inquiry is concerned arore with voluntary 
departure, which would arert deportation. 

Voluntary departure in lieu of deportation is generally granted ali«is 
lAo were adnitted as taq>orary visitors and later violate status either 
by remaining longer than permitted or by accepting employment* Volun- 
tary departure is generally granted an illegal entrant who has entered 
the United States solely to accept employment or lAere his prior immi- 
gration history shows no aggravated indgration offenses. If such an 
alien reentered illegally after a recent grant of voluntary departure^ 
then deportation proceedings usually are instituted. Taking into 
account the large volume of illegal entrants across the Mexican border, 
the Service policy is to grant voluntary departure in these cases. 
Some 161,000 Mexican aliens were apprehended in fiscal year 1969 after 
having entered the United States without inspection. It would have 
been physically i^>ossible to conduct formal deportation proceedings 
for each such illegal entrant, nierefore, except in aggravated cases, 
'Voluntary departure is the only practicable and effective remedy to 
raMve such illegal entrants. 



44-3 



2162 



In addltioo to the Tolmtary departure granted to natiyes of 
foreign contiguous territory, as indicated abore, such relief 
is usually granted to any alien statutorily eligible therefor (1) 
vboae application for extension of stay as a nonianigrant is 
being denied; or (2) who has voluntarily surrendered hi—elf to 
the Service; or (3) who presents a valid travel docuaent and 
confirmed reservation for transportation out of the United States 
within 30 days; or (4) who is an F-l, F-2, J-1, or J-2 noniadgrant 
and iriio has lost such status solely because of a private bill 
introduced in his bdialf , or is a J-1 or J-2 nonianigrant and ¥ho 
has lost such status solely because of the foraal filing with the 
Serrice of an application for waiver of the two-year foreign-residence 
requireaoit; or (5) lAo is (i) the beneficiary of an approved third- 
preference petition or (ii) a native of an independent country of 
the Western Hemisphere or the Canal Zone who has the qualifications 
of a third-preference alien and has applied for an iaadgrant visa or 
(iii) the beneficiary of an approved sixth-preference petition who 
establishes that he can qualify for third preference, and who cannot 
obtain a visa solely because a visa ntnber is unavailable* and his 
child or spouse, including a spouse who is or was a J nonianLgrant 
and is subject to the foreign-residence requireaent; or (6) other 
than a native or citizen of foreign contiguous territory, ¥bo is 



2163 



adauLssible to the United States as aa iaaigraat, who has a 
priority date for an iaidgrant visa net more than 60 days later 
than the date shew in the latest Visa Office Bulletin, and who 
has applied for an iasigrant risa at aa iserican consulate which 
has accepted jorisdiction of the case; or (7) in whose case the 
district director has deterained there are coapelling factors 
warranting grant of roluntary departure. 



44-5 



2164 



Subca— ittee laqairy 



45. State in detail the circuBstances which gire rise to a fonul 
deportation proceeding, or a criainal prosecution* 



Response 
The following are exaaples of the aost preralent types of riolations 
for which an alien becoaes amenable to deportation: 

(1) overstayed period of tei^orary admission; 

(2) violated tens of temporary admission; 

(3) effected surreptitious entry; 

(4) reentered the U. S. without ^ jrmission after baring been 
deported; 

(5) was guilty of misconduct in the U.S. iuTolring criminal, 
iamoral, narcotic or subrersire activity; 

(6) obtained visa or admission to U. S. by fraud or mlsrepresentatimu 

(7) after entry was found to hare been excludable at time of entry. 

Although voluntary departure is granted to many of the aliens (see 
response to question No. 44), fonul deportation proceedings are 
instituted where: 

(1) an alien granted voluntary departure fails to depart; 



45-1 



2165 



(2) the circoKtances indicate that an alim will net depart 
if granted reluntary departure, including aliens who are 
decaed to be likely to abscond if released f rea detention; 

(3) an alien was preriously granted voluntary departure and 
shortly thereafter reenters illegally; 

(4) aliens of the crminal, iaaoral, narcotic and sobrersiTe 
classes and others, who are statutorily ineligible for 
Toluntary departure under section 242(b), 8 U.S.C. 1252(b). 

FMsible Tiolations of the crudnal statutes under the jurisdiction of 
this Serrice are fully iuTestigated to determine if the evidence 
developed establishes that a violation has occurred. If it is detexained 
that there has been a criadnal violation that does not fall within the 
blanket waiver provisions of the appropriate U. S. Attorney, and the 
statute of liaitations has not tolled, the facts are presented for 
consideration of prosecution of the parties involved. The following 
are examples of the most prevalent criminal violations: 

(1) Bringing in or harboring aliens (8 U.S.C. 1324) 

(2) Etatry of aliens illegally (8 U.S.C. 1325) 

(3) Reentry of deported aliens (8 U.S.C. 1326) 

(4) False or fraudulent statemoits or entries (18 U.S.C. 1001) 



45-2 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 15 



2166 

(5) Fraody misuse of risas and other docuaeats (18 U.S.C. 1546) 

(6) False representation as U. S. citizen (18 U.S.C. 911) 

(7) iOien cremen who rcMined longer (8 U.S.C. 1282(c)) 



45-3 



2167 



Sabco— ittee InqairT 

46. Indicate the percentage of fonial deportations and prosecutions 
to apprehensions daring the period of Operation Vetback 1953, 
1954 and 1955. Is it true that Operation Vetback provided an 
effective deterrent to subsequent illegal entry for a period of 
jears? 



Response 
Tears ended June 30, 1953, 1954 and 1955. 
Aliens Apprehended . . . 2,229,266 
Aliais Deported .... 61,824 
Prosecutions 40,103 

Percentage of persons apprehended who were deported 
or prosecuted was 4.6^ 

Operation Wetback, irtiich was in effect between June 17, 1954 and 
January 1, 1955 was unquestionably a deterrjmt to subsequent illegal 
entries. The increase in Border Patrol pers<Minel by soae 400 positions 
in 1955 also was instnaental in stopping illegal entries. 

Two major deterrents to illegal entries for the period after January 1, 
1955 were: 

(1) A workable bracero program for the iqwrtation of 
large niobers of agricultural irorkers under P.L. 78, 
82nd Congress, as amended. 

(2) An increase in the number of lawful iaaigrants from Mexico. 



46>1 



2168 



Snbco— ittee Inqairy 

47. Indicate the nunber of apprdiensieiis of illegal entrants, and the 
niober of proseeutiwu and feraal deportation proceedings arising 
oat of these apprehensions in the San Antonio District, and in the 
LiTeraore District, in 1968? Indicate the reasons why the Justice 
Departaent did not resort to farther ase of fonul procedares* 



Response 



NUMBBR (F APPRIHRfSIONS OF ILLBSAL ENTRANTS 

SAN ANTONIO AND SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICTS 

YEAR BiDB) JUNE 30, 196@« 



Place NtBiber 

San Antcmio . . • . • 16.890 

Dallas 651 

Hidalgo 4 

Laredo .•••..•••.•• 2 

San Antonio 1,217 

Del Rio Border Patrol 8,327 

HcAllea Border Patrol 2,943 

Laredo Border Patrol ...... 3,746 

San Francisco ••••••••..• 14.467 

Fresno •••. 54 

Reno 130 

SacraBMito .••••• 55 

San Francisco ••••••••*• 1,523 

LiTonaore Border Patrol 12,705 



Lirenaore Border Patrol Sector is ander the San Francisco Office* 
The tables therefore cover San Antonio, and San Francisco Districts* 



47-1 



2169 



Naaber of prosecutions authorlxed by the United Sf tes 

Attorneys for the Bitry of Aliens megally (8 U.S.C, 1325). 

Fiscal Tear 1968 

San Antonio 170 

San Francisco 1 (It showed that the 
San Francisco District does not include a land 
border, and the courts in that District therefore 
cannot entertain prosecutions for illegal crossings 
of the Mexican border*) 

Wqaber of fofal deportations of aliens entering idthent 

inspection. 

Fiscal Year 1968 

San Antonio 524 

San Francisco 232 

The current policy of speedy apprdiension and reaoral of aliens not 
entitled to reside and work in the United States developed orer aany 
years. The United States district courts have not looked with faror 
upon BUSS prosecutions in this type of case. See our response to question 
No. 44 for discussion of waiTers of prosecution. 

The Serrice has also at rarious periods required deportation hearings 
in aany cases of illegal entries in an effort to derelop a strong deterroit 
to reentries of deportable aliens. Hoverer, the feraal deportation 
proceedings required an increase of ten days in the average nuaber of 
days for each alien to be detained. This resulted in crowded detention 
facilities, crowded jails, prohibit ire denands on aanpower and sky- 
rocketing cost per case. 

47-2 



2170 



See ear respoase to questloo No. 45 ceaceniiag fenul depertatien 
proceedings and criainal proaeeutiens. 



47-3 



2171 



Sobca^ri.tte« Ihqniry 

48. Indicate specific plans if any to increase the niaber of criainal 
prosecutions and fomal deportation proceedings utilizing the new 
federal aagistrate. Reflect a schedule for iaploaentatien of such 
plans. 



Response 
Under the new statute* the federal Magistrate's trial jurisdiction 
may be extended to aisdeaeanors punishable by iMprisonaent for not 
■ere than one year or a fine of not aore than $1,000, or both, 
prorided the accused waires trial in the district court* Most 
laaigration offenses now proride for punisbaent in excess of one 
year. For example, 18 U.S.C. 1546 (falsification or misuse of entxy 
doetaunts) has a aariana poiisfaaent of fiTe years; section 276 of the 
Ilaigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1325 (unlawful reentry after 
deportation) has a aarlaiw of two years; 18 U.S.C. 911 (false claia 
to United States citisenship) has a aaxiam of three years; and 
section 274 of the Imaigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324 
(smuggling or transporting mLawful entrants) has a aariana of fire 
years. Aaong the fre<inent prosecuti<»s, only section 275 of the 
lasigratien and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1325, (unlawful entry) entails 
aaxlia punisbaent under one year. It prorides for a aariana of six 
aenths and $500 fine for a first offense. For a subsequoit coaussion 
of such offense, conTiction is punished by iaprisonaent for not aere 
than 2 years or by a fine of not aore than $1,000, or both. Accordingly, 
only a first offender under section 275 of the laiigration and Nationality 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1325, could presently be tried before a federal aagistrate. 

48-1 



2172 



Thus far positions under the Federal Magistrates Act have been 
established in onlj 5 pilot jurisdictions: New Jersej, District of 
ColuBbia, Eastern Virginia, Kansas and Southern California. Adverting 
to the situation in the Southern District of California , which is of 
primary concern here, there is one full-ti>e awgistrate stationed at 
San Diego and one part-tine magistrate at EL Centro. Both of these 
magistrates were appointed on July 1, 1969. Since thiCdate 283 
ianigration prosecutions were co.n4ucted before the magistrate in 
San Diego and 158 before the magistrate in EL Centro. All of these 
prosecutions have been brought under section 275 of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1325. 

As more federal magistrates are appointed and assigned duties by 
the United States District Courts, more prosecutions can be brought 
before then. However, the statutory jurisdictional limitations 
restrict the use of magistrates in immigration cases. Perhaps this 
difficulty might be overcome by a statute enlarging the jurisdictiwi 
of the federal magistrates. However, we do not recoamend this approach 
until the statute has been more fully tested in operation. 

Another course might be to seek legislation which would reduce 
maximum punishment of most, if not all, immigration violations to 
conform to the jurisdictional limitations of the magistrates. Ve do 



48-2 



2173 



aet fcTor sach a sweeping diainotioa of penalties which woold 
peqaire the prosecution of serious Tiolations as ainor offenses* 

A different approach would inrolTe only the aaendaent of section 275 
of the liMigratien and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1325, relating to 
unlawful eatTj, by eliainating the distinction between first and 
second offenders, by increasing the prescribed penalty to a mariwM 
of one year iaprisioBent and $1,000 fine; and by incloling atte^>ts te 
coHKLt the prescribed crises* 

If this change were accoaplished, many of the prosecutions presently 
brought in U. S. District Courts under 18 U.S.C. 1546, 8 U.S.C. 1326, 
18 U.S.C. 911 and 8 U.S.C. 1324, could be brought before federal 
■agistrates under 8 U.S.C. 1325, either because an illegal entry has 
occurred or because of an atteapt to make an illegal entry or because 
of aiding and abetting the ceamission of such offense. The desirability 
of proposing such an amendment is presently being considered. 



48-3 



2174 



Subcommittee Inqvilry 

49. Does the Service have. In the opinion of counsel, the power 
to levy administrative fines against illegal entrants or 
persons who harbor or assist illegal entrsuits? 

a. If the answer is negative, indicate from a legal 
standpoint the grounds underlying that opinion. 
If the answer is affirmative, indicate the cir- 
cumstances under which the agency has the power 
to levy informal administrative fines. 

b. Would such power be useful in deterring illegal 
entrants if monies in their possession were 
subject to partial confiscation to meet such 
fines? 

Response 

a. The answer is negative in the opinion of counsel. The 

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. I63, 

is an organic law within which prescribes all of the powers 

under the immigration laws granted by Congress to the 

Attorney General. Section 103(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 

1103(a), contains the general grant of authority. In 

pertinent part it provides: 

He shall establish such regulations; 
prescribe such forms of bond, reports, 
entries, and other papers; issue such 
instructions; and perform such other 
acts as he deems necessary for carry- 
ing out his authority under the pro- 
visions of this Act. 

Many sections of the Act authorize the Attorney General 

to levy fines administratively for specified violations 



49-1 



2175 



of law: Act, sections 231, 237* 243, 251, 254, 255, 256, 
271, 272 and 273; 8 U.S.C. 1221, 1227, 1253, 1281, 1284, 
1285, 1286, 1321, 1322 and 1323. Several of the foregoing 
sections authorize fines for bringing inadmissible aliens 
to the United States, but none is directed against illegal 
entrants or those harboring illegal entrants. 

It seems clear from the structvire of the Act that the 
legislative intent was to give to the Attorney General 
express authorization to impose fines in specific situations 
and to withhold from him the power to impose administrative 
fines in other situations of his own choosing, A 
. power which has been withheld by Congress cannot be fovind 
to exist as an "incidental" or "necessary" power, 
Saxon V, Georgia Association of Independent Insurance Agents. 
Inc,, 399 P. 2d 1010 (C.A, 5, 1968), Penal statutes must 
be construed strictly, so that even if the Act should be 
deemed ambiguous with regard to the extent of power to 
Inqjose fines, doubts would have to be resolved against 
Implied authority to impose penalties, 2 Sutherland, 
Statutory Construction , 3rd ed., section 3303; United 
States V. Minker . 350 U.S. 179 (1956), 

b. The power to impose administrative fines against illegal 
entrants would be usefva as a deterrent. Service 



49-2 



2176 



officials advise that they have been seeking for years a 
sanction more universally applicable than early apprehen- 
sion as a means of "taking the profit out" of the Illegal 
entrant's enterprise. They advise that until I968 they 
considered the feasibility of an administrative fine pro- 
gram, assuming that Congress would authorize It, but reached 
no conclusion, finding It difficult to resolve doubts 
whether the benefits of such a program would outweigh ad- 
ministrative complexities and costs as well as delays In 
expulsion. In particular they perceived the possibility 
of built-in legal difficulties, recognizing that it Is 
one thing to Impose a fine administratively and another to 
collect It legally against the will of an Illegal alien 
without bringing him before a court or at least giving 
him the opportunity to sue to keep title to his money. 
The Service advised that In the end It was decided that 
more effective approach would be to try to tsike the fullest 
advantage of the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968 and to 
press for sentences Including the Imposition of fines for 
violations of criminal laws. 

As Indicated In our response to Question 48, consideration 
is being given to the desirability of proposing an amendment 
to section 275 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1325> by modifying the 
prescribed criminal penalties, so as to make the offense of 
vmlawful entry triable before federal magistrates. 

49-3 



2177 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

50. Would it not be possible to permit illegal entrants to 
sign a stipulation acknowledging violation of immigra- 
tion laws as a condition to voluntary departure, to be 
used to expedite subsequent formal deportation or criminal 
prosecution in the event of apprehension subsequent to 
reentry? 

a. If the answer to this question is negative, please 
specifically enumerate authority substantiating 
the negative response. 

' b. If the answer is affirmative, indicate why such 
practice or a similar practice is not now the 
policy of the Service, 

Response 
It is possible and it is the practice to permit an 
illegal entrant from Mexico to sign a written statement 
acknowledging violation of the immigration laws and requesting 
voluntary departure; however, such a statement is of limited 
use subsequent to reentry in formal deportation proceedings or 
a criminal prosecution. 

Section 2^2(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252(b), prescribes 
that in the discretion of the Attorney General an alien who 
admits belonging to a deportable class may be granted voluntary 
departure without the necessity of formal deportation proceedings. 
The Service routinely grants voluntary departure ixnder this statute 
to deportable aliens whose cases are not aggravated. In the 
states near the Mexican border, a Spanish-speaking alien signs a 



50-1 



2178 



statement in Spanish acknowledging that he understands his 
right to a hearing concerning his remaining in the Unit ed 
States but that he admits that he is deportable and requests 
prompt voluntary departure. In addition, in virtually all 
deportation investigations it is customary to ask the subject 
for a voluntary written sworn statement. 

A statement signed by the subject containing the admission 
that he is an alien who is in the United States in violation 
of the immigration laws has evidentiary value in a subsequent 
proceeding. However, the existence of such a statement does 
not relieve the authorities of proceeding formally nor does 
it preclude the alien from setting up any defense, including 
that of involixntariness in the execution of the statement. 
Moreover, as evidence of alienage in a criminal prosecution an 
admission made to a criminal investigator would probably be 
insufficient as to any essential element of the crime, unless 
corroborated. Smith v. United States , 3^8 U.S. 14? (l95^); 
Calderon v. United States , 3^8 U.S. l60 (l95^). And as fer as 
the deportation process is concerned, even an alien who admits 
he has entered the United States illegally has a statutory and 
constitutional right to a formal deportation hearing which 
conforms with the Fifth Amendment's due process of law require- 
ments. Section 2'f2(b), Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C, 
1252(b). The Japanese Immigrant Case , 189 U.S. 86, 191 (l903); 
Sving V. McGrath . 339 U.S. 33 (l950). 



50-2 



2179 



Subcommittee Inquiry 



51. Indicate the number of special hearing, off icers available 

in the Southwest Region for the purpose of processing formal 
deportation proceedings. 

a. Indicate the nvimber of deportation proceedings or other 
administrative hearings conducted by such special inquiry 
officers in 196O, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969. 

b. Indicate the number of deportation proceedings for illegal 
entry conducted by special inquiry officers in the same 
years . 

c. Indicate the increase in the staff of special inquiry 
officers during the previous three years. 

Response 

a. (Officers and hearings) 



Officers 




Years 


ended J 


rune 3 


Oj. 


Number 


11 




i960 






5,1^6 


11 






. 1965 






8,786 


11 






1966 






6,859 


10 






1967 






8,039 


10 






1968 






8,24l 


1 

10 






1969 


. 




12,468 


(Deportation 


proceedings 


for illegal entry) 






Officers 




Years 


ended 


June 


:3o, 


Number 


10 






i960 






2,821 


10 






1965 






4,896 


10 






1966 






3,752 


9 






1967 






4,465 


9 






1968 






4,386 


9 






1969 






7,164 



See first column in a and b above. 

51-1 



2180 



Subcommittee Inquiry 

52. Indicate the actual increase in funds allocated directly to 
the Border Patrol in each of 196O, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 
and 1969. 

a. Indicate the percentage of the budget of the Immigra- 
tion Service allocated to the Border Patrol in each of 
the above years. 

b. Indicate the average size of the Border Patrol on duty 
in the Southwest Region for each of the above years. 

c. Indicate efforts on the part of the Justice Department 
or the Service to increase l) the number of special 
hearing officers, and 2) the size of the Border Patrol 
in the Southwest Region in the past several years. 

d. Indicate circumstances which have impeded the expansion 
of the Border Patrol and the special inquiry officers 
staff, if any. 

Response 
The actual increase in funds allocated to the Border 
Patrol is detailed by year as follows: 

Fiscal Year Amount 

i960 $1,229,764 

1965 1,037,455 

1966 16,323 

1967 587,631 

1968 2,345,657 

1969 761,714 



52-1 



2181 



The Border Patrol was allocated the following yearly 
percentages of the total Immigration and Naturalization 
budget; 





Fiscal Year 






Percentage 




I960 






29 




1965 






26 




1966 






25 




1967 






25 




1968 






25 




1969 






25 


b. 


The average on-duty Bord 


er 


Patrol 


force by year and 



principal employee group follows : 

Average Patrol Supervisory 
Fiscal total Inspectors and 
Year on-duty and Pilots Misc. Officers Clerical 



I960 


1,177 


1,020 


18 


139 


1965 


1,139 


975 ' 


13 


151 


1966 


1,1^0 


978 


Ik 


1^8 


1967 


1,227 


1,059 


Ik 


15k 


1968 


1,183 


1,014 


Ik 


155 


1969 


1,228 


1,062 


13 


153 



l) Neither the Justice Department nor the Service has 
requested an increase in the number of special hearing 
officers during the past several years. 

52-2 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 16 



2182 



2) To preclude a budget request for additional positions, 
the Service began in fiscal year 1966, an analysis of 
every Border Patrol postiion on the Ngrthern Border and 
the Gulf and Florida Coast to identify those that would 
produce greater enforcement effectiveness if reassigned to 
the Southwest Region. Although no additional Border Patrol 
positions were received in fiscal years I966 through 1969, 
the Service increased the authorized force of the Southwest 
Region by 108 positions during the same period. The Con- 
gress allowed 115 Patrol Inspectors in the 1970 budget, of 
which 113 have been assigned to the Southwest Region. The 
1971 budget, presently before the Congress, contains a re- 
quest for 77 additional Border Patrol positions. 

d. General economic conditions as related to the budget are 
the only significant factors impeding an expansion of the 
Border Patrol staff. Additional Border Patrol positions 
are needed in future budget years, cind the Service will 
request these positions within the budget resources avail- 
able. 



52-3 



2183 



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 
WASHINGTON 



^fP2 3 1970 



Honorable Walter F. Mondale 

Chairman, Subcammittee on Migratory Labor 

Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 

United States Senate 

Washington, D. C. 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

This is in response to your letter of August 2^ enclosing 
a list of questions regarding the "green card" situation 
along the border betveen the United States and Mexico. 

A recently completed study "The Border Crossers," which 
was carried out under a research grant of the Manpower 
Administration, presents the most vcp-to-date information 
on the "green card" ccamnuters. This study answers, to 
the extent that it is possible, the questions posed by 
your constituent. Precise data on incone, length of 
employment and the social costs of the green card system 
axe not available. 

I am enclosing a copy of the stiidy referred to above. 
In addition, an article on the same subject which was 
published in the August 1970 Monthly Labor Review is 
also enclosed. 

Sincerely, 




Secretary of labor 
Enclosures 



2184 



The impact of 

commuters on the 

Ri^exican-American 

border area 



A study of 

the commuter system 

examines the problems 

attributed to "green carders" 

and explores some solutions 

ANNASTINA ERICSON 



Approximately 70,000 persons cross the Mexican 
border daily to work in the United States. Of 
these, 20,000 are U.S. citizens living in Mexico; 
about 50,000 are Mexican immigrants who havo 
valid U.S. immigration dociimonts but who, for 
various reasons, continue to live in Mexico while 
they work in the United States. The majority 
of those who cross the border work in nine U.S. 
border cities, where, in some cases, they make 
up a significant part of the local labor force. 
These commutei-s contribute to the labor surplus 
situation prevailing on the U.S. side of tjie border, 
which has a depressing effect oi wages and on 
trade union organizing campaigns. 

Various proposals have been irude in Congress 
and clse\\here to alleviate the eco lomic and social 
hardships commuters are said to cause in U.S. 
border towns. But the present commuter system 
also has defenders who point out Uiat retail and 
wholesale trade in towns on the U.S. side of the 
border is dependent upon the purchrises of Mexican 
workers who earn U.S. wages. Tliere is a great 
deal of interchange between the U .S. and Mexican 
border cities in all aspects of tride, commerce, 
and tourism. The cities arc engaged in many 
joint undertakings, mutually bereficial to the 
social and cultural dc\cloi)m('nt o!' the ])eoplc as 
well as to their economic and social doveloi)nient. 
This article examines the impact of commuters 
on commerce, employment, wag 's, and trade 
union organization, and possible remedies to 
counteract problems created by i'le commuter 
system. 

The commuter 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service 

refers to commuters as thos(! uiicns who lav>fully 

have the privilege of residing in tiie United Stales 

but who choose to reside in foreign contiguous 

18 



tenitory and commute to their jobs in the United 
State;,.' Tb" practice of commuting internationally 
grew up because many towns along the Canadian 
•ind Mexican borders are really single communities 
Lieparated by tlu international bo\mdaries. The 
immigration law- of the 1920's, which were 
designed in large part to protect American labor 
standards, gave .Mexicans and Canadians who 
worked in the United States admission as non- 
resident aUens coining to the United States for 
purposes of "bu.siress" or "pleasure," within the 
meaning of the immigration law. In April 1927, 
immigration authorities changed position and 
declared that aliens coming to work in the United 
States would be cliissified as immigrants and would 
have to acquire commuter status. This interpreta- 
tion of the immigration law was upheld by the 
Supreme Court in 1929. 

The first step in acquiring commuter status is to 
achieve la\vful admission to the United States as 
an immigrant.^ Shiee 1965, the immigrant appli- 
cant has also had to obtain a labor certification 
unless he is the pa; 5nt, spouse, or child of a U.S. 
citizen or resident alien.' The immigrant's cer- 
tification specifies that there is a shortage of 
workers in his particular occupation in the United 
States and that his employment will not adversely 
affect wages and working conditions of U.S. 
residents. 

Upon admission to the United States, the 
commuter is registered as an immigrant and is 
given an Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form 
1-151), known as a "green card" from its former 
color. This card certiiies his immigrant status and 



Anna-Stina Erieson is deputy chief o( thn Foreign 
Manpower Policy St.itT, Manpower Administration. She 
lia.s been the IJcparlmont of Labor'.s representative to 
the U.S. -Mexico Commi.s.sioii for Border Development 
and friendship. 



2185 



COMMUTERS ACROSS MEXICAN BORDER 



19 



Table 1. Number of g-een card commuters from Mexico 
and of Americans unerri ployed 





December 1969 


Novemtwr-Dccember 1967 


county 


h'e>ican 
commuters i 


unemployed 


Mexican 
commuters 


American 
unemployed 


Total trarder ports of 
entrr 


i»,770 




40, 176 






iO, 753 


' 


li, 284 










San Ysldro (San Diego). 

Tecate<San DicBO) 

Andrade (Impetial) 

Calexjco (Imperial) 


11,697) 
631 

141 
8,979i 

5.647 


18,300 
3,389 


7, 535) 

561 

31 

7,6901 

5,148 


17.300 

4,900 

(') 








San Luis (Yuma) 

Nogales (Santa CfU2).._ 


3.616 

1.388 

113) 

5«! 

31 


>869 
175 
577 


3,553 

1,118 

941 

3801 

3 

30 


1.500 
275 
800 


Douglas (Cochise) 

Other 














Columbus (Luna) 

Texas 


31 

23,339 

; 3. 4931 
321 j 
200 

2,089 

3.456 
106 

1.061 
82 

2,430 
101 


(') 


30 

19,714 

11,7601 

2791 

317 

1,635 

2,669 

73 

937 

50 

1,917 

77 


>287 


El Paso (El Paso) _ 

Fabens(EI Paso) 

Del Rio (Val Vercte) 

Eagle Pass(Mavprick).. 


3,325 

774 

1,215 

3,325 

3,960 
2,770 


1,200 

50O 

1.200 


Roma (Starr) 

Hidalgo (Hidalgo) 

Progresso (Hidalgo) 

Brownsville (Cameron). 


4,200 
2.0OO 







' Cumulative unduplicated count since November-December 1967. Commuters cross 
into the United States at least twict a week. 
' October 1969. 
'Not available. 

* These figures are 1967 annual dverages. 
> March 1968. 



permits his reentry into the United States follow- 
ing temporary absences of less than 1 year. An 
alien is entitled to f;<imniutcr status onh' if he has 
a job in this country and can lose this status if he 
is unemployed in the United States for more than 
6 months. 

In the past, the Immig:ration and Naturaliza- 
tion Service took periodic I-day counts of alien 
commuters and has kcjit a continuous unduplicated 
count since a survey it conducted in Novoinber- 
Dcceniber 1907. At that time, all "frreen cards," 
as they were ])resented at the border i)orts of cntiy, 
were jjickcd up for verification and were srrommet- 
ted to ideniify commuter status. In Noveiiiboi- 
Dccembei- 1907, 40,170 alien Mexican commuters 
were registered. By the end of December 1909, 
their number had grown to 49,770, as shown in 
table 1. " 

In addition to immi<n'aiUs who commute to 
jobs in the United States from theij- Mexican 
residences, about 20,000 U.S. citizens also com- 
mute from Mexico to U.S. jobs. Most of these 
citizens were born of ^Jcxicau or Mexican- 



American parents and probably never lived in the 
United States or lived there only briefly. 

Border area residents also classify as commuters 
those nonimmigrant visitors who possess non- 
immigrant visas or border crossing cards and work 
illega'ly in the United States. The largest number 
of thrse commuters have 72-hour border crossing 
cards valid for purposes of business or pU^asure 
within a 2o-mile area from the border. These 
curd do not authorize their holders to live or 
work in the United States, but many do. 

The, numbers who work without proper authori- 
zation are difficult to determine. In fiscal year 1969 
over 200,000 Mexicans were apprehended for 
being in this country illegally. Of this n>imber, 
roughly one-fourth had been in the United States 
from 1 month to a year, long enough to have been 
employed. The largest group (80 percent) of 
dejiortable Mexican aliens apprehended had en- 
tered without inspection. The next largest group 
(14 percent) were those holding visitor border 
crossing cards. Obviously, not all people wbci have 
border crossing cards work in the United States, 
but a sufficient number do to cause U.S. border 
residents to consider the practice widcspre&d. 

Employment and earnings 

Emploj'inent in the border area is heavily con- 
centrated ill low-wage, low-skill industries: A^i- 
cultiii-e, services, wholesale and retail trade, 
govc'nmcnt, and light manufacturing. The San 
Diego area differs from the general jiattcrn because 
there is more heavy manufacturing and higher 
wage industries. 

There is limited information available about the 
jobs held by legal commuters, the '"green cardere." 
What is available was collected bj- the Immigra- 
tion and Xatinnlization Service^ at the time of the 
1907 survey of commuters. Commuters are found 
ill the same types of occiipiitions in which resident 
workers are found. Studies reveal that commuters 
generally receive tlic same wages resident workers 
receive when working in the same enterprise. 

Ocrri'.\TioN.\i, msTitiiiUTio.N'. Forty percent of 
the commuters in Xovember-December 1967 said 
they did farm work, 9 jjereent were general laborers, 
S |)erci'nt were in clerical and sales occupations, 
7 pircent were maids in private houselnrlds, 6 
percnt were in construction, and 5.6 percent were 
in hotel and restaurant occupations. Other i^ignifi- 



2186 



20 



MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1970 



cant occupational groupings were the following: 
Metalworkers, 4 percent; sewing machine oper- 
ators, 4 percent; and truckdrivers, 2.7 percent. 

Farm work was particularly important among 
commuters entering in California and Arizona. 
It accounted for 60 percent or more of all com- 
muters in those States.* Calexico in Imperial 
County, Calif., and San Luis in Yuma Countj', 
Ariz., received the bulk of Mexican commuter 
farm workers; over 80 percent of all commuters 
entering these ports were farm workers. In Texas, 
only 18 percent of the commuters listed farm work 
as their occupation. The important Texas ports of 
entry for farm workers were Eagle Pass in 
Maverick County and Hidalgo in Hidalgo County 
(the port of entry for McAllen) m the Lower Rio 
Grande Valley. Commuters entering other Texas 
ports of entry were more likely to be general 
laborers, clerical and salesworkers, domestic ser- 
vants, construction workers, metalworkers, or 
hotel and restaurant workers. 

Commuters are found working with resident 
workers and competing with thorn for available 
jobs. Resident workers may occasionally find 
themselves at a disadvantage in the job market 
because some employers favor commuter workers. 
A study of the El Paso garment industry revealed 
that some employers prefer connnuters because 
they believe they are superior workers, are more 
cooperative, less troublesome, and more reliable 
because "they have to work." ' 

Earnings. In the border cities, wage rates are 
lower than in the rest of the border States and 
lower than national averages for similar indus- 
tries or occupations. Statutory rrinimum wages, 
where they apply, tend to be the iirevuiling wages, 
and there are numerous examples of prevailing 
wages below the statutory mininiun> where the 
legal minimum wage does not api)ly. A minority 
of workers are paid at wage rttes above the 
minimum. 

In January 1968 the Department of Labor made 
a survey of wages paid to commuters and U.S. 
residents in tho same occupations in Laredo, Tcx.° 
Data were obtained from 95 ostablishmonls for 
1,075 residents and 608 commuters in 48 broad 
occupational groupings. The establishments sur- 
veyed employed at least 5 commuters at the time 
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
survey in November and December 1967.' 



Twenty-five occupations, in which 5 commuters 
or more were emploj-ed, accounted for 84 percent 
of the residents and 94 percent of the commuters 
in the sample. The occupations in which the 
commuters were concentrated i)aralleled those 
reported in the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service survey, except that the Department of 
Labor studj' covered establishments only, exclud- 
ing farm workers and domestics. Average hourly 
earnings for the 25 surveyed occupations ranged 
from $0.81 for busboys and $0.86 for service 
station attendants to $2.10 for customs appraisers. 
Commuters and resident workers in the same 
establishment received identical wages in each 
occupational classification. 

The Federal minimum wage in effect at the 
time ($1.40 an hour) was the rate most commonly 
paid to the commuters; 48 percent of the com- 
muters surveyed received precisely that amount, 
and 28 percent received less. The ready supply of 
workers (both residents and alien commuters) 
kept the prevailing wage at the Federal minimum 
where it applied and below that level for the 
number who worked in occupations not covered. 

Since this study was completed, a study was 
conducted to determine the impact of the com- 
muter on the El Paso apparel industry in 1968- 
69.' It found that wages in the apparel industry 
in El Paso "were low compared to wages in the 
same industry for other States and regions in the 
United States and, in addition, when compared 
with the same industry in other cities in Texas." 
Most of the workers surveyed received the mini- 
mum wage or just slightly more. The study 
concluded that the Federal minimum wage for 
the industry was actually the maximum because 
of the large number of workers willing to work at 
this wage. Those workers included commuters, 
Mexican nationals with temporary visitor per- 
mits, "wetbacks," and the unemployed and 
tmderemploycd residents of El Paso — all of whom 
have a depressing effect on wages in El Paso. 
Some employers do not differentiate between 
these categories of ])ersons but consider them all 
from the same labor pool. 

Besides being an area where the prevailing 
wages are at or below the Federal minimum 
wage, the border also has a relatively high in- 
cidence of Federal wage-hour violations. Almost 
one-fourth of the workers living in the border 
States who were paid less than the statutory 



2187 



COMMUTERS ACROSS MEXICAN BORDER 



21 



Table 2. Border area labor force and unemployment rates, 
1968 and 1969 



Arizona 

Yuma (Yuma) 

Tucson (Pima) 

Nogales (Santa Cruz) 

Southern Aiizona (Cochise). 
Cjlilornia 

San Diego (San Diego) 

Imperial (Imperial) 

Texas 

Brackeltville (Kinney) 

BrownsviHe-Harlingen-San. . 

Benito (Cameron) 

Cairizo Springs (Dimmit)... 

Crystal Cily(2avala) 

Del Rio (Val Verde) 

Eagle Pass (t^averlck) 

£ITa50(£l Paso) 

Laredo (Webb) 

McAllen (Hidalgo) 

Rio Grande City (Starr) 

Uvalde (Uvalde) 

Zapata (Zapata) 



671.000 

'27,200 

117,000 

5.660 

20, 625 

i. «6. 000 

455.600 

35,400 

1,650.000 

1.100 



48,310 
3,200 
5,900 
9,670 
7,940 
123, 250 
30,82S 
C3, 280 
4,700 
6,200 
1,900 



■ Data lor labor force in October lf69. Data for all other labor market areas are for 
December 1969. 
> Not available. 
>6.6 percent after removing Mexican commuter workers from the labor force figure. 



minimum wage in 1969 lived in the border 
(»unties. A third of all workers in the border 
States who suffered equal pay and McNamara- 
O'Hara Service Contract Act violations lived in 
the border counties. These are high levels of 
violations, particulany since the border counties 
do not represent a high proportion of employ- 
ment covered in those States. 

Unemployment, Unemployment rates along the 
U.S. side of the border, except in two or three 
cities, are far higher than the average unemploy- 
ment rates for the border States and are among the 
highest in the country. (See table 2.) Neverthe- 
less, a comparison of the number of the unem- 
ployed with the nun-.ber of commuters, as shown 
in table 1, suggests that at least in some of the 
border cities there would be a labor shortage 
without the commuters. Other estimates of the 
local manpower situation quickly dismiss this 
suggestion. These estimates, prepared by area 
CAMPS committees,' reveal that unemploy- 
ment figures published by the local employment 
services understate actual conditions. Job oppor- 
tunities are so limited in some cities tliat large 
numbers of potential workers do not actively seek 
work and are not covmted as unemployed. In 
most of the cities, large numbers of employed 
workers work fulltime at jobs that i)ay less than 



poverty level wages, or they work only part 
time because they are unable to get full-time 
employment. These workers are classified as 
underemployed. 

Combining the estimated unemployed and 
underemployed reveals a very different picture 
of the economic conditions of workers in the 
U.S. border cities from that shown by published 
unemployment data. In the cities for which such 
calcul'itions could be made, estimates of unem- 
ployment and underemployment range from 
about 8 percent to almost 50 percent of the labor 
force. (See table 3.) The presence of large numbers 
of Mexican commuters in these labor markets 
is an obvious disadvantage to resident wcrkers. 

Pressure of Mexican unemployment. Unem- 
ployment is also a serious problem along the 
Me.xican side of the border. For years, commuters 
have crossed into the United States to work, but 
since the end of the bracero program in 1964, they 
have been more visible and have increasingly 
entered agricultural occupations. Because of the 
bracero program, large numbers of Me.'^icans 
migrated to the border area in hopes of getting 
jobs in the United States. As a result, the popula- 
tions of the Mexican border towns have increased 
dramatically, faster than it has been possible 
to create jobs, and the pressure to work on the 
U.S. side of the border has increased greatly. 



Table 3. Estimated unemployment and underemployment 
in selected border labor market areas, 1963, and 
published labor market statistics 



labor market area 
(County in parentheses) 


Labor 
force 
19691 
average 


Published 
unemploy- 
ment 19691 


Esti- 
mated 
unem- 
ploy- 
ment > 


Esti- 
mated 
under- 
em- 
ployed > 


dmbined 
underem- 
ployed and 
uiiemployed 




Number 


Rale 


Number 


Rale 


San Diego (San Diego).. 

Imperial (Imperial) 

Nogales (SanU Cruz)... 

El Paso (El Paso) 

Laredo (V»ebb) 

McAllen (Hidalgo) 

Brownsville (Cameron), 


436.400 
32.600 
5.650 

122.000 
29.700 
62.900 
48.800 


16,600 
2.600 
322 
4.390 
2.520 
3.700 
3.040 


3.8 

8.0 


16,600 
>7,824 

.4^3'75 
3.115 
4.320 
2.940 


26,300 
<*> 

45% 
4.152 
I7.0OO 
12,965 


42.900 

7,824 

476 

59.375 
7.267 

21.320 

15. 905 


9.8 
24.0 
«.4 

48.7 
24.4 
33.9 
32.6 



' Based on reports from State Employment Security Agencies. 

■ Based on the Compiehensive Manpower Plans, Fiscal Year 1970. prepared by the 
local Area Manpower Coordmalme Committees, and published in the Arizona. Californij, 
and Texas Cooperative Manpower Plans (or Fiscal Year 1970, 

J Estimated on the basis ol the proportion ol Meiican Americans tn the labor force 
and Mexican American unemployment rates (both given in the CAMPS plan) «nd 
assuming that Mexican Americans make up 50 percent of the area's unemployed. 

4 Not available. 

NOTE: Where the information on underemployment differentiated between dis- 
advantaged and nondisadvantaged, the figures for the disadvantaged underemployed 
only were used. The figures on those not m the labor force but who local manpower 
planning officials thought could or should be in Ifie labor force are not iiKluded, it it 
was possible to identify them. 



2188 



22 



MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1970 



At the same time that the braccro ])roprain 
ended and restrictions were i)hicod by tlie U.S. 
Government on temporary ngricuUural workers 
from Me.xico, the duty-free allowance that Ameri- 
cans were permitted to bring back into the 
United States after a trip abroad was reduced 
from $500 to $100. The liquor allowance was 
simultaneously cut from a gallon to a quart. These 
events had an immediate negative impact on 
several of the Mexican border cities, since braeero 
remittances and tourist i)urchases, including the 
sales of liquor, were the mainstays of their 
economies. 

Until Mexico launched its border industrializa- 
tion program in late 1966, the Mexican Govern- 
ment had done little to help create jobs in its 
border area.'" By the end of January 1970, over 
17,000 persons were employed in the industries 
created under this program, and an unknown 
number of workers were employed in ancillary jobs. 
This program stimulates additional northward 
migration of Mexicans eager to work in the new 
plants. 

In an effort to determine the .iiagnitude of 
unemployment and underemployment, the Mexi- 
can National Minimum Wage Commission, under 
the auspices of the U.S. -Mexico Commission for 
Border Development and Friendship, conducted 
a survey of unemployment and underemployment 
in six border cities in 1969. This survey inquired 
about the characteristics of the people surveyed 
•and the number who commute to work in the 



Table 4. Summary findings of survey of unemployment 
and underemployment in 6 border cities, 1969 



Municipio 


Popula- 
tion 
dale 
1968— 
early 
1969) 


Labor 
force 


Unemployed and 
underemployed 


Number reported 
wortting in the 
United Stales 




Number 


Percent 
of labor 
force 


Number 


Percent 
of labor 
force 




450,000 
564,700 
60,000 

480, 000- 
500.000 
135.000 
185,000 


157,000 
181,381 
19,000 

150,000 

43,600 
60, 125 


31,000 

'33,587 

8,000 

30,000- 
40.000 
10,000 
7,000- 
8.000 


19.7 
118.5 
42.1 

20.0- 
26.7 
22.9 
11.6- 
13.3 


srooo 

lO.OOO 
'3,500- 
4.500 
• 18, 000- 
22,500 
4,500 
2,800 




Mexican 

Noiiles.. . 


6.0 


Ciudad JuarK... 

Nuevo Laredo... 
Matamoroi 


12.0-15.0 

9.2 
4.7 



1 If the total number ol persons lookins lor work lor the first time (an estimated 
10,000) IS included, as they are in the other municipios, the number ol unemployed 
increases to 39,355. The hii^her figure produces an unemployment rate ol 21.7 percent. 

>An estimated 3,000 additional persons were reported as havin,' applied lor papers 
to work in the United States and were awaiting a reply. 

'An estimated 19.000 additional persons were reported as having applied lor papers 
to work in the United Stales, but the survey indicated that it lakis from sii months lo 
a year before their papers are acted upon. 

SOURCE: Based on data published in "Revista Meiicana del Trabajo," Secretatfa 
del Trabajo y Previsi6n Social, September 1969. 



United States. Without the U.S. jobs, the Mexican 
figures on uiioniployment and underemployment 
woulil bo significantly higher. OfBcials inter- 
viewed during the surveys said that a cause 
contributing to the high rates of unemployment 
on the Mexican side of the border is the con- 
tinuing migration of workers from the interior 
regions of Me.xico who hope to find jobs on the U.S. 
side of the border. Tabic 4 summarizes the 
findings of the Mexican survey. 

In the six border cities, from 119,587 to 130,587 
workers were unemployed and underemployed 
in 1969 — roughly one-fifth of the combined 
labor force of 611,100 of these cities. Close to 10 
percent of this group of ^\•orke^s were looking for 
work for the first time. Forty to 45 percent of the 
workers reported that they were holding or had 
held jobs in the United States. Of those who had 
worked in the United States, the largest num- 
ber worked as farm laborers. The next largest 
groups worked as factory workers, domestics, office 
workers, and gardeners, in that order. Of those 
who worked in Mexico, the unemployed and 
underemployed were most often farm laborers or 
bricklayers. Significant numbers were mechanics, 
chauffeurs, carpenters, and painters. 

Over a third of the workers surveyed fell into 
the 25 years or younger age group (the proportion 
was as high as 75 percent in Matamoros), and 
close to half of them were single. Between 30 and 
52 percent were natives of the area. In Ciudad 
Juarez only 15 percent were natives, and in 
Tijuana none of those surveyed were natives of 
the area. These figures confirm the strong attrac- 
tion the border area has for Mexicans elsewhere 
in the country and indicate no lessening in the 
pressures of continuing population growth and 
migration. 

Trade union organization 

Organized labor in the United States is con- 
cerned that the presence of Me.xican commuters, 
particularly in the grape fields of California, is a 
deterrent to the organization of farm workers 
and to the right of organized workers to strike. 
At its 1969 convention, the AFI.r-CIO passed 
two resolutions about Mexican border crossers. 
Resolution 208, which identifies the commuter 
with "strikebreaking and unfair competition 
with workers seeking their rights to organize on 
the farms and in the factories of the U.S.," calls 



2189 



COMMUTERS ACROSS MEXICAN BORDER 



23 



for Congressional action to contitil the "wide- 
spread use of Mexican commuters which iinder- 
njines American wage and labor standards, 
narrows employment opportunities for American 
workers, and provides a constant threat of strike- 
breaking." In its reLolution supporting the farm 
workers' organizuig flfiforts (Resolution 233), the 
AFLf-ClO describes how the growers emi)loy 
green card commute! s as strikebreakers, reiterates 
its support to bring farm workers under the pro- 
tection of the Naticaial Labor Relations Act, and 
urges "improvemerls in the Government's im- 
migration policies." 

The use of green card commuters as strike- 
breakers was barred in June 1967, by a Federal 
regulation which prjcludes the use of the green 
card by an alien wlio has left th's country and 
seeks to reenter to accept or continue employ- 
ment at a place where the Secretary of Labor has 
determined that a labor dispute exists. In prac- 
tice, this regulation has been difficult to enforce 
because green card commuters may decide to be- 
come residents of the United States during a labor 
dispute in order to k.3ep their jobs. 

The United Fa.-m Workers Organizing Com- 
mittee (UFWOC) claims that the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service has yet to use the 
regulation for its expressed purpose and that com- 
muters have had little difficulty crossing the 
border to work in strikebreaking situations. A 
UFWOC organizer in Delano, Calif., testifying 
before the Subcommittee on Migratory LaTjor of 
the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel- 
fare in May 1969, reported that the fear of losing 
their jobs to comniuter workers stops many resi- 
dent agricultural \\ orkers from striking. 

Several legislative proposals responsive to trade 
union concern have been introduced in the Con- 
gress in recent years. These include an amendment 
to the National Labor Relations Act to make it an 
unfair labor practice for emjiloyers to hire aliens 
illegally in the United States or for employers to 
hire commuters to replace regular employees 
during a labor dispute. Some of the pro])osals 
would extend coverage of the National Labor 
Relations Act to the agriculture industry. 

Proposals for change in the commuter system 

There is a lack of consensus among border area 
residents about commuters. In its 196S report, the 
Good Neighbor Commission in Texas, an organi- 



zation which has statutory responsibility for the 
State of Texas to survey the conditions and prob- 
lems of migrant labor, stated that the positions of 
jiersons for and against the commuter systf m are 
"adamant almost to the point of being unr.egoti- 
able and without compromise." " 

There is concern, however, about the effects on 
the U.S. border cities of changing the longstanding 
practice of commuting. Any curtailment of the 
commuter system would probably result in the 
large-scale movement of commuters and their 
families to the United States. The housing supply 
fqr low- and moderate-income families is already 
in short su|)ply, and a sudden or even fairly grad- 
ual influx of the commuters would seriously exac- 
erbcte this situation. 

The large-scale movement of Mexican com- 
muters and their families to the United States 
could also have serious short-term consetpiences 
for resident workers. The change in status from 
connnuter to resident would do nothing to allevi- 
ate the labor surplus situation already existing 
in most border, cities. During jieriods of recession, 
there would be increased competition for jobs, 
since the commuters then would not hive the 
option of returning to Mexico to live while re- 
tainmg their immigrant status. 

In spite of these and other misgivings about the 
consequences of changing the commuting system, 
the concern of the labor movement for the or- 
ganizing efforts of border area workers and the 
newly aroused concern of the Me.xican-Anierican 
community with poverty and their lack ofvftco- 
nomic opportunities are gathering support for a 
change in the commuter system. 

Eliminating the commuter system 

Some opponents of the commuter system would 
like to see nil commuters prohibited. But elimina- 
ting the commuter system inunediately seems to be 
a harsh alternative. Since the system of com- 
muting has been sanctioned administratively by 
the United States for over 40 years, the commuters 
have obtained their immigrant status on the good 
faith assurance that the United Slates would not 
change an administrative jjractice of such long 
standing. An abrupt change could create serious 
l)ersonal hardships for the commuters and would 
l)robably cause diplomatic difficulties with both 
Canada and Mexico. Closing the border to 
commuters could also result in a great increase in 



2190 



24 



MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1970 



illegal entrants. Terniinating the coninuitcr system 
over a ])erio(l of time might ])revent some of the 
difficulties mentioned. At least it would make it 
possible for the U.S. communities to start con- 
structing housing and schools to meet anticipated 
needs and for the commuters to plan how to move 
their families to this coimtry. 

If the Government were to adopt this alterna- 
tive, it could eliminate commuter status as of a 
certain date. Only those aliens already having 
"green cards" would be permitted to continue to 
cross the border to jobs in the United States. 
The question then becomes how long they would 
be permitted to continue commuting. If they 
were peiTnitted to continue indefinitely, there 
would be minimal hardship on Mexican commuters' 
families. Faniilies would not have to be uprooted, 
and the commuter practice woidd disappear 
through attrition, since no new commuter cards 
would be issued, not even to family members. 

Alternatively, the present commuters could be 
given a time period, say a period of 2 to 5 years, 
in which to make the transition from Mexican 
residents to bona fide U.S. residents or lose their 
immigrant status. Under this alternative, special 
arrangements would probably have to be made to 
give the immediate families of present commuters 
unique consideration in regarti to the Western 
Hemisphere annual immigration ceiling of 120,000. 
The family members could be admitted on a 
one-time-only basis without regard to this ceiling 
during the transition period, or additional num- 
bers could be added to the ceiling to take care of 
those already on the waiting list. A bill (S. 3545) 
introduced by Senator Edmund S. Muskie on 
March 4, 1970, would accommodate the family 
members by the addition of numbers to the 
Western Hemisphere immigration ceiling for a 
2-year period following the effective Uate of the 
bill. J 

A recent survey of commuters'^ reveals that 
between 80 and 90 percent of all commuters 
would want to move to the United States if 
commuting were no longer permitted. An influx 
of between 40,000 and 45,000 commuters and 
their families could create a massive shortage of 
liousing, education, and other i)ublic services. If 
that number of commuters decided to take up 
permanent residence in the United States and 
were able to bring their families with them, a 
Mexican population of between 200,000 and 
300,000 people could be expected to move to the 



United States in a relatively brief span of time. 
Probably a small projwrtion of these families 
would try to move to areas away from the border, 
but a majority could be expected to reside in the 
U.S. border towns. 

Absorbing such large numbers of Mexicans 
would be an intolerable financial burden for the 
border commimities. Income generated by the 
new residents through the payment of rents or 
mortgage loans, jiayments for utilities, and local 
taxes would be more than offset by the cost of 
j)roviding low-income housing, schools, sanitation, 
and other services. At least in the early years, 
Federal and State aid would undoubtedly be 
needed. Administration of such a program might 
be similar to that provided in federally impacted 
areas, or to that provided to Cuban refugees 
since the revolution which brought Fidel Castro 
into power.'' 

Strenuous efforts nt all levels of government and 
by private organizations would have to be made 
to attract new industries to the U.S. border towns 
so that the change in the commuter system would 
not result in added burdens of underemployment 
and unemployment. Large scale training and 
education programs coupled to credit availability, 
tax relief, and other programs would make these 
incentives even more attractive. Consideration 
might also be given to mobility and relocation 
assistance to help both local residents and im- 
migrants who are not able to find employment or 
who want to locate elsewhere. If the numbers 
who locate away from the border area are suf- 
ficiently large and if they tend to concentrate in 
specific locations, these localities might also need 
financial assistance. 

Labor certification 

Much of the controversy centering around the 
commuter system stems from the effect that 
commuters have on wages and emjjloyment levels 
in the border communities. Because large numbers 
of commuters, indeed the bulk of them according 
to Inimigralion and Naturalization Service of- 
ficials, are not required to get labor certification 
because of their relationship to a citizen .or an 
immigrant, current labor certification procedures 
have little impact on the regulation of commuter 
traffic. If the decision is made to permit tha 
continuation of commuting, or to continue it only 



2191 



COMMUTERS ACROSS MEXICAN BORDER 



25 



for those Mexicans who are comnviters as of a 
certam date, consideration should be given to 
changing the labor certification re((uirements. At 
the present time, immigrants to this country need 
to be certified only once, at the time of applica- 
tion, and then only if the immigrant applicant is 
not a parent, spouse, or child of a U.S. citizen or 
resident alien." To be effective in controlling the 
numbers of commuters from Mexico (and Canada), 
the certification by the Secretary of Labor would 
have to apply to all commuters, or be required at 
periodic intervals. 

Under the presert Immigration and Nationality 
Act, labor certifications are made either through 
the use of lists of occujiations (schedules), which 
permit the processing of applications without 
individual review by the Department of Labor, or 
by individual case review. These methods are 
responsive to economic and manpower conditions 
and expedite the processing of cases. The wage 
level used is that i>revailing for the occupation. 
The legislative proposals currently before Congress 
would not change the present method of certifica- 
tion; they would merely require it periodically. 

If, in addition, the exceptions to the labor 
certification requirement were tightened and an 
adverse effect wage were added to the certification 
language, the procedure of labor certification might 
be more effective in limiting the numbers of com- 
muters from Mexico. For example, the exception 
from labor certification applying to Western 
Hemisphere immigrants could be amended to 
prevent the automr tic exception of the parents of 
children under a certain age. (Many Mexican 
children are U.S. citizens by virtue of having been 
bom in a U.S. border city hospital but have never 
lived in this country.) Also, an adverse effect wage 
requirement could be added which would require 
commuters to be paid at a somewhat higher rate 
than the prevailing wage. This might have the 
advantage of preventing wage competition by 
Mexicans and pushing local i)revaiiing wages 
upward. Administration of an adverse effect wage 
that is higher than the jjrevailing wage could be 
very cumbersome unless a system of wage informa- 
tion, similar to the occupation schedules, could be 
developed. 

If a change in the system is made, it would be 
useful to provide safeguards in the new system 
to prevent commuters from losing their immigrant 
status immediately if their jobs would not qualify 



for recertification and to prevent unscrupulous 
emjjloyers from abusing the commuters. The safe- 
guard would allow for a specified interval during 
which the commuter could seek another job or 
move to the United States. 

Work permit 

An alternative to the commuter system would 
be to institute a new nonimmigrant border crossing 
card — the nonresident work permit. This alter- 
native would permit workers living in Canada or 
Mexico to work in the United States at jobs where 
qualified U.S. residents were not available. The 
work permit could be issued for a specified period 
of time and would be renewable if the condition 
under whicli it was originally granted coniinued 
to e.xist. A periodic review to make such a deter- 
mination would be required. Care should be taken 
that this system not be used to exploit the foreign 
worker and that more than a pro forma certifica- 
tion of lack of availability of resident workers is 
made before issuing the work permit. 

Other alternatives 

Commutation tax. Commuters are frequently 
cited as a financial drain on the municipal services 
of U.S. border cities because they pay no property 
or school taxes, yet use many local services. It 
has been suggested " that a weekly commutation 
tax, collected from the emploj'ere, would help pay 
for these services. A tax of $1 a week per com- 
muter would pro\nde $2.5 million annually ^50 
weeks times 50,000 commuters), which could ^e 
divided among the local, county, Stat3, and 
Federal Governments. While such a tax might not 
be a serious financial liability for employers, it 
might be enough of an administrative problem that 
it would encourage employers to hire U.S. residents 
instead of Me.xican commuters. Such a tax could 
also be paid by the commuters themselves as a 
payroll deduction. This would put the tax burden 
on the commuters who are already earning only a 
minimum salary in most cases; but, since living 
costs on the Mexican side of the border are lower 
than on the U.S. side, this tax might be tolerable. 

Commuter ticket. Large numbers of people in 
the United States commute daily on the railroads 
from their residences in the suburbs to their jobs 



2192 



26 



MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1970 



in the cities. A similar system could be developed 
for border commuters. Cards or tickets could be 
issued subject to labor certification rather than a 
fee. A fee could also be charged, that would in 
effect be a commuter tax added to the commuter 
ticket. In any event, the card or ticket would be 
punched or picked up automatically each time the 
commuter crosses into the States, and an accurate 
record would simultaneously be made of the num- 
ber crossing on any 1 day. 

Local initiative. There are steps which the 
border area people themselves can take to reduce 
the abuses of the commuter practice and to pro- 
vide greater opportunities for U.S. residents. 
Chambers of commerce, industrial development 
groups, State employment offices, women's organ- 
izations, and other business and service groups 
could begin a major campaign to give job prefer- 
ence to U.S. residents. Some employers in border 
cities already do this. Since ma)\y commuters 
have U.S. addresses, such a campaign would force 
employers and workers alike to prove that a 
worker's U.S. address is a bona fide residence 
which he inhabits. 

Local businessmen, instead of f'.dvertising the 
special advantages of establishing plants in the 
Mexican border area, might advertise the benefits 
of a U.S. border location and aggressively seek the 
means of raising local revenues to provide favor- 
able plant sites, good transportation to and from 
major markets, and other facilities. 



Workers in the border area could strive to 
make their State employment security agencies 
provide manpower services in a more effective 
manner. They could do this individually or work 
through their own Mexican American organiza- 
tions or their unions. Union organization in most 
of the border area is very weak, because of obsta- 
cles jiut up by employers and State laws and be- 
cause of the surplus of labor in the border area. 
However, the major unions have few organizing 
campaigns in the border area outside of southern 
California. 

Conclusions 

In various studies, the following adverse effects 
of the commuter system have been identified : 

• Wages arc lower .ilong the border because of the 

impact of the coinmviter. 

• Unemployment is higher in areas where commuters 

are present. 

• The incidence of violations of the wage and hour law 

is greater in the border area. 

• Collective bargaining in the border areas is ham- 

pered by the availability of commuter workers. 

There are difficulties, however, in changing the 
present system which has had legal validity for so 
many years. Mexican nonresident aliens, as well 
as many U.S. border residents, consider it a right. 
The economies and the social and political climate 
of the border communities have been shaped by 
the availability of a large pool of low-skill and 



Mexican-American workers in the United States 



In order to understand the ])rcsent status of 
Mexican-Americans in the United States, it is 
imperative that we investigate the coiiditions on 
the U.S. -Mexico Border. Since the turn of the 
century Mexico has sup|)iicd, legally or illegally, 
a largo portion of the labor force, mostly un- 
skilled, which has contributed to the develop- 
ment of the Southwest. The fluctuations of the 
U.S. economy are clearly reflected in the move- 
ments of people across the border. Much of this 
labor force has first found a ])iace, however 
precarious, in agricultural endeavors before 
moving into the urban environment. Many con- 



tinue working as farm laborers although living 
in the city. Whcthor they have come as legal 
immigrants, as "braceros," as "commuters," 
as "wetbacks," or as "\'isitors," they have left 
an imprint in the society. Thus what happens 
on the border has repercussions in Detroit, 
Chicago, Denver, Sun Antonio, and certainly 
Delano. 

— Julian Samora in Preface to Ernesto Galarzza, 
Spiders in the House and Workers in, the Field 
(Notre Dame, Ind., University of Notre Dame 
Press, 1970). 



2193 



COMMUTERS ACROSS MEXICAN BORDER 



27 



relatively low-wage Mexican labor. 

A number of alternative solutions to the com- 
muter system have been suggested. A major 
consideration in choosing any alternative or 
combination of alternatives is that an abrupt end 
to the practice of commuting would result in 
hardships for both the commuters and their 
families and for the U.S. border cities in \,hich 
they work. The studies that have been made 
conclude that, if forced to choose between taking 
up permanent residence in the United States or 
surrendering their "green cards," an overwhelming 



proportion — as high as 80 or 90 percent — of the 
commuters would move to the U.S. side of tho 
border. They would become residents of com- 
munities which may already be in some economic 
distress a!id are ill-equipped to handle unantici- 
pated massive demands for services. If the 
commuters and their families are to be reloceted 
\vithout seriously disrupting these border com- 
munities, provision must be made to ensure the 
availability of basic services such as housing, 
education, medical care, and family assistance and 
to expand employment opportunities. □ 



-FOOTNOTES- 



' There are also Canad an commuteis, but because of 
more similar wage and other labor standards between 
Canada and the United States, the cniployment of 
Canadian workers does not have the depressing economic 
effect that the employment of Mexican workers has. 

» Until July 1, 1968, when an annual ceiling of 120,000 
was imposed there was no numerical limitation on im- 
migration from independe'it Western Hemisphere countries 
and the Canal Zone. 

' Immigration and Naturalization Service officials have 
stated that this exclusion means that the "bulk" of 
immigrants from Mexico do not need labor certification. 

* At the time this survey was conducted, seasonal 
agricultural employment was at or near its peak in the 
border areas. Among the commuters who listed farm work 
as their occupation were 7,743 who had been doing 
migratory farm work in the United States but were then 
back in the border area and commuting from Mexico. Had 
they not been identified its commuters at that time, it is 
likely that they would now be counted a.s seasonal workers, 
that is, Mexicans with immigrant visas who enter the 
United States and follow, the crops, returning to Mexico 
to live at the end of thi, season. Since August 1968 the 
Immigration and Natunvlization Service has listed these 
aliens as seasonal workers, and by December 1969 had 
identified 4,628 of them in an unduplicatcd, noncumulativc 
count. 

' Brian Scott Rungeling, "Impact of Mexican Alien 
Commuters on the Apparel Industry of El Pa.so (A Case 
Study)," a Ph. D. dissertation. University of Kentucky, 
June 30, 1969, p. 74. 

• Stanley M. Knebel, "Restrirtive Immigration Stand- 
ards: Probable Impact on Worican Alien Commuter," 



Farm Lc.f-or Developments (U.S. Department of Laoor), 
November 1968. 

' A subsample of eight g"soline service stations em >loy- 
ing less than five commuters was also included. 

' Brian Scott Rungeling, op. cit., chapters IV and V. 

' Committees of the Cooperative Area Manpower 
Planning System (CAMPS). Composed of officials working 
with manpower and related matters, these committees 
are organized at locals State, regional, and national levels, 
the initial local plans being acted on and consolidated at 
successively higher levels. 

"> See Anna-Stina Ericson, "An Analysis of Mtxico's 
Border Industrialization Program," Monthly Labor Reoiew, 
May 1070, pp. 33-40. 

" "Alien Labor, Commuters and Immigration Reform," 
in Texas Migrant Labor, The 1968 Migration (Texas Good 
Neighbor Commission, 1969), p. 5. 

" David S. North, The Border Crossers, Peoph Who ■ 
Live in Mexico and Work in the United Stales; Septenber 1, 
1969, draft of a .study financed under a Manpower AdmftT 
istration Research Contract, p. 225. ' 

" The number of Cuban refugees who have been regis- 
tered in the Cuban Refugee Program (which is entirely, 
voluntary) since it began in January 1959 was 366,902 
as of March 20, 1970. Of tlicse, 242,606 have been resettled 
in over 3,000 communities in 50 Stales. (Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of the Cuban 
Refugee Program.) 

» This exception applies to all Western Hemisphere 
applicants. The exception is slightly different for Eastern 
Hemisphere applicants. 

'» David North, op. cit., p. 254. 



2194 



THE BORDER CROSSERS 
People Who Live in Mexico 

and 

Work in the United States 

by 

David S. North 



This study was prepared for the Manpower Admin- 
istration, U.S. Department of Labor, under research 
contract No. 81-09-69-08 authorized by Title I of the 
Manpower Development and Training Act. Since contrac- 
tors performing research under Government sponsorship 
are encouraged to express their own judgment freely, 
the report does not necessarily represent the Depart- 
ment's official opinion or policy. Moreover, the 
contractor is solely responsible for the factual 
accuracy of all material developed in the report. 



(^ TransCentury Corporation 

Washington, D.C. 

April, 1970 



2195 



"The industrial labor situation in Laredo is considered 
to be very satisfactory. There is a large supply of available 
workers who have a good attitude toward their jobs... 

"Both large supply and good attitude of industrial labor 
are related to the fact that Laredo has a permanent surplus 
of labor. Competition for jobs is, therefore unusually strong. 
Labor turnover and absenteeism are virtually nil in presently 
operating plants . 

"Vlhile seven labor unions, in addition to the complex of 
railroad organizations, are found in Laredo, the labor history 
has been remarkably good..." 



An Industrial Inventory of 
Laredo , Texas 

The Laredo Chamber of Commerce, 
August, 1962 



2196 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Prologue 

Introduction 

Summary of Findings 

Summary of Recommendations 

I. The Setting 

II. The Current Controversy 

III. Immigration policies 

IV. The Border Crossers 

V. Commuter-Caused Adverse Economic 
Effects 

VI. Participation in Federal Programs 

VII. Local Variations in Commutation 
Practices 

VIII. Some Alternative Solutions to the 
Commuter Problem 

IX. Appendix 

A. Methodology 

B. The Canadian Border 

C. Operation Intercept 

X. Bibliography 

XI. Questionnaire (Green Card Commuters) 
Results 



Page Number 

V 

vii 
xi 

xiv 
1 

51 

72 
106 
143 

185 
215 

225 

274 

274 
278 
281 

283 

292 



Map 



U 



2197 



LIST OF TABLES 



Table 



Title 



Page 



1959 Per Capita Income in U.S. and in Mexican 
Border Cities (in U.S. dollars) 

Border Crossing Points 9 

Major Crossing Points - East to West 19 

Alien Commuters in 1961 22 

Alien Commuters - Surveys of 1963 and 1966 23 

November/December 1967 Count of Green Card Com- 26 
muters 

August, 1969 Count of Green Card Commuters 27 

Citizen & Alien Commuters (January 17, 1966 29 
Survey ) 

Mexican Border City Wages Earned in the United 43 
States 

Mexican Immigration in the Sixties 83 

Births in Arizona to Residents of Mexico 102 

Comparative Age Distribution of Border Crossing 107 
LaUaor Force and Total U.S. Labor Force 

Distribution of Border Crossers by Place of Birth 108 

Educational Attainment of Border Crossers 110 

Occupations of the Border Crossers 111 

Number of Mexican Alien Commuters, by State and 112 
Occupation, 1967 

Hourly Wages Paid to Border Crossers 114 

Hourly Wages Paid to Green Card Commuters - 115 
By Area 

Border Crossers' Weekly Wages 116 

Annual Income - Green Card & Citizen Commuters 117 



m 



36-513 O - 70 - pt, 5A - 17 



2198 



Table Title 

XXI Apprehensions of Illegal Entrants (Mexican 
Nationals) 

XXII All Illegal Entrants by Duration of Stay at 
Time of Apprehension (1968) 

XXIII Illegal Entrants Interviewed, Duration of Stay 
at Time of Apprehension 

XXIV Marital Status of Interviewed Illegals 

XXV Portion of Interviewed Illegals' Income Sent 
to Mexico 

XXVI Temporary Worker Visas Issued - 1966-1968 

XXVII Unemployment and Commutation Statistics - 
Selected Border Cities 

XXVIII Unemployment Rates in 22 Texas S.M.S.A. 's, April 
1967, 1968, 1969 

XXIX Median Earnings in 1959 of Persons in the Experi- 
enced Labor Force by Sex and Occupation (6 Texas 
S.M.S.A. 's) 

XXX Seasonal Farm Workers' Hourly Wages - Texas, 
November, 1966 

XXXI Average Hourly Earnings in Manufacturing Indus- 
tries, 8 Major Texas S.M.S.A. '•, 1967, 1968, 
1969 (April of Each Year) 

XXXII Per Capita Income for Southwestern Cities 

XXXIII Federal Minimum Wage Violations in Border Counties 

XXXIV Percentage Distribution of Commuters by Wage Rate, 
Laredo, Texas, January 1968 

XXXV Occupational Wage Structure, Laredo, Texas, June 
1961 

XXXVI Compeurative Union Membership, Border and Non-Bor- 
der Cities 

XXXVII Entering Commuters and Departing Migrants 

XXXVIII Social Security Experience of Border Crossers 

XXXIX Mexican Residents Attending El Paso Schools 

XL Draft Registrants Classified I-Y 



Page 



IV 



2199 



Prologue 

It was four in the morning, chilly for March in Browns- 
ville, and the workers from Mexico straggled across the bridge 
in twos and threes, braced for their daily confrontation with 
the United States Government. The workers carried two items 
which they showed to the Federal officials, their lunch (which 
was squeezed gently to check against the entry of oranges and 
other forbidden fruit) , and one of a variety of entry docu- 
ments . 

These were farm workers. There were men and women, boys 
and girls, all Mexican, all poor, all headed to a nearby 
street corner where the local farmers hired (or refused to 
hire) them on the spot, euid then loaded them onto their flat- 
bed trucks for the trip to the farm, maybe forty miles away. 
No buses, just trucks. A couple of Anglos working for the 
Texas Emploment Commission watched the scene. 

Many of the workers were 14 and 15; they had been born 
in America and showed the man at the bridge their battered 
birth or baptismal certificates. Now, the Fair Labor Stand- 
ards Act makes it illegal to employ a child under sixteen 
while school is in session, and Brownsville's schools would 
be opening a few hours later. Normally it is hard to en- 
force the child leibor law in agriculture — warning whistles 
send the smaller kids out of the fields while the bigger ones 
simply lie about their age. 



2200 



Here, at a farm workers' ihapaup, where the youngsters 
had to carry a birth certlfloat«> was a made-to-order enforce- 
ment situation, but nobody oarad. 

Demand for workers was pretty brisk that morning, as the 
onion prices had been favorabla the previous day. There was, 
however, no bargaining for wagai— you either took what the 
farmer or his labor contractor offered, or you didn't work. 
And the worker was never of farad tha guaranteed $1.30 an hour 
which the Congress in Washington had daoraad. All the wages 
were piece rates. Most of tha workara climbed onto the trucks, 
but a few didn't make it, and had to walk back to Matamoros 
or to their homes in Brewnsvillai 

It waa a good introduetien to tha labor aoonomios of tha 
border . 

vi ! 



2201 



Introduction 

While the bracero progr£un (which brought Mexican Nationals 
into the U.S. to work on farms) was the subject of national 
controversy for many years — concluding with the U.S. Depart- 
ment of Labor's termination of it — a compareQsle Western man- 
power problem has received scant attention. That is the daily 
influx of Mexican residents who come to work in the border 
areas of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. This is 
a study of these border crossers, financed by the Department 
of Labor, cuid indirectly inspired by its former Secretary, the 
man who ended the bracero program, W. Willard Wirtz. 

In the course of this study, we took three broad ap- 
proaches; we read everything that has been written on the sub- 
ject, largely in Federal hearings and court cases; we talked 
with numerous knowledgeedsle individuals on both sides of the 
border; and our interviewers talked with 560 border crossers, 
including U.S. citizens living in Mexico and working in this 
Nation, illegal entrants who had worked in the United States, 
and Mexican Nationals who use their status as "resident" aliens 
of the United States to commute from their homes in Mexico to 
jobs in the United States. 

Our principal motivation for the study was a concern about 
the intact that the commuting workers have on the resident 
American work force in em area where wages are generally low and 
xmemployment high. (This generalization, like most about the 
border, must bear the caveat, except for San Diego.) We were 
also interested in the origins of the commutation practice, 

vii ! 



2202 



the controversies it has created, and the role played by the 
border crossers in a variety of Federal programs. Finally, 
we wanted to find out more about the border crossers them- 
selves, who are they, how old are they, what kind of work do 
they do, and what do they get paid for it. 

Unfortunately the best potential source of data on the 
subject, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) does 
not gather much information on border crossers , rarely tabu- 
lates the information that it does have, and, in Washington, 
anyway, tends to be rather defensive about the whole subject. 

Virtually everyone else we contacted, however, including 
most of the INS field people, were open, friendly, and very 
helpful. Whether we were talking with a sleepy farm worker 
on his way to work at 3 or 4 a.m., or a captured illegal 
immigrant, or a busy official, the response was generally 
the same, and we are most grateful. 

The author's thanks also go to William Haltigan, 
Stanley Knebel and James Nix of the Department of Labor, three 
men who know the border intimately and are concerned about it; 
to those handling our contract, notably Howard Rosen, Joseph 
Epstein and Lester Rindler, whose patience was strained on 
occasion; to the wise counsel and friendship of Warren Wiggins, 
President of TransCentury Corporation, the research and con- 
sulting firm which had the contract for this study; to the 
cheerful and public spirited staff which worked long hours 
under often frustrating conditions, Cathryn Cunningham, 




2203 



Homer Galacia, Richard Garcia, Lee Geisen, Ramiro Guerrero, 
Therese Heipp, Arthur Hinojos, Gilbert Lopez, Andre Malabanan, 
Armando Reyna, Carlos Rivera, and Sal Siqueiros. 

The author also owes special gratitude to his wife, Joan, 
and three little boys, Gregory, Jeffrey and Rodney, whose 
collective patience over a period of many months was remark- 
able. 

Needless to say, although many hands helped prepare this 
report, the accuracy, or lack thereof, and the opinions expres- 
sed are those of the author and not those of TransCentury 
Corporation (which is comfortable with them) nor of the 
Department of Lessor (which may worry about some of them) . 

Although this material is to be copyrighted, reproduction 
in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United 
States Government. 

There is a variety of specialized tenninology used on the 
border, and some words given special meaning in this study 
(such as border Grosser), thus, a few definitions may be help- 
ful. 

ix 



2204 



Definitions 



Green Card Commuter — A Mexican National, living in Mexico, 
who works in the United States. Formally regarded by the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service as a "permanent resi- 
dent alien" (of the United States) . 

Citizen Commuter — An American citizen, living in Mexico and 
working in the United States. 

Legal Border Crossers — Members of the two classes described 
above . 

Illegal Entrant — A Mexican National who crosses the border 
to work without authorization. 

Border Crossers — Members of all the classes noted above • 

+ + + + + 

Anglo — A white, non-Spanish resident of the United States. 

Bracero — A Mexican National, doing temporary agricultural 
work in the United States under an arrangement sanctioned by 
the U.S. Government. These arrangements were made between 
1943 and 1967 and could be revived in the future. (Spanish 
for the strong-armed one.) 

Border Card — An INS document given to Mexican Nationals , 
allowing the holder to cross the border at will, but not 
allowing him to penetrate more than 25 miles into the United 
States, and not permitting him to work. These are undated 
and issued by the millions. 

Green Card — A leuninated lien Registration Receipt (1-151) 
carrying the individual's photograph, issued by the INS to 
permanent resident aliens. The card, which was originally 
greenish in color, is given to such aliens in lieu of their 
visas, and is a handy document to use for border crossings. 

Mordita — A bribe or (often) the practice of bribery (Spanish) 

Operation Intercept — A short-lived effort made by the U.S. 
Government, in the fall of 1969, to reduce the supply of 
marijuana and other drugs by clamping tight controls on all 
border traffic. 

Operation Wetback — A para-military operation mounted by the 
INS in 1954 and 1955 which sharply reduced the incidence of 
illegal entrants in the Southwest. 

The Valley — The three counties of Texas ' Lower Rio Grande 
Valley r- Cameron, Hidalgo and Starr. 



2205 



Summary of Findings 



I. Border crossers are numerous, emd play an importemt role 

in border area ladsor markets. The Immigration and Naturali- 
zation Service has counted 47,876 Green Card Commuters amd, 
in 1966, 18,259 citizen commuters. In addition, it is esti- 
mated that there are enough illegal entrants in the border 
counties to make the total bordercrossing labor force 
at least 100,000. This represents 11% of the labor force 
in a strip of counties along the border from Texas to 
California, and 17% of it East of San Diego. 

II. The impact of the border crossers has engendered a series of 
controversies, along the border, and within the executive, 
judicial and legislative branches of the Government. Bills 
are now pending in Congress, amd one court suit is active 
at the moment. Critics contend that the border crossers de- 
press labor conditions on this side of the border, while 
defenders of the system say that the commutation practice 
should continue for diplomatic and economic reasons . 

III. Our survey of the border crossers (conducted in their homes 
in Mexico, at an American consulate amd in the three deten- 
tion centers for illegal entrants) showed: 

A. The Green Carders are essentially a 25-54 year old 
work force; the illegals and citizens are much 
younger. 

B. Levels of educational attainment, for the border 
crossers are low, particularly for the illegals. 

C. Most border crossers do unskilled work, with the 
largest single occupation being farm work; this 
is particularly true of the illegals. 

D. Despite the fact that they are all working, the 
border crossers are paid so poorly that a substan- 
tial majority of them have family incomes, from all 
sources ,i3e low the U.S. poverty threshold for a 
family of five -$3,992 per year. (The average faun- 
ily size of the border crossers is more than 5.) 

E. Most border crossers we surveyed have very slim ties 
to the United States. Of the citizens, 34.1% have 
never lived in the United States, amd 44.6% of the 
Green Card commuters have not lived here. Of those 
who have lived here , a majority have been in the 
United States for less than two years. 

F. Border crossers have a very low degree of political 
participation in either Mexico or the United States. 
Union membership is in the neighborhood of 10%. 

xi 



2206 



G. Most border crossing families have a diversity 
of citizenship making it difficult to move the 
entire family to the United States, should they 
wemt to do so. 

IV. The predominance of evidence suggests that the border crossers, 
have, in fact: 

A. Taken jobs which otherwise would be filled by 
residents of the United States. 

B. Depressed wages by their presence in already 
loose labor markets. 

C. Tended to reduce the likelihood of union organi- 
zation. 

D. Tended to encourage border county residents to 
seek work elsewhere in the Nation as agricultural 
migrants. 

V. The labor market problems of the area, and the immigration 

problems of many of the feunilies, relate to difficulties with 
the immigration law, and the way that the U.S. Immigration 
and Naturalization Service interprets it: 

A. The basic premise that allows Green Card holders 
to commute — that they are permanent resident 
aliens, though obviously not residents of this 
country, is the root of the difficulty, amd is 
based on INS regulations, not statute. 

B. The labor certification provisions of the immigra- 
tion law, designed to limit the number of newly 
arrived unskilled immigrants, is relatively ineffec- 
tive on the southern border, because of the number 
of potential immigrants who can use close relatives 
in the United States, rather than a skill, as the 
rationale for admission to the Nation. 

C. INS allows Green Card commuters, living in Mexico, 
to petition for Green Card status for relatives, 
even though no one involved actually lives in the 
United States. This tends to increase the Green 
Card commuters. 

D. Similarly, it is possible to secure citizenship by 
being born to an American citizen, even though the 
new citizen has never lived in the United States. 
This tends to increase the number of commuting 
citizens. 

xii 



2207 



E. Other elements of the immigration law, emd its 
interpretation, lead to separations of feunilies 
which otherwise could be united on this side of 
the border. 

VI. Border crossers play am interesting role in a variety of 
federal programs. 

A. They secure jobs, services emd money, directly 
and indirectly, from memy Federal programs. 

B. Memy border crossers do not meet their obligations 
to the U.S. Armed Forces or to the Americem tax 
collectors. 

C. Employers of illegals (emd to a lesser extent other 
border crossers) are less likely to comply with 
labor standards and social insurance laws than 
other employers. 

VII. There are a wide variety of labor market conditions along 
the border, and border crossers have a differing impact in 
different places. The adverse impact appears to be the 
greatest at the eastern end of the frontier, and the least 
in San Diego (where commuters make up only 2% of the labor 
force . ) 

xiii 



2208 



Summary of Pecommendations 

Generally the labor markets of the border are flooded with too 
many workers. In order to tighten these markets, in a humane way, 
we recommend: 

1. Stop the process by which new Green Card commuters are 
created. 

2. Start a process bv which Green Card commuters' right to 
continue commuting would be examined vearlv. In this 
context, establish wage rates below which commuters could 
not work (an adverse effect formula) but do this gradu- 
ally to avoid wide-spread economic and personal disrup- 
tions. 

3. In the same context, make sure that both Green Card workers 
and employers are living un to all relevant Federal and 
State tax and labor standards. 

4. Create a financial reimbursem.ent system roughlv comparable 
to the land bank of the Department of Agriculture, tonav 
benefits to Green Card comjnuters v/ho are denied the right 
to continue to commute. 

5. Levy a special tax on those emplovina commuters. 

6. Enforce the tax and draft laws on commuters, and social 
insurance and labor standards laws on their employers. 

7. Develop and implement an economic development plan for 
the entire border area with the possible exception of 
San Diego. 

8. Establish assisted migration programs, for both nev7lv 
arrived ex-commuters, and residents wishing to move 
north. 

9. Encourage emnlovment discrimination in favor of residents. 

10. Step up the IMS drive against illegal entrants. 

11. Change the immigration law to make sure that citizenshin 
is not given to neople who have not lived in the countrv. 

12. Take steps to eliminate the emplovment of non-resident 
alien strikebreakers. 

xiv 1 



2209 

I. The Setting 

A. This Border, and Borders Generally 

This study is concerned with the more than 100,000 
residents of Mexico who hold jobs in the border regions of 
the United States, and the impact this practice has on the 
American economy. Some of these workers are citizens, some 
are not; most cross the border legally, many do not; most 
cross the border twice daily, many less frequently. 

This border is a long one, a peaceful one, and it marks 
perhaps the most dramatic dividing line between poverty and 
affluence in the Free World. There are many poorer nations 
than Mexico, and there are a few whose wealth, on some 
indices, equals or exceeds that of the United States. 
Generally, however, the poor nations and the rich ones are 
separated by other nations of middling wealth — except when 
they (like West Germany and Israel) share fortified frontiers 
with hostile neighbors. 

The frontier between Canada and the New England 
States has some of these seune characteristics on a smaller 
scale (witness Maine's mini-version of the bracero program, 
the annual influx of several thousand French Canadians to 
help harvest Aroostook County's potatoes). Another example 
would be the frontier between prosperous Venezuela and not-so- 
prosperous Colombia . 

Given the remarkable difference between the American and 
Mexican economies , coupled with the tradition of the Good 

1 



2210 



Naighbor policy and the resulting open border, it can be 
no surprise that America's prosperity has slopped over the 
frontier, and that Mexico's poverty has flowed into the 
United States. 

With the persistent exception of San Diego, the border 
towns and counties are among the poorest in the Nation. The 
economic situation becomes progressively worse as one travels 
from west to east. Starr County, Texas, for instance, is 
the 18th poorest county in the United States; the 1960 Census 
showed that 75.2 percent of the 3,339 families in the county 

had incomes below the Social Security Administration's poverty 

2 
level cutoff. 

Laredo must be the only city of 50,000 or more in the 
United States where 70 percent of the streets are unpaved. 
It is thunderously poor by a number of other standards as 
well. In 1959, for instance, it was the only Standard Metro- 
politan Statistical Area where the per capita income was less 
than $1,000 a year ($937) and where the per family income was 
less than $3,000 a year ($2,952). Laredo was the lowest 
income SMSA in the Nation on both bases , and a close 
second was the nearby Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito SMSA 
where the E>er capita income was $1,007 and family income was 
$3,216. 

Meanwhile, the highest income states in Mexico are those 
adjacent to the American border. 

In 1959, according to Dr. Price's The Urbanization of 

2 



2211 



Mexico ' 3 Northern Border States , the average per capita 
income in Mexico was 3,270 pesos (or about $261) but in the 
nine major border municipalities it ranged from 5,136 pesos 
($411) to 12,279 pesos ($982).^ It is possible to make a 
rough per capita income comparison of eight Mexican border 
cities and the adjacent American communities, though the 
data is not exactly comparable. The statistics below suggest 
that per capita income in the Mexican city is generally less 
than half that of the city north of the border, and that 
the degree of prosperity on the U.S. side is usually reflected 
on the Mexican side, and vice versa. 

3 



2212 



TABLE 



1959 Per Capita Incomes in U.S. and in Mexican Border Cities 

(in U.S. Dollars) 



STATE/Cities 


U.S. 
Per Capita 


Mexican 
Per Capita 


TEXAS 






Brownsville - Matamoras 


$1007 


$411 


McAllen - Reynosa* 


887 


623 


Laredo - N. Laredo 


937 


595 


Eagle Pass - Piedras Negas* 


801 


446 


El Paso - Cludad Juarez 


1553 


603 


ARIZONA 






Nogales - Nogales* 


1554 


709 


CALIFORNIA 






Calexico - Mexicali* 


1623 


679 


San Diego - Tijuana 


2190 


982 



* Data are for U.S. border county: In other locations figures 
are for the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. 



Source: Mexican data are cited by Dr. Price as being from 
Programa National Fronterizo (Mexico, 1969) . U.S. 
data are from "Per Capita and Median Family Money 
Income, in 1959, for states, S.M.S.A. 's and count- 
ies," Supplementary Reports, PC (SI) -48, U.S. 
Bureau of the Census, Washington, 1965 



2213 



B. A Little Geography 

If the current U.S. -Mexican border were a line separa- 
ting states in Mexico (or in the United States) , most of the 
cities along it would simply not exist. The border created 
the border cities. San Diego, again, would probably be the 
exception. 

The border has proved to be a tremendous attraction to 
Mexicans seeking to escape from poverty. To a much lesser 
extent the existence of the border has created economic op- 
portunities on this side of the border. This lopsided 
attraction has created a string of international cities with 
much larger populations south of the border than north of 
it, again with the exception of San Diego. (Mexicali, for 
instance, had a population of 281,333 in 1960, while across 
the border, Calexico had 7,992. Matamoras had 143,043 
people, while Brownsville had 48,040.) 

The border, itself, from east to west, is a long and 
narrow river, a long line, a short stretch of river again, 
and then another arbitrary line. At no point is there a sub- 
stantial natural barrier, such as the Pyrenees or Lake Superior. 

The Rio Grande is grand in length, but not in width; 
much of the year much of it is dry, and it is no wider than 
50 yards when it flows under the bridge at Brownsville, near 
its mouth. 

The Lower Rio Grande Valley, from Brownsville to just 
west of Mission, has rich, irrigated soil. There is substantial 

5 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 18 



2214 




2215 



if less intensive agriculture between Mission and the Winter 
Garden area neeu: Eagle Pass. Above Eagle Pass the hills 
become more pronounced, and the agriculture tends to be pastoral 
in nature. This stretch of the border includes the rugged 
Big Bend Country. 

At El Paso the border leaves the river, and heads west 
through arid and mountainous country, along the southern 
boundary of the Gadsden Purchase, negotiated with Mexico in 
1853. With the exception of clusters of population around 
the crossing points at Douglas and Nogales, the territory is 
essentially empty (and used for things like bombing practice 
ranges) until far western Arizona where irrigated agriculture 
again prevails. 

At San Luis (which is the naune of a major city in Sonora 
and a tiny one in Arizona) , the border turns north and runs 
along the Colorado River for about twenty miles. The river 
itself, at this point, has been drained of its waters for the 
\use of both Mexican and American farmers. Near Yuma the 
border turns west again, and runs straight to the Pacific, 
south of the lush irrigated farms of the Imperial Valley, right 
through the heart of the Mexicali-Calexico business district, 
and on over the mountains to the Pacific. Tijuana is adjacent 
to the U.S. border, and although an arm of the city reaches 
the border, downtown San Diego is a good fifteen miles north. 

Four American States touch the border as do six Mexican 
States. Texas touches, from east to west, Tamaulipas <from 

7 



2216 



Brownsville to Laredo) , Nuevo Leon (very briefly — this Mexican 
state has no border crossing point within it) , Coahuila and 
Chihuahua. The latter also touches New Mexico, and Sonora fur- 
nishes the rest of New Mexico's southern border, and all of 

4 
Arizona's. The Mexican State of Baja California adjoins the 

American State of California . 

New Mexico will rarely be mentioned in this report, simply 
because there is very little commerce of any kind across its 
southern border. There are only two border crossing points, 
Antelope Wells (which is open forty hours a week) and Columbus 
(open 16 hours a day) . Although there were substantial move- 
ments of both Mexicans and Americans across this border during 
1916 — when Pancho Villa captured Columbus and set off General 
Pershing's punitive mission — the commuter traffic is minimal. 
At the last count 31 Green Card holders were commuting into 
New Mexico through this port of entry. There are also some 
workers, mostly farm laborers, employed in southern New Mexico 
who cross the border at El Paso. 

The border itself is marked in a variety of ways. Most 
of the distance it is a river. Through populated areas, such 
as in Mexicali-Calexico, there is a 12-foot fence, lighted at 
night, with watch towers. Near less populated areas the bor- 
der is a fence, but less impressive. The All-American Canal 
serves as the de facto boundary for a number of miles between 
Calexico and the Colorado River. In much of the desert and 
the mountains the border is not marked at all. 



2217 



since much of the data available on the border is collected 

by counties there is a list below of the counties touching 

Mexico. Like most such listings in this report, it is done 

from east to west. 

TABLE II 

Border Crossing Points 



STATE/COUNTY 

TEXAS 

Cameron 

Hidalgo 

Starr 

Zapata 

Webb 

Maverick 

Kinney 

Val Verde 

Terrell 

Brewster 

Presidio 

Jeff Davis 

Hudspeth 

El Paso 

NEW MEXICO 
Dona Ana 

Luna 

Hidalgo 

ARIZONA 
Cochise 

Santa Cruz 



U.S. Port of Entry 

Brownsville, Progress© 

Hidalgo, Los Ebanos 

Rio Grande City, Romo, 
Falcon Heights 

No port of entry 

Laredo 

Eagle Pass 

No port of entry 

Del Rio 

No port of entry 

No port of entry 

Presidio 

No port of entry 

Fort Hancock 

El Paso, Fabens 

Through El Paso 
Columbus 
Antelope Wells 

Douglas, Naco 
Nogales 

9 



other Major U.S. City 



McAllen 



Las Cruces 



2218 



TABLE II - Border Crossing Points (continued) 



STATE/COUNTY 



U.S. Port of Entry 



Other Major U.S. 



ARIZONA 






Pima 


Sasabe, Lukeville 


Tucson 


Yuma 


San Luis 


Yuma 


CALIFORNIA 






Imperial 


Andrade , Calexico 




San Diego 


Tecate, San Ysidro 


San Diego 



Source: Compiled from Rand McNally World Atlas, 1967; letter 
to author from INS, February, 1969. 



10 



2219 



C. A Little History 

It should be borne in mind that the location of the 
U.S. -Mexican border is a legacy of the aggressive actions 
of the Anglo-Saxon population of the United States during 
the 19th century; that in a very real sense the area north 
of the border is conquered territory; and that the Mexican 
American population along the border has been treated (and 
too often, continues to be treated) as a conquered people. 

Although a majority of the Spanish-surnamed residents 
of the border counties are first and second generation immi- 
grants , they are not immigrants in the same sense as the 
Swedes and Germans, for instance, who ceune to this country 
a hundred years ago. They have simply moved across the 
border which runs right through the middle of what used to 
be the Republic of Mexico. They are not leaving their own 
nation and crossing a body of water to live in an entirely 
new land. They know this, they know that Old Mexico is 
nearby, and they, understandably do not assimilate in the 
Scune way as immigrants who crossed the Atlantic. 

The Anglo newcomers, unlike the Portuguese and the 
Spanish in the New World, did not believe in intermarriage; 
their tradition - most of them were southerners - called for 
the segregation of other peoples (such as Indians and blacks) 

and not for integration. What might have been a happy blend of 
Anglo and Hispanic cultures and peoples has simply not occured. 

11 



2220 



D. Demography 

As noted before, there are unequal population pressures 
on the U.S. -Mexico border, with the movements of people 
reacting to economic pulls and pushes. 

Mexicans flock to the border from the nterior, hoping 
to get into or at least near the American affluence. Most 
do not cross the border, however, and as a result, the six 
northern States of Mexico are the fastest growing region in 
that nation. 

Between 1940 and 1950 Mexico's total population 
increased by 31 percent, with the northern region increasing 
by 44 percent; in the next ten years the national rate of 
increase was 35 percent and that of the region was 47 percent. 
Dr. Whetten, in his report to the U.S. Select Commission on 
Western Hemisphere Immigration, estimates that the increase 
between 1960 and 1970 will be a staggering 42 percent nationally, 
and 57 percent in the six northern states (Teunaulipas , Neuvo 
Leon, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora and Baja California) . 

Dr. Price says of this growth rate, "We get some perspec- 
ive of how great this growth is when we realize that Latin 
merica generally has the highest population growth rate of any 
continental size area in the world and that Mexico has probably 
the highest growth rate in Latin America. Thus, with an average 
annual growth rate near 5 percent, northern Mexico is probably 
the fastest growing region of its size in the world today . " 

12 



2221 



The regional growth rate reflects the nation's high 
birth rate (about 44 per 1,000) and its low death rate as 
well as the internal migration to the north. It does not 
reflect any migration into the northern area from other 
nations, as this is a minimal consideration. 

The growth rate among the northern States of Mexico is 
uneven, with the most impressive growth rates being recorded 
in Baja California, and the least in Coahuila (which is op- 
posite the Eagle Pass-Del Rio part of the Texas frontier) . 
During the three decades covered by Dr. Whetten, Baja Cali- 
fornia's rates of increase have been 187 percent, 129 per- 
cent and are expected to be 112 percent in 1960-1970, while 
those in Coahuila are estimated at 31 percent, 26 percent 
and 33 percent, well below the Mexican national average. 

In terms of total population, the northern border states 
grew from 2,618,000 in 1940 to 3,763,000 in 1950, to 
5,541,000 in 1960 with the 1970 total expected to be in the 
neighborhood of 8,670,000. 

The border, however, remains a substantial barrier, and 
most of the northward thrust of the nation's population 
movement stops right there. During the decade 1951-1960, 
while the Mexican population was growing by 9,132,000, only 
299,811 residents of Mexico immigrated to the United States, 
thus accounting for only a little more than three percent of 
population expansion. During the first eight fiscal years 

13 



2222 



of this decade the average immigration to the United States 
was 42,916, while the Mexican population was increasing at 
an estimated rate of 1,500,000 a year. The imposition, on 
July 1, 1968, of a 120,000 limit on Western Hemisphere immi- 
gration will reduce the rate of Mexican entries into the 
United States, while the rate of Mexican population increase, 
in all likelihood, will continue to grow. 

The remarkable differences in prosperity, the great north- 
ward population pressure on the border, and narrower opportu- 
nities to imroigrate, particularly for the unskilled, naturally 
have caused many Mexicans to cross the border illegally, a 
subject which we will discuss at greater length a little later 
in this report. The saune economic and demographic pressures 
underline the significance of the commuter traffic to the 
Mexican Government. 

On the American side of the border, however, with the 
exception of the counties containing San Diego and Tucson 
(not a border city, but in Pima, a border county) , people 
tend to move away. This trend is obscured by the population 
growth of those two cities and by the substantial natural 
increase caused by low death rates and high birth rates. 

It would be helpful to cite a few figures, first on gross 
population increase. Between 1950 and 1960 the population of 
the 23 counties touching the border (plus Grant in New Mexico 
and Culberson in Texas which are extremely close to the 
border) increased from 1,517,629 to 2,342,330, for a per- 
centage gain of 56.3 percent. More than 58 percent of the 

14 



2223 



total Increase, 864,704, was in the natural growth category; 
during this decade there was an excess of births over deaths 
of 502,375. 

The net in-migration for this decade was 362,329, but 
the total for Pima (Tucson) County and San Diego combined 
was 406,342, indicating a net out-migration in the other 
23 counties of 44,013. 

Between 1960 and the estimates made in 1967, the rate 
of growth slowed from 5.63 percent to 3.44 percent a year. 
This reflected among other things, a much slower rate of 
in-migration. 

Between 1960 and 1965 it is estimated that net in-mi- 
gration amounted to 24,600, a fraction of the 362,329 
in-migrants in the previous ten years. Again the increase 
hid substantial movements out of the other twenty-three 
border counties (76,100). 

Birth rates along the border tend to run well above 
the U.S. average. In 1965, for instance, the U.S. average 
was 19.4 births per 1,000 population and in all but five of 
the 25 counties the birth rate exceeded the national average, 
running to as high as 38.1 in Val Verde County and 46.5 in 
Maverick County, both Texas. (The figures in these counties, 
and perhaps some others, are probably inflated by the practice 

15 



2224 



of Mexican women having their babies in the United States. 
The mothers are attracted by better medical care and by the 
U.S. citizenship their child receives.) 

The exceptions to the general rule are interesting, they 
are the counties containing San Diego and Tucson, both of 
which are, by every standard, more in the mainstream of 
U.S. society, and three sparsely populated counties in 
Texas, (Terrell, Hudspeth and Culberson) where there are no 
hospitals, where medical reporting techniques leave much 
to be desired, and which lack major border crossing points. 

On the other hand — reflecting a yoving population rather 
than superior medical facilities — border death rates are 
below the national average. That average in 1965 was 9.4, 
per 1,000 population and all the border counties but two had 
lower rates, the exceptions being Luna County, New Mexico, 
9.9 and Kinney County, Texas, 11.7. The low county, for some 
reason, is Zapata, where 2.6 was reported (again probably due 
to a feeble reporting system) . 

The border population is a young population, with San 
Diego and its growing retirement communities presenting the 
usual exception to the rule. Generally, in the United States 
64 percent of the population was under 40 years of age and 36 
percent was over 40 years of age during the 1960 census. On 
the border the figures were 72 percent and 28 percent, going 
as high as 78 and 22 percent in Dona Ana County (New Mexico) 
and 77 and 23 percent in El Paso County. 

16 



2225 



Generally, in the United States 31 percent of the popu- 
lation is 14 and under; in the border area the average is 
34 percent, with the range being from 30 percent for San 
Diego county to 4 2 percent for Texas' Hidalgo county. 

As far as ethnic identification is concerned, the people 
on this side of the border — again barring San Diego — are 
about half Mexican American and half Anglo. 

The border counties east of San Diego had a total popu- 
lation in 1960 of 1,339,322 (with San Diego County's popu- 
lation being 1,033,011). The Census Bureau, using its 
imperfect concept of White Persons of Spanish Surname counted 
595,656 in this category for these counties, or 44.5 percent 
of the total. 

Given the Census Bureau's admitted problems in counting 
members of ethnic minorities, it is probable that a substan- 
tial number of Mexican Americans were simply omitted. With 
this thought in mind we will use an estimate that roughly 
half of the population east of the San Diego County line is 
of Mexican descent. The Mexican Americans tend to be con- 
siderably poorer than the border population as a whole. 

Other ethnic groups play a role along the border, but 
a very minor one. In 1960 there were 66,000 blacks in the 
border counties; with 40,000 of them in San Diego. There 

17 



2226 



were smaller concentrations of about 8,000 each in Tucson 
and El Paso. The Census Bureau also counted 14,000 Indians, 
virtually all of whom lived in Pima, Yuma and San Diego 
Counties, and 21,000 others, presumably Orientals, two 
thirds of whom lived in San Diego. 

The distribution of population along the Mexican border 
is a very uneven one, with almost half of the border resi- 
dents living in the county least affected by the border- San 
Diego. The total for California in 1960 was 1,105,116, which 
also includes 72,105 residents of Imperial County. 

The four Arizona counties had 377,742 residents in 1960, 
most of these people live in Tucson, which is 65 miles from 
the border. The four Mew Mexico counties on or near the 
border had 93,448 residents in 1960, with most of them living 
in Dona Ana, adjacent to El Paso. 

Texas' 15 border area counties had 796,027 residents in 
1960, vrith most of them being at the two extremes, either in 
El Paso County (314,070) or in the Lower Valley (Cameron 
County, 151,098, and Hidalgo County, 180,904). In between 
the major concentrations of population - all border crossing 
sites -are Laredo, Eagle Pass and Del Rio; the counties con- 
cerned, Webb, Maverick and Val Verde, having populations of 
64,791, 14,508, and 24,461. Many of the smaller nine counties, 
some with populations under 3,000, lack border crossing sites. 

Perhaps the most significant set of figures is the pop- 
ulations of the major border crossing sites. It should be 

18 



2227 



noted that with the usual exception, San Diego, the city 

south of the border is always larger than the one north of 

it. The major pairs of twin cities are noted in the table 

below. 

TABLE III 

Major Crossing Points - East to West 



U.S. City 
Brownsville 
McAllen 
Loredo 
Eagle Pass 
Del Rio 
El Paso 
Douglas 
Nogales 
San Luis 
Calexico 
San Diego 
Source: 



Population 
48,040 
32,728 
60,678 
12,094 
18,612 
276,687 
11,925 
7,286 

100* 
7,992 
573,224 
See Footnote 8 



Mexican City 

Matamoros 

Reynosa 

Nuevo Laredo 

Piedras Negras 

Villa Acuna 

Juarez 

Agua Prieta 

Nogales 

San Luis 

Mexicali 

Tijuana 



Population 

143,043 

134,869 

96,043 

48,408 

22,317 

276,995 

17,248 

39,812 

42,134 

281,333 

165,690 



The previously mentioned out-migration from the border 
counties reflects both the basic poverty of the area, and the 
unsuccessful competition by American residents for the jobs 
held by more than 100,000 residents of Mexico. Much of the 
border, like much of the rural South, is characterized by an 
economic base which is expanding less rapidly than its popu- 
lation. Hence the pressure to move out. 



"Author's estimate 



19 



2228 



Yet this pressure is resisted. Perhaps such a gen- 
eralization will be hard to support, but it appears that 
the poor resident of the border (and it is the poor who 
do most of the migrating) has a greater desire to remain in 
his home area than the poor black of the south. The black 
probably feels equally alienated from the dominant society 
in north and south, and his movement has no linguistic 
overtones. The Mexican American, on the other hand, can 
operate without complete command of English along the 
border, and he will move into a much less f2uniliar social 
situation if he leaves the border. 

One result of the interplay of these factors — the 
desire to stay along the border and the necessity to secure 
some income — leads to a compromise, a compromise which 
supplies most of the Nation with its migrant farm workers. 
Families leave the border, particularly the poorest part 
of the border, to work during the harvest season in the 
north, returning home for the balance of the year. North- 
ern agricultural interests are well aware of the relation 
between the flow of commuters across the border, and the 

exodus of the migrants , and are outspoken defenders of the 

9 
current system. 

20 



2229 



E. Counting the Conunuters 

If a phenomenon is important in this country - such as 
the number of glass bottles produced annually, or the number 
of cans of peas left at the end of the season - then it is 
duly recorded for posterity. 

If a Government agency wants to prove a point, or sim- 
ply report impressive work-load statistics, the data pours 
forth. 

On the other hand, if the desire is lacking, so are 

adequate statistics, and this is the situation with regard 

to the Green Card commuters — and even more so with citizens 

10 
living in Mexico and working here. 

The arrival of a human being at the Nation's gate is 
not recorded, except under exceptional circumstances. There 
is no normal, on-going system for gathering such information, 
and when it is collected, it is usually by a combination of 
spot checks and estimates. 

Members of the United States Senate have suggested that 
INS install a punch card system of some kind, so that aliens 
could check in and out of the country on a giant computer 
which would note, among other things, when and where the 
alien entered the Nation. No such device is in being, or 
even requested by the Service. 

The earliest count available for the number of commuters 
was made during the depression, when jobs along the border 
were particularly scarce, and when there was a considerable 

21 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 19 



2230 



outcry against the conunuter practice. In 1933 there were 
52,551 intermittent and 29,963 active commuters along the 
southern border, with the intermittent ones being people 
crossing the border not more than three times a week and 
the active ones crossing four or more times a week. These 
statistics suggest a commutation pattern, roughly comparable 
to the current one. 

In 1961 INS ran one-day spot checks and produced the 
statistics in Table IV. 

TABLE IV 
Alien Commuters in 1961 
Port o f Entry Number 

Brownsville 135 

Laredo 3,000 

Eagle Pass 1,800 

El Paso 2,500 

Nogales 1,132 

Calexico 183 

San Ysidro 4,771 

TOTAL 13,521 



Source : 



INS 



Four more one-day counts were taken in May, 1963 and 
January 1966, with the results that can be seen in Table V. 

22 



2231 



TABLE 



Alien Conunuters - Surveys of 1963 and 1966 



Major points of 


entry 


Jan. 17 
Total 


In 
cu 


1966 

agri- 
Iture 


Jan. 
Total 


11- 
In 
cu! 


, 1966 

agri- 
Lture 


May 17, 
1963 


r May 8, 
1963 


TEXAS 

Brownsville 




2,032 




226 


2,552 




619 


1,796 


1,729 


Hidalgo 




1,163 




805 


1,000 




511 


366 


532 


Roma 




208 




187 


146 




125 


89 


108 


Laredo 




2,581 




175 


2,239 




209 


2,490 


2,382 


Eagle Pass 




1,604 




536 


2,195 




901 


1,586 


1,037 


Del Rio 




513 




99 


489 




82 


237 


314 


Fabens 




274 




219 


267 




207 


307 


316 


*Ysleta 




248 




137 


266 




115 


- 


- 


♦Cordova 




2,932 




80 


3,455 




164 


- 


- 


Santa Fe Street 
Bridge (El Paso) 


8,592 




590 


7,605 




944 


13,492 


13,332 


ARIZONA 

Douglas 




418 




96 


470 




93 


307 


288 


Naco 




127 




20 


134 




19 


202 


134 


Nogales 




1,614 




108 


1,392 




53 


1,464 


1,854 


San Luis 




4,234 


3 


,583 


3,654 


3 


,024 


1,239 


1,038 


CALIFORNIA 




















Calexico 




7,616 


6 


,468 


8,098 


7, 


,324 


4,692 


5,342 


San Ysidro 




9,281 


3 


,967 


8,460 


3, 


,134 


5,855 


5,374 


MINOR POINTS OF 


ENTRY 


250 




161 


219 




129 


87 


101 



GRAND TOTAL 



43,687 17,457 42,641 17,653 34,223 33,867 



Source: INS - from report of the Select Commission on Western 
Hemisphere Immigration, Washington D.C., 1968. 

" Ei Paso crossing points. 



23 



2232 



The increased number probably represented a more 
sophisticated counting system, as well as a greater number 
of commuters. Between 1961 and 1966 (on January 1, 1965, 
to be exact) , Public Law 78, which authorized the bracero 
progrsun, beceime a dead letter, and this substantially in- 
creased the number of border crossers working in agricul- 
ture, particularly at San Luis and Calexico. 

All of the counts in the 1960 (s) had been based on 
calculations made by men at the gates , on a given day — 
which may or may not have been a representative day. Fi- 
nally, in the fall of 1967 INS took a different and more 
thorough approach to the problem. 

During November and December of that year, INS started 
a process of placing grommets (metal rings) into the Green 
Card held by people working in the United States and living 
in Mexico. During those months the Service took away a 
worker's Green Card, and told him he could have it back, 
that evening, when he returned to the border with an INS 
form (SW-4 26-10) which was to be filled out by the employer. 

All of this did not work out automatically, and the 
procedure faced a number of difficulties. For instance, on 
the first day of its implementation, at the busiest crossing 
point, the Santa Fe Bridge, which operates one-way into 
downtown El Paso, the word quickly spread into Mexico that 

24 



2233 



the Service was taking away workers' Green Cards. As many 
as 1,000 to 2,000 workers watched and waited on the Mexican 
side of the bridge, to see what was happening. Many of them 
simply did not cross that day. 

Since the grommeting was taking place at a time when 
there was some public controversy about the subject (includ- 
ing a number of criticisms of the commuter system at the 
recently concluded Cabinet Committee Hearings on Mexican 
American Affairs, at El Paso), many commuters, having read 
accounts of the Hearing in the Mexican press , feared that a 

grommeted Green Card was just one step away from no card at 

13 
all. Understandably they took steps to avoid the grommet. 

Many workers just stopped crossing the border, during 
November and December, 1967, the period of the major grom- 
meting activity. Others moved into the United States either 
temporarily or permanently. Still others changed their 
working and living patterns, so that they could cross during 
the middle of the day, or just once a week. Others later 
deliberately destroyed a grommeted card in the hopes that 
INS would give them back an ungrommeted one. 

Despite all these attempts at evasion, and despite the 
built-in dependence of the system on individual judgments of 
heurassed men at the gate - who often face traffic of New York 
subway rush hour proportions - it is the most thorough 
enumeration made to date. The port-by-port results follow: 

25 



2234 



TABLE VI 
November-December 196 7 Count of Green Card Commuters 

Texas 

Brownsville 1,917 

Progress© 50 

Hidalgo 937 

Roma 7 3 

Laredo 2,669 

Eagle Pass 1,6 35 

Del Rio 317 

Presidio 24 

Fabens 279 

Fort Hancock 53 

El Paso* 11,760 

New Mexico 

Columbus 30 

Arizona 
Douglas 
Naco 
Nogales 
Sasabe 
San Luis 

California 
Andrade 
Calexico 
Tecate 
San Ysidro 

TOTAL 40,176 
# Includes Ysleta and Cordova 

Source : INS 
Since that time , the Immigration Service has made an ef- 
fort to keep the grommeted cards up to date, giving — after 
an investigation — ungrommeted cards to people who have moved 
to the United States, and grommeting cards of those who are 
found to be commuting without them. 

The latter process is always a painful one, and is 

26 





380 




94 


1, 


,118 




3 


3, 


,553 




3 


7, 


,690 




56 


7, 


,535 



2235 



sturdily resisted by the conunuter, who will often come up 
with a variety of reasons why his card should be left in its 
current, pristine condition. I have seen this at both El 
Paso and Brownsville, and it usually entails a long dialogue 
before the deed is done. 

The most recent INS totals for the number of grommeting 
cards is contained in Table VII. 

TABLE VII 
August, 1969 Count of Green Card Commuters 

Texas 

Brownsville 2,306 

Prog res so 82 

Hidalgo 1,06 3 

Roma 105 

Laredo 3,312 

Eagle Pass 1,968 

Del Rio 132 

Presidio 45 

Fabens 326 

Fort Hancock 54 

El Paso# 13,140 

New Mexico 

Columbus 31 

Arizona 

Douglas 496 

Naco 112 

Nogales 1,371 

Sasabe 7 

Lukeville 1 

San Luis 3,616 

California 

Andrade 14 

Calexico 8,788 

Tecate 66 

San Ysidro 10,841 



TOTAL 47,876 



# Includes Ysleta and Cordova 
Source : INS 

27 



2236 



At the time of the intensive grommeting operation, INS 
had an opportunity to collect much useful data from the Green 
Card holders (who would have been happy to fill out a pretty 
substantial Government document in order to get their cards 
back). The Service merely asked the commuters their name, 
address in Mexico, occupation (their own definition of it) , 
their employer's name and address, their A-number (alien 
registration number) , and the date that they secured their 
current job. The Department of Labor, at the time, tried to 
convince the INS to collect wage information as well, but 
this was not done. 

The oammuters ' application forms were copied by the Labor 

Department — all 46,176 of them — and analyzed in terms of 

occupations and locations in a very useful article in Farm 

14 
Labor Developments , a departmental publication. 

Whereas there has been some steadily improving data on 
the Green Card commuters , the information on commuting 
citizens is quite inadequate. The citizens crossing the bor- 
der played no role in the 1967 count, and the most recent 
information on this subject dates back to January 17, 1966, 
when commuting citizens were last counted. The statistics 
collected then, dealing with 18,259 citizen commuters, are 
in Table VIII. 

28 



2237 



TABLE VIII 

Citizen and Alien Commuters 
(January 17, 1966 Survey) 





ToUl 


Msilcan 
■Ikiiu 


17^. dUiens 




Total 


Meilcaa 
tUens 


r.8. dtUeas 




Number 


Per- 
ecnt of 

toua 


Namber 


l>«r- 
oentol 


Texas: 

Brownsville 

Hidalgo 

Laredo 

Eagle Pass 

Del Rio 

* Cordova 

^ Santa Fe 

Bridge 


. afsoa 

. 2, 561 

- 3,715 

- 2,710 

831 
. 4, 290 

. 12, 913 

587 


2,032 
1,163 
2,581 
1,604 
513 
2,932 

8,592 

418 


1,471 
1,398 
1, 134 
1,106 
318 
1,358 

4,321 

169 


42 
55 
31 
41 
38 
32 

33 

29 


Arizona — Continued 

Nogoles 

San Luis 

California: 

Calexico 

San Ysidro 

Total 

All other areas 

Total - 


1,882 
4,858 

9,957 
12, 333 


1,614 
4,234 

7,616 
9,281 


268 
624 

2,341 
3, 052 


14 
13 

24 

25 


60, 140 
1,806 


42,580 
1,107 


17. 560 
699 


29 
39 


Arizona: 

Douglas 


61, 946 


43, 687 


18, 259 


29 



Source: INS (Reproduced from Report of the Select Commission 

on Western Hemisphere Immigration, Washington D.C.1968) 

* El Paso crossing points. 

There is not much earlier information on this subject. In 
his thesis on the commuters. Dr. Lamar Babington Jones says that 
a 1959 count of commuters, taken at El Paso by the INS, showed 
6,481 citizen commuters (and 9,799 Green Card holders). This is 
a higher figure for citizens by about a thousand than the 1966 
count. 

Both the counts we have in hand, 47,876 for the Green Card 
holders, and 18,259 citizens, must be regarded as absolutely 
minimal totals. 

As far as the grommeting operation goes, it is clear that 
all conceivable forces tend to minimize this count. Only when 
the immigration officer at the border is both alert and aggres- 
sive, does he start the process of getting this card grommeted. 
The commuter's immediate reaction is to protect his card, and 
do and say whatever he has to, to avoid the grommet. 

29 



2238 



The citizen count was a one-day operation, and any one- 
day count is sure to miss a substantial number of citizen 
commuters who are active in that month. Further, there is no 
reason to believe that there has been any reduction of the 
total number of citizen commuters , and some reasons to sug- 
gest the contrary. 

Finally, all of these counts dealt only with commuters 
who crossed the border legally, and on a daily basis. The 
flow of weekly commuters (who, predictably, cross early on 
Monday morning and late Friday afternoon and evening) was 
not calculated, nor, obviously, was the flow of seasonal 
workers, who may not cross the border more than twice a year. 
The illegal crossers , and those who crossed with a border 
card and then worked in violation of it, were not enumerated 
either. (There is also a small number of people who can 
cross the border legally but who opt to swim the river, be- 
tween Hidalgo and Rio Grande City, because it is such a long 

16 
way around when one uses the bridges at those cities.) 

Bearing all this in mind, the Nathan Report's estimate 

of 100,000 border crossing workers, legal and illegal, must 

17 
be viewed as a conservative one. 

There are a variety of reasons — in addition to research 
oriented ones — including fraud detection, income tax collec- 
tion and the control of illegal strikebreakers, to suggest 
that a more sophisticated method of commuter control be estab- 
lished. This will be discussed in more detail later in this 

30 



2239 



report. It is enough to say, now, that far too little infor- 
mation is available on the role played by legal trans-border 
workers , without mentioning the seas of ignorance that sur- 
round the activities of the illegal ones. 

31 



2240 



F. The Economics of the Border 

The economics of America's southern border are fas- 
cinating, and totally different from those of the northern 
border. 

The area is a poor one, emd probably always will be so. 

The natural resources in the border counties are, at 
best, sparse. There is some copper emd some oil amd natural 
gas. There is fertile soil, but it needs irrigation (which 
means a combination of rainwater which falls elsewhere in the 
Nation, and dams which have been built with Federal subsidies) 

There is the trade with Mexico, which is very important, 
though much of the retail trade would dry up if Mexico en- 
forced its own customs code.* 

There is some memuf acturing , but it tends to be heavily 
military or space-oriented in San Diego, emd dominated by 
easy-to-move apparel manufacturing plants east of San Diego. 

And then there is the Federal Government, which in re- 
cent years has been pouring a disproportionately large share 
of its expenditures into the border counties. 

This part of the Americem economy which appears shaky to 
us, however, appears to be heaven to the Mexican mem in the 



* Mexican border officials routinely do not collect customs 
duties on a wide variety of U.S. produced goods brought 
into the border zone. If these heavy duties were collected, 
American retailers would suffer a sizeable loss of business. 

32 



2241 



street, and consequently there is a heavy build-up of popu- 
lation on the other side of our border. 

The northern border — between nations of roughly equal 
prosperity -- looks like a cross-section of the American 
economy, rather than one of its ailing parts. There are 
cities with heavy industry, Detroit and Buffalo, there are 
fertile fields needing no irrigation, there are small towns, 
woods and mountains, but no series of twin cities at the 
crossing points, and no seasonal departures of the very poor 
seeking work elsewhere. 

It is on the southern border -- where jobs are scarce — 
that we find the substantial numbers of commuting, low paid 
foreign workers, complicating an already weak economic situa- 
tion, complicating it for resident American workers, but 
simplifying it for many of those in the role of employer. 

Currently things are going relatively well on the border, 
(for the border), because of the Nation's general prosperity, 
and because of a variety of decisions made elsewhere in the 
world, decisions made largely without any thought about their 
effect on the border. 

The war in Vietnam, for instance, is extremely important 
economically to seven of the border counties. 

The space program has been very helpful to San Diego and 
Dona Ana Counties. 

The White House decided to make Laredo a test tube in 
the War on Poverty, and the money flowed into Webb County. 

33 



2242 



The same White House decided that Laredo, San Diego, 
Eagle Pass and Tucson should be Model Cities (whether Laredo 
wanted to be one or not) , and the benefits from those decisions 
are just starting to make themselves felt. 

But if peace should occur — or if Defense Department dol- 
lars started coming to the border at the rate that they went 
to the average American county — or if the Government cuts 
the flow of domestic Federal money to the border — the border, 
already depressed, will face an economic reversal of drastic 
proportions.* 

It should be borne in mind that the border, though poor 
by every other criteria, has been rich in its friends in 
Washington. From John Garner's election as Speaker of the 
HoUse in 1931 until Lyndon Johnson, Carl Hayden and Stewart Udall 
left office in January, 1969, the border has enjoyed dispropor- 
tionate influence on the Federal Government. Garner, who repre- 
sented 21 counties in south Texas, including the border region 
from north of Eagle Pass to the mouth of the Rio Grande, went on 
to become Vice President, and saw to it that a protege of his, 
another Texan, Seun Rayburn, became Speaker. Lyndon Johnson's 
ties with the border were close ones, particularly after the gen- 
erous support received from south Texas during his toughest 



* The Nathan Report states this thought in this way: "Any cut- 
back in the rate of growth of Federal, State and local funds , 
taken as a whole, would be a serious setback to the affected 
areas . " 

34 



2243 



election contest, the senatorial runoff in 1948. Mean- 
while, Senator Hayden was, for 16 years. Chairman of the 
Senate Appropriations Coitunittee, and a highly successful 
advocate of federally supported irrigation programs in the 
West. And, during the last eight years, a former border 
Congressman, Stewart Udall, presided over the Department of 
Interior. 

Now all these men are gone, and the border will have to 
face a Washington perhaps less inclined to spend money on 
airfields in Laredo, beautification projects up and down 
the Rio Grande, and dams and canals for Arizona farmers. 

Two other general observations about the area's 
economy can be made. 

In the first place, most of the economic activity 
along the border has been in the very fields where workers 
are traditionally weak and employers are traditionally 
strong. Agriculture, small retailing, and the military 
all fall into this category. On the other hand, heavy 
manufacturing with its more even distribution of industrial 
power, is largely absent from this border. 

Secondly, much of the economic activity along the border 
is in those fields where Adam Smith economics still prevail. 
With the exception of a price-supported cotton crop of 
declining importance , most of the agricultural products 
are those without price supports, such as cattle and fresh 

35 



2244 



fruits and vegetables. There is price competition among the 
small retailers and among those engaged in tourist-oriented 
and other service trades. Much of the manufacturing falls 
into the garment and food processing categories, both of 
which tend to be very competitive. 

It is not surprising that individual employers, facing 
tough price competition in a depressed market, should turn 
around and seek the least expensive workers in a depressed 
labor market. 

It would be useful, at this point, to review the border's 
sources of income. 

The border counties' farm production was valued at $636 
million in 1964 (the year of the last Agricultural Census) , 
with almost half of this, $286 million, representing live- 
stock. Field crops accounted for $210 million, with cotton 
being the leading component. The border's vegetables were 
worth $92 million that year, and fruit and nuts brought in 
$32 million. Only the last two categories are labor-intensive 
now that cotton harvesting has become mechanized. Annual aver- 
age employment in 1967 was 72,000, but this average hides re- 
markable variations from season to season. -'■° 

Manufacturing value added in the border counties, during 

1967, was $971 million, involving a payroll of $739 million 
and a work force of some 109,000 people. Only 48,000 of these 
workers were east of San Diego, however, and most of them were 
concentrated in Pima and El Paso Counties. The major indus- 
tries were aircraft and ordnance, concentrated in San Diego, 
employing 32,000, food processing, employing 14,000 in the 

36 



2245 



border counties, and apparel employing 15,000 throughout 
the area. 

The border's mineral production in 1966 was $430 million, 
about three quarters copper (in Arizona and New Mexico) and 
virtually all the rest being oil and gas in Texas. This 
activity produced at least 10,000 jobs in 1967, many of them 
in border counties but distant from the border itself. 

Retail sales, so important in so many border counties, 
were estimated at $3,797,000,000 in 1966 by Sales Management's 
survey and involved an employment estimated by the Nathan 
Report as 147,000. This is an important source of 
employment for the border crossers. 

None of the activities mentioned above produced the 
employment which government generates. During 1967 there 
were 180,000 civilians working for all levels of government 
along the border, and an equal number of military men 
stationed in the area. The government's civilians made up 
21% of the civilian work force in the area; about 60% of 
them were local employees - many being funded through 
Federal aid grant programs - and the other 40% were direct 
Federal hires. 

Calculations have been made by the Office of Economic 
Opportunity on per capita Federal expenditures per county, 
and although there are certain inherent weaknesses in the 
OEO analysis, the results for the border area are noteworthj 
In the border region the Defense Department spent an 

37 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 20 



2246 



average of $606 per capita, in fiscal year 1967 , compared to a na- 
tional average of $290 per capita. The seven counties above 
the national average were Dona Ana (N.M.), $1,100; San Diego 
(Cal.), $870; Val Verde (Texas), $786; Cochise (Ariz.), $731; 
El Paso (Texas), $714; Yuma (Ariz.), $411; and Pima (Ariz.), 
$319. The thumping military expenditures more than made up 
for the border's relative lack of success in the non-Defense 
arena, where average per capita non-Defense Federal expendi- 
tures were $427 against the national average of $563. In sum- 
mary, $1033 in Federal funds were spent per capita along the 
border, compared to $853 nationally. Significantly, the three 
counties of the Lower Rio Grande Valley had total rates of ex- 
penditure well below half of the region's average. Starr 
County had $342 per capita, Kidalgo $333 and Cameron was re- 
corded at $411. 

The other major source of employment in the region were 
the various service occupations -- ranging from physicians and 
attorneys to bartenders and maids. The Nathan Report estimates 
this work force to be in the neighborhood of 150,000 to 160,000. 
It should be remembered that the tourist industry produces 
much employment in this category, and secondly, that there is 
an extradordinary high level of employment of domestic servants 
along the border (because of the ready availability of pover- 
ty-stricken Mexican women willing to do this work.) 

The American and the Mexican economies in the border re- 
gion have tremendous effects on each other. Economic restrictions 

38 



2247 



are relatively relaxed in concept, and considerably more re- 
laxed in practice. It is useful to look at this from both 
the micro- and the macro-points of view. 

The individual consumer, living on either side of the 
border, routinely makes purchases on both sides of the bor- 
der, no matter where he works. A family's bi-national 
shopping list might look like this: 



Buy in Mexico 

Services, including 

Entertainment 
Physician's services 
(particularly for 
Mexican Americans) 
Dental work 
Some auto repairs 
Haircuts 

Staples 

Sugar 

Rice 

Most vegetables 

Tropical fruit* 

Beef 

Baked goods 

Bottled beverages 
Liquor 
Beer 
Soft drinks 

Furniture 

* 
Prescription drugs 



Buy in U.S. 

Manufactured goods 

Clothes 

Cars 

Car parts 

Appliances 
Canned goods 

Poultry 

Eggs 

American liquor+ 

American cigarettes'*" 



* There are some restrictions on bringing these items into 
the United States. 

+ If bought at a taxfree store at the border, these may be 
taken into Mexico for use there. 



39 



2248 



In addition to legitimate items , many goods and services 
illegal in the United States can be secured more easily in 
Mexico, such as bullfights, gambling, prostitutes and nar- 
cotics. 

Since any American can cross into Mexico, usually with- 
out showing any documentation at all, and since it is rela- 
tively easy for a Mexican national to secure the 72-hour 
border crossing pass issued by the INS, there is a great 
deal of cross-border shopping. This is done both by year- 
round residents of the area as well as by tourists from 
both countries. 

The Mexican trade, both wholesale and retail, is vital 
to the American border cities, but statistics on the subject 
are few and far between. It is also true that the import- 
ance of the Mexican retail trade varies remarkably from 
place to place, such as from San Diego, which could do with- 
out it easily, to tiny San Luis, the town in Arizona just 
on the other side of the border from San Luis, Sonora. 

American San Luis is almost a caricature of a border 
city. There cannot be more than 20 residential units 
there, yet the trade from commuters and other residents of 
Mexico has produced a shopping center whose volume would 
challenge that of one of the biggest new complexes in a 
wealthy American suburb. 

40 



2249 



The one street in town is lined with large bustling 
appliance and clothing stores, and a massive supermarket. 
In response to my question, regarding the extent 
that the merchants (who tend to live in Yuma, 25 miles to 
the north) relied on trade with residents of Mexico, the 
three of them I met immediately estimated "99 and a half 
percent. " 

Eagle Pass and Laredo tend to rely heavily on the 

Mexican trade, both being on major highways into the interior. 

The Nathan's Report's statistics suggest that close to 

19 

two-thirds of Eagle Pass' retail trade comes from Mexico. 
Laredo's downtown area is almost one continuous clothing 
store, and the streets are full of carpetbag-carrying 
Mexican nationals many of v;hom are involved in smuggling 
clothes past Mexican customs for resale. 

In addition to the sales of clothes to smugglers, Laredo 
has another, far classier kind of clothing trade. Wealthy 
Mexicans, from as far away as Monterrey and beyond, come to 
impressive Laredo establishments to buy $200 suits. One such 
place, as a matter of fact, has a Rolls Royce which it uses 
to pick up favored customers. 

Laredo, incidentally, has the distinction of being the 
only American city where apparel sales volume exceeds that 
of auto sales. 

41 



2250 



The one city where relatively hard data is available 
is El Paso. The Real Estate Research Corporation, in a 
study conducted for El Paso's impressive City Planning 
Department, estimated that in 1965 shoppers' goods sales 
of $28.8 million could be attributed to the Mexican trade. 
This would account for 20 percent of the El Paso metropoli- 
tan area's sales in this category, and about 30 percent of 
the sales of downtown El Paso. 

If the American cities are dependent for some of their 
livelihood on the trade with Mexico, the Mexican cities are 
even more dependent on American trade, American tourists 
and American jobs. Again, there is only the barest data 
available. 

In its study of El Paso and Juarez, the Real Estate 
Research Corporation estimated that two thirds of the 
personal income of residents of the Mexican city came from 
the U.S. side of the river, divided roughly equally be- 
tween money spent by American tourists (and other visitors) 
in Juarez, and by money earned in the United States by the 
commuters . 

Similarly, in 1960, Programa Nacional Fronterizo/ the 
arm of the Mexican Government which concerns itself with 
the border, estimated that 19 to 36 percent of the personal 
income in nine Mexican border towns came from commuters ' 
wages . 

42 



2251 



TABLE IX 
Mexican Border City Wages Earned in the United States 



Percent of Total 1960 
Mexican Border City Wages Earned in U.S. 



Mat amor as 30 

Reynosa 22 

Nuevo Laredo 31 

Piedras Negas 23 

Ciudad Juarez 36 

Nogales 19 

Mexicali 21 

Tijuana 33 

Source: Programa Nacional Fronterizo . 

Just as San Diego is the usual exception to the rule on 
the northern side of the border, so is the little border city 
of Tecate,33 miles to the east of San Diego. A minor border 
crossing point, Tecate is a city of 10,000 which has a solid 
industrial economic base, higher per capita income than either 

Juarez or Mexico City, virtually no American tourists and, in 

20 
1969, a grand total of 66 commuters. 

43 



2252 



G. The Mexican Interest 

The Mexican Government, on the state and federal level, 
looks upon the conunuter traffic as a good thing, since it 
brings money and employment into the border towns. 

A few Mexican officials see in the traffic some of the 
elements which helped divide the Mexican governmental 
position on the bracero issue — for it, like the bracero 
program, can be viewed as an affront to the nation's pride. 
(Mexican nationals, after all, are being attacked by others 
of Mexican descent for lowering wages, and breaking strikes; 
and one does not like to admit that one's own citizens 
have to go elsewhere to find a job.) 

Some Mexican local officials, closer to the scene, 
see a number of other and more local problems, as well. 

The parallel with the bracero program is an interesting 
one, if more than a little misleading. From the Mexican 
point of view the bracero program was a nation-wide affair, 
with workers from all over the country being selected for 
inclusion. The commuter traffic involves only people 
living right on the frontier. 

Further, the bracero program involved workers who were 
full-fledged Mexican citizens , while the commuter traffic 
consists of people who have already taken American 
citizenship, of have indicated a willingness to get rid of 
their Mexican citizenship. (Our survey indicates that 
Green Card commuters, though eligible to vote in Mexican 
elections, practically never do so.) 

44 



2253 



Both of these factors — regional impact and noniden- 
tification with the nation by the commuters — would seem to 
tend to make the government less interested in preserving 
the system. 

Further, the numbers involved are not on the seime scale 
as the bracero program, which supplied work for as many as 
500,000 men at the height of its operation. 

On the other hand, the commuter, although, like the 
bracero generally at the bottom of the American economic scale, 
does have freedom to seek other work which the bracero lacked; 
he can join a union if he feels strongly about it (10.75 per- 
cent of those v;e interviewed are union members) ; and he is 
subject to the same laws and regulations as other workers. 
In short, from the Mexican point of view, there are fewer 
abuses of Mexican nationals and fewer scandals than in the 
bracero program. 

And, as then Assistant Secretary of State for Latin Ameri- 
ca, Covey Oliver, stated before Senator Edward Kennedy's 

hearings, the established commuters appear to have more in- 

21 
fluence with the Mexican Government than the braceros. 

Some local Mexican officials view the commuter with some 

disdain, as neither a good Mexican nor a good American. As 

far as they are concerned he doesn't vote anywhere; he spends 

more money in the United States than Mexico; he doesn't pay 

much of any taxes anywhere; and yet he and his children are 

45 



2254 



major burdens to the city government. (The Mexican local 
official who spoke most freely along these lines with us had 
a much higher regard for two other sources of dollars, tourists 
and the relatively new phenomenon of American-owned assembly 
plants just south of the border. These factories process 
parts made in the United States and then ship the finished 
product back across the border; both U.S. tariff regulations 
and low Mexican wages tend to encourage this activity, which 
is usually discussed as the "twin plant" concept.). 

Our survey of the commuters support some parts of this 
position, the non-voting, the tendency to spend at least 
half of commuter's earnings in the United States, and the 
number of children of commuters attending Mexican schools 
(an average of 1.5 per household). 

Along the same lines, the Real Estate Research Corpora- 
tion's report states, "In contrast (to benefits from tourists) 
the fact that many citizens of Ciudad Juarez have employment 
within the United States contributes relatively little directly 
to the economic stature of Ciudad Juarez itself, although this 
certainly is to the benefit to those individuals so employed. 
This is, in large part, because many of these dollars are re- 
turned to the U.S. through the purchase of both shoppers goods 

22 
and food items in El Paso." 

Occasionally there are reports of Mexican officials com- 
plaining about commuters being exploited by American business- 
men. One such would be a statement by the then Secretary 

46 



2255 



General of C.T.M., the Mexican labor federation, quoted by 
an American unionist at the El Paso hearings of the Select 

• • 23 

Commission. 

There is also the argument that the commuter is inflict- 
ing the dollar economy on the peso economy of northern Mexi- 
co, and that his relatively high earnings allow him to bid 

up prices on the Mexican side of the border, to the detri- 

24 
ment of the man who both lives and works m Mexico. 

Despite all of these comments, on both sides of the 

border, the essential Mexican position is that the commuter 

traffic should be continued. The border newspapers, for 

instance, view any suggestion that the traffic be regulated 

as a potential national disaster. (The Juarez papers, El 

Fronterizo and El Correo , all covered the El Paso hearings 

of the Select Commission in this light, and the local press 

in Mexicali took a similar, dim view of Cesar Chavez' march 

from Coachella to the border last year which was aimed at 

discouraging Mexican Nationals from breaking Chavez' strike.) 

47 



2256 



Notes to Chapter I 

1. U.S. Department of Conmierce, Economic Development Ad- 
ministration, Industrial and Employment Potential of the 
United States-Mexico Border (Washington, D.C.;Robert R. 
Nathan Associates, 1968) , p. 17. 

. Office of Economic Opportunity Information Center, 1968 
Community Profile, Starr County, Texas , p. 7. 

>. Dr. John A. Price, "The Urbanization of Mexico's Northern 
Border States," an as yet unpioblished monograph written 
for the U.S. -Mexico Border Studies Project of Notre Dame 
University . 

4. One of the closest continuing relationships along the 
border is between the Governors of Arizona and Sonora. 
Historically they became close allies when they were 
coordinating their attacks on the Apaches who crossed 
the border at will. More recently, in 1967, the Governor 
of Sonora was faced with a demonstration against his 
party at the University of Sonora; he had a desire for, 
but no supply of, tear gas. Instead of seeking help 

from elsewhere in Mexico he called the Governor of Arizona, 
who immediately sent tear gas to the Nogales Airport in 
a National Guard plane; the Governor of Sonera's plane 
picked it up and carried it off to the University where 
it was used on the students. This was probably a vio- 
lation of the Munitions Act. 

5. Nathan L. Whetten, "Population Growth in Mexico," Report 
of the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration 
(Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1968), pp. 171-84, 

6. Dr. John A. Price, op. cit . , p. 3. 

7. The Nathan Report, op. cit. , p. 136. 

8. U.S. population data: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 
of Population, 1960 (Washington, D.C., Government Printing 
Office , 1960 ) . Mexican population data: Direccion General 
d e Estadistica , Censos de Poblacion, 1960. 

9. See testimony of William Duarte , Manager of the San Joaquin 
Farm Production Association, Select Commission on Western 
Hemisphere Immigration, The Impact of Commuter Aliens 
Along the Mexican and Canadian Borders--Hearings — Part II — 
San Diego, California (Washington, D.C . , Government 
Printing Office, 1968), pp. 222-230. 

48 



2257 



10. Leo Grebler, Mexican Immigration to the United States ; 
The Record and" Its Implications , Advance Report No. 2 — 
Mexican American Study Project (Los Angeles: University 
of California, School of Business Administration, January, 
1966). 

11. From the unpublished transcript of a hearing held by 
the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, May 21, 1969. 

12. House of Representatives, Report 1276 , 74th Congress, 
First Session (Washington, D.C., Government Printing 
Office) , p. 1. 

13. Inter-Agency Committee on Mexican American Affairs, 
Testimony Presented at the Cabinet Committee Hearings on 
Mexican American Affairs, El Paso, Texas, October, 1967 , 
(Washington, D. C. , Government Printing Office, 1968). 

14. Stanley M. Knebel, "Restrictive Admission Standards: 
Probable Impact on Mexican Alien Commuters," Farm Labor 
Developments , sixth issue (Washington, D.C, , 1968) . 

15. Leunar Babington Jones, "Mexican American Labor Problems 
in Texas," unpublished Ph.D. thesis (University of Texas, 
1965) . 

16. Conversation with Leo Leo, Mayor of La Joya, Texas, 
March, 1969. 

17. The Nathan Report, op. cit . , p. 31. 

18. The basic economic statistics on these pages are pri- 
marily drawn from the Nathan Report, ibid . , pp. 122-133. 

19. Ibid. , p. 251. 

20. Price, op. cit . , p. 19. 

21. From the unpublished transcript of a hearing held by 
the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, September 22, 1967. 

22. The Real Estate Research Corporation, Summary Report — 
Community Economic Analysis, Chamizal Planning Progreun , 
eT Paso, Texas (Los Angeles; Real Estate Research Cor- 
poration, 1966) . 

23. Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, 
The Impact of Commuter Aliens Along the Mexican and 
Canadian Border — Hearings — Part I - El Paso, Texas , 
(Washington, D.C, Government Printing Office, 1968) . 

49 



2258 



24. From the Hearings before the Subcoiranittee on Migratory 
Labor of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. 
Senate, 90th Congress, 1st Session, on Migratory Labor 
Legislation, Part 2, June 29, 1967, Rio Grande City, 
Texas (Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. , 
1968), p. 368; and unpublished transcript of the Hearings 
of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, San 
Antonio, December, 1968. 

50 



2259 



II. The Current Controversy 

The current controversy on the Green Card conunuters is 
a complicated one, being carried on in several different 
arenas. It is carefully ignored by most of the press on this 
side of the border , and for years was overshadowed by the 
bracero issue. 

It is essentially a domestic American controversy, and 
has not yet become a matter of moment between the two countries 
involved. It was, for instance, not on the agenda when the 
two Presidents met in 1967 according to Covey Oliver, then 
Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs. 

Organized labor, notably the United Farm Workers Organi- 
zing Committee led by Cesar Chavez, some Mexican American 
groups and some other liberal forces are for a tighter border; 
a far more impressive collection of Border Establishment inte- 
rests, such as most of the Congressmen, most of the local of- 
ficials, virtually all of the local financial interests, and 
big farming, nationally, are opposed. The Department of Labor, 
during the Kennedy and Johnson years, wanted a tighter border 
while the Justice and State Departments opposed it. The liberal 
immigration lobby — which tries to ease immigration laws, not 
tighten them -- has been puzzled and divided on this issue. 
The Johnson White House, reflecting the President's long-time 
allies in the Border Establishment, did not want to touch this 

issue. 

51 



2260 



Some groups, which might be expected to be very much in- 
volved in the question, are too deeply divided internally to 
take a position. Whereas the national conventions of the Ameri- 
can GI Forvun and the League of Latin American Citizens, the two 
leading national Mexican American organizations, and the A. F. L.- 
C.I. O., routinely pass resolutions against the system, some 
local organizations of Mexican Americans, and even some local 
unions, do not take such a position. 

Some of the young militant Mexican Americans along the 
border do not want to see anyone stirring up a battle among 
people of Mexican descent, some living on one side of the bor- 
der, and some on the other; they prefer to interpret the condi- 
tions to which the tighter border advocates object as merely 
specialized symptoms of a sick society and an exploitive econo- 
my. Their remedies are rather more sweeping than a mere ad- 
justment in the commuter practice. 

Some other, less militant Mexican American organizations 
in border towns find themselves unable to take a position on 
the matter because although the practice hurts many of their 
members, many others have relatives who live in Mexico and 
work in the United States. 

Similarly, some local unions, notably of the needle trades, 
have enough Green Card commuter members to make it politically 
risky for the local union president or business agent to speak 
out against the practice. 

The essential arguments for a tighter border are that the 

52 



2261 



commuter traffic tends to increase unemployment cimong residents 
of America, to decrease wages, to discourage union organization 
and to promote migrancy. Those pressing for change stress the 
importance of the interests of the American resident worker, 
and give little heed to the possible impact of change on the 
Mexican economy, although the plea for tighter regulation is 
sometimes joined by a suggestion that A.I.D. simultaneously be 
restored to Mexico. 

On the other hand the arguments against change are that 
there are insufficient workers north of the border, that the 
commuters have an equity in the current system, that any tink- 
ering with it would both be unfair to Mexico and might cause 
a Mexican retaliation (such as enforcement of its customs code) . 
The opponents stress the interrelatedness of the series of twin 
cities along the border and the importance of Mexico as a 
friend and ally. The opponents also point out that the 24- 
hour presence of the commuters and their feimilies would in- 
crease social costs considerably in the American border towns. 

The debate all too often is conducted in black and white 
terms — with some tight border proponents talking in terms of 
making all the commuters move to the United States within a 
matter of months — and all opponents (whether they are student 
militants or chamber of commerce spokesmen) speaking of 
"closing the border." 

This debate, then, has been going on along the border, 
and also in all three branches of the Government - the executive, 
the legislative and the judicial. Let us look at them in that 
order . 

53 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 21 



2262 



A. The Controversy Within the Executive 

It is the contention of those seeking change that 
there is no need for anything but executive branch action 
on the conunuter issue, since there are no statutes in- 
volved. They say, with considerable justice, that the 
entire arrangement was one which the INS created by fiat 
more than forty years ago, and it can be changed or elim- 
inated by fiat now. 

During the Johnson years there were some attempts , 
within the Administration, to change the commuter system, 
but with the exception of two concessions made by the 
Justice Department the tight border advocates were blocked. 
The lineup was as suggested previously with two new units 
of the Government, both created by President Johnson, being 
told to leave the matter alone. These were the U.S. Sec- 
tion of the Joint U.S. - Mexico Commission on Border Develop- 
ment and Friendship (hereafter C.O.D.A.F.), and the Inter- 
Agency Committee on Mexican American Affairs (hereafter 

2 
Inter-Agency Committee) . 

The two small concessions were the issuance of a weak 
regulation barring Green Card commuters from entering a 
labor dispute as strikebreakers after the strike had been 
certified by the Labor Department ,3 and the creation of the 
new commuter-counting technique in the fall of 1967 men- 
tioned earlier. 

The strikebreaker regulation was written and issued by 
INS and its narrow scope was vigorously attacked by organized 

54 



2263 



labor. The leibor position was that all Green Card commuters, 
not just the ones hired after the date of the strike certi- 
fication, should be barred from the struck en^loyer. It was 
argued that an employer who saw a strike coming could hire 
commuters to fill his work force at any time up to the issu- 
ance of the Department's certification. Given maximum effici- 
ency it still would take a day or two, at least, to madce a 
judgment on the presence or edssence of a strike. 

That the Depeurtment of Labor shared the unions' views 
was made clear by Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz on 
September 22, 1967 when he testified before the U.S. Senate 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Com- 
mittee on the Judiciary. He said that the regulation "only 
takes a short step in the direction of preventing aliens from 
being used as strikebreakers. It does not apply to persons 
hired after the commencement of a strike and before its 
announcement by the Secretary of Labor. It does not prevent 
an employer from hiring alien commuters . to build up his work 
force in anticipation of a strike." 

The regulation has proved to be largely useless. It 
was issued at the time of Cesar Chavez' efforts to organize 
the farm workers in Starr County — a location not of his 
choosing. By the time the regulation was issued, the Starr 
County farms had plenty of strikebreakers (including many 
Green Card commuters) and did not need new ones. The strike 
was later ended by Hurricane Beulah.^ The strike was 

"55 



2264 



not a success , but it did succeed in creating a vehement 
controversy within Texas , and caused the Texas State 
Advisory Committee of the Civil Rights Commission, and the 
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor to hold hearings 
on the subject. 

The only other place where the regulation was really 
tested was in the vineyards of the Giumarra Corporation near 
Delano, California. Here the situation was different, the 
Green Card holders were not just crossing daily. They 
crossed the border at a distant point, and made their way 
directly or indirectly to the Giumarra vineyards , and they 
stayed for weeks or months. Some had worked for Giumarra 
in the past. 

Given the lack of a system to check on commuters ' 
movements, or even a notation on when the commuter last 
crossed the border, it was extremely difficult for INS to 
enforce its own narrow regulation. If the worker said he 
had entered Giumarra 's employ before the start of the 
strike, and the employer's records supported it, or if the 
employee said that he had not crossed the border to work for 
Giumarra, but had worked for another firm first, then he was 
not covered by the regulation. The former instance was the 
crux of a court case in which a Federal judge ruled, in 
effect, that some strikebreaking seasonal workers arrested 
by INS were not, in fact, commuters, but rather residents 
of the Giumarra camp, who occasionally would leave the 

56 



2265 



country for brief visits to their homes, wives and families 

5 
in Mexico. 

This ruling by Judge Manuel Real is being appealed by 
both sides. The judge also ruled against Giumarra on another 
count, saying that the Service's regulation was issued with- 
in the bounds of its authority, hence the two-pronged 
appeal. 

The judge's ruling, understandably, has given INS 
little encouragement to enforce the regulation, although 
the strike in California's Coachella Valley vineyards dur- 
ing the spring of 1969, which was broken by commuters, 
offered the Service an opportunity to do so. (Chavez' 
lawyer, Jerome Cohen, told the Senate Subcommittee on 
Labor, on April 16, 1969, that he had trailed buses ninety 
miles from the border farm labor shape-up at Calexico to 
the fields at Coachella, and that these movements carried 
the workers, unchallenged, through an INS checkpoint.) 

Still another unit of the Executive played a role in 
this controversy during much of 1968; that was the Select 
Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, created by 
the Immigration Act of 1965. The Commission was estab- 
lished primarily to give the President and Congress advice 
on whether or not Congress' decision to set a 120,000 
yearly quota on Western Hemisphere immigration should be 
accepted or modified. 

57 



2266 



The Commission included five Senate members, 
five House members, and five public members, notably its 
Chairman, Richard Scammon, the political scientist and 
former Director of the Bureau of the Census, and Stanley 
Ruttenberg, then Assistant Secretary of Labor for Manpower. 
These two men becsune interested in the question of Green 
Card commuters , and proceeded to hold four hearings on the 
subject, in Brownsville, El Paso, San Diego and Detroit. 
The hearing transcripts, which are cited again and again 
throughout this report, are the single most valuable source 
of information on this subject. 

Although the Commission itself did not make a recommenda- 
tion on the subject, the two men who held the hearings did 
write to the President on July 22, 1968, advocating changes in 
the commuter system. Their mutual recommendations were: 

"1. As of a date certain, all visas issued for 

immigration into the United States be firmly 
understood to include a clear commitment by 
those immigrating to establish and maintain 
their bona fide residence within the United 
States. 

"2. A new form of border crossing authorization 
be established, this authorization being 
designed for use by non-citizens who do 
not intend to become immigrants in the ordinary 
sense of the word, but who do wish to work 
in the United States and continue to reside 
in their own ' contiguous territory • country . 

" 3. Within a grace period, action should be taken 
to terminate the commuter status of present 
'Green Card' holders." 

58 



2267 



Sccunmon and Ruttenberg agreed to the position noted above 
but disagreed as to how to reach it. On the second step, 
Sceuninon wanted the work certificate to be issued by a multi- 
agency Federal board, while Ruttenberg preferred that it be 
done by the Department of Labor alone. On the third, Scammon 
called for a ten-year grace period, while Ruttenberg wanted a 
two-year grace period. Scammon felt that legislation was 
needed to implement all three suggestions, while Ruttenberg 
felt it was needed for only the second one. 

The White House did not act on the recommendations. 

59 



2268 



B. The Controversy in Congress 

On the legislative front, there was very little activity 

until December 14, 1967, when Senator Edward Kennedy of 

Massachusetts introduced his two-sentence amendment to his 

own Immigration Act of 196 5. Co-sponsors were his late brother, 

Robert F. Kennedy, and Senators Hart, Javits, Williams of New 

Jersey and Yarborough. The bill, S. 2790, follows: 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House 
of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress Assembled, that section 
212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
as amended (8 USC 1182) , is amended by add- 
ing at the end thereof a new subsection as 
follows : 

"(j) Any alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence whose principal, actual 
dwelling place is in a foreign country con- 
tiguous to the United States and is return- 
ing from a temporary stay in such foreign 
country to seek or continue employment in 
the United States shall be admitted into 
the United States only if the Secretary of 
Labor has determined and certified to the 
Attorney General within six months prior 
to the date of admission that the employ- 
ment of such alien will not adversely af- 
fect the wages and working conditions of 
workers in the United States similarly 
employed, and if such certification has not 
been revoked on any ground. The provisions 
of this subsection shall be applicable to 
any aliens lawfully admitted for permanent 
residence, whether or not such aliens were 
so admitted prior to or on or after the 
date of enactment of this subsection." 

This is a rather different approach than that of Scammon 

and Ruttenberg; it does not stop the issuance of Green Cards 

to new commuters; it does not create a new "polka dot card," 

60 



2269 



to quote Scammon, which would give the holder a temporary 
right to work here but no right to live here; nor does it 
seek to end, over time, the commuting rights held by the cur- 
rent commuters. 

Senator Kennedy's bill might be regarded as rather mild 
by the conservatives, if it did not give the certifying power 
to the Labor Department, which is regarded dimly by the Border 
Establishment. 

The Senator had previously held hearings on the subject, 
on September 22, 1967, and heard from organized labor and the 
Department of Labor -- who were for the bill; from State which 
was diplomatic but non-committal; and from INS, which was dis- 
creetly opposed, for among other reasons, the additional work- 
load which the bill would probably produce. 

During the first session of the 90th Congress, Senator 
Kennedy re-introduced his bill, this time bearing the number, 
S. 1694, but there were two differences. The bill was intro- 
duced on the House side as well by Congressman Michael Feighan, 
whose Cleveland district is a long way from the southern bor- 
der, but who is Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigra- 
tion. The AFL-CIO encouraged him to take this action. Also, 
the bill now contained a second sentence, eliminating the so- 
called "Texas Proviso" of the Immigration Acts. 

The "Texas Proviso" relates to that part of the law which 

6 
makes it illegal to harbor an illegal immigrant. It was 

introduced a number of years ago, as a trading item with the 

61 



2270 



Texas delegation, who would have voted against the entire 
immigration bill without it. The provision simply says that 
the kinds of things that employers do for workers, such as 
transporting them, housing them, feeding them etc., did not 
count as far as harboring is concerned. This protected the 
many Texas employers of illegals from criminal prosecution. 
The proviso has worked as intended and it is virtually impos- 
sible for the authorities to punish an employer for hiring 
(and housing and feeding) an illegal immigrant. 

Before Senator Kennedy could hold hearings on this bill, 
in 1969, which logically would come before his own (de facto) 
subcommittee. Senator Walter F. Mondale of Minnesota, held 
hearings before his Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. Mondale 's 
hearings came on May 21, 1969, right after Cesar Chavez* 
march from Coachella to the Mexican border. Mondale 's wit- 
ness list was led by Congressman James O'Hara of Michigan, 
who with Mondale, and Senators Yarborough, Kennedy and 
Cranston had participated in part of that march. All the 
Senators were in evidence, from time to time, as Ruttenberg 
and others testified on the question. This was, however, one 
instance in which the Senators participated more than the 
reporters, and the whole issue received little press attention 
as a result. 

Another legislative issue before the Congress is the pro- 
posal of Congressman Frank Thompson of New Jersey and Senator 
Mondale to amend the National Labor Relations Act to 

62 



2271 



make the employment of a non-resident alien strikebreaker an 
unfair labor practice. (This isH.R. 12667 and S.2568, 90th 
Congress.) Hearings were held on July 15 and July 16, 1969, 
before Congressman Thompson's Special Subcommittee on Labor 
of the House Labor and Education Committee. The National 
Labor Relations Act excludes farm workers from its jurisdic- 
tion, but the Mondale-Thompson proposal is written in such a 
way as to avoid this exclusion and hence, if passed, it would 
have an impact upon the Coachella Valley strike. 

On March 4, 1970 a third piece of legislation dealing 
with the commuters was introduced. S.3545, presented by 
Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine, is more complicated than the 
Kennedy proposal, and contains these elements: 

1. elimination of the use of the Green Card by 
commuting workers over a period of two years. 

2. the substitution of a work permit system for 
those now holding Green Cards , and for other 
Mexican Nationals who may apply for the right 
to commute in the future. 

3. elimination of the Texas proviso. 

4. provision for civil suits by individual workers, 
or groups of workers, who find that their econo- 
mic prospects have been harmed by employers 
using cross border workers . 

The work permits, in the Muskie bill, would be issued by 

the Department of Labor, and would be good for six months, when 

the Department would be called upon to renew them. The permits, 

interestingly enough, would only allow workers to hold jobs 

within twenty miles of the border. The principal impact of 

this provision would be on commuting farm workers, rather 

63 



2272 



than city workers, because virtually all those commuting to 
urban jobs travel less than 15 miles — and some simply walk 
from their homes in Mexico to the jobs in the U.S. Farm 
workers, on the other hand, commute to a number of points up 
to 80-100 miles away from the border — such as the Coachella 
Valley vineyards. 

64 



2273 



C. The Controversy in the Courts 

The judiciary has been struggling, off and on, for the 
last ten years with the commuter issue. On March 2, 1959, 
the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North 
America, AFL-CIO, called a strike at the Peyton Packing Com- 
pany plant in El Paso. (Th-> plant now stands in ghostly 
desolation in the midst of the Chamizal tract.) Finding that 
their strike was being broken by Green Card commuters, the 
Union on August 1, 1959, asked the Secretary of Labor to 
invoke section 212 (a) (14) of the Immigration Act of 1952, 
against the strikebreakers. This section gives the Secretary 
the power to deny entrance to an immigrant if his entrance 
would have an adverse effect on the labor market. 

The Department of Labor, two and a half months later, 
complied with the union's request and issued the necessary 
document to INS. The Service took steps to bar new immigrants 
from coming to work for Peyton, but refused to bar the com- 
muter strikebreakers, on the grounds that they were "returning 
lawfully domiciled resident aliens." 

At this point the union went into U.S. District Court 
in the District of Columbia with the case that was entitled 
Amalgeunated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North 
America, AFL-CIO, v. William P. Rogers and Joseph M. Swing 
(then Attorney General and INS Director) . 

The union argued that the aim of section 212 (a) (14) 
should not be circumvented by viewing commuters as returning 

65 



2274 



lawfully domiciled resident aliens, as the Service had been 
doing for the previous thirty-three years. The Service 
defended its time-honored concept, which the judge (Luther 
Youngdahl, a former Republican Governor of Minnesota) called 
an "amiadsle fiction." 

The judge held on July 7, 1960, that although the com- 
muter practice, per se, could continue if properly regulated, 
that in this instance the union's position was the correct 

one, and that the strikebreakers should be stopped at the 

7 
border by INS. The judge did this by denying the Govern- 
ment's motion for dismissal and for summary judgment. 

More time passed, however, and when a proposed final 
judgment was presented to Judge Leonard P. Walsh, of the 
seune court, he declined to issue a mandatory order to the 
Attorney General to bar the strikebreakers on the grounds 

that only four commuting strikebreakers were still on the 

8 
job, and the case was virtually moot. 

Although INS clearly lost the argument, there was no 
practical effect on the Service's practices, either in the 
Peyton strike, or in the years that followed. 

The next court battle was between another labor organi- 
zation, the Texas A.F.L.-C.I.O. , and the new Attorney General, 
Robert Kennedy. 

Seeing no practical results from the Peyton decision, 
the A F.L.-C.I.O. mounted a broad stroke attack on the entire 
commuter practice, and sued in 1961 on behalf of 180 U. S. 

66 



2275 



resident workers who contsnded that they had been adversely 

affected by tht competition with commuter workers. The 

plaintiffs alleged that the Service's position on commuters 

caused loss of jobs to residents^ lower wages for residents 

than otherwise would be available, and loss of strength of 

unions along the border. They asked that the Service be 

enjoined from conferring the status of resident aliens on 

9 
the commuter workers. 

The Government replied that the A.F.L.-C.I.O. , among 
other things, had no Bight to sue (the legal term is stand- 
ing) and were asking the courts to make a political decision. 
For good measure, 19 commuters flted a motion to intervene 
on the side of the IMS. The Service also secured a letter 
from the Secretary of State, then Dean Rusk, saying that a 
decision in favor of the union position would be detrimental 
to international relations. 

In 1963 the District Court, again in the District of 
Columbia, ruled that the plaintiffs had no right to sue, and 
hence the case was not decided on its merits. Subsequently, 
this decision was sustained on appeal. 

The most recent legal battle is between California Rural 
Legal Asslstano« (dtLA) , an Office of Economic Opportunity- 
funded organization, and the INS. CRLA sued on behalf of a 
group of residents of the Imperial Valley who had lost work 
because of the competition of Green Card commuters — and in 
many cases becnuse of employers' preference for these commuters. 

67: 



2276 



The case was entitled Joe Gooch and Ra£ael Busteunente vs. 
Ramsey Clark, Harlan B. Carter and C. W. Fullilove and was 
filed on November 14, 1968. 

The principal issues debated in this case were standing, 
again, and the matter of congressional intent. In the years 
following the Texas A.F.L.-C.I.O. suit the Supreme Court's 
position on who could sue the Government becaune more liberal, 
and CRLA was able to convince the trial judge, Stanley Weigel, 
of the Northern District Court in California, that the case 
should be decided on its merits. 

CRLA argued, among other things, that congressional in- 
tent to change the status of the Green Card commuters was 
implied in the use of the phrase in the 1965 Immigration Act, 
"returning resident immigrants defined in section 1101 (a) (27) 
(B) of this title, who are otherwise admissible may be read- 
mitted to the U.S. by the Attorney General in his discretion 
without being required to obtain a passport, immigrant visa 
or other documentation" .. .in place of the previously used 
language. . . " otherwise admissible aliens lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence who depart from the United States tempo- 
rarily , may be readmitted etc..." 

The judge rejected this approach, on the general grounds 
that a drastic change in the commuter system could not be based 
on a slight change in language , given what he regarded as the 
lack of any legislative history supporting the CRLA interpreta- 
tion. The judge also did not accept CRLA's frontal assault on INS 
for holding that people who do not really live in the U.S. can be 

68 



2277 



defined as "resident aliens." The judge did accept the INS 
contention that Congress has known about the commuter practice 
for a long time, and by doing nothing has, in effect, sanc- 
tioned the practice. 

At this writing, the case is pending appeal. 

Although CRLA is still struggling with Green Card issue, 
it has scored at least a preliminary victory in another area, 
that of the employment of illegal entrants. Using California 
Civil Code S. 3369 it has sued a grower in Sonoma County for 
employing Illegal entrants, claiming that such action is an un- 
fair business practice. The suit was brought on behalf of two 
resident farm workers who lost their jobs when the illegal 
labor became available. On October 9, 1969, State Superior 
Court Judge Joseph P. Murphy, Jr. cleared the way for further 
legal action by denying the defendants' initial efforts to 
throw the case out of court. If CRLA continues to be suc- 
cessful in this field, it will give that organization the 
opportunity to secure injunctions against the employers of 
illegals, but only within the State of California. 

Given the courts' decisions and the lack of action on the 
part of the Executive, it is clear that roost of the action in 
the Green Card commuter controversy will remain in the legis- 
lative field. 

There are two other major components of the cross-border 
work force, the citizens and the illegal entrants, but neither 

69 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 22 



2278 



has been the subject of much controversy of late. The pres- 
ence of growing numbers of citizens among the commuting class 
has only recently been noticed in Washington, and there is a 
strong underlying feeling that it would be very difficult to 
pass legislation controlling the movements of the citizen com- 
muters because of the implied freedom of movement which citi- 
zens have enjoyed since the early days of the Republic. To 
our knowledge no legislation has been introduced on this sub- 
ject, nor have any regulations been issued (or even discussed) , 

Whereas citizen commuters have all the rights of other 
citizens, the illegal entrants have no rights at all, and the 
only controversy revolves around whether or not the INS has 
enough resources to control the flood of illegal entrants 
adequately. This subject is delved into more thoroughly later 
in this report. The only recent legislative proposal on the 
subject — the clause in the Kennedy, Muskie and Feighan bills 
which would have the effect of repealing the so-called "Texas 
Proviso," which protects those employing illegal entrants, has 
been mentioned earlier in this report. 

70 



2279 



Notes on Chapter II 

1. U.S. Congress, Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, an 
unpublished transcript on hearings held in September, 
1967. 

2. The writer served as Assistant to the Secretary of Labor 
for Farm Labor, and Executive Director of the Inter- 
Agency Committee during this period. 

3. 8 CFR 211.1. 

4. Texas State Advisory Committee to the United States Civil 
Rights Commission, "The Administration of Justice in 
Starr County, Texas," mimeographed report (Washington, 
D.C., 1967) . 

5. Cermeno-Cerna vs. Raymond Farrell, Commissioner of Im- 
migration and Naturalization Service, before the United 
States District Court, Central District of California 
(Civil No. 68-403-R) . 

6. Section 274 (2) (4) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act as amended [8 USC 3324 (a) 4]. 

7. 186 F. Supp. 114 (D.D.C. 1960) . 

8. House Committee on the Judiciary, op. cit. , p. 154. 

9. Jones, op. cit. , p. 73, 

10. George Breunig, Eleno Rio j as, Guadalupe Gaitan vs. Donald 
G. Orr, Don Orr Fruit Company, before the Superior Court 
of the State of California For the County of Sonoma, No. 
62387. 

11. Sheldon L. Green, "Wetbacks, Growers and Poverty," The 
Nation , Volume 209, No. 13 (New York, October 20, 196W7 
In this article Greene, General Counsel of CRLA, declared, 
"This resort to self-help law enforcement by the poor is 

a reflection on the failure of the Justice Department to 
perform its duties." 

71 



2280 



III. Immigration Policies 
A. The Early Mass Migrations 

The current controversy about the role of the trans- 
border work force is best viewed against a background of 
developing U.S. immigration policies — in a sense, the 
commuter is this generation's bracero. 

As one student put it, writing just before the expira- 
tion of the bracero program, "Governmental policies regulat- 
ing the flow of Mexican workers into the United States since 
the turn of the century have assured employer groups in this 
area (the border region of Texas) of virtually a perfectly 
elastic supply of labor. "■'■ 

Until the turn of the century, there was relatively 
little movement from Mexico into the United States. During 
the eight decades between 1820 and 1900 only 28,003 Mexican 
immigrants came into the United States.^ 

Between 1901 and 1910 the pace picked up considerably 
with 49,642 Mexican Nationals immigrating, but the massive 
immigration from Mexico did not really begin until the second 
decade of this century when 219,004 immigrants crossed the 
border, pulled by the prosperity and safety of the United 
States and pushed by the fierce warfare within their own 
country. (The Mexican Revolution of 1910 was no series of 
coup d'etats, but a prolonged and bloody civil war.) j 

72 



2281 



The continuing prosperity of the twenties caused 
immigration from Mexico to swell to more than 450,000 
during that decade, with the overwhelming majority of the 
immigrants pouring into the four border states. 

The flood of generally unskilled workers was precisely 
what the farmers and ranchers of the Southwest wanted — 
and they had the political power to prevent any regulation 
of the flow. And there were attempts to regulate it. 

Congressman John C. Box, who represented an east Texas 

district, introduced a bill to amend the 1924 Immigration 

law to close the border to Mexican immigrants. During 

hearings held on the bill in 1926 border Congressman 

John N. Garner spoke bluntly for the farming interests: 

"Mr. Chairman," he said, "here is the whole 
problem in a nutshell. Farming is not a profitable 
industry in this country, and in order to make money 
out of this, you have to have cheap labor ., .In order 
to allow landowners now to make a profit on their 
farms, they want to get the cheapest labor they 
can find, and if they get the Mexican lessor it enables 
them to make a profit. That is the way it is along 
the border . . ."^ 

Garner, not Box, had the votes and the proposed bill 
was never enacted. 

When the depression came, the rules changed. Suddenly 
the Mexican immigrant was not very welcome anymore. The 
Hoover Administration decided to bar immigrants who might 
take jobs of citizens. Tens of thousands of Mexican 
immigrants, many of whom were here perfectly legally, were 

73 



2282 



herded together and shipped back to Mexico simply because 
they were unemployed. Regarding this movement, one commen- 
tator wrote, 

"Some Mexicans returned on their own voli- 
tion. If they had family north of the border, 
they could count on enough support to keep them 
from starvation. Increasing numbers of illegal 
immigrants were expelled under official proce- 
dures as federal authorities responded to mass 
unemployment by tighter enforcement of the im- 
migration laws. Much of the reverse migration, 
however, fell between these two extremes. It 
was organized by local authorities and private 
welfare agencies and assisted by the Mexican 
government itself.... 

"Local agencies, saddled with mounting re- 
lief and unemployment problems, used a variety 
of methods to rid themselves of 'Mexicans': 
persuasion, coaxing, incentive, and unauthorized 
coercion. Special railroad trains were made a- 
vailable, with fare at least to the Mexican bor- 
der prepaid; the withholding or stoppage of re- 
lief payments and wfelfare services was used ef- 
fectively 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 any time was spent on deter- 
mining whether the methods infringed upon the 
rights of citizens. "* 

During the thirties only 22,319 Mexican Nationals mi- 
grated legally to the United States. 

74 



2283 



B. Illegals and Braceros 

World War II recreated the earlier demands for labor, and 
Mexicans came pouring over the border again, with many of the 
new arrivals heading for farm work as their fathers had before 
them. 

This time both Governments, Mexican and American, decided 
to organize the movement of workers. Two international agree- 
ments, signed in August 1942 and April 1943, were followed by 
the passage of Public Law 45, also in April 194 3; these formed 
the basis for the resulting wartime foreign farm labor program. 
Initially the prograun was operated by the Farm Security Admin- 
istration, and it bore a number of signs of the just ended 
New Deal, such as wage and working protections for the im- 
ported farm workers, and a guarantee of the worker's rights to 
elect representatives of their own choosing. As time passed, 
however, these features were diluted. 

The program brought in some 220,000 Mexican workers, but 
none of these contract workers were allowed by the Mexican 
Government to enter Texas, because of Mexico's obiections to 
discrimination in Texas against people of Mexican descent. So 
Texas growers simply continued to employ illegals. (We use 
this term, which is INS jargon, instead of "wetback" which is 
regarded as offensive by many Mexican Americans.) 

Following the termination of the wartime bi-national pro- 
gram, on December 31, 1947, the flow of braceros into the South- 
west continued, through informal international arrangements, 

75 



2284 



but without being regulated by a nation-to-nation compact. 
Attempts to negotiate such cm arremgement collapsed because 
Mexico continued to object to the mauiner in which its workers 
were treated in Texas. 

There was, for instzmce , the refusal by Valley growers to 
pay 37 cents em hour for farm work (the prevailing wage for 
illegals at the time was 20 cents an hour) . 

During this period (1948-1951) workers' wartime protec- 
tions all but disappeared; the Department of Agriculture 
dropped out of the picture and was replaced by the U.S. Employ- 
ment Service; and the U.S. Government ceased to be the employer 
of the workers, this role being taken over by the individual 
growers . 

In 1951 einother war, the one in Korea, created a renewal 
of the bi -national contract labor progreun, this time spelled 
out in Public Law 78, and this time giving control of the pro- 
gram to the Department of Labor. Again some standards were set 
and some machinery created to enforce them. (And braceros were 
allowed to work in Texas . ) 

Meanwhile, the illegals were crossing the border in droves 
competing not only with American residents for work, but also 
with the Mexican Nationals legally in the country as braceros. 

The working and living conditions of the illegals were 
ghastly, and the public became alarmed, particularly in 
California. Attorney General Herbert Brownell toured the bor- 
der for a first hand look at the situation, emd was dismayed 
by what he saw. 

76 



2285 



The INS was at the time (19 54) directed by General Joseph M. 
Swing, a West Point classmate of President Eisenhower. General 
Swing was told by General Eisenhower to clean up the border. 
Operating on the theory that an order is an order, he proce- 
eded to sweep the country of most of the illegal entrants. 

Using military methods ( being able to secure, in various 
ways, far more resources than his predecessors) General Swing's 
efforts were remarkably successful. That year there were more 
than 875,000 apprehensions of illegal Mexican entrants, though 
that figure also includes multiple arrests of single, persist- 
ent illegals. (One of Cesar Chavez' lieutenants, now a citizen, 
said that during that period he tried to cross the border three 
times in a single day before making it on the fourth attempt.) 

Another reason why the border clean-up was so successful 
was that the Government was giving with one hand, while taking 
with the other; in other words, the rancher who lost a crew of 
illegals CDuld, with some minimal paperwork and perhaps at a 
slightly higher cost, hire a crew of braceros to replace them. 

The peak years of the bracero program, incidentally, were 
in the period right after General Swing's "Operation Wetback." 
The number of contract workers admitted increased from about 
200,000 in 1953 to more than 445,000 in 1956, the high point 
of the program. 

Utilization of braceros ran into continuing criticism dur- 
ing the late fifties, and even more so in the early sixties. 
Public Law 7 8 was a temporary measure which kept getting tempo- 
rarily renewed, with ever-shrinking margins of votes. Meanwhile, 

77 



2286 



the Labor Department, under Secretaries Mitchell and Goldberg, 
started experimenting with the device later used by Secretary 
Wirtz to kill the program — namely tightening and then enforc- 
ing the rules of the game. 

In May, 1963, the opponents of the program defeated the 
renewal of the program on the floor of the House. The farm 
bloc, however, rallied a few months later, and secured a just- 
one-more-year extension, which carried Public Law 78 up to 
January 1, 1965. No further extensions were voted in 1964. 

Meanwhile, utilization of the braceros had been dropping 
steadily, with only 178,000 being imported in 1964; the factors 
were the tightening Labor Department regulations, the increased 
wages in effect demanded by the Department, and the increasing 
mechanization of some crops, such as cotton, previously harvester 
by braceros. 

After the demise of Public Law 78 it was still possible to 
bring in braceros under a provision in the Immigration Act of 
1952 which .had been the vehicle used to bring Canadian and 
Jamaican workers into east coast harvests. Secretary Wirtz, 
however, despite heavy pressure, decided to use these provisic 
very sparingly, and the admission rates of foreign farm worke 
fell sharply. 

After January 1, 1965, no braceros were admitted to any 
State except California. The California usage dropped from 
112,100 in 1964 to 20,300 in 1965, to 8,600 in 1966 to 6,100 
in 1967. There have been none since. In the years 1965-1967 
there were no braceros used in border counties of California , 

78 



2287 



those admitted being assigned primarily to the tomato harvest 
of the San Joaquin Valley. 

While the bracero program, in recent years, was being 
phased out, the number of illegal entrants has been rising, 
or at least the number of apprehensions has been rising which 
is discussed more thoroughly in a later chapter. 

Many graduates of the bracero program are currently 
commuters. Up until 1963 it was possible for a grower to 
secure "specials," i.e. named braceros. This procedure 
allcK/ed many a grower to hire, legally, the illegals that 
he had employed in the past. Many of these "specials" never 
went into the bracero Ccunps, for they lived at home, just 
south of the border and commuted to work each morning. The 
Yuma office of the Arizona State Employment Service, for 
instance, ran some counts of ccmunuters in 1963 and found 
that roughly ten percent of the 4,500 or so daily border 
crossers were braceros, while 80 percent held Green Cards and 
the balance were citizens.^ 

Meanwhile, although most of the workers crossing the 
border did so illegally, or as braceros, others came as 
immigrants, 60,589 during the forties and 299,811 during the 
fifties. 

Braceros no longer play a role in the border labor 
markets, and have not for almost four years; illegals do play 
a role, as we will see in Chapter V, but a minor one compared 
to the pre-1954 scene. The employment of the bracero and 
the illegal can be viewed as different techniques used by 

79 



2288 



border employers to secure low-cost labor. The elimination 
of one technique and the blunting of another have caused 
heightened interest in the remaining one, the employment 
of cc»mnuters . 

80 



2289 



C. General Immigration Policies 

While the arrangements made for contract farm workers 
have varied over the years, and are now, seemingly ended, 
and while the roundups of illegal immigrants have been pur- 
sued with varying degrees of vigor — the general thrust of 
immigration policy itself has been in a single direction, 
toward tightening the rules. 

It should be noted, however, that Western Hemisphere 
immigration provisions were always looser then those for 
overseas immigration, until the imposition of the 120,000 
limitation on all Western Hemisphere immigration which went 
into effect on July 1, 1968. 

All of the early immigration legislation was addressed 
to people coming to this nation from Asia and Europe. The 
Chinese Exclusion Act of 188 2 and the Japanese Exclusion Act 
of 1906, and even the revision of the Immigration law passed 
in 1924 (which carried with it the country quota system for 
the Eastern Hemisphere) had relatively little impact on thos 
crossing our southern border. It was not until the Hoover 
Administration's decision to bar workers who might take jobs 
from citizens that any action was taken regarding the then 
booming Mexican immigration. 

The Hoover Administration was under some pressure from 
the Congress. Congress apparently was not trying to protect 
the interests of the workingman in the Southwest so much as 
to express the "let's keep the foreigners out" viewpoint 

81 



2290 



which was then so prevalent. Congressman Box's point of 
view on this matter was perfectly clear; arguing in favor of 
closing the border, he said the Mexican immigrants were 
"a mixture of Mediterranean-blooded Spanish peasants with low 
grade Indians who did not fight to extinction but submitted 
and multiplied as serfs. "^ 

Controls on immigration from Mexico — until July 1, 1968, 
were always expressed in qualitative terms, and generally 
handled within a framework of wide administrative discretion. 
The immigration laws have always had provisions barring paupers, 
criminals and the insane, and as time passed these clauses 
have become more sweeping, but always giving the Executive 
plenty of leeway. 

The 1952 Immigration Act, for instance, carried a pro- 
vision that the Secretary of Labor could in effect block the 
issuance of a visa if he felt that granting it would tend to 
lower American labor standards. 

During the early sixties, as Public Law 78 ran into 
more and more controversy, some Western growers started securing 
immigration status for their most favored braceros , as 
insurance against the demise of Public Law 78. 

The first use of this provision by the Labor Department 
was the estzJslishment of a procedure whereby requests for 
groups of 25 or more Mexican Nationals, by a single employer, 
would be reviewed to make sure that labor standards would 
not be lowered. Employers soon learned ways around the 

82 



2291 



procedure, sponsoring 24 through one corporate name, and 
then 24 more through another. 

On July 1, 1963, the Labor Department took another 
step, and insisted that all Mexican Nationals, entering to 
work (as opposed to those coming to join their families) 
had to secure Department approval for their job offers. 

The Department would reject job offers which could be 
filled by American residents, or would adversely affect the 
labor standards of American workers. The Department took 
a very dim view of granting clearances for unskilled agri- 
cultural jobs, and, as a result, immigration fell sharply. 

During the two and a half years between July i, 1963 
and December 1, 1965, the Department looked at the papers 
of 23,010 prospective Mexican immigrants who wanted to do 
farm work here. Only 2,518, generally the most skilled, 
were admitted. ' Immigration from Mexico, which had been in- 
creasing rapidly, fell off as the following table shows: 

TABLE X 
Mexican Immigration in the Sixties 
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 
32,684 41,632 55,291 55,253 32,967 37,969 45,163 42,371 43,563 

Source: Annual Reports , ms 

The 1965 Immigration Act gave the Lcibor Department positive 
statutory authority to the job certification program, and 
made it mandatory that the Department approve the entrance 

83 



2292 



of job seekers, from all over the world, rather than simply 
giving it the negative authority to block them. 

The consequence of all this has been to eliminate most 
Mexican immigrants who want to come here as workers ■ — 
but a large number of Mexicans wanting to come to the 
United States, or to get a visa simply to become a commuter, 
have relatives here, and come through other immigration 
channels. A look at the 1963 immigration flow from Mexico 
is instructive, there were 43,563 arrivals, but only 5,015 
had labor certifications. 

Along the border the ratio of family-related visas to 
labor certifications appears to be even higher than it does 
for Mexico as a whole, though the evidence is fragmentary. 
For instance, according to the U.S. Catholic Conference's 
Immigration Division in El Paso, during the first four months 
of 1969 there were 2,227 immigrant visas issued by the 
consulate in Juarez, and of these, only 43, or about two 
percent, involved labor certifications. 

Similarly, during 1966 and 1967 the Consulate there 
issued 6,354 family-oriented immigration visas, and only 
262 with labor certificates. ^ 

The labor certification program has a far greater effect 
on immigration from northern Europe than it does on Mexico, 
simply because the immigrants from that part of the world 
tend to immigrate one at a time, rather than in family 
groups. An unskilled Irishman or Swede, who cannot get a 

84, 



2293 



labor certification, probably cannot get a visa, because 
he has neither the skill nor the necessary fcunily ties. 
A Mexican worker, particularly one living on the border, 
is much more likely to find an appropriate relative, if 
his skill is not sufficient to get a visa. 

There must have been some impact on the flow of Mexi- 
can immigrants in 1969 with the imposition of the 120,000 
limitation on all Western Hemisphere immigration (with a 
few minor exceptions) , but these data are not available as 
the report was being finished. 

Even though both the labor certification program and 
the 120,000 limitation probably cut into the flow of Mexican 
immigrants, there still is a substantial streeim of unskilled 
workers, all potential commuters, being given visas, year 
after year, and there is no reason to believe that the flow 
will drop much below the current levels. 

The family preference system, however, has worked 
(and can be manipulated) in such a way that the objective 
of Congress, to limit the flow of unskilled workers into the 
Nation, has been foiled along the southern border. This is 
discussed in greater detail later in this chapter. 

85 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 23 



2294 



D. Controlling the Conunuter Traffic 

Until the Inunigration Action of 1924, commuting workers 
crossed the Nation's border with no formalities at all. After 
the passage of the act INS viewed commuters as temporary visi- 
tors on business. Effective April 1, 1927, however, the Service 
reversed itself, and ruled that to be a commuter one had to be- 
come an immigrant, and had to secure the necessary visa. 

The INS decision was challenged in the courts, but it was 

9 
supported by the Supreme Court m 1929 in Karnuth vs. Albro. 

The commuter progreun has thus been in existence for more than 

forty years, based on the interesting premise that employment 

equals residence. The Service does not use this phrase, but 

talks about people who have secured the right to be permanent 

resident aliens, and does not trouble itself about where the 

person actually resides. 

Commuter aliens are, however, treated differently than 

genuine permanent resident aliens, on four counts: 

1. Commuters do not have to live in the United States. 

2. Commuters, nominally, must remain employed to keep 
their Green Cards, and six months of unemployment 
(without a good excuse) can be grounds for denying 
them Green Card status, because they are neither 
living nor working in the U.S. 

3. Commuters, under very narrow circumstances, as we 
have discussed before, cannot be employed for the 
purpose of breaking strikes. 

4. Commuters cannot count the time living in a foreign 
country toward the years of physical presence in 
the U.S. which are needed to become a citizen. 

86 



2295 



None of these rules, however, have had much impact on 
the Mexican border. The Service does not make any visible 
effort, on that border, to enforce the six-month rule; the 
strikebreaker regulation does not appear to be enforced; and 
the final rule, though presumably enforced, has little impact 
on a group that has not demonstrated much interest in U.S. 
citizenship. 

The INS approach to the six-month rule is a relaxed one. 
On the southern border there appears to be no regular enforce- 
ment program, but if an alert border guard notices an individ- 
ual using his Green Card on a sporadic basis, he reports this 
to his superiors, who, following an investigation, may pick 
up the card on the grounds that the individual has not been 
employed for the past six months. According to one source 
within the Service perhaps 100 to 150 cards are withdrawn in 
this fashion each year. 

Sometimes the Green Card holder appeals the decision, 
and takes his case to the Board of Immigration Appeals , a 
unit which reviews many of the administrative decisions of the 
Service from a vantage point in the Attorney General's Office. 
Generally, the Service has difficulty sustaining its decision 
on the six-month rule because the Board is sympathetic to 
aliens who contend that they were not employed for six months 
because of some uncontrollable circumstance, such as pregnancy 
or a disabling injury. 

The extent to which the Board of Immigration Appeals will 
go in its interpretation of the rule can be shown in its 

87 



2296 



1965 and 1966 decisions in the matter of Bailey. 

Bailey was a native-born Canadian customs official, who 
had secured U.S. resident alien status. He worked full-time 
for the Canadian Government (which apparently was not con- 
cerned about his Green Card status) and, sometimes, moon- 
lighted in America as a carpenter. A U.S. Immigration in- 
spector denied him entrance on the grounds that he commuted 
to work only sporadically. Bailey appealed, and the Board 
ruled that he had a right to be a commuter, even though he 
was an official of another government, and he only worked oc- 
casionally in the United States. 

The Immigration Service asked for another hearing in 
the matter, but the Board remained adamant, and Bailey, pre- 
sumably, kept up his part-time commuting. 

Our own review in 1969 of the application forms 
filed by commuters with the Service during the initial grom- 
metting period of 1967, indicated a substantial number of 
Green Card holders were commuting to seek work — not to work — 
and others were commuting to school. Later, when our inter- 
viewers v/ere in the field, they found seventeen Green Card 
holders in Mexico who had not worked in the previous six months, 
and had no intention of doing so in the next six months. 
(These were excluded from our sample of 400.) We regarded 
this group as clearly violating the six -month rule. We also 
found another 11 individuals who were not working in America 

88 



2297 



at the time, but said that they had worked within the last 
six months, or planned to do so within six months. These 
eleven we regarded as potential violators of the six month 
rule, but included them in our sample. Since we were talking 
to one percent of the 40,176 commuters registered in 1967, 
this would suggest that some 2,800 (17 plus 11 x 100) of them 
are either violating the six-month rule, or are potential 
violators of it. 

Evidentally there was no effort made to use the grommet- 
ting data to deny commuters the use of the Green Card. 

The Mexican Government knows that the six-month rule is 
not enforced, and presumably would be unhappy were it to be 

enforced, so Assistant Secretary of State Covey Oliver wrote 

12 
to Senator Edward Kennedy on November 6, 1967. 

Meanwhile, the six month rule is enforced at the Detroit 
border, the major Canadian crossing point. Here some 5,300 
workers cross the border daily, suggesting a workload which 
is exceeded only at the El Paso, San Ysidro and Calexico 
points. (It should be borne in mind that the commuters from 
Canada, unlike those from Mexico, have created no controversy 
about an adverse impact on the Detroit labor market.) 

The Detroit District Director of INS told the Select Com- 
mission on Western Hemisphere Immigration that a regular 
check is made of the commuter's employment at six months inter- 
vals. Commuters are required to present to INS two copies 
of a letter from their employer, confirming employment, twice 

89 



2298 



a year; one copy goes into the INS files and the other is 
stamped by the Service and is to be carried by the worker as 
proof of continued employment. If the worker does not present 
a letter at regular, semi-annual intervals, the Service inves- 
tigates.^^ 

This testimony indicated that the Service, at Detroit, 
seems to know a great deal about the commuters at this cross- 
ing point. In addition to up-to-date knowledge about commuters' 
employers , for instance , it knows that on average there was a 
nine percent turnover yearly in the commuter population, that 
a sample showed that 60 percent of the commuters were men, and 
that in 1960 a survey had found that two of the commuters had 
been crossing the border daily since 1907! 

Many commuters are not Green Card holders , and it might 
be useful to review the various documents which can be pre- 
sented at the border by workers to secure admission to the 
United States. The following list, which is not exhaustive, 
covers the principal documents I saw used at Mexican border 
crossing points during the early morning rush hours: 

For citizens: • 

1. Three different kinds of citizen identification 
cards, one issued by INS and two (one old, one 
new) issued by the consulates of the Department 
of State. These cards are issued as a conveni- 
ence to all concerned after the officials invol- 
ved are satisfied that the applicant is, in fact, 
a citizen. Only people crossing the border fre- 
quently bother to get these cards , and I never 
saw one in the hands of anyone but an American 
of Mexican extraction. 

90 



2299 



2. Naturalization papers — relatively rare, as 
most citizen commuters are citizens by birth. 

3. Birth certificates or baptismal papers, some 
with thumb prints on them. 

4. U.S. passports — generally held by Anglos. 
For Green Card holders : 

1. Form 1-151, the Green Card (now bluish in 

color) which like the newer citizen cards, gives 
the ncime and the photograph of the holder. Some 
of these were grommetted, a few were not. 



2. The original Mexican passport and American 
visa, which is clumsier to handle than the Green 
Card. 

For others : 

1. A Mexican passport, or equivalent, and a tem- 
porary work permit, the H-2 or H-3 visa. 

2. A border crossing card — which cannot be used, 
legally, by trans-border workers. 

, 91 



2300 



E. Some Difficulties With Current Immigration Policies 

In general terms , current immigration policies and 
practices neither protect the border labor market from the 
adverse effects of the arrival of relatively large numbers 
of poor immigrants willing to work at a low wage, nor does 
it preserve the sanctity of the family. 

The adverse economic effects caused by the commuter 
work force are spelled out in Chapter V, and here we will 
concentrate on wavs in which families have been hurt 
by immigration policies, and how other individuals and 
families have been able to circumvent these policies. 

American immigration policies often tend to split 
feunilies. In the past, before the labor certification 
program, it was perfectly possible for an individual 
worker, particularly a young, healthy male, to secure a 
visa, even with no job offer, because the Consul felt that 
he could take care of himself, and that he would not 
become a public charge. The same man, perhaps a few years 
later, working in the kind of low-paid work that is often 
the lot of a recent Mexican immigrant, however, could not 
bring his wife and children to the country, on the grounds 
that he did not make enough money. 

Even with the labor certification program, there is 
no assurance that the Labor Department's ruling that the 
immigrant will not depress the labor market will be 
matched by a State Department ruling, that the same worker's 
family will not become a public charge . 

92 



2301 



If the man wants to continue to hold down a job in 
America -- which is far better than anything he can get in 
Mexico -- and he wants to live vith his family, he can do 
only one thing -- commute. 

Perhaps it would be helpful to review how a potential 
immigrant (or potential Green Card commuter) secures this 
status. The process is a long one, full of governmental du- 
plications, and, if one is seeking to bring his family with 
him, expensive. 

For practical purposes, there are three categories for 
V70uld-be immigrants from Mexico. They are relatives of adult 
American citizens, the highest priority, relatives of Green 
Card holders or citizens less than 21, and those with Ameri- 
can relatives at all. Members of the first group are exempt 
from the 120,000 limitation, and processing their papers is 
relatively straightforward. The second group are included in 
the 120,000 figure, have to prove that they will not become 
public charges, but can avoid the labor certification require- 
ment. The third group, which is a relatively small one, is 
within the 120,000 limitation, and needs to satisfy both 
the public charge and labor certification requirements. 

No matter which category he fits, the would-be American 
resident first puts his name on the administrative waiting 
list at an American consulate, then secures a collection of 

93 



2302 



documents including police good conduct statements, a birth 
certificate and a Mexican passport. Eventually, he is ex- 
amined by the consular officer, who decides whether or not 
he is of good moral character and his economic prospects are 
such that he will not become a public charge. There is also 
a medical exeunination. If all goes well, he gets a visa, and 
presents it at the border to the INS, which accepts it, and 
is admitted to the United States. (It is at this point that 
he receives the Green Card, to be used in lieu of a visa.) 

Meanwhile, he has spent between 80 to 100 dollars per 
person in fees and mordida to secure the needed documents , 
whether or not the person is admitted to the U.S.^'* 

If he does not have the type of relative specified by 
law (i.e. , a spouse, child or parent who is either a citizen 
or a Green Card holder) he also has to secure a labor certi- 
fication. 

The immigration process, then, has two independent 
organizations, in all cases, and three in some cases, passing 
on the individual's right to enter the country. Either the 
American consul or INS border inspector can deny entrance, 
both working from the seime laws and the same set of facts. 
(The consul's decision is not appealable, but that of the INS 
officer is.) 

In addition to this duplication (or, from the point of 
view of the potential immigrant, double jeopardy) there is 

94 



2303 



the duplication inherent in State's decision on the question 
of his becoming a public charge, and Labor's decision on the 
labor certification. Both deal with the inunigrant as an ec- 
onomic entity, but otherv.'ise the conceots differ sharply. 

The labor certification process is aimed as much at the 
individual — his skills and the job offer he has in hand — 
as it is at the labor market. The labor certification program 
is designed to avoid the flooding of the labor market, while 
the public charge requirement is designed to minimize welfare 
costs. The labor certification program is a new one, while 
elements of the public charge concept can be traced back to 
the first immigration law passed back in 1882. 

We have noted earlier the extent to which the labor cer- 
tification program limits Mexican immigration — its impact 
being on potential workers. The public charge provision 
likewise limits Mexican immigration -- but its impact is not 
so much on unskilled workers with Green Card or citizen rel- 
atives -- but on dependents. 

The U.S. Consul General stationed in Ciudad Juarez, told 
the Select Commission that the public charge provision was by 
far the most common reason for denying visas. He estimated 
that only about half of the Green Card commuters, seeking to 
bring their families into the United States, were able to do 
so with 90 percent of the balance losing out because of the 
public charge provision. 

Another U.S. Consul General, the one who was stationed 

95 



2304 



in Tijuana, said that in fiscal year 1967 the consulate turned 

down some 5,000 applications, for public charge reasons, 

filed by Mexican Nationals wanting to join relatives here 

in the U.S. Some of these would have been commuters, some 
not. 17 

Let's see how these policies affect some real people. 

Family A lives in Ciudad Miguel Aleman, the Mexican 
town opposite Roma, in the Rio Grande Valley, has its feet 
firmly planted in both Nations, but cannot be consistently 
established in either Nation without great human cost.^^ 

The family is headed by a middle-aged woman, her hus- 
band being dead or otherwise departed. It consists of her 
paralyzed, elderly mother, two older sons, who live with the 
family part of the time, and two younger children who live 
at home part of the time. One of the sons married an Ameri- 
can citizen, and secured a Green Card thereby. He proceeded 
(with the aid of an American attorney) to get a Green Card 
for his mother; she then, without ever moving to the United 
States, secured Green Cards for each of her other children. 
There is no hope, however, regarding the elderly lady; she 
can not possibly get a visa, her health and her dependency 
would bar her. And her daughter will not abandon her. 

Meanwhile, the two older sons, who on occasion have been 
commuting Green Card strikebreakers at one of the struck farms 
in Starr County, work part of the year in Houston, and during 
the summer travel with the rest of the fcunily (except the 

96~ 



2305 



elderly grandmother) to California to pick tomatoes. Durinq 
much of the school year the two younger children, 15 and 11, 
live in Roma, apparently in a dwelling owned or rented by the 
family. This allows them to attend an American school. 

This family cannot be united in the United States during 
the lifetime of the grandmother, and would face grave disap- 
pointments and a bleak future if denied the educational and 
work opportunities now open to them in the U.S. 

Family B included an American citizen husband, living 
in the United States, his wife (who could not, for some rea- 
son, secure admission to the country) and two small children, 
both U.S. citizens. Mr. B generally worked north of Los 
Angeles, and when he did his wife often joined him (illegally), 
When she was caught by the INS, she would return to Tijuana, 
and he would drop his job in the north and move to San Diego 
to be near her. ^ 

Family C included an American citizen husband, who was 
an epileptic, and a Mexican National wife. He was receiving 
both welfare benefits and the attention of the California 
State Vocational Rehabilitation Service, and feared the loss 
of both were he to join his wife in Tijuana. She, on the 
other hand, could not secure immigrant status because her hus- 

20 

band was on welfare. 

Family D is composed of a mother with a Green Card, who 
works in an El Paso clothing factory, a husband who is a 

97 



2306 



Mexican National, with no such document, and several children. 
In this instance there is no single adult female relative 
available to care for the children, which has become the task 
of the man, creating a family arrangement which would be ex- 
tremely difficult in any society, and nearly impossible in the 

Mexican one. He cannot secure a job in Mexico which would pro- 

21 
duce more than a fraction of her wages. 

Then there are the Green Card holders who spend part of 
the year in Mexico with their families, and part of it in 
the United States as migrant agricultural workers either 
alone, or with just part of their family. And there are many 
other examples of how the permutations and combinations of 
the immigration policy have separated feunilies — and, to be 
sure, countless examples of INS utilization of its discre- 
tion to join sundered families, particularly when the problem 
involves an illegal entrance at some point in the fairly dis- 
tant past. 

Some approaches to this problem of split families are 
discussed in Chapter VIII. 

l-Jhile the immigration law tears some families apart, in 
practice, some feunilies along the border are doing the re- 
verse, they are tearing apart the Nation's immigration pol- 
icies. 

Two factors essentially are involved: 

1. The ability of commuting Green Card holders to 
secure visas for members of their families, even 
though no one involved has any current plans to 



2307 



live in the United States. This has been called 
the pyramiding of Green Cards . 

2. The common practice of Mexican residents giving 
birth to children in the United States. 

The INS reading of the immigration law makes no distinc- 
tion as to where the "resident" alien actually lives, hence it 
is perfectly possible for a Green Card commuter to set in motion 
a series of immigration applications for his relatives which may 
create ten or twelve new Green Card holders, all residents 
of Mexico, and all (though not admitting it) planning to 
remain residents of Mexico. In one hearing on the commuter 
situation. Senator Harrison A. Williams, Jr. of New Jersey, 
said that this provision in the law "should not be called a 
loophole, it should be called a truckhole." ^2 

Similarly, of course, U.S. citizens living in Mexico 
can use these preferences to secure Green Cards for their 
relatives. 

The attraction of using the relative approach — as 
outlined in Family A's case on page 9 5 — is that labor cer- 
tifications are not needed until one gets around to seeking 
to immigrate a citizen's brothers and sisters. (There is an 
anomoly in the 1965 immigration lav;, apparently an acciden- 
tal one, v/hich requires Western Hemisphere brothers and sis- 
ters to secure labor certification which is not required for 
Eastern Hemisphere ones.) Relatives, however, do need 
to pass the public charge requirements. 

99 



2308 



As we have pointed out earlier close to 90 percent of 
the immigrants from Mexico arrived in fiscal 196 8 as relatives, 
and the percentage along the border appeared to be even high- 
er. Since the INS does not regard alien commuters, for these 
purposes, as different from other permanent resident aliens, 
it does not have any identifiable data on the extent to which 
commuters create more Green Cards for members of their own 
families. Our own survey showed that the responding 400 
Green Card commuters had secured an additional 149 cards for 
members of their families. The Green Card holders' families, 
in addition to the 400 respondents and the 149 other Green 
Card holders, also consisted of 388 citizens (many of them 
children, obviously born on just the other side of the border) , 
and 1,231 feunily members without American papers, beyond the 
border card. We did not get this kind of information on 45 
of the family members. 

The other major loophole in the Immigration Act is the 
one involving the equity created by the birth of a child in 
the United States. A Mexican family in the child-bearing 
years without either skills needed by this Nation, or 
relatives living or working in the Nation, can circumvent 
the entire immigration law by the simple expedient of having 
a child in an American border city. The mother needn't arrive 
in the border city legally in order to accomplish her mission, or 
she can cross with the easily obtainable border crossing card. 

100 



2309 



(At six one morning at El Paso's Santa Fe Bridge I asked the 
Public Health Service officer about this practice and he 
cheerfully replied, "Oh, we've already had three women in 
labor cross the bridge this morning.") 

Once the birth of the child has been used to secure 
Green Cards for its parents, the parents can then use their 
own Green Cards as a basis for securing similar documents for 
their children, and for their parents, the infant citizen's 
grandparents. All of this requires some waiting, and the 
more expeditious priority, that of immediate relatives of a 
citizen, can only be used when the citizen is 21 years of 
age. 

There is little statistical information on this prac- 
tice, but we do know that 17.4 percent of the births in the 
city of El Paso in 1964 were to women who supplied Mexican 

addresses to El Paso hospitals; 1,452 of the 8,352 births 

23 

recorded fell into this category? Some of these women must 

have been citizens or Green Card holders, but most must have 
not been. 

We also obtained some data from the Arizona State Depart- 
ment of Health about births to residents of Mexico in the 
State's four border counties. That data is for 1966, and is 
as follows : 

101 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 24 



2310 



TABLE XI 
Births in Arizona to Residents of Mexico 



County 

Cochise 
Pima 

Santa Cruz 
Yuma 



Number of 1966 Arizona Percent of all 
Births to Mexican Resi- Arizona county 



dents 



births 



TOTAL 



51 
36 
26 
48 

161 



3.9 
0.6 
8.4 
3.6 



Source: Arizona State Department of Health 

Two years earlier there had been 115 births to Mexican 
residents reported in the same four counties.^* 

102 



1 



2311 



Notes on Chapter III 



1. Jones, op. cit ., p. 5. 

2. U. S. Inmiigration and Naturalization Service, Annual 
Report (Washington, D.C., 1967), pp. 58-59. 

3. Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturali- 
zation, House of Representatives, 69th Congress, 1st Session, 
1926, Vol. I (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 
1926), p. 189. 

4. Grebler, op. cit ., p. 25. 

5. Interview with Fred Flint, manager, Yuma ASES office; data 
referred to is remembered by the local office staff in terms 
stated, but the documents have been destroyed. 

6. Divine, American Immigration Policy, 1924-1952 (1957), p. 57, 
quoting from the Congressional Record 2817 - 18 (1928). 

7. James C. Nix, "Characteristics of Mexican Immigrants working 
on Farms," Farm Labor Developments , (Washington D.C., 
September-October, 1967) . 

8. Select Commission, Hearings — Part I — El Paso, op. cit ., 
p. 159. 

9. 279 U.S. 231, 1929. Two immigrants to Canada, Mary Cook, a 
spinner born in Scotland, and Antonio Danelon, a native of 
Italy whose occupation was not noted, had been commuting to 
work in the United States from Niagara Falls, Ontario. INS 
stopped them, on the grounds that they did not have immi- 
grant visas; they sued, lost at the U.S. District Court 
level, but won in the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court 
overruled the Court of Appeals on two basic grounds: In 
the first place it dismissed the lower court's concern 

with the clause in the Jay Treaty of 1794 calling for an 
open border between Canada and the United States on the 
grounds that the War of 1812 had erased that part of the 
Treaty. Secondly, it declined to view the commuters as 
temporary visitors in the United States on business, be- 
cause the Congress had clearly shown its intent to draft 
the immigration laws in such a way as to protect the inter- 
est of American labor. Justice Sutherland, who later 
repeatedly fought New Deal legislation, wrote this anti- 
commuter decision. The question of who financed the liti- 
gation for the two commuters remains unanswered. 

103 



2312 



10. Select Commission Report , op« cit . , p. 103 and testi- 
mony by Arnulfo Guerra, before Senate Subcommittee on 
Migratory Labor, May 22, 1969. 

11. M atte r of Ba iley , Board of Immigration Appeals, Interim 
DecisioiTl TS'AZ rA-13959481) , August 9, 1965 and January 
6, 1966. 

12. Letter in files of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Refu- 
gees and Escapees. 

13. Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, The 
Impact of Commuter Aliens Along the tlexican and Canadian 
Border — Hearings ■-- Part III -- Brownsville, Texas and 
Part IV --Detroit, Michigan (Washington, D.C., Government 
Printing Office, 1968), pp. 161 et seq. 

14. Select Commission, Hearings--Part I — El Paso , op. cit. , 

p. 48. 

15. Ronald Vlyse, "The Position of Mexicans in the Immigration 
and Nationality Laws," Mexican American Study Project , 
Advance Report 2 (University of California, Graduate 
School of Business Administration, January, 1966) , pp. D-3 
through D-8. 

16. Select Commission, Hear ings — Part I — El Paso , op. cit. , 
p. 46. 

17. Ibid. , Part II — San Diego , p. 17-18. 

18. All of these are real cases, but the names are not used 
for obvious reasons. This account was secured in an inter- 
view with the family and Arnulfo Guerra of Roma. 

19. Select Commission, Hearings — Part II — San Diego ^ o p. cit. , 
p. 175. 

20. Ibid. , p. 97. 

21. Interview with Luis Alfonso Velarde, Jr., Director, S.W. 
Area Office, Department of Immigration, U.S. Catholic 
Conference, El Paso, Texas, June 5, 1969. 

22. U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, 
Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Hearings on 
Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Powerlessness , "The Border 
Commuter Labor Problem," May 21 and 22, 1969. Unpublished 
Transcript in the files of the Subcommittee. 

104 



2313 



23. This data was secured from the city's birth records by 
Gloria Clark, a member of TransCentury Corporation's 
public health team in El Paso, as a by-product of re- 
search being conducted for the firm's Public Health 
Service project in that city. 

24. Information from a letter to the author from Chief, 
Data Analyses Section, Arizona State Department of 
Health, Phoenix, Arizona, August 20, 1969. 

105 



2314 



IV. The Border Grosser s 

Who are the border crossers? What kind of people are 
they? 

Previously little had been known about them. INS had 
counted the citizen and Green Card conmiuters, and knew where 
they crossed the border. The Labor Department had studied the 
occupational distribution, but that was about all. 

We sought additional information by interviewing 400 
(roughly one percent) of the Green Card commuters, and smaller 
numbers of apprehended illegals entrants (75) and citizen com- 
muters (85) . (The techniques used are described in the appen- 
dix section on methodology.) We will examine personal charac- 
teristics, economic characteristics, and the commuters' ties 
with the U.S. Finally, we will look at the unique qualities 
of each of the three groups. 

Personal Characteristics 

Most of the border crossers are male, but there are 
shcirp differences aunong the three component groups: 75.8 
percent of the Green Card commuters were males, all the 
illegals were males, as were 62.4 percent of the citizens. 
(Although some women do cross the border illegally, and do 
get arrested, they are relatively rare, a point which will 
be discussed more thoroughly later.) The male-female ratio 
among the Green Card holders was roughly uniform along the 
border . 

The age profiles of the three work force components is 
interesting; the illegals are the youngest (with 68.0 per- 

106 



2315 



cent being under 35), 45.9 percent of the citizens we met were 
under 35, while only 32.8 percent of the Green Card conunuters 
were in this bracket. Nationally, 40.2 percent of the labor 
force is under 35. 

While the illegals are the youngest, the Green Card holders 
are mostly in the middle range of working ages, with fully 33.2 
percent of them being in the 35-44 age group, and more than 80 
percent between 25 and 54. Older workers among the border 
crossers are considerably smaller proportionately than in the 
Nation as a whole. The statistics follow: 

TABLE XII 

Comparative Age Distribution of Border Crossing Leibor 
Force and Total U.S. Labor Force 



Age 



( Percentage Distribution ) 

Green Card Illegal U.S. Citizen Total U.S. 
Commuters Entrants Commuters Labor Force 



1. 


Under 20 


.5 


12.0 


10.6 


8.5 


2. 


20 


- 24 


5.3 


25.3 


20.0 


11.8 


3. 


25 


- 34 


27.0 


30.7 


15.3 


19.9 


4. 


35 


- 44 


33.2 


18.7 


30.6 


21.1 


5. 


45 


- 54 


23.4 


9.3 


22.3 


20.8 


6. 


55 


- 64 


8.3 


4.0 


1.2 


13.9 


7. 


65 


and over 


2.0 
.3 


~ 


~ 


4.0 


8. 


No 


response 








TOTALS 


100. 


100. 


100. 


100. 



Source: First three columns, TransCentury survey, 1969; Fourth 
column, U.S. Department of Labor 

Several things should be kept in mind about these age dis- 
tribution figures; in the first place, being an illegal 



107 



2316 



immigrant is a rugged occupation, and youth is an important 
consideration. (Some of the illegals our interviewers met 
had walked more than a hundred miles cross country before 
venturing onto America's roads.) Secondly, the Green Card 
commuters we met were a sample of people who held these cards 
two and a half years earlier, which probeOaly created a uni- 
verse two and a half years older than it would have been other- 
wise. Finally, the survey results suggested a commuter life 
cycle which includes birth in Mexico, spending one's early 
productive years as a resident of the United States, and then 
a return to Mexico as the growing fcimily tightens the budget. 
It is also possible that, despite contentions to the contrary 
elsewhere in this report, there is a slowing of the commuter 
creation process which may have affected the age distribution. 
Generally, illegal entrants were born in the interior of 
Mexico (i.e., in a state not touching the U.S. border). Green 
Card commuters were born in Mexican border states, and citi- 
zen commuters were born in the U.S. This data follows in 

tabular form: 

TABLE XIII 

Distribution of Border Crossers by Place of Birth 

(Percentage Distribution) 
Green Card Illegal U.S. Citizen 
Commuters Entrants Commuters 

Born in interior of Mexico 30.3 
Born in Mexican border state 69.7 
Born in the United States 

Source: TransCentury survey, 1969 

108 



56.7 





33.3 


22.4 





77.6 



i 



2317 



Apparently residents of Mexican border states have greater 
opportunities (probably because of relatives on this side 
of the border) to enter the United States legally than those 
born in the interior — hence the differentially higher per- 
centage of illegal entrants born away from the bolder. 

Most of the respondents were members of large families 
(generally the mother or the father) , although more than a 
third of the illegals were young men without faunily responsi- 
bilities. The citizen commuters reported the largest feimilies, 
averaging 6 . members , the Green Card commuters were next with 
an average of 5.5, and the illegals (reflecting the large 
proportion of single men) had 4.8 family members each. 

The educational attainment of the border crossers was 
what one might have expected, with the citizens having the 
greatest amount of education, the Green Card commuters in a 
middle position, and the illegals the least. The general level 
was low, with those with no formal education at all outnumber- 
ing those who went beyond high school by a margin of 91 to 3. 
The statistics are on the next page. 

109 



2318 



TABLE XIV 



Educational Attainment of Border Crossers 
(Percentage Distribution) 



Years of Green Card 
Formal Education Commuters 



1. 





17 


2. 


1-3 years 


32 


3. 


4-6 


38 


4. 


7-8 


6 


5. 


9-12 " 


6 



Illegal 
Entrants 


U.S. Citizen 
Commuters 


25 




5 


43 




20 


21 




60 


4 




12 


7 




3 



6. Over 12 " 1 

Source: TransCentury survey, 1969 

Economic Characteristics 

All the border crossers interviewed are in the work force, 
and all except 3.7 percent of the Green Card holders and 2.6 
percent 6f the citizen commuters were employed at the time of 
the interview. (All the illegals, by definition, since they 
were under arrest, were unemployed, but all had been working, 
or looking for work at the time of their arrest.) This rela- 
tively high rate of employment reflected the instructions to 
the interviewers — to interview workers only. (We encountered, 
as mentioned earlier, but did not Interview, 17 Green Card 
holders in Mexico who had neither worked in the last six months 
nor planned to work in the next six months.) 

Generally the border crossers have jobs involving little 
skill, and the most common single occupation among both the 
Green Card holders and the illegals was agricultural field 

110 ' 



I 



2319 



work. Using ten broad occupational categories, the kinds of 
work done by those crossing the border can be described as 
follows: ^^LE XV 

Occupations of the Border Crossers 





( 
Green Card 
Commuters 


Percentage Distribution) 
1 Illegal U.S. Citizei 
Entrants Commuters 


Professional 


1 








Clerical, Managerial 
& Sales 


7.8 





1.2 


Skilled 

Nonagricultural 
Agricultural 


11.8 
1.5 


1.3 



11.8 



Semi-skilled 

Operators (garment) 
Other 


5.0 
2.8 



6.6 


9.4 
10.6 


Unskilled 

Nonagricultural 
Agricultural 


8.0 
39.2 


17.3 
72.0 


29.5 
17.6 


Service 

Domestic 
Other Service 


6.5 
16.4 



1.3 


15.2 
4.7 


No Response 




1.5 





TOTALS 100. 100. 100. 

Source: TransCentury survey, 1969 

The data found in the survey of the border crossers can be 

compared to the more detailed data secu^red by different methods 

in the Labor Department's study of the documents filed by the 

Green Card commuters in connection with the grommeting process. 

The Labor Department's research involved determining occupations 

by the commuters' response to a written query, while ours ccune 

from a conversation between the interviewer and the commuter. 

However, the findings of both studies are generally consistent 

with each other. The Labor Department's figures follows: 

111 



2320 

TABLE XVI 
Number of Mexican Alien Commuters, by State and Occupation 1967 



Occupation 



Total 



Texas 



California 



Arizona 



Total 

Building occupations- 

Carpenters————- 
Painters— — — — 
Other building 
occupations—--— 

Business occupations- 
Cashiers————— 

Clerks, office 

Clerks, sales——— 
Clerks, stock and 

receiving—— — — 

Managers———————— 

Secretaries—————— 

Other business 

occupations— ——- 

Hotel and restaurant 
occupations—————— 

Bartenders———— 

Bellhops 

Chambennaids-— — — — 

Cooks 

Kitchen helpers——— 
Waiters, waitresses- 
Other hotel 6uid 
restaurant occupations 

Other occupations 

Automobile-shop workers 
Beauty operators and 

barbers—————— 

Custodial workers 

Drivers, truck-——— 
Farmworkers————— 
Fishermen-——— 

Florists — — — 

Food-processing 

occupations———— 
Gardeners-——— 
Hospital helpers—— 
Jewelers—————— 

Laborers, general- -~ 

Laundry workers 

Maids, private household 

Metalworkers — — 

Parking- lot attendants 
Professional occupations 
Repair occupations—— 
Sewing-machine operators 
Sei^ce-station workers- 
Upholsterers — 

Warehousemen—— 
Miscellanecus— — — 



40,176 

2,421 
895 
487 

1,039 

3,265 
232 
354 

1,713 

309 
377 
199 

101 



2,235 
93 
35 
223 
651 
675 
328 

23 

32,235 
536 

72 

344 

1,093 

16,035 

183 

41 

848 

534 

88 

39 

3,668 
590 

2,779 

1,627 

47 

342 

248 

1,167 
227 
222 
255 

1,250 



19,714 

1,801 
732 
319 

750 

2,405 
167 
233 

1,248 

232 
309 
150 

66 



1,308 

56 

25 

100 

390 

4lO 
228 



14,200 

246 

53 

215 

647 

3,436 

92 

3 

524 

210 

53 

16 

2,517 

292 

2,169 

1,435 

12 

244 

196 

809 

150 

125 

164 

592 



15,284 

521 
131 
153 

237 

429 
28 
47 

207 

64 
41 
24 

18 



812 

28 

10 

108 

232 

236 

70 

19 

13,522 
253 

19 
116 

315 

9,171. 

91 

38 

299 

301 

17 

22 

940 

245 

412 

147 

34 

44 

49 

290 

58 

94 

54 

513 



5,178 

99 
32 
15 

52 

451 
37 
74 

258 

13 
27 
25 

IT 



115 
9 

15 
29 
29 
30 



4,513 
37 


13 

131 

3,428 





25 
23 

18 

1 

211 

53 

198 

45 

1 

54 

3 

68 

19 

3 

37 
145 



Source: INS Commuter Census, November-December 1967. (Repro- 
duced from farm Labor Developments, sixth issue, 1968; 
Washington, D.C.) 



112 



2321 



The Labor Department's survey of Green Card commuters, and 
ours, indicate an uneven distribution of occupations across 
the border. We found, for instance, the four professionals we 
met all living opposite Texas cities; all the garment workers 
employed in the cities of Eagle Pass, Del Rio, El Paso, and 
San Diego; and the percentage of farm workers varying from a 
low of 6.7 percent in the crossing points of Nogales and Doug- 
las, to highs of 88.9 percent at San Luis, and 89.9 percent at 
nearby Calexico. 

The survey of illegals, however, taken in only three 
places (the detention centers at Port Isabel and. El Paso, 
Texas, and at El Centre, California), showed a uniformly high 
percentage of farm workers. Our sample of illegals had a 
slightly higher percentage of farm workers than one might ex- 
pect from INS statistics, which generally indicate that of 
those caught working three-fifths to two-thirds were farm workers, 

The border crossers tend to be badly paid by national 
American standards, though they do far better economically than 
their neighbors who both live and work in Mexico. 

Information was secured on hourly wages paid to both the 
Green Card commuters and the citizen border crossers (but not 
for the illegals, who are often not paid on this basis). Among 
the Green Card holders, where the sample was large enough to 
make such a comparison meaningful, men made substantially more 
money than women. Green Card holders generally reported higher 
earnings than citizens. (This is caused by the differential 
geographic distributions of the samples, with the citizens all 

113 



2322 



working in Texas cities, while the Green Card holders worked 

from one end of the border to the other, from the low wage 

areas of south Texas to the relatively high-wage areas of 

California. ) 

The hourly wage data follows: 

TABLE XVII 
Hourly Wages Paid to Border Crossers 





Hourly Wage 
Under $.50 


(Percentage Distribution) 




Green Card 
Male 

1.0 


Commuters 
Female 

7.2 


U, 


.s. Citizen 
Commuters 


1. 







2. 


.50 


- 


.75 


.7 


8.3 




3.5 


3. 


.76 


- 


.90 


.7 


1.0 




5.9 


4. 


.91 


- 


1.00 


4.0 


3.1 




8.2 


5. 


1.01 


- 


1.15 


3.6 


4.1 




4.7 


6. 


1.16 


- 


1.30 


6.9 


7.2 




24.9 


7. 


1.31 


- 


1.45 


9.9 


11.3 




4.7 


8. 


1.46 


- 


1.60 


16.8 


11.3 




16.4 


9. 


1.61 


- 


1.80 


31.6 


31.1 




14.1 


10. 


1.81 


- 


2.00 


10.2 


4.1 




5.9 


11. 


2.01 


- 


2.50 


6.3 


6.2 




3.5 


12. 


Over 


2, 


.51 


8.3 


5.1 




8.2 








AVERAGE 


$1.65 


$1.46 




$1.45 



Source: TransCentury survey, 1969 
It is evident that the minimum wage level ($1.60 an hour 
for non-agricultural work) plays a significant role in setting 
the border crossers' wages, with nearly one half of the male 
Green Card commuters reporting wages in the brackets immediately 
above and below the $1.60 mark. 

114 



2323 



Wages generally move higher as one moves west along the 

border, even though most of the farm workers in the sample 

(103 out of 157) were found in San Luis and Mexicali. We have 

compared the hourly wages for Green Card commuters in four 

areas below: 

TABLE XVIII 
Hourly Wages Paid to Green Card Commuters - By Area 





Hourly 


Wage 






(Percentage Distribution) 






Texas (East 
of El Paso) 


El 
lei 


Paso, Noga- 
3 , Dougles 


San Luis, 
Calexico 


San 
Diego 


1. 


Under 


$.50* 




6.7 






3.7 








2. 


.51 


- .75 




2.6 






5.9 








3. 


.76 


- .90 




4.0 















4. 


.91 


- 1.00 




10.6 






4.4 


.9 





5. 


1.01 


- 1.15 




9.2 






4.4 


1.7 





6. 


1.16 


- 1.30 




17.1 






5.2 


5.2 


2.7 


7. 


1.31 


- 1.45 




2.6 






8.8 


22.6 


1.4 


3. 


1.46 


- 1.60 




23.8 






11.8 


20.0 


6.9 


9. 


1.61 


- 1.80 




14.5 






36.8 


40.9 


24.7 


10. 


1.81 


- 2.00 




3.9 






11.0 


3.5 


17.8 


11. 


2.01 


- 2.50 




3.9 






6.6 


1.7 


15.1 


12. 


Over 


$2.50 




1.3 






1.5 


3.5 


31.5 






AVERAGE 


$1.33 






$1.53 


$1.51 


$2.34 



Source: TransCentury survey, 1969 



Those earning less than 50 cents an hour were domestics, includ- 
ing one commuting maid who reported she was paid 25 cents an 
hour . 



115 



2324 



Weekly wage data were collected from all three groups of 

workers, with these results: 

TABLE XIX 

Border Crossers' Weekly Wages 





Weekly 


Wage 




(Percentage Distribution) 




Green Card 
Conimuters 


Illegal 
Entrants 


U.S. Citizen 
Conunuters 


1. 


Under 


$10 







1.9 





2. 


11 - 


20 




2.5 


3.7 


5.9 


3. 


21 - 


30 




2.8 


7.4 


2.4 


4. 


31 - 


40 




5.5 


9.3 


15.2 


5. 


41 - 


50 




8.5 


16.7 


16.4 


6. 


51 - 


60 




10.5 


11.1 


20.0 


7. 


61 - 


70 




26.8 


14.8 


15.2 


8. 


71 - 


80 




16.2 


18.5 


13.0 


9. 


81 - 


90 




8.0 


5.6 


1.2 


10. 


91 - 


100 




6.3 


1.9 


4.7 


11. 


101 - 


110 




3.5 


1.9 


3.5 


12. 


Over 


$111 




9.5 


7.4 


2.4 






AVERAGE 


$69.20 


$59.79 


$56.66 



Source: TransCentury survey, 1969 

The weekly wages of the illegals, which are higher than 
those of the citizens, struck us at first as surprising until 
we realized that many of the illegals were working well away 
from the border and all the citizens were working in Texas 
border cities. Five of the illegals made more than $100 a 
week, with the best paid man being a non-union cement finisher 
working in Nebraska. His $210 a week income included overtime 

116 



2325 



payments. The second highest pay ($150 a week) went to a fac- 
tory worker, who also received overtime for his Texas job. The 
man in the third place, who made $120 a week, was also a con- 
struction worker, also in Nebraska, also an overtime recipient, 
and placed in that job by the Nebraska State Employment Service. 

The other relatively well paid illegals were usually farm 
workers doing well with piece rate arrangements on California 

fcurms. 

While the interviewers talked to the border crossers about 

their own weekly and hourly wages, discussions of annual income 

with the Green Card and citizen commuters were in terms of the 

entire family's income. (The duration of the illegals' visits 

to this country were too brief for a meaningful discussion of 

their annual U.S. income.) 

TABLE XX 

Annual Income - Green Card and Citizen Commuters 



Percentage Distribution 



1.' 


Under 


$750 


2. 


$ 751 


- 


1500 


3. 


1501 


- 


2250 


4. 


2251 


- 


3000 


5. 


3001 


- 


3750 


6. 


3751 


- 


4500 


7. 


4501 


- 


5250 


8. 


5251 


- 


6000 


9. 


6001 


- 


6750 


10. 


6751 


- 


7500 


11. 


7501 


- 


8250 


12. 


Over 


$8251 



AVERAGE 
Source: TransCentury survey, 1969. 

117 



Green Cards 


Citizens 


1.5 





3.2 


7.1 


8.0 


23.6 


12.8 


25.9 


29.0 


22.4 


15.8 


9.4 


13.5 


7.1 


4.5 


1.2 


4.3 


3.5 


3.7 





2.2 





1.5 





$3,910. 


$2,984. 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 25 



2326 



A couple of comparisons would be useful; in the first place 
most of the commuters, despite their status as workers, fall be- 
low the current poverty index. The most recent poverty level 
cut-off point for a non-farm family of five is $3,992, and, as 

noted earlier, the average size of the commuters' families is 

2 
more than 5. Using the nearest lower break in our income tabu- 
lations, $3,750, we find that 54.5 percent of the Green Card 
holders and 79 percent of the citizens fall below this mark. 
The average Green Card income, $3,910, is also below the poverty 
threshold, and that of the citizens, $2,984, even more so. 

On the other hand, most of the commuters are earning more 
money than their neighbors in Mexico. Dr. Price, in surveys 
of Tecate and Tijuana householders in 1967 and 1968, found that 
yearly family incomes were $2,748 in Tecate and $2,700 in 
Tijuana. (These two Baja California cities, in previous years, 
reported the highest average per capita incomes in Mexico.) 
Only 25.5 percent of the Green Card commuters, from the Gulf to 
the Pacific, made less than $3,000 a year, while only 13.1 per- 
cent of those living in Baja California (those entering the U.S. 
at San Ysidro and Calexico) were in this bracket. 

There were a few families at the other end of the income 
scale, with 15 out of 400 Green Card commuters reporting family 
incomes in excess of $7,500 a year. As one might expect, a 
majority of these lived in Baja California. 

A number of other family finance questions were raised. 
For instance, we asked how much rent w»8 paid for the 



♦Though many commuters work on U.S. farms, they generally live 
in cities. 

118 



i 



2327 



commuters' dwellings in Mexico. For the most part the com- 
muter is a renter (roughly 69 percent of both the citizens 
and the Green Card holders are in this category) and most 
of this group (60.2 percent of the Green Card holders and 
76.2 percent of the citizens) are paying between $10 and 
$30 a month in rent. 

Only a handful of the commuters (1.7 percent of the 
Green Card holders, and 1.2 percent of the citizens) use 
their job in the United States to supplement a Mexican 
business income. 

A key question is related to where the commuter spends 
his money. Is he a real source of gold out-flow, for in- 
stance? Does he really help the economy of Mexico? Or is 
he simply one who secures his income in the United States 
and spends most of it there? The last statement is closest 
to the truth. 

Knowing that we would be seeking, at best, an educated 
guess, we asked each of the Green Cards to tell us, in terms 
of quarters of his income, how much he spent in the United 
States. These were the responses: Percent 

About one fourth 11.1 

About one half 36.4 

About three quarters 50.5 

All 2.0 

We had not put the final alternative on the questionnaire, 
but eight commuters reacted that way anyway. 

119 



2328 



Given the low rates quoted earlier for housing expenditures 
(of the Green Card commuters) this response is highly understand- 
able. The commuter, though he may be a number of other things, 
is not a major villain in the gold flow drama. 

We asked the interviewers to look at the physical posses- 
sions of the commuters, and found that more than 82 percent of 
the Green Card holders (and 72.9 percent of the citizens) had 
both electricity and running water in their homes , which set 
them apart from many of their neighbors. 

Black and white television sets were in the homes of 71 
percent of the Green Carders and in the residences of 48.3 per- 
cent of the citizen commuters. We found color T.V. sets in 4 
percent of the Green Card homes and in 8.2 percent of the 
citizens' houses. 

Regarding car ownership, the responses were different, with 
67.9 percent of the Green Carders answering the question saying 
that they owned one or more cars, while only 29.4 percent of 
the citizen commuters replied in the same manner. (Part of the 
difference is due to the large number of citizens we talked to 
in Juarez, a city which has good public transportation to El 
Paso, and a city where most of the Green Card interviewees also 
do not have cars.) 

Union membership is higher than we had expected, with 10.8 
percent of the Green Card holders and 9.4 percent of the citizens 
indicating past or present membership in an American union (and 
only .8 percent of the Green Carders and none of the citizens 
reporting past or present membership in a Mexican union) . Of 

120 



2329 



illegals, 10.7 percent indicated past or present membership 
in an American or a Mexican union. 

Strike participation is unusual. Only 2.8 percent of the 
Green Card holders and 2.4 percent of the citizens had ever 
participated in an American strike. None of the Green Card 
holders admitted to having helped break a strike, although we 
know that at least one of the respondents had, in fact, done 
so. Two citizen commuters told us that they had worked at 
Peyton Packing during its strike. 

Ties with United States 

The border crossers have a variety of ties with the United 
States in addition to the all-important job. One of the most 
common ties is relatives, with 64.3 percent of the Green Card 
holders and 56 percent of the illegals reporting that they have 
blood relatives living in the United States. Among the Green 
Carders with relatives here, more than half of them listed 
three or more of them. 

Another common tie is an American address, with 33.6 per- 
cent of the Green Card holders and 61.2 percent of the citizens 
having an American mailing address in addition to the one they 
have in Mexico. In most instances this is a street address in 
the United States, but sometimes it is a post office box. 

Most of the Green Carders have, in fact, been resident ali- 
ens in the past, with 55.4 percent falling into this category 
while 65.9 percent of the citizen commuters told us that they 

121 



2330 



had actually lived in the United States. It is interesting 
that a larger percentage of the citizens (77.6 percent) told 
us that they were born in the United States, suggesting that 
some of those born hfere spent very little time here after 
their birth. Perhaps it would be more sensible to reverse 
the emphasis, and note that 34.1 percent of the citizen com- 
muters regard themselves as never having lived in the nation 
of their citizenship, and 44.6 percent of the permanent 
resident aliens" stating that they never did, in fact, 
reside in this country. 

Of the border crossers who have lived in the United 
States, most did not stay very long. More than half of them 
stayed for less than tv/o years, (56 percent for the citizens 
and 53.5 percent for the Green Card holders). Men, who ap- 
parently migrate more easily, recorded more of the shorter 
stays than women did. 

In 91.4 percent of the instances of stays in the United 
States, the Green Carder had lived in one of the four U.S. 
border states, with only a rare individual venturing deeper 
into this country. 

A substantial number of the border crossers have migrated 
seasonally into the United States at least once in the last 
five years; 30.6 percent of the citizens and 32.6 percent of 
the Green Card commuters reported that they had done this, with 
the overwhelming majority doing farm work in the process. 

122 



^ 



2331 



The border crossers do not participate very much in 
elections on either side of the border; of the citizen com- 
muters (though in many cases eligible to vote, at various 
times, in both nations) only 9.4 percent said that they had 
voted in U.S. elections, and only 5.9 percent indicated 
that they had voted in Mexican elections. (We encountered 
three civic-minded individuals who have voted in both nations, 
or 3.5 percent of the sample.) Green Card commuters, who 
can only vote in Mexico, did little better there than the 
citizen commuters did, with 12.5 percent of them participa- 
ting in Mexican elections. 

The Green Card commuters have had a variety of experi- 
ences with the immigration process, and we asked a number of 
questions about that. We asked them if they would prefer 
to live in the United States, and found that most of them 
would (79.5 percent), with women responding about as men did. 
There may have been some tendency of the commuters to answer 
in this way because they thought we wanted that response, 
though we sought to guard against this kind of reaction. 

Regarding why they are not living now in the United States, 
35.3 percent said that they could not afford it, and another 
0.3 percent indicated that the entire family could not im- 
iqrate. 

A majority of the Green Card commuters (52.8 percent) 
I been in the United States before receiving their card, and 

123 



2332 



a majority of that group (55.9 percent) had been here as 
braceros. Another sizeable segment of that group had been 
here as illegal workers (20.7 percent), there being some 
overlap between these two categories. Presumably, the 
20.7 percent figure is a minimal one, because we cannot 
assume that all of the former illegal entrants would 
acknowledge it. 

Most Green Card commuter families include members who 
cannot immigrate to the United States and others who are 
citizens of the U.S. We totalled the family members, as follows: 

Green Card holders 549 

U.S. citizens 388 

Border cards only 460 

No immigration documents 771 

No information 45 

Total 2,213 

The distinction between those with border cards and 
those without any documents has no bearing on immigration, 
and does not relate to the extent to which those family mem- 
bers can visit the United States. Generally it was the very 
young and the very olrl who were without documents of some 
kind and at least part of the border card response may have 
been misleading, because little children routinely cross the 
border with nothing more than a notation on the cards held 
by their parents. 

124 



2333 



If all members of all Green Card commuter families had 
to move to this country quickly — which we regard as unlike- 
ly and undesirable, it would cause these families, assuming 
all wanted to move, to apply for 1,274 sets of immigration 
documents, or about three per family. 

The commuters secured their own Green Cards fairly re- 
cently, although seven of them have had their cards since 
the twenties, and two others got theirs during the thirties. 
The majority received theirs since 1961 (56 percent) . In 
fact, 7.2 percent indicated that they received their cards 
during 1967, the year that their name was recorded by the 

INS commuter enumeration. 

All of this suggests that had the creation of new com- 
muters been outlawed at the time of the demise of the bra- 
cero program, January 1, 1965, for instance, the border 
labor markets would already be feeling the effects. Of 
the commuters, 19 percent received their documents during 
the years 1965, 1966 and 1967. 

We found, too, that often the Green Card holder whose 
name we had was not the only cross-border worker in the fcunily. 
Sometimes there was a citizen in the family who worked in the 
United States, and sometimes another Green Card holder. We 
found that there were 447 Green Card commuters eunong the 400 
families interviewed.* 



*These data and the family composition information reflect 
a set of tabulations not recorded in the appendix. 

125 



2334 



Only a minority of the commuters reported that they had 
tried to get Green Cards for members of their families (32.3 
percent) , and the results had not been very encouraging. Of 
those who sought the cards only 7.6 percent said that they had 
been successful, while 45.6 percent said that they had been 
turned down. (The balance of the applications were pending.) 
Some commuter families would not need any new documents, be- 
cause the other family members are already citizens or card 
holders. 

The immigration process is a complicated one and many com- 
muters (68.5 percent) sought help with the application. The 
most frequent source of such assistance was an employer or poten- 
tial employer (42.6 percent) or a relative (31.3 percent). 
Rarely did the would-be immigrant turn to a professional, such 
as a lawyer or an immigration consultant (6.2 percent), and as 
a result only a minority paid anyone to help get the card 
(23.3 percent) . 

We had trouble with the difference between the last two 
figures quoted, because four times as many people said that 
they paid someone to help them as reported the use of profes- 
sional assistance. This may reflect a misunderstanding about 

the thrust of the question (one has to pay $35 to $45 in fees 

4 
to the U.S. Government at the time of immigration) or it may 

reflect the payment of fees and mordida to secure the many 
Mexican documents one must have for the process. 

Generally there was not a lot of money involved in these 
cases, with 54.2 percent of those making a payment saying it 

126 



2335 



was less than $100. 

The key question sought the commuters ' reaction to an 
adverse effect formula (as in the Kennedy bill) which might 
cause them to either move or lose their jobs in the United 
States. If you had to make the choice, we asked, between 
working and living in Mexico, on one hand, or working and 
living in the United States, on the other, what would you do? 

The reply was that 87.4 percent would move into the 
United States under those circumstances. Should this happen, 
those who would stay in Mexico, vrould stay right at the bor- 
der; only 11.8 percent of those opting to stay in Mexico 
would move into the interior. 

Of those who would move to the United States, virtually 
all of them (93.4 percent) v;ould move right across the bor- 
der, and the balance would move elsewhere along the border 
(generally to California) . 

127 



2336 



The Illegals 

The first thing that should be said about the illegal 
entrants in the work force is that their number has been in- 
creasing rapidly in recent years. In fact, during the most 
recent fiscal year (1969) there were more than 200,000 of 
them apprehended. The number of such apprehensions (of 
Mexican nationals) is as follows: 

TABLE XXI 

Apprehensions of Illegal Entrants, 
(Mexican Nationals) 

Fiscal Women and Boys 

Year Adult Males Under 16 TOTAL 

1969 179,073 22,440 201,513 

1968 132,999 18,681 151,680 

1967 94,114 14,213 108,327 

1966 77,285 12,466 89,751 

1965 44,633 10,716 55,349 

Source: INS 

The figures show a steady movement upwards, one that has 

been continuing since 1960 when 29,651 illegals were caught, 
a post-war low. The larger figures each year must denote both 
a greater volume and more INS efficiency, but we cannot tell 
the relative importance of those two factors. More significantly, 
we do not know how many get away. 

As the years have passed the male-female ratio among those 
caught has changed. The ratio between adult males and women and 
boys under 16, was about four to one in 1965 and was about eight 
to one in the last fiscal year. 

INS also collects data on how long the illegals were in the 

128 



2337 



country, when they were captured, but not how often they came 

back and tried again. Generally, the illegals who are caught 

are found quite rapidly. A typical breakout of this data for 

adult male Mexicans is found in the statistics for fiscal 1965 

TABLE XXII 

All Illegal Entrants By Duration of Stay 
at Time of Apprehension (1968) 





Number 


Percent 


Apprehended at entry 


26,738 


20.1 


Less than 72 hours 


25,199 


18.9 


Four - 30 days 


39,710 


29.9 


One - 6 months 


32,750 


24.6 


Seven months - 1 year 


4,678 


3.5 


Over 1 year 


3,924 


3.0 


TOTAL 


132,999 





Source: INS 

Obviously, the 52,000 or so caught at entry, or within 
the first 72 hours, have not had much time to make an impact 
on the ]abor market, but those who stay longer do affect it. 

Our interviewers, who had been instructed to talk with 
only those illegals who had held a job, either on this trip 
or on a previous one, talked with a group of workers who had 
(because of this stipulation) a better arrest avoidance aver- 
age than the cited INS statistics would suggest. This was 
the arrest experience of these seventy-five men on this visit 
to tie United States. 

129 



2338 



TABLE XXIII 

Illegal Entrants Interviewed, Duration of Stay 
at Time of Apprehension 

(percentage distribution) 

Under 72 hours 26.7 

72 hours to 1 week 12.0 

1 week to 1 month 24.0 

1 month to 6 months 30.6 

7 months to 1 year 6 . 7 

Over 1 year 

Source: TransCentury survey, 1969 

The men we interviewed included a number of repeaters 

(33.3 percent had been here illegally before) and a number who 

will try again (43.5 percent responding to the question). 

Some of the illegals had been here previously on a legal 

basis (36 percent) , most as braceros and the rest on border 

cards. A minority (16 percent) had sought, unsuccessfully, to 

secure immigration visas; 56 percent said that they would try 

to get papers to come here legally. 

These men were young, generally married, and the fathers 

of up to nine children. The age data were described on page 

107 and the marital status is noted below. 

TABLE XXIV 

Marital Status of Interviewed Illegals 
(percentage distribution) 

Never married 34.7 

Married currently 54.6 

Separated, Widowed, Divorced 10.7 

Source: TransCentury survey, 1969 
Most of the illegals we talked to (like most of them 

generally) came to t'-'e United States surreptitiously, or at 

130 



2339 



least they told us that they did. (Many illegals enter with 
a border crossing card, mail the card home as soon as they 
are in the United States, and then tell the INS officers , 
when they are caught, that they had waded the river. 
This approach protects the border crossing card, which had 
probably been issued in another name, anyway. Then, when 
they get home, the card is waiting for them, and they can 
do the Scune thing again.) In any event, 77.3% of the inter- 
viewees said that they entered without inspection (to use 
the INS term) , 16 percent used border cards, and 6.7 percent had, 
falsified documents they used at the border. The five-to- 
one ratio of river-waders to border card users is roughly 
comparable to the fiscal 1968 experience of the Service, who 
found 117,124 in the first category, and 25,943 in the second. 
(Men incidentally are far more likely than women and boys to 
enter without inspection; women and boys are more likely to 
enter with border cards.) 

The forged document business must be a thriving one 
along the border, and there are a wide variety of techniques. 
One can simply forge (or purchase) the document needed to 
cross the river, such as a Green Card, a birth certificate or 
a baptismal certificate (the last two attesting to one ' s 
citizenship). Or one can, through a fraudulent procedure, 
obtain genuine crossing documents from the Government; these 
procedures range from paper marriages to American citizens 
or Green Card holders, to the "renting" of false relatives 
to secure a Green Card, to illicitly obtaining a birth 

131 



2340 



certificate from one of the south Texas county courthouses 
which are believed to be lax about furnishing applicants with 
birth certificates on relatively flimsy evidence. 

INS maintains in Yuma a forged document center where all of 
these techniques are studied and catalogued. 

The illegals are still largely a part of the farm' work 
force. Of the ones we talked to 72 percent were involved in or 
seeking farm work, and 28 percent were not. (The latter group 
included five factory workers, eight construction workers, a 
printer, a cab driver, a baker, a food processing worker, and 
four who did not respond . ) 

A majority of the illegals (78.7 percent) did not have 
social security cards, with the incidence of such cards rising 
with the wages earned. 

Although the INS policy is to make sure that the apprehended 
illegal collects his full pay, this remains an area of diffi- 
culty, with 30.2 percent of the interviewees contending that 
they did not receive everything that was owed to them, a smaller 
group, 12.5 percent said they lost personal property as a result 
of their arrest, with the loss ranging from a few articles of 
clothing up to an automobile (perhaps not fully purchased) . 

A majority of the interviewees responding to the question 
(69.8 percent) said that they did send part of their wages 
back to Mexico, usually by money order. Of those responding 
affirmatively to this question, this was their estimate of 
the portion of their income returned to Mexico: 

132 



2341 



TABLE XXV 



Portion of Interviewed Illegals' Income Sent to Mexico 
(Percentage Distribution) 



Less than a quarter 2.6 

Between a quarter and a half 25.6 

Between a half and three quarters 56.4 

More than three quarters 15.4 

Source: TransCentury survey, 1969 

The illegals we interviewed were about to be returned 
to Mexico, which is an interesting process in itself. 

Those freed from the Port Isabel facility (which is 
also the location of the Border Patrol's training facility, 
where a largely Anglo force learns Spanish and the Service's 
procedures) generally return by plane to Mexico. Port Isabel 
is a de-activated naval air station, with an intact airfield. 
They are flown into the interior to prevent their immediate 
return across the border. Those living just across the border, 
however, are simply escorted to the Mexican side of the Browns- 
ville bridge. 

The men leaving the El Paso center are dispatched by bus 
to Chihuahua and Jimenez, except for three contingents of 4 
a week, which go from El Paso to Presidio where they are join- 
ed by other illegals caught locally and shipped by train from 
there to Chihuahua. 

Similarly, men held at El Centre are sent south to 

133 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 26 



2342 



Mazatlan, a port on the Pacific Ocean, roughly 1,000 miles 
away. 

The general idea is to send the men back somewhere near 
where they live — euid impede their return to the United States, 
In the spring of 1969 when the Service was having the all-too- 
feuniliar end-of-the-fiscal-year problems, the charter air 
flights (on Mexican-owned planes, incidentally) had to be can- 
celled, and the Port Isabel detainees were simply bussed to 
Matamoras . 

INS, in early 1969, started one new progreun which should 
help control the employment of illegals in the strip of land 
which lies between 25 and 150 miles of the border, and includes 
such major cities as Los Angeles, Tucson, and San Antonio. 

Previously one could travel up to 150 miles inland with 
the border crossing card, and, as mentioned earlier in this 
report, the date of the last crossing was not recorded on this 
card, and the card itself is good for life. Hence, a man who 
had lived for years illegally in San Antonio, could, when 
stopped on the street by an INS investigator, say that he had 
crossed the border the previous day, and there was nothing to 
disprove it. 

Now, if the border card carrier wants to go beyond the 
checkpoints set up 25 miles behind the border, he must secure 
£m additional document, a dated one, which will allow him to 
go beyond the 25-mile point for a period of two weeks. However, 

134 



2343 



he now is carrying a document which will run out, and he can- 
not use it to stay indefinitely in San Antonio, as he could 
before. This apparently is proving to be a useful enforce- 
ment device in the areas behind the border, but has no bear- 
ing on the misuse of the border card along the border. 

Anyone studying the problem of the illegals develops 
sympathy (strange to say) for both the illegals and their 
captors. The illegals are desperately poor, often trying to 
support their distant families by their work in 
understandably seeking an escape from unemployment or very 
low wages in Mexico. (More than half of those responding, 
52.3 percent, told us that they made less than eight dollars 
a week when working in Mexico.) 

Their captors, meanwhile, are busily trying to empty 
the ocean with a spoon. 

With the influx of illegals expanding rapidly, the time 
has come to consider a major effort to stop it. If no 
stepped-up actions, and sensible ones, are taken, we will 
shortly be back in the situation we had in the fifties , when 
labor markets along the border, and inland, were flooded with 
these hapless and rightless workers. 

Several elements would be needed to effect such a chcuige; 
obviously more men and money allocated to this assignment; 
better enforcement techniques (such as some of the innovative 
and expensive ones the Government is now using on the narco- 
tics traffic); a tighter control of all border docviments , with 

135 



2344 



all of them requiring re-issue under fairly stringent condi- 
tions, and willingness on the part of Washington to pay all 
the costs, fiscal and otherwise of such a program. 

The non-fiscal costs are serious. For instance, any 
tightening of border regulations will stir up some resentment 
in Mexico, although Mexico is less likely to be upset by 
tighter controls of illegals than it would be by tighter reg- 
ulation of the legal commuters . Any tightening of the bor- 
der will slow traffic along the border, which will be an in- 
convenience for all concerned. A closer check at the border 
will undoubtedly be both inconvenient and perhaps, in many 
cases an affront, to T^erican citizens of Mexican descent 
who will surely receive more attention at the border than 
Americans of Anglo or black descent. But these costs will 
have to be accepted, as well as the fiscal ones, if we are 
to make any progress on limiting the flood of illegals. (The 
impact of "Operation Intercept" , which took place as this re- 
port was in its final stages, is outlined in the Appendix.) 

136 



2345 



citizen Cominuters 

There are three ways to secure American citizenship, 
and the citizen cominuters, collectively, used all three 
approaches. Most (77.6 percent) were born in the United 
States. The next largest group, 17.6 percent, were born 
in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents (one parent will suffice), 
and the smallest group, 4.7 percent, had been born in Mexi- 
co, then moved to the United States where they were natural- 
ized. 

The citizens, like the Green Card commuters, have a 
variety of American immigration classifications within their 
families. Most of these families, like most of the families 
of Green Card commuters, could not move to the United States 
without securing one or more additional visas. The 488 mem- 
bers of the citizens' , families, include 187 American citizens, 40 
Green Card holders, and 261 Mexican Nationals . Approximately 
tv;o-thirds of the fathers were citizens, while about one 
third of the children were citizens. 

The interviewers asked the citizens, "Why do you prefer 
to live in Mexico, and the most significant response was 
that the citizen did not move to the United States because he 
did not want to break up his family; 43.5 percent of the 
citizens responded in this manner, while the sedond most 
frequent response (given by 30.6 percent) revolved around eco- 
nomic reasons. We then asked if the citizens had sought Green 
Cards for members of their family who lacked them, and 21.2 per- 
cent responded affirmatively. 

137 



2346 



other Border Crossers 

In addition to the three previously cited categories 
of border crossing workers (citizens, Green Carders and 
illegals) there are a variety of other border crossers 
whose presence should be noted, although they do not 
have much impact on the border area labor markets. We 
have in mind weekly commuters, seasonal border crossers 
and temporary workers. 

Weekly commuters, by definition, spend only the week- 
end (or every other weekend) in Mexico, and work in the 
United States during the week. We have not paid much at- 
tention to this group because their impact on the labor 
market is quite diffused; immigration officials along the 
border tell us that there are far more daily commuters 
than weekly ones , and the weekly ones spread all over the 
Southwest to work, rather than concentrating on the immedi- 
ate border region. Early morning bridge watchers have told 
us that there are substantial numbers of workers with suit- 
cases crossing very early on Monday mornings at places 
like Brownsville, Laredo and El Paso, but there is no 
collection of statistics on the subject. 

Weekly commuters, since they already have some kind 
of residence — where they spend four nights a week -- 
might be viewed as permanent residents of the United 
States who simply visit Mexico every weekend. They are 
unlikely to be affected by any of the pending legislation, 

138 



2347 



which is aimed at the daily conunuter. 

Some weekly commuters do work in the border area, 
particularly domestics who spend their one day off or 
evening off, in Mexico; the work cycle of a domestic is 
such that she can easily use a border card at the 
bridge, with scant fear of detection. A woman, particular- 
ly one with a shopping bag, crossing at non-rush hours, is 
rarely challenged; whereas the same person, at 6 or 8 a.m., 
would more likely catch the eye of the border guard. 

Seasonal workers, who spend part of their year in 
Mexico and part in the United States, like the weekly ones, 
have a variety of border crossing documents; some are 
citizens, some have Green Cards, some work illegally on 
border cards. Sometimes the seasonal workers, who also 
have been called 'international migrants" will spend most 
of the year harvesting crops (including grapes near 
Delano) in the United States, and will return to the inte- 
rior for an off-season vacation; others work for varying 
amounts of time in American fields, and then return to 
the border and become daily commuters for part of the year. 

Some seasonal workers spend most of their year in the 
United States, such as those who follow the lettuce harvest. 
Only during the lettuce season in the Imperial Valley do 
they live in Mexicali. Others, particularly those whose 
base is in San Luis or Mexicali, will spend nine months of 
the year at home, moving into the San Joaquin Valley only 

139 



2348 



in the sununer months when the heat is particularly oppres- 
sive, and the farm jobs scarce. (Our interviewer assigned 
to San Luis found that a majority of the daily commuters 
whose names he had were in California for the summer.) 

Early one morning on the Sante Fe Bridge the author 
encountered two ladies crossing to work in El Paso cloth- 
ing factories bearing Mexican passports and H-2 visas; both 
were sewing machine instructors and had been admitted as tem- 
porary workers, and both fall into a relatively rare category 
of trans-border workers. 

These visas are issued by the Department of State (with 
the concurrence of both INS and the Labor Department) for six 
months or a year. They are renewable for up to three years. 
The only data available on this subject is on a nation-by- 
nation basis, and this shows that roughly 1,000 such visas 
are issued each year to Mexican Nationals; presumably only a 
fraction of these involve employment on the border, and a 
still smaller fraction would go to commuters. (The author 
saw only two such visas during numerous visits to crossing 
points during the early morning rush hour, while seeing hun- 
dreds of citizens and commuters show their papers to the INS 
inspectors.) The total number of such visas issued by the 
State Department follow: 

140 



2349 

TABLE XXVI 
Temporary Worker Visas Issued 1966 - 1968 

Fiscal Year World-wide Mexico 



1968 13,710 1,189 

1967 12,584 1,246 

1966 9,444 854 

Source: Annual Reports of the Visa Office, U.S. 
Department of State, Washington, D.C. 

Temporary Mexican farm workers (braceros), admitted in 

1966 and 1967, eure not included in the above figures. 

141 



2350 



Notes on Chapter IV 

1. U. S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Sta- 
tistics on Manpower, A Supplement to Manpower Report of 
the President (Washington, D.C. , Government Printing 
Office, March 1969) . 

2. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Publicsa- 
tion, p-23, August 1969. 

3. Price, op. cit . , p. 20. 

4. All seeking to immigrate to the United States must pay 
$25 in State Department fees and $10 to the Public Health 
Service for an x-ray. In addition, if the would-be immi- 
grant is entering to join a U.S. citizen relative, he must 
pay INS $10 for the completion of its form 1-130; if enter- 
ing to join a resident alien, the fee to INS is $3 for 
its form 1-550. 

5. "The International Harvesters," Western Grower and Ship - 
per , (Los Angeles, California, February, 1967) . 

6. These visas are issued under the authority contained in 
sections 101(a) (15) (H) (i) , (ii) , and (iii) of the 
amended Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 163, 

8 U.S.C.1101;79 Stat. 911). 

142 



2351 



V. Commuter- Caused Adverse Economic Effects 

The commuters play a variety of economic roles along 
the border -- they spur the Mexican economy, they reduce 
Mexican unemployment, their pennies and nickels enrich the 
owners of the bridges , they buy from American merchants and 
they have a serious impact on the employment prospects, 
wages and working conditions of American workers. This 
chapter will discuss that impact. 

The effects of the commuters fall on the working class 
American residents, and some of those who do business with 
them, because it is the working poor on this side of the 
border who are primarily competing with the commuters. (One 
critic of the commuter program suggested that Mexican doctors, 
lawyers, and engineers be given the same rights now enjoyed 
by Mexican farm workers and domestic servants; he suggested 
that the Border Establishment would be less united in favor 
of the commuter program should this change occur. Currently 
State-enforced professional licensing regulations — rather 
than any Federal ruling — protect the U.S. border profes- 
sional man from this kind of economic competition.) 

The commuters cause four kinds of effects on American 
resident workers, effects which vary in intensity from 
place to place. These are: 

A. lessened employment opportunities. 

B. lower wages. 

143 



2352 



C. lower likelihood of union representation, and 

D. the encouragement of seasonal migrations to seek 

work. 
We will look at these effects in turn. 
A. Employment Opportunities 

Commuters make up a major portion of persons employed 

along the border. Using the lowest available hard-count 

figure of 66,135 (the 18,259 citizen commuters counted on 

January 17, 1966 together with the 47,876 alien commuters 

counted by INS in August, 1969) and comparing this count 

with the border counties' total employment figure for 

2 
1967 of 853,281 we arrive at the figure of 7.7 percent. 

Using the 100,000 border crossers estimate (including un- 
counted citizens and Green Carders as well as illegals 
working in the border counties) the figure would rise to 
11 percent, which is the one used by the Nathan Report. 

A still more meaningful figure can be derived by 
comparing the east of San Diego 1967 employment of 484,000 
to an estimate of 85,000 commuters east of San Diego, which 
produces an area-wide figure of more than 17 percent. In 
some counties, such as Maverick (Eagle Pass), the counted 
commuters make up 43 per cent of those employed, which 
suggests that a majority of the workers in the county must 
live on the other side of the border. 

The relative significance of the commuter work force 
varies sharply from place to place, as indicated in Table XXVII, 

144 



2353 





« 




« .». 




« (1) 


+» 


0) D» 


c 


.p Id 


Q) 


Id u 


1 


«« 


o 


Id 


•H 




& 


« r^ 


s 


« vo 


« 


H OS 


c 


Id r-( 


D 


4J ^ 




g 


IM 





M-l 4J 


one 


M 0) 


•pop 


C 4J >t 


Q) 3 O 


U i rH 


M g a 


(DOS 


Pu CJ U 


* 


* 


4J 


c 


Q) 


H e-- 


« >lp~ 


■P vo 


r-t C^ 


e« arH 


e — 


u 


u 


o* 


a a 


E M . 


3 » 


z -u 


3 


>-• S 


Id g 


■P 


o u 


M 




1o 


Q) 


ia 


c 


flj 


J3 


M 


D 


*-' 


>i 


■P 


§ 


O 


U 


(0 


•p 


Id 


*j 


0) 


1 



rH O 








\ 






0> 


0-^ 






0) 


M 






•H 


*i 






Q 


C-H 

a) X 






§ 


U 0) 

rH 






w 


rH (d 








M U 















a> 


rH 




•< 


<o 


Id 




M 


•H 


•H 




§ 


Q 


u 


< 


o 


C 


0, 


z 


b 


Id 


e 


o 


M 


w 


H 


N 


1^ 






H 


U 






< 



Id 

o 

z 





^^ 






\ 




m 






0) 




n 






rH ^ 




Id 






rH C 


,«.«« 


Oi 




.^^ 


•H 0) 









c 


> 0^ 


m 


0) 




0) 


m c 


Id 


i-i 




H 


C-H 


cu 


D> 


^-,,. 


rH 


»rH 




Id 





< 


H 


r-\ 


w 


TJ 


Q 


u Id 


M 




0) 


S 


n X 






M 


^IIMI' 


«>-«» 




>; 


Id 









o 


J 


o 


c 


m 


•H 




a» 





Id 


VI 




i-t 


M 


a, 


o 


i3 


Id 


0) 




> 


J3 


•0 


P 


rH 


Id 


0) 


•rl 


Id 


u 


S 


S 


a: 


o 



3 

3 
< 



0) 

c 

3 
O 

o 

CO 

0) 

^3 

rH • 
O >t 

> 

TJ u 
U 3 

Id 0) 
u 

V0 

0) a\ 

M 

o 



o Id 

3 

3 <d 



145 



2354 



Although the statistical concepts are not precisely 
comparable, it is significant that in seven of the nine areas 
cited in Table XXVII there are more computers entering the 
labor markets than the annual average of xinemployed U.S. resi- 
dents. It should be borne in mind that all the statistics in 
this table are understatements; we calculate that there is at 
least one uncounted commuter or locally employed illegal for 
every two commuters who are counted, and, as will be presented 
shortly, that unemployment statistics, particularly Texas ones, 
are routinely conservative. These factors tend, however, to 
cancel each other out. 

Table XXVII also suggests a rough correlation between the 
proportion of the work force living in Mexico and the incidence 
of unemployment among American residents. 

A different estimate of unemployment in one major border 
city than those presented in Table XXVII is now available. 
Early in 1969, Project BRAVO, the community action agency in 
El Paso, surveyed the low-income neighborhoods of the city and 
county on a 25 percent basis and produced an estimate of 12,100 
unemployed in the county."^ This can be compared with recent 
TEC unemployment estimates of 4,500 (avg. 1967), 4,695 (Aug. 
1968), 3,650 (Jan. 1969) and 4,650 (July 1969). Obviously 
the TEC figures, which are done in keeping with the Labor 
Department's National Standards and which rely heavily on the 
extent to which the unemployed register for work in TEC offices, 
vary substantially from BRAVO 's figures, generated from house- 

146 



2355 



Fifth line "percent of the work force in the poverty 
should read: sections of San Antonio had employment prob-" 

to-house surveys. It is also likely that the BRAVO estimates 
reflect both unemployment and underemployment. Perhaps it 
would be useful to suggest here that the Department's subemploy- 
ment surveys, which showed, for instance, that more than 47 
percent of the work force in San Antonio had employment prob- 
lems of various kinds, could profitably be used in the border 
regions. The subemployment concept, covering withdrawal from 
the labor force, underemployment and sub-standard employment, 
as well as unemployment is probably a better statistical tool 

than the classic unemployment measurement, and should be used 

4 
as a supplement to it. 

Given the fact that TEC's methods are used statewide and 
given that agency's internal record of consistency, it can be 
assumed that all Texas unemployment figures are comparable. 
Hence it is useful to look at unemployment figures for the 
four major metropolitan areas along the Texas border as well 
as those for the 18 major areas away from the border. This 
data is presented in Table XXVIII. 

Texas border cities, it is clear, regularly are at the 
bottom of the heap in in terms of employment. 

Twice during 1967 the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau 
of Employment Security prepared extensive analyses of the im- 
pact of the commuter workers on employment and working condi- 
tions along the border; both indicated in detail that American 
residents are adversely affected by the commuter practice. 
"The fact the unemployment is heavy and wage rates are 

147 



2356 

TABLE XXVIII 

Unemployment Rates in 22 Texas 

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

April 1967, 1968 and 1969 



















Unemployment 


Ratel 


Unemployment 


Rank 


CITY 








Among 


Texas S.M.S.A. 




1967 


1968 


1969! 


1967 


1968 


1969 


4 Border S.M.S.A. 's 












Brownsville- 














Harlingen- 


6.3 


5.6 


6.2 


21 


21 


21 


San Benito 














El Paso 


3.7 


3.8 


3.1 


14 


18 


12 


Laredo 


9.0 


7.8 


7.2 


22 


22 


22 


McAllen- 














Pharr- 


5.3 


5.5 


4.6 


20 


20 


19 


Edinburg 














18 Interior S.M.S.A's 












Abilene 


3.4 


2.9 


2.3 


10 


14 


6 


Amarillo 


2.4 


3.0 


3.8 


5 


15 


18 


Austin 


1.7 


1.6 


1.3 


1 


2 


1 


Beatunont- 














Port Arthur- 


3.8 


4.0 


3.3 


17 


19 


15 


Orange 














Corpus Christi 


3.8 


3.1 


3.2 


1 17 


16 


14 


Dallas 


1.8 


1.4 


1.3 


! 2 


1 


1 


Fort Worth 


2.3 


1.8 


1.7 


4 


4 


3 


Ga Ives ton - 














Texas City 


3.6 


2.8 


5.4 


! 14 


13 


20 


Houston 


1.9 


1.7 


2.2 


! 3 


3 


5 


Longview- 














Kilgore- 


2.6 


2.3 


2.3 


1 6 


8 


6 


Gladewater 














Liibbock 


3.7 


2.7 


3.1 


! 15 


11 


12 


Midland- 














Odessa 


3.3 


2.7 


2.4 


I 10 


11 


9 


San Angelo 


3.4 


2.5 


2.6 


1 13 


9 


10 


San Antonio 


3.3 


2.6 


3.3 


1 10 


10 


15 


Texarkana 


2.6 


2.0 


2.9 


1 6 


5 


11 


Tyler 


2.9 


2.2 


2.3 


1 8 


7 


6 


Waco 


3.9 


3.4 


3.6 


1 19 


17 


17 


Wichita Falls 


3.1 


2.0 


2.0 


1 5 


5 


4 



Source: Director of Reports and Statistics, Texas Employment 
Commission in a letter to the author, August 1^ i q«o 



148 



2357 



low in the border towns is not coincidental. Workers residing 
in Mexico contribute to the labor surplus by filling jobs that 
American residents would otherwise have -- and frequently take 
them at wage rates unacceptable to United States residents." 
So states the B.E.S. report filed with the Select Commission 

on Western Hemisphere Immigration in April, 1967. 

Another report, this one unpublished and entitled, "The 
Impact of Alien Commuters Upon the Economy of U.S. Towns on 
the Mexican Border," made the same point, "In the ten year per- 
iod 1957-1966 the available data permitted 138 comparisons of 
border county annual average unemployment rates with the State 
average. In 129 instances the border county rate was higher. 
If a person lives in a border area there is only one chance 
out of 15 or 20 that he is in an area where local unemployment 
is less than what generally prevails in his State... Not only 
is unemployment greater in the border area, frequently it is 
very much greater. In Texas, for example, the unemployment 
rate in the border areas is almost double what it is elsewhere. 

And in some areas it is three or four times as great... "6 

It is clear that other factors — in addition to the pres- 
ence of the commuters — create unemployment along the Mexican 
border. Industry is scarce, agriculture is becoming mechanized, 
a rapid rate of natural increase more than compensates for any 
job creation activities and skill levels are low. It is our 
contention, however, that the commuters aggravate seriously 
an already bleak economic situation. 

149 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 27 



2358 



Most of the coitunuters have the kinds of skills which are 
also possessed by unemployed American residents. Stanley 
Knebel ' s article in Farm Labor Developments reports in detail 
on the kind of work done by the alien commuters counted in the 
November-December 1967 survey.^ As one can note from Table XVI, 
the leading occupational categories are farm workers (more than 
40 percent of the Green Card holders held farm jobs or were 
seeking farm work) , laborers (9 percent) and domestics (7 per- 
cent) . Other significant categories include sales clerks (4 
percent) and sewing machine operators (3 percent) . 

Commenting on this kind of adverse effect (the displace- 
ment of resident workers by alien commuters) the unpublished 
Department of Labor report cited the results of a Departmental 
survey made in Laredo in 1961, "When the survey was conducted, 
unemployment was very heavy in Laredo, 11.3 percent. Large 
numbers of U.S. workers had the same occupational skills as the 
alien commuters and were unemployed at the time of the survey. 
For example, the two garment manufacturing firms in the sample 
employed 88 alien commuters as sewing machine operators. The 
Texas Employment Commission office files contained applications 

from 156 unemployed U.S. (resident) workers with this occupa- 
tion. "^ 

More recently, in his Ph.D. dissertation. Dr. Bryan 

Rungeling pointed out, "Perhaps the most indicting thing that 
can be said against commuters in the local (El Paso) apparel 
industry is that they do occupy jobs that unemployed U.S. 
citizens are capable of holding." This study revealed 

150 



2359 



that demand existed in the work-clothing industry for workers 

while at the same time the state employment service had persons 

9 
who were willing and able to fill these positions." 

Rungeling cities a number of employers who actively favor 
(one might say discriminate in favor) of commuter workers. 
The files of the California Rural Legal Assistance office in 
El Centre, California, include dozens of depositions signed by 
U.S. resident Mexican Americans in connection with the Gooch 
case indicating that they had lost jobs because of the prefer- 
ence employers had for commuters. 

All of this suggests that not only are American residents 
competing for scarce jobs with the commuters , jobs requiring 
the same skills, but that under a number of circumstances the 
resident who competes goes into the competition with a dis- 
tinct disadvantage, the fact that he lives in this country. 
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has, thus far, 
failed to issue regulations which would prevent employers 
from discriminating against workers on the grounds that they 
spend both their days and nights in the United States. (To 
do so would involve some careful legal calculations, but I 
think it can be done.)H 

Virtually everything we have said to date about the dis- 
placement of American workers by Mexican residents relates to 
Texas, and this is no accident. In the first place, the 

151 



2360 



statistical data on this subject, west of El Paso, is the 
most adequate where it is least needed, in San Diego County. 
Commuters play a minor role in the labor market there, mak- 
ing up only 2 percent of the labor force; their presence or 
absence is relatively insignificant when one is concerned 
with over-all metropolitan area unemployment rates. 

The unpublished Labor Department survey compared annual 
average unemployment rates for San Diego County, and the 
State of California, and found that in the first three years 
studied, 1957, 1958, and 1959, San Diego unemployment was 
generally about one percentage point below that of the State 
as a whole. In the ensuing years, 1960 through 1966, San 
Diego's unemployment was about one point more than that of 
the State as a whole. Although controlling the flow of 
commuters would be helpful to some groups of American resi- 
dent workers, a point we will explore in more detail later, 
it would not make much of an impression on the overall un- 
employment rates in San Diego County. 

The situation is completely different in Imperial 
County, California, where the unemployment rate generally 
is in the neighborhood of 10 percent, and where Table XXVII 
shows that there are three times as many commuters as un- 
employed residents. Unemployment data is not collected 
on a monthly basis in this county, as it is not in most 

152 



2361 



rural counties , and hence we must utilize yearly averages, 
which hide wide fluctuations caused by crop conditions and 
the movements, to and fro, of the Imperial Valley-based 
migrant farm workers. In recent years, the California 
Department of Employment has reported these unemployment 
averages for Imperial County, 9.8 percent in 1967 and 8.1 
percent in 1968, which are considerably higher than those 
of the State as a whole. 

Unemployment percentages for the Arizona border towns 

produce a mixture of comparisons: 

1966 1967 1968 

Arizona 
Y\ima 
Douglas 
Nogales 

Of the nine possible comparisons, six show the border 
counties with higher unemployment rates than the State as a 
whole, but the differences are not striking. 

When we discuss the commuter practice along the border 
between El Paso and San Diego, we are essentially talking 
about farm workers. Of the roughly 13,000 counted Green 
Card commuters in this area, about 11,000 of them are in- 
volved in farm work, and most of these are concentrated in 
the Imperial and Yuma Valleys. These areas — unlike South 
Texas — never did have a resident agricultural labor force 
sufficient for the needs of the local farmers, and have 

153 



3.8 


3.7 


4.1 


5.1 


5.6 


4.0 


3.1 


3.8 


3.4 


5.0 


5.3 


5.7 



2362 



always relied on workers from outside the area to harvest 
the crops. Since the departure of the Oakies, at the end 
of the depression, the farmers have looked to the south, 
and have used a variety of methods, some legal, some not, 
to secure the needed workers. 

154 



2363 



B. Wage Levels 

All else being equal, a worker earns less money, for 
perfonning the Seiine kind of work, if he does it on the border 
rather than further north. Michael Peevey , Research Di- 
rector of the California A.F.L.-C.I .0. called this the 

"farther-higher" theory when he testified before the Select 

12 
Commission in San Diego. 

Peevey cited wage rates paid to farm workers, to re- 
tail clerks, to shirt pressers and to service station at- 
tendents, in the Imperial Valley, in San Diego, in Los 
Angeles and points north to show the positive correlation 
between wage rates and distance from the border. Shirt 
pressers, for instance, according to the California Depart- 
ment of Employment's survey of September 1966, cited by 
Peevey, were paid $1.30 an hour in El Centre, $1.40 in San 
Diego, $1.50 - $1.75 in Los Angeles and $1.98 in San 
Francisco. 

The economics of shirt pressing are symbolic of most 
lines of work in the Southwest, and data on this subject 
is available from a variety of sources. More specifically, 
useful information on this subject can be secured from the 
1960 Census, from farm wage information collected by the 
Department of Labor, from non-agricultural wage data, also 
collected by the Department of Labor, from minimum wage 
violation information, and from three special surveys taken 
by the Department, two in Laredo, and one in El Paso. 

155 



2364 



The 1960 Census data shows median earnings in a variety of 
occupations in El Paso and five other major Texas cities. The 
data, as shown in Table XXIX indicates that El Paso and San 
Antonio are in a close race for the dubious distinction of hav- 
ing the worst paid workers in the state, with El Paso being 
sixth or fifth among the six cities in 19 comparisons, and San 
Antonio in 23. It should be borne in mind that this was resident - 
oriented, rather than worker -oriented data, and the poor wages 
paid to El Paso commuters are, by definition, excluded from this 



data. 



TABLE XXIX 

Median earnings in 1959 of persons in the experienced 

labor force by sex and occupation 

(6 standard metropolitan statistical areas in Texas ) 



Earnings 


nank 


Earnings 


Rant 


Earnings 


Kank 


Earnings 


Rank 


Earnings 


Rank 


Earnings 


Rank 


$4, 199 


(5) 


$3, 725 


(6) 


S4, 560 


(41 


$4, 657 


(3 


$4, 915 


(21 


$5, 207 


(1) 


4, 186 


(6 


4,272 


(5 


4, 543 


(4) 


4, 904 


(2 


4, 871 


(31 


5, 124 


(1) 


4, 437 


(5) 


4, 414 


(ej 


5,562 


(1) 


4,833 


(3 


5, 526 


(2) 


4,776 


(4) 


4, G91 


(5 


4, 340 


(0 


4,802 


(4) 


5, 056 


(3 


■5, 374 


(21 


5, 833 


(11 


3,240 


(0 


3, 50G 


(5 


4,334 


(4) 


4, 414 


(3 


4,034 


(2) 


5, 85 1 


(1) 


3, 50'; 


(3 


2, 993 


(6 


3, 454 


(4) 


3,408 


(5 


3,005 


(2) 


3, 730 


(1) 


3, 3SS 


(5) 


2,945 


(0 


3,801 


(4) 


4, 131 


(3 


4, 376 


C^l 


5,381 


(1) 


2, 172 


(4) 


1,920 


(5) 


2,498 


(2) 


2, 527 


(1 


2, 34i 


(31 


1, 831 


(6) 


3,334 


(5 


3,021 


(0 


3,892 


(1) 


3,748 


(2 


3,717 


(3) 


3, 691 


(4) 


4,595 


(3 


3,710 


(6 


4,471 


(5) 


4, 571 


(4 


5,343 


(2) 


5, 625 


(1) 


2,788 


(3 


2, 362 


(6) 


2, 702 


(5) 


2,833 


(2 


2, 771 


(4) 


3, 480 


(1) 


3, 022 


(4) 


3, 019 


(5 


3, 519 


(2) 


3, 507 


(3 


3,566 


(1) 


2, 9S5 


(6) 


2,682 


(5' 


2,577 


fO 


2, 719 


(3) 


2,685 


(4 


2,987 


(2) 


4,678 


(1) 


3,793 


(1 


3,051 


(5 


3,291 


(4) 


3,071 


(2 


3, 393 


(3) 


1,808 


(6) 


2,203 


(1) 


1,454 


(4) 


1,856 


(3) 


1,538 


(6 


2, 174 


(ii) 


1,635 


(5) 


2,386 


(4) 


2,057 


fO) 


2,367 


(5) 


2, 552 


(3 


2, 903 


(21 


3,027 


(1) 


2,775 


(5 


2,506 


fO 


2,843 


(4) 


3,322 


(3 


3,691 


(2) 


4, 055 


(1) 


2,337 


(3' 


1,904 


(6 


2,296 


(41 


2,413 


(2 


2, 526 


(1) 


2, 107 


(5) 


I, 836 


(5' 


1, 938 


M 


2, 322 


(11 


1,970 


(3 


2, 197 


(2) 


1,615 


(6) 


2,656 


(6 


2,865 


(4 


3, 125 


(2) 


2,867 


(3 


3,225 


(1) 


2, 748 


(5) 


2, 855 


(5 


2,864 


(4) 


3,286 


(21 


2,805 


(6 


3, 331 


(11 


2,887 


(3) 


1,724 


(5 


1, 617 


(0 


2, 089 


(1) 


1,762 


(3 


1,785 


(2) 


1,751 


(4) 


3, 147 


(4 


3,089 


(5 


3,568 


(21 


3, 209 


(3 


3,707 


(1) 


3,015 


(C) 


3,290 


(6' 


,3, 322 


f5 


3, 417 


(41 


3, 607 


(3 


3, 791 


(1) 


3,733 


(2) 


2,996 


(6) 


3, 133 


(5 


3, 353 


(21 


3,276 


(4 


3,348 


(3) 


3,408 


(1) 


2,601 


(3) 


2,927 


(1) 


2,530 


(5) 


2,584 


(4 


2, 707 


(2) 


1, 828 


(6) 


1,292 


(6' 


1,478 


(4 


1, 817 


(2) 


1,460 


(5 


1,900 


(1) 


1,513 


(3) 


1,711 


(4' 


1,559 


(6) 


2,223 


(1) 


1,848 


(3 


1,886 


(2) 


1, 570 


(5) 


1,376 


(4) 


1,279 


(r,) 


1,544 


(11 


1, 420 


(2 


1,403 


(3) 


1, 184 


(6) 


617 


(6) 


745 


(3) 


799 


(2) 


709 


(4 


831 


(1) 


637 


(5) 


1, 130 


(4) 


1, 171 


(3) 


1,321 


(11 


1, 116 


(5 


1,316 


(V 


1,002 


(ti) 


1,388 


(5) 


1,588 


(21 


1, 445 


(41 


1, 190 


(6 


1,599 


(1) 


1, 485 


(3) 


1,071 


(6) 


1,308 


(2) 


1,202 


(3) 


1, 175 


(5 


1, 342 


(1) 


1,203 


<4) 


984 


(3) 


929 


(4) 


1,014 


(21 


906 


(51 


1,025 


(1) 


859 


(6) 



All male workers 

Clerical and kindred. 

Salcsworkers. _ 

Craftsmen and 

foremen 

Masons _ 

Painters 

Operators 

Auto service 
station 
attendant 

Truckdriver 

Welders 

Ser\ice workers 

Barbers 

Cooks 

Guards 

Waiters 

Laborers, except 

farm and mine 

ManufacturiuR 

Nonmanufacturing. 

All female workers 

Clerical and kindred. 

Bookkeepers 

Cashiers. 

Secretaries 

Stenographers 

Telcplione operators. 

Typists 

Salcsworkers 

Operators 

Laundry 

I Private household 

Service workers 

Industrial 
attendants 

Cooks.. 

Waitresses 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Census of Population, 1960." 
(Reproduced from Report of Select Commission on Western 
Hemisphere Immigration, Washington/ D.C. , 1968.) 



156 



2365 



More conclusive information on farm labor wages — a 
category excluded from the Census data discussed above — was 
secured in special Department of Labor tabulations of its farm 
labor data, for November 1966. The following table indicates 
the average wage rates paid to seasonal farm workers in three 
labor market areas on the border, and ten away from the border. 
The ten non-border areas are presented in the order of their 
nearness to the border, with the more northerly areas, in keep- 
ing with the farther-higher theory, showing the higher wages. 

TABLE XXX 

Seasonal Farm Workers' Hourly Wages - Texas 
November 19 66 

Border areas 

Lower Rio Grande Valley $ .75 

Rio Grande Plains .77 

Trans-Pecos .83 

Non-border areas 

Lower Coastal .82 

Edwards Plateau .79 

Llano-Coastal .77 

Central Texas 1.00 

Upper Coastal .86 

Cross Timbers 1.17 

Black Lands .99 

East Texas .86 

High Rolling Plains 1.24 

Northern Panhandle 1.20 

Source: Report of the Select Commission, op.cit. , p. 117. 
Roughly similar data is available on manufacturing earn- 
ings, in El Paso and seven other Texas cities. The data 
indicate that in all manufacturing and in non-durable 

157 



2366 



goods manufacturing, El Paso trailed the field in April 1967, 
1968, and 1969, and only in durable goods — not a very signifi- 
cant element in a city whose manufacturing employment is dominated 
by the clothing industry — did El Paso not finish last. (Durable 
goods manufacturing amounted to only 4,735 employees in August 
1968 compared to the non-durable employment of 16,145, according 
to the TEC figures for El Paso.) The manufacturing wage rates 
are in Table XXXI. 

TABLE XXXI 

Average hourly earnings in manufacturing industries, 8 major 
Texas S.M.S.A. 's, 1967, 1968, 1969 (April of each year 

Average hourly earnings 



All 
manufacturing 


Durable 
goods 


Non-dureUsle 
goods 


1967 


1968 


1969 


1967 


1968 


1969 


1967 


1968 


1969 


$ 2.64 


2.86 


2.98 


2.68 


2.89 


3.02 


2.59 


2.81 


2.93 


1.93 


2.08 


2.13 


2.45 


2.70 


2.70 


1.77 


1.87 


1.97 


2.14 


2.34 


2.46 


1.94 


2.18 


2.33 


2.34 


2.56 


2.64 


3.52 


3.69 


3.95 


3.19 


3.40 


3.50 


3.66 


3.81 


4.16 


3.10 


3.35 


3.51 


2.63 


2.89 


3.09 


3.41 


3.66 


3.77 


2.46 


2.67 


2.86 


2.62 


2.81 


3.00 


2.19 


2.38 


2.54 


2.90 


3.03 


3.18 


3.05 


3.17 


3.33 


2.40 


2.53 


2.64 


3.10 


3.24 


3.40 


2.97 


3.09 


3.24 


3.27 


3.44 


3.62 


2.13 


2.26 


2.42 


2.10 


2.19 


2.33 


2.14 


2.31 


2.48 



Texas 

El Paso 

Austin 

Beaumont 

Corpus Christi 

Dallas 

Port Worth 

Houston 

San Antonio 

Source; Texas Employment Commission 

Still another comparison is one favored by the Bureau of 
Business and Economic Research of the School of Business 

158 



2367 



Administration at the University of Texas at El Paso. It is 
a comparison of El Paso to three other cities in the Southwest: 
Albuquerque, Tucson and Phoenix. These four cities banded to- 
gether formally in 1961 to become the Southwest Sun Country 
Association. Recently the Bureau's publication, "The El Paso 
Economic Review" printed a comparison of the per capita income 
of these four cities, which follows: 

TABLE XXXII 

Per Capita Income, Four Southwestern Cities 
1950-1967 



Year 


Albuquerque 


El Paso 


Phoenix 


Tucson 




Percent 




Percent 




Percent 




Percent 






of 




of 




of 




of 




Dollars 


Nat'l. 


Dollars 


Nat'l. 


Dollars 


Nat ' 1 . 


Dollars 


Nat'l. 


1950 


1,472 


98 


1,467 


98 


1,360 


91 


1,304 


87 


1959 


2,306 


112 


1,758 


85 


1,990 


97 


2,082 


101 


1962 


2,339 


99 


1,744 


74 


2,204 


93 


2,250 


95 


1965 


2,669 


97 


1,970 


71 


2,625 


95 


2,315 


84 


1966 


2,798 


94 


2,343 


79 


2,831 


96 


2,471 83 


1967 


2,973 


94 


2,499 


79 


3,038 


96 


2,713 86 


Percent Increase : 








1950-1967 102% 


70% 


123% 


108% 


1959-1967 29% 


42% 


53% 


30% 


Percent Increase in Cos 


3t-of-Living 






1950-1967 


39% 






1959-1967 


15% 







Source: The El Paso Economic Review, July, 1969 



Obviously El Paso's relative position in terms of per capita 
income has dropped drastically in the last 17 years. 

159 



2368 



In areas of high unemployment and generally low wages, 
it is a temptation for some employers to still further lower 
the wage level by paying less than the minimum wage levels. 
Given the employment and wage levels in the border region, 
one might expect to find relatively higher incidence of minimum 
wage violations, and data from the Wage and Hours and Public 
Icontracts Divisions of the Department of Labor meets that 
expectation. 

In Table XXXIII we have compared the population of the 
border region to the entire State population (for 1960) , 
and then compared that percentage to the percentage of 
wage-hour violations found in that State's border region. 
To get an accurate cross-section of wage-hour violations, 
we secured data on cases handled, cimount of dollars found 
in unpaid minimum wages, the eimount of unpaid overtime, 
and the ntimber of child labor violations. Generally the 
proportion of unpaid minimum wages in border counties 
ran well ahead of what might be expected on a random sample 
basis. (The number of child labor viola-tions found in 
agriculture, all of 88 in the border counties for the entire 
fiscal year, would seem to indicate a need for some new enforce- 
ment techniques . ) 

160 



2369 



TABLE XXXIII** 



Federal Minimum Wage Violations in Border Counties 
State and County 

Pop 



TEXAS 



Amt. of 
No. of unpaid 
Cases min. wage 



Amt. of Child 
unpaid Labor 
Overtime violations* 



A. 


State Totals 


9 


,579,677 


6,747 $2 


,359,515 


$4,102,783 


2,961 


B. 


Border Counties 




793,233 


516 


597,666 


245,972 


96 


C. 


B as % of A 




8% 


8% 


25% 


5% 


3% 




Brewster County 




6,434 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 




Cameron County 




151,098 


125 


298,571 


54,471 


41 




El Paso County 




314,070 


161 


37,050 


43,784 


17 




Hidalgo County 




180,904 


142 


111,647 


71,913 


32 




Hudspeth County 




3,343 


- 


- 


- 


- 




Jeff David County 




1,582 


- 


- 


- 


- 




Kinney County 




2,452 


2 


30 


- 


- 




Maverick County 




14,508 


13 


20,770 


6,343 


- 




Presidio County 




5,460 


1 


7,000 


3,400 


- 




Starr County 




17,137 


12 


5,906 


4,977 


- 




Terrell County 




2,600 


- 


- 


- 


- 




Val Verde County 




24,461 


5 


2,678 


6,517 


1 




Webb County 




64,791 


54 


113,870 


49,460 


5 




Zapata County 




4,393 


1 


144 


5,107 


- 




NEW MEXICO 














A. 


State Totals 




951,023 


431 


52,793 


133,278 


68 


B. 


Border Counties 




74,748 


61 


11,790 


16,001 


8 


C. 


B as % of A 




7% 


14% 


22% 


12% 


12% 




Dona Ana County 




59,948 


52 


3,891 


10,612 


5 




Hidalgo County 




4,961 


- 


- 


- 


- 




Luna County 




9,839 


9 


7,899 


5,389 


3 




ARI ZONA 














A. 


State Totals 


1 


302,161 


394 


105,745 


449.078 


50 


B. 


Border Counties 




331,507 


135 


30,456 


118.872 


12 


C. 


B as % of A 




25% 


34% 


29% 


26% 


24% 




Cochise County 




55,039 


10 


3,115 


1,926 


- 




Pima County 




265,660 


102 


16,137 


102,860 


10 




Santa Cruz County 




10,808 


9 


2,052 


2,109 


- 




Yuma County 




46,235 


14 


9,152 


11,977 


2 




CALIFORNIA 














A. 


State Totals 


15 


,717,204 


5,249 


602,639 


5,231,719 


902 


B. 


Border Counties 


1 


,105,116 


256 


98,028 


375,588 


90 


C. 


B as % of A 




6% 


5% 


16% 


7% 


10% 




Imperial County 




72,105 


13 


2,220 


21,772 


- 




San Diego County 


1 


,033,011 


243 


95,808 


353,816 


90 


So 


urce : Wage - Hour 


and Public 


Contracts 


Division, 


U.S. Dept. 


of Labor 



*Non-agricultural only. There were 88 agricultural child labor 
violations in fiscal year 1968, 
**1968 fiscal year findings. 



161 



2370 



It should be emphasized that this material is for 
wage-hour violations which have been uncovered, and it, 
like data on apprehended illegals, reflects two different 
factors, the extent of the violations and the effectiveness 
of the enforcement agency. Assuming a relatively even 
distribution of wage-hour efficiency, these figures suggest 
a rather uneven distribution of fair labor standards vio- 
lations. 

The Labor Department made three special surveys of 
alien commuter's occupations and wage levels, twice in 
Laredo, in 1961 and 1968, and once in El Paso, in 1961. 
All three indicated crushingly low wages, the significant 
role of the Federal minimum wage in setting local wage 
levels, and large numbers of commuters working in low- 
skilled occupations. The most recent Laredo survey, con- 
ducted before the $1.60 an hour minimum wage went into 
effect, showed that 7 5.6 percent of the 608 commuters sur- 
veyed were making $1.40 (then the minimum) or less, with 
47.7 percent of those surveyed being paid precisely $1.40 
an hour. Farm workers and domestics, two large groups of 
workers who do not enjoy the protection of the standard 
minimimi wage, were excluded from the survey. Were they to 
be included, the wage rates in the table which follows 
would be further depressed. 

The 1968 survey, incidentally showed that commuters 
and resident workers were always paid the same wages when 

162 



2371 



TABLE XXXIV 

Percentage Distribution of Commuters* by Wage Rate, 
Laredo, Texas , January 1968 



** 



Wage interval Percent of Cumulative 

percentage 

$ .70 and less 4.6 4.6 

.71 to § .80 1.1 5.7 

.81 to .90 .2 5.9 

91 to 1.00 6.3 12.2 

1.01 to 1.10 5.0 17.2 

1.11 to 1.20 1.1 18.4 

22.3 
27.9 

75.6 

79.2 
79.7 

87.6 
92.6 
93.9 
94.2 
96.2 
96.7 
97.1 

97.6 
97.9 
98.6 
98.7 
98.9 
98.9 

98.9 

99.4 

100.0 

* Excludes farmworkers and maids in private households. 

**Percent of all commuters in the 48 occupations covered by 
the survey . 

NOTE: Due to rounding, percentages may not add to totals. 

Source: Wage survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor, 
January 1968 . 

163 



1, 


.21 


to 


1, 


.30 


1, 


.31 


to 


1, 


.39 






?1.40 




1, 


.41 


to 


1, 


.50 


1, 


.51 


to 


1, 


.59 






?1.60 




1. 


,61 


to 


1, 


,70 


1. 


,71 


to 


1. 


.80 


1. 


,81 


to 


1. 


.90 


1. 


,91 


to 


2. 


,00 


2. 


,01 


to 


2. 


,10 


2, 


,11 


to 


2. 


.20 


2, 


,21 


to 


2, 


,30 


2. 


,31 


to 


2. 


,40 


2. 


,41 


to 


2, 


,50 


2. 


,51 


to 


2. 


,60 


2 


.61 


to 


2 


.70 


2. 


,71 


to 


2. 


,80 


2. 


81 


to 


2. 


.90 


2. 


91 


to 


3. 


00 


Over 




3. 


00 



Percent of 


total** 


4.6 


1.1 


.2 


6.3 


5.0 


1.1 


3.9 


5.6 


47.7 


3.6 


.5 


7.9 


5.0 


1.3 


.3 


2.0 


.5 


.5 


.5 


.3 


.7 


.2 


.2 








.5 


.6 



2372 



employed in the same occupations — the earlier survey in 
Laredo indicated the contrary, that in a number of instances 
firms employing both commuters and residents would pay the 
commuters at a lower rate. The earlier survey had found 
that in 15 surveyed occupations firms employing only resi- 
dents paid more than firms employing both commuters and 
residents; it also found one occupation where the wage 
rates were the same, and three others, (fountain girl, 
bell boy and waiter) where firms employing both residents 
and commuters paid more than those who employed only resi- 
dents. This data, which indicates weekly average wages 
(sometimes supplemented by tips) of $12, $14, $15, $16, $17 
and $20 a week, is tabulated below. 

TABLE XXXV 
Occupational wage structure, Laredo, Texas, June 1961 





AvcraRc wage 


ato (po 


week) 


Industry and occupation 


Average 


wage 


ate (per week) 


Industry and occupation 


Firms 

empldvinB 

only domestic 

workers 


rirnis 

cmi»lo\inR 

domestic and 

alien com- 
muter workers 


Firms 

cmployiiiR 

only domfslic 

workers 


Firms 

employing 

domestic and 

alien com- 
muter workers 


Hotels and motels : 


$5S 
20 
25 

' 15 

' 25 
58 

' 15 

27 
52 
16 

77 




$34 
17 
20 

1 18 
13 
46 

' 16 

12 
40 

2 23 
55 


Grocery and related firms: 




$24 
35 
45 
65 
37 

53 
73 
63 


$24 


Maid 






20 


Hall boy 






35 


Waiter 

Busboy - 


Btitclier. 




52 






31 


Miscellaneous retail firms: 

Porter 


- 




Bellboy - 

Drugstores and related firms: 

Cashier 

Stock clerk . 


35 
21 






45 








Fountain girl 

Drug clerk 





' Plus tips. • Plus $3 meal allowance. 

Note.— Data were collected in the survey concerning the diOerent rates paid each occupntion in each firm. For some occupations monthly rates 
were reported: these were converted lo weekly rate-, by dividing the monthly rate by 4.33. 'J'no number of workci-s paid each rate was not reported In 
all cnses making It impossiljlo to compute an a\ tM-;ige rate weighted bv the number of workers paid oacll late. The average rates "-hown in the table repre- 
sent the average of the highest and lowest rstes paid. These averages cori-espond quite accurately with the weighted averages computed for the few 
occupations where data were reported for each worker. 

Source: Report of the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere 
Immigration, p. 121. 

164 



2373 



The El Paso survey in 1961 found (as did both the 
Laredo surveys in 1961 cind 1968) that most of the commuters 

surveyed were in the "less skilled and more menial occupa- 

13 
tions." In a number of instances wage information was not 

available, but when it was it showed that in one half of the 

occupations under study the wages paid to alien commuters 

were lower than that which unemployed workers registered 

with TEC indicated that they would accept. Occupations in 

this category included sales positions, cooks, laundry 

workers, painters, carpenters and factory jobs. 

Our 1969 survey covered wages paid to commuters, but not 

to non-commuters. Hence we have some information on hourly 

wage rates, but in only a few categories can these be compared 

to other, existing wage information. We can, for instance, 

make these comparisons regarding garment workers: 

Green Card Commu- All Texas Garment El Paso Non-DuraUsle 
ters Into Texas Workers Goods Workers 

$1.66 $1.94 $1.98 

Source ; 1st colvunn: TransCentury survey, 1969 
2nd " BLS; both of these columns 

reflect July 1969 date; 
3rd " is from Manpower Trends, TEC; 

data is for January 1970. 

We can also compare data on farm workers ' earnings , though 
this is complicated by the different concepts involved. The 
Department of Agriculture's data deals with hourly wages (and 
does not consider the question of piece rates) . We asked our 

165 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 28 



2374 



interviewees to estimate their hourly earnings, if they worked 

on piece rates. The following data is for July, 1969: 

Green Card Commu- All hourly paid farm 
ters (suryey data) workers (USDA data) * 



California 


$1.60 


$1.80 


Arizona 


$1.43 


$1.45 


Texas 


$1.41 


$1.28 



Another, perhaps less useful comparison would be between 
the wages earned by all commuters going into El Paso and 
San Diego, with the BLS data on hourly earnings 6f all pro- 
duction workers in those two SMSA's. Although the comparison 
does not reflect the seune occupational distribution, it does 
show something of the wage spread between commuters, generally, 
and blue collar workers, generally, in those two places. 

Green Card Commu- All Production 
ters (survey data) workers ( BLS data) 

El Paso $1.56 $2.10 

San Diego $2.05 $3.92 

Of the seven rather rough and ready comparisons noted here, 
two covering garment workers , three covering farm workers , and 
two commuters and production workers generally, we find that 
in six instances commuters* earnings are less than that of the 
work force to which they are being compared. The somewhat 
surprising exception is in the case of Texas farm workers. 
These comparisons, though not conclusive in juid of themselves, 
generally coincide with the other wage and earnings data pro- 
duced in other reports mentioned earlier. 



* without room and board 

166 



2375 



C. Union Organization 

One of organized labor's principal complaints -- 
perhaps its principal complaint — against the commuter 
system is that it discourages the unionization of a de- 
pressed work force. This is often expressed in terms of 
"strikebreaking" , although actual instances of commuter 
strikebreaking , dramatic though they may be, are rela- 
tively rare. 

Much of the current thrust toward some control of the 
commuter traffic has been generated by the unions -- hence 
the question of difficulty of organizing workers along the 
border has received more attention than a less dramatic 
by-product of the practice , such as the encouragement 
of migrancy during the summer time. 

Commuter strikebreaking is very irritating to the 
labor movement, because it destroys one specific organi- 
zation's effort while simultaneously discouraging organi- 
zation generally. We have discussed on pages 54 - 57 
efforts to remedy the situation through administrative 
action, and on page 63 the current attempt to stop the 
practice through legislative action. 

A particularly dramatic example was the use of com- 
muter strikebreakers (presumably both alien and citizens) 
in the strike of the Starr County melon pickers during 
1966 and 1967. The strike had been started by a footloose 
Anglo volunteer working with Cesar Chavez, Eugene Nelson, 

167 



2376 



who stopped off in Rio Grande City on his way back to 
Delano. He was appalled by what he saw and on June 1, 
1966 a group of field workers left the fields, seeking 
recognition and higher wages. At first the group was an 
independent one, but later it affiliated with Chavez' 
organization in Delano. 

The growers, whose fields are in sight of Mexico, and 
who had close working relationships with local lawmen immedi- 
ately replaced the departed field workers with a fresh 
supply of commuters, and the strike, from the first, was 
destined for failure. But before the strike was abandoned, 
following the devastation of Hurricane Beulah, it attract- 
ed a lot of attention, and dramatized the role that commu- 
ters can play in such situations. 

This was the strike which: 

1. Caused the Justice Department to issue its largely 
futile regulation against the employment of newly hired 
Green Card commuters in strike situations. 

2. Caused the American and Mexican unions to cooperate -- 
if only briefly — in stopping the flov/ of Green Card strike- 
breakers. On May 11 and 12, 1967, Mexican unionists carried 
the red strike flag while they picketted the Mexican side of 
the Roma bridge, and the commuters refused to cross the picket 
line; on the third d=iv the pickets were withdrawn, and the 
strikebreakers renewed their work for the Starr County 
farmers. ^^ 

168 



2377 



The most notable American labor dispute, involving the 
utilization of alien strikebreakers, is, of course, the 
one between the California grape industry and the grape 
pickers, led by Cesar Chavez. VJe draw two distinctions, 
however, between the utilization of daily commuters in 
a labor dispute, such as those in Starr County and in the 
Coachella Valley (see page 57 ) , and the utilization of 
seasonal border crossing Mexican residents, as in the con- 
tinuing strike in Delano (which is 260 miles north of the 
border) . The first distinction is essentially a pragmatic 
one, in that it would be much more difficult to obtain 
governmental action to control the employment of resident 
aliens (or those who can make a reasonable claim to such 
residency) than it would be to control the employment of 
strikebreakers who obviously do not live in this country. 
The second distinction is this: since the dispute in Delano 
involves seasonal migrants from Mexico, rather than daily 
commuters, we regard it as being outside the scope of this 
study. 

Other recent strikes broken by daily commuters include 

one at Southland Cafe in Laredo in 1967 (where the workers 

were unhappy with 25 cents an hour wages according to 

15 
Texas A.F.L.-C.I.O. union official Henry Munoz) , two 

strikes in Cameron County during 1965 and 1966, both ra- 

16 
pidly broken by the employment of commuters , and a strike 

169 



2378 



17 
against the California Laundry in San Diego. The list is 

not a long one but every one of them has proved to be a 

major obstacle to the organization of workers along the 

border. 

Strikes of any kind are rare on the border, particu- 
larly the Texas border. Thumbing through the Manpower 
Trends reports for the four TEC areas on the border. El 
Paso, Laredo, McAllen and Brownsville for the first eight 
months of 1969, we find only the slimmest evidence of 
industrial unrest. In six of the eight months there were 
no workers idled by disputes (to use the awkward TEC 
terminology) in El Paso and in two months there were 135 
and 155 workers (out of a labor force of 122,000) so idled. 
One small strike involving 15 people was the only one re- 
ported in Laredo, and it persisted through the eight months. 
There was not a single strike to mar the record in McAllen, 
and Brownsville reported three months of no strike activity, 
and during five months either 90 or 180 workers were out of 
work (out of a labor force of some 50,000). 

One element should be noted; strikes involving workers 
with few skills can be broken by the use of commuters, but 
disputes involving skilled workers are not broken. There 
have been strikes along the border of copper miners and 
construction electricians in the last few years in which the 
employers made no effort to break the strike by using 
either resident or foreign workers. 

170 



2379 



It is generally agreed that Mexican residents break- 
ing strikes do so out of dire need of employment (of any 
kind) and out of ignoramce of the nuances of American labor 
relation practices. Life is simpler in Mexico. If a union 
actually calls a strike, which is rare, it is against the 
law to work at the struck plant. Commuters see that the 

American company continues to operate and hence assume that 

18 
there is no strike. 

Further, we have encountered numerous comments to the 

effect that commuters hesitate to take part in a strike for 

fear that their employer — in some way — will be able to 

19 
get their Green Card cancelled. 

Underlining both the relatively low incidence of strikes 

(and the commuters' apparent unwillingness to talk about 

participation as either strikers or strikebreakers) only 19 

of the 400 Green Card commuters indicated that he had been a 

striker, and none admitted that he had helped break a strike. 

Strikebreaking , however, is just the most dramatic way 
that commuters are used to discourage union activities; 
it is not the only one. Simple non-interest in joining a 
union is probably more significant, if less obvious. Few 
commuters are union members — our survey showed only 43 
out of 400 — and union officials are unanimous in their 
statements that the commuter is particularly difficult to 

171 



2380 



organize. State labor relations laws, particularly in 
Texas and Arizona, are designed to discourage labor organi- 
zation, and these laws are particularly effective along 

20 
the border . 

An employer using commuters has one obvious advantage 

if he wants to discourage unionization. If he employs 

enough commuters to fill one or more buses he can make sure 

that the workers get to work on time (and are never sullied 

by contact with union organizers on American soil) by the 

simple expedient of sending a bus to the bridge to pick up 

the workers , and then sending them home at night in the 

same vehicle. The bus unloads at the plant, and loads up 

again behind a fence. This tactic was described by Senator 

Yarborough during Senator Edward Kennedy ' s hearings in 

21 
1967. 

La Casita farms used similar portal-to-portal tactics 
during the Starr County strike. 

There are a number of commuter union members , however , 
particularly among those working in a variety of occupations 
in San Diego and in the garment trades in El Paso. The 
presence of these union members has produced some interesting 
by-products, for instance, local union leaders in San Diego 
did not testify at the Select Commission hearings, apparently 
on the dual grounds that the California State A.F.L.-C.I.O. 
was going to carry the ball, anyway, and that such testimony 

172 



2381 



might be awkward for business agents whose membership included 
a substantial nubmer of commuters. Further, sometimes local 
unions in the San Diego area will hold some of their meetings 

in Juarez out of consideration for their south-of-the-border 

22 

members. 

In an effort to secure quantitative information on this 
subject, we looked at union membership data for four unions 
whose membership potential varies little from one part of the 
Nation to another. We talked with the United Brotherhood of 
Carpenters and Joiners, the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers, (regarding their construction membership), 
the Communication Workers of America (CWA) and the Retail 
Clerks International Association — all of whom represented 
occupations which are as widely represented along the border 
as elsewhere. In each instance we asked for membership data 
in border and non-border cities in California and Texas. The 
results are noted on the next page. 

173 



2382 



state/City 



California 



TABLE XXXVI 

Comparative Union Membership 
Border and Non-Border Cities 



Retail 
Clerks 



*San Diego 4,854 
San Francisco 11,000 



Carpen- 
ters 



Electri- 
cians 



1960 City 
CWA Population 



7,035 


348 


1,310 


573,000 


23,948 


1,860 


3,271 


740,000 



Texas 



*E1 Paso 


383 


342 


259 


no data 


275,000 


Austin 


100 


1,126 


317 


no data 


186,000 


Fort Worth 


3,874 


1,266 


639 


2,134 


365,000 


♦Laredo 





113 





127 


60,000 


San Angelo 





169 


108 


no data 


59,000 


Tyler 


30 


389 


105 


243 


51,000 



* Indicates border city. 

Source: Correspondence with the four unions. 



It appears from this limited data that inland cities tend 
to have a higher proportion of union members to total popula- 
tion than border cities do. 

174 



2383 



D. Encouragement o£ Mlgrancy 

A person does not become a migrant farm worker if he 
has any other possible method of making a living. 

In the first place, farm work (being physically de- 
manding and ill-paid) attracts only those who (for a 
variety of reasons) have no alternative. 

Given the occupation — farm work — one would prefer 
to stay in one place, rather than taking one's families 
into the migrant stream, or leaving the family for long 
periods of time. 

Despite the uncertainties, indignities, low wages, 
and miserable housing, approximately 100,000 border county 
residents belong to families who work every year in the 
migrant streeim. Starting from their homes, all along the 
border, they spread all over the Nation in their annual 
search for work. In the past. Southwest-based migrants 
generally confined their search for work to that part of 
the Nation west of the Appalachians, but in recent years 
Texas -based migrants have started moving up and down the 
east coast (in competition with the Florida-based black 
crews) . 

Predictably, the border counties reporting the largest 
number of migrants are the poorest ones. But it is also 
interesting to note that many of the largest migrant- pro- 
ducing counties are ones (such as Imperial and Yuma) which 
regularly import large numbers of commuting farm workers. 

175 



2384 



The second column on the following table shows by home base 
the number of members of migrant farm worker faunilies, this is 
a Public Health Service estimate for the 1967 season. These 
people leave the border to seek work elsewhere. The first col- 
umn shows the total number of aliens and citizens legally com- 
muting into the scune counties, for both farm and non-farm jobs. 

TABLE XXXVII 
Entering Commuters and Departing Migrants 





In Flow of 


Out Flow of 


'ATE/County 


Alien and Citizen 


Members of U.S. Residents 




Commuters from Mexico 


Migrant Families 


TEXAS 




Cameron 


3,859 


15,000 


Hidalgo 


2,461 


37,500 


Starr 


105 


3,300 


Zapata 





600 


Webb 


4,446 


7,500 


Maverick 


3,074 


6,200 


Val Verde 


450 


1,500 


Hudspeth 


380 


120 


El Paso 


18,819 


900 


ARIZONA 






Cochise 


777 


300 


Pima 


8 


3,762 


Yuma 


4,240 


4,244 


CALIFORNIA 






San Diego 


13,959 


3,945 


Imperial 


11,109 


10,787 


TOTALS 


63,687 


95,658 



Source : 



First column from Tables VII and VIII; second column 
from 1969 Report of the Conmittee on Labor and Public 
Welfare. 



These are some statistical difficulties with these two sets 
of figures; one measures family members (and presumably about a 3rd 
of them are not workers) and the other measures the entire commuter 
work force including many non-agricultural workers. Further, the 

176 



2385 



commuter figures are, as suggested earlier, understatements, 
and it is hard to gauge the accuracy of the PHS figures 
(counting migrants is always difficult) . 

Nevertheless, these figures do show, in a rough way, that 
there is significant movement of commuting Mexicans into the 
very counties from which significant numbers of American resi- 
dents leave each spring, seeking work in the North. 

Perhaps even more significant are the variations from one 
county to another; in some very poor areas, such as in the 
Valley, the number of incoming commuters is much smaller than 
the number of outgoing migrants, suggesting that stopping all 
the commuters at the bridge would help free jobs for some of 
the out-migrants, but not for many of them. On the other hand, 
far more workers enter the cities of El Paso and San Diego 
than migrants leave. It is interesting that the two places 
where farm work is most important, San Luis and Calexico, are 
the two where there is the closest balance between arriving 
commuters and departing migrants. 

As indicated earlier, it is our belief that the influx 
of close to 100,000 border crossers into the border counties 
and the departure of some 100,000 farm workers and their de- 
pendents from these same counties must have a relationship to 
each other. Those arriving and those leaving have much in 
common; they are Mexican Americans; they are generally poor; 
their skills are generally minimal, though the border crossers 

177 



2386 



work at a much wider range of occupations than the migrants 
do. It is our contention that the pressure of the commuters 
on the labor market has caused a greater exodus of border area 
farm workers than would be the case without this pressure. It 
is regrettable however, that available statistics (including 
those we generated) can not cast more light on this subject. 

178 



2387 



E. Impact on Retailing Near the Border 

There are some indications that some border — or near 
border business interests are adversely affected by com- 
muting. Retail establishments in border crossing points can, 
and do, benefit from the purchases of both passing commuters 
and other residents of Mexico. But owners of establishments 
a few miles from the border receive no such benefits, while 
seeing employment which might go to potential customers in 
their town go to commuters. 

For instance, an El Centre, California, auto dealer, 
complained at the hearings held by Congressman Tunney that 
commuters did not do him any good.23They take jobs from 
American residents, he said, and they are not good enough 
risks to get auto loans from banks (how do you collect on 
the other side of the border?). Further, they often buy gas 
in Mexico, and don't buy any insurance, anywhere, which ulti- 
mately runs up the cost of auto insurance to American resi- 
dents. We have encountered similar testimony from business- 
men in Brawley, another back-from-the-border community in the 
Imperial Valley. These comments, however, are relatively rare, 
largely because most retailing anywhere near the border is 
right on the border. 

179 



2388 



F. The Domestics 

There is no "servant problem" on the border. 

Mexican maids, who get across the border in a variety 
of ways, can be hired for as little as $10 and $12 a week. 
In fact, the Texas Employment Service in El Paso will find 
one for you from among those registering for work for $3 a 
day, and I imagine the local offices in the Valley would 
demand even less. 

As a result, families with relatively modest incomes 
can and do have servants but if the husband were to be trans- 
ferred elsewhere in the country the family might find house- 
hold help receiving more for a day's work than the Mexican 
maid received for a week's efforts. 

Some of the maids are Green Card commuters — we found 
18 among the 97 women we interviewed (and the record for the 
lowest wage in the survey goes to the 25 cents an hour earned 
by one lady in the Valley). Some of the maids are citizens, 
but probably the largest group are the illegals. 

Maids have relatively little trouble coming and going 
with border crossing cards for several reasons. In the first 
place, INS is not very militant about catching them, although 
the Service regularly apprehends a couple of hundred a month 
at the El Paso crossing points. 

Secondly, many of the illegals domestics live-in and 
cross the border very infrequently. Sometimes they 

180 



I 



2389 



only have a day off every other week, and often they are 
so far from home that they can not afford the trip more 
than a couple of times a year. (Currently, there is a 
substantial number of maids in F,l Paso from Durango, which 
is about 675 miles away.) 

Thirdly, those who cross the border daily have worked 
out the necessary techniques quite deftly. One does not 
cross during the rush hour, in either direction; one al- 
ways carries a little brown bag, generally with the same 
pair of new socks in it, or something on that order. If 
stopped in the morning the lady explains that the socks 
are not the right size, and she must exchange them; if 
stopped in the afternoon, which is less likely, she would 
explain that she had been shopping in El Paso, and all she 
could buy were the socks for her child. 

The large supply of "lexican domestics has two in- 
direct effects on the border labor markets, as well as 
the obvious direct one of depressing wages for housework: 
1. It allows resident housewives to leave their 
homes and children and work at relatively low paid 
jobs; it can be argued that the willingness of the 
lady of the house to work at the minimum wage, for 
instance, is tied to the fact that she can hire a 
maid for $10 or $12 a week, and hence the presence 
of an inexpensive maid acts indirectly as a labor 

181 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 29 



2390 

market depressant. 

2. Since a relatively large portion of the popu- 
lation, including the resident Mexican American 
leadership in most cases, employs inexpensive 
domestic labor, it serves to strengthen the em- 
ployers' position in favor of a loose border. 

There is relatively little sentiment along the border 
to change rules regarding maids. Time after time the 
interviewers and the author talked with people vehemently 
in favor of doing something about the Green Card commuters 
who would say, in the next breath, "but we really have to 
leave the maid situation alone. They really don't take 
jobs from American residents. They are usually very young, 
and they don't stay maids very long; they get married and 
quit. An besides they allow housewives here to hold jobs.. 

What they don't tell us, I am sure, is that their 
wives have a pretty strong position on this matter, too. 

182 



2391 



Notes on Chapter V 



1. See Father Pena's testimony before the Select Commission, 
Hearings — Part III - Brownsville , op. cit . , p. 18. 

2. The Nathan Report, op. cit. , p. 141. 

3. U.S. Department of Labor, Texas Area #5 CAMPS plan (Austin, 
Texas, 1969). 

4. The Department of Labor, in the April 1967 Manpower Report 
to the President, (p. 75) defined the subemployment concept as 
follows: "The "sub-employment" concept and index include: 

1. People classed as unemployed, since they were jobless and 
looJcing for work during the survey week; 

2. Those working only part time though they wanted full-time 
work ; 

3. Heads of households under 65 years of age who earn less 
than $60 a week though working full time; also individuals 
under 65, not heads of households, who earn less than $56 
a week on a full-time job (the equivalent of $1.40 an hour 
for a 40-hour week) ; 

4. Half the number of " nonpar ticipants" among men aged 20 to 
64 (on the assumption that the other half are not potential 
workers, chiefly because of physical or mental disaibilities 
or severe personal problems) ; and 

5. An estimate of the male "undercount" group (based on the 
assumption that the number of men in the area should bear 
the same relation to the number of women that exists in 
the population generally; also that half of the unfound 
men are in the four groups of sub-employed people just 
listed — the others being either employed or not poten- 
tial workers) ." 

5. Select Commission Report , op, cit ., p. 123. 

6. This is in the files of the Farm Labor and Rural Manpower 
Service, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington D.C. 

7. Knebel, op. cit ., p. 13. 

8. From the unpublished study of the U.S. Department of Labor, 
Bureau of Employment Security, Office of Farm Labor Service, 
"The Impact of Alien Commuters Upon the Economy of U.S. Towns 
on the Mexican Border," October, 1967. 

9. Rungeling, op. cit . , p. 143. 
10. See Chapter II, pp. 67 - 69. 

183 



2392 



11. Conversations with E.E.O.C. members and attorneys over the 
past three years. 

12. Select Commission, Hearings — Part II — San Diego, op.cit . , 
p. 24. 

13. Select Commission Report, op.cit. , p. 122. 

14. From Hearings before the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, 
op. cit ., Rio Grcmde City, June 1967, pp. 449-450. 

15. Ibid., pp. 618-619. 

16. Select Commission, Hearings — Part III — Brownsville, 
op. cit ., p. 86. 

17. Interview with Fred Martinez, San Diego, May 1969. 

18. Testimony of William Kircher, A.F.L.-C.I.O. , p. 83 of unpub- 
lished hearing held by Senate Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Naturalization, op. cit ., September 1967. 

19. Conversations with labor leaders in El Paso, San Diego, Yuma 
and Laredo during 1969. 

20. See report prepared by the Texas Advisory Committee to the 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, "The Administration of Jus- 
tice in Starr County, Texas," June 1967. 

21. Hearings of Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturali- 
zation, op. cit ., September 1967, p. 32. 

22. Select Commission Heeirings — ■ Part II — San Diego, op. cit., 
p. 106 and interviews with union officials, San Diego, May 
1969. 

23. From the unpublished transcript of hearings on Green Card 
commuters held by Congressman Tunney in California, p. 176. 

184 



2393 



VI. Participation in Federal Programs 

From most American viewpoints the border crossers do 
not live an enviable life. The work is hard, the pay is 
low, there is the daily inconvenience of crossing the 
border, and there are many mouths to feed. Most of the 
Border Crossers are members of the working poor. 

Once that has been said, however, it must also be 
said that the border crossers do have a much higher standard 
of living than their neighbors in Mexico, and probably have 
a slightly higher real income than American residents 
earning the seune amount of money. They also — and this is 
the thrust of this chapter — have access to many of the 
benefits of the Federal social progreims while paying less 
than their fair share of the price. 

185 



2394 



A. Social Insurance Programs 

There are three basic social insurance programs in 
effect in all of the border States (social security, un- 
employment insurance and workmen's compensation) plus tem- 
porary disability insurance in California. 

Social security is the widest of the programs, covering 
just about all work, legal and illegal, in the United States. 
(For instance, work done by an illegal entrant is subject to 
social security coverage.) 

The three different kinds of border crossers had differing 

kinds of experience with the social security program, as noted 

in the table below: 

TABLE XXXVIII 

Social Security Experience of Border Crossers 



(Percentage Distribut 


ion) 




. . Green Card 


Illegal 


U.S. Citizen 


Activity rr.n,TTi,i+-<:.r = 


Entrants 


Commuters 






Possession of card 






Yes 99.0 


21.3 


98.8 


No 1.0 


78.7 


1.2 



Deduction of social 
security taxes 



Yes 




94.5 




81.2 


No 




4.0 


no data 


17.6 


Don ' t know 




1.5 




2.4 


Filed for benefits 










Yes, collected 




1.0 




2.4 


Yes, did not collect 


.8 


no data 





Never filed 




98.2 




97.6 


Source: TransCentury 


survey, 1969. 










186 







2395 



Given the uniformly high presence of social security 
cards iunong both citizens and alien commuters, the lower 
rate of social security tax deductions aunong the citizens 
Is puzzling. (It may have been that they were unaware of 
social security tax payments deducted from their pay, or it 
may reflect the citizens concentration at the eastern border, 
where we found a higher Incidence of non-payment of social 
security taxes 2unong the Green Card commuters.) Even more 
interesting is the very low rate of social security tax pay- 
ments by the citizens' employers. 

Social security benefits, are, as they should be in an 
Insurzmce system, payable to people qualifying for them, no 
matter where they live. The low percentages seeking benefits 
reflects, among other things, the relative youth of our re- 
spondents . 

Medicare is also available to all social security benefi- 
ciaries, regardless of residence, but with the exception of 
some tightly defined emergency situations, all medical services 
must be provided within this cotintry. This would suggest that 
it would be the best interest of the retired commuter to re- 
main in the area near the border, rather than returning to the 
interior of Mexico. 

Reflecting the generally poor wages received by Mexican 
Americems, the Social Security Administration's analysis 
of benefits being paid beyond the Nation's borders Indicates 
that the average payment to a beneficiary living in 

187 



2396 



Mexico is among the lowest in the world. In Mexico, the 
17,382 beneficiaries, which constitute about 8 1/2 percent 
of the total 202,125 beneficiaries outside the United States, 
receive an average of $54.29 each per month. This is con- 
siderably lower than the total average monthly benefit of 
$78.40 of all beneficiaries living abroad. 

Workmen's compensation is totally employer-financed, 
unlike social security which is jointly financed, and also 
payable to an injured worker, no matter where he lives. One 
would suspect that the injured border crosser, with his 
relatively low level of sophistication and often inadequate 
English, would be more likely to lose his rights in the 
workmen's compensation wilderness than he would in the 
rather more straightforward social security procedures. The 
fact that both private insurance companies and State agencies 
have roles to play in workmen's compensation, and that a 
lawyer's services are usually needed, indicates the complexi- 
ties. We have, however, little firm data on the subject. 

We vere told in Yuma that often an injured Mexican American 
will live in Mexico, rather than in Arizona, after suffering a 
major injury. With the awards being inadequate, this is the 
only way that workers can survive. 

Unemployment insurance, again employer- financed, is 
administered by the State Employment Security agencies under 
a rather loose set of Washington- imposed regulations. 

188 



2397 



Both California and Texas ask that the claiaant 

present an American address when he applies for unen^loyment 

insurance, but neither denumds that he live in the United 

2 
States. As a result, a sttbstantial number of claimants 

live in Mexico and make a weekly visit to the border city 

claims office to assure themselves of a continuing benefit. 

Arizona on the other hand formally requires an 
3 
Ainerican residence. This provision, inserted in the law 

by the powerful mining interests, can be enforced anytime 

an eiqployer requests that it be enforced. (Routinely, 

in all States, employers receive notice that a former 

employee has filed for unemployment insurance; An Arizona 

employer, knowing that a former worker was a border 

Grosser, can quash his claim simply by informing the State 

agency of this fact.) In Yuma we encountered some stories 

that, on occasion, some border crossers not only were 

barred from benefits, but had to pay back previously secured 

unemployment checks. 

Unemployment claims filed across the Texas border 

4 
often are claims against States other than Texas. The 

Laredo office, for instance, handles a number of claims against 

California firms filed by Mexican residents who have secured 

work credits in that State, have lost their jobs, and have 

returned to Nuevo Laredo and points south. Similarly the 

Rio Grande City itineremt service point — an outreach location 

of the McAllen office — handles substantial numbers of 

residents in Mexico who work, seasonally, in the Middle West, 

~l89 



2398 



and retiirn home after the cannery closes, or the auto 
plants shut down for model changes. Needless to say an 
unemployment check from a liberal industrial State will 
go much further in Mexico than it would in the State where 
it is written. Unfortunately, since trans-border appli- 
cants use U.S. addresses, no separate statistics on 
commuting U.I. applicants can be secured. Our own survey 
showed, however, that 12.75 percent of the alien commuters 
had successfully filed for unemployment insurance, and an- 
other 1.75 percent had filed but failed to collect. None 
of the citizen commuters had sought unemployment insurance, 

190 



2399 



Commuting farm workers — like all farm workers — are 
not covered by unemployment insurance in any of the 
States, are supposed to receive social security coverage 
under most circumstances in all the States, and are covered 
by workmen's condensation in California, but are not in 
Texas nor, for practical purposes, in Arizona. 

Commuting farm workers heading into California are 
covered by that State's temporary disability law, which 
covers the worker against off-the-job accidents. Farm 
workers, generally, however, have not taken advantage of 
their rights under this rather obscure progreun, which is 
worker- financed; this is true to such an extent that the 
State of California actually makes a profit by extending 
coverage to farm workers 1* 

Commuters, though residents of Mexico, are not covered 
by that nation's social security progreun, because they 
do not work there. 

Trans-border workers — in summary — have roughly the 
seune rights to American social insurance progreuns as resident 
workers. 



♦Our survey of the 152 aliens in our ssunple who commuted into 
California showed that 20 had sought these benefits, with 14 
receiving them, five failing to receive them, and one claim 
pending. 



191 



2400 



B. Health euid Welfare Progreuas 

While the social insurance programs are all worker- 
oriented, and operate on some variations of an insurance 
scheme, health and welfare programs tend to be feunily ori- 
ented and flow from poor law precedents rather than insurance 
ones. As a result, the commuter has far less access to health 
and welfare programs, which are particularly stingy in the 
border counties. 

Generally actual residence is required for the various 
welfare programs, but in a ntimber of instances this is 
skirted by dual residence systems (such as contending to the 
case worker that one lives in Calexico with one's sister, 
while one really lives in Mexicali with one's husband). 

In some instances the State requires actual residence 
for as long as 25 years! Arizona requires this seniority 
before it will part with any aid to the blind or old age 
assistance funds, and calls for 15 years actual residence 
before it will provide aid to the permanently and totally 
disadsled. These long residence requirements are being 
attacked in court by Arizona's Legal Aid Society, an attack 
which will probably succeed because of the Supreme Court's 
ruling against all residency regulations.^ 

Our survey indicated that only 1 percent of the alien 

192 



2401 



commuters (a total of 4) had sought to collect welfare bene- 
fits in the U.S. and two. of them had received it. Another 
two had successfully secured similar assistance in Mexico. One 
of the citizen commuters had tried, in vain, to secure U.S. 
welfare benefits. 

The food progreuns, both food stjunps and surplus commod- 
ities, tend to cover more families than the cash welfare 
system, and hence open up some more opportunities for trans- 
border transactions.^ 

A handful of the border crossers we interviewed had 
sought food stcunps or surplus commodities; one of the 85 
citizens had successfully applied, as had 11 of the 400 
Green Card holders; three other Green Carders had tried, 
emd failed, emd a fourth was still trying. 

A Department of Agriculture audit, reported in the 
press, showed that so many surplus food items, principally 
powdered milk and cornmeal, were appearing in Nuevo Laredo 
that the local authorities cut by half the quantities of 
these items being distributed in Webb County. (A lady in 
Laredo told me that her Green Card commuter maid, in this 
instemce receiving the sensational weekly wage of 25 dollars 
(or three times the prevailing wage) had wangled some sur- 
plus commodities and wanted to share her good fortune with 
her employer . ) 

193 



2402 



The commuters play another, indirect, role in the wel- 
fare progreuns; by taking jobs from residents they force 
residents onto the relief roles. A couple of instances of 
this were cited by California Rural Legal Assistance in 
papers prepared for the Gooch case. 

Two women, both on welfare, both wanting to get off 
welfare, and both living in Calexico, told of their repeated 
attempts to get work at the farm workers shapeup in "The Hole" 
(a paved area a few blocks from the port of entry) and their 

repeated failure, because of employers' preference for com- 

9 
routers (who are less likely to press for their rights) . 

Although the food and welfare progreims sometimes can 
be mamipulated by commuters, particularly by faunilies who 
can claim an American address, the vocational rehabilitation 
prograun sanctions services to non-residents in a number of 
situations . 

The Rehabilitation Agencies are client-oriented, have 
both Federal and State funds available to them, and are. not 
under the kinds of cut-the-welfare-budget attack so familiar 
to the local welfare officials. 

We found in Arizona, that a resident of Mexico referred 
to the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation by either the 
Social Security Administration or by the workmen's compensa- 
tion system would receive services. The Texas State Rehabili- 
tation Division manual calls for the extension of such services 

' 194 



2403 



to social security disability beneficiaries, regardless of 

10 
citizenship or place of residence. The California policy, 

according to its director, "...does not specifically cover 
holders of Green Cards or persons living in Mexico. The 
department, however, only accepts applications from those 
persons residing in California or whose intentions are to 
reside in California." 

In general, it appears that an alert commuter could 
probably secure vocational rehabilitation services if he 
pressed the point. 

195 



2404 



C. Poverty aund. Manpower Programs 

The poverty and manpower training progr2uns which 
blossomed during the Kennedy and Johnson years were 

designed for residents of the Nation, but this has been 

12 
enforced rather indifferently along the border. 

The principal difficulty is the dual address system 
which is so common — a system which confuses every government 
agency along the border save the Post Office, which helps 
make it possible. 

The poverty and manpower programs make no distinction 
between citizens and Green Card residents of the United 
States, and that is as it should be. On the other hand, 
unless the service-providing agency actually makes an effort 

to fend off the border crossers, there can be a program 

. 13 
leakage to residents of Mexico. 

Let's look at two different manpower prograuns, both 
mounted in Texas. 

The Project SER operation in El Paso is run by an all 
Mexican American organization created by an £unalg£unation 
of the American GI Forum and the League of United Latin 
American Citizens. SER tends to be understandably sensitive 
to the feelings of the resident Mexican American community 
and hence goes to the trouble of having residence interviews 
before admitting anyone to its programs. Similar training 
progreuns run by the Texas Employment Commission in the seune 

196 



2405 



town lack residence interviews, and leave themselves open to 
commuter intrusion. 

The Concentrated Employment Progreim in Eagle Pass, on the 
other hand, is generally conceded to include a number of dual 
address commuters in its training program; apparently no ef- 
fort had been made by mid-1969 by those managing the CEP pro- 
gram in Eagle Pass to conduct the time-consuming residence 
interviews needed to sort out alien commuters. 

A distinction should be made here between training pro- 
grams (which carry stipends) and referral programs. There 
are provisions in Federal regulations calling for the exclu- 
sion of non-residents in training programs but there are none, 
to my knowledge, in referral programs which simply involve the 
expenditure of staff time, rather than cash for allowances 
while in training. 

As a matter of fact, given the right set of circumstances, 
such as a farm labor shortage, the Employment Service will 
actively recruit non-resident Green Carders to meet the growers' 
needs. Radio announcements will be made on stations broad- 
casting in Spanish to Mexicali and Tijuana audiences, and farm 
placement interviewers when talking with potential farm workers 
in Employment Service offices do not ask unnecessary questions 
about residence or immigration status. (There is a Department 
of Labor requirement to avoid the referral of illegal entrants 
to employment, but this is not always enforced.) 

197 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 30 



2406 



D. Government as a n Employer - Direct and Indirect 

A significant number of commuters are in a 
splendid situation — they are holding jobs in federally- 
funded programs and living in Mexico. 

As far as direct Federal employment is concerned, this 
is almost exclusively restricted to American citizens; there 
is, however, no barrier to a Mexican residence for an American 
citizen working for the American Government. No civilian 

agency that we contacted had any rules on the subject, or 

14 
kept any records on it. Only the military demands that 

its people reside in this country, and it makes an exception 

for a serviceman whose wife is not an American citizen. 

But much of the Federal money coming to the border is 
through grants and contracts, not through direct hires, and 
there are absolutely no rules about hiring non-residents 
in this connection. 

We know from our interviews and other sources that 
commuters work in San Diego Defense plants, in El Paso's 
clothing industry, which produces quantities of uniforms 

for the Defense Department, in the projects funded by the 

17 
International Water and Boundary Commission, and for 

border projects funded by the Economic Development Administra- 
tion. We have even encountered some statements that some 

border school systems, which receive Federal funds, have an 

18 
occasional commuter employee (though this is an exception) . 

198 



2407 



E. Educational Progrcuns 

If the real home address of an adult is hard to pin 
down along the border, it is twice as difficult to deter- 
mine the real home of a school-age child. As a result 
probably the greatest illicit utilization of public 
facilities along the border comes in the school system. 

We should note, however, that not all trans-border 
school children are smuggling their education. There are 
a number of border crossers who are paying tuition in 
public and church schools, mostly the latter. V7e wrote 
to a number of public school systems along the border and 
were told that there was at least some incidence of tuition- 
paying border crossers . 

Thirteen of the border school systems, includina at least 
one from each of the four border States, reported to us that they 
had 570 known residents of Mexico enrolled in their schools, 
cuid that they were charging their parents tuition ranging from 
a low of $135 in El Paso to a high of $750 in Chula Vista, 
California. These 13 systems had a total enrollment of more than 
120,000 students, meaming that the tuition paying visitors 
from Mexico accounted for less than one half of one percent of the 
student body. 

The reply from Bro^^?nsville was intriguing. It said that it 
had no provision for accepting tuition or out-of-town-students, 
that it knew of none, but that 5% of the student bodv are regarded 
as under guardianship (which others told us meant students from 
Mexico living with friends or relatives in Brownsville) . 

199 



2408 



Of particular interest is the situation of the 
Columbus school, Deming (N.M.) School District, where the 
school suspects that 80 of the school's 180 students really 
live in Mexico (though all are U.S. citizens and all supply 
U.S. addresses). In the past, when the school authorities 
suspected that they had a resident of Mexico in the school 
they used to confront the child on the matter — which al- 
ways resulted in the child moving across the border; such 
confrontations became self-defeating, and were stopped. 
There is particularly strong interest in the Columbus school 
because in recent years the Paleunos (Mexico) school across 
the border has been inactive."^' 

The 570 students reported in the survey — and we did 
not receive responses from such major systems as those in 
Laredo and San Diego — are just the tip of the iceberg. 
The survey just covered tuition-paying students in public 
school systems; utilization of non-public schools by Mexican 
students is also extensive, as this survey by Consul General 
William Hughes of Juarez indicates: 

TABLE XXXIX 
Mexican Residents Attending El Paso Schools 

Durheun College 6 

International Business College 25 

Lydia Patterson Institute 728 

Radford School for Girls 21 
El Paso Independent School District 135 

Catholic Office of Education 2,518 

TOTAL 3,433 

Source: Letter from U.S. Consul General Hughes, June 16, 1969, 

200 



2409 



Consul General Hughes' statistics must be viewed 
as conservative, because they are drawn from records 
generated by American citizens registering at his office, 
and such registration is optional. 

In addition to the students who pay tuition, there 
are some who would like to pay tuition but are not accepted 
by the school system. The principal of the Gadsden (Arizona) 
Elementary School, a six-room, eight-grade institution, 
the closest American school to San Luis, Sonora, for 
instance, told me that he accepted only ten tuition stu- 
dents a year, although there were many others who would 
like to attend at $500 a year — even though this is, 
physically at least, not the most impressive outpost of 
American education. 

Many Mexican residents attending U.S. border schools, 
are not doing so openly; they either cross the border 
daily, or they live with friends or relatives during the 
week, retvirning home on weekends. As with the case of the 
illegal workers, good statistics are simply not available. 

One source in San Diego said that border patrolmen 
there had estimated that 1000 youngsters cross the border to 
attend U.S. schools (supplying false addresses). An- 
other source, in Laredo, spoke of the time that the border 
had been closed for a number of hours , following the assas- 
sination of President Kennedy, which took place during 
school hours. He said that mobs of people piled up at the 

201 



2410 



bridge. Including hundreds and hundreds of school age child- 
ren not in uniform, i.e., students of the public school system. 

The general impression along the border is that the Mexican 
students attending U.S. schools, peurticularly those paying tui- 
tion, includes the choldren of the Mexican Establishment. The 
Mayor of Mexicali, for instance, is a graduate of Calexico 
High School. 

Many of the children are sons and daughters of Green Card 
commuters; in the 400 families surveyed, we found a total of 
664 school age children (6 to 16) with 47 of them attending 
American schools. 

202 



2411 



F. Postal Services 

One of the ways that a Green Card commuter secures 
Federal services and money is through an American address, 
and one of the best addresses (in terms of convenience) 
is a box in an American Post Office. 

This offers several advantages: 

1. It provides an American address for organizations 
which do not look behind such addresses. (It would 
be sufficient for unemployment insurance purposes, 
but not for a manpower training program which in- 
sists on residence interviews.) 

2. It provides rapid and safe mail service. (The 
Mexican postal service is no match for the American 
one. ) 

3. It is inexpensive, $4.80 a year in Calexico, for 
instance, and this cost can be shared with other 
families using the box. 

This is generally known to commuters, and others along 
the border (even the American consulates get their mail in 
post office boxes in towns across the border) and as a re- 
sult, literally thousands of boxes are rented to commuters. 

There are more boxes in the little San Ysidro Post 
Office than in the big one in downtown San Diego, for that • 
reason. The post office in San Luis, Arizona, a town with 
no more than a couple of dozen resident families, has 1020 
boxes, all rented, and virtually all rented to Mexican 
feunilies. 

The Postmaster of Calexico has 1451 boxes, including 
176 added recently, and he could rent 500 more, he told me; 
80% of his boxes are rented by Mexican residents. In Laredo 

203 



2412 



there is a list of 2000 people waiting to get one of the 
1000 boxes now in use; here there is a policy of giving 
preference to American residents. 

The role that these boxes pay in tax collections will 
be discussed in another section of this chapter. 

204 






2413 



G. The Draft 

Most male border crossers have not registered for the 
draft, our survey shows, and a much smaller proportion have 
actually served in the Armed Forces. Dealing only with Green 
Card commuters and their Green Card male relatives, between 
the ages 18 and 44, we found that 45.3% had draft cards, and 
only 16.5% had served in the American Armed Forces. (This 
age group has a legal obligation to register with the draft.) 

The Selective Service system estimates that nationally, 
over 99% of men in the 18-44 age group have draft cards, and 
the Veterans Administration calculates that 60% of men in the 
age bracket 30-34 have served in the Armed Forces, 75% in the 
35-39 bracket and 80% in the ages 40-44. 

It is now clear that commuters, whether they are American 
citizens or Green Card holders, must register for the draft. 
This was spelled out in a letter from the Selective Service 
System, to INS.^O 

The previous literature, however, was less than clear on 
the subject, with documents published by both congressional 
committees and the Civil Rights Commission declaring firmly 
that Green Card commuters are not subject to be drafted. ^^ 

Given this high level confusion, it is no wonder that 
some border crossers misunderstood their obligations. 

205 



2414 



A border crosser, even registered, is less likely to be 
drafted than other registrants, because of an anomoly in the 
administration of the law. 

In the fifty States, the mental test administered by the 
Army is given in English. In Puerto Rico, the registrant is 
given the test in either Spanish or English — the language 
in which he is most proficient. 

All of this would suggest that many of the commuters, 
whose command of English reflects their educational opportu- 
nities, would be sent to examination centers, and would fail 
the examination — and hence become IV-F. This does happen, 
but this is not the usual course of affairs. 

Normally, border area draft boards, when faced with a 
registrant with inadequate English, classify him I-Y, which 
can be roughly translated as probably being eligible for the 
draft in a big war, but not now. The decision to classify an 
individual in this category is usually made, in fact, by a 
clerk in the off ice. ^^ 

Classifications in the I-Y are supposed to be reviewed 
every six months , and sometimes the local boards do call in 
those with inadequate English to see if it has improved. 

The general impression I received along the border was 
that if someone with inadequate English really did vant to get 

206 



2415 



into the Service, he probably could do so, test or no test, 
and many have taken that route. 

Although there are many other reasons (physical, mental or 
moral) for categorizing someone in I-Y, we found it interesting 
tliat except in California a higher percentage of registrants in 
border counties were in this category than the law of averages 
would suggest. 

TABLE XL 

JRAFT REGISTRANTS CLASSIFIED I-Y 



Jurisdiction 



Percentage of Living Registrants 
in I-Y 



State of Texas 

San Benito Board 

McAllen 

Laredo 

Uvalde 

Del Rio 

Sonora 

Alpine 

Vein Horn 

El Paso 

State of Arizona 

Yuma Board 
Nogales " 
Douglas " 

State of California 

Imperial County Board 
San Diego " " 

National Average 



12 

14 
15 
19 
18 
17 
14 
12 
18 
14 

12 

13 

14 

9 



Source: Correspondence and conversations with Selective Service 
System officials in Washington D.C., Texas, Arizona and 
California. 



207 



2416 



Mexican residents -- including Green Card holders — are 
also subject to the Mexican draft, which routinely involves 
drilling every Sunday for a year. We found that 94.4 percent 
of the male Green Card holders in the 18-4 4 age group had 
participated in this operation. 

The conclusion would seem to be that Green Card commuters 
are not participating in the armed services to the same extent 
as residents of this country; this conclusion should be viev;cd 
narrowly, and not be regarded as applying to the Mexican 
American populace more generally, a group which has a remark- 
able record of service to the Nation in times of war. 

208 



i 



2417 



H. Federal Tauces 

Most Green Card commuters, as previously mentioned, 
have large families and small incomes. The averages we 
found were $3,902 annual family income and 5.5 members to 
each commuter's family. Given these figures, and using 
the standard deductions, the average commuter would have an 
obligation to pay a minimal Federal income tax. 

There are commuters who do have Federal income tax 
liability, however, and the Internal Revenue Service has 
had some difficulties collecting from them. IRS regards 
the commuters as non-resident aliens. Our own survey 
showed that 90% of the Green Carders filed Federal income 
tax returns in 1969; since all the commuters made more than 
$600 all should have filed returns. 

Some of the IRS difficulties include: 

1. Non-filing of returns, as noted above. Since 
domestic workers and farm workers do not have taxes 
deducted from their pay, and since 47% of the Green 
Carders fall into these two categories a sub- 
stantial percentage of the commuters do not have a 
possible tax rebate as an incentive to file a return. 

2. No power to cross the border to check on deductions. 
Since this is known to everyone along the border, 
there have been instances in which the number of de- 
pendents has grown in direct proportion to the amount 
of taxable income. Knowing the ease with which legal 
looking documents can be secured in Mexico, attesting 
to just about anything, the IRS field people prefer 
statements from priests as to the size of the family 
if this is an issue. 

3. Differential ease of access to the taxpayers -- a 
refund can be mailed to the commuter's post office 
box, but if the IRS wants to get to the commuter, it 

209 



2418 



neither can go to Mexico to look for him nor have 
IMS stop him at the border. 

4. Non-utilization by INS of social security num- 
bers. All major Government agencies, even the de- 
fense Department for its military personnel, use 
social security numbers to identify people. INS 
uses its A numbers, which relate to nothing else. 
Given the difference between Anglo and Spanish 
nomenclature practices, it makes it doubly diffi- 
cult for another agency to exchange information 
with INS on enforcement matters. 

5. Use of false tax returns in the immigration 
process. A commuter, in order to secure a Green 
Card for a relative, will show a tax return to 
the U.S. Consul, to indicate that he is making 
enough money to avoid the public charge problem. 
IRS has found, however, that it is very difficult 
to collect the taxes which the commuter claims 
that he either has paid or owes. Two techniques 
are used, either the commuter produces a forged 
return with a forged IRS stamp on it, or he sup- 
plies a real amended return, but then he does not 
pay the additional tax. There are some efforts 
being made on the spot to bridge this gap between 
the State and Treasury Departments. 

Cited eJ^ove are some of the special difficulties of 
>llecting taxes from Green Card commuters; all of the usual 
problems encountered by IRS elsewhere in the Nation undoubtedly 
cu:e present with this group as well. 

The Treasure Department, however, has made life more 
difficult for itself, and unnecessarily so. The problem of 
collecting income taxes from people who work here, but do 
not live here permanently is a broad one, and the IRS has 
teUcen steps to solve it. But each of the devices it uses in 
the broader area is not used with the commuters. 

For instance there is the "sailing permit" which must 
be obtained by a visiting worker before he can leave the 
country. The permit is issued by the IRS after it is 

210 



2419 



satisfied that the worker has met his income tax obligations. 
This device is designed for people who work here for a 
matter of weeks or months, and then leave the Nation; in its 
present form it is not designed to cope with the commuters, 
and commuters are expressly excluded from its provisions?^ 

There could be, one would suppose, an annual version of 
such a permit which a Green Card holder would have to secure 
in order to get his Green Card renewed — if it were a re- 
newable document rather than a permanent one, as it now is. 

Further, a literal reading of the IRS rules on sailing 

permits would suggest that domestics and farm workers should 

seciire that document; to quote from the IRS publication: 

"If you are included in one of the following 
categories you are not required to obtain a 
'sailing permit' upon departure from the United 
States . . . 

5. A resident of Canada or Mexico who commutes 
between such country and the United States at 
frequent intervals for the purpose of employment 
and whose wages are subject to the withholding 
of tax. " (Our emphasis) 

Farm workers' and domestics' wages are not subject to 
withholding. 

Similarly, the general rule that 30% of a non-resident 
alien's wages must be witheld for taxes, is not applied to the 
case of commuters from Mexico and Canada. 

We have some suggestions later as to how the Federal 
income tax collection operations can be changed to secure 
greater tax income, and to fit a suggested over-all border 
crossing policy. 

211 



2420 



Commuters do pay some American taxes, of course; re- 
tail sales taxes in the United States are almost impossible 
to avoid, and the commuters spend much of the income for 
items bearing this tax. Commuters also contribute to the 
support of some Texas cities and counties by paying toll 
as they cross the bridges, a subject which is explored more 
deeply in Chapter VIII. 

On the other hand, commuters do not pay any U.S. 
property taxes , which furnish much of the revenues of the 
border towns and counties , and they also can escape 
Federal taxes on the American liquor and cigarettes that 
they purchase on this side of the border for use on the 
other side. 

212 



2421 



Notes on Chapter VI 

1. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social 
Security Administration, Office of Research and Statistics, 
April 1969, RS:S-2.18. 

2. Letters from the Administrator, Texas Employment Commission, 
February, 1969 and the Director of the California Depart- 
ment of Employment, March 1969 to the author. 

3. Letter from the Administrator of the Employment Security 
Commission of Arizona, February 1969 to the author. 

4 . Information gained through interviews with David Laurel 
and other Texas Employment Commission representatives in 
El Paso, January 16, 1969. 

5. Arizona Daily Star , Tucson, Arizona, July 31, 1969. 

6. During World War II food rationing stamps were issued to 
Tijuana families to allow them to continue buying from San 
Diego merchants. John A. Price, "A History of Tijuana: 
Border Town and Port-of -Trade , " (San Diego, 1968), p. 10. 

7. San Antonio Express , June 25, 1969. 

8. See page 67 of this text. 

9. See affidavits filed by Rose Valanzuela, 656 McKinley 
Street and Maria Vasquez, 50 2 Lincoln Street, September, 
1968; in the files of the California Rural Legal Assis- 
tance office. El Centre, California. 

10. Letter from the Assistant Director, Vocational Rehabili- 
tation Division, Texas Education Agencv, May 1969 to the 
author . 

11. Letter from the Director of Rehabilitation, Department 
of Rehabilitation, Sacramento, California, June 1969 to 
the author. 

12. Department of Labor regulations call for the selection 
of "permanent residents of the United States" in its MDTA 
training programs (29 CFR 20.12) and defines permanent 
residents as those "whose actual dwelling places is in 
the United States" (29 CFR 20.1 (1)). Section 125(b) 
of the Economic Opportunity Amendments (42 USC 2742) 
similarly requires that those participating in poverty 
programs be permanent residents of the United States, 
and the Labor Department has defined the term, under 
this act, for Neighborhood Youth Corps purposes, as it 
does for MDTA purposes . 

213 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 31 



2422 



13. Such leakages normally reflect either disagreement with 
Washington's policies or administrative mismanagement, but we 
encountered one story about a 67 year-old neighborhood aid in 
a poverty program which suggests another factor. The gentleman 
had arranged for the admission of five young ladies, all Mexican 
residents, to an OEO-funded training program in return for which 
each of them spent one night a week with him. He was fired and 
the ladies dropped from the training program. 

14. Letters from the Civil Service Commission, from the Depart- 
ment of the Interior and the Department of Defense, to the 
author. 

15. Letter from the Department of Defense to the author. 

16. Brian Rungeling, in his Ph.D. thesis, "Impact of the Mexican 
Alien Commuter on the Apparel Industry of El Paso, Texas," (Lex- 
ington, Kentucky, 1969) , estimates that 23 to 40 percent of the 
garment workers in El Paso are commuters. 

17. Interview with Commissioner Joseph F. Friedkin, El Paso, 
June 2, 1969. 

18. Testimony by Charles W. Kilgore, member of the Imperial 
County Board of Supervisors, p. 241, unpublished transcript of 
hearings on Green Card commuters held by Congressman Tunney in 
California. 

19. Letter from Emmett Shockley, Superintendent, Deming Public 
Schools, Deming, New Mexico, to the author, July 1969. 

20. Select Commission, Hearings — Part I — El Paso , op. cit . , 
letter from Daniel Omer, General Counsel, Selective Service, to 
Charles Gordon, General Counsel, INS, April 10, 1967, p. 149. 

21. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, "The Commuter on the • 
United States - Mexico Border — Staff Report," (Washington,D.C . , 
1968), p. 11; also. House Judiciary Committee Report of 1963, 
op. cit. , p. 171. 

22. Interviews with draft board officials in Texas and Arizona. 

23. Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, "Tax Informa- 
tion for Visitors to the United States," Publication 513 (10-68) 
(Washington, D.C. , 1968). 

24. "U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens," Publication 519 (10-68) 
(Washington, D.C, 1968), 9. 29. 

214 



2423 



VII. Local Variations in Commutation Practices 

As it must be abundantly clear by now, the border labor 
markets vary considerably from city to city. Perhaps it 
would be useful to review some of these differences, starting 
at Brownsville and moving west. 

There are essentially three kinds of city location 
arrangements at the border; in the most common, both the 
American and the Mexican cities are right on the river, as 
is the case at Brownsville: another has the American city 
back some distance from the border, such as McAllen, while 
the Mexican city is at the border; in the third, such as 
Rio Grande City, the American city is on the border, but 
the Mexican one is not. 

When the cities are next to each other there tends to 
be more commutation than when they are not; for instance, 
one can walk (which is important with poverty-stricken workers) 
from the low-rent area in Matamoros to job opportunities in 
Brownsville. Brownsville has a farm labor shape-up area, 
although it is not as busy as the comparable institution at 
McAllen. Most of the commuters at Brownsville, however, are 
not farm workers. 

The Brownsville crossing point is one of the busiest, 
having 3,777 crossers, including 2,306 aliens and 1,471 citi- 
zens (using here, as we will throughout the chapter the 

215 



2424 



August 1969 alien count and the 1966 count for citizens) . 
The ratio of citizen to alien conunuters was the second highi 
on the border, 42 percent. 

The next crossing point, Progresso, had only 82 alien 
crossers in 1969, and is not located near a major American 
population center. 

Further up the Valley is Hidalgo, the little town at the 
border some ten miles south of McAllen. The distance between 
the border and McAllen, a city comparable to Brownsville, 
probably accounts for the smaller number of commuters. The 
total number crossing there were 1,063 aliens and 1,398 
citizens, this being the only crossing point where the 
citizens appear to be in the majority. About half of the 
alien commuters here are engaged in farm work, and the 
shape-up point, which in fact is the only really active one 
in the county, is at the end of the bridge. (This causes 
resident U.S. farm workers to travel almost to Mexico before 
they can seek farm work in the morning.) 

The three crossing points mentioned to date are open 
24 hours a day. 

Next comes the little ferry at Los Ebanos , which is 
literally hauled across the river by five sturdy Mexican 
Nationals, and is owned by a physician in Monterrey. This 

216 



2425 



crossing point is open only eight hours a day, which effectively 
eliminates its use by commuters. Los Ebanos is a little town 
in Texas — the nearest Mexican community is several miles 
from the river over a bumpy dirt road. 

The bridge at Rio Grande City was down during the 1967 
survey, but is now open for 11 hours a day, and goes from a 
point near the center of town to a point a couple of miles 
from the Mexican twin city. There was no commutation reported 
here either in 1967 or currently. 

The other crossing point in Starr County is at Roma, 
which is right on the river, and a stone's throw from Ciudad 
Miguel Aleman, the Mexican city. There were 165 alien communter 
reported here, mostly farm workers. 

Falcon Heights, the crossing point which is atop the 
Falcon Dam, does not have an appreciable commuter work force, 
though it does have the attraction of being free. 

The Laredo crossing is a very busy one, being the bridge 
between downtown Laredo and downtown Nugvo Laredo; the commuters 
are numerous, with 3,312 aliens and 1,134 citizens being counted. 
This is the second busiest crossing point in Texas (second 
only to El Paso) and perhaps the city where a commuter 
work force is least needed. Only 312 of the commuters 
work on farms, and a great many work in the retail stores of 
the city. Laredo's extreme poverty has already been noted. 

217 



2426 



The next two cities. Eagle Pass and Del Rio, offer an 
interesting contrast. Del Rio, with a 1960 population of 
18,617, received only a sixth as many commuters as did 
Eagle Pass, with a population of 12,094. Del Rio received 
318 citizens and 132 alien commuters, while Eagle Pass 
accepted 1,106 citizens and 1,968 aliens. Why the 
difference? 

In the first place, the city opposite Eagle Pass, 
Piedras Negras, is considerably larger (48,408) than Villa 
Acuna, which is the one opposite Del Rio (22,317); secondly. 
Eagle Pass is on a main highway into the interior of Mexico, 
while Villa Acuna, until recently, was so isolated from the 
Mexican interior that one routinely drove to Mexico City by 
crossing into the United States, driving down the Texas 
side of the border to Eagle Pass, and then crossing into 
Mexico again. Thirdly, the agriculture around Del Rio is 
pastoral, and requires so few farm hands that only two were 
recorded as crossing in 1967, while Eagle Pass is in the 
Winter Garden area, and employed 682 alien commuter farm workers 
in 1967. Finally, Eagle Pass is right on the border, while 
Del Rio is back from the river by about four miles. 

There are just handfuls of commuters at Presidio and 
Fort Hancock, and our interviewers did not visit these towns. 
(Wfe did talk to a VISTA Volunteer in Presidio, and in the 
process of trying to reach him discovered that this out-of- 
the-way place has no local government, no local telephone 

218 



2427 



office and even the U.S. post office there gets. along without 
a listed telephone.) Presidio, as we noted earlier, is an 
exit station for illegal entrants. 

El Paso is the biggest single crossing point on the 
border (and, for the purposes of this study we have combined 
it with the Fabens crossing point, which had 326 alien com- 
muters in 1969, largely farm workers) . El Paso has three 
crossing points, two in the downtown area (both one-way), 
and the new bridge near the Chamizal tract. The downtown 
bridges are primarily used by people walking or taking the 
international trolley, while most of the cars cross the new 
bridge in the Chamizal area. 

Large numbers of commuters cross all the bridges , with 
the total being 13,140 aliens and 1,676 citizens for the 
statistics we are using in this section; a more realistic 
total figure would be in the 18,000 - 20,000 area. Like 
Brownsville and Matamoras , but more so, downtown El Paso and 
Juarez are right next to one another, and are the biggest 
two cities on the border with this arrangement. No more than 
10 percent of the commuters at El Paso are farm workers , and 
the rest are scattered through a wide variety of occupations. 

As previously noted, the two crossing points in New 
Mexico, Antelope Wells and Columbus, have little commuter 
traffic, and are of little Interest to us. 

Further west, in Douglas, we have a mining town where 
almost half of the alien commuters work on farms; a total 

219 



2428 



of 169 citizens and 496 aliens cross into Arizona at this 
point. 

Nogales, on the other hand, is the city through which 
most Mexican agricultural products flow, and has few farm 
hands eunong its commuters. In keeping with the pattern in 
other western crossing points, the number of citizen com- 
muters is relatively small, 268, while there were 1,371 
alien commuters. 

He did not survey the three minor Arizona crossing points, 
Naco, Sasabe, and Lukeville, which had 112, 7 and 1 alien 
commuters respectively at the last count. 

San Luis, Sonora, is a good 25 miles south of Yuma, so 
that city is really not affected by the border, but most of 
the workers in the surrounding irrigated farms, do commute 
from Mexico. Here again the alien-citizen ratio is high, 
with the totals being 3,616 aliens and 624 citizens. 

The Andrade crossing point is in California, a few miles 
west of Yuma. It used to be open only 8 hours which probably 
will create a commuter pattern where none previously existed. 
This is little more than a spot in the desert which is marked 
by the immigration station and a couple of stores on both 
sides. But Yuma is not far away, nor is a fair-sized Mexiczm 
population. Dr. Ben Yellen, the Brawley (California) physician 
and persistent critic of Imperial County farm interests, waged 
a futile one-man campaign against opening this crossing 

220 



2429 



point to commuters. (The previous hours, nine to five, did 
not allow commuting.) 

We have mentioned the way the border passes through the 
middle of the Calexico-Mexicali business district, and the 
heavy concentration of farm workers eunong the commuters. 
Here the citizen-alien ratio was 2,341 to 8,788. More than 
anywhere else on the border one runs into accounts of employers, 
particularly farm employers, actively discriminating against 
American residents. 

The next crossing is Tecate, the prosperous Baja Cali- 
fornia town adjacent to Tecate, California, which prides it- 
self on its non-dependence on the tourist dollar. Only 66 
alien commuters were recorded, and we did not visit the 
place. 

Finally, there is Tijuana-San Diego, the second largest 
of the crossing points, and the one where there is the most 
prosperity cunong the commuters, the highest union membership, 
and the least interest in moving to the United States (if one 
had to choose such a move rather than losing one's American 
job). 

The total commutation into San Diego is 13,893 including 
3,052 citizens and 10,841 aliens. 

Some of the responses to our alien commuters ' question- 
naire indicated a fairly even geographic distribution of some 
characteristics, such as feimily size, and others which are 
reported elsewhere in this document. 

221 



2430 



There were, however, a variety of other geographic variables 
which are of interest. 

The extent of ties with America is greater along 
the Texas border than it is in the West. For instance, 79.0 
percent of the alien commuters in Eagle Pass and Del Rio said 
that they had an American address, and 59.3 percent of those 
in Laredo said the saune thing, while similar responses in 
Calexico and San Diego were 15.4 percent and 11.9 percent, 
respectively. 

"Do you have any members of your faunily living in the 
United States?" we asked, and everyone in Hidalgo, Laredo 
and Eagle Pass-Del Rio said yes, whereas only a third of the 
people in San Luis and half in Calexico responded affirma- 
tively. (There also was a high incidence of such relatives 
in San Diego, nearly 80 percent.) 

Previous stays in the United States, prior to securing 
the Green Card, were the rule along the Texas border, with 
94 percent or better reporting such visits in Brownsville, 
Hidalgo, Laredo and Eagle Pass-Del Rio, with far lower figures 
being reported in the West, (San Luis, 30.6 percent, Calexico, 
55.7 and San Diego, 27.4 percent). As one might expect in 
areas of high farm worker employment, many of those who had 
visited the States had done so as braceros. 

There apparently is a go-to-California pilgrimage in 
Mexico, as well as in the United States. Two of our questions 
showed this conclusively. 

222 



2431 



We asked where the conunuters were born, and found that 
121 of the 400 had been born in the interior of Mexico. Of 
these 121, fully 114 lived at the three most westerly 
crossing points. In Tijuana we had the highest incidence of 
interior births, 76.7 percent. 

Another bit of evidence comes from the replies to the 
question, "where was the consulate from which you obtained 
your visa?" East 6f San Luis most of the commuters had 
secured their visa from the city where they are now living; 
for instance, 97.5 percent of those living in Juarez got 
their visa there. 

But the commuters from San Luis had received their 
visas in six consulates, those from Mexicali from eight 
locations, and those commuting from Tijuana, from ten. All 
of the visas obtained in Mexico City (15) and all of them 
from Guadalajara (14) went to commuters now living in Baja 
California. 

Wages for commuters are considerably better in the 
West, with 64.4 percent of our saunple in San Diego report- 
ing weekly incomes of $80 or better, while only 5 percent 
in Brownsville, 10 percent in Hidalgo, and 3.7 percent in 
Laredo reported incomes of this level. 

Strangely perhaps , the largely agricultural commuters 
in San Luis and Calexico, although not as prosperous as 
those who work in San Diego, are considerably better off 

223 



2432 



than the largely non-agricultural workers of El Paso. We 
found that 14.1 percent of El Paso's coiranuters made more 
than $80 a week, while these figures in San Luis were 27.8 
percent and 37.9 percent in Calexico. 

Similarly, seven of the 16 commuter-owned color TV sets 
we found were in Tijuana, and that city had the largest inci- 
dence of multiple car ownership, with 24 of the 73 respondents 
there owning two or three cars. 

All of this suggests that adverse effects on the Green 
Card commuter is a very uneven one, with the impact being 
the greatest along the Texas border; despite this differen- 
tial impact, however, any solutions — the subject of the next 
chapter — will have to be worked out largely in Gulf to 
Pacific terms. 

" 224 



2433 



VIII. Some Alternative Solutions to the Commuter Problem . 

As we have shown in Chapter V, the trans-border work force 
creates serious economic problems for American residents, par- 
ticularly poor American residents. It is primarily through 
this work force that Mexican poverty has spread into the border 
regions of the United States. 

The problem is not a simple one; it crosses many juris- 
dictional barriers within the United States and Mexico, as 
well as the international boundary. 

As the result of the presence of the commuters , we have 
concluded : American resident workers lose jobs, they work at 
lower wages than they would otherwise; they are less likely to 
be represented by unions, and probably more likely to be forced 
into the migrant streaun. Further, the way Federal programs 
operate along the border too often tends to leak benefits to 
border crossers while denying resident workers the benefits 
which would accompany the vigorous enforcement of labor stand- 
ards laws . 

It is our conclusion, further, that with the exception of 
San Diego, the border is essentially depressed, and that it is 
particularly unfortunate that an artificial flooding of the 
labor markets should take place in such an area. We feel, 
finally, that the high rates of unemployment and low wages 
which characterize the border labor markets are partially the 
results of the Government's policies, and these policies, there- 
fore, should be changed. 

225 



2434 



Some of the proposed solutions to the problems probably 
would cause more trouble than a continuation of the status quo ; 
for instance, an immediate forced migration of all the alien 
commuters and their families (and with the surveyed Green Card 
commuters having faunilies averaging 5.5 members), this would 
suggest an immediate influx of 225,000 people. This is based 
on the INS alien commuter count of August 1969 (47,876) and our 
survey showing that 87.4% of the commuters would move rather 
than lose their American job. Virtually no one is suggesting 
such a course of action, but this is a straw man which oppo- 
nents of a tighter border erect on every possible occasion. 

We will discuss below each of a wide variety of possible 
partial solutions to the problem, and will conclude by 
describing an optimal package of proposals. 

226 



2435 



A. Do Nothing 

This is the most likely course of action to be taken 
by the Government in the near future, and perhaps the most 
likely one to be tciken for years to come. 

The attractions of doing nothing are great, to the 
Mexican Government (and therefore our State Department) , to 
the Border EsteUslishment and to the INS. 

An argument used to support non-action is that given 
the current requirements of the immigration law (particularly 
labor certification and the 120,000 Western Hemisphere limi- 
tation) the problem will solve itself over time because the 
supply of new commuters has been cut sharply. We have shown 
in Chapter III how the leibor certification requirement has 
been avoided on the border. The 120,000 limit, however, will 
have something of a deunpening effect on the creation of new 
commuters, but no one yet knows how significant this will be. 

Dr. Rungeling, although not em advocate of non-action, 
predicts that current trends and immigration restrictions will 
end the commutation program in twenty to thirty years. 

One also hears from State Department officials and people 
on Capitol Hill^that consular officials are not issuing visas 
to new commuters. In a naurrow sense I am sure that they are 
right; that if a would-be immigrant is frank enough to tell 
the Americem Consulate that he plans to become a commuter, 

"^7 



2436 



he probably would not get his visa. But I suspect that the 

question is not asked often, and if it is, the answer is not 

7 
always a completely honest one. 

What these argximents fail to consider is that there are 
two sources of new commuters — Mexico and the United States. 
Some commuters are created when a Mexican National secures a 
Green Card, and then starts to commute, without ever living 
in the United States. (Our survey found that a substantial 
number of legal border crossers had never lived in America.) 
This is the pattern usually discussed. 

Another pattern is that of the Mexican National who gets 
his card, and then tries to make it in the American economy; 
after a while a number of them, particularly if their feunilies 
are growing, come to the conclusion that they cannot live in 
the American economy, although they must continue to work in 
it. So — without having planned it that way — they become 
commuters. (Of the aliens surveyed 24 percent had lived in 
the United States for more than two years, another 20 percent 
had lived here for between six months and two years, and 11 
percent had tried it for under six months. The citizens 
experience had been similar.) 

There were 701,979 Green Card holders (permanent resident 
aliens of Mexican nationality) in January 1969, a figure 
which should include most of the forty-seven thous5md counted 

228 



2437 



alien conunuters. All of them are theoretically capable of 
becoming Green Card commuters, and undoubtedly a number of 
them will do just that particularly if unemployment in the 
U.S. rises. 

One of the most widely stressed arguments heard along 
the border for preserving the status quo is that the American 
border communities need the workers but cannot afford to 
supply the houses and public services needed by the workers' 
families. Logically, this train of thought leads to two 
corollaries: 

1. The Mexican town across the border can get along 
without the commuter's services, and the substan- 
tial part of his income he spends in the United 
States, and still provide him with the housing 
and the services he needs. 

2. American border towns, unlike other American com- 
munities, have a unique right to a subsidized labor 
force, one that contributes labor without the need 
for schools and houses, which a labor force nor- 
mally needs. 

Without going into either of the points noted above, 
Robert Nathan Associates , a Washington-based consulting and 
research firm with impeccable credentials, makes a strong 
plea for the preservation of the status quo in its report 
on the border which has been cited so often before. The 
report says that neither cutting off new Green Card commuters, 

229 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 32 



2438 



nor making them move to the United States would help the 

unemployed Mexican American. The following are excerpts 

from the Report , 

"In spite of the size of the immigrant labor 
force, we do not believe that it is a basic cause 
of unemployment in the United States. That is, 
stopping the commuters or immigration would do 
little to diminish unemployment among Mexican 
Americans. Industry and trade in the Southwest 
could not possibly continue its present labor- 
intensive economy and pay wages comparable to 
those in more developed areas. Instead, the 
border economy would have to organize itself on 
the basis of mechanization and labor scarcity. 

"The revision of the bracero program, which 
in effect cut off this supply of low wage labor 
for agriculture, did very little to reduce unem- 
ployment among Mexican Americans. Farmers shift- 
ed to mechanized farming, including shifting to 
different crops; or they shifted operations -south 
of the border; or, if they were located near the 
border, they employed more Green Carders. The 
jobs they now provide are much more dignified and 
better paid, if fewer, than those that existed 
before. But the unemployment rate among Mexican 
Americans in the border counties did not decline. 



"One suggestion to increase employment among 
Mexican Americans is to require the Green Card 
holder to be domiciled on the U.S. side of the 
boundary. The argument is, that if he had to main- 
tain a household on the U.S. side, or even had to 
separate himself from family and sleep on the 
northern side, he would no longer accept such low 
wages as those now prevailing. 



"It is difficult to see how these arrangements 
would help the Mexican American. If the Green 
Card holder comes to the United States, the local 
citizen must still compete with him. The Green 
Carder will underbid the citizen because he has 
to retain the job in order to stay here." 3 



The Nathan Report completely missed the point of the 

230 



2439 



bracero termination, which is that ending an artificially 
flooded labor market produces many benefits, such as increased 
wages, for those who work in the new tighter labor market. 

As Secretary Wirtz showed in "Year of Transition" there 
was an increase in domestic employment in seasonal farm work 
as a result of the bracero termination. "At the peak of 
the season (in August 1965) there were approximately 86,200 
more U.S. workers in seasonal jobs in the fields and groves 
in 1965 than in 1964... In August 1965, domestic seasonal 
farm employment in California was up by 21,000 (or 17 percent) 
over August 1964; up 20,000 (40 percent) in Michigan; up 
10,000 (7 percent) in Texas." 

However, it should be noted that these figures count 
Green Card commuters as domestic workers; this does not blunt 
the general argument that the end of the bracero progrcim did 
help the resident Mexican American working poor; this was 
perhaps less true along the border, however, than further 
inland, because of the presence of the commuters. 

The Nathan Report's thought that the border economy would 
have to organize itself on the basis of mechanization and 
labor scarcity if the commuters were stopped at the border 
makes some sense if applied to the Yuma and San Luis crossing 
points, but none whatsoever from Laredo to the Gulf of Mexico. 
Even if one accepts the unemployment figures of the TEC, it is 
clear that there still would be extensive unemployment or under- 

231 



2440 



employment in Laredo and the Lower Rio Grande counties even 
if all Green Card commutation were eliminated tomorrow morning. 
Of course, not every job in Laredo, for instance, now held by 
a commuter could be filled by an unemployed American resident, 
but earlier Labor Department studies suggest that most of 
them could be filled in this manner. 

The Nathan Report's comments on the non-utility of making 
the commuters move to the U.S. side of the border makes sense, 
particularly if the movement across the border were to be made 
in a short period of time. We will discuss this more thoroughly 
later . 

232 



i 



2441 



B. Cut Off New Green Cards 

A most attractive alternative solution would be to 
simply stop creating new commuters. This would, in time, 
eliminate the adverse effects of the commuters. It would 
not hurt anyone who currently is commuting. 

It would not create any immediate problems either for 
the border employers, or Mexican authorities, though over 
time it would end a program which is currently important to 
them. 

Compared to some other suggestions, it would present 
minimal difficulties to INS, and would not be a workload prob- 
lem at all to the Department of Labor. 

Further, no one would have to move to the United States. 

Although such a step would not meet all the demands of 
organized labor and interested Mexican American groups, it 
would meet these demands at least part way. 

It is surprising that nothing has been done along these 
lines. 

The State Department apparently did not object to such 
a prospect during the Johnson years. The Assistant Secretary 
of State for Latin America, Covey Oliver, told Senator 
Kennedy's hearings in 1967 that there would be no difficulty 
with the Mexican Government over the non-creation of new 
commuters. 

233 



2442 



Sceunmon and Ruttenberg advocated this step as a part of 
their package of proposals to the President. And several 
border employers suggested, at the hearings of the Select 
Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration that a ban on 
new commuters would be perfectly acceptable to them (but not 
a restriction on the commutation rights of current commuters) . 

As noted before, Sccunmon and Ruttenberg disagreed on 
whether or not the step could be taken without legislative 
action; Scaunroon felt the legislation was needed, Ruttenberg 
did not. (The author agrees with Ruttenberg.) 

The mechamics of such an operation would be relatively 
simple, and there would be a built-in irony, for the hated 
grommet would now be a very welcome symbol indeed, because 
INS would either honor only grommeted cards — or some sub- 
stitute for them — as border crossing documents for com- 
muters. The Service would have to, in some way, make sure 
that only commuters who were active on a given date (as of a 
"date certain," to quote Scaumnon) would be allowed ton con- 
tinue to commute. INS would have to adjust its procedures 
in such a way that newly admitted Green Card holders would 
not be allowed to commute, nor would resident aliens who 
were not commuting on a specific date. 

It is hard to know how fast the commuter practice would 
wither away given such a decision. It would seem reasonable 
to suppose that the attrition rate would not be as great as 
the one reported by the INS District Director on the Detroit 

234 



2443 



border — approximately 9 percent annually — at the Detroit 
hearings of the Select Commission. American jobs are far 
more attractive to Mexicans than they are to Canadians.^ 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that two per- 
cent of the men in the labor force over 16 years of age with- 
draw each year. This concept covers living withdrawals and 
does not include deaths. The withdrawal rate for women in 
the same age group is four percent. Since our work force is 
roughly 3 to 1 male, it would suggest an annual withdrawal 
rate of 2.5 percent. Members of the commuting work force, 
however, have two special reasons for leaving that work force — 
reasons which would not affect other American workers. Com- 
muters could stop being commuters by either getting a good job 
in Mexico, or moving to the United States. On the other hand/ 
there is the age structure of the commuter work force, which 
we have previously described as largely middle-aged. Currently, 
only about ten percent are more than 55. Hence, the immediate • 
retirement rate would not be very impressive. But in the next 
ten years, 23 percent of the alien commuters will pass their 
55th birthday, and the retirement and death rates will climb 
accordingly. 

Bearing in mind all of these factors, it would be reason- 
able to estimate that barring new commuters the commuter attri- 
tion rate in the next few years would fall a little below the 
halfway mark between the nine percent rate on the northern bor- 
der, and the 2.5 percent one might expect of the national force, 
say four to five percent a year. 

235 



2444 



C. An Adverse Effect Formula 

The Kennedy bill, using the Labor Department's bracero 
progrcum precedent, would establish a wage rate (or rates) 
which employers would have to pay commuters in order for the 
commuter to continue his commuting. The Labor Department 
set adverse effect wage rates throughout the sixties in 
agriculture, and only employers offering employment at these 
rates were allowed to use braceros. The adverse effect rates 
were revised annually, and other provisions were tightened, 
so that, by January 1, 1968, the last bracero had left the 
Nation. 

The Kennedy bill would give the Labor Department the 
authority for setting the adverse effect wages for the com- 
muters. The grant of authority is a broad one, and no guide 
lines are offered in the legislation. 

The Kennedy bill alarms the Border Establishment, which 
fears the bracero precedent. Scammon, for this reason, advo- 
cates that the rates under such a program be set by a border 
leQjor board, which would consist of representatives of the 
Departments of Labor and other interested agencies. 

No matter who sets the adverse wage rate, two things are 

clear: 

1. There is great inherent flexibility in such a 
program, with it possible for such a rate to be 
set so low as to be virtually meaningless, or 
so high that it would cause mass, immediate 
migration. 

236 ~ 



2445 



2. Some commuters would find that the jobs they 
held did not pay high enough wages to meet the 
adverse effect rate. They would have to either 
give up their American job (and their Green Card) 
or move into the United States in order to keep 
the current job. 

In addition to the variable of the wage rate (which could 
be, and probably should be set lower in Texas than in Califor- 
nia, and perhaps lower in some occupations than others) there 
would be the potential variable of timing. Adverse effect 
rates, of differing levels, could be made effective at differ- 
ent times. 

Obviously the impact of such legislation would depend 
wholly on the rates set and the vigor with which they are 
enforced. Our suggestion would be that an adverse effect 
formula would be helpful and should be used in connection 
with some other techniques — and imposed rather slowly, as 
part of a larger formula. 

The Kennedy bill (S.1694) , alone, as it stands, would 
not cut off the influx of new commuters, nor would it create 
a new, non-equity work-permit which some people advocate. It 
also would tend to operate in a sweeping, impersonal manner, 
which might cause some needless hardships among certain kinds 
of commuters. Despite these comments, however, and if the 
choice is between it and no bill, we would advocate its 
passage. 

237" 



2446 



D. What if They All Move? 

Supporters of the border status quo are quick to point 
out that any measures which forced alien conmuters to move 
to the United States would immediately create massive needs 
for housing, education and social services generally. And 
new legislation which called for immediate movements of 
large numbers of people would do exactly that. We do not 
advocate any such proposal, but it might be helpful to look 
at some elements of this imaginary situation. 

Multiplying the total number of alien commuters (47,876) 
by the proportion of those who responded that they would move 
to the United States if they had to do so to keep their 
American job (87.4 percent) we get a theoretical total of 
41,844 families, which will round off to 42,000 for these 
calculations. One would need U.S housing, then, for 42,000 
families. 

Housing is pretty tight along the border, and there is 
no reason to doubt this, if precious little statistics to 

support it. And this is particularly true, v;e are told, of 

8 
low cost housing. 

The Executive Director of the Brovmsville Housing 

Authority, for instance, told the Select Commission that 

there are 645 public housing units in Brownsville, and all 

of them have been occupied for the last five years, during 

which time the waiting list has run as high as 150.^ 

238 



2447 



On the other hand, when the Federal Housing Administration 

did a housing survey in El Paso, in June 1965, it found that 

7.7 percent of the dwelling units in the city were vacamt 

(including 17 percent of the apartments) . 

This produced a total of 6,226 vacant dwelling units, plus 

10 
another 762 under construction. Obviously 7,000 dwelling units -- 

if priced right — could house more than half of the Green Card 

holders commuting from Juarez, if^ they were priced appropriately, 

and most of them were too expensive. Since 1965, we gather, 

housing in El Paso has tightened considerably, partiallv as a 

result of more extensive activity at Fort Bliss. 

This points up another factor, that the arrival of peace 
accompanied by a downturn in military activities in San Diego 
and El Paso would loosen the housing situation dramatically in 
those two cities. 

A further complication is that language in appropriations 

bills bars non-citizens from living in traditionally- funded 

public housing units, but not in housing built under some of the 

11 
new programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Let's assume for the moment that all of the 42,000 moving 
families would be unable to find any existing housing, and that 
they would be barred from public housing projects. 

Let us further assume that each family could afford a modest 
new house, at an average cost of $15,000. All of this is highly 
unlikely, but let us continue. This would create a mortgage 
demand (assuming a 10% down payment) of $567,000,000 for low 

239 



2448 



income families in a tight money market. This would be an 
impossible situation. A more likely result of such a mass 
migration would be the over-crowding of existing housing, and 
the creation of many new shack and tent communities. 

Our survey showed that if a mass movement of commuters 
were decreed, the 347 of 400 families who would choose to 
move would bring along 664 school age children (those between 
6 and 16). They would also bring along 335 children under 6, 
who would soon be in the schools. 

A few children, 47 to be exact, are already in border 
schools. When this figure is subtracted from the 664, it 
would produce 617 or 1.7 new school age children per family. 
This multiplied by the 42,000 moving families produces 71,400 
new students. 

The latter figure can be multiplied by $480.00 a year, 
the per pupil cost of operating the school system of El Paso 
whose costs are about average for the border, and this pro- 
duces an annual, border-wide dollar cost of $34,272,000. 

Many of the new pupils would be difficult to absorb in 
the school system; in the first place they have not had much 
schooling. Further, with a handful of exceptions, this educa- 
tion has been in Mexico, and the children are without any 
formal instruction in English. 

Such an onslaught on the border schools, already under- 
financed, would create a difficult situation which could only 
partially be solved by additional Federal funds. 

240 



2449 



Our survey also indicates that a mass movement would 
also bring to this country about 8,820 people over the age 
of 55, (assuming that whole households would be allowed to 
immigrate) and this would suggest some additional assistance 
to the aging costs. 

The arrival of 225,000 people along the border would 
also increase the overhead costs of the cities and counties, 
as the need for streets, lighting, sewage, and police would 
increase. However, it should be borne in mind that many bor- 
der cities, do not spend much for these services anyway (wit- 
ness the unpaved streets in Laredo) and the arrival of many 
more poor Mexicans probably would not make much difference. 

Further, no one on the border will suggest that the com- 
muters (or even the illegals) pose a problem to the police, 
and their 24-hour presence presumably would not cause more 
problems than their 8 to 10-hour presence does now. 

To summarize, and dealing only with housing and educa- 
tion costs, the massive arrival of all the commuter families 
who would move, would lead to incredible disruptions in the 
field of housing, and additional education costs of $34,272,000 
per year. 

It should not be assumed, however, that the costs of the 
new arrivals would simply record a drain on public treasuries, 
city, county, state and national. Two thirds of the commuters 
are already paying rent in Mexico (and another 2 percent are 
saving in the U.S. as well) , and this would be a plus ele- 

241 



2450 



rent payment is very low, with more than 95 per cent of the 
renters paying less thsm $40 a month, and 57 per cent less 
thaui $25 a month. The commuters would pay more American 
taxes if they lived here than they do now. The construc- 
tion of the schools and houses, the hiring of additional 
school teachers and social workers, would (no matter how 
financed) spur the economy of the border towns, and thereby 
increase the tax base. Further, the family expenditures 
would now become mere heavily weighted on the U.S. side of 
the border, and would contribute to secondary employment in 
the border areas of the U.S. 

The proposal that commutation be ended immediately is 
a very unattractive one, one which has very little support, 
and is rarely mentioned as a possibility except by those 
who wish to defend the status quo. 

242 



2451 



E. Creation of a New Card 

One of the suggestions proposed by Scammon and 
Ruttenberg was that a new class of commuting workers be 
created, that a new card be issued as a work permit, with 
no immigration aspects at all. Essentially, the worker 
would be allowed to cross the border to take a job — if he 
and the job met the standards — but he could not use the 
card later to immigrate, nor, under any circumstances, could 
he be forced to move to this country. Scammon called it the 
"polka dot card." 

People concerned with immigration problems refer to such 
a device as a "non-equity permit" because it would not give 
the worker, or a member of his family, a right to seek per- 
manent admission to the Nation. 

As we mentioned earlier, there are a handful of border 
crossers with H-2 visas (see pages 140-141) who are now carrying 
what is the equivalent of the "polka dot card." Rungeling 
suggests that the H-2 visas be used extensively, for this 
purpose. ^^ 

This approach is attractive to the Establishment only as 
an alternative to no commuter program at all, and it is attrac- 
tive to those seeking change because one could regulate such 
a program far more tightly than one can regulate the lives of 
people who have secured the right to live in the United States 
permanently. Scammon and Ruttenberg, over time, want to 

243 



2452 



end the Green Card progrcun, and force the current Green Card 
holders to do one of three things: 

1. move to the United States, 

2. stop commuting, or 

3. commute with a polka dot card. 

The Muskie bill (S.3545 ), which is built around the work 
permit principle, would allow the permit holder to continue to 
commute only so long as he continues to work for his present 
employer. This provision would give the commuter's employer 
great power over his worker- more than he has now- because the 
worker's right to cross the border for work would be subject 
to his employer's whim. This would tend to create an inden- 
tured servant class. That the employee might have a chance to 
secure a new card, by getting a new job, would be significant 
only to the most self-confident card holders. 

The Muskie bill, however, does contain a very useful ele- 
ment. This is the provision allowing civil suits on behalf of 
U.S. resident workers, if they suffer from competition from 
border crossers. 

Although the work permit approach has possibilities, is 
rapidly gaining adherents on Capitol Hill, and would be far 
better than no action at all, we do not advocate any step which 
could be used to perpetuate the artificial flooding of the 
border labor markets. 

244 



2453 



F. Assisted Migration 

One result of any basic change which goes beyond ending 
the creation of new commuters, would be the encouragement of 
commuters to move to the United States. Since this would be 
done in the interest of the United States, the Government 
should help with the process. 

There are parallels in the re-settlement of the Hungarian 
refugees and the Cuban Refugee program. In both cases public 
and private resources were used to ease the way for the new 
arrivals. Needless to say, there would not be the emotional 
overlay involved in the re-settlement of commuters, and private 
resources could not be expected to be a significant factor. 

One element of such a program would be a duplication of 
those mentioned earlier. Efforts would be made to find houses 
and jobs for the former commuters, preferably away from the 
immediate border region. Counselling and referral services 
could be brought to bear; special language classes offered 
through the school systems, and the like. Further, a short- 
term cash relocation allowance would be very helpful. 

In addition, adjustments should be made for those forced 
to move - by something like the Kennedy bill - within the immigra- 
tion process itself. Additional manpower would have to be 
allocated to the consulates in Mexico (to process the visas) , 
exceptions should be made in the 120,000 Western Hemisphere 
Immigration limitation, and perhaps the U.S. fees and charges 

245 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 33 



2454 



which now run $35 to $45 per person, should be waived. We 
might consider a double standard in the public charge require- 
ments; we should make it tougher for the individual, young, 
would-be immigrant, who will have a family later, and more 
relaxed for existing feunilies when the breadwinner has to re- 
locate in the U.S. 

All of these adjustments should be made for those forced 
to move to the U.S. The Government should not demand that the 
alien commuter move, and then not permit his fcimily to move. 
Our survey finding, that less than 8 percent of the visa appli- 
cations filed for other members of the Green Carders' feunilies 
had been approved, underlines this recommendation. (See page 
126 ). 

Bearing in mind the alien commuters' statements, that if 
they have to move, they would move right across the border 
(see page 127) , it might be useful to assist residents of 
American border areas to move north.* Currently the Labor 
Department subsidizes some internal migrations. There has been 
one well-publicized example of this, the Ling-Temco-Vought 
project which moved workers out of the Valley to Dallas. This 
project, however, pulled out not the working poor, but some of 
the ablest citizens. The Mexican American community has a 
valid argument against such leadership drains. A better approach 
is to move a more accurate cross-section of the community, to 
another place where a viable Mexican American community already 
exists. 

*Such population movements are needed at the eastern end of the 
border whether or not the commutation patterns are changed. 

246 



2455 



Another set of possibilities would revolve around the 
concept of early retirement for older commuters. The Govern- 
ment has set a couple of interesting precedents which might 
be used in this field. The Government, for instance, pays 
farmers not to use otherwise useful land, because it is in 
the interest of the society to limit crop production — and 
thereby stablize prices. The Government also pays special 
allowances (though this is a relatively obscure program) to 
workers who lose their jobs because of cuts in tariffs which, 
in turn, benefit the society generally. 

Our thought would be that it is in the interests of 
society generally to reduce the level of unemployment along 
the border, and this might be accomplished, to some extent, 
by paying some of the older Green Card commuters to retire 
from the U.S. labor <narket. Such payments could be made to 
both workers past a certain age who opt to take the payments 
instead of working in the U.S., and to workers of a certain 
age (perhaps an earlier age) who are forced out of the U.S. 
job market because their wages do not meet the adverse effect 
standard. There would be no point in such a program unless 
there were a fixed number of commuters, and the early retire- 
ment scheme would take some of the slack out of the labor mar- 
ket. Further, since such a program would be a very special- 
ized one, and relatively short-term, it should not be built 
into the social security or unemployment insurance legisla- 
tion, though it might be administered by the local social 
security offices. 

247 ' 



2456 



In addition to retiring some workers, and helping others 
move to the U.S., it would be useful to have a Federal aid pro- 
greum to the affected communities, much like the impacted areas 
school aid progreun. This should either be a lump sum to the 
localities, or else it could be spread cunong the kinds of 
municipal and county programs most likely to be affected by 
the new arrivals — such as housing and schools. The border 
cities have a right to Federal assistance when a new national 
policy threatens to disrupt their local budgets. 

248 



2457 



G. Law and Order 

Without one new law, and without a single new regulation, 
the Government could substantially improve the life of the 
American resident worker along the border, simply by enforc- 
ing existing laws. 

The border needs a new "Operation Wetback" to rid the 
labor force of these workers; and it needs a tighter border 
to keep the ejected illegals back in Mexico. This simply re- 
quires will, ingenuity, money, new equipment, more men and 
better cooperation among the enforcement agencies. 

It would help if wage-hour enforcement personnel along 

the border were doubled. A dozen investigators, for instance, 

could check on the employers of illegals who have paid less 

than the minimum wage, an enforcement approach which is not, 

to our knowledge, currently used. Others could check on the 

13 
low wages paid to legal border crossers. 

Commuting would become a bit less convenient if the Post 
Office Department simply stopped renting boxes to people who 
do not live in this country. 

Social security contributions are made so routinely in 
so much of our society, that the enforcement of this require- 
ment has very little priority in the Internal Revenue Serv- 
ice's scale of values. An intensive drive on this score 
along the border would find many violators eunong the 

249 



2458 



employers of domestics and farm workers, both legal and 
illegal. As noted earlier, we know of no ongoing program of 
cooperation between the Immigration and the Revenue Services 
on this score. (Our survey suggested that there are sub- 
stantial violations of the social security tax provisions; 
78.7 percent of the illegals did not possess social security 
cards indicating that it would have been impossible for their 
employers to make the returns; in addition, 17.6 percent of 
the citizen commuters and 4 percent of the Green Card com- 
muters said no social security deductions were made.) 

Whereas enforcement of social security contributions 
might make some common border labor practices less attractive 
to employers, so a similar drive on income tax violations by 
commuters might make American employment less attractive to 
commuters. (Our survey shows that 10 percent of the alien 
commuters do not file income tax returns.) I see no reason 
why, on June 30th of each year, each commuter, whether citizen 
or alien, should not have to file with INS a document issued to 
him by the Internal Revenue Service indicating that he had, in 
fact, met his tax obligations. 

Similarly, efforts should be made to make sure that adult 
male commuters carry draft cards; periodic checks should be 
made at the bridges and the gates during the early morning rush, 
and spot checks should be used to detect forged cards. (Draft 
cards would be much easier to forge than Green Cards, passports 

250 



2459 



or money.) Also, conmiuters should, like residents of Puerto 
Rico, be given the draft test in Spanish. 

The document checking process on the border, during 
the rush hour, is a mass-production operation, in which the 
inspectors must seek to do their duty without creating traf- 
fic jams. It would be helpful to the labor market, if not 
to the individual commuter, if this process became much more 
detailed and time consuming, either regularly or at unpre- 
dictable intervals. (The border crossing process is slowed 
substantially, on occasion, when the Customs Service makes 
a really thorough search for drugs — why can't the Scime 
process be employed, with equal vigor, to protect American 
resident workers from illegal foreign competition?) 

The suggestions made so far have dealt with Federal law 
enforcement; the States could help too, if they felt so 
inclined. 

As you cross the border into Texas there is always a 
State employee waiting to collect the State sales tax on 
the one bottle of liquor you can bring in with you. (He 
is essentially protecting the State's treasury and its 
liquor interests.) 

Why could not a similarly uniformed man make sure that 
the incoming commuter has a valid American driver's license 
and current American automobile insurance which is compul- 
sory in Texas? (We found that 85 percent of the commuters 

251 



2460 



who owned cars had them registered in the United States.) 

Similarly, California could step up its enforcement of 
its own agricultural minimum wage, field sanitation require- 
ments , temporary disability insurance taxes and similar labor 
laws. 

In the same general field, the enforcement of non-border 
related laws, it would be useful to broaden the coverage of 
the Federal minimum wage , improve and enforce the farm labor 
crew leader registration law, repeal the aforementioned Texas 
Proviso regarding the employment of illegal aliens and expand 
farm workers' coverage under the social security law. States 
could take similar steps. 

The only visible evidence of stepped-up law enforcement 
along the border has nothing to do with improving the lot of 
the resident working poor; it deals with protecting the Nation 
from narcotics. (See Appendix.) 

252 



2461 



H. A Commutation Tax 

One way to eaae the impact of the commutation prac- 
tice on the local tax structures would be to tax the prac- 
tice directly. 

Currently, commuters pay few taxes, and virtuallv none 
of them pay local property taxes, which are most important 
to the border cities. The border cities are, with the usual 
exception of San Diego, very poor. 

A weekly tax on alien commuters of, say, $1.00, to be 
collected from employers (and not deducted from the commuters* 
wages) would tend to make border employers less likelv to 
discriminate against American resident '.workers. 

Such a tax could be divided four wavs; to city, countv. 
State, and Nation. It should he collected bv the i^'ederal 
Government because its techniques would be more effective 
and more even-handed than those of the other jurisdictions. 

No single city or county would receive a major part 
of its budget in this manner, but it woulc) help some of the 
smaller jurisdictions. 

This is proposed, essentially, as a special tax, to 
help encourage emnloyers to look to American residents 
when they need to hire workers. 

253 



2462 



I. Economic Development 

The economic problems of poor American residents of the 
border area can be alleviated, but not solved, by adjustments 
to the commuter practice. Such adjustments will of necessity, 
be harmful to individual residents of Mexico. 

Both commuters and resident workers can be helped by 
general economic development of the border, something which 
is easier to write about than to accomplish. 

There are efforts along these lines, notably the creation 
in 1967 of the Joint U.S. -Mexico Commission on Border Develop- 
ment emd Friendship (CODAF) . As indicated earlier, some Fed- 
eral funds are flowing into American border communities through 
the Economic Development Administration and through Model Cities 
programs 

All of this is commendable, but the level of spending is 
not high enough to make any appreciable difference. 

Meanwhile, the United States has concluded that Mexico is 
a developed Nation, and therefore does not need A.I.D. anymore. 
That decision, like the Department of State's stand on the 
commuter problem, reflects the pressures on that agency, the 
least of which stem from the needs of the working poor of the 
U.S. border. A continuing A.I.D. program could, if aimed at 
the right part of Mexico, help stem the flood of internal migra- 
tion north in Mexico, and thereby bring a little more balance 
to the international labor markets along the border. 

254 - 



2463 



The Nathan Report recommends a variety of relatively con- 
ventional economic development operations which should be set 
in motion immediately. The report suggests the creation of 
ten development subregions to press for locally feasible eco- 
nomic development programs; it calls for outside funding, 
initially, of this activity, and for manpower training programs. 
It stresses the potential significance of expanding expendi- 
tures in the governmental and manufacturing sectors. 

The Checci Report (like the Nathan one, sponsored by 
CODAF) makes a number of useful suggestions about how more 
tourist dollars can be brought into the south Texas triangle, 
which includes that part of the border east of Del Rio. Checci 
recommended the development of four tourist attractions in the 
border counties, a beach club on Padre Island, a houseboat 
motel on the shores of the Falcon Reservoir, Kickapoo Cave in 
Kinney County and a complex of facilities to take advantage 
of Eagle Pass' history. These. proposals are aimed at both 
Government officials and private investors, and all should be 
acted upon. 

This general subject is a bit removed from the main thrust 
of this report, but we would like to add a suggestion, which 
might complement some of the economic development proposals 
of others. That would be to negotiate a treaty with Mexico 
to secure bi-national ownership of the Rio Grande bridges. A 
newcomer to the border is immediately struck by the fact that 

255 



2464 



one has to pay toll over the relatively small bridges over 

the Rio Grande, while elsewhere in the Nation bridges of this 

14 
size are toll free. Despite modest tools the bridges are 

gold mines to their owners; all seem to have dual ownership, 

with the American side generally owned by the American county 

or city. (Exceptions: The Missouri Pacific Railroad's bridge 

in Brownsville, the privately owned bridge at Progresso, and 

the twin bridges in EL Paso, owned by the National Bus Lines.) 

Once the bridges had been purchased (for cash from pri- 
vate owners and for cash plus a continuing share of the profits, 
from the local governments) tolls could be raised and the two 
governments could use the profits to underwrite substantial 
economic development operations on both sides of the Texas 
border. The current toll arrangements probably would have to 
continue, with the Mexicans charging a lower rate for Mexico- 
to-U.S. traffic, while the Americans charge more for the U.S.- 
to-Mexico traffic. 

We know the bridges are profitable; for instance, bridge 
revenue has been used by Cameron County, which owns one of the 
Brownsville bridges, to cut taxes: they are used in El Paso to 
subsidize the city's bus operation, which charges only a dime 
fare; and the whole prospect is so attractive that the city of 
Pharr (in the Valley) wants to build such a bridge ten miles 
south of town, and has extended its city limits along the road 
to the bridge site to make it possible. 

256 



2465 



All the economic development conceivable, however, will 
not do much for American resident workers unless something is 
ione to stem the flow of commutfers. 

257 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 34 



2466 



J. Non-Governmental Actions 

There is a wide variety of actions which non-governmental 
organizations could take which would help the border's resi- 
dent working poor. 

The most obvious (but unlikely) would be for industry to 
adopt the posture of the border's local governments, i.e., to 
hire only residents. Some firms have this policy, but it 
appears that most companies who need unskilled workers do not. 
(One of El Paso's giant clothing firms makes a fuss about only 
hiring citizens , but not necessarily resident citizens. The 
firm's buses go to the bridge every morning to pick up the 
non-resident citizens.) 

Private enterprise elsewhere in the Nation could re-eval- 
uate the American side of the border as a potential location 
for its expansion. Some kinds of activities, particularly 
light manufacturing, can be located profitably on the border, 
and there is some limited movement in that direction. (The 
border cities, however, simply do not do very well in the 
plant location sweepstakes, because they do not make the free- 
land, no taxes-for-f ive years deals made by competing towns, 
eind there are forces in each city which do not want to bring 
in new industry which might cause wages to rise. The Chamber 
of Commerce in Laredo, for instance, could not raise any money 
for industrial development activity until it successfully 
approached the local CAP!) 

258 



2467 



Similarly, the unions might spend considerably more time 
and energy in organization efforts along the border. Currently 
the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the United Auto Workers are jockeying 
with each other to see who can do more for Cesar Chavez and his 
farm workers. Meanwhile, Chavez is in Delano, and there is no 
one with either his fame, his skill or his effectiveness work- 
ing along the border (the area of his birth) . 

The major universities also could pay more attention to 
the border; there is a constellation of excellent educational 
institutions in San Diego, and the fast-growing (and name 
changing) University of Texas at El Paso. It strikes us that 
an economically and culturally deprived border city could bene- 
fit tremendously by the creation of a campus devoted to Latin 
American studies, for instance, or perhaps a joint U.S. -Mexico 
educational institution. 

Individual retirees and institutions catering to them 
might find excellent opportunities in the border areas east of 
San Diego, where prices are low and temperatures are warm. 
Mexican American and other organizations, can schedule their 
conventions in border cities. More church and foundation 
funds could be spent, and invested along the border. 

This is not an area where government has a monopoly on 
the ability to cause change. 

' 259 



2468 



K. Pro-Resident Discrimination 

We have discussed the leakage of Federal programs across 
the border, the indirect hiring of commuters on contract and 
grant programs, and the direct employment, by government, of 
non-resident citizens. We have also mentioned the lack, until 
recently, of EEOC guidelines on the question of national ori- 
gins, and the opportunity that has been missed as a result. 

On a more positive note, we would like to suggest an active 
government-wide policy of preference for residents in all 
federally-assisted employment situations, no matter how indirect. 
For instance, all Federal agencies would be instructed to see 
to it that all employees who hold jobs in the United States 
live in the United States. All grant programs would be given 
similar instructions. All suppliers to the Government, including 
agricultural ones, would have to certify that their employees 
live in the country. 

It would be helpful — but difficult to accomplish — 
if farmers receiving subsidies either had to prove that their 
workers lived in the country, or else were penalized in some 
manner for employing non-residents. 

Some parts of this policy could be accomplished by agency 
regulation, and others would require legislation. 

We are not suggesting that employers be allowed or encour- 
aged to discriminate against legally-admitted aliens, only non- 
residents. We think it should be legal for employers to dis- 
criminate against non-residents, but that it be illegal for 
employers to discriminate against residents. 

260 



2469 



L. What Should Be Done About The Illegals 

General Swing proved that if you have the right combina- 
tion of vigor and resources you can virtually eliminate the 
illegal entrant from the work force. (He also was aided by 
the bracero program. ) 

The time has come for repetition of "Operation Wetback" 
though hopefully with a little more care about the legal 
workers who may get swept up in the tide. 

Not only is there a need for a para-military operation 
on the illegals, but also a multi-agency attack on their em- 
ployers. Leads for this approach exist in abundance. (In our 
conversations with apprehended illegals we found them very 
free to talk, even about their own earlier illegal entries, 
their entry techniques and their plans to do it again.) 

An employer who hires an illegal, particularly those who 
do it knowingly, is very likely to: 

1. violate the minimum wage law, 

2. not deduct social security taxes, or some- 
times deduct them but not pay them to the 
Government, 

3. violate State minimum wage and workmen's 
compensation laws , 

4. violate, where they exist, other State labor 
laws, such as California's field sanitation 
law, her farm labor housing codes, etc. 

Information on all of these points can be secured from the 

illegal, and could be used against the employer even without 

the elimination of the Texas Proviso. The INS, as a logical 

261 



2470 



part of its work, should reach out to the Internal Revenue 
Service, to the Wage and Hour Administration, and to relevant 
State agencies and work out a mutual approach to these matters. 

Further laws of regulations regarding the draft should be 
changed, so that the illegal who is also a draft dodger gets 
into trouble; similarly, a social security card in the hands 
of an illegal should be confiscated, not handed back to him, as 
is now the case, and the Social Security Administration told 
not to issue a new one to that person until he arrives legally. 

The Social Security Administration, the Employment Service 
and the Post Office (in connection with money orders being sent 
to Mexico) should demand to see documents of those suspected of 
being illegals, as they do not do now. (There probably should 
be at least a token additional appropriation for this activity, 
so that the agencies involved can not claim that they are not 
paid to do this work.) 

We found , in our survey of illegals, that 77.3 percent 
of them had crossed the border illegally, but that 22.7 per- 
cent of them had crossed through border check points , but had 
either forged documents or were working on a document which 
did not allow work. Obviously a far tighter control at the 
border points, as well as more planes, fences and patrolmen 
are needed at the border. 

It would also help if the 72-hour crossing pass could be 
buttressed with a document which showed when the visitor 
crossed the line. Such a document should show the visitor's 

262 



2471 



number, and the hour of his crossing. If the border card 
were an electronically sensitive object, perhaps it could be 
stuck into a simple machine which would print out the crossing 
information. This would allow the border patrol to pick up 
anyone with a border card (but without a less than 72-hour 
old crossing ticket) , and then suspend or terminate crossing 
privileges. 

Sheldon Greene, of California Rural Legal Assistance, 
has suggested several additional steps for containing the flow 
of illegals, such as renewal of border cards every four months 
(making it easier to revoke cards of violators) , the attach- 
ment cf fingerprints to the card (to make identification of 
illegals easier) , giving INS the power to levy administrative 
fines on illegals, and to confiscate vehicles used in the 
transportation of illegals. 

Generally, in order to control the flow of illegal workers, 
it will be necessary both to make life less convenient for the 
worker, and the whole process more risky and less profitable 
to the employer. Only the former approach has been tried in 
the past. 

263 



2472 



M. What Should Be Done About the Citizens? 

The citizen conunuters is a new, and we suspect, fast 
growing phenomenon. The work force appears to be a fairly 
young one and can increase in size without any necessity to 
secure any documents from anyone. There is no reason to be- 
lieve that the birth rates of American citizens in Mexico will 
be much different from those of their neighbors who are Mexican 
Nationals. 

We can imagine only two ways to impede the growth of this 
work force, and none to limit its continuing right to commute. 
The two approaches are to discourage, through indirect efforts, 
the commutation practice, and to change the rules regarding 
the creation of new citizens. 

We have suggested a variety of ways in which commutation, 
generally, can be made less convenient for the workers and less 
profitable for the employers. All of these devices could be 
used on citizen as well as alien commuters. 

For instance, citizens as well as aliens, could be made 
to register for the draft; their ability to cross the border 
would be dependent on their furnishing good conduct cards from 
the Internal Revenue Service; they, too, would have to pay 
higher tolls on the bridges, and the like. 

Similarly, their employers, could pay the commutation tax, 
and face a higher incidence of labor standards inspections 
than other employers. The existence of an American resident 

264 



2473 



preference law would also have an impact on citizen commuters' 
employment opportunities. 

As to the creation of new citizens, it is useful to recall 
how this happens along the border. Very few citizens are 
naturalized, most are born in the United States, and others are 
born to American citizen parents in Mexico (securing their citi- 
zenship through derivation) . It is this last category which 
interests us, and seems to call for change, otherwise we will 
create generations of American citizens, none of whom have 
ever lived in this Nation. 

(It is useful to recall that 34.1 percent of the citizen 
commuters we interviewed had never lived in the United States. 
It is also significant, though the sample is small, that 60 
percent of those securing their citizenship through derivation 
have not lived in the United States.) 

Our suggestion would be that the immigration laws be 
changed to put those who now become citizens by derivation in 
a new category, that of potential citizen. They would be able 
to cross our borders at will -- except to become commuting 
workers -- and could become full-fledged citizens after they 
have lived here for three or five years. This would not cause 
any hardship on people (like George Romney) who happen to be 
born in Mexico of American parents because they could become 
full-fledged citizens while children, simply by living here 
for a while. 

265 



2474 



N. What Can Be Done About Strikebreakers? 

This is perhaps the simplest of the three questions we 
have posed. Strikes are both public and relatively rare, 
hence law enforcement is relatively uncomplicated (unless the 
law makers have deliberately complicated matters) . 

There are some definitional problems, however. There are 
four situations which should be examined: 

1. The illegal strikebreaker . No law or regulation is 
needed here, for the mere presence of the illegal is against 
the law. The author has had only one first-hand contact with 
illegal strikebreakers, and the INS moved swiftly and effec- 
tively.* There apparently have been some illegals involved in 
the Delano strikes, but this has not been a major factor. 

2. The Green Card commuter strikebreaker . These workers 
are partially, very partially, controlled by the Justice 
Department's regulation on the subject. (See pages 54-56.) 

3. The resident Green Card strikebreaker. There is a 



*This strike involved a major chicken grower-processor and a 
very minor would-be union, which was unknown to the NLRB, to 
the Labor-Management Services Administration, and which was 
without a single contract. This would-be strike leader told 
me of the presence of the illegals, in a telephone call to 
my house one midnight and, as I recall, collect. INS gathered 
dozens of patrolmen, and in two pre-dawn raids found 39 ille- 
gals on the employer's premises; the employer then switched 
to Indians and the strike failed. 

266 



2475 



serious definitional problem regarding who is, and who is not 
a conunuting strikebreaker, and who is a resident one. This is 
the crux of the Giumarra case we have discussed before. 

Setting this factor to the side, there remains the policy 
question of whether or not resident aliens should be allowed 
to break strikes, at they can now. Some union people want, 
in effect, legislation which would require one to be a citizen 
to breeUc a strike. Many immigration specialists do not want 
to set up any more distinctions between citizens and aliens, 
and oppose the labor position, as of course, does management. 
We cannot see how the union position on this point would 
carry the day in Congress, and are not very enthusiastic 
about it. 

4 . The non-resident citizen strikebreaker . We have 
neither seen nor heard anything on this category, but it 
exists. We do not see how a distinction could be made be- 
tween resident citizen strikebreakers and non-resident ones, 
and doubt that this will be an area of controversy for some 
time to come. 

Either the Mondale-Thompson bill, mentioned earlier, 
which would make the use of alien commuter strikebreakers an 
unfair labor practice, or a strengthened INS regulation could 
stop the practice. Interestingly, neither the regulation nor 
the bill have the usual agricultural exclusion clause. 

267 



2476 



0. The Mexican Reaction 

It is our feeling that those supporting the status quo 
on the border put too much emphasis on the Mexican reaction 
to reform proposals. 

Mexico has put up with a long history of changing Yankee 
border regulations and I doubt that a new set of rules regard- 
ing Green Card commuters would make much difference in the long 
run. Certainly Mexico accepted, gracefully, the end of the 
bracero program which was far more significant to it than the 
commuter program. 

Further, as we have pointed out again and again, the U.S. 
government fairly regularly risks the ire of the Mexican Govern- 
ment, when a new border regulation is regarded as sufficiently 
important to do so. We have mentioned the crackdown on nar- 
cotics traffic in the fall of 1969 and the cutback of the liquor 
allowance of 1965. Along the saune lines, earlier in 1969 the 
Department of Agriculture, through a marketing order issued at 
the request of Florida tomato growers, barred the importation 
of certain kinds of Mexican tomatoes. There was a brief furor, 
Mexican customs confiscated some incoming goods (at San Diego, 
anyway) but it all soon blew over. 

Mexico, of course, does have a legitimate interest in the 
commuter traffic and will, we are sure, continue to present 
its point of view to the State Department. 

268 



2477 



It would be our feeling that a mild reform package, 
consisting of little more than an end to the creation of 
new conunuters and some law enforcement on our side of the 
border, could be put into action without causing diplomatic 
problems . 

A bolder package, which would also include some regu- 
lation of the current commuters , causing some of them to 
move, would be more difficult, but not impossible. Under 
those circumstances it might be advisable to arrange some 
sort of trade-off with Mexico, and a number of elements in 
the optimum package we will discuss in the next section, 
fit that description neatly. More specifically, a restora- 
tion of A.I.D., or some other form of economic development 
activity for Mexico, would be most appropriate under these 
circumstances . 

All of the above is written with the current friendly 
relations of the two countries in mind; should the United 
States want to take a tougher attitude I am sure it could 
carry the day, and that Mexican retaliation (such as enforcing 
its own customs laws) would not last very long. 

It should be borne in mind that the commutation practice 
is not a two-way street. Only a handful of American execu- 
tives live in the United States and work in Mexico (generally 
managers of the so-called twin plants). Further, Mexico has 
much more to lose than we do should there be a slowdown of 
border trade and traffic. 

269 



2478 



p. An Optimum Package 

We recommend that a number of steps be taken to tighten the 
labor markets along the U.S. -Mexico border, in a humane way, and 
that the whole commutation practice be made less profitable and 
less convenient for all concerned. To achieve these objectives, 
we propose the following comprehensive package: 

1. End the creation of new alien commuters. 

2. Put into operation a well-researched and slow-acting 
adverse effect formula, such as would be possible with the Kennedy 
bill, designed to nudge up wages rather than cause mass migration. 
Such a formula should include an escape procedure for workers, 
who for special reasons (such as imminent retirement or with- 
drawal from the labor force for some other reason) should be 
allowed another year or two of status quo , rather than immedi- 
ately facing the choice of moving or losing their right to 
commute to their American jobs. 

3. Institute an annual review of all relevant information 
before the alien commuter secures his renewed Green Card. At 
that time, an examiner would check out his employment, his tax 
records, his draft card, and the like, and at the same time, 
make sure that his employer (who would also be present) had 
lived up to the adverse effect rules and other labor standards. 

4. Create a program, outside of current social insurance 
progr«uns , which would give financial benefits to older Green 

I 270 



2479 



Card conmuters, who either opt to retire from the U.S. labor 
market to accept these payments, or who are forced out of the 
labor market because their jobs do not pay the adverse effect 
wage . 

5. Start a commutation tax on employers who employ non- 
resident workers. 

6. Launch a vigorous campaign of law enforcement, in the 
tax, labor standards, social insurance and immigration fields, 
as proposed earlier. 

7. Press forward with an extensive economic development 
plan which will be designed to help the working poor, as well 
as the community at large, including better utilization of the 
bridge revenues, and full implementation of the Nathan and 
Checci recommendations. 

8. Set in motion a Government-assisted migration progrcun, 
spelled out earlier, both for newly arriving Green Card holders 
who have been forced to move, by an adverse effect formula, and 
for permanent residents of the American border areas, wishing 
to move into the interior of the United States. 

9. Encourage employment discrimination in favor of resi- 
dents of the United States. 

10. Improve and expand the INS program to apprehend ille- 
gal entrants, and devise techniques to keep the illegals from 
entering again, such as imposing far stricter controls on the 
border Ccirds. 

271 



2480 



11. Change the iitunigration law to make sure that every- 
one born abroad to citizen parents must live in the United 
States before becoming an American citizen. 

12. Through new regulations or new laws, establish a 
workable program to eliminate non-resident alien strike- 
breakers . 

It is unreasonable to expect that the entire package or 
even most of it can be put into motion during the next few 
years, but a start can and should be made, or else we will con- 
tinue to witness the continuing artificial flooding of some of 
the most depressed labor markets in the Nation. 

272 



1 



2481 



Notes on Chapter VIII 

1. Rungeling, op. cit . , p. 146. 

2. INS, in its review of this report, noted at this point 
"An indication by an iiranigrant that he desires and intends 
to commute to employment or for other purposes is not a 
basis for a finding of inadmissibility." This supports 
the information on the subject acquired along the border. 

3. The Nathan Report, op. cit . , pp. 32, 34, 35. 

4. Report of the Secretary of Labor, "Year of Transition," 
U.S. Department of Labor, 1966, p. 10. 

5. Hearings of Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion, op. cit., p. 105. 

6. Select Commission, Hearings — Part II — San Diego , op. cit . , 
pp. 104 and 120. 

7. Ibid . , Part IV— Detroit , p. 162 

8. Rungeling, op. cit., pp. 108-110. 

9. Select Commission, Hearings — Part III — Brownsville , op . 
cit . , p. 138. 

10. Real Estate Research Corporation report, op. cit . 

11. Select Commission, Hearings — Part III— Brownsville, op. 
cit. , p. 141 . 

12. Rungeling, op. cit . , p. 147. 

13. We do not know how many of the Green Card commuters are 
not receiving the minimum wage set by law, but we do know 
that 20.3 per cent of those we interviewed were making 
less than $1.30 an hour, the lowest minimum wage (for 
agriculture) and 30.5 per cent were making less than $1.46 
an hour. We do know that only 2.0 per cent of the surveyed 
commuters hadTad any contact with the Fair Labor Standards 
Act, and only half of this small group (four individuals) 
had secured any relief as a result. 

14. The bridge at the Falcon Dam is the only free one. It also 
is the only one owned by the two national governments. 

273 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 35 



2482 

Appendix A 
Methodology 

The three surveys conducted during this research project 
were handled by a team of bi-lingual, Mexican American inter- 
viewers, generally working within a few miles of their homes 
in the United States. Most of the conversations were in 
Spanish. 

The sample selection was handled differently for each of 
the surveys. For the Green Card survey, we used the Depart- 
ment of Labor's file on the 40,176 commuters counted by INS 
in November and December, 1967. The Department's Farm Labor 
Service had previously secured photostatic copies of the forms 
filed by the commuters at the time that their cards were grom- 
meted. The cards were arranged first by crossing points, and 
then, within that category, by occupation. 

We took every hundredth card (and the hundred and first 
and the hundred and second) for the basic sample. Inter- 
viewers were told to find the hundredth commuter and inter- 
view him, and, if he did not succeed, to proceed to the hun- 
dred and first. Although the cards were two and a half years 
old when the interviews took place, and although the inter- 
viewer often had a photocopy of a photocopy of a scrawled 
neime and address, we generally found the hundredth commuter. 

An exception was in San Luis where precise street addres- 
ses were rarely noted on the cards, and where much of the 

274 



JL 



2483 



population was in California doing farm work. Here our inter- 
viewer often had to get to the hundred and fifth or hundred 
and sixth before finding a respondent. 

This difficulty may have produced a slight occupational 
bias among those interviewed in San Luis, because 35 of the 
36 interviewed were farm workers, which is a little more than 
the ratio of farm workers to the entire commuter labor force 
in San Luis reported in the Farm Labor Developments article. 

The survey of the illegals was conducted at the three 
detention centers operated by INS, with an equal number of 
interviews being conducted at each place. Since we talked 
with about 25 men at each place, and since there was an aver- 
age of 150 or so men in residence at each center, we Saw a 
substemtial proportion of those on hand at the time of our 
visit. 

Apprehended illegals have a lot of time on their hands 
in these places, and we had many more volunteers to be inter- 
viewed than we needed. (INS, understandably, wanted us to 
talk with only those who volunteered to be interviewed.) In 
each place we simply took the first ones who volunteered. 

There are two possible problems with this process. In 
the first place, we only talked to unsuccessful illegals 
(ones that had been caught) and secondly, we talked with 
those who were willing to talk. Perhaps we would have gotten 
different responses from the ones who were free, or from the 
handful who did not volunteer, but we simply could not reach 

275 



2484 



either group. (We had offered to interview illegals before 
they were caught, at a slightly higher rate per interview, but 
the Labor Department preferred us to talk to the captured ones.) 

Whereas we got a rough geographic cross section in our 
Green Card and illegal interviews, we did not do so in the 
citizen survey, though we tried. 

There is no list of citizen commuters in existence as 
there is for the alien commuters, nor are they conveniently 
herded together, as are the illegals. Further our inter- 
viewers had differential luck in dealing with the border con- 
sulates, which do have records of some citizens living in 
Mexico. As a result, most of the citizens were interviewed 
at the American Consulate-General in Juarez, where Consul 
General William Hughes was particularly helpful, at the 
bridge at El Paso, and in the farm labor shapeups in Browns- 
ville and at various locations in Matamoras. Most of the citi- 
zens crossing the line to work do so along the Texas border, 
but we would have liked to have talked to some citizen commuters 
further west. 

There are some written materials on the Green Card commuters, 
almost exclusively the transcripts of Federal hearings on the 
subject, with the best being those of the Select Commission on 
Western Hemisphere Immigration. These also have the advantage 
of being published. 

There is virtually nothing on either the citizen commuter 
(which is understandable, this being a relatively new and 

276 



2485 



obscure subject) or the illegal immigrant (which is harder to 
understand) . The latter gap hopefully will soon be filled by 
the publication of a work on the subject by the noted sociolo- 
gist. Dr. Julian Samora of the University of Notre Dame. 

There presumably is a wealth of untapped material within 
the files of INS, but little of it has been tabulated, and 
the Service is not oriented to doing research on the social 
and economic aspects of its operations. 

277 



2486 

Appendix B 
The Canadian Border 



Although this report is concerned with workers cross- 
ing the nation's southern border, there is a two-way traf- 
fic of workers across the Nation's northern border as well. 

There is really very little data on this subject, 
because it is of little significance to either Nation. 
V/age rates — except along the New England border — are 
very comparable, and the total numbers involved are not 
great. 

The last count of alien commuters from Canada was 
taken in January ,1966 and it showed, state by state, 
these totals: 



Agricultural 
Workers 



2,015 
8 
136 
10 









State 


All 
Commuters 


I-'aine 


2,571 


New Hampshire 


8 


Vermont 


482 


New York 


1,466 


Michigan 


6,074 


Minnesota 


30 


North Dakota 





Montana 


2 


Idaho 





Washington 


54 


Alaska 


1 


TOTALS 


10,688 





271^7 



I 278 



2487 



The high count of agricultural workers going into Maine 
in January is due to the influx of woods workers, particu- 
larly in areas which can not be reached, by road, through the 
United States. 

The large figure for Michigan reflects the flow of 
Canadian workers into Detroit, which was discussed on page 92, 

The U.S. rules on the Canadian border are exactly the 
same as on the Mexican border, except that there is the prev- 
iously described enforcement of the six month provision at 
the Detroit-Windsor crossing point. 

The Canadian regulations of U.S. -based commuters, working 
north of the border, are, in fact, milder than ours, probably 
because the American workers are not numerous and they do not 
threaten Canadian wage levels. 

The Canadians operate a straightforward work permit sys- 
tem, with no requirement that the American indicate that he 
plans to settle in Canada. Work permits are issued to 
Americans who meet these tests: 

1. Citizen of the United States or perman- 
ent legal resident of the United States. 

2. In good health. 

3. Of good character. 

4. Maintains permanent residence in the 
United States. 

5. Going to pre-arranged employment. 

279 



2488 



The Canadian regulations make it clear that there is 
no need to check with the Canadian Employment Service to 
see if the job could be filled by a Canadian, nor is 
there, routinely, a need for a medical examination, nor 
wage tests. I learned this from H.W.P. Thompson, Officer 
in Charge, Immigration Branch, Canadian Consulate General, 
New York City. 

The decision to issue — or not to issue -- a work 
permit is made by the officer in charge at the port of 
entry. 

The Canadians collect few statistics on this subject. 
They know that they have issued no such permits in the 
Pacific Northwest, and that in May, 1968 there were 567 
Americans crossing into the Ontario ports of entry, 
(Sarnia, Windsor and Fort Erie, primarily). They esti- 
mate the total crossings at 1,000. 

280 



2489 



Appendix C 
Operation Intercept 

Late in the time period allocated for this report, the 
United States Government launched a comprehensive program for 
curbing the the influx of drugs across the Mexican border. It was 
called "Operation Intercept" and it started on Sunday, September 
21 (after its forthcoming arrival had been leaked well in advance) . 

On that day, and for the next three weeks, every automobile 
crossing the border was searched, as were many people crossing on 
foot. Since border inspections are usually superficial or non- 
existant, this meant that substantial additional manpower had 
to be assigned to the border. Even with the extra manpower, the 
result was — particularly for those driving — lengthy delays 
at the crossing points. 

The searches did not produce much in the way of drugs, 
simply because drug smugglers found other ways to move their 
goods. As the Washington Post headline put it, on September 
23, 1969 "Search of 418,161 fails to catch a single marijuana 
smuggler. " 

"Operation Intercept," did manage to slow traffic at the 
border so drastically that there were floods of protests from 
all concerned, from American employers (whose Green carders 
kept showing up late to work) , from inconvenienced tourists and 
from U.S. border businessmen whose Mexican customers stayed away 
in droves. In addition, the Mexican Government protested 
vigorously. 

281 



2490 



Newspaper accounts indicated that the objective of the 
whole procedure (in addition to letting the country know that the 
Justice Department was serious about its desire to curb the 
importation of drugs) was to bring pressure on the Mexican 
Government to do more to control the production and movement 
of drugs within its own borders. Extensive negotiations in 
Mexico City led to an announcement on October 10, that "Operation 
Intercept" was being ended, and that new arrangements had been 
worked out with Mexico for controlling the drug traffic. 

"Operation Intercept," did cause some commuters to lose 
their jobs, according to the press, but that is not the prime 
reason for mentioning it in this report. "Operation Intercept" 
is of interest because it shows how significant the "Mexican 
reaction" argument really is to the United States Government. 

Time and again, those who do not want any change in the 
commutation practice , contend that nothing should be done for 
fear of annoying Mexico. The State Department has taken this 
position in the past most notably in Secretary Rusk's inter- 
vention in the Texas AFL-CIO case. 

No change in the Green card commuter procedures, however, 
could possibly cause as much disruption on the border as 
"Operation Intercept . " 

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the Government 
pays more attention to those who wish to suppress drugs than 
it does to those who wish to raise wages on the border. 

282 



2491 



Bibliography 



I. Government Publications 

A. F oreign 

Direccion General de Estadistica, Censos de Poplacion, 1960 
Mexico City, Mexico, 1961. 

B. Federa l 

Inter-Agency Committee on Mexican American Affairs, Testimony 
Presented at the Cabinet Committee Hearings on Mexican 
Ame rican Affairs, El Paso, Texas, October 26-28, 196 7, 
TvJashing'ton , D . C . , Government Printing Office, 1968) . 

Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, Report 
of the Select Commissio n on W estern Hemisphere Immi - 
g ratio n, fWa'shington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 
T96¥r~ 

The Impact of Comm uter Aliens Along the Mexican 
'ana_CanadTan Border s"-- Hearings — Part I — ~El Paso , 
Texas, (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 
i968) . 

The Inpacrto^ Commuter A liens Along the Mexican 

and Ca nadian Border s'"^- He arings — Pa rt II — San 
Dieg o, Ca lifornia, (Washington, D.C., Government Print- 
ing Office, 1968) . 

The Imp act of Com muter Aliens Along the Mexican 

"and "Canadian Borde rs — He a rings — P art III — Browns - 
vIl Te^ Te xas and Par t IV -- Detroit," Mi chigaji, (Washing- 
ton, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1968). 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, "The Commuter on the U.S. - 

Mexico Border — Staff Report,'' (Washington, D.C. Govern- 
ment Printing Office, 1968). 

'Spanish Speaking Peoples,'^ staff paper prepared 

by Dr. Julian Samora, February 5, 1964 

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Re port 1276 , 74th Con- 
gress, 1st Session, (Washington, D.C, Government Print- 
ing Office, 1935) . 

283 



2492 



U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the 
Judiciary, Suhconmittee No. 1, Stud y of P o nulation 
and Immigration Pr oblems, Administrative Presentations 
(III) , "Admission of Aliens Into the United States for 
Temporary Employment and 'Commuter Workers'," Pre- 
sentations by the Department of Labor and the Depart- 
ment of Justice (Immigration and Naturalization Ser- 
vice) , June 24, 1963, (Washington, D.C., Government 
Printing Office, 1963). 

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, The Immi - 
gra tion and Natur alizat ion Systems^ of the United 
States , Report oT the Committee of tKe Judiciary , pur- 
suant to S. Res. 137, 81st Congress, 1st Session, 
(Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1950). 

U.S. Congress, Senate, The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in 
the Un i ted States , Second Report to the Committee on 
Labor and Public Welfare made by its Subcommittee on 
Migratory Labor, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, pursuant 
to S. Res. 86, (Washington, D.C., Government Printing 
Office, 1962) . 

U.S. Congress, Senate, Volu ntary Farm E mployment Service , 
Hearings before the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor 
of the Committee on Labor and Public VJelfare, 88th 
Congress, 1st Session on S.527, (VJashington , D.C., 
Government Printing Office, 1964). 

U.S. Congress, Senate, Im migration , Hearings before the Sub- 
committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Congress, 1st Session, 
on s.500, (Washinqton, D.C., Governm.ent Printing Of- 
fice, 1965). 

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Extension of National 
Labor Relations Act to Agricultural Employe e s~, Hearings 
before the Special Subcommittee on Labor of~~tfhe Committee 
on Labor of the Committee on Education and Labor, 90th 
Congress, 1st Session on H.R. 4769, (Washinqton, D.C., 
Government Printing Office, 1967). 

U.S. Congress, Senate, Migratory Labor Legislation, Hearings 
before the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor of the Com- 
mittee on Labor and Public Welfare, 90th Congress, 1st 
Session on S.8, S.195, S.197, S.198, Part 2: Rio Grande . 
City, Texas and Edinburg, Texas, Part 3; Rochester, 
New York (VJashington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 
1966) . 

284 



2493 



U.S. Congress, Senate, The Mi g ratory Farm Labor Problem i n 
the United State s, 1968 Report of the Committee on 
Labor and Public Welfare made by its Subcommittee on 
Migratory Labor pursuant to S.44, 90th Congress, 1st 
Session, (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 
1968). 

U.S. Congress, Senate, The M i gratory Farm Labor Problem in 
the United States , 1969 Report of the Committee on 
Labor and Public Welfare made by its Subcommittee on 
Migratory Labor pursuant to S. Res. 222, 90th Congress, 
2nd Session, (Washington, D.C., Government Printing 
Office, 1969). 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, U.S. Census 
of Population: 1960 , (Washington, D.C., Government 
Printing Office, 1960) . 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administra- 
tion, Industrial and Employment Potential of the U.S.- 
Mexico Border (Washington, D.C., Robert R. Nathan As- 
sociates , 1968) . 

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public 

Health Service, Vital Statistics of the United States , 
1964 (Washington', D.C., Government Printing Office, 
l96^) . 

U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, Annual Report , Various years, (Washington, 
D.C., Government Printing Office) 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, 
Office of Farm Labor Service, The Impact of Alien 
Commuters Upon the Economy of U.S. Towns on the Mexi - 
can Border , October, 1967 . ~~~ 

U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Bureau of 

Employment Security, Farm Labor Developments , (Washing- 
ton, D.C., Government Printing Office, various issues). 

U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, I and N Reporter , various issues. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Statistics 
on Manpower , A Supplement to Manpower Report of the 
President, (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 
March, 1969) 

285 



2494 



U.S. Department of Labor, "Year of Transition,'' Report of the 
Secretary of Labor, (Washington, D.C., 1966). 

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Security and Consular Af- 
fairs, Report of the Visa Office , annual reports, 1966, 
1967, 1968 (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office) 

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 
Tax Information for Visitors to the United States , 
Publication 513 (10-68) , (Washington, D.C. , Government 
Printing Office, 1968). 

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 
U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens , Publication 519 (10-68) 
(Washington, D.C, Government Printing Office, 1968). 



C. State 

Arizona State Department of Health, Health Data Analysis Sec- 
tion, Annual Report of Vital Statistics , 1966, (Phoenix) 

Texas Employment Commission, Annual Report to the Governor , 

fiscal year 1968, (Austin, Texas, Texas Employment Com- 
mission, 1968) 

Texas Employment Commission, The El Paso Complex - A Manpower 

Study, 1960-68 , (Austin, Texas, Texas Employment Commis- 
iion, 1968) 

Texas Employment Commission, Manpower Trends , El Paso area, 
Laredo area and Lower Rio Grande Valley area. Various 
issues. 

Texas Good Neighbor Commission, Texas Migrant Labor , The 1967 
Migration. 



D. Local 

Project BRAVO, El Paso Area CAMPS Plan , (El Paso, Texas, Pro- 
ject BRAVO, 1969). 

286 



2495 



E. Miscellaneous 

Community Profile Project for: Cameron County, Texas 
" Hidalgo County , Texas 

" Maverick County , Texas 

'■ Starr County , Texas 

" Webb County, Texas 

'■ Willacy County, Texas 

" Zapata County, Texas 

(Washington, D.C. Office of Economic Opportunity, 
Information Center, 1966). 

Texas State Advisory Council to the U.S. Civil Rights Commis- 
sion, "The Administration of Justice in Starr County, 
Texas," mimeographed report (Washington, D.C, 1967). 



II. Articles and Periodicals 

Greene, Sheldon L. , "Wetbacks, Growers and Poverty," The Nation , 
Volxime 209, No. 13 (New York, October 20, 19691^ 

Knebel, Stanley M. , "Restrictive Admission Standards; Probable 
Impact on Mexican Alien Commuters," Farm Labor Develop - 
ments , sixth issue. No. 68, U.S. Department of Labor, 
Manpower Administration, (Washington, D.C, 1968). 

Nix, James C, "Characteristics of Mexican Immigrants Working 
on Farms , " Farm Labor Developments , September-October , 
19.67. 

"The International Harvesters," Western Grower and Shipper , 
February, 1967. 

287 



» 



2496 



III . Reports 

Mexican American Study Project, Advance Reports 1,2,3,4,5 and 
10, (Los Angeles, University of California, School of 
Business Administration, various dates) . 

Real Estate Research Corporation, Summary Report -- Community 
Economic Analysis, Chamizal Planning Program, El Paso , 
Texas , (Los Angeles, Real Estate Research Corporation, 
1966) . 



IV. Legal Items 

Amalgamated Me a t Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America , 
A.F.L.-C~.I.O. vs, William P. Rogers and Joseph Swing^ 
186 F. Supp. 114 (D.D.C., I960). 

George Breunig, Eleno Riojas, Guadalupe Gaitan vs. Donald G . 
Orr Fruit Company , before the Superior Court of the 
State of California for the county of Sonoma, No. 62387. 

Cermeno-Cerna vs. Raymond Farrell, Commissioner of Immigration 
and Naturalization , before the U.S. District Court, 
Central District of California (Civil No. 68-403-R) . 

Joe Gooch and Rafael Bustamente vs. Ramsey Clark, Harlan B. 

Carter and C.W. Fullilove , November 1968, U.S. District 
Court, (Civil No. 49500) . 

Karnuth vs. Albro , 279 U.S. 231 (1929). 

Matter of Bailey , Board of Immigration Appeals, Interim Deci- 
sion # 1546 (A-13959481) , August 9, 1965 and January 
6, 1966). 

Texas State A.F.L.-C.I.O., Antonio Aguilar, Julia Amaya, et<, 

al. vs. Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General, and Raymond 
F. Farrell, Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization 
and Thomas Alvarado (Lugo) , Carlotta Arellanes (Leyva ) , 
Concepcion Auroa Cagigas Fraijo, et. al." Joint Appendix 
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit, no. 17,976 (Civil Action No. 3468-61). 

288 



2497 



U.S. Department of Justice , Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, Decision 209. (December 12, 1958). 



V. Unpublished Materials 

Gallardo, Lloyd L. , "Immigration From Mexico," in the files of 
the Farm Labor Service, U.S. Department of Labor. 

Jones, Lamar Babington, "Mexican American Labor Problems in 

Texas," unpublished Ph.D. thesis (University of Texas, 
1965) . 

Price, Dr. John A., "A History of Tijuana: Border Town and 
Port-of-Trade, " (San Diego, 1968). 

, "The Urbanization of Mexico's Northern Border 



States," unpublished monograph written for U.S. -Mexico 
Border Studies Project of Notre Dame University. 

Rungeling, Brian, "Impact of the Mexican Alien Commuter on the 
Apparel Industry of El Paso, Texas," an unpublished 
Ph.D. thesis (Lexington, Kentucky, University of Kentucky, 
1969) . 

U.S. Congress, House, An unpublished transcript of a hearing 

held by Congressman John Tunney in El Centre, California; 
in the files of the Senate Subcommittee on Escapees and 
Refugees . 

U.S. Congress, Senate, An unpublished transcript of a hearing 
held by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Nat- 
uralization of the Committee on the Judiciary, September, 
1967, in the files of the office of Senator Edward M. 
Kennedy. 

U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Unpub- 
lished transcript of a hearing held by the Senate Sub- 
committee on Migratory Labor, May 21, 22, 1969. 

289 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 36 



2498 



VI . Newspapers 

Arizona Daily Star , various issues. 

El Paso Herald Post , various issues. 

Laredo Times , various issues. 

The New York Time s, various issues. 

San Antonio Express , various issues, 

The Washington Post , various issues, 

290 



2499 



SURVEY RESULTS 



TransCentury Survey of Green Card Commuters 



June - July, 1969 
291 



I 



2500 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 



TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CAR 



Q.5 IS INTERVIEWEE NOW 
COMMUTING TO WORK IN THE 
U.S. 

YES 



NO 



TOTALS 



Q.6 HAS INTERVIEWEE 
COMMUTED IN THE LAST 
6 MONTHS 

YES 



NO 

NOT APPLICABLE 

TOTALS 

Q.7 IF NOT COMMUTING DOES 
HE PLAN TO RESUME WITHIN 
THE NEXT 6 MONTHS 

YES 

TOTALS 

Q.9 DO YOU LIST AS YOUR 
RESIDENCY ANY OTHER PLACE 
IN THE U.S. 

YES 

NO 

TOTALS 



D COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE 



97.69% 
296 

2.31% 

7 

100.00% 
303 



100.00% 
1 

100.00% 
1 



95.88% 
93 

4.12% 
4 

100.00% 
97 



TOTAL 



97.25% 
389 

2.75% 
11 

100.00% 
400 



1.98% 
6 


4.12% 
4 


2.50% 
10 


.33% 

1 


- 


25% 

1 


97.69% 
296 


95.88% 
93 


97.25% 
389 


100.00% 
303 


100.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



100.00% 

1 

100.00% 

1 



32.78% 


36, 


,17% 


33.59% 


98 




34 


132 


67.22% 


63, 


.83% 


66.41% 


201 




60 


261 


100.00% 


100, 


.00% 


100.00% 


299 




94 


393 



292 



2501 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 



Q. 10 WHAT IS YOUR OTHER 
RESIDENCE 

POST OFFICE BOX 



OTHER ADDRESS IN MEXICO 



STREET ADDRESS IN U.S. 



OTHER 



TOTALS 



MALE 



FEMALE 



TOTAL 



18.37% 
18 


26. 


.47% 
9 


20.45% 
27 


1.02% 

1 


2, 


.94% 

1 


1.52% 
2 


72.45% 
71 


70, 


.59% 
24 


71.97% 
95 


8.16% 
8 




- 


6.06% 
8 


100.00% 
98 


100 


.00% 
34 


100.00% 
132 



Q. 12 DO YOU PAY RENT FOR 
THIS HOUSE IN MEXICO 

YES 



NO 



NOT APPLICABLE 



TOTALS 



68.98% 
209 


69, 


.07% 
67 


69.00% 
276 


28.71% 
87 


25, 


.77% 
25 


28.00% 
112 


2.31% 
7 


5, 


.15% 
5 


3.00% 
12 


100.00% 
303 


99, 


,99% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



293 



2502 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE 



Q.13 HOW MUCH RENT DO 
YOU PAY IN U.S. DOLLARS 
PER MONTH 

$ - $ 5 
$ 6 - $10 
$10 - $15 
$16 - $20 
$21 - $25 
$26 - $30 
$31 - $35 
$36 - $40 
OVER $40 

TOTALS 



TOTAL 



.48% 

1 


1. 


,49% 

1 


.73% 
2 


8.65% 
18 


13. 


,43% 
9 


9.82% 
27 


8.17% 
17 


8. 


.96% 
6 


8.36% 
23 


21.15% 
44 


22, 


.39% 
15 


21.45% 
59 


16.83% 
35 


14, 


.93% 
10 


16.36% 
45 


15.38% 
32 


8. 


.96% 
6 


13.82% 
38 


13.46% 
28 


16, 


.42% 
11 


14.18% 
39 


10.58% 
22 


11, 


.94% 
8 


10.91% 
30 


5.29% 
11 


1, 


.49% 

1 


4.36% 
12 


99.99% 
208 


100, 


.01% 
67 


99.99% 
275 



294 



2503 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL 



Q. 14 WHAT IS THE PROPERTY 
TAX IN U. S. DOLLARS PER 
MONTH 

$ - $ 1 
$ 1 - $ 2 
$ 2 - $ 4 
$ 4 - $ 7 
$ 7 - $10 
$10 - $15 
$15 - $20 
MORE THAN $20 
NO ANSWER 

TOTALS 



Q.20 DO ANY MEMBERS OF 
YOUR FAMILY LIVE IN THE 
U.S. 

YES 



NO 



TOTALS 



2.30% 
2 


~ 


1.79% 
2 


22.99% 
20 


12.00% 
3 


20.54% 
23 


16.09% 
14 


12.00% 
3 


15.18% 
17 


10.34% 
9 


24.00% 
6 


13.39% 
15 


5.75% 
5 


- 


4.46% 
5 


2.30% 
2 


- 


1.79% 
2 


3.45% 
3 


- 


2.6,8% 
3 


6.90% 
6 


12.00% 
3 


8.04% 
9 


29.89% 
26 


40.00% 
10 


32.14% 
36 


100.01% 
87 


100.00% 
25 


100.01% 
112 



61.39% 


73. 


,20% 


64.25% 


186 




71 


257 


38.61% 


26, 


.80% 


35.75% 


117 




26 


143 


100.00% 


100, 


.00% 


100.00% 


303 




97 


400 



ft 



295 



2504 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 

TRANS CENTURY 

GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL 



Q. 21-22 IF YES, HOW MANY 
01 

02 

03 

04 



05 



06 



07 



08 



09 



10 



11 



12 



14 



15 



20 



25 



TOTALS 



19.89% 
37 


26.76% 
19 


21.79% 
56 


24.73% 
46 


21.13% 
15 


23.74% 
61 


23.12% 
43 


25.35% 
18 


23.74% 
61 


8.06% 
15 


8.45% 
6 


8.17% 
21 


8.06% 
15 


9.86% 
7 


8.56% 
22 


6.45% 
12 


4.23% 
3 


5.84% 
15 


3.76% 
7 


- 


2.72% 
7 


1.61% 
3 


- 


1.17% 
3 


1.08% 
2 


- 


.78% 
2 


1.08% 
2 


- 


.78% 
2 


.54% 

1 


- 


.39% 

1 


- 


1.41% 

1 


.39% 

1 


1.08% 
2 


- 


.78% 
2 


- 


1.41% 

1 


.39% 

1 


.54% 

1 


- 


.39% 

1 


- 


1.41% 

1 


.39% 

1 


100.00% 
186 


100.01% 
71 


100.02% 
257 



296 



2505 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 



TRANS CENTURY 



GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 



Q.23 WHERE WERE YOU BORN 

WITHIN SAME COMMUNITY AS 
CURRENT RESIDENCE 

WITHIN SAME STATE AS 
CURRENT RESIDENCE 

BORN IN ANOTHER MEXICAN 
BORDER STATE 

BORN IN INTERIOR 



OTHER 



TOTALS 

Q.25 LIST OTHER RESIDENCES 
WHERE YOU HAVE LIVED IN LAST 
5 YEARS BESIDES BIRTHPLACE 

WITHIN SAME COMMUNITY AS 
CURRENT RESIDENCE 

WITHIN SAME STATE AS 
CURRENT RESIDENCE 

IN ANOTHER MEXICAN BORDER 
STATE 

IN INTERIOR 



UNITED STATES 

TOTALS 

Q.28 HAVE YOU IN LAST FIVE YEARS 
SEASONALLY MIGRATED ELSEWHERE 

YES 

NO 

TOTALS 



MALE 


FEMALE 


TOTAL 


45.87% 
139 


56.70% 
55 


48.50% 
194 


10.23% 
31 


14.43% 
14 


11.25% 
45 


10.23% 
31 


8.25% 
8 


9.75% 
39 


33.33% 
101 


20.62% 
20 


30.25% 
121 


.33% 

1 


- 


.25% 

1 

• 


99.99% 
303 


100.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



34.48% 
10 


36. 


,36% 
4 


35.00% 
14 


3.45% 

1 


9. 


,09% 
1 


5.00% 
2 


3.45% 

1 




- 


2.50% 
1 


17.24% 

5 




- 


12.50% 
5 


41.38% 
12 


54, 


.55% 
6 


45.00% 
18 


00.00% 
29 


100, 


.00% 
11 


100.00% 
40 



33.56% 


29, 


.47% 


32.56% 


99 




28 


127 


66.44% 


70, 


.53% 


67.44% 


196 




67 


263 


100.00% 


100, 


.00% 


100.00% 


295 




95 


390 



297 



2506 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE 



Q.29 DO YOU DO FARM WORK 
WHEN YOU MIGRATE 



Q. 36 HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED 
IN U.S. 

LESS THAN 6 MONTHS 
6 MONTHS TO A YEAR 

1 TO 2 YEARS , 

2 TO 5 YEARS 
5 TO 10 YEARS 
OVER 10 YEARS 

TOTALS 



TOTAL 



YES 


67.92% 


64.29% 


67.16% 




72 


18 


90 


NO 


32.08% 


35.71% 


32.84% 




34 


10 


44 


TOTALS 


100.00% 


100.00% 


100.00% 




106 


28 


134 


Q.35 HAVE YOU EVER LIVED IN 








U.S. 








YES 


53.33% 


61.86% 


55.42% 




160 


60 


220 


NO 


46.67% 


38.14% 


44.58% 




140 


37 


177 


TOTALS 


100.00% 


100.00% 


100.00% 




300 


97 


397 



22.50% 
36 


13.79% 
8 


20.18% 
44 


23.75% 
38 


22.41% 
13 


23.39% 
51 


12.50% 
20 


12.07% 
7 


12.39% 
27 


13.75% 
22 


22.41% 
13 


16.06% 
35 


11.25% 
18 


13.79% 
8 


11.93% 
26 


16.25% 
26 


15.52% 
9 


16.06% 
35 


00.00% 
160 


99.99% 
58 


100.01% 
218 



298 



J 



2507 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN C.A RD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL 



Q.37 WHAT STATE DID YOU LIVE 
IN 

TEXAS 



NEW MEXICO 
ARIZONA 
CALIFORNIA 

OREGONA'ASHINGTON/IDAHO 
WEST OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER 
EAST OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER 
TOTALS 

299 



39.13% 
63 


51.72% 
30 


42.47% 
93 


3.11% 
5 


6.90% 
4 


4.11% 
9 


18.63% 
30 


13.79% 
8 


17.35% 
38 


39.75% 
64 


29.31% 
17 


36.99% 
81 


1.24% 
2 


- 


.91% 
2 


4.97% 
8 


5.17% 
3 


5.02% 
11 


2.48% 
4 


6.90% 
4 


3.65% 
8 


109.31% 
161 


113.79% 
58 


110.50% 
219 



2508 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 

GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 



Q.38 HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE 
YOUR JOB 

PROFESSIONAL OR MANAGERIAL 

CLERICAL/SALES 

SKILLED LABOR 



SEMI SKILLED OPERATIVE 
NON GARMENT 

OPERATIVE GARMENT 



UNSKILLED LABOR NON 
AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL FIELD WORK 
SKILLED AGRICULTURAL WORK 
DOMESTIC 
SERVICE TRADES 

TOTALS 

Q.40 HOW LONG HAVE YOU HAD THIS JOB 
LESS THAN 6 MONTHS 

6 MONTHS TO A YEAR 

1 TO 2 YEARS 

2 TO 5 YEARS 
5 TO 10 YEARS 
OVER 10 YEARS 

TOTALS 



MALE 


FEMALE 


TOTAL 


1.32% 
4 


- 


1.00% 
4 


6.60% 

20 


11.34% 
11 


7.75% 
31 


13.86% 
42 


5.15% 
5 


11.75% 
47 


2.97% 
9 


2.06% 
2 


2.75% 
11 


1.32% 
4 


16.49% 
16 


5.00% 
20 


9.90% 
30 


2.06% 
2 


8.00% 
32 


42.24% 
128 


29.90% 
29 


39.25% 
157 


1.98% 
6 


- 


1.50% 
6 


2.64% 
8 


18.56% 
18 


6.50% 
26 


17.16% 
52 


14.43% 
14 


16.50% 
66 


99.99% 
303 


99.99% 
97 


100.00% 
400 


I 

10.63% 
32 


4.17% 
4 


9.07% 
36 


9.63% 
29 


2.08% 
2 


7.81% 
31 


22.59% 
68 


16.67% 
16 


21.16% 
84 


26.91% 
81 


35.42% 
34 


28.97% 
115 


15.61% 
47 


25.00% 
24 


17.88% 
71 


14.62% 
44 


16.67% 
16 


15.11% 
60 


99.99% 
301 


100.01% 
96 


100.00% 
397 



300 



2509 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE 



Q.4 8 HOW MUCH DO YOU MAKE 
AN HOUR IN THIS JOB 

UNDER .50 



.51 - .75 
.76 - .90 
.91 - 1.00 
1.01 - 1.15 
1.16 - 1.30 
1.31 - 1.45 
1.46 - 1.60 
1.61 - 1.80 
1.81 - 2.00 
2.01 - 2.50 
OVER 2.51 

TOTALS 



L 



301 



TOTAL 



.99% 
3 


7. 


22% 
7 


2.50% 
10 


.66% 


8. 


,25% 
8 


2.50% 
10 


.66% 
2 


1. 


,03% 

1 


.75% 
3 


3.96% 
12 


3. 


,09% 

3 


3.75% 
15 


3.63% 
11 


4. 


,12% 
4 


3.75% 
15 


6.93% 
21 


7. 


,22% 
7 


7.00% 
28 


9.90% 
30 


11, 


.34% 
11 


10.25% 
41 


16.83% 
51 


11, 


.34% 
11 


15.50% 
62 


31.68% 
96 


30, 


.93% 
30 


31.50% 
126 


10.23% 
31 


4, 


.12% 

4 


8.75% 
35 


6.27% 
19 


6, 


.19% 
6 


6.25% 
25 


8.25% 
25 


5 


.15% 
5 


7.50% 
30 


99.99% 
303 


100 


.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



2510 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE 



Q.49 THIS JOB PRODUCES A WEEKLY 
TAKE HOME WAGE OF HOW MUCH 

$ 11 - $ 20 
$ 21 - $ 30 
$ 31 - $ 40 
$ 41 - $ 50 
$ 51 - $ 60 
$ 61 - $ 70 
$ 71 - $ 80 
$ 81 - $ 90 
$ 91 - $100 
$101 - $110 
OVER $111 

TOTALS 



TOTAL 



1.32% 
4 


6. 


,19% 
6 


2.50% 
10 


1.32% 
4 


7. 


,22% 
7 


2.75% 
11 


5.28% 
16 


6. 


.19% 
6 


5.50% 
22 


7.92% 
24 


10, 


.31% 
10 


8.50% 
34 


8.58% 
26 


16, 


.49% 
16 


10.50% 
42 


27.72% 
84 


23, 


.71% 
23 


26.75% 
107 


17.49% 
53 


12, 


.37% 
12 


16.25% 
65 


9.24% 
28 


4, 


.12% 
4 


8.00% 
32 


7.59% 
23 


2, 


.06% 
2 


6.25% 
25 


3.63% 
11 


3 


.09% 
3 


3.50% 
14 


9.90% 
30 


8 


.25% 
8 


9.50% 
38 


99.99% 
303 


100 


.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



302 



2511 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE 



Q.50 THIS JOB AND ANY OTHERS 
YOU AND YOUR FAMILY HAVE PRODUCED 
AN ANNUAL INCOME OF WHAT 

UNDER $ 750 
$ 751 - $1500 
$1501 - $2250 
$2251 - $3000 
$3001 - $3750 
$3751 - $4500 
$4501 - $5250 
$5201 - $6000 
$6001 - $6750 
$6751 - $7500 
$7501 - $8250 
OVER $8251 
TOTALS 



TOTAL 



.99% 
3 


3. 


,09% 
3 


1.50% 
6 


1.65% 
5 


8. 


,25% 
8 


3.25% 
13 


6.93% 
21 


11, 


.34% 
11 


8.00% 
32 


11.55% 
35 


16. 


.49% 
16 


12.75% 
51 


31,02% 
94 


22, 


,68% 
22 


29.00% 
116 


16.83% 
51 


12, 


,37% 
12 


15.75% 
63 


14.52% 
44 


10. 


.31% 
10 


13.50% 
54 


5.28% 
16 


2. 


,06% 
2 


4.50% 
18 


3.30% 
10 


7, 


,22% 
7 


4.25% 
17 


3.96% 
12 


3, 


.09% 
3 


3.75% 
15 


2.31% 

7 


2. 


,06% 
2 


2.25% 
9 


1.65% 
5 


1, 


,03% 

1 


1.50% 
6 


99.99% 
303 


99, 


,99% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



303 



2512 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE 



Q.51 DO FEDERAL OR STATE MINIMUM 
LAWS APPLY TO YOUR JOB 

YES 



NO 



DON'T KNOW 



TOTALS 



Q.52 HAVE YOU EVER COMPLAINED 
TO ANYONE ABOUT MINIMUM WAGE 
VIOLATION 

YES 



NO 



TOTALS 



Q.53 WHAT HAPPENED 

LAW ENFORCED BACK PAY 
SECURED 

WAGES WERE BROUGHT UP TO 
STANDARD BUT NO BACK PAY 
COLLECTED 

NOTHING HAPPENED 



OTHER 



TOTAL 



51.49% 


53, 


,61% 


52.00% 


156 




52 


208 


11.22% 


26, 


,80% 


15.00% 


34 




26 


60 


37.29% 


19, 


.59% 


33.00% 


113 




19 


132 


100.00% 


100, 


.00% 


100.00% 


303 




97 


400 



2.67% 
5 


4, 


,35% 
3 


3.13% 
8 


97.33% 
182 


95, 


,65% 
66 


96.88% 
248 


100.00% 
187 


100, 


,00% 
69 


100.01% 
256 



TOTALS 





- 


50. 


,00% 
2 


22.22% 
2 


40, 


,00% 
2 




- 


22.22% 
2 


60. 


,00% 
3 


25. 


.00% 

1 


44.44% 
4 




- 


25. 


,00% 

1 


11.11% 
1 


100, 


,00% 
5 


100. 


.00% 
4 


99.99% 
9 



304 



2513 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL 



Q.54 ARE SOCIAL SECURITY 
DEDUCTIONS TAKEN FROM YOUR 
AMERICAN PAYCHECK 

YES 



NO 



DON'T KNOW 



TOTALS 



Q.55 ARE U.S. INCOME TAXES 
DEDUCTED FROM YOUR AMERICAN 
PAYCHECK 

YES 



NO 

DON ' T KNOW 

TOTALS 

Q. 57 ARE UNION DUES DEDUCTED 
FROM YOUR PAYCHECK 

YES 
NO 

DON'T KNOW 
TOTALS 



305 



96.04% 
291 


89, 


.69% 
87 


94.50% 
378 


1.98% 
6 


10, 


.31% 
10 


4.00% 
16 


1.98% 
6 




- 


1.50% 
6 


100.00% 
303 


100 


.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



59.93% 
181 


72, 


.34% 
68 


62.88% 
249 


39.07% 
118 


27, 


.66% 
26 


36.36% 
144 


.99% 
3 




- 


.76% 
3 


99.99% 
302 


100, 


.00% 
94 


100.00% 
396 



7.64% 
23 


6. 


,38% 
6 


7.34% 
29 


91.69% 
276 


93. 


,62% 
88 


92.15% 
364 


.66% 
2 


- 


- 


.51% 
2 


99.99% 
301 


100 


.00% 
94 


100.00% 
395 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5A - 37 



2514 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL 



Q. 68 DO YOU HAVE A 
BUSINESS OF ANY KIND IN 
MEXICO 

YES 



NO 



TOTALS 

Q. 7 2 DO YOU KNOW OR HAVE 
YOU EVER BELONGED TO AN 
AMERICAN INION 

YES 



NO 



NO ANSWER 



TOTALS 



Q. 73 DO YOU NOW OR HAVE YOU 
EVER BELONGED TO A MEXICAN 
UNION 

YES 



NO 



NO ANSWER 



TOTALS 



1.67% 
5 


2 


11% 
2 


1.77% 

7 


98.33% 
295 


97 


89% 
93 


98.23% 
388 


100.00% 
300 


100 


00% 
95 


100.00% 
395 



11.55% 
35 


8 


.25% 
8 


10.75% 
43 


87.13% 
264 


91 


75% 
89 


88.25% 
353 


1.32% 
4 




- 


1.00% 
4 


100.00% 
303 


100 


.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



.99% 
3 


— 


.75% 
3 


98.68% 
299 


100.00% 
97 


99.00% 
396 


.33% 
1 


- 


.25% 

1 


100.00% 
303 


100.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



306 



2515 



TRANS C 
GREEN CARD 



Q.74 HAVE YOU EVER PARTICI- 
PATED IN FORMING A STRIKE 

YES IN U.S. 



YES IN MEXICO 



NO 



TOTALS 





SEPTEMBER 


13, 


1969 


E N T U R !i 










C M M U 


T 


E R S 






MALE 




FEMALE 




TOTAL 


3.67% 
11 




- 




2.78% 
11 


2.33% 
7 




1.05% 

1 




2.03% 
8 


94.00% 
282 




98.95% 
94 




95.19% 
376 


100.00% 
300 




100.00% 
95 




100.00% 
395 



Q.75 HAVE YOU EVER PARTICI- 
PATED IN BREAKING A STRIKE 

NO 



TOTALS 



Q.76 WHAT PART OF YOUR MONEY 
DO YOU SPEND IN THE U.S. 

ABOUT ONE FOURTH 



ABOUT ONE HALF 



ABOUT THREE FOURTH 



ALL 



TOTALS 



100.00% 
299 

100.00% 
299 



100.00% 
96 

100.00% 
96 



100.00% 
395 

100.00% 
395 



11.33% 
34 


10, 


.42% 
10 


11.11% 
44 


38.00% 
114 


31, 


.25% 
30 


36.36% 
144 


49.33% 
148 


54, 


.17% 
52 


50.51% 
200 


1.33% 
4 


4, 


,17% 
4 


2.02% 
8 


99.99% 
300 


100, 


.01% 
96 


100.00% 
396 



307 



k 



2516 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE 



Q. 77 HAVE YOU EVER TRIED 
TO COLLECT SOCIAL SECURITY 
IN THE U.S. 

YES BUT FAILED 



YES AND COLLECTED 

NO 

TOTALS 

Q. 78 HAVE YOU EVER TRIED 
TO COLLECT FOOD STAMPS IN 
THE U.S. 

YES BUT FAILED 

YES BUT STILL PENDING 

YES AND COLLECTED 

NO 

TOTALS 



Q. 80 HAVE YOU EVER TRIED 
TO COLLECT UNEMPLOYMENT 
COMPENSATION 

YES BUT FAILED 



YES AND COLLECTED 
NO 

TOTALS 



TOTAL 



.99% 
3 


~ 


.75% 
3 


1.32% 
4 


- 


1.00% 
4 


97.69% 
296 


100.00 
97 


98.25% 
393 


100.00% 
303 


100.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



.99% 

3 


*~ 


.75% 
3 


.33% 

1 


- 


.25% 
1 


2.64% 
8 


3.09% 
3 


2.75% 
11 


96.04% 
291 


96.91% 
94 


96.25% 
385 


100.00% 
303 


100.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



2.31% 
7 


■ 


" 


1.75% 
7 


13.86% 
42 


9 


28% 
9 


12.75% 
51 


83.83% 
254 


90 


72% 
88 


85.50% 
342 


100.00% 
303 


100 


00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



308 



2517 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL 



Q.81 HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO 
COLLECT VETERANS BENEFITS IN 
THE U.S. 

YES BUT STILL PENDING 



NO 



TOTALS 



Q.82 HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO 
COLLECT WELFARE BENEFITS IN 
MEXICO 

YES BUT STILL PENDING 



YES AND COLLECTED 



NO 



TOTALS 



Q .83 HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO 
COLLECT TEMPORARY DISABILITY 
BENEFITS IN CALIFORNIA 

YES BUT FAILED 

YES BUT STILL PENDING 

YES AND COLLECTED 

NO 

TOTALS 



.66% 
2 


~ 




.50% 
2 


99.34% 
301 


100, 


.00% 
97 


99.50% 
398 


100.00% 
303 


100, 


.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



.99% 
3 


1, 


.03% 
1 


1.00% 
4 


.66% 
2 




- 


.50% 
2 


98.35% 
298 


98, 


.97% 
96 


98.50% 
394 


00.00% 
303 


100, 


.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



3.73% 
5 


3, 


.57% 

1 


3.70% 
6 


.75% 

1 




- 


.62% 

1 


8.21% 
11 


10, 


.71% 
3 


8.64% 
14 


87.31% 
117 


85, 


,71% 
24 


87.04% 
141 


00.00% 
134 


99, 


.99% 
28 


100.00% 
162 



309 



2518 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL 



Q.84 YOU ARE NOW LIVING IN 
MEXICO, WOULD YOU RATHER LIVE 
IN THE U.S. 

YES 



NO 



TOTALS 



Q.8 5 WHY AREN'T YOU LIVING 
THERE 

CAN'T AFFORD TO 



SHORTAGE OF HOUSING 

WHOLE FAMILY CAN'T GO 

COMBINATION OF 1 , 2, 3 

OTHER 

NO ANSWER 

TOTALS 



79.21% 


80 


41% 


79.50% 


240 




78 


318 


20.79% 


19 


.59% 


20.50% 


63 




19 


82 


100.00% 


100 


.00% 


100.00% 


303 




97 


400 



33.99% 
103 


39 


18% 
38 


35.25% 
141 


3.96% 
12 


9 


28% 
9 


5.25% 
21 


22.11% 
67 


14 


43% 
14 


20.25% 
81 


14.52% 
44 


13 


40% 
13 


14.25% 
57 


5.28% 
16 


5 


.15% 
5 


5.25% 
21 


20.13% 
61 


18 


.56% 
18 


19.75% 
79 


99.99% 
303 


100 


.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



1310 



2519 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL 



Q. 87 DO YOU VOTE IN MEXICO 
ELECTIONS 

YES 



NO 



14.85% 
45 


5 


15% 
5 


12.50% 
50 


85.15% 
258 


94 


85% 
92 


87.50% 
350 


100.00% 
303 


100 


.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



TOTALS 



Q. 91 HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO 
GET GREEN CARDS FOR OTHER MEMBERS 
OF YOUR FAMILY 

YES 33.22% 29.47% 32.32% 

100 28 128 

NO 66.78% 70.53% 67.68% 

201 67 268 

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 

301 95 396 

Q. 92 STATUS OF GREEN CARD 
APPLICATION 

APPLICATION STILL PENDING 



TURNED DOWN 
RECEIVED 

TOTALS 



47.12% 
49 


44 


44% 
12 


46.56% 
61 


45.19% 
47 


48 


15% 
13 


45.80% 
60 


7.69% 
8 


7 


.41% 
2 


7.63% 
10 


100.00% 
104 


100 


.00% 
27 


99.99% 
131 



311 



2520 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE 



Q.93 WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE 
YOUR GREEN CARD 

BEFORE 1930 

DURING THE THIRTYS 

1940 - 1945 

1946 - 1950 

1951 - 1955 

1956 - 1960 

1961 - 1962 

1963 - 1964 

1965 - 1966 

1967 

1968 - 1969 

TOTALS 



TOTAL 



1.98% 
6 


1.03% 

1 


1.75% 
7 


.33% 

1 


1.03% 

1 


.50% 
2 


1.98% 
6 


5.15% 
5 


2.75% 
11 


2.64% 
8 


3.09% 
3 


2.75% 
11 


13.86% 
42 


18.56% 
18 


15.00% 
60 


20.79% 
63 


20.62% 
20 


20.75% 
83 


18.48% 
56 


6.19% 
6 


15.50% 
62 


21.78% 
66 


20.62% 
20 


21.50% 
86 


10.89% 
33 


14.43% 
14 


11.75% 
47 


6.60% 
20 


9.28% 
9 


7.25% 
29 


.66% 
2 


- 


.50% 
2 


99.99% 
303 


100.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



312 



2521 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL 



Q.97 DID ANYONE IN THE U.S. HELP 
YOU MAKE THE APPLICATION 

YES 



NO 



TOTALS 

Q.98 WHO HELPED YOU SECURE YOUR 
GREEN CARD 

LAWYER 

A FRIEND IN THE U.S. 

A FRIEND IN MEXICO 

A RELATIVE 

IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT 
IN U.S. 

IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT 
MEXICO 

EMPLOYER OR POTENTIAL 
EMPLOYER 

OTHER 

NO ANSWER 

TOTALS 



70.47% 


62, 


.50% 


68.53% 


210 




60 


270 


29.53% 


37, 


.50% 


31.47% 


88 




36 


124 


100.00% 


100, 


.00% 


100.00% 


298 




96 


394 



1.32% 
3 


3. 


,13% 
2 


1.72% 

5 


10.13% 
23 


20. 


,31% 
13 


12.37% 
36 


2.20% 
5 


1. 


,56% 

1 


2.06% 
6 


30.40% 
69 


34. 


.38% 
22 


31.27% 
91 


.88% 
2 


1, 


.56% 

1 


1.03% 
3 


3.52% 
8 


3, 


,13% 
2 


3.44% 
10 


46.26% 
105 


29, 


.69% 
19 


42.61% 
124 


4.85% 
11 


6, 


.25% 
4 


5.15% 
15 


.44% 

1 




- 


.34% 

1 


100.00% 
227 


100 


.01% 
64 


99.99% 
291 



313 



2522 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE 



Q.99 DID YOU PAY ANYONE TO 
HELP GET THE CARD 

YES 



NO 

TOTALS 

Q.lOO HOW MUCH DID YOU PAY 
IN U.S. DOLLARS 

UNDER $100 
$100 - $200 
$200 - $300 
$300 - $400 
TOTALS 



Q.lOl DO YOU HAVE A SOCIAL 
SECURITY CARD 

YES 



NO 



TOTALS 



TOTAL 



23.73% 


21, 


.74% 


23.26% 


70 




20 


90 


76.27% 


78, 


.26% 


76.74% 


225 




72 


297 


100.00% 


100 


.00% 


100.00% 


295 




92 


387 



50.68% 
37 


65. 


.22% 
15 


54. 


.17% 
52 


39.73% 
29 


21. 


,74% 
5 


35, 


.42% 
34 


5.48% 
4 


8, 


.70% 
2 


6, 


.25% 
6 


4.11% 
3 


4, 


.35% 

1 


4, 


.17% 
4 


100.00% 
73 


100, 


.01% 
23 


100, 


.01% 
96 



99.34% 
300 


97.92% 
94 


99.00% 
394 


.66% 
2 


2.08% 
2 


1.01% 
4 


100.00% 
302 


100.00% 
96 


100.01% 
398 



314 



2523 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 

MALE FEMALE 



Q. 104 BEFORE YOU GOT YOUR 
GREEN CARD HAD YOU BEEN IN 
THE U.S. 

YES 



NO 



TOTALS 

Q. 105 HAD YOU EVER BEEN 
IN THE U.S. BEFORE AS A 

BRACERO 



STUDENT 

VISITOR 

WORKER WITHOUT PAPERS 

BRACERO AND ILLEGAL 

BRACERO AND VISITOR 

VISITOR AND ILLEGAL 

STUDENT AND OTHER REASON 

OTHER 

TOTALS 



315 



TOTAL 



53.47% 


50, 


,52% 


52.75% 


162 




49 


211 


46.53% 


49, 


.48% 


47.25% 


141 




48 


189 


100.00% 


100, 


.00% 


100.00% 


303 




97 


400 



51.53% 
84 


24.00% 
12 


45.07% 
96 


3.68% 
6 


4.00% 
2 


3.76% 
8 


17.79% 
29 


30.00% 
15 


20.66% 
44 


9.82% 
16 


22.00% 
11 


12.68% 
27 


6.14% 
10 


4.00% 
2 


5.63% 
12 


5.52% 
9 


4.00% 
2 


5.16% 
11 


1.84% 
3 


4.00% 
2 


2.35% 
5 


1.23% 
2 


6.00% 
3 


2.35% 
5 


2.45% 
4 


2.00% 

1 


2.35% 
5 


.00.00% 
163 


100.00% 
50 


100.01% 
213 



I 



2524 

SEPTEh4BER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 



Q.106 IF YOU COULD NO LONGER COM- 
MUTE, AND HAD TO EITHER LIVE AND 
WORK IN MEXICO, OR LIVE AND WORK 
IN THE U.S., WHICH WOULD YOU CHOOSE 

U.S.A. 



MEXICO 



TOTALS 



Q.107 IF YOU COULD NO LONGER 
COMMUTE WHERE WOULD YOU LIVE 
IN MEXICO 



MALE 



FEMALE 



TOTAL 



87.09% 


88, 


.42% 


87.41% 


263 




84 


347 


12.91% 


11, 


.58% 


12.59% 


39 




11 


50 


100.00% 


100, 


.00% 


100.00% 


302 




95 


397 



STAY IN THIS LOCALE 



MOVE ELSEWHERE IN 
MEXICO 



TOTALS 



Q.108 IF YOU WERE TO MOVE TO 
THE U.S. WHERE WOULD YOU LIVE 

NEAR PRESENT WORK SITE 



ELSEWHERE ALONG THE BORDER 



TOTALS 



86, 


.36% 
38 


93, 


,33% 
14 


88. 


.14% 
52 


13. 


.64% 
6 


6, 


.67% 

1 


11, 


.86% 
7 


100, 


.00% 
44 


100, 


.00% 
15 


100. 


.00% 
59 



93.21% 
206 


94. 


.03% 
63 


93.40% 
269 


6.79% 
15 


5. 


.97% 
4 


6.60% 
19 


100.00% 
221 


100. 


.00% 
67 


100.00% 
288 



316 



2525 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 



MALE 



FEMALE 



Q.109 IF YOU MOVED TO THE U.S. 
HOW MANY FAMILY MEMBERS WOULD 
COME ALONG 

1 

2 . 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
NO ANSWER 

TOTALS 



TOTAL 



7.60% 
19 


10.26% 
8 


8.23% 
27 


6.00 
15 


25.64% 
20 


10.67% 
35 


10.80% 
27 


14.10% 
11 


11.59% 
38 


18.00% 
45 


16.67% 
13 


17.68% 
58 


13.60% 
34 


7.69% 
6 


12.20% 
40 


14.00% 
35 


12.82% 
10 


13.72% 
45 


7.60% 
19 


7.69% 
6 


7.62% 
25 


8.40% 
21 


2.56% 
2 


7.01% 
23 


6.40% 
16 


- 


4.88% 
16 


4.00% 
10 


1.28% 

1 


3.35% 
11 


2.40% 
6 


- 


1.83% 
6 


1.20% 
3 


- 


.91% 

3 


- 


1.28% 

1 


.30% 

1 


100.00% 
250 


99.99% 
78 


99.99% 
328 



317 



2526 



SEPTEMBER 13, 
TRANS CENTURY 
GREEN CARD COMMUTERS 



1969 



Q.lll HOW MANY SCHOOL AGE 
CHILDREN WOULD ENTER U.S. 
SCHOOLS FOR THE FIRST TIME 



NO ANSWER 



TOTALS 



Q.112 HOW MANY PEOPLE OVER 
55 WOULD BE INVOLVED 



NO ANSWER 

TOTALS 



MALE 



FEMALE 



TOTAL 



8.58% 
26 


17. 


.53% 
17 


10.75% 
43 


14.19% 
43 


11. 


.34% 
11 


13.50% 
54 


10.89% 
33 


13. 


.40% 
13 


11.50% 
46 


13.53% 
41 


4. 


.12% 
4 


11.25% 
45 


7.59% 
23 


3. 


.09% 
3 


6.50% 
26 


4.29% 
13 


1. 


.03% 

1 


3.50% 
14 


2.64% 
8 




- 


2.00% 
8 


.33% 

1 




- 


.25% 

1 


37.95% 
115 


49. 


,48% 
48 


40.75% 
163 


99.99% 
303 


99. 


.99% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



9.24% 
28 


16.49% 
16 


11.00% 
44 


3.63% 
11 


4.12% 
4 


3.75% 
15 


87.13% 
264 


79.38% 
77 


85.25% 
341 


100.00% 
303 


99.99% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



318 



2527 



TRANS C 
GREEN CARD 



Q.113 HOW MANY CHILDREN UNDER 
6 WOULD BE INVOLVED 



SEPTEMBER 13, 1969 
E N T U R Y 

COMMUTERS 

MALES FEMALE TOTAL 



NO ANSWER 



TOTALS 



Q.116 EVALUATION OF INTERVIEWEES 
HOUSE 

ELECTRICITY AND WATER 



WATER BUT NO ELECTRICITY 



ELECTRICITY BUT NO WATER 



NEITHER 



NO ANSWER 



TOTALS 



\ 



319 



18.81% 
57 


17.53% 
17 


18.50% 
74 


20.46% 
62 


12.37% 
12 


18.50% 
74 


6.60% 
20 


4.12% 
4 


6.00% 
24 


2.97% 
9 


- 


2.25% 
9 


.33% 
1 


- 


.25% 
1 


50.83% 
154 


65.98% 
64 


54.50% 
218 


100.00% 
303 


100.00% 
97 


100.00% 
400 



83.00% 
249 


82.47% 
80 


82.87% 
329 


.67% 
2 


1.03% 

1 


.76% 
3 


8.67% 
26 


11.34% 
11 


9.32% 
37 


.67% 
2 


- 


.50% 
2 


7.00% 
21 


5.15% 
5 


6.55% 
26 


100.01% 
300 


99.99% 
97 


100.00% 
397 



1 

2528 

Senator Mondale. We will now recess until tomorrow morning. 
(AVliereupon, at 12:20 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene 
at 9 :30 a.m., the following day, Thursday, May 22, 1969.) 

o