(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 .."

310212 3111 4551 2 



I OM-1 



EASONAL FARMWORKER 



POWERLESSNESS 



HEARINGS 

iBEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGRATORY LABOR 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-FIKST CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 
ON 

BORDER COMMUTER LABOR PROBLEM 



MAY 22, 1969 



PART 5-B 



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




MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER 
POWERLESSNESS 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGRATOEY LABOR 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 
ON 

BORDER COMMUTER LABOR PROBLEM 



MAT 22, 1969 



PART 5-B 



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




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



committep: on labor and public welfare 

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

HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont 
CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode 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 

Edgene Mittblman, 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, Counsel 

A. Sidney Johnson, Professional Staff Memher 

Eugene Mittelman, Minority Counsel 

(II) 



Format of Hearings ox Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker 

powerlessness 

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

Subject matter Hearing dates 

Part 1 : Who are the Migrants? June 9 and 10, 1969 

Part 2: The Migrant Subculture July 28, 2969 

Part3-A: Efforts to Organize July 15, 1969 

Part3-B: Efforts to Organize July 16 andl", 1969 

Part4-A: Farmwoi'ker Legal Problems Aug. 7, 1969 

Part 4— B: Farmworker Legal Problems Aug. 8, 1969 

Part 5-A : Border Commuter Labor Problem May 21, 1969 

Part 5-B : Border Commuter Labor Problem May 22, 1969 

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

Part 7 : Manpower and Economic Problems Api-. 14 and 15, 1970 

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



(III) 



CONTENTS 



CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 
May 22, 1969 

Ruttenberg, Stanley H., former Assistant Secretary of Labor for Man- 
power, and president of Stanley H. Ruttenberg & Associates, Inc., Page 
Washington, D.C 2529 

Guerra, Arnulfo, Roma, Tex 2578 

STATEMENTS 

Guerra, Arnulfo, Roma, Tex 2578 

Ruttenberg, Stanley H., former Assistant Secretary of Labor for Man- 
power, and president of Stanley H. Ruttenberg & Associates, Inc., Wash- 
ington, D.C 2529 

Prepared statement 2548 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

Articles, publications, etc. : 

"Farm Labor Shortage," from the Congressional Record, May 26, 

1969 2552 

"Immigration Law and Rural Poverty — The Problems of the Illegal 
Entrant," by Sheldon Greene, from the Duke Law Journal, volume — 

No. 3, 1969 2593 

"Low-Wage Lures South of the Border," by David T. Lopez, from the 

AFL-CIO Federationist, July 1969 2758 

News release from the office of Senator Spessard L. Holland (Demo- 
crat, of Florida) 2554 

"Nixon Let Foreign Workers in State; Local Labor Hurt," from the 

Miami Herald, May 23, 1969 2556 

"Restrictive Admission Standards : Probable Impact on Mexican Alien 
Commuters," bv Stanley M. Kiiebel, from Farm Labor Developments, 

November 1968 2686 

Selected letters and articles received by the su))Committee 2798-2870 

"The Amiable Fiction — Alien Commuters Under Our Immigration 
Laws," by Charles Gordon, from the Case Western Reserve Journal 

of International Law 2741 

"The Commuter on the United States-Mexico Border," staff report 

prepared by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 2699 

"The Shortrun Socioeconomic Effects of the Termination of Public 
Law 78 on the California Farm Labor Market for 1965-67," bv Rev. 

Victor Paul Salandini, M.A., Washington, D.C, June 1969__1 2774 

"XL — The Labor Certification — Its Requirements, Its Procedures, 
and Its Results in the First Year of Operation," by the U.S. Depart- 
ment of Labor for the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere 

Immigration 2646 

"XVII. — Commuters — Historical Background, Legal Challenges, and 
Issues," by the Immigration ,and Naturalization Service, U.S. De- 
partment of Justice for the Select Commission on AVestern Hemi- 
sphere Immigration 2617 

Buftto-1, Robert, and Ltipe Murquia, Plaintiffs; Cristobal Cordona, Jose 
31 aria de la Garza, Plaeido Ruts and Julio Ricis, Plaintiff -Interveners 
V. John H. Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States; Raymond 
Farrell, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Serviee of the 
United States, and Harlan B. Carter, Regional Commissioner, Immigra- 
tion and Naturalization Service of the United States, Defendants, in 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2871 

(V) 



VI 

Couiuiuuications to : 

Moudale, Hon. Walter F., chairmau, Subcommittee on Migratory La- 
bor, from : 

Gurney, Hon. Edward J., ,a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida, Page 

June 6, 1969, witli attachment 2557 

Holland, Hon. Spessard L., a U.S. Senator from the State of 

Florida, May 26, 1969, with attachment 2555 

Kircher, William L., director of organization, AFL-CIO, June 

19, 1969, with attachments 2559 

Royals, Byron G., president. Southwest Florida Winter Vegetable 

Growers Association, Immokalee, Fla., March 24, 1969 2551 

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

April 25, 1969 2552 

June 16, 1969 (with enclosures) 2566 

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

April 7, 1969 2551 

May 26, 1969 2566 

The President, the White House, from Richard M. Scammon, chair- 
man. Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, Vice 
President, Governmental Affairs Institute ; and Stanley H. Rutten- 
berg, member, Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immi- 
gration, Assistant Secretaiy, U.S. Department of Labor, July 22, 

1968 2614 

Memorandum from Elijah Boone, Jr., to Senator Walter F. Mondale, re 

migrant farm wages in Florida 2564 

Selected charts and tables : 

Basic daily minimum wage rates for the northern border zones and 

Federal District of Mexico, 1966-67 and 1968-69 2532 

Mexico, 1968-69 basic daily minimum wage for selected skilled and 
semiskilled occupations. Federal district .and northern border 
zones 2533 



MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FAR3IW0RKER 
POWERLESSNESS 

(Border Commuter Labor Problem) 



THUBSDAY, MAY 22, 1969 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee ox Migratory Labor 
OF THE Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 

Washington, D.C. 

The siibcommitteee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2228, 
New Senate Office Building, Senator Walter F. Mondale (chairman of 
the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Mondale (presiding), Williams of New Jersey, 
Yarborough, and Javits. 

Committee staff members present: Robert O. Harris, staff director 
of the full committee; Boren Chertkov, majority counsel; A. Sidney 
Johnson, professional staff member ; and Eugene Mittelman, minority 
counsel. 

Senator Mondale. The subcommittee continues its hearings this 
morning on the topic of the border commuter labor problem as part of 
our hearino-s on Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Powerlessness. 

We are pleased to have as our first witness Stanley H. Euttenberg, 
former Assistant Secretary of Labor, whose credentials for testifying 
on this issue are well known. 

We are delighted to have you. 

STATEMENT OF STANLEY H. RUTTENBERG, FORMER ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR MANPOWER, AND PRESIDENT OF 
STANLEY H. RUTTENBERG AND ASSOCIATES, INC., WASHING- 
TON, D.C. 

Mr. Ruttenberg. I have a prepared statement I would like to have 
entered into the record, and if I might briefly summarize it and then 
go on to whatever questions you may want to pose. 

Senator JSIondale. The statement will be included in the record as 
though read. 

Mr. Ruttenberg. Thank you. 

I think the problem of the alien commuter is one which was a com- 
plex and vexing one when I first took office as Manpower Administra- 
tor in 1965, and the situation isn't much different today than it was 
then in terms of trving to resolve the problem. 

I am delighted 'to be here and talk about the problem. I pose as no 
expert, certainly, in the field of migratory labor, or even immigration, 
but I have taken a great deal of interest over time in this problem, and 
served as a member of the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere 

(2.529) 



2630 

Immigration, as one of five appointees from the executive brancli of 
Government, along with the chairman of that Commission, Mr. Dick 
Scammon. 

We were dealing then with the immigration law in terms of the 
requirements of determining whether or not a ceiling of 120,000 immi- 
grants should be permitted to enter the United States, but the Commis- 
sion did agree to hold a series of hearings on the border on the question 
of the green card commuter, or the alien commuter. 

Mr. Scammon and I did hold hearings. We did make specific rec- 
ommendations, and I want in a moment to refer to those recommen- 
dations and talk a little bit about them. 

It ought to be clear at the outset that when we talk about a green 
card person, everybody who immigrates to the United States has a 
green card. 

In this situation we are really talking about those green carders 
who choose, by their own decision, to reside across the border in for- 
eign contiguous territories, rather than to reside in the United States, 
and this system has been condoned by regulations of various kinds for 
some 40 years. 

It first started in Aj^nl 1 927. 

There is nothing in the legislation, nothing in the law, that con- 
dones or even establishes in any way the fact that a commuter, that 
an alien immigrating to the United States, has a right to reside in a 
contiguous territory. There is nothing in the law to justify that. 

Senator Mondale. Does the law look in the other direction ? That 
is, does the commuter have that right, at least in the theoretical terms 
of the law ? 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. In theoretical terms, and I am convinced — well, 
one could put it this way. Senator Mondale. 

It is argued this way by the opposition, that because the Immigra- 
tion and Nationality Act of 1965 didn't do anything about changing 
the alien commuter, or the commuter resident problem, therefore, by 
inaction, the Congress condoned what had been going on before. And 
conversely, if they had wanted to do something about changing it, 
they would have altered the law. 

When I was in the Department of Labor, our Solicitor in the De- 
partment prepared a long memorandum and brief, which I have here 
and could give to you if you want, that legally stated the case in sup- 
port of the fact that there was no basis in law for the continuation of 
the commuter system. 

Senator Mondale. If you have a copy of that, we would like it for 
our files. 

Mr. Ruttenberg. I will give it to you for your files, and you can 
decide later whether you want to have it in the record. 

The problem at any one point in time involves some 40,000 to 45,000 
individuals who live in Mexico but come into the United States to 
work on a daily basis. 

But when the ImmioTation Service made its surveys, it did not — 
both in January of 1966 and the. later one that involved occupations 
in November and December, 1967 — the Immigration Service did not 
count the individuals who were coming across the border who may 
work for a week, a month, or during a season, and who have permanent 



2531 

residence in Mexico, but who live in the United States for a period of 

a week or more. 

Senator Mondale. They weren't counted at all ? 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. They were not counted at all, and when one esti- 
mates the number of individuals who are alien commuters, the figure 
would go over 100,000 people, but there are 40,000 to 45,000 whom 
the Immigration Service has identified as coming across on a daily 
basis. 

Senator Mondale. In other words, when the Service uses commuter 
figures, they are talking about the daily commuter. They are not talk- 
ing about the seasonal commuter. 

Mr. Ruttenberg. That is right, sir. 

Senator Mondale. Do they have separate figures on the seasonal 
commuter ? 

Mr. Ruttenberg. No, sir, there is not really firm data on it. It is 
data that we ought to have. It is not now available. There are esti- 
mates. Many of the individual green card alien commuters who are 
working in the vineyards of California are probably individuals — 
one doesn't know, and it is difficult to prove — they are probably indi- 
viduals who live in Mexico as their permanent home and who reside 
only for a temporary period of time at the vineyard. 

The problem of the commuter creates a serious adverse effect on 
wages and working conditions in the United States, and in addition 
another serious problem is that they do inject themselves into strike 
situations, situations where there has been a certification by the Secre- 
tary of Labor. 

it is, I think, recognized and agreed by most people that the 
permission of the continuation of this practice does have an adverse 
effect, and there is convincing evidence, I think, to indicate this to 
be true. 

On the ]\Iexican border, the wage rates are usually much lower 
and unemployment much higher than in other cities that are away 
from the border, and the Department of Labor in 1967 showed that 
the unemployed rates in Texas border towns was almost double that 
for otlier parts of the State. 

It decreased in direct relationship to the distance north of the 
border. 

Senator Mondale. Does your full statement spell that out ? We have 
been trying to find economists in this Nation who are skilled in this 
particular field to come in and testify about the conditions of poverty 
and the impact of that condition upon the Nation's economy, not just 
along the border. 

I suspect that one of the reasons we have so many migrant farm- 
workers is because of the conditions to which you have just referred, 
because most of the migrants, in fact, do come from places close to the 
border. 

There is a surplus of labor, and working conditions for the un- 
skilled worker are tragically depressed. There is an inexhaustible 
supply of labor on the Mexican side, composed of unskilled rural 
people who are unemployed most of the time, and if they get 20 or 
30 cents an hour they regard themselves as fortunate. There is no 
apparent effective way at this point of stopping them from crossing 



2532 

the border, and I think this has a far more pervasive impact, not 
alone at the border, but on the economy of this country as a whole, in 
terms of wages and working conditions of all workers. 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. I would agree with that, and I think that cer- 
tainly with the large influx of individuals on the border, the wage 
rates on the border are lower than they are elsewhere. As a matter of 
fact, the seasonal farmworkers' wage rates are 30 percent lower in 
the border areas of Texas than elsewhere in the same State. 

If that is the case, the unemployed resident on the border, a U.S. 
citizen born in Mexico, or a native-born American citizen is competing 
for jobs at very, very low wages, and the wages are reduced as a result 
of the commuter, and he tends to migrate north into other areas, and 
is, therefore willing to accept lower rates of pay although they are 
higher than what he would get if he had remained on the border. 

Senator Mondale. Do you have figures on what the unskilled JNIexi- 
can worker gets paid as an hourly rate if he can find a job on the 
Mexican side of the border ? 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. There is data available on this, and as I recall the 
minimum wage of INIexico varies by area within the country, and if 
I am not — well, I wouldn't want to recall from memor}^, but there is 
information available at the Department of Labor that shows what the 
wage rates are, what the minimum wages are across the border from 
the United States. 

I don't recall that. I was going to say 4 pesos a day, but I don't want 
to trust my memory on that. 

Senator Moxdale. If you can get information and submit it for the 
record on that, we would appreciate it. 

(The information follows :) 

BASIC DAILY MINIIVIUIVI WAGE RATES FOR THE NORTHERN BORDER ZONES AND FEDERAL DISTRICT OF MEXICO, 

1966-67 AND 1968-69 

[In pesos— 1 peso = U.S. $0.08) 

General' Ruraji 

Minimum wage zones 

Baja California Norte 

Sonora Costa _ . _ 

Sono ra Noga les 

Chihuahua-Casas Grandes -._ 

Chihuahua-Ciudad Juarez 

Chihuahua Noreste 

Coahuila Centro ._ 

Coahuila Piedras Negras... 

Laredo Anahuac 

Tamualyses Matamoros 

Fede ra I District 

> In addition to these rates, higher basic minimum daily rates for 24 semiskilled and skilled occupations were published 
simultaneously with the general and rural rates. 

Source: Mexico, National Minimum Wage Commission, official release. 



1966-67 


1968-69 


1966-67 


1968-69 


35.70 


40.00 


29.00 


34.00 


22.60 


26.25 


21.25 


24.75 


25. 75 


29.50 


24.00 


27.25 


22.40 


24.50 


19.75 


23.00 


29.00 


31.90 


25.00 


27.50 


22. 50 


25.00 


21.00 


23.50 


15.00 


22.25 


13.50 


18.75 


22.15 


26.00 


16.00 


19.50 


23. 50 


28.50 


19.50 


23.65 


25. 80 


29.75 
28.25 


20.75 
23.00 


24.25 


25. 00 


26.25 



2533 



aot 1 cs cc 



) CTJ O ** LD .— t 



OfOOLDCJin 



O C3 Ln O CD o 



' CTi oo C3 CO ro csj 



I ld LO in lo in Lrt 



ocoooc 



3cr)C>Lnc3C)CJmir> 



i^^LOLD^^r 



5 01 r-^ to tor 



rocororococorocomc 



CU3— - c O) «^ 



E -5^ -Q .^ g S 

OO ^ TO '-^ — — 

■^ >^ "^ 'o *^ (J o o'z: 



■ c ' ^ 

I I 1 ' tt> 1.2 i £ 



J uj <: 



o ^ c S^ o t — 



2534 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. Ovei' 20 percent of the minimum Avage underpay- 
ments found by Labor Department investigators in Texas. New Mex- 
ico, Arizona, and California were fonnd in border counties of these 
States containing only about 6 percent of the nonfarm employment. 

In order to try to check out the impact on the wages of the com- 
muter, we conducted a study in the Department of Labor in January 
1968, which urged very strongly that a study be done, an employment 
and wage survey of establishments that employed commuters in the 
Laredo, Tex., area. 

This survey produced the first hard data on wages paid to com- 
muters, aiid we did use this information in connection with the Select 
Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration hearings that were 
held on the border. 

This testimony was taken in Laredo, Tex. As I say, I thinlc it is 
the first hard data on wages paid to commuters, and it is the first 
step to build up the kind of information we need. 

The significant findings of that study I am sure you are familiar 
with, but let me quickly summarize them. 

Commuters are clustered in low wage occupations. 

Average hourly earnings for the 25 surveyed occupations in which 
iive or more commuters were occupied ranged from 86 cents for bus- 
bovs to $2.10 for customs appraisers. 

The wage most commonly paid to the surveyed commuter was $1.40 
an hour. 

Forty-eight percent of the workers surveyed were paid precisely 
that amount. That happened to be the minimum fair labor standards 
wage at the time the survey was taken. 

Forty -eight percent of the commuters were receiving $1.40. Seventy- 
six percent of the commuters were receiving $1.40 or less in Laredo 
in January of 1968, when this survey was taken, indicating that the 
availability of commuters kept the wage rates closely tied to the Fed-' 
eral minimum, or lower where the Federal minimum did not apply. 

The number of hours worked per week were quite excessive, and 
wages paid in service stations and other service occupations were 
exceedingly low. 

This survey indicated that if you. were to apnly a concept of 
setting a wage standard of entrance into the United States at the 
prevailing wage, only 14 percent of the commuters would have been 
excluded. 

But if you would have set the adverse-effect wage rate at the mini- 
mum then in effect, namely $1.40, that would have excluded almost 25 
percent, or if the adverse effect were set at $1.60, and then it would 
be changed by now, but 80 percent of the commuters would have been 
excluded. 

Senator Mondale. What formula did you use for adverse effect, 
prevailing wage, minimum wage, or something else ? 

Mr. RuTTExr.ERO. Normally in setting the adverse effect wage the 
Department of Labor has used the concept of the prevailing wage, or 
the uiinimum wage, whichever is higher. 

In terms of the entrance of temporary workers into the United 
States — namely, the old bracero program — at the termination of Public 
Law 78 permitting the entrance of foreign workers into agriculure, 
the Deparment of Labor did set adverse effect wages around the coun- 



2535 

try Avliich were in excess of the prevailing wage. There was no mini- 
mmn applicable at the time. So it is possible that the definition is one 
which is at the moment at the administrative discretion of the Secre- 
tary of Labor. 

There is nothing in the law that determines how one decides what 
adverse effect rate is. 

Senator Mondale. After stating these figures showing the depressing 
effect of commuter alien labor, you say that, 'T think the survey may 
very likely put a better face on the situation than really exists." 

Would you say what you mean by that ? 

JMr. RuTTENBERG. Yes. 

The fact that the Federal minimum wage is the wage most frequently 
reported indicates a certain degree of caution in the employers' and 
emploj^ees' responses. As a matter of fact, the disparity in living con- 
ditions on opposite sides of the border permits the green carder who 
enters the United States to accept a much lower wage than the resi- 
dent of the United States would, and, therefore, employers tend to do 
just what the law requires them to do if the minimum applies, because 
there is an adequate supply of labor, large unemployment and, as I 
indicated earlier, the wages are substantially lower on the border than 
they are as you move north. 

Senator Mondale. "Why would an employer in using alien commu- 
ters pay them less than a minimum wage ? 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. First, there are two situations. Certain occupa- 
tions on the border aren't covered by the minimum wage, and, there- 
fore, the $1.40 at tliat point didn't apply — service stations and so forth, 
and restaurants, service establishments generally were not covered at 
the $1.40 rate. 

Agricultural farm labor was obviously not covered either, except at 
the large farms, and at that time I think it was $1. It was $1.15 in 
February of 1968. So that first of all in those establishments that are 
not covered, obviously the employer pays as little as he can, and in those 
who are covered, he tends to pay the minimum wage, and yet many of 
the employers on the border were found to be violating tlie minimum 
wage law. 

As I sa,y in my statement, even at 50 cents an hour, a green carder 
working in the United States can earn two to four times what he can 
earn working all day on the Mexican side of the border. 

I think probably as insidious a problem that there is in relation to 
the alien commuter is the fact that they do tend to come into the United 
States and work in situations in which there is a strike. We tried, the 
Department of Labor, Secretary Wirtz and myself, tried for a long 
time to close that loophole on those individuals who commute and who 
continue to work in situations where a lal^or dispute exists, and in 
June of 1967, about 2 years ago, we were successful in uroino- the INS 
to adoi^t a regulation. 

The Attorney General did then put out a regulation governing the 
use of green card commuters in labor disputes, but the reo-ulation did 
not contain two very key facets which the Secretary of Labor had 
urged ; namely, that no green card commuter be ])ermitted to work in a 
situation in which a labor dispute had been declared. 

That was completely rejected by the Immigration Service and the 
Attorney General, and instead they put in a very restrictive clause 



2536 

wliich said that no commuter can work in a strike situation after the 
Secretary of Labor has certified tliat a hibor dispute exists. 

Senator Moxdale. Under tliat reguhition, had the green card com- 
muter been hired in anticipation of a strike, that is proper, but if you 
hire tliem after, it is not ? 

Mr. Kt'TTENBERG, That is right. 

If they hired tliem after the strike, but before the Secretary of La- 
bor certitied the dispute, and it takes a few days to do it, he w^ould 
still be regularly employed. 

Senator Mondale. So the sequence would go like this. 

The farmworkers call a strike. Tlie workers immediately come out 
of the field. The next morning they are replaced by green card alien 
comnuiters. Two days later, the Secretary of Labor, moving as quickly 
as he can, certifies a labor dispute, but under the regulations, the green 
carders that have been brought up from the border don't comply be- 
cause they were hired prior to the certification. 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. Precisely. 

Another important problem in terms of enforcement is that if the 
Immigration Service really wants to try to enforce the regulation, 
they are not able, really, to do so, because there is no way to tell a green 
carder is a connnuter or a resident of the United States. Nor is there 
any way to tell, if he is a commuter, when he last crossed the border. 
The regulation is quite specific, and as later interpreted, if you crossed 
the border after the date of the strike, went to work someplace else 
and then came to the strike-bound establishment, you would be theo- 
retically excluded from employment in the strike situation. But there 
is no way to prove whether or not that individual crossed the border 
the day the strike started or before or after the strike started. 

So the enforcement is almost impossible. 

Senator MonDxVL,e. The operative impact of the regulation is de- 
termined when they crossed the border ? 

Mr. RuTTEXBERG. Ycs, when they last crossed the border and resided 
in the Ignited States. That information is not available on the green 
card. All the man does when he crosses is to show his green card and 
go on through. 

Senator SIondale. One question that I was asked to put to you is: 
Can you tell us how the Labor Department certifies labor disputes? 
What kind of evidence do you have, and what kind of efforts are 
required by the Department prior to your certification of a labor 
dispute ? 

In other words, some would say that the certification is flimsy, 
quick, on an administrative basis, and others claim it is a little more 
thorough than that. 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. It is based upon information that determines the 
number of individuals who have previously been in the employ of 
the affected employer, and who now are not employed or working with 
that employer, and who are engaged in picketing or in a labor dispute. 

We do not and did not certify labor disputes until we had such 
evidence that there were workers who had previously worked on the 
job who were now outside of the establishment and not working in 
the establishment. 



2537 

That sometimes takes time, and that is one of the reasons why the 
strike will occur at one point in time and the certification by the Secre- 
tary of Labor is much later. 

Now, there is a problem as to whether or not a State agency, a 
State employment security agency, or State employment service office 
has a right to decertify or a right to disagree with the determination 
by the Secretary, and we maintain, Secretary Wirtz maintained the 
position that the determination of where and when a labor dispute 
exists would be made by the Federal Government and not by the State 
government. 

Mr, MiTTELMAN. Is there any particular number of employees or 
percentage of employees who were no longer working required in 
order for you to certify a labor dispute ? 

Mr. RuTTEXBERG. I dou't just off hand recall precisely what the 
formula was. It is in writing, and it is very clear as to what it is, and 
tliat we can get and give you for the record. 

Mr. MiTTELMAN. I take it you would visit a grower, or establish- 
ment and check the employment records of the employer to verify 
who was working and who was not, the day before and the day after 
the dispute allegedly began ? 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. Well, on-site visits were made and employer rec- 
ords were checked in most instances. Affidavits are obtained from 
individual workers that they were employed in this establishment and 
are now not employed, and are on strike, and intend to return to work 
with the same employer when the strike is settled. 

As a matter of fact, we made, in terms of continuation of a certifica- 
tion various investigations to secure such evidence. 

Mr. MiTTELMAN. When Mr. Hennessy was here yesterday from the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, I asked him why the Serv- 
ice couldn't put a simple date stamp machine on the border which 
would register the time, place and date of the border crossing, so that 
the problem you raised a moment ago could be solved by looking at 
the green card. 

]\Ir. Hennessy took the position that because of the number of 
border crossings this was very complicated, and that apparently the 
equipment didn't exist at reasonable cost that could do this job. 

I said yesterday, and I haven't changed my mind, that this struck 
me as odd since all that is really required is a timeclock, or a slight 
modification of the timeclock. 

I wonder if, during your tenure in the Labor Department you ex- 
plored this question with IXS, and could throw any further light on 
why it has so far proven impossible to get any such system established 
for these border crossings ? 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. We did, in terms of the November-December sur- 
vey of 1967 that was done by INS, agree that every border crosser 
would have his green card stamped with a grommet so that you could 
look at the green card and determine whether or not he was a com- 
muter or whether he was a resident in the United States. That was the 
theory. 

But everybody wasn't included in that, because they handled only the 
daily commuter, and not those w^ho were crossing and were not going 
to return that night. They tended to pick up the card in the morning 
and return it to the man at night, and in the meantime stamp it. 



2538 

I think there are all kinds of administrative problems in terms of 
putting a date on the card, because if you are crossing every day it is 
not going to be very long before you have got so many dates on the 
card that you will be stamping over the top of it, but I think certainly 
some way, some means has to be found — I think, as I will point out 
here in a moment — I think the best way to handle the problem is to 
abolish the commuter system. 

But if you don't abolish the commuter system, I think there has to 
be some way and means found to make sure that everybody who crosses 
the border and who is an alien commuter, tliat his card is different from 
everybody else's, so quickly you know whether he is a resident or a 
commuter ; and second, you have to give him something to carry with 
him that identifies him as a commuter. 

It wouldn't be very difficult for you to have a piece of paper or an- 
other card each day which you give him, which has this date stamped 
on it, and some way that couldn't be duplicated or counterfeited by 
other people, rather than stamping the date right on the card. 

There are ways and means that can be found that ought to be 
explored if we do not go the whole way of doing av^aj with the com- 
muter system. 

Mr. MiTTELMAN. When I was a resident of New York about 2I/2 
years ago, I had the dubious joy of riding on the Long Island Railroad, 
with 80,000 commuters each day, and they handled, really, the same 
sort of problem. 

Each month they sold each commuter a ticket which was punched 
each day. It had 81 marks on it, numl:>ered 1 to ol, and you got on the 
train and the conductor punched your ticket. 

I just can't see that it is so complicated, particularly once you have 
identified these people, to issue them tickets of this kind, which they 
would have to exchange once the ticket was all punched out. 

Mr. RurrENBERG. I agree. As far as the Immigration Service is con- 
cerned, it is an additional bit of work, and it does cost money. The 
Government, of course, would have to bear the cost and burden of it, 
but I don't think that is the significant fact in relation to being able to 
identify the commuter and when he crossed the border. 

Mr. MiTTELMAN. Have any of the labor dispute certifications that 
have been issued by the department been attacked in the courts? 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. Been attacked in tlie courts ? 

I am not sure whether they have been attacked in the courts. I do 
know that the State of California assumed the right to decertify 
certain situations in which the Secretary of Labor had certified a labor 
dispute, and were therefore in violation of the Federal-State regula- 
tion which says that State agencies cannot refer individuals to situa- 
tions where strikes exist, and that there was a dispute between the 
Federal Government and the State of California. That was pending as 
I left office. 

I am not sure whether that situation as such would have ever gotten 
to court. It would have moved through the procedures in the regula- 
tions relating to the State of California violating a Federal regulation. 
But whether the strike as such got into the courts, I don't know. 
The issue of the enforcement of the strike regulation did, as you know, 
get into court with an injunction by the Guimarra farm, but I am not: 
familiar with whether there is a court case on the authority — you mean 



2539 

on the authority of the Secretary of Labor to certify labor disputes 
and the procedure used in challenging a dispute in the court by a 
grower or employer ? 

If there are, I am not aware of them. 

Mr. MiTTELMAN. Is the information upon which the Department 
issues a certification a matter of public record ? 

Mr. RuTTENBEKG. I think under the Public Disclosure Act, it has to 
be, doesn't it ? 

]Mr. MiTTELMA>r, I don't think it has been made public as such, but 
if it were asked for it would have to be provided. 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. I think there are three alternative solutions I 
would like to go through as to how one might handle the commuter 
problem. 

The first is to abolish the commuter system altogether, and to treat 
all immigrants the same. 

In order to do this, I would suggest that as of a certain date all new 
visas issued for immigrants into the United States require that that 
person establish and maintain a bona fide residence in the United 
States. 

Second, that we ought to have a new form of border crossing card. 
Dick Scammon, who was chairman of the Western Hemisphere Select 
Commission, said that we should have a polka dot card, and that polka 
dot card ought to identify quickly the individual who is being, or who 
is crossing the border on a temporary basis. 

I think a new form of border crossing authorization card should be 
established, and it should be designed for noncitizens who do not 
intend to become ordinary citizens, but who wish to work in the United 
States and do continue to reside in contiguous territory. 

This would mean that we would have to adopt a new provision of 
the immigration laws establishing a temporary worker class, and a 
temporary worker would then be required to meet the same employ- 
ment requirements as other immigrants every 6 months, or periodically. 

I would trust every 6 months would be the period. 

I don't think you can abolish the commuter system immediately. I 
would urge that it be done, but that a grace period be established, and 
it probably ought to be 2 years after which we say that no longer can 
anybody who has been commuting continue the practice. 

He either has to make the decision to reside in the United States or 
reside in the contiguous territory. If he decides to reside in the con- 
tiguous territory, and he uses his visa, he would have to apply for the 
polka dot card. We would have to satisfy ourselves that there was no 
adverse effect on the standards of working conditions in the United 
States, and that there were no available resident workers to fill the 
jobs in question. 

I think, as I said, this kind of a certification for a noncitizen tem- 
porary worker ought to be reviewed every 6 months, and obviously 
no certification of temporary workers shall be given in any strike 
situation. 

As I say, I think it woud be very difficult to abolish, to do away 
overnight with the commuter system, but I think it ought to be done 
within a period of 2 years. 

IMr. Scammon was in agreement in principle with these recommen- 
dations which I made here. He thought, however, that the grace period 

36-513—70 — pt. 5B — —2 



2540 

for eliminating commuters ought to be longer than the 2-year period 
I proposed, and he suggested probably 10 years. 

He also suggested that in terms of determining the adverse effect 
conditions for the temporary worker permit that would be issued, that 
this ought to be done by a board, of wliich a public member was an 
impartial chairman, I suggested that I thought it ought to be done 
by the Department of Labor, which was doing the same kind of adverse 
effect determinations under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 
1965. 

Abolishing the commuter system would be best, but if we can't 
do that, then I think we have to take the necessary steps to control 
the issue. 

As the immigration law now stands, new immigrants coming into 
the United States from the countries in the Western Hemisphere 
need labor certifications, and the Secretary of Labor makes that 
certification on the basis of the adverse effect upon wages and the 
availability of U.S. workers. 

I believe we can and should extend this condition to the green 
carder, and that his status should be subject to administrative review 
every 6 months. 

I think this can be done by administrative decision. No commuter 
should be allowed to take a job that adversely affects U.S. workers, 
or where there is a U.S. resident available for that job. 

To control these standards, to carry out these standards, a control 
system could be established to give the commuter a special card, dif- 
ferent from that of the ordinary resident alien. You could use the 
polkadot card here for the individual who is a commuter alien. 

It was the position of Secretary Wirtz and myself, and backed by 
the Solicitor of the Department of Labor, that this could be done 
administratively by the Federal Government if they so chose. 

The Attorney General and the Justice Department disagreed with 
that, and, therefore, there was no effective regulation issued during 
our stay in office, although the very inadequate regulation to stop 
the use of commuters in strike situations was adopted in June of 
1967. 

The third alternative, therefore, accepts the necessity for legal 
action, a reluctant acceptance. It is based on the suspicion that this 
administration wdll be even harder to convince on the appropriate- 
]iess of administrative measures than the last one was. 

Senator Kennedy's bill, and others who have joined him on it, im- 
plies acceptance of the Department of Justice ])Osition, and gives 
recognition to the green card system. But if the administration won't 
take administrative action, and if we cannot abolish and do away 
with the commuter system, then I would favor a third alternative, 
the Kennedy bill. 

It is a simple bill, recj[uiring certification every 6 months that the 
employment of tlie green carder will not adversely affect wages and 
working conditions of U.S. workers. That bill is now before the 
Senate committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I think that summarizes most of what I would Avant 
to say this morning, and I would be happy to respond to any further 
questions you or Senator Yarborough may have. 



2541 

Senator ]Moxdale. Tluiiik you, Mr. Euttenberg, for some very use- 
ful insights. 

Senator Yarborough ^ 

Senator Yarborough. Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of testify- 
ing before this Commission, and I want to congratulate Mr. Rutten- 
berg on the great service he rendered in tliat. I am glad to have his 
recommendation here. 

The green card situation is pulling down the wages and standard 
of living along the southern border of this country from Texas to 
San Diego, Calif. The people who are hurt most and who most bitterly 
resent it, are the Americans of Mexican extraction. 

They are hurt most by people coming over with green cards and 
working and going back to the other side of the river where their 
taxes aren't as high, and they work in the American economy and live 
on the Mexican economy. They have almost the best of all possible 
worlds. 

Did you in your hearings go into the question of how many students 
cross from Mexico to go to schools in the United States? 

Mr. Euttenberg. We didn't go into it, but there was testimony 
that there are a significant number of the children of families living 
on the Mexican side who do go to school on the American side, and 
they pay a slight fee for that. 

In other places they don't pay a fee, but school boards do in some 
of the areas permit that to happen. 

Senator Yarborough. We, of course, are not averse to education 
of those children, but that is one other complaint that the American 
workers, primarily of Mexican-American extraction, make to me, that 
they come over with the green cards and get our jobs, we have to pay 
taxes on our homes, the children go to our schools, they go back and 
live on the Mexican side and pay no taxes to support all these things, 
and we are out of jobs. 

So the green card situation weighs most heavily against the 
Mexican-American population of the southern border area of our 
country, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and we have 
widespread complaints that it is being used in California to worsen 
the plight of the farmworkers to keep them from effectively 
organizing. 

Those are all the questions I have at this time. 

Mr. Euttenberg. I am sure. Senator Yarborough, that you are 
familiar with a fact that relates to your State, namely that wages for 
seasonal farmworkers were 30 percent lower in the border areas of 
Texas than in other areas of Texas. 

Senator Yarborough. Yes, and wages generally, until we got the 
Federal minimum wage law. 

Texas has no such law. The Federal minimum wage law for the 
first time brought farmworkers under |)rotection, if there are more 
than seven working on the farm, and applied to hotels, laundries, 
and many other service trades. 

Mr. Euttenberg. It applied only to large farms, and it set a mini- 
mum that was lower than the $1.60, but it does go up. 

Senator Yarborough. Yes. 

That includes most of the hired farmworkers. It applies to only 
2 percent of the farms in the country, or 1.6 percent, but it applies 



2542 

to more than 40 percent of the people Avho work on the farms, because 
three-fourths of the farms in this country hire no outside labor. 

The operating farms of American, they and their wives and chil- 
dren and relatives do all the work. 

T\naen you come to massive hirings, the minimum wage law that 
the Congress i^assed does cover all the big employers, 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. It would help if the State of Texas would enact 
a minimum wage law of its own. 

Senator Yarborough. For the first time in history there is a possi- 
bility of that. A bill has been passed by the House and by the Senate 
in Texas. There is a deadlock, and the session expires next week. 

I feel it is just a question of a short time now until the State will 
have a minimum wage law, but unfortunately in the past the sole 
protection of the workers came from the Federal minimum wage law. 

Texas is one of the 13 States that does not have a minimum wage 
law. 

I want to congratulate this committee that went into the green card 
situation. I am in accord with the Kennedy bill, and want to change 
those situations that are pulling down the employment and income 
and status of the Mexican-American part of our population in the 
Southwestern part of the United States. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mondale. As I understand your testimony, Mr. Eutten- 
berg, you are saying in effect that present regulations and restrictions 
are so technical and inadequate that for all practical purposes the 
Mexican can freely commute across the border on a daily or seasonal 
basis, find employment that depresses living and working conditions 
in the United States, and be used to freely break strikes where they are 
called, and thus the U.S. citizen worker, or the resident alien worker, 
is in one of the worst circumstances of any worker in our country be- 
cause of the virtually inexhaustible supply of workers who come across 
the border. 

Would that be fair and accurate as an analysis. 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. Ycs ; I think that is a fair statement. Senator 
Mondale. There is nothing in the regulations at all that pi-events 
an alien commuter from continuing to reside in Mexico, except two 
items : 

1. If that alien commuter is unemployed and doesn't cross the 
border for a 6-month period, he has to apply again. 

Senator Mondale. That is not enforced. 

Mr. Ruttenberg. Right. 

And 2, the certification dealing with a labor dispute is so weak and 
has so many loopholes in it, plus the decision of the judge in the coui-t 
in California involving the Gumarra farms and the Immigration 
Service, that the present regulation is almost unenforcible, and is not 
really an adequate pro\dsion to handle the situation. 

Senator Mondale. We have heard comments that green carders who 
are nonresidents are not widely used in labor disputes of farmworkers 
in Texas and California, ]>articularly in California. 

Would you care to speculate on that ? 

]Mr. RuTTENBERG. Are not widely used ? 

Senator Mondale. Yes, 



2543 

Mr. RuTiTJNBERG. Well, I think that is a matter of judgment. "We 
do not actually have the data. I was sufficiently convinced by the 
information that was made available to me by the United Farm 
Workers Organizing- Committee in the California vineyard situation 
that there was a significant number of individuals who were working 
in those vineyards who were alien commuters, who did cross the 
border after the date the strike was certified. But the Immigration 
Service, and particularly the court decision, so broadened the defini- 
tion of what constitutes an indi"vddual who resides in the United States 
that it was just impossible to enforce the regulation and to determine 
whether or not the workers in the vineyards were commuters. 

Senator Mondale. The way the regulation was finally developed, 
it is like looking for a needle in a haystack, because it ignores the hay- 
stack. 

Mr. RuTTEisTBERG. Well, the haystack outside the strike situation, 
obviously. 

Senator Moxdale. Yes. 

Because if the regulation were of a simple kind such as you propose, 
namely a work prohibition of nonresident aliens in a strike situation, 
it would be prohibited as an administrative matter, but the way the 
regulation was finally determined it was so technical that you had 
to be pretty foolish to come within its restrictions. 

Is that conclusion correct ? 

Mr. RuTTEXBERG. That is right. 

After the regulation was issued by the Department of Justice, Sec- 
retary Wirtz wrote a letter to the Attorney General Ramsey Clark, 
saying that we still face the problem of adverse economic impact due 
to the availability of commuters who will work for substandard wages 
and under substandard working conditions, and that letter goes on 
to say that the regulation doesn't deal with that. 

The regulation dealt only with the strike situation, and there it 
was inadequate and didn't accept the recommendations that were made 
by the Secretary of Labor. 

Senator Mondale. We have had testimony here by representatives 
of the farmworkers that they have repeatedly tried to call a strike at 
a farm in California. They have clear evidence that they have a 
majority of the membership. 

When they call a strike, most of the workers leave, only to find 
the next morning that all those jobs, and more, have been replaced 
by Mexican aliens who were brought up by bus and brought into 
the farm the next morning. 

In your opinion, is there ever going to be much hope for strong 
unions in this situation unless something is done to correct tlie border 
problem by eliminating the use of nonresident aliens for strikebreak- 
ing? Wouldn't this give to the farmworkers of this country something 
nearly analogous to the power enjoyed bv virtually every other 
employee in management-labor relations in tliis country? 

Mr. Ruttenberg. I think that is obviously true. You would have 
to go one step further, which I understand Congressman O'Hara 
taUced about yesterday, and on which bills have been introduced, but 
I want to mention it. 

There will be little organization, or successful organization of farm- 
workers in the agricultural area unless they also have the right to 



2544 

collective bargainino- similar to that now exercised or now available 
to other workers nncler the National Labor Eelations Act. 

Senator Mondale. Some proposals have been made that a new 
section be added to the National Labor Relations Act to make it an 
unfair labor practice to nse nonresident aliens in any strike or labor 
dispnte, and to give to the a^-gi-ieved party a remedy of discovery and 
of injnnction to prevent their use in a particular labor dispute. 

This wasn't included in any of your sujzgestions, and I can under- 
stand why. How does that proposal look to you ? 

Mr. RuTi^ENBERG. I liave no — well, let me put it this way, Senator. 
I agi'ee that we ou^-ht to have a regulation at least as a minimum 
that prevents the use of alien commuters in strike situations, and that 
no alien commuter, reg:ardless of when he crossed the border, should 
be ])ermitted to work in a strike situation, "We ouo:ht to have that 
kind of a retaliation. 

We have the authority. It resides in the Federal Government in the 
administrative branch to adopt such administrative rulinc;. If they 
do not, and this administration, I am convinced, probably will not, if 
we could not o-et the past administration to do it, then, I think we 
ought to have legislation on the subject. As to whether or not it ought 
to be part of an NLRA amendment, I just woiddn't react one way or 
the other. 

Senator Mondale. Where does the pressure come from that pre- 
vents the implementation of some reasonable rules here? You are 
now free to tell it like it is. [Laughter.] 

Why can't these things be done, e^en under a liberal Democratic 
administration ? 

Mr. RuTTEXBERG. Well, I think there was a legitimate concern in the 
Department of Justice over the question of whether the procedure 
which had tacitly been condoned by the Congress, in fact when the 
issue had come before them in terms of the Immigration and Nation- 
ality Act they did nothing about it, and whicli had grown up in prac- 
tice over 40 years, was something you could just not upset and do 
away with by administrative action, that it does require and would 
require^ 

Senator Mondaee. I am a former Attorney General of a State. That 
used to be a rule that we used every time we wanted it that way, 
and ignored every time we didn't want it. 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. Absolutely. 

Senator Mondale. It is specious, and flexible. It is sayins: that even 
though there is a bill that is less than desirable, and amendments have 
changed it, you can construe it to be the law; and that since nothing 
was done, the legislature has incorporated the law bv reference. 

But it is a very, very tenuous argiuTient. It is one that you use when 
you want policy to come out that way, and apparently someone wanted 
it to come out that way. 

Meanwhile, the commuters and the seasonal w^orkers are coming 
across and creating an economy Avhich is for farmworkers, at least, 
still a 1984 depression economy, and probably worse. 

Mr. RiTTTENBERG. Just to confimi what yon said. Senator, the At- 
torney General did on two different occasions violate his own decision 
that yon couldn't im]:>ose restrictions on the commuter system by deny- 
ing commuter status to anybody who is unemployed by more than 6 



2545 

months, and anybody who is engaged in a labor dispute after the 
Secretai-y of Labor certifies it. 

It seems to me if he could do that he could do anything with regard 

to the commuter. t +i • i 

There is o-reat pressure from the businesses along the border. 1 tliinK 
if one were^ to go through the three volumes of the testimony before 
the Select Commission on this question— I was going to say that you 
would not find a single employer, but I take that back, because there 
was one grower in Yuma, Ariz., who came in and said he thought it 
would be a pretty good idea. - 1 i i 

But in the main, every single business element along the border 
from Brownsville to El Paso to San Diego testified before the com- 
mittee that changing the commuter system would create hardship on 
their employment. • • i o v. 

But they made a fascinating point that was implicit m what Senator 
Yarborough said earlier. 

They said, "If you were to abolish the commuter system, or it you 
were to force, under the Senator Kennedy-Senator Yarborough bill, 
force a receitification each month, there would be a large number of 
individuals who would have to reside in the United States, if they 
want to continue their jobs, and that that would cause tremendous 
hardships to the local communities in providing the public facilities, 
the schools and hospitals and the homes, et cetera, that would be 
needed to take care of these people who all of a sudden would cross the 
border and take up residence on the U.S. side, 

I think that is one reason why probably one ought to consider the 
])hasiiig out of this. Maybe this ought to be combined with some 
provision of Federal assistance to the local communities to meet this 
kind of problem. 

But those were the two major arguments, the business community 
plus the impact upon local communities that I think played a great 
part in the administration's not moving forward. 

Senator Yarborough. Let me ask a question here. 

Mr. Ruttenberg, you said there were interests opposed to the limi- 
tation of the present green card system. 

In your experience, do you know of any of those interests ever sup- 
porting agriculture minimum wage law or a law to advance the inter- 
ests of the workers of this country ? 

Mr. Ruttenberg. Xot at all, Senator. 

That is a good rhetorical question. 

Senator Yarborough. It is the same opposition, isn't it? 

Mr. Ruttenberg. Exactly. 

It is the same group. 

Senator Yarborough. They have opposed everything to improve 
the status of the workers in the United States. 

Mr. Ruttenberg. Yes: they did oppose the covering of agricultural 
vvorkers under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and they will oppose 
every single bit of progressive legislation. 

Senator Yarborough. I am not including only agricultural work- 
ers. There are those who oppose improvements in the status of working 
people, do they not ? 

Air. Ruttenberg. That is rioht. 



2546 

Senator Mondale. The irony and the trao;edy is that despite all the 
magnificent progress tliat we have seen in the past 35 years, for the 
migrant farmworker there has been no progress at all, and relatively, 
he has really fallen back enormously in the last 35 years. We always 
talk about these rules and these regulations, but here we had 8 years 
of a liberal administration, and a Secretary of Labor who really tried 
and others who really tried, and for all of the technical progress we 
made, the operative fact is that there still is a hemorrhage of desper- 
ately poor Mexican labor that can come across the border any time 
they want for commuting purposes, and for the purposes of breaking 
a strike, and there is a business community more than willing to use 
them for both purposes. 

Mr. RuTTENBERG. I agree with that, Senator. 

I think there is one point that one ought to keep in mind. There was 
a bit of progress under the last administration in terms of this issue 
when Public Law 78 terminated ; it was a tremendous step forward, 
and the bracero program was brought to a halt. If my memory serves 
me right, when unemployment was somewhere in the neighborhood of 
61/^ to 7 percent, we were bring in over 350,000 Mexican workers to 
work temporarily in agriculture, and the last year, 1968, under Sec- 
retary Wirtz' leadership in the Department of Labor when unemploy- 
ment was 314 percent, not a single Mexican worker was admitted into 
t'le United States to work in agricultural employment. 

I know the farmworkers would say, "Yes, but what got substituted 
for it was the commuter system." 

So we did make progress in closing the door — I hope the present 
administration continues that policy, although they have already 
weakened it by permitting workers to come into the citrus industry in 
Florida where for the last 2 years there have been no foreign workers. 

They permitted a group to come in this year. They should not have 
done it. There was no real justification for it. 

We did not permit it in 1968, and the citrus industry got along, and 
didn't lose any fruit on the trees 

Senator Mondale. Would that have been a determination by the 
current Secretary of Labor ? 

Mr. Ruttenberg. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. I am disappointed with his administration. He 
came with a good deal of good will from the liberal community. Since 
he has arrived, he has proposed an agriculture industry collective 
bargaining bill which is a farce for the fann worker, which limits the 
right to strike. He has proposed compulsory arbitration. And, he has 
proposed reduced standards for labor protection in the area of occu- 
pational safety and health which are substantially less than minimal, 
thus exposing workers to the threat of loss of health and life. 

He has virtually ignored enforcement of OFCC practices and proce- 
dures; nothing has happened in the Labor Department that I can see. 

He has shovrn no interest in the Charleston hospital workers' strike 
at all. He permitted the tragic sellout of the Job Corps program, 
closing 59 Job Corps camps, senselessly, and cruelly. And, now, we 
learn that Secretary Shultz is relaxing foreign contract labor stand- 
ards, and is going to tragically depress the working conditions. 



2547 

I wish the new Secretary of Labor would first of all realize that Vv-e 
see what he is doing, and we deeply regret it, and that it is the Depart- 
ment of Labor, L-a-b-o-r, and he ought to think about it. 

Senator Yarbokough. What you are saying, Mr. Chairman, is that 
behind that well-modulated, calm voice, and that soft glove on the 
hand, there is a hand of steel. 

Senator Mondale. U-S. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KuTTENBEEG. Scuator Mondale, perhaps you ought to also keep 
an eye on whether or not the Secretary of Labor relaxes the standards 
in terms of bringing in additional workers as the fall comes in the 
apple harvests, and in the late summer as the tomato and vegetable 
harvests in California come along. 

I have known Mr. Shultz for many, many years. I have had a great 
admiration and respect for him, and as a matter of fact we used him 
on various occasions in the Department of Labor. 

Secretary Wirtz appointed him chairman of the task force to study 
the employment service. I like to believe it is more the Republican 
administration than it is the Secretary of Labor who is doing these 
things, but I agree with you that you can't separate the two at all. 

Senator Mondale. You know, when this administration started, we 
had some private talks, and I said I thought Secretary Shultz would 
be the star of the administration and that Secretary Finch would not 
work out as well as had been predicted. 

I would say at this point it would be the other way around. 

I am told that Finch and Hardin went to the President and said, 
"AVe must have a program for hunger." They won partial victorv. 

I have not seen in the Department of Labor a similar desire to fight 
for the workers. 

I deeply regret that Secretary Shultz is proceeding in this fashion. 

Senator Yarborotjgh. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think 
we should be too harsh on the Secretary of Labor at this point, be- 
cause if the Postmaster General succeeds in turning the Post Office De- 
partment into a corporation and gets his hands on the throats of 
those 725,000 postal workers, anything, in my opinion, that Secretary 
Shultz has done, or does, is going to seem very mild in comparison, 
based on the past history of the two men. 

Senator Mondale. There is some hope for his redemjDtion. 

Mr. RuTTENBBRG. I agree with you, Senator Yarborough, that if the 
Postmaster General succeeds and the administration succeeds in turn- 
ing the Post Office Department into a private corporation, that would 
be a serious mistake. 

Senator Yarborough. I think one should read his speech of Mon- 
day, May 5, at Houston, at the unveiling of the stamps honoring the 
flight of Apollo 8, where he touched on this some, and talked about 
the inefficiencies. 

He spent most of his time talking about the inefficiency of the 
postal service, and made an implied threat of what was going to 
happen. 

Just read the speech. I think it is enough to warn anybody what 
will happen. 



2548 

Senator Mondale. Because of the interruptions of your presentation, 
I shall order your remarks printed in full at this point in the record. 
(The prepared statement of Mr. Ruttenberg follows :) 

Prepared Statement of Stanley H. Ruttenberg, Former Assistant Secrf:tary 
OF Labor for Manpower, and President of Stanley H. Ruttenberg and As- 
sociates, Inc., Washington, D.C. 

INIr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, whenever, during the past 
several years. I came up here on the Hill to testify in my official capacity as As- 
sistant Secretary of Labor, I could always preface my remarks with an account 
of the most recent accomplishments of the Manpower Administration before going 
on to ask for additional authority, or money to get on with the list of things as 
yet nndone. But I cannot do that today from my present vantage point outside the 
government. I could not do it even if I were still Manpower Administrator. Be- 
cause when it comes to the problem of the alien commuters, hardly anything has 
been accomplished — and this in spite of a stx'ong effort in the Department of 
Labor to move ahead on this question. The problem of the alien commuters re- 
mains the same complex and vexing issue it was when I fii'st took office in 196-"). 

Since much of the background information on the historical development of 
the commuter system has been made available to the public and to this Com- 
mittee through the Report of the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Im- 
migration issued last January, I will only sketch briefly the salient points con- 
cerning the commuter system as it now exists. 

the commuter system 

Alien commuters or green carders are those aliens who have been lawfully ac- 
corded the privilege of residing in the United States, but who choose to maintain 
a domicile in foreign contiguous territory — Mexico and Canada — and commute 
to their place of employment in the United States. The alien commuter system is 
based on an administrative determination made by the Department of .Justice 
more than forty years ago, in April 1927. There is no precise category for com- 
muter workers in the immigration laws. Since 19G3, the admission of new im- 
migrants from Mexico has been adequately controlled, first by an administrative 
procedure and then with the Labor certification procedure of the amended Im- 
migration and Nationality Act. In order to maintain his immigrant status, under 
the administrative practice of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the 
commuter must have a job in the Ignited States. If he is out of employment for 
more than six months, he is deemed to have abandoned his conuiiuter status 
and nuist apply for reentry. 

the problem 

No one is sure what the exact extent of the commuter problem is, but a count 
conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service at crossing points 
along the Mexican border in late 1967 turned up approximately 40.000 green 
cai'ders. This survey related only to the daily commuters. Individuals who live 
in Mexico but come into the United States for a week or a month, or maybe even 
a season, were not included in the survey. The number of Mexican nationals who 
have families or homes in IMexico but who work a major part of the year in the 
United States has been estimated at 100.000 or more. 

The problem created by this large non-resident work force is focussed on two 
issues : 

the adverse effect on wages and working conditions of IT.S. workers in the 
border areas, and 

the use of alien commuters or green carders as strike breakers. 

The generally accepted recognition that unrestricted admission of green carders 
adversely affects working conditions and wages of T^.S. workers is backed b.v 
convincing evidence. According to occupational surveys, the Mexican alien com- 
muters work primarily in the least skilled jobs, where the impact they exert 
affects most directly the T'.S. workers who are most disadvantaged. In our towns 



2549 

on the Mexican border, the wage rates are mneh lower and nnemployment mnch 
higher than in other cities away from tlie border. 
A Department of Labor study in 1967 showed that : 

the unemployment rate in Texas border towns was almost double that 
for other parts of the State, and it decreased in direct relation to dis- 
tance from the border. 

wage rates for seasonal farm work were aboixt 309'< lower in the border 
areas of Texas than elsewhere in the State. 

over 20% of the minimum wage underpayments found by Labor Depart- 
ment investigatoi's in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California were 
found in border counties of these States containing only about 6% of the 
nonfarm employment. 
In January 1968. the Department of Labor conducted a special employment 
and wage survey of establishments that employed commuters in the Laredo, 
Texas area. This survey which produced the tirst hard data on wages paid to 
commuters is an important first step in building up the kind of information we 
need to more clearly define the commuter problem. The significant findings of 
the study were that : 

Commuters are clustered in the low wage occupations. 
Average hourly earnings for the 25 surveyed occupations in which five 
or more commuters were employed ranged from $.81 for busboys and $.86 
for service station attendants to $2.10 for customs appraisers. 

The wage most commonly paid to surveyed commuters was $1.40 an hour. 
48% of the workers surveyed were paid precisely that amount — the mini- 
nuim at the time of the survey. 

76% of the commuters were receiving $1.40 or less — indicating that the 
availability of commuters kept the wage rate closely tied to the minimum 
or lower where the federal minimum did not apply. 

In one cosmetics and dry goods store, the employees, half of whom were 
commuters, worked a 64 hour workweek, at hourly wage rates from 47 
cents to a high of 94 cents. 

Service station attendants are paid on a weekly basis and make from 
$35 to $45 a week. They work from 45 to 54 hours a week averaging be- 
tween 650 and 750 an hour. Commuters and resident workers are paid the 
same. 
According to the Laredo Survey, if a federal wage condition had been imposed 
on the commuters, a wage .standard set at the prevailing rate would have elim- 
inated 14% of the commuters, one set at the federal minimum of $1.40 would 
have eliminated 24.8% of the commuters, and one set at slightly above the mini- 
mum or $1.60 would have meant that 80% of the commuters would not have 
been able to enter the U.S. to work. 

I think the survey may ^ery likely put a better face on the situation than 
really exists. The fact that the federal minimum is the most frequently reported 
wage indicates a certain degree of caution in employer and employee re.sponses. 
The fact is that as long as the disparity in living standards continues on opposite 
sides of the border, green carders will continue to enter the U.S. to accept 
work at wages lower than U.S. workers can accept. Even at 500 an hour, a green 
carder working in the U.S. can earn from two to four times what he can earn 
working all day on the Mexican side. 

Perhaps even more insidious and more damaging to the welfare of United 
States workers than the wage has been the use of green carders as strike break- 
ers. In June 1967, almost two years ago, we were successful in per.suading the 
IXS that the regulations governing the employment of immigrants should be 
strengthened to specifically prohibit their employment in a labor dispute situa- 
tion. The regulation states that the green card or 1-151 shall be invalid if the 
alien uses it to obtain employment at a place where the Secretary has determined 
that a labor dispute exist.s. Unforunately. the regulation has not proved effective 
because of the time lag between the time a labor dispute starts and the time 
when it is certified by the Secretary of Labor. In the interim, there is nothing 
to stop an employer from filling up his work force with green carders who 
then, in effect, become strike breakers. The regulation is also defective in that 
it does not prohibit a green carder who was working before the date the strike 
began from continuing to work. Obviously the green carder, with no stake in 
the improvement of working conditions in the United States, has not much to 
lose, and is an easy prey for those who would recruit scab labor. 

Secretary of Labor Wirtz tried to prevent these loopholes from being written 
into the regulation but the IXS and the Department of Justice insisted that 
this was as far as they would go. 



2550 

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS 

It seems to me that there are three possible solutions to the problems of 
the alien commuter. 

1. The first, and I believe preferable, alternative is to abolish the commuter 
system altogether and to treat all immigrants the same. I would recommend that : 

as of a certain date all visas issued for immigration into the United 
States be firmly understood to include a clear commitment by those im- 
migrating to establish and maintain their bona fide residence within the 
United States. 

a new form of border crossing authorization be established designed for 
use by non-citizens who do not intend to become immigrants in the ordinary 
sense" l)ut who wish to work in the U.S. and continue to reside in their own 
contiguous territory coimtry. 

with a grace period, action should be taken to terminate the commuter 

status of the present green card holders. 

It is necessary to recognize the special situation of the border area, and the 

interrelation of ithe economies of the towns and cities in that area. "We would, of 

course, want to assure the continued friendly relationship with our neighbor 

countries and to promote the free flow of people between countries. 

The problem is not so much that workers go back and forth between ^Mexico 
and the United States. It is that the Mexican, because of the fact that he is 
not protected by our laws, is liable to exploitation when he works in the U.S. 
to his own detriment as M'ell as to the detriment of the U.S. worker. I would 
propose a work permit system that would impose the same conditions for the 
non-resident alien worker for entrance to the United States that now exi«t for 
regular immigrants. Such a work permit should be issued only under conditions 
which do not adversely affect standard* of wages, hours, and working condition'^ 
in the United States and under circxim stances in which resident workers are not 
available to fill the jobs in question. Furthermore, I think that such permits 
should not be issued on a permanent basis, but should be reviewed from time 
to time, at least once every six months, to ensure that conditions of their issuance 
are being observed. Such permits obviously should not b*^ used or no new ones 
issued if the individual is going to work where it has been certified by the Sec- 
retary of Labor that a labor dispute exists. 

It should not be necessary to say this, but because of the diflSculty that the 
INS now has in enforcing present regulations, the work permit must be 
stamped or marked in such a way at the time of each review that there is no 
question as to the date of entry of the nonresident alien. 

I fully recognize that the green card system cannot be abolished overnight 
and for that reason there must be a grace period before the commuter status is 
finally terminated. I believe this period should not be more than two years. 

2. If it were not possible to abolish the commuter system, then I think we must 
take the necessary steps to control its abuse. As the Immigration law now stands, 
immigrants coming to the United States from the countries in the western 
hemisphere need labor certification — that is. the Secretary of Labor must certify 
that the .iob that they will take will not adversely aiTect the wages and working 
conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed. But "green carders," since they 
have already been admitted for permanent residence, need not have labor 
certification. 

T believe we can and should extend this condition to the green carder, and 
that his status should be subjected to administrative review every six months. 
No commuter should be allowed to take a job that adversely affects U.S. workers. 

To cai'ry out these standards, a control system could be established to give 
the commuter a special card different from that held by the ordinary resident 
alien, and which would be marked each time the administrative review resulted 
in renewal of the alien's commuter status. If the review indicated that the 
worker was working in a job at a wage which adversely affected U.S. workers 
and no U.S. resident workers are available, his commuter status would be 
revoked, and he would not be able to continue to work in the U.S. 

It was my position and that of Secretary Wirtz, backed by the Soh^itor of 
the Department of Labor in the previous Administration, that since the com- 
muter sy.titem has no basis in law, but was the result of an administrative prac- 
tice, then conditions for the continuance of the system could be imposed ad- 
ministratively. However, the Department of Justice did not agree and took the 
po=;itio7i that the fact that the svstem had existed for more than fort.v years gave 
it the force of law. so that conditions could not be impo.sed without legal action. 



2551 

Unfortunately, the Department of Labor was never able to sway the Justice 
Department, even though Secretary Wirtz and I both tried repeatedly for several 
years. 

3. The third alternative, therefore, accepts the necessity for legal action ; a 
reluctant acceptance that is based on the suspicion that this Administration will 
be even harder to convince on the appropriateness of administrative measures 
than the last one. Senator Kennedy's bill on the commuter system (S. 1694) 
accepts the Department of Justice position and gives legal recognition to the 
green card system. If we cannot impose a labor certification procedure by ad- 
ministrative action and if a more extensive bill eliminating the commuter sys- 
tem were not possible, then I would favor the Kennedy bill. It is a simple bill 
requiring the Secretary of Labor to make a certification every six months that 
the employment of a green carder will not adversely affect the wages and work- 
ing conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed. I understand that the Ken- 
nedy bill is now before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 

The situation in regard to the regulation on the use of green carders in employ- 
ment where there is a labor dispute deserves special mention. Although the 
regulation of June 1967 specifically prohibits the employment of a green carder 
in a strike situation, the Attorney General has ruled that it applies only to those 
commuters who are hired after a strike begins, or the day on which the Secretary 
of Labor certifies that a labor dispute does in fact exist. What this means in 
practice is that the regulation is unenforceable, because the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service investigators have no way of knowing when the commuter 
entered the country or when he started to work. This situation should be and can 
be remedied immediately by a strengthened regulation which prohibits the em- 
ployment of any commuter in a sti*uck plant, regardless of the time of entry, or 
the beginning date of employment. 

I have tried here today to outline briefly the main problems with the present 
alien commuter system and to suggest alternative solutions to correct the present 
abuses of that system. I will be glad to discu.ss this important matter further 
with you, or to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator Mondale. Thank you, very much, ]\Ir. Ruttenberg. 
Mr. RuTTE^TBERG. Thank you. 

(The following correspondence relates to the testimony of the pre- 
vious witness, Mr. Stanley H. Ruttenberg :) 

U.S. Senate, 
Washington, B.C., April 7, 1969. 
Hon. George P. Shultz, 
Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor. Washingtoti, B.C. 

Deab Mr. Secretary : I recently received a communication from Southwest 
Florida indicating that there is a shortage of farm labor there. 

Could you please send me information regarding the labor supply situation in 
Florida. I would be interested in knowing if there actually is a shortage of labor, 
the reasons for the shortage, if any. of labor, and the prevailing living and work- 
ing conditions that might have an impact on the overall availability of labor. 

If there are any question about the nature or format of the material I am 
requesting, your staff should contact Mr. Boren Chertkov, Counsel to the Subcom- 
mittee on Migratory Labor, Room 2-52, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, 
D.C. Phone : 22.5-4538. 

Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated. 
Sincerely, 

Walter F. Mondale, 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Lator. 



IMMOKAT.KR, Fla., March, 24, 1969. 
Senator Walter F. Mondale, 
Washington, D.C. 

We the growers of southwest Florida are in dire need of migratory labor. We 
are paying $11.00-$12.00 per eight hour day and piece work is averaging $15.00- 
$18.00 per day. Anxiously awaiting your reply so that we can contact 1,000-1,500 
migrants who are suffering from hunger, malnutrition or social human needs. 
Our harvest is just beginning. Our growers need help immediately. 

Byron G. Royals, 
President, Southwest Florida Winter Vegetable Growers Association. 



2552 

U.S. Department of Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, D.C., April 25, 1969. 
Hon. Walter F. Mondale, 
E/.»S'. Senate, 
Wa.sh'Digton, D.C. 

Dear Senator Mondale : This is in response to your letter of April 7, 1969 
concerning the farm labor supply in Southwest Florida. 

In early April, the Florida Industrial Commission staff investigated the 
situation in that area because of an allegation by the President of the Southwest 
Florida Winter Vegetable Gi'owers Association that growers there were in dire 
need of migratory labor. The vegetable labor situation is normally tight at this 
time of year. However, the investigators reported that labor is generally adequate 
to meet the needs of the growers. 

The Florida Industrial Commission's monthly reports of seasonal labor em- 
ployment in the Lower West Coast Agricultural Reporting Area tend to con- 
firm this conclusion. Average employment in January, February, and March of 
19(>!> was 9,900. In the corresponding period of previous years, average em- 
ployment wa.s 9,900 in 196S ; 8,700 in 1967 ; 9,100 in 1966 ; and 9,000 in 1965. It 
appears that as much or more labor is employed now than in previous years, 
and there are no indications that this is due to increases in acreage or the kind of 
crops grown. 

The Department of Labor will be kept informed of labor supply and demand de- 
velopments in Florida and all available resources will be used to assist the em- 
ployers in meeting their labor needs. However, the facilities of the employment 
service system can be used only to a limited extent to recruit interstate migrants 
for Southwest Florida because relatively few growers there provide housing 
which meets acceptable health and safety standards. 

If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. 
Sincerely, 

George P. Shultz, Secretary of La'bor. 



[From Congressional Record, May 26, 1969, p. S .5622] 
Farm Labor Shortage 

Mr. Holland. Mr. President, I do not believe there is one among us who is 
not interested in seeing that everything possible is done to eliminate hunger 
and malnutrition in our Nation. It is the approach to this problem where some 
of us may differ. 

I have taken the floor on previous occasions to point up the need for a program 
that would disseminate information as to proper foods necessiary to obtain well 
balanced nutritional meals. I have also strongly supported the food stamp 
program, the school lunch program, and I am in full sympathy with providing 
those in need with the necessities to sustain life. 

But, Mr. President, I must call to the attention of the Senate a situation 
that exists, whether we like it or not, that contributes to the malnutrition, and per- 
haps to hunger at times, in the migrant labor area that is caused entirely by the 
migrants themselves. I say this, speaking of the migrant themselves. I siay this, 
speaking of the migrant labor in Florida, which I have the honor to represent, 
where there is ample work for those interested in employment. As an example 
of this, I wish to place in the Record a letter I have received from a longtime 
friend and member of a family which has been producing fruits and vegetables 
since the 1880's — a family which is one of our larger growers of citrus and 
vegetables. This man. Hon. Randall Chase, has the high respect of all our people. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed at this 
point in tlie Record. 

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, 
as follows : 

Sanford. Fla., Maij 22, 1969. 
Senator Spessard L. Holland, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Senator: Your news letter No. 9 of May ISth was most interesting, 
informative, and we certainly go along most heartily with the position you 
express. 



2553 

The paragraph on the top of page 2. Farm Labor Bill, is mo.>-t intere-sting and 
somewhat heartening. There is a real shortage of labor for harvesting crops 
in the State, both citrus and vegetables. In the Glades, contract labor, mostly 
migrant, is making from $40 to $55 a day. The turnover is about 70% daily. 
The high wages, of course, are the main reason for the turnover. There is lots of 
labor there but they only work a day or two and then they don't want any more 
or need any more until they have used up what they have made. The same 
remarks apply to other commodities, probably to a lesser degree, but it is still 
excessive. 

Yesterday we closed down our packing house although we have 30-40,000 more 
boxes of oranges to gather. "We have 6 crews in the held but we cannot get 
enough fruit picked to warrant holding the packing house crew there to handle 
it when it comes in, so we are going direct to the processing plant. Being pri- 
marily fresh fruit people, we dislike this tremendously, but when it costs so 
much to get fruit to the house and then it is costly to put it up, somewhere along 
the line you reach a point of no return on costs and we have just about gotten 
to that point for fresh fruit. 

All this is known to you but I am simply writing now just as a matter of 
record and emphasis on the current situation. 

Should there be some constructive plan we could follow during the few months 
ahead before we start over again on the crops, it might be some reasonable plan 
could be arrived at which would be helpful to the farmers, protect the public, 
and actually it would help some of the migrant labor, if help is possible to them. 
More money is not what they need. 

With expressions of regard and best wishes. 
Sincerely, 

Randall Chase. 

Mr. Holland. Mr. President, as Mr. Chase stated, farm labor can earn .$40 
to $55 a day and yet there is a daily 70-percent turnover since so many migrant 
workers, once being paid oft at this high rate, will not work again until their 
money runs out. 

Mr. President, as I have said before I feel it is necessary for us to help those 
in these United States that cannot help themselves. There are many in this cate- 
gory — just as there are many willing to do what they can to help themselves and 
endeavor to be self-sufficient. There are too many others, however, such as 
those referred to in Mr. Chase's letter, w^ho lack the initiative to become self- 
suflficient or who prefer to "let Joe do it" — and sit back and accept the dole of 
the local. State, and Federal Governments so long as it is available — working 
only long enough to provide those extras not obtainable through the dole system. 
Mr. President, it is this group of people which worries me. The taxpayer — the 
people who must maintain steady employment — are being drained to a point 
of rebellion — particularly when they realize that their tax dollars are being used 
to support those who can help themselves but are not willing to do so. 

I believe, Mr. President, it is high time that the Federal Government review the 
overall welfare programs, and to devise a plan whereby those who need assist- 
ance can obtain it and those who shirk their responsibilities are put on notice 
once and for all that they will not continue to be a drain on the taxpayer who 
must foot the bill. 

Mr. President, another indication of what is happening to agriculture pro- 
ducers is shown by an article appearing in the Gainesville Sun, Thursday, :May 
22, 1969, entitled "Labor Shortage Bringing Watermelon Harvest Crisis.'"' I ask 
unanimous consent that this article be inserted in the Record at this point. 

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record. 
as follows : 

Labor Shoktage Bringing Watermelon Harvest Crisis 

Lakeland. — Florida, the nation's leading producer of watermelons, has 
reached the peak of harvest faced with a critical labor shortage in the Immokalee 
area although pay scales had skyrocketed. 

A plea for help went out from the headquarters of the Florida Watermelon 
Growers and Distributors Association. 

"If we aren't able to get labor into Immokalee this week, hundreds of acres 
of watermelons will be burned up," said Lester Faulhaber, association president. 

Labor for harvesting has been progressively harder to get for the past sev- 
eral years, an association spokesman said, but this year brought a crisis. 



2554 

Pay for the unskilled labor was increased from $2.25 to $4 an hour, the 
spokesman said. 

Florida produces an annual average harvest of 100 million watermelons. This 
week is the peak of the harvest. 

"Normally farmers will have 12 hours a day of harvesting," Faulhaber said, 
"but they have been limited to between three and four hours this season be- 
cause of the severe labor shortage." 

The association fired off telegrams seeking help from Agriculture Commis- 
sioner Doyle Conner and the farm labor division of the Florida State Employ- 
ment Service. 

Telegrams arriving at the association headquarters here described the situa- 
tion in Immogalee as deplorable and critical. 

One farmer reportedly gave up attempting to harvest with only 25 percent of 
the melons out of the fields, an association spokesman said. 



News Release From the Office of Senator Spessaed L. Holland (D., Fla.) 

Washington, D.C., May 29, 1969.— Senator Spessard Holland (D., Fla.) 
today questioned the validity of te,stimony — as it related to the current farm 
labor situation in Florida — given by former Assistant Secretary of Labor Stan- 
ley Ruttenberg at a recent hearing conducted by the Senate Subcommittee on 
Migratory Labor. 

In a letter to Senator Walter F. Mondale (D.F.L., Minn.) chairman of the 
subcommittee, the Florida legislator, who is the second ranking majority mem- 
ber of the Senate Agriculture Committee, relayed specific complaints expressed 
by members of the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association as to the accuracy 
of Ruttenberg's testimony and requested that the letter outlining the complaints 
be made a part of the hearing record. 

The letter, signed by James T. Duncan, Assistant Secretary of the Florida 
Fruit and Vegetable Association, cited the following alleged mis-statement of 
facts in Ruttenberg's statement as reported in wire service stories appearing in 
the May 23 editions of Florida newspapers : 

Florida agriculture uses Mexican bracero labor 

The U.S. Department of Labor has placed a ban on the certification and 
use of foreign supplemental workers by Florida growers 

Domestic laborers have been deprived of jobs by the presence of 2,000 
West Indies supplemental workers in Florida this year 

The Florida domestic labor market was adequate to harve;st even the 
current bumper citrus crop 

None of the foregoing, as reported in the Florida press, is true declared Mr. 
Duncan in his letter to Senator Holland. With regard to the alleged surplus 
of domestic labor, Mr. Duncan wrote: "We respectfully request that Mr. Rut- 
tenberg direct any farm labor he claims are so deprived to present themselves 
to the nearest Florida Farm Labor Office for immediate referral to United 
States Department of Labor approved agricultural job openings already on file 
at those offices." 

In his letter to Chairman Mondale, Senator Holland wrote, in part: "While 
I have not had the opportunity to read Mr. Ruttenberg's testimony, if such 
testimony were as inaccurate as indicated in Mr. Duncan's letter ... I respect- 
fully request that (the) letter be made a part of the record of the hearings." 

In replying to the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Senator Holland 
commented, "I feel it highly important that matters affecting the labor situations 
in Florida be correctly stated and that any distortions, particularly as given 
to Congressional committees responsible for recommending appropriate legis- 
lation, be corrected prior to any committee action." 



U.S. Senate, 
Washington, D.C., May 29, 1969. 
Hon. Walter F. Mondale, 

Chairman, Migratory Labor Subcommittee, Senate Labor and Public Welfare 
Committee, Washington, D.O. 
Dear Mr. Chairman : I have received the enclosed letter dated May 26, 1969, 
from Mr. James T. Duncan, Assistant Secretary, Florida Fruit and Vegetable 
Association, regarding press releases with regard to the testimony of Mr. Stanley 
H. Ruttenberg, former Assistant Secretary of Labor. 



2555 

While I have not had the opportunity to read Mr. Ruttenberg's testimony, 
if such testimony were as inaccurate as indicated in Mr. Duncan's letter to me, 
particularly as to the use of farm labor in the State of Florida, which I rep- 
resent, I respectfully request that Mr. Duncan's letter be made a part of the 
record of the hearing?. 

Thanking you, and with kindest regards, I remain. 
Yours faithfully, 

Spessaed L. Holland. 

Enclosures. 

Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association, 

Orlando, Fla., May 26, 1969. 
Hon. Spessard L. Holland, 
U.S. Senate, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, B.C. 

Dear Senator Holland : Associated Press releases in some Florida newspapers 
on May 2.3. 1969 cite testimony by former Assistant Labor Secretary Stanley 
Ruttenberg before the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. Mr Ruttenberg's 
testimony to the Senate Subcommittee, if quoted correctly by AP, is inaccurate 
concerning the current Florida farm labor situation. 

The members of this Association are highly critical of Mr. Ruttenberg's testi- 
mony before the Subcommittee and feel very strongly that it should be rebutted. 
Our feelings are being expressed both to you and to Senator Gurney. 

We feel it quite important, too, that this rebuttal be given wide.spread publicity 
among news media to counteract releases which we have observed in the Jackson- 
ville, Miami, Tampa and other newspapers. Briefly, the facts, as we see them, are 
as follows : 

To start with, Florida uses no Mexican braceros, as was indicated by Mr. 
Ruttenberg. Florida uses West Indies siipplemental labor only when certified 
by the Secretary of Labor and brought in under Immigration laws, with strict 
supervision by West Indies worker representatives and representatives of the 
Florida Farm Labor Service (a branch of the United States Department of 
Labor). Immigration officials are also on the scenes throughout the area of 
certification on almost a continual basis. 

To our knowledge, there has been no ban on the use of foreign supplemental 
workers to Florida growers. On the contrary, Florida growers have been certi- 
fied by the U.S. Department of Labor for use of supplemental foreign workers 
each year, continuously since prior to 1950. 

In the 1966-67 season, growers were certified for use of supplemental West 
Indies workers in sugar cane and in the Valencia citrus harvest. In the 1967-68 
season. Florida sugar cane growers were again certified for use of supplemental 
West Indies workers. In the spring of 1968, Florida citrus growers chose not to 
request certification for supplemental BWI workers, much to their regret. 
Completion of the Valencia harvest in 1968 was delayed at least three weeks due 
to lack of an adequate labor force, and at a considerable additional expense to 
the citrus industry. The realization that certification was needed came too late 
to prevent the costly delay. 

It is based on experience in the 1968 Valencia harvest that citrus growers 
requested certification for supplemental BWI workers for the 1969 Valencia 
harvest. In addition, sugar cane growers were again certified for use of supple- 
mental BWI workers during this past 1968-69 season. 

Florida growers have by no means been tanned from use of supplemental 
workers by the Department of Labor under either the Democratic or Republican 
Administrations during any of the past twenty years. 

Florida growers have always used all qualified domestic workers available in 
Florida and have also recruited extensively throughout the Southeastern States, 
as records on file with the Farm Labor Service of the U.S. Department of Labor 
will reflect. Much of the labor is recruited under the Criteria Regulations of the 
Secretary of Labor at considerable expense to growers. 

In spite of intensive and extensive recruitment by Florida growers, both 
through their own resources and those of the Farm Labor Service of the U.S. 
Department of Labor, Florida growers have been continually short of adequate 
domestic labor since mid- January of this year, when Idbor available from the 
Southeastern States started to dwindle as it does every year at about that time. 
Florida growers should have asked for certification for supplemental labor in 
January of this year. 

36-513— 70— pt. 5B 3 



2556 

Florida growers are still in a demand situation with labor needed now in 
harvesting citrus, watermelons, corn, tomatoes, tropical fruit, and other crops. 
We challenge Mr. Ruttenberg's knowledge of the current farm labor situation 
in Florida and his statement that local farm workers here in Florida are being 
deprived of jobs by the presence of 2,000 British West Indies workers. 

We respectfully request that Mr. Ruttenberg direct any farm labor he claims are 
so deprived to present themselves to the nearest Florida Farm Labor Office for 
immediate referral to United States Department of Labor appro^td agricultural 
job openings already on file at those offices. 

The importation of these 2,000 foreign workers in citrus was not only entirely 
necessary but it is now feared will not be sufficient within the period certified. 
Either more supplemental labor will be needed or an extension of existing 
certification may have to be requested. 

Original estimates of the anticipated shortage of labor in citrus indicated need 
for 3,000 supplemental workers. However, after consultation with Department of 
Labor officials, citrus industry leaders reduced the request to 2,000. 

Florida growers have always tried to comply with reasonable regulations of 
the U.S. Department of Labor, including those during the time Mr. Ruttenberg 
was Assistant Secretary of Labor. This they will continue to do under any 
Administration to assure that all available and qualified American workers are 
used first in Florida agriculture, before Certification for use of supplemental 
workers is requested. 

As stated previously, we feel it is extremely important that Mr. Ruttenberg's 
testimony be rebutted at the Subcommittee level and that publicity be given to 
the rebuttal. We would appreciate your thoughts along this line and your coordi- 
nation with Senator Gurney so that we get the most effective rebuttal to Mr. 
Ruttenberg's testimony. We feel this is necessary not only from the standpoint 
of correcting inaccuracies in Mr. Ruttenberg's testimony but also from the stand- 
point of working out satisfactory solutions to our continued Florida agricultural 
labor problem for the balance of this year and for future years. 

We sincerely appreciate the fine job that you are doing for Florida agriculture 
and know that you will continue to do so. 
Yours sincerely, 

James T. Duncan, 
Assistant Secretary. 

[From the Miami Herald, Friday, May 23, 1969] 
NixoN Let Foreign Workers in State ; Local Labor HirRx 

Washington.^ — The Nixon Administration deprived local farm workers of jobs 
by letting Florida citrus growers import 2,000 foreign laborers, a Senate sub- 
committee was told Thursday. 

Stanley Ruttenberg, an assistant labor secretary during the Johnson Adminis- 
tration said the importation of foreigners was unnecessary. 

The Florida labor market was adequate to harvest even the current bumper 
citrus crop, Ruttenberg said. 

He said the Nixon Administration's action last week broke a two-year ban 
against such braceros. Those in Florida are from the British West Indies. 

Ruttenberg told the Senate subcommittee on migratory labor that he favored 
outright abolishment of the system by which Mexican nationals get immigration 
visas and use them to commute daily to farm work in the United States. 

Subcommittee chairman Walter F. Mondale (D., Minn.) said he felt from his 
personal observation of migrants crossing into Texas at 4 a.m. daily that the sys- 
tem should be ended for the migrants' own protection. 

They are treated badly by immigration officials, he said, and are provided no 
protection either by the Mexican or the U.S. governments as were persons brought 
in under the bracero program. 

Ruttenberg estimated 100,000 Mexican nationals cross the border to work but 
live in Mexico. 



2557 

U.S. Senate, 
Washington, B.C., June 6, 1969. 
Hon. Walter F. Mondale, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Senate Office Building, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Senator : On Thursday, May 22, former Assistant Labor Secretary Stan- 
ley Ruttenberg testified before your Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. His testi- 
mony as reported in tlie Miami Herald as far as Florida farm workers are con- 
cerned is entirely erroneous. 

Essentially, what he said was that there was sufficient domestic labor to har- 
vest the Florida citrus crop and hence it was unnecessary for Florida citrus 
growers to import offshore labor. 

This is the same kind of erroneous charge which was made year after year by 
key members of the Labor Department in the Johnson Administration as well as 
certain labor unions. 

I am forwarding herewith a letter by James T. Duncan, the Assistant Secre- 
tary of the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, which accurately sets forth 
the Florida labor picture as far as foreign workers are concerned this year and 
last year as well. 

There is always a severe shortage of labor in Florida when citrus and other 
vegetable crops come on for harvest period. If Mr. Ruttenberg would direct the- 
sufficient supply of domestic labor that he claims to the Florida farm labor 
office.s. he would be doing Florida farmers as well as Florida workers a great 
favor. This would accomplish much more than his inaccurate testimony before 
your Subcommittee. 

Would you please file Mr. Duncan's letter as part of the hearings before your 
Committee? 

Sincei'ely yours, 

Edward J. Gurney, U.S. Senator, 

Enclosure. 

Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association, 

Orlando, Fla., May 26, 1969. 
Hon. Edward J. Gurney, 
TJ.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 

Dear Senator Gurney : Associated Press releases in some Florida news- 
paijers on May 23, 1969 cite testimony by former Assistant Labor Secretary 
Stanley Ruttenberg before the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. Mr. 
Ruttenberg's testimony to the Senate Subcommittee, if quoted correctly by 
AP, is inaccurate concerning the current Florida farm labor situation. 

The members of this Association are highly critical of Mr. Ruttenberg's 
testimony before the Subcommittee and feel very strongly that it should be 
rebutted. Our feelings are being expressed both to you and to Senator Holland. 

We feel it quite important, too, that this rebuttal be given widespread pub- 
licity among news media to counteract releases which we have observed in the 
Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa and other newspapers. Briefly, the facts, as we 
see them, are as follows : 

To start with, Florida uses no Mexican braceros, as was indicated by Mr. 
Ruttenberg. Florida uses West Indies supplemental labor only when certified 
by the Secretary of Labor and brought in under Immigration "laws, with strict 
supervision by West Indies worker representatives and representatives of the 
Florida Farm Labor Service (a branch of the United States Department of 
Labor). Immigration officials are also on the scenes throughout the area of 
certification on almost a continual basis. 

To our knowledge, there has been no ban on the use of foreign supplemental 
workers to Florida growers. On the contrary, Florida growers have been cer- 
tified by the U.S. Department of Labor for use of supplemental foreign work- 
ers each year, continuously since prior to 1950. 

In the 1966-67 season, growers were certified for use of supplemental West 
Indies workers in sugar cane and in the Valencia citrus harvest. In the 1967- 



2558 

G8 season, Florida sugar cane growers were again certified for use of supple- 
mental West Indies workers. In the spring of 1968, Florida citrus growers 
ch06-c not to request certification for supplemental BWI workers, much to their 
regret. Completion of the Valencia harvest in 1968 was delayed at least three 
weeks due to lack of an adequate labor force, and at a considerable addi- 
tional expense to the citrus industry. The realization that certification was 
needed came too late to prevent the costly delay. 

It is based on experience in the 1968 Valencia harvest that citrus growers 
requested certification for supplemental BWI workers for the 1969 Valencia 
harvest. In addition, sugar cane growers were again certified for use of sup- 
plemental BWI workers during this past 1968-69 season. 

Florida growers have by no means been hanned from use of supplemental 
workers by the Department of Labor under either the Democratic or Repub- 
lican Administrations during iany of the past twenty years. 

Florida growers have always used all qualified domestic workers available 
in Florida and have also recruited extensively throughout the Southeastern 
States, as records on file with the Farm Labor Service of the U.S. Depart- 
ment of Labor will refiect. ]Much of the labor is recruited under the Criteria 
Regulations of the Secretary of Labor at considerable expense to growers. 

lu spite of intensive and extensive recruitment by Florida growers, both 
thi-ough their own resources and those of the Farm Labor Service of the U.S. 
Department of Labor, Florida growers have been continually short of adequate 
domestic labor since mid-January of this year, when labor available from the 
Southeastern States started to dwindle as it does every year at about that time. 
Florida growers should have asked for certification for supplemental labor in 
January of this year. 

Florida growers are still in a demand situation with labor needed now in 
harvesting citrus, watermelons, corn, tomatoes, tropical fruit, and other crops. 
We challenge Mr. Ruttenberg's knowledge of the current farm labor situation 
in Florida and his statement that local farm workers here in Florida are being 
deprived of jobs by the presence of 2,000 British West Indies workers. 

We respectfully request that Mr. Ruttenberg direct any farm labor he claims 
are so deprived to present themselves to the nearest Florida Farm Labor OflSce 
for immediate referral to United States Department of Labor approved agri- 
cultural job openings already on file at those oflSces. 

The importation of these 2,000 foreign workers in citrus was not only entirely 
necessary but it is now feared will not be sufficient within the period certified. 
Either more supplemental labor will be needed or an extension of existing 
certification may have to be requested. 

Original estimates of the anticipated shortage of labor in citrus indicated 
need for 3,000 supplemental workers. However, after consultation with De- 
partment of Labor officials, citrus industry leaders reduced the request to 2,000. 

Florida growers have alw-ays tried to comply with reasonable regulations of 
the U.S. Department of Labor, including those during the time Mr. Ruttenberg 
was Assistant Secretary of Labor. This they will continue to under any Ad- 
ministration to assure that all available and qualified American workers are 
used first in Florida agricultui'e, before certification for use of supplemental 
workers is requested. 

As stated previously, we feel it is extremely important that Mr. Ruttenberg's 
testimony be rebutted at the Subcommittee level and that publicity be given 
to the rebuttal. We would appreciate your thoughts along this line and your 
coordination with Senator Holland so that we get the most effective rebuttal 
to Mr. Ruttenberg's testimony. We feel this is necessary not only from the 
standpoint of correcting inaccuracies in Mr. Ruttenberg's testimony but also 
from the standpoint of working out satisfactory solutions to our continued 
Florida agricultural labor problem for the balance of this year and for future 
years. 

We sincerely appreciate the fine job that you are doing for Florida agricul- 
ture and know that you will continue to do so. 
Yours sincerely, 

James T. Duncan, Assistant Secretary. 



2559 

[From the Miami Herald, Friday, May 23, 1969] 
Nixon Let Foreign Workers in State ; Local Labor Hurt 

Washington.— The Nixon Administration deprived local farm workers of jobs 
by letting Florida citrus growers import 2,000 foreign laborers, a Senate subcom- 
niittee was told Thursday. . , ■ ■ 

Stanley Ruttenberg, an assistant labor secretary during the Johnson Adminis- 
tration, said the importation of foreigners was unnecessary. 

The Florida labor market was adequate to harvest even the current bumper 
citrus crop, Ruttenberg said. 

He said the Nixon Administration's action last week broke a two-year ban 
against such braceros. Those in Florida are from the British West Indie-;. 

^Ruttenberg told the Senate subcommittee on migratory labor that he favored 
outright abolishment of the system by which Mexican nationals get immigration 
visas and use them to commute daily to farm work in the United States. 

Subcommittee chairman Walter F. Mondale (D., Minn.) said he felt from his 
personal observation of migrants crossing into Texas at 4 a.m. daily that the sys- 
tem should be ended for the migrants' own protection. 

Thev are treated badly by immigration officials, he said, and are provided no 
protection either by the Mexican or the U.S. governments as were persons brought 
in under the bracero program. 

Ruttenberg estimated 100,000 Mexican nationals cross the border to work but 
live in Mexico. 

American Federation of Labor and 
CoNGREfss of Industrial Organizations. 

Washhwton, B.C., Jmw 19, 1969. 
Hon. Walter F. Mondale, 
U.S. Senate, Washington, B.C. 

Dear Senator: Remarks of Senator Spessard L. Holland of Florida, as con- 
tained on page 5622 of the Congressional Record, May 20, im\), recently came to 
my attention. Because of the subject matter and the "facts" as conveyed, I sent 
a "copy to some people in Florida whom I know and who could be expected to 
have some expert knowledge of the subject matter. 

I am sending this on to you because of your general interest in this field, your 
prior investigation of the 'migrant conditions in Plorida and specific committee 
resiwnsibility. 

Attached is a copy of a letter sent to me by Reverend A. H. Vanden Bosche, 
who, as you can see, is the Southeast Representative of the National Council of 
the Churches of Christ and who has for several years been involved in the work 
of aiding migrants. In addition, I am sending a copy of a news story appearing 
in the Miami Herald. 

Sooner or later, people like Senator Holland, and those who hold points of 
view which he appears to represent, need to know that so-called "labor shortages" 
in this nation cannot be validly evaluatetl in a pure numerical context but must 
be studied in relation to the economic and sociological ramifications. This is, of 
course, fancy language for saying in this age of American affluence and the 
existence of general living standards which exceed any ever previously developed, 
the availability of labor will be conditioned by how much they're paid. 

Best personal regards. 
As ever, 

William L. Kircher, 
Director of Organization. 

Enclosures. 

National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., 

:^ew York, N.Y., June 11, 1969. 
Mr. William L. Kircher, 
Director of Organization, A.F.L.-C.I.O., 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Bill : I welcome the opportunity to comment on the letter introduced 
by Senator Holland and which was written by Mr. Randall Chase. The opening 
phraseology of Senator Holland's remarks and the letter itself give away the 
position which Senator Holland holds and that held by most of the growers 
groups in our state of utter contempt for the laborers who have given them their 



2560 

nfllnence nnd thoir places of prestijre. power and influence. There just has been 
nowhere near a $40-$50 a day average made by workers. There has been no real 
attempt to recruit workers. Attempts were put into motion early in the Fall to 
make a case of off shore workers and when it became definite that there would be 
a change in Administration and therefore of posture relative to such a situation 
to make a case for recruiting off-shore workers. Part of this case, as it has 
always been, is to take the all too infrequent highest days wages for the hardest 
workers and suggest that this is an average. Then one must demean the workers 
as irresponsible and not wanting to work. The next step is to not seriously recruit. 
At a meeting last week in Lake Hamilton (near Winter Haven) a large group 
of workers stated that there was a three week cutoff of work over a month ago 
when the weather was cooler and fruit was ready for harvest so that workers 
would leave. 

The system worked and rather quietly 2000 off shore workers from Jamaica 
came in to the Dundee area. I visited a camp at Davenport. Florida, and gathered 
information that domestic workers were put out of the camp so that the Jamai- 
cans could be moved in. Also, at a time when pickers should have been paid about 
,^0e a box for picking oranges because the fruit was more difficult to pick, the 
price was kept at 3r>c and in some cases dropped to 30c. The off-shore workers we 
talked to did not know what price they were going to get, even while in the 
fields, and didn't know who or where their representative was to talk about 
problems. 

Men are here, wanted to work and were unable to work. I am enclosing a 
clipping from yesterday's (June 16) Miami Herald which speaks to this subiect. 
You may also secure the testimony of Newlon Lloyd made before the Subcom- 
mittee on Migratory Labor last Tuesday, June 10. 

Next year will undoubtedly be much worse in making the case for offshore 
workers. 

Sincerely, 

Rev. a. H. Vanden Bosche, 

S.E. Area Representative. 

[From the Miami Herald. Friday. June 6, 1069] 

Did U.S., Collier Talk About Food? \ 

(By Elizabeth Heddericg) 

Washington. — You might label it the communications gap. When you ask 
questions about the status of a food commodities program for Collier County, 
you get some very different stories. 

At the time Sen. George McGovern (D.. S.D.) nnd his hunger fighters with 
their pied piper entourage of pressmen visited Collier County back in March, the 
Office of Economic Opportunity said it would pay the administrative costs for 
a commodities program for Collier. 

OEO and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which runs the commodities 
program, both say now they have met with the county commissioners to talk over 
plans to take Collier off the list of Ifi counties in Florida not participating in 
the food commodity program. However, the head of the Collier County com- 
missioners says they have heard from neither organi55ation. 

Arnold Baker of OEO's community action migrant program, through M^hich 
the program would be funded, said OEO met with Collier officials two weeks ago. 

Russell H. James, director of the Atlanta regional office of USDA's com- 
modity program said, "We had another meeting with the group down there a 
couple weeks ago." 

But Lester Whitaker, chairman of the Collier County commissioners said 
this about OEO's offer for funding : "They've never given us any information on 
that. Tt was published in the papers and all, but as yet we haven't heard any- 
thing from them." 

When nsked if the Department of Agriculture had talked with the commis- 
sioners. Whitaker's answer was "No." 

Baker of OEO said details are now being worked on. "We're kind of nlaying 
it low key." he said. "And we'd prefer not to give the information out at this point 
if it's going to make the papers because we feel we are almost to the point of 
working somethins: out with the Agriculture Department, our office and the 
powers that be in Florida. We should know something within a week to 10 days." 

Neill Freeman, director of the nationwide food commodity program for USDA, 



2561 

said, "The decision on a program rests with the county commissioners. We let 
them know what is available. They've had it under consideration for some time 
now. T don't know that they've made any decision." 

Whitaker said the Collier commissioners would probably not decide on food 
commodities, but would consider the food stamp program "if the food stamp 
program is available to us." 

Florida is one of seven states without food stamps, but the State Cabinet ap- 
proved participation the day after McGovern's hunger tour left Florida. Two 
county applications — for Dade and Orange — are now being considered. 

Whitaker said the commissioners felt food .stamps was the better program 
for Collier County for several i-ea.sons. "One." he said, "it would be less expen- 
sive for the local taxpayers and the cost is being borne by the local taxpayers 
and Lord knows we pay enough taxes now. And it (commodities) would neces- 
sitate refrigeration and freight and distribution and so on (where the food stamp 
program wouldn't) . 

"In this county we don't have widespread hunger as was indicated by this 
committee of senators that came down here that had to justify their expenditure 
of several thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money making the investigation. 
They could not go back to Washington and say 'We didn't find hunger.' So we," 
Whitaker said, "are inclined to believe the food stamp program would make these 
people, the recipients, a little more responsible if they had .some investment in it 
themselves. Food surplus commodities is a dead giveaway." 



[From the Miami Herald, .Tune 11. 1969] 

Feae. Shame. Hopelessness. Haxg Over FlopvIda Migraxts 

(By Charles Stafford) 

Washington. — A Negro who was born in a shack in an Avon Park orange grove 
told a Senate committee Tuesday that his people, the migrant farm workers of 
Florida, live in fear, .shame and hopelessness. 

"We live in fear, because we have been indoctrinated with it." said Elijah 
Boone of Pahnkee. "We live in sliame. because we are treated as the scum of 
the nation. And we live in hoplessness. for experience has shown us there is no 
road open to us except back to the field." 

Boone, an inve.stigator for the South Florida Migrant Legal Services, and 
Newlon Lloyd of Tampa, co-director of the Polk County Migrant Ministry, de- 
scribed the life and problems of migrant farm workers to the Senate subcom- 
mittee on migratory labor. Both are former migrants who became crew chiefs. 

This was the thread of Boone's testimony : 

"We are unwanted except at harvest time. No one claims us as citizens of his 
community or members of his society. In most communities we cannot regis- 
ter and vote because of residency requirements. We live in the shadow of society. 
Thousands of agricultural workers in Florida labor their entire lives in the fields 
with no hope of promotion, higher wages or better working conditions. 

"Agriciiltural work is considered to be one of the most dangerous kinds of work 
in the United States, yet this kind of work is exempt from the workmen's com- 
pensation laws in Florida and in most other states. In the area from which I 
come, there is no such thing as equal employment opportunity. 

"Labor camps containing blacks. Mexicans or Pixerto Ricans breed only field 
workers, whereas labor camps containing Caucasians breed only bosses and fore- 
men. These camps are segregated . . . 

"In the Glades area of Florida, the power structure refuses to sell land to agri- 
cultural laborers, especially black people, for use as home «ites. They wish, by 
this and other m.eans. to perpetuate the down-trodden condition of our people 
and maintain the present economic and power gap in order to insure a captive 
work force. 

"This is evident by the lack of industry in the area. New industrv would be 
available in our area, but those in power will not take advantage of these oppor- 
tunities because it would offer competition to them in the form of higher wages 
and more humane working conditions. They even import foreign labor while our 
people go hungry in the summer and earl.v fall . . . 

"In the State of Florida." hp continued, "there are many Federal, state, and 
local programs aimed at helping the migrant, but a great number of these pro- 



2562 

jrrams are 'phonies.' Others are ineffective . . . The programs give away a few 
dollars that are supposed to satisfy its recipient, but does nothing to remove us 
from this vicious cycle and help to raise us up to being individuals with self- 
respect, pride and human dignity . . . 

"More often than not these programs do not contain enough flexibility to stay 
where the migrant is, as he moves about over the country, harvesting the crops. 
So we end up with programs consisting of, in mo.st cases, middle class individuals, 
receiving middle class salaries, to do a job that they either cannot or will not 
do, and we, again, are left without consideration." 

Lloyd told of the exploitation of farm workers by their crew leaders and the 
growers. 

When, because of scheduling delays, poor planning or equipment failures, the 
migrants cannot work, they are not paid. "The burden of labor waste." he said, 
"is placed directly upon the migrant, for the time wasted is time for which he 
is not reimbursed. Most of this labor waste should be blamed on the farmer 
himself." 



[From the Palm Beach Post, June 10, 1969] 

Ex-Farm Worker Tells Senators Migrant System Is "Slave Labor" 

(By Dale Pullen, Washington Bureau) 

Washington. — A former migrant farm worker now living in Okeechobee 
told a U.S. Senate subcommittee Monday: 

"Gentlemen, bad working conditions and low wages for generations have 
maintained a slave labor system which insures that the migrant farm worker's 
children will have to live the same way he did and will continue to be slaves to 
agriculture." 

Rudollo Juarez was the first of a group of migrant or former migrant workers 
scheduled to apear Monday and today before the Senate Subcommittee on 
migratory labor, headed by U.S. Sen. Walter Mondale, D-Minnesota. 

Juarez read from a prepared statement then answered committee questions, 
saying that he was born in Texas, was a migrant at 5 years of age and was 
working in the fields at the age of 6. 

Following his appearance, Juarez, who works as a $90-a-week investigator 
for South Florida Migrant Legal Services, Inc. (SFMLS) commented to news- 
men about criticism of SFMLS by U.S. Rep. Paul Rogers, West Palm Beach 
Democrat. 

"It (SFMLS) is the only effective program able to help the vast majority of 
migrant farm workers ... I don't see how Rogers can say anything ... he 
never comes to the fields and many times we have waited for him to come. He 
didn't visit until the hunger committee visited us." 

Rogers, whose 9th Congressional District includes Juarez's hometown plus 
three of the six counties served by SFMLS, replied Monday afternoon : 

"The statements Juarez made are to be expected. He is an employee of 
SFMLS, which should be changed so it is supervised by bar associations." 

The Office of Economic Opportunity, which has financed SFMLS for the past 
two years, is considering applications from both the newly formed Six County 
Migrant Legal Services and SFMLS for a $400,000 grant to operate for the year 
beginning July. 

Rogers supports the six -county bid. U.S. Rep. Dante Fascell, and Claude 
Pepper, both Miami Democrats, support SFMLS. 

Rogers said Juarez "must not have spent much time in my district or he 
would know that two years ago I did tour the farming programs and a year ago 
went specifically on a field trip to Immokalee in order tO' check into housing 
and self-help housing." 

Rogers attended March hearings in Fort Myers and Immokalee conducted by 
the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, headed by U.S. 
Sen. George McGovern, D-South Dakota. 

Mondale, also a member of the McGovern committee, attended those hearings 
and at Monday's hearing recalled critical remarks of a Collier County official 
that migrants were "federal people" and not the responsibility of the county. 

Juarez, father of seven children, whose wife "works in the fields," said this 
was a typical reaction of local officials to migrants with problems. 

He added, however, that migrants were seeking political power and he was 
helping see that more registered to vote and learn about voting machines 
"which even I don't know how to use." 



2563 

During his testimony Juarez also said. 

Migrant experience with police has been "something terrible." 

He did not want his children to live "this kind of life." 

It is almost impossible for near illiterate migrants to change their lives. 

When migrants go to employers to seek better pay, working conditions or 
housing, "you get one answer — if you don't like it, you know where you came 
from." 

The State of Florida is doing very little for migrants. 

Before Juarez testified, National Education Television officials showed and 
answered questions about a film, "What Harvest for the Reaper?" 

The Rev. Arthur C. Bryant, New York Lutheran minister, described his 
experience with migrants in his state and told senators, "the powerlessness" of 
migrants is tied to their lack of coverage under the National Labor Relations 
Act, which leaves them "less of a citizen than other Americans." 

Two other Floridians are scheduled to testify today before the subcommittee. 

They are Elijah Boone, of Pahokee, director of the Glades Citizens Association 
in Belle Glade, and Newton Lloyd, of Opa Locka, who is associated with the 
Christian Migrant Ministry. 

[From the Palm Beach Post, June 6, 1969] 

Senate Unit To Hear Spokesmen From Three Area Migrant Groups 

(By Dale Pullen, Washington Bureau) 

Washington. — Three representatives of south Florida migrant-associated or- 
ganizations are scheduled to be in Washington Monday or Tuesday to testify 
before the Senate subcommittee on migratory labor. 

They are Rudolfo Juarez of Okeechobee, leader of the Organization of Migrants 
in Community Action ; Elijah Boone of Pahokee, director of the Glades Citizens' 
Association in Belle Glade and Newlon Lloyd of Opalocka, who is associated with 
the Christian Migrant Ministry. 

Juarez is scheduled to testify Monday and Boone and Lloyd Tuesday. 

U.S. Sen. Walter Mondale, D-Minnesota, the subcommittee chairman, said the 
theme for the hearings will be "powerlessness among migrants and the reasons 
for this powerlessness." 

Committee officials said they did not know who is paying the transportation 
cost for the migrants plus an expected six carloads from Texas, a Comanche 
Indian and his wife from Colorado and another migrant leader from Washington 
state. 

All are scheduled to testify. 

Monday officials of the National Education Television network also are 
scheduled to testify on a recent documentary they filmed called "What Harvest 
for the Reaper." 

The subcommittee has received help in contacting the migrant leaders from the 
Washington-based OEO-financed Migrant Research Project. 

Tom Bishop, assistant director, when asked where the money was coming 
from to bring these people to Washington said, "I'll never tell. We can't tell 
because it gets us into bad water." 

Migrant Research Project received $150,000 for the current fiscal year to 
administer its programs. 

It is supposed to distribute emergency food and medical service to migrants 
and, according to Bishop, received $150,000 in migrant food money during the 
fiscal year which ends June 30. 



Okeechobee, Fla., June 20, 1969. 
Mr. BoP.EN Chertkov, 

Aide to Senator Walter Mondale, Senate Office Building, 
Washington, B.C. 

Dear Mr. Cherkov : I first wish to thank you for the opportunity of speaking 
before the Senate Subcommittee and for all the courteous help and attention 
I was given while in Washington. 

I do not at this time wish to add everything to my statement, however, Elijah 
Boone, Jr., is sending an additional statement to you which I have read and 
with which I agree. I hope that it will be helpful in clarifying some of the con- 
tradicting statements which are made by growers and agricultural workers 



2564 

about labor supply «iid wages. It is to the growers advantage to 'create' a labor 
shortage right at the time his crop is at peak harvest readiness. In a very 
short time his fields will be overcrowded and the crop will be harvested in 
the shortest time possible allowing the grower to get the top prices. This period 
is also the time in which you will hear reports of workers earning large sums 
of money each day. It is not difficult to understand that with the crop at its 
very peak a good or even an average worker can pack a great deal of crates 
and make himself a good wage, however, it should just as easily follow that 
a crop will be quickly exhausted and that the "big money" was earned for a 
few days or three weeks at the most. I do not mean to say that everyone work- 
ing in "a field ripe for harvest makes extremely high wages, some do but most 
still only make an average or below average wage. With the crop harvested the 
workers now face an interval, sometimes as long as a month or more in which 
they work a few days here and there and wait for the next crop and so called 
labor shortage and then use what is left of their earnings to reach the next 
harvest. 

I should explain that there is often more than one crop at a time being 
harvested in an area. However, migrants like everyone else specialize and fol- 
low the crops and harvest the crops that they are the best at. Even if they 
finish a harvest of for instance corn and celery is being harvested in the same 
area they would not be able to work in the celery because they are not skilled 
enough in celery to stay with the celery crews and would not be rehired after 
one days trial. The chances are that they would not even get one days trial 
since the celery fields would already be overcrowded with workers who spe- 
cialized in celery. So, when they finish a crop in a certain area they have no 
choice biit to seek a crop which they know and can work and then travel to it. 

I do not mean to say that most workers can do nothing but either pull corn 
or cut celery or something like that. What I mean is that the only way to make 
any sort of money in field work is to be very fast and very good at what you 
ai-e doing and for this reason the workers pick out a few crops and learn them 
as well as they can and then follow them around the country. I have heard 
it said that agricultural workers sometimes work for two and three farmers 
in a single day and that this is part of what makes it not possible for them to 
be included in workmens compensation and unemployment insurance. I do not 
believe this because I know as I have told you that the workers work the crops 
that they know and stay with them until there is no more work and then go 
on to another harvest that they know. 

Please let me know if I may be of any further assistance to you in any way. 
Very triply yours, 

RODOLFO JaUREZ. 



MEAfORANDIT^r TO SENATOR WALTER F. MONDALE, A TT.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 

OF ^Minnesota, From Elijah Boone, Jr., re Migrant FARi\r Wages in 
Florida 

Since Mr. Chase's statement of record that migrants make -$40.00 per day 
during the harvest season. I feel that someone should explain the complete 
situation so that statistics will not be misleading. 

It is true that, in the glades area, during the peak of the corn harvest fd 
period of 2 to .3 weeks) it is possible for the ultra physically fit laborers to 
reach salaries as high as .$40.00 per day. There are however, many circumstances 
involved. The following are a few : 

1. Because sweet corn and other glades-grown crops are so perishable, they 
must be harvested within 2 or ,3 days of maturity, there is. therefore for a short 
period of time, a big demand among the farmers for laborers to harvest the 
immediate crop. By necessity, therefore, the laborers go to the highest bidder. 
This prime harvest demand only last a few weeks and is no indication of local 
wage level. 

2. If there were a constant need for a labor force in the area, there would 
always be enough laborers to harvest whatever crops were grown without this 
sudden increase in cost during the peak of the harvest: but because the type 
nf crops grown can only be grown a certain time of year, and no other work 
exists at other times, it is impossible for agricultural workers to become year 
round citizens at a constant wage level. This can only be provided ?\v the 
inclusion of some type of industry. 



2565 

3. A high degree of physical stamina and strengtli is required of people who 
do the harvesting. Consequently, these people are specialist and should not be 
termed "common labor". A lifetime of doing the same work has trained him to 
a degree of speed and perfection unmatched by many other professions. His 
speed and skill is important to his survival because he does not have a steady 
means of income and does not know when he might work again, therefore, 
he sets a pace for himself and his crew that would be impossible to maintain 
for any sustained period of time. This is the reason for so many turnovers — not 
the size salary as Mr. Chase would have you believe. 

4. In 1965 (the latest date for which statistics are available) the average 
migratory farm worker was only employed 82 days in farm work. Even if it 
were possible to make $40.00 per day for a sustained period (which is not true) 
he would still be below the poverty line with a family of four, according to 
the guidelines set by OEO. 

Florida State Employment Service 

Florida Farm Labor Bulletin 

May 1969 
South Florida Summary 

Crop activities declining. — Many vegetable crops are almost finished. The de- 
mand for workers is also decreasing. Many workers have moved on to other job 
commitments, and there are still scattered shortages in the area. 

Belle Glade 

Corn and celcrij harvest hefjinning to taper off. — Tomato and v/atermelon har- 
vest are continuing steadily. Labor supply and demand are generally in balance. 

Delray Beach-Pompano 

Valencia crop in good condition. — Two citrus crews could be used. 
Immokalee-Fort Myers 

Citrus harvest workers needed. — Lack of approved housing continues to limit 
recruitment. Watermelon harvest has attracted some citrus workers. 

Princeton-Homestead 

Light harvest of limes continues. — Shortages continue for grove, nursery and 
landscape workers. 

Central Florida summary 

Valencia harvest continuing at peak volume. — Crew fill-ins and some crews are 
needed throughout the area. Vegetable harvest is on the increase, and vegetable 
workers and crews are also needed. 

Fort Pierce 

Shortages continue in citrus. — Crews and crew fill-ins are needed. 
Orlando (Includes Leesburg, Sanford, and Cocoa) 

Crew fill-ins needed. — Some crews can also be used. Vegetable harvest is con- 
tinuing at a normal pace and is expected to increase soon. 

Tampa 

Tomato harvest now at peak. — Labor is in short supply due to limited housing. 
Citrus harvest workers are also needed as crew fill-ins. 

Dundee 

Crew needed for cucumber and tomato harvest. — Crew fill-ins are needed for 
citrus harvest. Watermelon harvest is on the upswing. 

North Florida summary, Orange Heights 

Scattered labor shortages. — Lack of approved housing is limiting recruitment. 
Harvest is active in vegetables and flowers. 

Peiisacola 

Vegetable harvest and preharvest activities increasing. — Some labor shortages 
could develop in the near future. 



2566 

U.S. Senate, 
Washington, B.C., May 26, 1969. 
Hon. George P. Shultz, 

Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. Secretary : It has been brought to my attention that the Department 
of Labor has certified the use of foreign labor to perform farmwork in Florida 
citrus, and for sheepherding in Texas. 

As Chairman of the Migratory Labor Subcommittee, I am particularly con- 
cerned about the use of foreign workers to perform farmwork in the U.S., and I 
would like fui'ther information concerning this situation. I would like to know 
how many workers are involved, to what farms and for what crops they are being 
imported, and for how long a period of time they are to work. I would also like to 
know what the labor .supply situation was to justify the admittance of foreign 
workers, and what wages and working conditions have been guaranteetl. I would 
also like to know how many foreign workers have been admitted to perform farm- 
work over the past five years, for what crops, and to what areas or states. 

Also, as it is my understanding that the use of foreign agricultural labor had 
been almost discontinued during the past five years. I am interested in what the 
policy of the Labor Department will be regarding the certification of foreign 
labor for the rest of this calendar year, and next year. 

Your immediate attention to this matter will be gi-eatly appreciated. 
Sincerely, 

Walter F. Mondale, 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. 



U.S. Department of Labor, 

(3FFICE of the Secretary, 
Washington, D.C, June 16, 1969. 
Hon. Walter F. Mondale, 
U.S. Senate, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Senator Mondale : This is in reply to your letter of May 26 concerning 
the certifi'Ciiition for use of foreign labor. 

Sheepherders have not been certified for employment in Texas. However, 2,000 
supplemental foreign workers were approved for the Florida citrus harvest during 
the period May 1 to June 30 after the employers concerned had demonstrated to 
the satisfaction of our Atlanta Regional Manpower Administrator that sustained 
recruitment efforts in accordance with departmental regulations had not been 
successful in meeting harvest labor requirements. Domestic recruitment efforts 
are being continued to assure full utilization of workers. 

The following citrus harvest wage rates are being paid by employers : orange 
harvest 300 per box ; grapefruit 20(?J per box ; and tangerines 85^ per box. These 
piece rates were designed to yield average hoiirly earnings of not less than $1.81 
per hour. However, citrus research gathered over the past 3 years indicated aver- 
age earnings were substantially higher. I am enclosing a sample copy of the job 
otter to all workers. Also enclosed is the history of foreign worker employment 
since the expiration of Public Law 78 on December 31, 1964. 

There has been no change in the Department's policy regarding the certification 
of foreign workers for temporary employment in agriculture. Certification will 
continue to be made only when American workers are not available for the job 
ottered under wages and working conditions designed to prevent adverse effect 
to similarly employed United States workers. 

I hope the information I have provided will be helpful to you. 
Sincerely, 

George P. Shultz, 
Secretary of Labor. 

Enclosures. 



2567 

ATTACHMENT TO CERTIFICATION NO. REG-lV-FLA-106-69, CITRUS INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL, APR. 22, 1969 



Number of 
Employer Order No. workers 



Adams Packing Co -- IV-FLA-425-FP-1.. -....- 100 

Coca Cola Co., Foods Division lV-FLA-465-FP-ll 200 

Crittenden Harvest Co.. _ --- IV-FLA-465-FP-34. 20 

Edwards Packing Co_ IV-FLA-425-FP-33 60 

Evans Packing Co — - IV-FLA-492-FP-26 75 

Florence C.G A.. _ IV-FLA-425-FP-17 50 

Florida Food Products IV-FLA-465-FP-58 28 

GoldenGem -. --.- IV-FLA-465-FP-2 _ 80 

Haines City C.G.A - IV-FLA-425-FP-4.. .._._ 100 

Hood, H. P & Son.... IV-FLA-492-FP-37.-. 28 

Inland Fruit Co IV-FLA-465-FP-39.. 46 

L &M. Fruit Co.. IV-FLA-425-FP-12._ _.. 30 

McElveen & McElveen... IV-FLA-492-FP-21 6 

Miles Fruit Co - IV-FLA-492-FP-22.. 44 

Mount Dora Growers.... IV-FLA-465-FP-50 34 

Oakley Groves IV-FLA-492-FP-17._ 40 

Ridge Citrus Concentrate... IV-FLA^25-FP-30 68 

Sebring Packing Co IV-FLA-425-FP-29 28 

Slough Groves.. IV-FLA-492-FP-27.. 18 

Tiner, J. H. & Sons IV-FLA-425-FP-8 20 

West Coast Growers... IV-FLA-492-FP-1. 200 

Note: Period of use. May 1 to June 30, 1969. 

ATTACHMENT TO CERTIFICATION NO. REG-lV-FLA-104-69, FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION 

APR. 22, 1969 

Number of 
Employer Order No. workers 

Clark, W. H. Fruit Co -- IV-FLA-192-FP-2 70 

Coca Cola Co., Foods Division IV-FLA-465-FP-12_ _ 100 

Cook, B. C. &Sons IV-FLA-425-FP-5... 170 

D'Albora,J.V IV-FLA-465-FP-38._ 8 

Deerfield Groves IV-FLA-432-FP-6.. 12 

Digiorgio Fruit Co. _ IV-FLA-432-FP-2 _ 25 

Dundee Ctirus Growers Association IV-FLA-425-FP-2,_. 40 

Fort Pierce Growers IV-FLA 432-FP-13. _ 40 

Fruit Contractors, Inc IV-FLA-432-FP-14.... 20 

Graves Bros . IV-FLA-432-FP-8. 20 

HellerBros. -. IV-FLA-4o5-FP-25 40 

Lake Region Packing Co IV-FLA-465-FP-29 64 

Mims Citrus Growers Association IV-FLA-465-FP-16_ 50 

NevinsFruitCo IV-FLA-465-FP-27 _. 20 

Nevins Ideal IV-FLA-465-FP-27 6 

Plymouth Citrus Growers Association IV-FLA-465-FP-31 20 

Riverfront Groves IV-FLA-432-FP-19 20 

Note: Period of use, May 1 to June 30, 1969. 



Job Offer 

Date. — - — — 

(Employer's name) 

During the period beginning on the date on which worl^er arrives at place of 
employment and has been accepted for employment by Employer, and ending on 

the . day of — , 19 (herein referitd to 

as the period of employment), the Employer hereby offers employment to pick 
citrus fruit to Workers to be selected by the Employer, on the following terms 
and conditions which shall become contractually binding on the Worker and the 
Employer upon the Worker's acceptance of this offer provided he enters into 
employment hereunder at the place of employment at the time specified by the 
Employer. 

AETICLE I 

Preference 

The Employer will give to the Workers employed hereunder preference in 
retention of jobs over non-immigrant aliens. 



2568 

AIMICLE II 
LO(l(jll\<l 

The Einployer will make available to the Worker niton his arrival at the place 
of employment and thronghont the entire period of employment, withont cost to 
the Worker, sanitary facilities and single-male type hygenic lodgings in accord- 
ance with the requirements of Section 602.0(d) Chapter V. Title 20 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, but Worker shall have the right to reside, at his own 
expense, at other lodging of his own choice. 

ARTICLE III 

Insurance for occupational injury or disease 

The Employer agrees to provide at no cost to the worker the proteetioii of the 
workmen's compensation laws of the State of Florida. The w(»rker agrees to 
report to the Employer without delay any illness incurred or injuries sustained in 
the course of his employment. 

ARTICLE IV 

Payment of tcages 

(a) Employer will pay Workers engaged in citrus picking, piece rates which 
are designed to yield average hourly earnings of not less thaii $1.81 an hour for a 
bi-weekly period. In no event will the average of the earnings paid to Employer's 
worliers engaged in citrus picking be less than $1.81 per hour during any bi- 
weekly period. The average wage shall be computed by dividing the total amount 
paid by Employer to all of his worker's engaged in such picking during each 
bi-weekly period by the total number of hours worked by all such workers during 
such bi-weekly period. Whenever the average so computed is less than $1.81 the 
wages paid to each Worker so engaged will be supplemented by the percentage 
required to bring such average up to .$1.81. In no event, however, shall the 
Employer pay the Wox'ker a piece rate which is lower than the prevailing rate as 
determined by the Bureau of Employment Security. 

Travel time to the grove at the beginning of a day's work and from the grove 
at the end of a day's work shall not be considered to be hours worked for any 
purpo.se and shall not be compensable. Travel time during the day between groves 
at which picking is to be performed shall be considered to be hours worked for 
purposes of applying the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act 
and the Employment Guarantee and average wage hereunder. 

(b)' The Employer agrees to make payment of wages in accordance with pre- 
vailing practice in the activity for which employed but in no event less often 
than bi-weekly. 

ARTICLE V 

Tools and equipment 

The Employer shall furnish the Worker, without cost to such AVorker, all tools, 
supplies, or equipment required to perform the duties assigned to him hereunder. 

ARTICLE VI 

Deductions 

The Employer agrees to limit deductions from wages to the following: (1) 
those required by Law; (2) those for advances against wages; (3) payment for 
articles of consumption produced by the Employer which the Worker has pur- 
chased ; (4) value of meals supplied by the Employer but not to exceed amounts 
specified in Article X; (5) overpayment of wages; (6) any loss to the Employer 
due to a Worker's refusal or negligent failure to return any property furnished 
to him by the Employer, or due to such Worker's willful damage to or destruction 
of such property; (7) deductions for transportation and subsistence costs paid 
for by the Employer as provided in Article YII of this contract. The deductions 
under (3), (5), or (6) in each pay period shall not exceed 10% of the total 
wages earned in that pay period. The sum of deductions under (2) and (7) in 
each pay period shall not exceed 50% of the total wages eai'ned in that pay 
period. At the termination of the period of employment, however, or if the Worker 
abandons employment hereunder, the Employer may deduct from such Worker's 
final wage payment an.v outstanding balance due the Employer for deductions 
permitted by this provision. 



2569 

ARTICLE VII 

Transpoi-fation 

The Employer agrees to provide or pay for transportation and sii'osistence 
en route from tlie place of recruitment to the place of employment in those cases 
where the worker completes at least 50% of the period of employment. An 
Employer who has made advances to a Worker for the costs of transportation 
and suhsisience en route, may deduct such costs from earnings of the Worker 
until the Worker has completed 50% of the contract period. However, upon 
coni]tletion of 50% of the contract period, the Worker shall be entitled to reim- 
bursement of the amounts so deducted. If the Worker completes his contract, 
the Employer will pi-ovide or pay the cost of return transportation and sub- 
sistence en route from the place of employment to the place or recruitment, except 
when the Worker is not returning to the place of recruitment, and his subse- 
quent employment is with an employer who will bear transportation expenses. 
All transportation provided by the Employer will be by common carrier or other 
transportation facilities which conform to applicable regulations of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission. 

It shall be the duty of the Employer, prior to the beginning of the work day, 
to make available to the Worker directions as to the location of the grove at 
which picking is to be performed, and it shall be the duty of the Worker to 
report for work at such grove ; provided however, that, solely for the convenience 
of the Worker, the Employer will make available, without cost to the Worker, 
transportation to and from the grove at which picking is to be performed and the 
Worker may. at his option, either (1) take advantage of the transportation made 
available by Employer, or (2) provide his own transportation at his own expense. 

ARTICLE VIII 

Employment guarantee 

The Employer guarantees the Worker an opportunity for employment for a 
number of hours equivalent to at least three-fourths of the workdays encom- 
passed within the period of the contract beginning with the first workday after 
the Worker's arrival at the place of employment and ending on the termination 
date specified in the work contract, such nimiber of hours to be determined by 
multiplying S hours by three-fourths of the number of workdays encompassed 
within the period of contract. 

For pui-poses of the work contract, a workday consists of 8 hours of any day 
except Sunday, Xew Year's Day, July 4, Labor Day. Thanksgiving Day, or 
Christmas. If the Worker, during such period, is afforded less opportunity for 
employment than required under this provision, the Worker shall be paid the 
amount which he would have earned had he, in fact, worked for a number of 
hours equivalent to the guaranteed number of days. Where wages are paid on a 
piece rate basis, the Worker's average hourly earnings shall be used for the pur- 
pose of computing amounts due under the guarantee. In determining whether 
the guarantee of employment has been met, any hours which the worker fails 
to work during a workday when he is afforded the opportunity to do so by the 
Emplo.ver. and all hours of work performed shall be counted in calculating the 
days of employment required to meet this guarantee. If, before the expiration 
date specified herein, the services of the Worker is no longer reciuired for reasons 
beyond the control of the Employer (such as but not limited to freeze, hurricane, 
frost, flood, drought, earthquake, hail, forest fire — but not including crop aban- 
donment — or other calamity of such a character as to make it impossible for 
Employer to make available, to all workers employed by him to pick citrus, 
opportunity for employment for the number of hours guaranteed hereunder) and 
this fact is determined by the Regional Administrator, the period of employment 
hereunder may be terminated and efforts will be made to transfer the worker to 
other comparable employment. If such transfer is not effected, the Worker shall 
be returned to the place of recruitment at the Employer's expense. In either event, 
deductions for transportation and subsistence en route from the place of recruit- 
ment to the place of employment pursuant to Article VII of this contract shall be 
refunded. Whenever the period of employment is terminated under this provision, 
the Employer shall be responsible for the three-fourths guarantee for the period 
beginning with the first workday after the Worker's arrival at the place of 
employment and ending with the date the employment is terminated, and the 
Employer shall pay the AVorker all other amounts due under the contract. 



2570 

ARTICLE IX 

Riffht to purchase at place of choice 

The Worker shall be free to purchase articles for his personal use in places of 
his own choice, and shall be given an opportunity, once each week, during non- 
working houi's, to go to locations where he can make such purchases. Where tlie 
location of employment is not within walking distance of the town offering the 
desired articles, and public transportation is not available, the Employer will 
make arrangements for transportation. 

ARTICLE X 

Meals 

Meal charges hereunder will be $2.25 for three meals per day. 

ARTICLE XI 

Maintenance of records anil statement of ivork and earnings 

The Employer shall keep accurate and adequate records in regard to all earn- 
ings and hours of employment. Such records shall include information showing 
the nature of the work performed, the number of hours worked each day by the 
worker, the rate of pay, the amount of work performed, the earnings of the 
worker, and the deductions made from the worker's wages. Such records shall 
be made available at any reasonable time for inspection by representatives of 
the Administrator of the Bureau of Employment Security, and by worker or by 
representatives of the worker to whom the worker has extended, in writing, the 
authority to inspect such records. Such records shall be retained for a period 
of not less than one year following the completion of the contract. With respect 
to each pay period the worker shall be furnished, at the time he is paid for 
such period, a statement which shows : 

His total earnings for the pay period. 

His rate of pay and the average rate as determined under Article IV, 

His hours worked, 

His units produced where piece rates are used, and 

An itemization of all deductions made from his wages. 

ARTICLE XII 

Discrimination in employment 

The Employer shall not practice social or economic discrimination in conditions 
of employment against any Worker. 

ARTICLE XIII 

Protection from immoral and illegal influences 

The Employer agrees to take reasonable steps to keep professional gamblers, 
vendors of intoxicating liquors, and persons engaged in immoral and illegal 
activities away from the Employer's premises. 

The Worker agrees to refrain from engaging in immoral or illegal activities 
of any kind while upon the Employer's premises or during working hours and 
from consuming intoxicating beverages during working hours. 

ARTICLE XIV 

Water responsibility 

The Worker hereby represents that at the time of employment he is legally 
competent to agree to the terms and conditions of employment hereunder, and 
that he is willing, qualified, and physically able to perform, and that he will 
perform in a workmanlike manner, the activities for which he is employed. He 
agrees that he will comply with all reasonable rules and regulations prescribed 
by the Employer in connection with his employment and he will not, without the 
consent of his Employer, accept employment from any other Employer during 
the period for which he has been employed, that affects his employment here- 
under. He further agrees that any material failure on his part to comply with the 
terms and conditions of employment as provided herein without good cause is to 
be deemed a material breach and will be cause for the termination of his 
employment. 

(Published by Citrus Industrial Council — Nov. 1967) 



2571 

NUMBER OF FOREIGN WORKERS AUTHORIZED i FOR TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE, BY STATE AND 

BY CROP, 1965-1969 

State and crop 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 

U.S. total.. 

California 

Citrus 600 

Asparagus _ 1,000 

Strawberries.... 3,100 2,159 

Tomatoes 18,400 6,065 8,100 

Brussel sprouts 1,166 710 

Dates 335 63 

Connecticut. 



48,111 


27,652 


29,105 


16,129 






24,601 


8,997 


8,100 






Shade tobacco. 
Apples 



Florida. 



566 


50 


100 


100 








566 



50 



100 




100 













15,841 


12,208 


13,936 


9.571 











Sugar cane preharvest 2,153 1,822 

Sugarcane harvest.. 8,688 9,384 

Strawberries 1,000 

Citrus 3,500 1,000 

Celery 500 



Maine 4,825 4,069 3,440 



Potatoes 4,500 3,700 

Apples 325 369 



Massachusetts 533 315 400 



Shade tobacco 183 

Apples _ 350 315 



New Hampshire: Apples _ 325 365 400 

New York: Apples 280 735 1,120 

Vermont: Apples. _ 50 90 219 



Rhode Islands 60 85 



Potatoes... 35 64 

Apples _ 25 21 



Virginia: Apples 760 525 979 

West Virginia: Apples... 270 225 336 



1 The number authorized by the Department of Labor is the maximum number that can be employed In a given State 
and crop. The number actually employed is often less than the number authorized. 



Advice to Workers Recruited in the West Indies for Agricultural Work 

IN the U.S.A. 

THE united states FARM LABOUR PROGRAMME 

When the United States Department of Labour is satisfied that American 
farmers are unable to obtain a sufficient number of American workers to reap 
the crops-, the Department of Labour may permit the employment of foreign 
workers, including W^est Indian workers, on a temporary basis. The period of 
employment is always short and the foreign workers may be replaced at any 
time if American workers become available. When the period of employment 
has been completed the workers, as a general rule, have to leave the USA 
because transfers to other areas of employment are seldom possible. 

2. The Secretary of Labour establishes wages known as adverse-effect wages, 
so that any American farmer who is given permission to use foreign workers 
has to pay all workers, both American and foreign a wage which is not less than 
that established by the Secretary of Labour. Tliis means, in practice, that an 
American employer who does not wish to use foreign workers need not pay the 
adverse-effect wages and may make any arrangements he wants with American 
workers, even paying them a lower figure. Consequently, West Indian workers 
employed in the tJSA are employed under wages and working conditions which 
cannot be lower than, in the first instance, or worse than, the wages and eondi- 

36-513 — 70 — pt. 5B 4 



2572 

tion.s ai)i)licable to American worker.s eniiilo.ved in the same occupation and by 
the same farmer. 

8. The minimiuu liourly wage in the sugar industry is set under the U.S. 
Sugar Act by the Secretary of Agriculture and applies to all workers, whether 
they be American or foreign. 

4. You must under.<tand, therefore, that if you are recruited for the USA 
you will receive no less than the wages paid to American workers and that in 
most instances your earnings will be more than the adverse-effect wages fixed 
by the Secretary of Labour, or the minimum hourly wage set by the Secretary 
of Agriculture. 

5. Once you have been selected and have passed your medical examination, 
as well as any other checks carried out by your Government, you will be required 
to sign ;i doi-ument known as a Woi'k Agreement or Contract. This document is 
signed by the American employer or by his agent, and by a Government agent 
also. 

0. You should keep your copy of the contract very carefully and you should 
study it, so that you will know the requii'ements which you have to meet as 
well as the requirements the employer has to meet. 

7. Your contract will show the area in which you are to be employed and you 
cannot leave that area so as to work in another area except with the permission 
of the U.S. authorities and the agreement of the British West Indies Central 
Labour Organisation. 

8. You are not permitted to do any type of work which is connected with 
industry, but you mu,st do any type of work in agriculture which has been 
approved by the British West Indies Central Labour Organisation. 

9. The work day is usually eight hours long, six days a week. You are entitled 
to one day's rest per week but your day off need not be a Saturday or Sunday 
because of the nature of your work in agriculture. However, the majority of 
the work is pei-formed at piece rates, therefore you may work longer than eight 
hours if you so desire. When leaving the canefields you must always report to 
your scratch foreman or time-keeper who will tell you at that time the number 
or hours recorded for you on that day. If you have any question about your 
hours it should be settled at tliat time, but if it is not, you should report the 
matter to your Liaison Officer. 

10. You may be required to cultivate sugar cane, to cut sugar cane, or to woric 
in tobacco fields and fruit orchards. Workers, on occasions, have been employed 
in vegetables. 

11. The system of planting sugar cane in Florida is entirely different from the 
system to which you have been accustomed in your own country. The companies 
in Florida use a .system known as a "sinrjle row", but often West Indian ivorkers 
ref/ard this, the Florida^ roiv, as a double row. However, the work is situated in 
Florida and you must adapt yourself to the Florida system. 

12. The sugar cane is cut by the row at piece rates, whicli will vary from 
field to field, and often the price of a field will vary from year to year because 
the price is based on the tonnage yielded by the field. However, the piece rates 
are such that it is possible for a cutter to earn more than the minimum hourly 
wage set by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

You must not expect, however, that becau.se there is a minimum hourly wage 
you are not required to cut an amount of cane which would justify that hourly 
wage. 

13. During the first two weeks of employment, the field foremen, who are 
usually Americans, and the scratch foreman or the leadmen, who are usually 
West Indian born, will give a new cane cutter time to become accustomed to the 
work and will not pay too much attention to the length of the row which has 
been cut. 

14. Work in the fruit orchards usually requires the use of ladders on which the 
pickers climb, and the use of bags or pails into which the fruit is placed. The 
trees must not be shaken, because if the fruit drops on the ground, it is usually 
bruised and its market value lessened. Sometimes the growers do picJi up fruit 
which is dropped naturally from the trees. 

15. The camps in which you live will have been inspected by representatives 
of the U.S. governmental agencies, as well as by representatives of the State 
governmental agencies, such as the Health Department and the Labour Depart- 
ment. They will also have been inspected by the British West Indies Central 
Lal)0ur Organisation. You will be given a comfortable bed and there will be hot 
and cold water in the bathrooms, while meals will be served usually in cafeteria 
style in the dining room. When you arrive, your quarters will be in good con- 



2573 

(Utiou and you must keep them clean. Laundry facilities are provided so that 
you can keep your clothing clean. 

IG. You are required under the terms of your contract to live in the camps 
or in the houses provided, and you cannot be permitted to live with friends or 
relatives. 

17. Wlicii i/ou are away from your canii) you mutit rciitcmhcr to walk on ttte 
iii(hiralk>i at all tiiiica, hut if you are tra1kin(j aloiiy a road ichich doe-s not Itave 
sidewalks, you must ivallc at the edge of the pavement and always walk faciny 
oneominy trajjie. 

ly. If you leave the service of the employer to whom you are contracted before 
your contract expires, and work for another employer, or if on your day oft' you 
worlv for an employer other than the one to whom you are contracted, you will 
liave violated the U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service regulations and you 
will be subject to apprehension, detention and dei)ortation to your homeland. If 
you are repatriated because of such actions, for which you are regarded as having 
l»een absent without leave, you will not be considered for recruitment in the 
future and you will be responsible for paying high immigration costs. 

!!>. The cost of your transiiortation from Kingston-.Ianiaica to Florida will be 
advanced by your employer. Your employer will collect the money so advanced 
from your wages, but when you have completed hfty per cent of your contract 
[leriod you will be entitled to a refund of any collections which have been made 
by the employer. During your aeroplane journey you will be given food. 

20. Y'our contract shows that yoiir employer must provide sufficient work for 
you in each i)ay roll period of two weeks, to i>ermit you to earn not less than the 
stipulated minimum. Y^our employer, if unable to provide sufficient work for you 
to earn the stipulated minimum, will augment your earnings by an amount, so 
that the total will be equivalent to the .stipulated minimum. The stipulated mini- 
mum is based on a two-week payroll period, so that a shorter period will result 
in a proportionately reduced stipulated minimum. 

21. The employer must provide you with work for at least seventy-five per cent 
of the time. This means that you are guaranteed 36 hours of work per week. 
This guarantee is calculated when you have successfully completed your contract 
period. 

22. Meals are provide"d by the employer at a rate which is shown in your con- 
tract at the time of signing. You must remember that each camp has a large 
group of men and that it is impo.ssible to cater to the whims and fancies of indi- 
vidual workers, so you must expect to receive the .same food as the rest of the 
men in your camp. 

23. If there is serious illness in your family, or if there is a .serious problem in 
your family, such as the destruction of your home by fire, or an accident involving 
members of your family, you should consult your Liaison Officer and ask him to 
arrange for your- repatriation before the end of your contract. Y'ou will be 
responsible for your repatriation expenses, but if after your repatriation to your 
homeland your Ministry of Labour or Labour Department reports that your 
reasons for returning home were genuine and that it was necessary for you to 
be back at home, your employer will pay your repatriation expenses as far as 
Jamaica. 

24. It must be remembered that during December and the early part of the 
following .January there is a large amount of tourist traffic between the USA and 
the West Indies, so that it is often impossible to obtain a seat on an aeroplane at 
short notice, and workers may be forced to wait for as long as ten days before 
plane passage can be found. 

2~>. The British West Indies Central Labour Organisation may terminate your 
employment — • 

(a) by giving your employer 10 days' notice in writing; or 

(h) immediately, if satisfied that you are suffering hardship because 

enough work is not available or because you have been treated improperly. 

20. The employer may terminate your contract by giving 10 days' notice in 

writing to you or to the British West Indies Central Labour Organisation that 

you are to be released. However, in the ca.se of an act of God, such as frost, hail, 

storm, flood, etc. when work may come to an abrupt or sudden end, the 10 days' 

notice is not required. 

27. You will be repatriated at your own expense — 

(1) if you are liable for deportation from the USA (see paragraph 18) ; 

(2) if you have been convicted of l)reaking any law of the USA; 

.'3) if you are unwilling to work in accordance with the terms of your 

contract ; 

(4) if you have committed an act of misconduct or indiscipline. 



2574 

If you are repatriated for any of the reasons set out above, you will not be 
entitled to tbe benefits of tbe seventy-five per cent guarantee. 

Any expenses incurred by tbe British West Indies Central Labour Organisa- 
tion in your repatriation for the reasons set out in paragraph 27, must be reiiaid 
by you to your Government. 

28. Your Government, in the case of workers recruited from countries other 
than Jamaica, will advance the cost of your fare as far as Kingston-Jamaica, 
and from Kingston-Jamaica to your homeland at the time of repatriation. You 
will be responsible for the payment of the advance made by your Government and 
deductions will be made from your earnings to meet these debts to your 
Government. 

29. If you are refused entry in the USA through no fault of your own, your 
subsistence expenses and your return transportation as far as Jamaica will be 
paid by your employer and your Government will pay for your transportation 
from Jamaica to your homeland. 

30. The British West Indies Central Labour Organisation and your employer 
will agree on rules and regulations in regard to safety, discipline and the care 
and maintenance of property. You will he required to conform with these rules 
and regulations and you icill he required to wear the safety devices, sucli as 
goggles, gloves and leg shields, so as to reduce the danger of serious injury to 
you while at work. 

31. Collections and deductions from your wages can only be made in accord- 
ance with the terms of your contract. 

32. The British West Indies Central Labour Organisation will pay premiums 
on your behalf for insurance to protect you during periods of disability caused 
by accident or sickness which occur off the job. Very few insurance policies 
cover all of the charges made by doctors, hospitals or drug stores, and like 
most policyholders you must expect to be responsible for any difference between 
insurance benefits and actual charges. You must pay for the medical fees for 
the first visit to the doctor in each ailment. 

33. Your employer will provide workmen's compensation benefits, including 
medical and hospital care, for periods of disability due to accident or sickness 
which are job-connected. These benefits will be paid in accordance with the law 
of the State in which you are working and in which you are injured. 

34. An amount not exceeding fourteen per cent of your gross wage will be 
transmitted to your savings account in your homeland at the end of each pay- 
roll period. These savings will be handled by your Government in accordance 
with the "Local Agreement" which you signed at the time of your recruitment. 
Your family allotments will be paid from these savings. 

35. Under the terms of your "Local Agreement" deductions may be made 
from these savings for — 

(a) family allotments ; 

(b) payment of any sum as required by an Order from a court of law 
in your country ; 

(c) repayment of your transportation and repatriation expenses which 
had been advanced by your Government. (Barbadians will first repay their 
Government for their transportation to Jamaica and then for their trans- 
portation from Jamaica to Barbados) ; 

(d) dependent allotments of not more than $12.00 (WI) per month. 
(Dependents of Barbadian workers will not receive an allotment until 
you have satisfied your debt for transportation from Barbados to Jamaica) ; 

(e) deductions which may be made by your Government to cover any 
debts incurred by you while you were in the USA ; 

(/) an amount not exceeding $250 (U.S) may be retained in your account 
to cover any expenses you might incur in the USA, such as liquidated 
damages if assessed by the U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, or 
tlie actual cost of apprehension, detention and deportation as assessed by 
the Immigration & Naturalization Service and repatriation expenses to 
your homeland, if you are repatriated for breach of contract. 

36. You should study your "Local Agreement" carefully and note that any 
money advanced by your Government on your behalf which is still owed after 
your repatriation can be recovered by your Government through the law 
courts. 

37. When you have completed your contract successfully and have returned 
to your homeland, your funds can be withheld for not more than thirty days 
after your repatriation. 



2575 

38. If you return home for breach of contract, your funds may be retained 
in your account for not more than six months after tlie date of your return. 

30. YoH should save your pay-stii'bs whilst you are on contract so that tvhen 
you- return home yoti can check your account ivithout any trouble. 

40 When you are recruited you will be ^iven an identity Card which will be 
used instead" of a passport. This Identity Card must be carried by you at all 
times and if it is lost you must report the loss to your Liaison Officer 
iminediately. » t- • 

41. The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the Chief Liaison 
Officer and all the Liaison Officers will be shown on the notice board in your 
camp. The telephone numbers of the offices are : — 

Washington — Area code 202 : DE 2-7778 

Orlando — Area code 305: 841 - 5SfiO 

Belle Glade — ■ Area code 305 : 996 - 6421 

Clewiston — Area code 813: YU 2-3181 

42. If you are arrested for any reason, or if you are in any difficulty, you 
should communicate with your nearest Liai.son Officer immediately. If you are 
injured on the job or in your camp, you must report your accident to your fore- 
man immediately. If you become ill, you must report your illness to your super- 
visor immediately. 

-13. // you arc injured or hccomc involved in any situation, such as a ius 
accident or an automobile accident, ichere you are given a form to sign, you 
should not accept the form or sign it without the advice of your Liaison Officer. 

44. Your Government has established a maximum amount which can be paid 
from your savings each month to your dependents but if you wish for your 
dependents to receive more money than this you should send the extra money 
direct to your dependents. 

45. 'Never send currency, either notes or silver, through the mail. The safest 
method of transmission is to purchase a United States Postal Money Order, fill in 
the name and address of the party to whom you are sending the money, detach the 
stub from the money order and keep it carefully in case the money order is lost. 

46. If you wish to stop your allotment to your dependents, you must discuss 
your desires with your Liaison Officer who will write to the proper authority in 
your country. However, you must remember that you are expected to support 
your fnmily,' especially your children, so that you should only .stop your allotment 
after very careful consideration. 

47. If you wish to send money to a dependent other than the person named 
in vour "Local Agreement", you must arrange to do this from your money in 
the' USA. 

48. Nearly all camps have commissaries at which work clothing, toilet articles, 
and some dress clothing may be purchased. The prices will not exceed the prices 
in the stores of the towns nearby, and in most cases they are less than the store 
prices. Credit in the commissaries is limited, and you should not attempt to take 
more goods than you actually need. 

49. You may he approached by pedlars or other workers selling attractive 
looking watches, jewellery and clothing, but you are advised to make your pur- 
chases only in recognized stores and to purchase for cash only. 

50. Do not purchase switchblade knives, revolvers, guns or ammunition, as 
such purchases may lead to trouble with the legal authorities both in the U.S.A. 
and in your country. If you attempt to take weapons or ammunition back home, 
the customs Officers in your country who are required to search your baggage 
and your person, in some instances, will confiscate any dangerous weapons found 
in your possession. You also will be liahle to prosecution for attempting to intro- 
duce weapons into your country. 

51. When you are notified that you will be leaving your country for the 
USA, you should have a substantial meal before you leave for the airport and 
you should also take food with you in case there is a delay in your departure. 

.52. You must be dressed cleanly and neatly for your plane trip so that when 
you arrive in the USA you will he respectably clad. If you have a sweater or a 
warm coat or windbreaker you should take it with you. 

.53. When you are leaving your counti-y you will be allowed only 20 lbs. of 
l)aggage and you should not take rum or any other alcoholic beverage, lighter 
fuel, matches, or anything else which might burn. You must not take seeds, fruit 
or vegetahles. because the U.S. Customs will check your baggage on arrival and 
confiscate any prohibited fruit or vegetable matter. 



2576 

54. The first rlmrse on yonr savings for workers other than those refrnlted 
in Jamaica, is the repayment of the northhoniifl transportation advanced hy 
yonr Government. Once yonr Government has been paid, allotments will be made 
to yonr dependent and the balance of yonr savings kept nntil yonr retnrn home. 

55. The rate of exchange may vary from time to time. Consequently, yon will 
be credited at the rate prevailing when your savings are received in your 
country. Please remember that payrolls have to be audited before your savings 
can be sent to your country, so that there may be a considerable lapse of time 
between your receiving yonr pay and your Government receiving your savings. 

5fi. Gambling, fighting and the use of bad language may lead you into trouble 
with the police authorities, as well as in your camp. Fighting among workers 
will not be tolerated under any circumstances. 

57. Do not leave valuables, including money, in your suitcase or your foot- 
locker, and do not give valuables such as money, watches or .iewellery. to other 
workers to keep on your behalf. Ask your supervisor to take your valuables 
into safe-keeping on your behalf. 

58. If you are saving your money in the USA and accumulating a substantial 
sum. it is best to open a savings account in a neai'by bank. The account can be 
closed when you are leaving for home and you ma.v withdraw your money so as 
to take it with you. 

59. You should not invest in an aiitomobile while you are in the USA. For 
one thing, you may not be jiermitted. in view of the regulations, of ,vour own 
Government, to take the car home. For another thing, the cost of insurance and 
of upkeep is extremely high. 

fiO. Your Government has given you a letter Avhich you should read carefuU.v 
and remember the advice therein contained. 

01. Each worker from the West Indies has decided to leave his country and 
to put up with the discomfort and inconvenience of being away from home and his 
famil.v. so that he may work and save money to better himself and his family 
after repatriation. Each worker is a representative of his country, and as such, 
is an unofficial ambassador, so he must conduct himself with dignit.v and pride 
at all times and do nothing which will reflect on either himself or his country. 



[From U.S. Department of Labor. Office of Information, Washington. D.C.. .Tannar.v, 1009] 

No Foreign Contract Workers Will Be Hired for California Crops in 1968, 

WiRTZ Reports 

Labor Secretary Willard Wirtz today said that "not a single foreign contract 
worker will be employed in California crops in 1968." 

This will be the first year since 1942 that the California fruit and vegetable 
crop has not used foreign contract field hands, Mr. Wirtz said. 

"The absence of foreign agricultural workers in 1968," he declared, "repre- 
sents an historic step toward healing the migrant worker sore in California and 
in the entire United States." 

Mr. Wirtz reported that the spring of 1968 marked the first spring in 27 years 
that there were no temporary foreign farm workers admitted anywhere in the 
U.S. for employment. 

Last year, he noted, there were no foreign contract workers employed in Cali- 
fornia crops between January and late September. But by mid-October there 
were 5,900 working in the state's crops. 

Secretary Wirtz said that the termination of Public Law 78 in December 
1964, "signaled the eventual demi,se of the century-old practice of importing for- 
eign farm laborers to the U.S. 

"What has happened in the 4 years since the end of this infamous program," 
he said, "represents an impressive story of progress for domestic farm workers 
in the State of California." 

Mr. Wirtz cited these "heartening developments" since the termination of the 
mass importation of foreign agricultural workers in California : 

A 15.5-perceut rise in man-months of domestic farm employment between 
1964 and 1968 : from 801,000 to 925,0<)0 for the first S months of each year. 
During this period, foreign agricultural employment dropped from 190,000 
to zero man-months. 

25.2-percent rise in hourly farm wage rates (without room and board) 
between 1964 and 1908: from $1.35 to $1.69 an hour. 



2577 

Secretary Wirtz said that in every month of 1968 employment among domestic 
seasonal farm Avorkers in California has topped employment for these field hands 
in the 1959-64 i^eriod. the last 6 "bracero"' years. 

In August 1968. he said domestic farm employment in the state reached 
168.600, compared with an average of 130,600 for the month in the 1909-64 period. 

He gave these month-by-month comparisons showing an increase in domestic 
farm emplovment between 1968 and the average of the 1959-64 period : 

Jnlv, 131.300 to 123,400; June. 144.300 to 126.700; May. 136.100 to 114,000; 
April. 92,700 to 70.100 ; March, 79,300 to 56,100 : February. 85,900 to 66,300, and 
January. 87.300 to 79.600. 

Despite tlie increase in farm wages over the past 4 years, the U.S. wholesale 
price index for fresh and dried fruits and vegetables was lower this July than 
it was in July 1964, he said. 

In July 1968, the wholesale price index for these commodities was 108.2, 
compared with 108.9 in July 1964, the last year of the mass importation of foreign 
workers in the U.S. 

It is apparent from this, he said, that wages play a small part in determining 
the prices farmers get for their produce. Increases in retail prices are largely 
the result of increased processing and distribution costs. 

The Secretary also cited "very impressive" increases in the production of 
several former bracero-using crops between the 1960-64 period and 1968. showing 
"progress for California farmers." 

He pointed out these production gains in former foreign-using crops between 
the two periotls (1968 data is preliminary or indicated) : 

Tomatoes for processing — up 59.1 percent ; strawberries — up 29.8 percent : 
lettuce — up 27.3 percent ; celery — up 12.3 percent. 

Senator Moxdale. Om- next witness is Mr. Arnnlfo Giierra, of 
Roma, Tex. Senator Yarborougfh will introduce his fellow Texan. 

Senator Yarborough. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have this 
honor and privileo-e of introdncino; a constituent of mine. He is an 
attorney at hiw on tlie liorder in a comitry tliat has one of the lowest 
per capita incomes in the T~^nitcd States. 

Back when Harrison Williams last year was chairman of this sub- 
committee, we held hearinjrs at Rio Grande City, and in Edinburs, 
Tex., and it was developed in those hearinsfs that there are families 
in Starr County, which is on the Rio Grande, the third county removed 
from the Gulf of Mexico, who work in agriculture where the total 
earnings of the families were $300 a year, or less — not the $3,000 
poverty level — but $300 a year, or less. 

^Ir. Guerra comes from an old Texas family. It has been there for 
generations, before most of the Anglos came. 

There was a Guerra who was a classmate of mine in law school too 
many decades ago to mention. 

This is a family, however, of prestige in this county. I am happy 
to introduce him, Mr. Chairman. 

I have read vour statement in full, Mr. Guerra. Due to another 
hearing, T am forced to leave. Here is a man who is an attornev and 
understands this problem and I want to emphasize that what he says 
is correct, that there is no statutory authority whatsoever, that they 
just administratively decided to do this. 

I want to commend his statement, and I want to commend his 
appearance to you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Moxd.nle. "VVlien I too made a brief visit to Texas, you 
recommended that I call Mr. Guerra and talk to him and others about 
the problem. 

I quickly found he was one of the most knowledo-eable people on 
tlip subject. He is a lawyer Avho got up at 4 in the morning to go rlown 
to the border with me. 



2578 

Senator Yarborough. That is normally the time I go to bed, 
Mr. Chairman. I would hate to get up at that hour in the morning. 

Senator Mondale. Mr. Guerra ? 

Senator Yarborough. I regret I have to leave. You not only know 
the regulations, you know how they are working. You see what hap- 
pens on the border. 

STATEMENT OF AEUULFO GUEREA, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 

ROMA, TEX. 

Mr. Guerra. Thank you, Senator. I hope I can explain that fully 
to the committee now. 

Mr. Chairman, it is certainly a great pleasure for me to be here 
today. I can't help but remark that the dialog of your interview 
with Mr. Euttenberg leaves me rather speechless. 

I would hate to go back to the hungry faces of our people, to the 
hungry faces of the Mexican Americans, and take to them the very 
bleak picture that is being painted before us today. 

Your use of the word "powerlessness" reaches great proportions 
w^hen this subcommittee finds itself in a situation that it does. To ar- 
rive at a conclusion at this early stage that there is very little that can 
be done for the migrant worker, and, of course, for the Mexican 
American, touches very close to home. 

I do liope that we can find more hopes than what we have had in 
the past, because that is what we have survived on, hope. 

In that regard, I certainly want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, 
for the manner in which you have taken hold of your subcommittee, 
for the great efforts, the great interest, and compassion which you have 
shoAvn up to now in dealing with the Mexican American problem and 
in dealing with the migratory farmworker. 

I am not too familiar with the workings of the Capital, but I do 
know it takes a long time for anybody to do anything. And when you 
forsake your time to go to our desolate area to see for yourself what 
the conditions are, without the glitter of the cameras, and you spend 
so much time, and incidentally my getting up at 4 in the morning was 
matched by your getting up at 4 in the morning, that left a tre- 
mendous impression in the minds of those of us Mexican Americans 
wlio Ivad contact with you. 

We classify you in the same category that we hold our dear Senator 
Kennedy, and certainly our own dear Senator Yarborough in the 
efforts to help the Mexican American. 

With tJiat, Mr. Chairman, I would like to go into my brief state- 
ment, which I would like to offer for the record. 

Senator Mondale. I tliink it would be useful, Mr. Guerra, if you 
would read the whole statement. I think it is a very useful one. You 
liave attended all of our hearings, and this is a statement based not 
only on M^liat you were planning to say, but also composed in light of 
what we have hoard thus far. I think you should read it all. 

Mr. Guerra. I will, and if I may, I will digress from it to explain 
wherever I think that an explanation might further clarify the 
statement. 

I will attempt to limit my testimony before this subcommittee to the 
issue of the commuter, or green carder, as it relates to the migratory 
or seasonal farmworker, and more specifically, to the verv questions of 



2579 

(a) how a commuter is created, (h) laws and regulations affecting his 
status, and (c) supervision and control. 

The historical background of the commuter singles out as its creator 
both the Department of Labor and the U.S. Immigration Serv- 
ice. There is absolutely no statutory authority to provide a basis 
for this creature, and actually, the Immigration Service has always 
maintained as the basis the desire to maintain goocl international re- 
lations, a matter of reciprocity, the concern for the livelihood of aliens 
who had been commuting to' the United States for employment, the 
needs of American industry, and the needs of communities which had 
grown up in close proximity to each other on both sides of the border. 

If I may digress, there is nothing anywhere in any record which 
has been created by the Immigration Service to show that they have 
had any interest in the one class of people who are affected most by the 
commuter, the Mexican American and the resident Mexican who lives 
along the border. 

Tliere is absolutely no showing whatever that the Immigration Serv- 
ice has had any desire to even recognize the problem. They have chosen 
to ignore the problem to the extent that the commuter was not even a 
statistic up until 1967. 

It was only because of the restriction in Starr County and in Cali- 
fornia that the commuter began to play a part in the Immigration 
Service, and only then as a commuter, and not how he affected the 
Mexican American and the migratory farmworkers. 

Senator IMondale. Would you agree with Mr. Ruttenberg, then, 
that this is an administrative choice or inadvertency on which this 
whole commuter system has developed, and that authority for it is not 
found in the law ? 

Mr. GuERRA. Yes, very much so. I am not a racist. If I may add, I 
see and find undertones of tremendous discrimination against the 
Mexican American along the border in the attitude of the Immigra- 
tion Ser\dce in the way they have handled themselves in dealing with 
this problem. 

This is a matter of discrimination by ignoring the facts as they are. 
In the matter of recognizing needs of industry and the needs of every- 
one else to the exclusion of a class of people, this has been the attitude 
of the Immigration Service all along. 

Senator Mondale. The other day, some of us marched with Cesar 
Cliavez down to the border, to Calexico, and I was impressed with the 
great care and attention given by our authorities and the Mexican au- 
thorities to fastidiously enforce the law to prevent any relationship 
between U.S. labor and Mexican labor to work together. 

Thus, there were many police, many officials on both sides. They were 
very careful not to let us meet on a public street, to go around very 
briefly with all sorts of police and public law enforcement officers 
there, to let us meet briefly with Mexican labor. There was planned a 
symbolic meeting designed to serve farmworkers of this country and 
Mexico, the Mexican American citizens of this country, and resident 
aliens. 

If they would show one-tenth of the interest in the prevention of 
the use of the Mexican seasonal worker and commuter in breaking a 
strike in this country, I think their credibility would be much higher 
than it is. 



2580 

T tliink tliis sliows, altliouirh they claim to be impartial in their law 
onforconient practices, a spottiness of impartiality. It is like the 
biitclier Avlio always makes mistakes; but a funny thing, it is always 
in his own favor. 

Mr. GuERRA. I Avould agree. 

Senator IMonoale. I think your point about a lack of concern for 
the deprived of our country as reflected in the enforcement policy is 
true. 

Mr. GuERRA. The commuter arose not because of a Mexican prob- 
lem. It arose as the result of problems on the Canadian border. It cer- 
tainly did not have its beginning alone the Mexican border. 

"We have been the beneficiaries of tliis ill-tliought-out program. We 
have been tlie victims. We have received all that is bad within the 
system. By we, I mean the people, the Mexican-American people of 
the border. 

It is necessary to understand how a commuter is created to be able 
to appreciate the many problems which arise if he becomes a commuter. 

I will proceed. 

A. How A Commuter Is Created (As Relates to the Mexican 

Border) : 

The quota for the We'^tern Hemispliere has been set at 120.000. 
Department of State regulations prescribe the manner in which aliens 
can obtain visas for lawful, permanent residence in the United States. 
Applicants are classified generally as: (1) preferential, and (2) 
nonpreferential. 

(1) preferential applicants 

Preferential treatment is accorded to applicants who are the parents, 
spouses, or children of U.S. citizens, or of persons lawfully admitted 
for permanent residence (green carders or commuters) . All applicants, 
regardless of preference, except in a few exceptional cases, must 
present to the State Department, identification documents, Mexican 
passport, health and security clearances, and such proof of financial 
responsibility as will show that the applicant will not become a public 
charge if admitted. 

Wiere the primary means of support is employment by the appli- 
cant, he must also provide an offer of employment from a prospective 
employer. An applicant under the preferential classification does not 
need a certification from the Labor Department to the effect that there 
is no sliortaire of workers in the ITnited States in that particular occu- 
pation and that his entrv will not ach^ersely affect wages and work- 
inp- conditions of U.S. residents. 

Senator IMondale. It is interesting. Yesterday is the first time I 
realized that, and it came out toward the end of the time, that the 
ad^•orse effect findino; that we were told about is made in a minority of 
the cases in which green cards have been issued. 

Mr. Gferra. I would say. Senator, that the 16,000 or 17,000 agri- 
cultural Avorkers who entered last year, according to the statistics pro- 
vided bv the Immio-ration Service, came under this ]"> referential cate- 
gory, where no certification is required. This is one of the evils that 
has to be corrected, because vou are creating 18 or more thousand 
commuters every year under this system. 



2581 

Therefore, labor certification is meanino-less wlien it is handled in 
this manner. 

In addition, these applicants are advanced on the waitino; lists. Since 
Immifrration spokesmen testified that the great majority of visas 
granted since 1965 have been to aliens in this category, it is of prime 
importance to ask of the State Department and Immigration Service 
the following: 

(a) The nnmber of aliens who have been admitted yearly since 
1065, or at least since then, nnder this class. 

(h) The type and natnre of proof reqnired to establish the 
preference. 

(c) The minimum standard of proof necessary to satisfy employ- 
ment and financial responsibility requirements. 

(d) Frauds and loopholes, and how they are being cured. 
Senator ]Mondale. In your opinion, are there several in the (d) 

category ? 

Mr. GrF.RRA. Senator, before the Committee on Immigration, the 
Western Hemisphere Select Committee, showed that in one class alone, 
the S])Ouse of an American citizen or a legal resident, in the California 
area, again, there were 4,000 fraudulent cases involving fraudulent 
marriages in order to obtain this preference. 

Senator Mondale. In other words, they claimed they were married 
in order to gain citizenship but really weren't. 

Mr. GuERRA. Or they married strictly for the purpose of getting this 
preference. 

In m V area in Texas there are many hundreds of cases of this kind. 

Senator ]MoNrDALE. Yesterday when we were discussing the phony 
baptismal certificates, afterwards one official said. "You should have 
asked about the phonv birth certificates." He said there were counties 
in Texas where the officials will issue birth certificates under the most 
specious circum.stances, and in great quantities. 

Mr. Gtjerra. I am familiar with that. There is a gentleman who 
used to be viscount in Monterey, Mr. Thomas Cummings, who did a 
marvelous iob in spotting this particular problem. It had escaped 
everyliody. He foimd that there were thousands of applications in his 
area alone involving fraudulent birth certificates. There were birth 
certificates of children who supposedly were registered in the TTnited 
States as born in the ITnited States, but who had been born in Mexico. 

The bigcrest abuse, by far, came from midwives, who were paid 
anywhere from $50 to $100 to register the birth certificate showing that 
she attended the mother at time of birth. 

I would add, too, that the Immigration Service devoted, and is 
devoting, several investigators to cover thousands of these cases, and 
it is impossible to cope with the problem under the present system that 
tliev are operating under, 

Seuator Mondale. You mav recall tlieir testimony, in which I ask^d 
them how adeouate their staff was to nolice and make factual deter- 
minations and plua; these loopholes and determine these frauds. 

As a lawver who practices alouff this border, is it vour imnre'^sion 
that their personnel, numliers, au"iounts, and budget is adequate to do 
the iob? 

Mr, Gtterra, I would say there are two problems. Senator. One. I 
believe very strongly that the Immigration Service and the border 



2582 

patrol are slack in their obligation to insure that their personnel are 
properly trained, and that they continue to receive proper training to 
meet all the problems. 

Second, certainly tliere is a tremendous shortage of personnel. They 
are not properly equipped to handle these j^roblems. That shows that 
through the years there lias been a tremendous apathy toward the 
problem, because certainly this problem should have been recognized 
and anticipated and projected, in figures at least, for future actions. 

The reason I asked these questions of the Immigration Service, 
Senator, is because it is obvious that we are here creating comnniters 
by commuters. 

Under this preferential system, a connnuter qualifies, since he is 
supposedly a legal resident, qualifies to give preference to his children, 
or to his sons, or a son to his father and mother, and thereby to other 
members of the family. 

Senator jMondale. Or to someone he says is his son. 

Mr. GuERR.^. Correct, or to somebody he says he married. 

So here, again, a commuter is creating more commuters. 

Senator Mondale. This is the so-called pyramid efl'ect that thev 
were referring to. This is less of a loophole than a truck hole. 

Mr. GiTiRRA. Yes. As you saw yourself nt Hidalgo, the workers were 
waiting in the pit. 

(2) NONPREFERENTIAL APPLICANTS 

These applicants must meet all the requirements as listed in (1), 
above, and in addition, must obtain the described labor certification. 

Aliens entering to engage in defined skilled or professional type 
of jobs are also exempt from the certification. They would, of course, 
not be farmworkers. Practically no visas are issued now under this 
class because of Avaiting periods and the im{)ossibility of obtaining 
certification for agricultural work. 

Once a visa is issued by the State Department, the alien applies for 
enti'y at an immigration port of entrj^, and after inspection, if all 
documents are in order, the Immigration Service issues him the famous 
1-151, or green card. The moment the new lawfully admitted perma- 
nent resident enters the country, he can shed his legal resident's cloak 
and become a commuter. 

Senator Mondale. When the applicant for a green card gets Ids card, 
does he say he will establish residence in the ITnited States^ 

Mr. GuERRA. If he didn't, he wouldn't get a visa. 

Senator Mondale. Yet we stood there that morning and saw •2,000 
people come across that border, and ')0 percent of them had green 
cards, and w^ere obviously comnuiters. 

Mr. GuERRA. At least that many. We missed out on the other class 
of commuters who come in later during the day. We were there witli 
the early birds. 

Senator Mondale. Eight. Most of the early crossers are probably 
farmworkers. 

Mr. GuEREA. How can it be justified that a person who cannot get 
something legal, this particular moment, can the next moment, just by 
crossing into Texas, or into the United States, become something else, 
under no statutory authority whatever ? 



2583 

Senator ]\Iondale. In other words, to <2:et the (jreen card, he has to 
dedare under oatli that he intends to reside i)ermanentlv in the United 
States? 

Mr. GuERRA. That is right. 

Senator Moxdale. But once he has been issued tlie green card, he is 
free to reside in ]\Iexico and commute, or to be used in breaking labor 
strikes, or working for minimal wages in the United States ? 

Mr. GuERR^v. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. And this happens freely and widely at the 
moment ? 

Mr. GuERRA. This started in 1927 by the simple expediency of the 
Immigration headquarters issmng a regulation saying you had to 
recognize this because Congress had not provided a remedy for people 
who were commuters then. 

Since then, for 40 years, this system has gone along and will con- 
tinue, if it Avasn't for the outcry that people like you and some of us 
have raised. 

Senator Moxdale. When they say, "We have plugged substantial 
loopholes by limiting braceros," isn't it true that this commuter status 
places no limits whatsoever on the flow of Mexican labor into the 
United States? 

]Mr. GuERRA. Senator, that is my position exactly. We have accom- 
plished a labor force to substitute a program for the bracero program, 
only there is no comparison, because the bracero program had some 
safeguards. The commuter here has no safeguards whatever. He is an 
animal, to you. Senator, I cannot say anything to you that you do 
not know because you saw this class of people. 

How can we say that those 2,000 or more people who were at Hidalgo 
on INIarch 20 were much more than animals, the way they were being 
treated. 

Is this what we substituted when we did away with the bracero 
program ? 

Senator Mondale. In other words, your testimony is that you think 
we are worse off ? 

Mr. Gtjerra. Definitely so, because here is a man who is not super- 
Aised, not controlled, in any aspect to retain his titles, and there is no 
control whatever, no supervision whatever as to his rights, if any. 

He is a victim any way you look at it, too. 

Senator Mondale. The bracero was intended to be protected by the 
United States to the extent that he had rights in the United States 
while he worked here. 

Mr. Guerra. And by the Mexican Government, too. 

Senator Moxdale. Many of the people we asked had been working 
all week and had not been paid. Many work all day and get $2, and 
the crew leader would take 50 cents back that he said was for social 
security, and it was really a tragic, unbelievable predicament. I 
thought some of them we talked to were clearly under age. 

Mr. Guerra. Yes, sir. No question about the fact that this is a typ- 
ical situation all along border towns where commuters are allowed to 
congregate in that manner. 

I raise this question now, and I will come to it later, and it is impor- 
tant : How could anybody consider that those persons whom we saw 
there at the bridge at Hildago, those commuters, how could anybody 



2584 

consider that those people are engaging in stable and permanent 
employment when every day they have the choice of going with 
difi'erent truckers to different areas and not even knowing where they 
are going to wind up that day. 

Senator Mondale. In other words, one of the regulations that is 
required to continue to be eligible to hold a green card is that you are 
]iot unemployed for a period of more than 6 months. TVHiat is the 
stable employment requirement to which you made reference? 

Mr. GuERRA. We are talking about the commuter. The commuter 
is required in order to maintain his status as a commuter, not to be 
without permanent stable employment for more than 6 months. 

The other ways he would lose his status and would have to apply 
for a visa again. 

The cpiestion, tlien, is what is permanent, stable employment, and 
what agency is in charge of determining this point? 

This in itself would be the key to this whole problem if the agency 
in charge of the determination would do something about it. That 
agency happens to be the Immigration Service. 

They created this monster. It is their baby. They nurtured it along. 

My position is this. There are practically no commuters in the agri- 
cultural business w^ho can meet the requirement, and as strict and 
strained as it is, who can meet the necessary employment requirement. 

Senator Mondale. Of permanent and stable employment ? 

Mr. GuERRA. Yes, and I will get to that in the next material I have, 
and I will develop it further as we go there. 

B. Laws and Regulations Affecting the Commuter Status 

(1) There is absolutely no statutory authority for the creation and 
subsequent supervision of the commuter. Obviously, up to the j)resent, 
the commuter has enjoyed complete liberty to change his status from 
a permanent legal resident to a commuter. Congress did provide defini- 
tions in the Immigration and Nationality Act w^hich gives birth to 
the legal resident, and those definitions are clear as to meaning and 
intent: Lawful permanent resident of the United States means an 
alien who has been lawfully admitted into the continental United 
States or its territories for permanent residence tlierein and who since 
such admission maintained his domicile in the United States. 

This is a requirement for a permanent resident. 

Lawfully admitted for permanent residence means the status of 
having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently 
in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigra- 
tion laws enacted by Congress and implemented by regulation. Resi- 
dence means the place of general abode ; the place of general abode of 
a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without 
regard to intent. 

Now, this is what the Immigration Service goes by in dealing wath 
the permanent legal resident. 

Now, here is where the trick, where the magic takes place in the 
hand of the Immigration Service. 

Since 1927, the Immigration Service, by what has been called "an 
amiable fiction," and without any statutory basis, has been equating 
"permanent residence" with "employment." The way a commuter 



2585 

meets permanent residence is by employment, and that is the official 
Inmiigration Service way of solving this problem used since 1927. 

This fiction was recognized judicially in the case of Petition of 
Correa^ 79 F. Supp. 2G5 (W. D. Texas, 1948) and has been recognized 
in various decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals which is 
the highest administrative judicial agency of the Immigration Service. 

Two cases of interest are matter of Bailey^ interim decision 1546, 
January 6, 1966 ; Matter of Bonanni, interim decision 1637, Septem- 
ber 2, 1966. 

(2) In 1927, once "'employment"' by a commuter was equated with 
"domicile'' and "residence," the Immigration Service set up a standard 
that when a commuter had been out of employment in the United 
States for 6 months, he was deemed to liave abandoned his status of 
residence. 

This standard has been modified by the Board of Immigration 
Appeals to the effect that within 6 months after the commuter is 
"employable", he must take up stable and permanent employment or 
he will lose his status and entry documents. 

So we have here the question of what is permanent and stable em- 
ployment to satisfy this requirement. 

This requirement was ob\'iously established by the Immigration 
Service under power to regidate, and if they have a power, if they 
had the poMer to issue an initial regulation in 1927, certainly they 
have had the power to do something about it through the last 40 years. 

To rely merely on the excuse that the Board of Immigration Ap- 
peals has limited the application of the 6 months prohibition is really 
begging the issue and begging the question. 

I maintain that the Immigration Service now can still, by regula- 
tion, properly define employment so that it accomplishes what it is sup- 
posed to accomplish in the beginning, because in essence the commuter 
is getting a tremendous preference over the permanent legal resident 
who under cojiditions such as this would lose his status. 

For the Inunigration Service to say, "We must rely on Congress to 
pass some lavvs to change this problem, because for 40 years adminis- 
tratively they have recognized its existence," is for them to deny the 
fact that thej^ are now begging off'. 

They have the authority to do it, and I wish there were some way 
that they would not only realize it, but that they would do something 
about it, because this v\-ould afford a lot easier solution than having to 
wait patiently for our great Congress to do something about it. 

C. Siipek\t;sion and Control of ihe Commuter 

Since the commuter is a creature of the Immigration Service, and 
since by their definition the commuter status is a privilege conditioned 
on conduot, we must place the responsibility of supervision and control 
of the commuter on its shoulders. 

The mountains of facts attesting to the monstrous character of the 
commuter problem and the myriads of problems it has created, strongly 
condeimi the apathy of this sei^ice to the problem. Doubletalk, over- 
simplifications and plain passing the buck should not satisfy this 
subcommittee and those of us with desperate hopes for long overdue 
solutions. 



2586 

In (^losing, I must remind the Immig-ration Service that it has the 
authority to enact regulations o-overning- residence and employment of 
commuters. The Secretary of Labor has the power to prevent the ad- 
mission of a commuter coming to employment in the United States 
which is harmful to American labor. And certainly, 40 years and the 
blood, the sweat and the suifering of so many forgotten people should 
be more than enough to move the conscience of our great U.S. Congress. 

Senator Mo>rDx\LE. Thank you very much, Mr. Guerra, for very, very 
useful testimony. 

You say at one point that the responsibility for enforcing the regu- 
lations that do exist, as tenuous as they are, is one which really isn't 
found anywhere. 

Mr. Guerra. That is right. 

Senator Mondale. If you go to the Immigration Service, they tell 
you to come to Congress. If you go to the Congress, mostly nothing 
happens, but many will say there is enough power in INS to deal 
with it. 

The Immigration Service claims they don't have the personnel to 
enforce their own regulations that created a situation where only a 
few commuters could come within the regulations in any event. 

There is a widespread practice of fraudulent claims; the exemption 
from color certification status of really most of the people now getting 
the green cards. Additionally, we see the use of baptismal certificates, 
fraudulent birth certificates, fraudulent claims of marriage, fraudu- 
lent claims of relationship to a person who now holds a green card, 
a standard which has been developed for residence which really doesn't 
mean residence at all, but merely a desire for a job on our side. 

The situation has finally reached the point where, in your opinion, 
we are worse olf than we were before we eliminated the bracero 
program. 

The rules now have resulted in a virtually unlimited flow of des- 
perately poor Mexican residents commuting on a daily basis to be used 
widely in breaking up strikes. 

Would that be an accurate presentation ? 

Mr. Guerra. Very much so. 

Senator Mondale. I am pleased Senator Javits has joined us. He has 
shown a great deal of interest in this issue, and m the issue of decent 
working conditions and the right to bargain on the part of the farm- 
workers. 

Senator Javits has M'orked to make bipartisanship a working fact 
of American Life. 

Senator Javits. I would like to make the observation that I did not 
have the opportunity to hear those who testified when I was upstairs 
turning out some bills in executive session. 

But I did want to make this point. We do feel that if there are abuses 
with respect to the green card, they must be corrected. Also, it seems 
to me we have a real obligation to concern ourselves with labor prob- 
lems that may be created in border areas as a result, and I think that 
we have to find some way of balancing the equities of those who look 
to the so-called commuter labor as a source for operating the economy 
in that area. 

Also, we must look to the interests of the commuter and of the com- 
munity and of the American worker, but the only point I wish to make 



2587 

is, notwithstanding my very deep sympathy with straightening out 
these excesses, which I thinlv are quite shocking, I think we also will 
have to assure ourselves that we are not irremediably damaging the 
economy. 

That doesn't mean that the economy can be static and only look to 
the green card carrier as a source of labor without making conditions 
and compensation attractive enough to bring others in, but as with 
the wetbacks, lx»th Senator Mondale and I had experience with them. 
We must have some consciousness of what it is going to mean eco- 
nomically, and how it could work out if fair wages and fair conditions 
were made available. 

It is possible that even then there might not be enough labor in that 
area for those particular tyjDes of work w^hich are justly available, and 
that, therefore, diflPerent types of reforms which would guarantee 
against exploitation of the green cardcarrier and also against exploita- 
tion of other American workers for the uses to which the green card- 
carrier is put. 

So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, as we get the testimony, and from 
our staff, that we also have a very clear view of the economy of these 
areas and what would happen under the given hypotheses of reform. 

Because I think if we go to the floor with anything else, we will 
be challenged, and perhaps successfully, that we are not paying atten- 
tion to the economy which is involved. 

Senator Mondale. I would refer the Senator from New York to some 
figures that were presented this morning by former Assistant Secre- 
tary Ruttenberg of a study made along the Texas border which $how 
a very high unemployment rate of IJ.S. labor, and really a heart- 
breaking series of facts about living and working conditions. 

I have never heard of the availability of those figures before, and I 
think they bear upon this perfectly valid point to which you make 
reference. 

Senator Javits. Would it be possible, Mr. Chairman, to check this 
out on the ground ? 

In other words, could we shake loose enough of the minority and the 
majority staff to check out conditions on the ground, or perhaps invite 
testimony from the area ? 

Senator Mondale. I think that is important. Mr. Guerra, of course, 
is a practicing attorney from Starr County. We have looked for some 
economists in the country who are specialists in this field. 

One of the remarkable things that I think helj^s express in a strange 
way the powerlessness of the farmworkers is that we have spent 3 or 
4 months trying to find economists to come in and give a professional 
opinion of this. 

I think we have found one at the University of Indiana. 

Maybe Mr. Guerra can give us his views. 

Mr. Guerra. I appreciate very much the concern of Senator Javits, 
with the economy, the impact that the commuter problem has on the 
community, and the impact that the different solutions to the com- 
muter problem will have on the economy. 

Let me start off by reminding everybody that, let us say, 45,000 to 
150,000 commuters have the direct effect of causing a like number, if 
not a larger number of our local border residents to migrate for sea- 
sonal employment in other States. I cite as an example the conditions 

3«^513 a— ,70v— pt. 5iB 5 



2588 

in my area, the Eio Grande Valley of Texas, where 40,000 up to 80,000 
migratory workers have to leave their home every year, take their chil- 
dren out of schools, to be able to compete in the labor markets up north 
and everywhere else, because they are displaced by the commuters. 

If our local people were given the incentive to remain in the area, it 
would certainly not affect the spending poAver at all that would be 
lost by the commuter who might be forced to come to this country 
or stay in Mexico, 

That is one of the problems. 

Now, as to the very much harped upon effect that supposedly would 
take place if you enforce permanent residence on the commuters in 
the United States to the effect that it would close the border, all I can 
say is that it is an old wives tale. It is incredible to say that the billion 
dollar economy that we have would be affected by these 40,000 or 50,000 
people, commuters, and to justify not doing anything by saying that 
touching them would ruin the economy. 

The reason I say that is that the border is not going to close just 
because of the commuter, regardless of how we approach it. 

I will use the Mexican Government's approach to their problem. I 
have with me an article which just came out on May 20 in our local 
newspaper, where the Mexican Government is continuing the practice 
of sending to the border customs agents to insure that no merchandise is 
purchased during a certain period of time in our U.S. border cities 
because the merchandise is affecting the industry and the workers of 
Mexico, and they didn't have any hearings to determine what they 
should do. 

They realized that they had to do this for their industry and their 
workers, and they did it, and I am sure that to them the commuter 
problem is not that great. 

Senator Mondale. Mr. Guerra, do you have a copy of that article ? 

Mr. Guerra. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. When I was along the border, I talked to a car- 
l^enter and asked him how working conditions were. This was a U.S. 
citizen. 

He said, "If we could work on the other side of the border, there 
is a lot of construction labor needed down there. But if we try to go 
back to Mexico, we are arrested and immediately returned." 

Mr. Guerra. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. In other words, the concern about having a free 
and open border apparently is a one-way proposition, 

Mr. Guerra. Here is something I mentioned, and I am glad to see 
Senator Williams here, because he was in Rio Grande City also, and he 
was instrumental in giving us some hope in that area, in the subcom- 
mittee hearings there in 1967. 

One of the issues that I raised, and which apparently is always lost 
in the shuffle someplace is the effect this commuter system has on the 
forgotten creature who is worse off than anybody we know. The 
Mexican farmworker, the Mexican laborer who has no hope of ever 
entering our great mecca. 

You asked, Mr. Chairman, what was the minimum wage of this 
Mexican farmworker. I will give you the maximum wage. A farm- 
worker can expect to earn in my area, and all the way to El Paso and 



2589 

all along the Mexican border, the most he can expect by working from 
sunrise to sunset is the great sum of $1.60 a daj^. 

Senator Javits. How does he get in. How is he there at all ? 

Mr. GuERRA. I am talking about the Mexican worker who remains 
in Mexico. The Mexican worker in Mexico who cannot ever enter this 
country. 

Senator Mondale. He is lucky to make $1.60 a day. 

Mr. GuERRA. He is lucky to make that. As you go deeper from the 
border, he may get 80 pesos a day. 

The reason I mention this point, when you start talking about 
economy and how it aifects business, when the chambers of commerce 
and all these great associations with thousands of members represent- 
ing millions of dollars, when they talk about their loss, I wish to re- 
mind you of the silent voice of those poor people who live along the 
border in Mexico and have no possible way of entering this country, 
who are living now in a dollar economy, who have to compete for the 
necessities of life, when they earn not more than $1.60 a day, when 
their own brethren who return every day to their homes have $4 or 
$5 to spend. 

I see those creatures daily. You will never see them, you will never 
hear them, because they cannot talk. They are the ones if we talk about 
poverty, that we should recognize and do something about. 

Senator Javits. May I ask another question, Mr. Chairman? 

The thing I think the regulations would appeal to the most in 
Congress would probably be one requiring bona fide residents in the 
United States by the commuter — in other words, he either lives here, 
or lives there. If he lives there, he can't be a commuter. He can't be a 
green card holder. He is going to be a regularly admitted alien. He 
has made his commitment, and he has to live essentially here. He may 
go out of the country from time to time, he is not a prisoner, but he 
has to live here. He has to have bona fide residence in the United 
States. 

If you do that, then you would avoid much of what you complain 
about, but you would have the competition of the regularly admitted 
alien, but he would be subject to American conditions, American 
unionization, but we all hope to put into effect, American taxes 

Mr. GuERR^v. That is all we ask. 

Senator Javits (continuing). And he wouldn't be hurting prices 
across the border for his poor brother, the campesino. 

Wouldn't that be in your judgment, not an optimum, but a reason- 
able solution ? 

Mr. GuERRA. Yes, Senator, and it could be done, as Mr, Ruttenberg 
stated earlier, by phasing it out. 

I don't want to go back home and be accused, as I was a few days 
ago in a Mexican paper in Monterey, that we were fighting brother 
against brother. 

I represent no one here but myself. My business is alien to anything 
connected with labor, to anything connected with what is going on 
here. I only came because T thought I should speak out. 

The last thing I would like to do is see my own race pitted against 
each other. 

I feel as a Mexican, to differentiate him from the Mexican- American, 
needs great help, but I feel what I am asking for, and what most 



2590 

Mexican-Americans ask for, contemplates in no way hurting the 
Mexicans. 

It would make it easier for us and easier for industry also. 

We recognize the need for industry and agriculture, but we would 
like to have something equitable, and I think your views. Senator, 
would create that. 

Senator Mondale. I think we know enough about labor relations 
and the history of tliem to know that the most volatile predicament of 
all is a surplus labor situation where you have a massive and virtually 
inexhaustible supply of poor people fighting anybody else for a job 
in desperate conditions. 

In all of the history of labor relations, that is the most explosive 
condition. That is what you have as a daily fact of life all along the 
Mexican border. 

Mr. GuERRA. That is what we have, and you saw it perfectly. I think 
Senator Williams may have seen it when he was there 2 years ago. 
What you see is a very captive labor force, the most captive labor force 
you can find anywhere, when they come to the border and wait on the 
American side for somebody to come to pick them up to go to work. 

This is the system that is so bad. You are hurting that man just as 
much as you are hurting our American people, our residents. It is an 
incredible thing. 

You yourself see it every day in effect. 

Senator Javits. As a lawyer, is there any possibility for adminis- 
trative relief? Could an interpretation be made by the Iimnigration 
Service that only a bona fide resident of the United States who showed 
by his actions and declared an intention to live here permanently, is 
entitled to carry the green card, and therefore that after a certain 
date, unless you have a bona fide home establishment and spent x 
percentage of your total time in the United States, which includes 
your work time, you will not be considered a bona fide immigrant? 

Is that possible by administrative means? 

Mr. Guerra. I have maintained in my testimony today that the Im- 
migration Service and the Labor Department both have the authority 
to accomplish that purpose. The problem we have here is that the Im- 
migration Service has refused to recognize they have that authority. 
I think we can call it a fear to take it upon themselves. I think they 
fear their heads would roll, probably, if they come out and enact reg- 
ulations to curb the commuters. 

The reason I say this. Senator, is that I have explained previously 
that there is a way in which the commuter can be controlled. Com- 
muting is a privilege. For him to remain a commuter, he must show 
that he has not been unemployed in stable employment for a period 
of over 6 months. This is the formula the Immigration Service started 
in 1927. They equated domicile of the green carder to employment, and 
they define employment as stable and permanent employment, but they 
have refused to im])lement this weapon they have. 

My question is, "Why ?" 

Senator Javits. We will try to find out, and I would certainly join 
with my colleagues to bring them down to accounting to us as to why 
this has been allowed to go on. 



2591 

Senator Mondale. They have taken the position, apparently in the 
Justice Department, to the effect that Mr. Giierra said. And they said 
when we passed the 1965 Immigration Act, we were mindful of the 
practice, and therefore incorporated it by reference. 

I think, as the Senator from New York knows, that that was one of 
the most tenuous legal theories that one could go on, to let our legisla- 
tures ratify illegality when they adopt a ruling not dealing with the 
subject, but in the same generic area. That is basically the thin position 
of the Justice Department. 

Mr. GuERRx^. The laymen in my area call it passing the buck, 
Senator. 

Senator Javits. Thank you, very much. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Williams, who has given more leader- 
ship to this topic than anyone else, and who now leads the fight as the 
chairman of the Labor Subcommittee is now doing work this morning 
on construction safety legislation is here. 

We are glad to have you. 

Senator Williams. Thank you. Senator. I appreciated your com- 
ments, too, and I am glad to be here this morning. 

I did, unfortunately, have to be there at an executive session of the 
Labor Subcommittee, and I didn't hear all your statement. 

It seems to me we were moving in the right direction here in Con- 
gress when we did let Public Law 78 reach its extended conclusion. 

But we speak about loopholes a lot around here. Evidently in prac- 
tice a loophole has developed with the green card situation, and yet it 
is not a legal loophole, as the chairman has so very clearly stated. 

It is not legal. It is an administrative loophole that can be ad- 
ministratively closed. 

Is that wliat the essence is of our situation with respect to green card 
holders ? 

Mr. GuERRA. Yes, sir ; entirely. 

In fact. Senator, if I may comment, some testimony given to the 
Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, in that testimony 
the Immigration Service, one of the lay officials of the Immigration 
Service testified that the reason it was easy for them and for the com- 
munity as a whole to accept the official abolition of Public Law 78, the 
bracero program, was because this other labor force had been created 
already, and braceros weren't needed as badly. 

So in essence, we have substituted the commuter for the bracero, 
under worse conditions. 

Senator Williams. I would just offer the observation that Senator 
Mondale lead this committee into this examination, and it should cer- 
tainly come home to the executive departments that this is one of our 
basic concerns. 

Senator Mondale. I was shocked to hear today that the Secretary 
of Labor has approved admission of foreign nationals in the citrus 
industry again in Florida. Here we go again. 

Thank you. Senator Williams. 

We are most grateful to you for your testimony today, and also 
for the fact that your interests are such that vou would come here on 



2592 

your own time and at your own expense and would sit through all the 
liearings and would help us bring some of the issues into focus. 

It has been far better because you have been willing to do so. You 
are one of the people, I think, who has shown a remarkable grasp of 
the technical details of this issue, and yet are able to draw conclusions 
which can only come from a lifetime of interest and effort. 

We are most grateful to you for your contribution. Thank you very 
much. 

Mr. GuERRA. Thank you. 

Senator Mondale. The subcommittee stands in recess, subject to 
call of the Chair, and the Chair orders certain documents to be placed 
in the record at this point. 

(The material referred to follows:) 



2593 

IMMIGRATION LAW AND RURAL POVERTY — 
THE PROBLEMS OF THE ILLEGAL ENTRANT 



Sheldon L. Greene 




Reprinted from 

ISukelato Journal 



Volume 1969, No. 3 



2594 

IMMIGRATION LAW AND RURAL 

POVERTY— THE PROBLEMS OF THE 

ILLEGAL ENTRANT 

Sheldon L. Greene* 

"They were making them take their shoes off in order to 
plant celery during the winter months when it was very cold. 
Anyone who did not want to would immediately be fired .... 
/ told them to come with us into the union so that they would 
have someone to protect them. And he told me that La Casita 
Farms was paying $1.00 an hour, that that was sufficient 
money to live with in Mexico . . . .And that is the reason for 
the workers that come here as strikebreakers because for them 
$1.00 is sufficient to live in Mexico with." Statement of 
Baldemar Diaz, farmworker; Migrant Labor Subcommittee, 
Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Hearings 
Rio Grande City, Texas, June, 1967, 90th Cong., 1st Sess, pt. 
II, 372. 

In 1966, the domestic farmworkers' wages were under one-half 
the average which prevailed in industrial employment,' yet 
agricultural labor has been excluded from many of the basic 
benefits designed to assuage the impact of poverty, such as 
unemployment compensation and coverage under the National Labor 
Relations Act.^ Efforts at unionization have failed recurrently because 
of the transiency of farm work, the mobility of farm laborers, and 
most important, the ready supply of replacements. The difficulties 
experienced by unions in the Southwest are in no small part due to 
the steady influx into the domestic labor market of inexpensive, 
non-resident Mexican labor. This article will consider deficiencies in 
the current immigration laws and in the enforcement of the law by 

* General Counsel, California Rural Legal Assistance. LL.B. 1958, Western Reserve 
University. 

' Recent Bureau of Census figures place the median family income of farmworkers at 
$2600 in contrast to the overall United States median family income of $6900. United 
States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report Number 121, 
Domestic Migratory Farmworkers 22 (1967). 

^ "[A]ny individual employed as an agricultural laborer . . ." is exempted from the act. 
National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(3) (1964). 



2595 

the Department of Justice and the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service contributing to the easy, and for the most part, illegal entry 
of the Mexican, non-resident alien into the labor market of the 
Southwestern United States. 

History 

The first ''contract labor'' law was enacted in the United States 
in 1885^ due to concern over the impact on domestic labor of high 
pressure recruitment of foreign workers by American industries. 
Importation of aliens under contract was prohibited except for 
temporary residents or persons with special skills not available in 
the United States. However, formal immigration and illegal entry 
by Mexicans in the Southwest has continued to disrupt efforts to ob- 
tain higher wages and job security.^ With the onset of World War II, 
many domestic farmworkers were drawn to better paying city jobs, 
creating a labor shortage in agriculture. In 1942, Mexico and the 
United States established conditions of entry for Mexican 
agricultural workers, initiating the bracero program.^ Under this 
plan Mexican workers could not be employed to displace domestic 
workers at reduced wage scales but were to be paid at least a 
guaranteed minimum wage. Due to manifest racial discrimination, 
the Mexican government prohibited the exportation of braceros to 
Texas, in 1943.'' However, to meet the needs of Texas farmers, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service tacitly permitted a 



•'Act of February 26, 1885, ch. 164, 23 Stat. 332. A study conducted in 1890 disclosed 
wholesale evasion of the contract labor law prohibitions and led to further restriction. Act of 
March 3, 1891, ch. 551, 26 Stat. 1084. 

' Between 1880 and 1930, above 1.5 million persons immigrated from Mexico to the 
United States. See generally 1967 Immigration and Naturalization Serv. Ann. Rep. 60. 

•'* Migration of Mexican Agricultural Workers Agreement with Mexico, Aug. 4, 1942, 56 
Stat. 1759 (1942), E.A.S. No. 278. Revisions to the original agreement were made in 
Migration of Mexican Agricultural Workers Agreement with Mexico, April 26, 1943, 57 
Stat. 1152 (1943), E.A.S. No. 351. Authority for the utilization of foreign labor was 
memorialized in Act of April 29, 1943, ch. 82, 57 Stat. 70. Between 1942 and 1947, 347,000 
alien workers were employed in the United States under the auspices of the bracero program, 
of whom 219,500 were Mexican. See President's Commission on Migratory Labor, 
Migratory Labor in American Agriculture 38 (1951) [hereinafter cited Migratory 
Labor (1951)]. 

''See Scruggs, Texas and the Bracero Program 1942-1947, Pac. Historical Rev., 
August, 1963, at 254 [hereinafter cited as Scruggs, Bracero). 



2596 

wetback labor force to work on Texas farms with impunity.^ With 
the termination of the emergency labor program in 1947, the 
United States accorded legal status to the thousands of wetbacks 
who had illegally entered Texas.* 

The bracero program was continued pursuant to an agreement 
between Mexico and the United States which allowed admission of 
aliens in accordance with the regulations of the Attorney General.* 
However, Texas farmers balked at the minimum wage and the 
bond requirement insuring return of the worker to Mexico and for 
the most part chose instead to rely on illegal entrants.'" In 1949, 
Public Law 78" formalized the previous agreement providing for 
recruitment, reception, transportation, and guarantees to workers. 
The law broadened the conditions protective of domestic labor, 
requiring reasonable efforts by growers to attract domestic workers 
prior to certification by the Labor Department of the need for 
foreign labor. Due to growing concern over the impact of the 
bracero program on domestic labor,'^ Congress refused to renew 
Public Law 78 in 1963. However, braceros continued to be 
introduced under the authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), 
which provided for the temporary admission of transient 
workers.'^ Workers were admitted on the application of an 



^ See Scruggs, The U.S.. Mexico, and the Wetback 1942-1947, Pac. Historical 
Rev., May, 1961, at 150-52 [hereinafter cited as Scruggs, Wetback]. 

"Act of April 28, 1947, ch. 43, 61 Stat. 55. See generally Migratory Labor (1951), at 
39. 

• Migration of Mexican Agricultural Workers Agreement with Mexico, Feb. 20-21, 1948, 
62 Stat. 3887 (1948), T.I.A.S. No. 1968. 

'"See Scruggs, Bracero. at 261-63. 

" Act of July 12, 1951, ch. 223, 65 Stat. 119. 

'^ Despite paper safeguards for domestic labor. President Kennedy, signing the Tinal 
extension of Public Law 78 in 1961 commented: "The adverse effect of the Mexi- 
can farm labor program as it has operated in recent years on the wage and employment 
conditions of domestic farm workers is clear and cumulative in its impact. We cannot afford 
to disregard it. We do not condone it . . . ." Hearings on a Study of Population and 
Immigration Problems Before a Subcomm. of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 88th 
Cong., 1st Sess. 41 (1963). Between 1947 and 1963, the year Public Law 78 expired, 4.3 
million braceros entered the United States to perform farm labor. U.S. Dep't Labor Bull. 
Employment Security, Farm Labor Serv., Foreign Workers Admitted for 
Temporary Employment in United States Agriculture (Jan. 1963). 

'^ Temporary foreign labor is imported pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(a)(15)(H) (1964) only 
when the prospective employer has satisfied criteria established by the Secretary of Labor in 
20C.F.R. § 602.10 (1968) for recruitment of domestic farmworkers locally and interstate prior 



2597 

employer in the absence of certification by the Department of 
Labor that their importation would adversely affect domestic 
workers and on satisfaction by the grower of certain criteria 
consistent with previous international agreements. Ultimately, as a 
result of litigation reflecting dissatisfaction with the administration 
of its certification procedure, the Department of Labor agreed to 
disclose pending applications for foreign labor and to hold informal 
hearings prior to subsequent certifications. Due to the failure of 
California tomato growers to meet the preconditions required by 
the regulations, the Secretary of Labor announced that no braceros 
would be admitted in 1968.'^ 

Illegal Entry 

Throughout the post-war bracero program, illegal entry from 
Mexico continued unabated. The earlier Texas accommodation of 

to a determination of their non-availability. An employer makes a written request for certifica- 
tion describing his efforts to obtain United States workers. The local office of the Bureau of 
Employment Security must conduct an independent investigation prior to issuance of a 
certification. The Bureau must find that the employer has offered the following to domestic 
workers: housing, workmen's compensation insurance, a guarantee of at least % of the work 
days of the total period during which the work contract and extensions are in effect at an 
established minimum hourly basic wage ($1.68 in California). Further, it must find that the 
employer has abided by state and local labor, health and housing laws, and that the 
admission of foreign workers will not result in the violation of policies of the U.S. 
Department of Labor governing the referral of workers to jobs involved in strikes or other 
labor disputes. An additional significant ground for refusal to certify is the notification to 
the Labor Department by the Immigration and Naturalization Service that the employer has 
hired illegal immigrants "unless the employer demonstrates that he did not know, had no 
reasonable grounds to suspect, or could not by reasonable inquiry have ascertained that the 
alien worker was not lawfully in the United States." 

'* In 1967, a suit was filed on behalf of domestic farmworkers against the Department of 
Labor, charging the failure of the Department to adhere to its own regulations prior to 
certifying the importation of 8,000 braceros for use in California agriculture. A temporary 
restraining order was obtained, but the case was dismissed within a few days due to the 
execution of a settlement agreement between the Department of Labor and California Rural 
Legal Assistance attorneys. Williams v. Wirtz, CCH Pov. L. Rep. i 300.15 (N.D. 
Cal. 1967). The agreement laid down procedures for disclosure of pending applications for 
foreign labor and hearings prior to subsequent certifications. Approximately 5,600 braceros 
were admitted that year. 

In 1968 an investigation of the extent of recruitment and satisfaction of regulatory criteria 
by grower applicants for temporary labor undertaken by California Rural Legal Assistance 
indicated an almost total failure to effectively recruit available domestic labor prior to 
formal application for certification. The investigation also reflected multiple instances in 
which domestic workers were employed at lower hourly rates than were to be offered to 
temporary workers. See United States Dep't of Labor Release No. 8,971 (Sept. 24, 1968). 



2598 

illegal entrants, legitimizing the status of those subject to 
deportation, established a dependence on the wetback by South 
Texas industries and agriculture which attained the status of a de 
facto claim of right.'^ Complicity of the law enforcement officials 
with local farmers was again demonstrated in 1948 when 6,000 
Mexican farmworkers who crossed the border without formality at 
El Paso, were paroled to Texas farmers in violation of the 
international agreement.'^ The avoidance of the terms of 
international labor agreements strained relations with Mexico, 
which had in 1947 abrogated the labor treaty because of the 
continued use of wetback rather than bracero labor. Not only was 
the domestic Mexican labor supply disrupted but the avoidance of 
minimum wage and working condition standards by Texas 
employers represented an intolerable exploitation of the worker.'^ 

In 1952, Congress took limited steps to interdict the flow of 
illegal entrants. Public Law 283'^ made importation or harboring of 
illegal aliens a felony. As a concession to agricultural interests, 
however, providing employment and the normal practices incident 
to employment was excluded from punishment under the act.'" Two 
years later, the Justice Department commenced a nation-wide cam- 
paign to apprehend wetbacks and to transport them to the interior of 
Mexico. The sweep resulted in the apprehension of 331,000 aliens in 
San Antonio alone. More than 20,000 were collected in several 
northern cities.^" The simple apprehension and return of wetbacks, 
however, has proven an ineffectual deterrent. Border Patrol 
officers indicate that three illegal entrants are undetected for every 
one apprehended.^' 

Illegal entry is a crime. Initial entry is a misdemeanor and 
subsequent entries are felonies.^^ Present enforcement efforts, 

'^ See generally Migratory Labor (1951), at 73. 

'" See id. at 52. 

'' Average farm wages in 1950 ranged from a high of 88 cents per hour in California to a 
low of 54 cents in Texas, in contrast the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the area of highest 
wetback saturation, reported earnings of only 15 to 25 cents per hour. See id., at 78. See 
generally Scruggs, Wetback, at 152. 

'" Act of March 20, 1952, ch. 108, 66 Stat. 26. 

'» Act of June 27, 1952, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163. 

^ See 1954 Immigration and Naturalization Serv. Ann. Rep. at Table 29; 1955 
Immigration and Naturalization Serv. Ann. Rep. 15. 

^^ See generally 1967 Immigration and Naturalization Serv. Ann. Rep. 11. 

^•■=8 U.S.C. §§ 1325-26(1964). 



2599 

however, often involve a waiver of prosecution tor first, second and 
third entries.^^ In lieu of prosecution, illegal entrants are flown or 
transported by train or bus to the interior of Mexico.^^ Border 
Patrol officials attribute the failure to prosecute to the numbers 
involved, overburdened federal attorneys and disinterested courts. 
Moreover, the Immigration and Naturalization Service does not 
even process the initial offender as a deportee because to do so 
would unduly burden the limited agency hearing procedure. 

A review of the development of the wetback problem and its 
impact on domestic workers leads to the conclusion that the 
wetback invasion must be controlled. Present efforts fall below 
acceptable levels of law enforcement. An excessive number of 
violations is no justification for the failure to exercise law 
enforcement responsibilities. If existing facilities for processing 
illegal entrants are inadequate they must be expanded or a way 
sought to provide for expedient formal disposition, unless whole- 
sale voluntary departure occurs. Viewed in light of the past record of 
cooperation with agricultural interests, the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service's failure to subject wetbacJcs to formal 
deportation and prosecution is ambiguous at best.^^ Yet Congress 
shares responsibility with the Service for the abundance of wetback 
labor. Additional funds could be made available to the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service to increase the Border Patrol and 
provide additional attorneys and inquiry officers to process the 
formal deportation of initial entrants and prosecute successive 

-' Information obtained from the Western Region, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, discloses that between July 1, 1967 and June 30, 1968, 149,169 prosecutions were 
waived. 

'* In 1967 over 17,000 aliens were flown to Mexican cities and 51,781 were transported by 
train to the interior of Mexico. 1967 Immigration .'knd Naturalization Serv. Ann. Rep. 
14. 

" Apprehensions in relationship to size of the enforcement staff indicate that the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service diligently seeks to apprehend immigration law 
violators but is limited by the availability of officers. Although approximately 60'7 of the 
strength of the Border Patrol is situated in the Southwest, statistics obtained directly from 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service indicate that manpower limitations restrict the 
effectiveness of the enforcement staff. 

Because of the volume of immigration violations, U.S. Attorneys generally limit 
prosecutions in the Southwest to aggravated cases involving economic exploitation, 
danger to life or patent falsification of documents. Sentences meted out by the judiciary in 
the Southwest for immigration law violations including smuggling are light. Suspended 
sentences are common and time actually served seldom exceeds several months. 



2600 

entrants. If Congress is willing to spend millions to transport 
wetbacks to Mexico it should be willing to finance sufficient staff 
to process them in accordance with the law. 

A deterrent to effective curtailment of wetback infilitration for 
which the Immigration and Naturalization Service is free from 
blame, is the ease with which an uncredentialed illegal entrant can 
obtain a Social Security card and thereby demonstrate his right to 
reside in the United States. Another critical factor is the exemption 
of providing employment from 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(4),2® which 
makes harboring, concealing or indirectly inducing the entry of an 
illegal entrant a felony. A farmer or labor contractor therefore need 
take no precaution in employing persons who by their clothing, 
speech and lack of documentation are undoubtedly illegal entrants. 
Since the farmer encounters no risk, he freely employs wetbacks, 
enhancing the inducement to cross the border. 

If the flow of wetback labor is to be controlled, remedial 
legislation is imperative. The Social Security Act should be 
amended to provide that if the agency has reasonable cause to 
believe that a person is not lawfully in the country, the applicant 
can be required to present indicia of legal residence prior to the 
issuance of the Social Security card. Such indicia might be a 
driver's license and/or the alien registration card possessed by every 
alien entitled to work in the United States under the Immigration 
and Naturalization laws. 

More important, the exemption from 8 U.S.C. § 1324 accorded 
to employment of the wetback should be restricted to instances in 
which the employer has good cause to believe that the employee 
was lawfully in the United States. Presentation by the prospective 
employee of the alien registration receipt card and an American 
driver's license would be presumptive of good cause exonerating the 

'• 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (1952) provides: "(a) [A]ny person, . . . who (3) willfully or knowingly 
conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, in any place, including any building or any 
means of transportation; or (4) willfully or knowingly encourages or induces, or attempts to 
encourage or induce, either directly or indirectly, the entry into the United States of— any 
alien, including an alien crewman, not duly admitted by an immigration officer or not 
lawfully entitled to enter or reside within the United States . . . shall be guilty of a felony, 
and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or by 
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both, for each alien in respect to whom 
any violation of this subsection occurs: Provided, however. That for the purposes of this 
section, employment (including the usual and normal practices incident to employment) shall 
not be deemed to constitute harboring." 



2601 

employer from the threat of prosecution in the event that persons 
apprehended in his employ were in fact found to be illegal entrants. 
Exemplary prosecution of employers who chronically utilize 
wetback labor should cause employers generally to take precautions 
in ascertaining that prospective employees were properly in the 
United States. These additional measures should substantially limit 
the chance of employment and reduce the inducement to enter the 
United States. 

"The Man Who Came to Dinner" 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service reported in 1967 
that 48,000 visitors "violated their status of admission."^' Of the 
25,000 visitors who were repatriated, most were found to have been 
illegally employed in the United States.^^ The entry of Mexican 
aliens who visit the United States regularly is facilitated through 
the issuance of a "Mexican non-resident alien border crossing 
card."^^ About 1,250,000 new cards are outstanding.^" The card 
may be presented at the border and entitles the Mexican citizen to 
remain in the United States for 72 hours in the area contiguous to 
the border.^' Violation of the conditions is difficult to discover, 
however, because no record is made of the date of entry and date of 
departure. Therefore the permit is literally a carte blanche enabling 
a visitor to travel freely and find seasonal employment with relative 
freedom from detection. Moreover, once issued, the card is valid 
indefinitely.^' A recent amendment to the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service regulations governing the admission of 
visitors restricts the usual 72-hour entrant to an area 25 miles from 
the border. Travel outside that zone in Texas, New Mexico, 
Arizona and California requires an additional document reflecting 
the date of entry and the place of admission.^^ Admittedly, an illegal 



" 1967 Immigration and Naturalization Serv. Ann. Rep. 11. 

'^ See United States Comm'n on Civil Rights, Staff Report, The Commuter on the 
U.S. -Mexico Border 16 (1969). 

«8 C.F.R. § 212.6 (1968). 

^ See United States Comm'n on Civil Rights, Staff Report, The Commuter on the 
U.S. -Mexico Border 16 (1969). 

" 34 Fed. Reg. 129, amending 8 C.F.R. § 212.6(a) (1968), limited the area in which the 
Mexican citizen could remain to 150 miles from the border. 

" "(<^ yalidiiy. Notwithstanding any expiration date which may appear thereon. Forms I- 
185 and 1-186 are valid until revoked or voided." 8 C.F.R. § 212.6(c) (1969). 



2602 

entrant might be apprehended in a roundup of wetbacks beyond the 
border area and be returned for having exceeded the geographical 
limit imposed on his visit; however, to date, no means exist to deter- 
mine whether he has exceeded the 72-hour period. Curtailment of 
this abuse could be achieved by limiting visas or other documents of 
entry to one year and providing that all documents of entry must 
be stamped with dates of entry and departure for the purpose of as- 
certaining whether or not the term of stay has been violated. 

The Commuter 

Of the three classes of aliens which compete with domestic 
farmworkers, the status of the commuter alien is the most esoteric. 
The commuter is an alien who at one time was accorded the 
privilege of permanent residence and immigrant status yet continues 
to reside in a foreign country commuting daily or frequently to 
work in the United States. The exact number of such commuters 
working in the United States is not known, estimates varying 
considerably.^^ Historically, the commuter developed from the 
existence of open borders between Canada and Mexico and the 
United States and the development of numerous contiguous border 
communities. With the establishment of national quotas in 1924,^^ 
the visa was established as a condition of entry. Commuter aliens 
were admitted without the necessity of a visa under the 
classification of temporary visitors for business. In 1927, however, 
the immigration authorities reexamined the issue and found that 
commuters could not be classified as business visitors but rather 
fell in the category of non-resident immigrants.^® 



» SVp 34 Fed. Reg. 129 (1969), am^'wa'mg, 8 C.F.R. §§ 212.6(a), 235. 1 & 299.1 (1968). 

It has been suggested that many illegal entrants cross the border with the 1-186 and then 
mail it back to Mexico so that in the event of apprehension the card is not confiscated and 
the holder can use it to re-enter. Fingerprints of applicants for the 1-186 are not now taken so 
that the Service is unable to match apprehended wetbacks with possessors of the 1-186 for 
the purposes of revocation. Accordingly, the actual revocations of the visitor's card reflect 
neither its actual abuses nor its relationship to illegal entry. 

^ It is estimated that some 90- 100,000 commuters work in Texas alone. Hearings Before 
the Subcomm. on Migrant Labor of the Senate Comm. on Labor and Public Welfare. 90th 
Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, at 617 (1967). 

■'■^ Act of May 26, 1924, ch. 190, 43 Stat. 153. 

^ See generally Dep't of Labor and Dep't of Justice, Problems, Administiative 
Presentations III, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 162 (1963). 



2603 

The Supreme Court in Karnuth v. Albro'^' found that 
commuters could not be permitted to enter under temporary 
business provisions but first had to obtain a visa. While the 
commuter issue could have been resolved at that point, had 
Immigration officials chosen to take the position that commuters 
were not immigrants unless they became residents, they instead 
promulgated a regulation which afforded commuters identification 
cards usable as entry documents.^** 

The classification of the commuter as an immigrant does little 
more than serve as a permit to work. Since the initiation of this 
policy, it has been established that in the event that a commuter 
ceases to be employed for a period of six months, his status will be 
presumed to have been abandoned.^** Moreover, the commuter alien 
is not eligible for naturalization, not having established an actual 
abode in the United States for himself and his family.^"' 

An alien becomes a commuter by first obtaining an immigrant 
visa through the consulate in a foreign country. His eligibility to 
obtain an immigrant visa, which accords him the ''privilege of 
residence in the United States,"^' is dependent upon the definitions 
of "non-immigrant" enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15) since 
"immigrant" is defined as every alien except those falling in the 
subsequently defined categories of non-immigrant. In 1952 
Congress added to the definitions of non-immigrant, category 
H(ii) — an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he 
has no intention of abandoning who comes to the United States 
temporarily to perform temporary labor.^^ Under this definition it 
is obvious that commuter aliens making application for a visa 
would not be entitled to immigrant visas since many, particularly 

^"279 U.S. 231 (1929). 

»"8 C.F.R. § 166.11-. 15 (1949). 

■'" In re M.D.S., 8 1. & N, Dec. 209 (1958). The Detroit Inspection Station which processes 
5.000 commuters daily requires that each entering commuter furnish a letter from an 
employer at six-month intervals. A call-up system is employed to make sure that commuters 
regularly provide the certification of continuous employment. Testimony of Walter Sahli, 
District Director Immigration and Naturalization Serv., in Select Commission on Western 
Hemisphere Immigration Part IV, Impact of Commuter Aliens Along the Mexican and Can- 
adian Borders 180, Mar. 8, 1968 (Detroit, Mich.). 

'"/« re Correa, 79 F. Supp. 265 (W.D. Tex. 1948); In re Wright, 42 F. Supp. 306 (E.D. 
Mich. 1941); /« re Barron, 26 F.2d 106 (E.D. Mich. 1928). 

*' 8 U.S.C. § ll01(a)(20) (1964). 

«M § ll01(a)(15)(H)(ii). 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5B - 6 



2604 

farmworkers, would fall precisely within the definition of non- 
immigrant enumerated in subsection H(ii). However, assuming that 
the prospective commuter indicated his intention to become a 
resident and was not excluded under several categories of non- 
immigrant, he would still be required to obtain a certification by the 
Secretary of Labor as a condition to entry." 

The certification, introduced by Congress in 1952, provided that 
no western hemisphere visa shall issue without the certification of 
the Secretary of Labor. The guaranty provided under 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1182(a)(14) duplicated the certification required in the enactment 
of Public Law 78 as a condition of entry of seasonal braceros into 
the United States labor market. Aliens were to be excluded when the 
Secretary certified that sufficient domestic workers were available 
and employment of aliens would adversely affect wages and working 
conditions.^^ 

The Secretary of Labor's certification responsibilities are 
implemented through 29 C.F.R. §§ 60.3 -.6.^'^ Three schedules are 
included therein which enumerate categories of employment relative 
to availability of domestic labor. For jobs listed therein Schedule A^" 
is a certification of insufficiency of domestic workers and lack of an 
adverse effect on the domestic labor market. An applicant for entry 
whose employment is enumerated in Schedule A may obtain a visa 
from the consul without reference to the Department of Labor. In 
contrast, Schedule B*^ is an enumeration of jobs requiring minimal 
training and skills — categories deemed by the Bureau of 
Employment Security to be in sufficient supply. Applicants falling 
within any one category enumerated in Schedule B are ineligible for 
an immigrant's visa and such cannot be issued by the consular 
official. Jobs listed in Schedule O* include occupations of varying 
skills which might from time to time be in demand. Applicants for 
visas falling within the job categories listed in Schedule C must 
submit a form to the Bureau of Employment Security which will 
make a timely determination of the availability of domestic 

"/^. § 1182(a)(14). 

"Id. 

« 29 C.F.R. §§ 60.1 & 60.3 (1969). 

" Id. § 60.2. 

"Id. 

" Id. § 60.3. 



2605 

workers and the adverse effect on wages and working conditions 
reflected by examination of the local conditions at the time of 
application. The regulations^^ provide that Western hemisphere 
applicants^" whose categories of employment are not enumerated in 
any of the three schedules must request certification through the 
filing of a form describing the alien's qualifications as well as a 
form listing the specific prospective employment. 

While the regulations are commendable in their concept, their 
practical application is another matter. The refusal to certify is 
predicated upon the availability to the Bureau of Employment 
Security of diverse data supplied through the cooperation of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. Without a high level of 
cooperation, the certification regulation is mere window dressing. 
Yet failures in inter-agency cooperation are not uncommon.^' 

Under proper enforcement of the 1952 law an applicant for a 
visa from Mexico should not obtain entrance if the Secretary of 
Labor made the certification of adverse effect on, and adequacy of, 
domestic labor. Assuming the Secretary declined to certify harm, 
an immigrant visa would be issued for no more than four months' 
duration.^2 For the four-month period that the visa was in force, it 
is clear that the immigrant had the right to enter and depart freely 
on presentation of the visa. Prior to expiration of the visa, the 
Immigrantion and Naturalization Service issued the immigrant a 
form 1-151, an Alien Registration Receipt Card commonly known 
as a greencard, which may be presented as a document of entry in 
lieu of the visa under the authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1181(b). This 
section authorized the Attorney General in his discretion to readmit 
without immigrant visa or other documentation otherwise 
admissible aliens, lawfully admitted for permanent residence, who 
depart temporarily from the United States.^^ 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service, by a strained 
process of reasoning, construed the 1952 amendments to the 

^' Kor a definition of western hemisphere applicants, see 8 U.S.C. § 1 l01(a)(27)(C) (1964). 

" For an example of the breakdown in cooperation, see statement of Michael Peevey, 
Research Director, Cal. Labor Fed'n AFL-CIO, at Hearing Before the Select Commission 
on Western Hemisphere Immigration, pt. II, 25 (Feb. 9, 1968, San Diego, Cal.). From July 
1, 1966 to February 28, 1967, 2,509 workers were certified on a permanent basis in an area 
with more than 10% underemployment. 

«8 U.S.C. § 1201(a) & (c) (1964). 

"^ Id. § 1181(b). 



2606 

Immigration and Naturalization Act as implicitly acceding to the 
perpetuation of the commuter status. Since the original 1924 Act 
provided that aliens "admitted as temporary visitors for pleasure" 
must not seek employment, the commuter must be classified as an 
'immigrant" and admitted temporarily for the purposes of 
employment. The mandate of 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(a)(15)(H), which 
classes as a non-immigrant a non-resident alien temporarily 
employed, was not viewed as applicable because the commuter was 
a fictitious resident having once been accorded immigrant status. It 
was further argued that even if entering temporarily, he was not 
performing temporary services because he ostensibly worked on a 
regular basis.^'' 

Analyzing the 1952 additions to the Act, the Justice 
Department concluded that it had the authority to continue to 
admit commuters under the language of section 1181(b). A decision 
of the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that the practice 
of considering commuters as permanent residents was not disturbed 
by the 1952 amendments.^^ The Board reasoned that 

. . . the phrase admission for permanent residence continues to 
refer to a status by which the alien is granted the privilege of 
residing in the United States permanently as an immigrant upon 
lawful admission. Thus a commuter who has been legally admitted 
as an immigrant is entitled to receive a border crossing 
identification card so long as he continues in that status. Similarly, 
a commuter is entitled to readmission under section 211(b} [S 
U.S.C. § 1181(b)] as a returning resident while he maintains this 
status and complies with conditions controlling the use of border 
crossing cards.** 
Thus, this rationale would appear to view the commuter working in 
the United States and living in Mexico as a United States resident, 
and his daily reentry in commuting to work as the readmission of a 
returning resident. The absurdity of this position is apparent. 

The provisions inserted in the immigration laws for the 
protection of domestic labor were virtually nullified and commuters 
continued to enter until a 1960 strike at the Peyton Packing 



^* See Immigration and Naturalization Serv., Opinion of Gen. Counsel No. 
56336/101 (Jan. 9, 1953). 
•^' In re H-0-, 5 1. & N. Dec. 716 (Bd. of Immigration App. 1954). 
^ Id. at 718 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). 



2607 

Company in El Paso, Texas. Mexican commuter labor was 
employed by the plant to break the strike. The Secretary of Labor 
issued a certification, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14), alleging 
that the entry of commuter aliens for the purpose of employment at 
the Peyton Packing Company would have an adverse effect on 
domestic labor. The Immigration Department, however, refused to 
honor the certification, determining that it was inapplicable to 
reentering commuters. As a result, suit was brought charging 
violation of the immigration laws." The court found that 
commuters had no status under the law as residents, and should be 
treated as non-residents. The waiver of former documentation 
found in 8 U.S.C. § 1181(b) authorizing aliens to enter upon 
presentation of the greencard was found to apply only to those 
persons who in fact had established permanent residence in the 
United States. Non-residents entering only to perform temporary 
labor were found to be non-immigrants within the definition of 8 
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H). The Immigration Service disagreed and 
the Justice Department restricted the rule to the particular fact 
situation.^^ 

On the basis of the prior favorable decision, the Texas AFL- 
CIO sought legal redress to require the Justice Department to 
exercise administrative controls over all reentering commuters.^" 
The issue of the validity of commuter status, however, was 
circumvented by the court's determination that the Union and 
individual workers lacked standing to challenge enforcement of the 
immigration laws.*" The decision was apparently accepted by the 
Justice Department as a vindication of its position. 



"Amalgamated Meatcutters v. Rogers, 186 F. Supp. 114 (D.D.C. 1960). 

'"/« re J-P-, 9 I. & N. Dec. 591 (Bd. of Immigration App. 1962). 'This is not to be 
considered as a general rule, but is to apply only to employees of the Peyton Packing 
Company . . . [as] determined by a Federal court decision . . . ." /J. at 594. 

"Texas AFL-CIO v. Kennedy, 330 F.2d 217 (D.C. Cir. 1964). 

'" On the standing issue, the court relied, among other cases, on Tennessee Flee. Power Co. 
V. T.V.A., 306 U.S. 118 (1939) (rejecting an attack by private power companies against 
the emerging T.V.A.) in stating that, absent a congressional grant of standing, "mere 
economic competition made possible by governmental action (even if allegedly illegal) does 
not give standing to sue in the courts to restrain such action." 330 F.2d at 219. However, 
the Tennessee Valley case had previously been impliedly overruled and discredited by the 
Supreme Court in F.C.C. v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470 (1940), in which a 
competing radio station was found to have standing to challenge a decision of the F.C.C. to 
permit the construction of an additional station. 



2608 

However, the defeat of organized labor by the Justice 
Department in the Texas AFL-CIO case was short-lived. In a 
hearing before the House Committee on the Judiciary, the General 
Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service was asked 
how an alien commuter who had not established a residence in the 
United States could qualify under section 1101(a)(27) which defines 
a non-quota immigrant as one "returning from a temporary trip 
abroad." The Service fell back on the waiver of formal 
documentation of 8 U.S.C. § 1181(b) and argued that this section 
allowed commuter status since it referred not to one returning from 
a visit but rather to a person who has departed from the United 
States.*' Congress' reaction was to precisely delete from 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1181(b) the language relied upon by the Service to support the 
informal admission of commuter aliens. The qualifying language in 
the 1952 version, "aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
who depart from the United States temporarily," was stricken. 
Inserted in its place was "returning resident immigrants, defined in 
section 1 10 1 (a)(27)(B) of this title, who are otherwise 
admissible . . . ."^^ Section 1 101(a)(27)(B) relates to an alien who 
has been previously admitted for permanent residence and who is 
returning from a temporary visit abroad. The commuter alien is 
not returning from a temporary visit abroad and therefore is not 
within that definition. It is likewise clear that the commuter is not 
a "returning resident immigrant"^^ either. Therefore, by its 
amendment Congress unequivocally excluded the commuter from 
the informal entry provisions found in section 1 181(b). 

Since commuters were deprived of the benefit of section 1 181(b), 
they were required to comply with section 1 181(a), which required as a 
precondition to entry a valid, unexpired immigrant visa.*^ Therefore 
under the law commuters were required every four months, the 
maximum term of an immigrant visa, to return to the consulate 
and obtain a new visa.** As western hemisphere applicants they 

*' See Hearings on a Study of Population and Immigration Problems Before a Subcomm. 
of the House Comm. on the Judiciary. 88th Cong., 1st Sess., at 163-69 (1963). 

«8 U.S.C. § 1181(b) (1964), as amended. (Supp. Ill, 1968). 

"' See text following note 56 supra. 

"^ 8 U.S.C. § 1181(a) (1964) reads in part: "No immigrant shall be admitted into the 
United States unless at the time of application for admission he (1) has a valid unexpired 
immigrant visa . . . ." 

'Ud. § 1201(a) & (c). 



2609 

were again required to satisfy the certification requirements.®® This 
latter section was strengthened by Congress in 1965. Under the new 
version an affirmative certification by the Secretary of Labor that 
the domestic labor supply was inadequate and the entry of the alien 
would not adversely affect domestic wages and working conditions, 
had to be obtained as a condition to issuance of the visa." Under 
the previous version of the law the applicant could enter unless the 
Secretary of Labor made a prohibitory certification. 

The Justice Department treatment of the 1965 amendments was 
simply to ignore them. In an unprecedented example of 
administrative solecism, the Justice Department anachronistically 
found that the commuter status was no longer predicated on the 
maintenance of a "permanent and stable job" but rather accrued 
to persons who entered occasionally as temporary labor.®* In doing 
so the Department ignored or was unaware of 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(H) which specifically classed non-resident aliens who 
come to the United States temporarily to do temporary labor as 
non-immigrants. The Immigration and Naturalization Service 
argument in opposition to this change was characterized as "based 
upon unsupported references to the danger to American labor."®* 
The Board of Immigration Appeals asserted in response "... that 
the applicant whose status as a commuter was recognized for many 
years has not lost his privilege . . . ."^" The Board failed to 
discuss or take into consideration the critical impact of the 1965 
amendments to the Immigration and Naturalization laws.^' The 

•• See notes 44-50 supra and accompanying text. 

"' 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14) (1964), as amended. (Supp. Ill, 1968): "Aliens seeking to enter 
the United States, for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor, unless the 
Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and to the 
Attorney General that (A) there are not sufficient workers in the United States who are able, 
willing, qualiTied. and available at the time of application for a visa and admission to the 
United States and at the place to which the alien is destined to perform such skilled or 
unskilled labor, and (B) the employment of such aliens will not adversely affect the wages 
and working conditions of the workers in the United States similarly employed. The 
exclusion of aliens under this paragraph shall apply to special immigrants defined in section 
1101(a)(27)(A) of this title, (other than the parents, spouses, or children of United States 
citizens or of aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence), to 
preference immigrant aliens described in sections 1153(a)(3) and 1153(a)(6) of this title, and 
to nonpreference immigrant aliens described in section 1153(a)(8) of this title . . . ." 

•» In re Bailey, 11 I. & N. Dec. 466 (Bd. of Immigration App. 1966). 

••/(/. at 471. 

'" Id. at 472. 

" An indication that the Board was unaware of these changes is its footnote 2: "The 



2610 

sole authority for this major expansion of the commuter class was 
previous decisions of the Board. Although the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service amended its regulation, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 211.1(b), to exclude commuters from the use of the greencard as 
a reentry document, the Service continued to permit aliens to come 
and go freely. 

Paradoxically the only recognition of the commuter status in 
the Immigration and Naturalization regulations is the 1967 
addition to 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(b)(1) which prohibits the use of a 
greencard as a reentry document "presented in lieu of an 
immigrant visa or a reentry permit" by an alien intending to work 
at the situs of a "labor dispute" involving a work stoppage or 
layoff of employees which has been certified by the Secretary of 
Labor.^'^ Seemingly by its regulations, the Service is contending 
that the commuter status is valid except when the commuter is 
acting as a "strike breaker." Growing frustration with the 
continued availability of commuter and wetback labor to employers 
engaged in such disputes led to pressure for stringent inspection of 
dispute sites by both the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
and the Labor Department. As a result of such inspection, a 
grower and eleven commuter aliens challenged the regulation.^^ 
Upholding the validity of the provision, the district court accepted 
the argument by the Immigration and Naturalization Service that 
the regulations were designed to restrict the use of the greencard as 
a document of entry for aliens living in a foreign country.'^ The 
court refused to rule on the validity of the commuter system except 
to note that present law required an alien to obtain an immigrant 
visa or reentry permit for each entry into the United States.^^ 

In 1968 another attack on the commuter system was launched 
in the courts based upon the failure of the Department of Justice to 



Secretary of Labor has the power to prevent the admission of a commuter coming to 
employment in the United States which is harmful to American labor." Id. at 471. The 
Board predicated this footnote on the pre- 1965 certification which excluded an alien only in 
the event of certification by the Labor Department. In re J-P-, 9 1. & N. Dec. 466 (Bd. of 
Immigration App. 1966). After 1965 an affirmative certification was necessary to admit 
aliens entering to perform labor. See note 66 supra and accompanying text. 

'^8C.I-.R. § 2ll.l(b)(l)(l968). 

'■' Cermeno-Cerna v. Farrell, 291 F. Supp. 521 (D.C. Cal. 1968). 

'' Id. at 529. 

'^ Id. 



2611 

implement the 1965 amendments "to the Immigration laws.'" The 
government responded with a motion to dismiss in reliance upon 
AFL-CIO V. Kennedy,"' asserting that farmworkers lacked the 
standing to challenge the failure of the Justice Department to 
comply with the 1965 amendments. The court has ordered that the 
motion will be regarded as one for a summary judgment. Briefs 
and affidavits having been submitted and the court is presently 
considering the matter on the merits.^** 

Aside from the pending court challenge, legislative and 
administrative changes in the commuter status have been proposed. 
One proposal recommends: (1) that all visas include a firm 
commitment to establish a bona fide residence in the United States; 
(2) creation of a new form of border crossing for aliens who wish 
to work in the United States and live in their own country, when 
their entrance will not adversely affect domestic workers; and (3) 
termination of the commuter status of present "greencards'' holders.^" 

'" Gooch V. Clark, No. 94500 (N.D. Cal., filed June 25, 1968). Plaintiffs seek to compel 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Department of Justice to comply with 8 
U.S.C. § 1181(b) (1964), fl.f a/;;£'«^t'^/. (Supp. ill. 1968) and 8 U.S.C. § 1 182(a)( 14) (1964). 
Implementation of these provisions with respect to commuters would require that class of 
alien to possess a visa in good standing as a condition to entry requiring reapplication for a 
visa and recertification by the Labor Department at four-month intervals. The complaint 
also calls for the implementation of 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) (1964), a complementary 
means of identifying commuters as temporary workers who have not given up their foreign 
residence and reclassifying persons who meet that definition as non-immigrants. The change 
would give persons subjected to that reclassification the option to apply for a new visa and 
submit to the Labor Department's certification or to seek admission only as temporary 
labor. 

"' See notes 59-60 supra and accompanying text. 

'"As in Texas AFL-CIO v. Kennedy, the Department of Justice relies heavily on an 
affidavit from the Secretary of State dealing with the adverse foreign policy implications of a 
ruling terminating or restricting the commuter program. Since the Secretary of State's 
authority in the area of immigration is limited to the issuance and revocation of visas, 8 
U.S.C. § 1104 (1964), it appears that accession by the Department of Justice to foreign 
policy determinations as a rationalization for perpetuating the commuter status is 
unsupported by statute and in derogation of congressional intent. 

'" Richard M. Scammon and Stanley H. Ruttenberg, both members of the Select 
Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, made the following recommendations in 
a July 22, 1968 letter to President Johnson: "(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 bonafide 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 .... Such a work permit 



2612 

An interim solution has been proposed by Senator Edward 
Kennedy and Congressman Michael Feighan. Their bill calls for 
recertification of all commuter aliens at six-month intervals to 
determine if their employment will adversely affect domestic 
workers as well as remedial legislation curtailing illegal entry .•*" 

Conclusion 

The efforts of Congress to protect domestic workers from the 
adverse impact of inexpensive foreign labor have been futile, at 
least with reference to the American Southwest. Abuses which 
Congress sought to suppress in its 1885 contract labor law thrive 
today in Mexican and American border towns. Illegal entry 
increases largely unabated. Wholesale violation of limited visitation 
rights continues substantially unhindered by basic regulatory 
restraints. Commuter aliens, including many former illegal entrants 
expelled in the wetback roundups of the 1950's, displace American 
workers on the farms and in the cities and depress wages. Clear 
congressional enactments curtailing and controlling the commuter 
traffic atrophy from disuse. 

Certainly additional legislative measures and further 
appropriations to law enforcement agencies should provide more 
effective antidotes to illegal entry and would tend to improve 
control over visitors and commuter aliens. However, such changes 
are futile unless the administrative agency charged with the 
implementation of the legislation is responsive to the intent of 

should be issued under conditions which do not adversely affect standards of wages, hours, 
and working conditions in the United States and under circumstances in which resident 
workers are not available to fill the job in question. On issuance, such work permits should 
be reviewed from time to time to insure the conditions of their issuance are being 
observed .... (3) Within a grace period, action should be taken to terminate the commuter 
status of present 'greencard" holders." 

""Senate Bill No. 2790 was a proposal to amend 8 U.S.C. i? 1182 (1964) to require a 
recertification of commuter aliens by the Labor Department at six-month intervals: "Any 
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence whose principle, actual dwelling place is in a 
foreign country contiguous to the United States and is returning 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 employment of 
such alien will not adversely affect 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 



2613 

Congress. The failure of the Justice Department to modify its 
position regarding the commuter in the face of pertinent 
amendments to the Immigration laws, the failure to enact 
reasonable administrative controls over visitors, and the 
subordination of the interests of domestic labor to the concerns of 
farmers has the appearance of a substantial usurpation of the 
legislative function. Until society is willing to accord the poor and 
the minorities within the United States the economic and social 
benefits intended by the immigration laws, this country cannot 
expect these groups to respect the law and to willingly participate 
in the ordered society which such laws seek to create. 



the date of enactment of this subsection." 113 Cong. Rec. 18667 (daily ed. Dec. 14, 1967). 
The bill inherently ". . . provides for the revocation of a commuter alien's labor clearance, 
if he violates administrative regulations, such as a ban on strike breaking, prescribed by the 
Department of Labor and the Immigration Service to carry out the purpose of this bill." Id. 
at 18796 (remarks of Senator E. Kennedy). The bill was reintroduced jointly in the House 
and the Senate on March 26, 1969, by Senator Edward Kennedy and Representative Michael 
Feighan. Added to the measure this year is a section repealing the exemption from criminal 
sanction of employers who willfully and knowingly hire aliens present in the country illegally. 
The bill is co-sponsored by ten Senators and twenty-three Representatives. 115 Cong. Rec. 
3211 (daily ed. Mar. 26, 1969). 



2614 

July 22, 1968. 
The President, 
The White House. 

Deak Mk. President: During the course of the work of the Select Coimmissioii 
on Western Hemisphere Immigration, the matter of tlie alien worker-commuter — 
the "green card" commuter — was discussed frcmi time-to-time in Commission 
sessions. Because of the time limitations on the Commission's report, no general 
recommendations were made cm this matter hy the Commission as a whole, but 
hearings were held last winter to assist individual members in making individual 
recommendations to you and to the other Commission appointing authorities. 

Hearings were held in El Paso, San Diego, Brownsville, and Detroit, and 
eighty-one witnesses appeared. Every effort was made to secure as wide as iws- 
sible a representation of all interested i)arties, and we feel the four hearings 
did illuminate virtually every aspect of the "green card" matter. The problem is 
an important one and, since we were the two Commissioners able to attend almost 
all the hearings, we are taking the liberty of writing directly to the three authori- 
ties who appointed the Select Commission, and of writing even before the pub- 
lication of the testimony taken at the hearings. 

Naturally, the recommendations which follow are only our own personal views, 
and indeed the.se are not always in total agreement. Since the Commission has 
pas-sed out of legal existence there can be no Commission recommendations as 
such, but no doubt you will be receiving letters from other Commissioners respect- 
ing these questions. 

in sum, we recommend : 

"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." 

We feel this change in our present policy is needed to make very clear that 
immigration is not to be interpreted as a form of "alien work permit". We 
understand that this has been the case in the past, but with new over-all limita- 
tions of 120,000 (m the total annual Western Hemisphere immigration it seems 
to us manifestly unfair that any of these 120,000 be used other than for those 
who plan to come to this country as full-fledged immigrants, intending to live 
in, work in, and in fact be a part of the I'nited States. 

"2. A new form of border crossing authorization be established, this authoriza- 
tion being designed for u.se by non-citizens who do not intend to become immi- 
grants 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." 

We appreciate the problems of the border cities whose economies are largely 
inter-connected, and of employers who cannot find among United States residents 
a suflScient labor force to continue their operations, but we feel these problems 
can be handled by new legislation, tied in with the first recommendation above, 
to establish a non-citizen, non-resident work permit. 

Such a work permit should be issued under conditions which do not adversely 
affect standards of wages, hours, and working conditions in the United States 
and under circumstances in which resident workers are not available to fill the 
jobs in question. On issuance, such work permits should be reviewed from time-to- 
time to ensure the conditions of their issuance are being observed. 

It is Mr. Rnttenberg's view that such permits should be issued and reviewed 
by the Labor Department, much as that Department now issues labor certifica- 
tions for workers planning to migrate to the United States. It is Mr. Scammon's 
view that such permits should be issued and reviewed by a board on which 
would serve the Labor Department, the Departments of Commerce or Agri- 
culture, depending on the interest involved, and a nongovernment public member. 

"3. Within a grace period, action should be taken to terminate the commuter 
status of present 'green card' holders." 



2615 

We are not in full agreement as to what should be done. Mr. Ruttenberg's view 
is that present "green card" holders be required to become bona fide residents 
of the United States or transfer to a non-citizen, non-resident worii i:)ermit status. 
Should neither course be taken within a si^ecified time — say two years — Mr. Rut- 
tenberg would recommend that the commuter .status of any "green card" holder 
be terminated. Mr. Scammon would prefer to leave the status of present "green 
card" commuters untouched, on the grounds of the general commitment that this 
country has made to the "green card" holder. However, recognizing that such a 
course might frustrate the efforts to develop a viable solution to the commuter 
problem, he would recommend a longer period for adjustment — say ten year.s — 
to i>ermit resolution of the variety of family problems involved in particular 
immigration situation.s. However, during this grace period no "green card" holder 
who is not now a commuter should be given commuter status. 

The evidence of the hearings is that a .substantial number of present-day 
"green card" commuters would physically move into the United States with their 
families if this were a requirement for their continued employment in jobs which 
would not — or might not — be covered by the establishment of a non-citizen, non- 
resident work iiermit. But moving is neither easy nor always possible under 
pre.sent policy because of concern that family members of low-paid wage earners 
might become public charges. Moving also implies new problems for the areas 
into which the immigrants might move. The current requirement that commuters 
move to the T'nited States should be accompanied by a liberal iwlicy to i.ssue 
immigrant vLsas to their family members, if they do not already have them, and 
insofar as rea.sonable adjustment help can be given commuters it should be 
provided. 

Finally, we are not in agreement as to the ways in which the.se various recom- 
mendations should be made effective. We agree that recommendation two with 
respect to a non-citizen, non-resident work permit requires new legislative action 
by the Congres.s. Mr. Ruttenberg, in the opinion that the status of the commuter 
was created by administrative action, feels that the recommendations, except for 
the .second, may be accomplished by administrative action again. Mr. Scammon, 
with the view that these are matters of basic immigration i)olicy, feels all recom- 
mendations should be implemented by legislation, since matters at this level of 
policy should be the object of Congre.ssional rather than executive action. 

We are, Mr. President, 
Respectfully yours, 

Richard M. Scammox, 
Chairman, Select Canimission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, Vice 
President Governmental Affairs Institute. 

Stanley H. Rutte>'bekg, 
Member, Select Commission rm. Western Hemisphere Immigration, As- 
sistant Secretary U.S. Department of Labor. 



2617 



XVII.— COMMUTERS 
Historical Background, Legal Challenges, and Issues 



Prepared for the 
Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration 

by 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service 
United States Department of Justice 



2618 



COMMUTERS 

The aliens referred to as "commuters" are those aUens who have been lawfully ac- 
corded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States but who choose to 
reside in foreign contiguous territory and commute to their place of employment in 
the United States. The Service does not maintain statistics on the nimaber of aliens who 
commute to work in the United States, but a sample coimt taken in January 1966 re- 
vealed that on the day the coimt was taken more than 53,000 aUens entered as com- 
muters. Of these, more than 42,000 entered over the Mexican border. There follows a 
detailed analysis of the historical background and current status of the commuter pro- 
gram and a brief outline of the various issues which have been raised both in and out- 
side the Government relating to commuters. 

Commuters — Background 
Historical background 

People have commuted across both borders of the United States to work since the 
borders were estabhshed. Until 1921 there were no numerical limitations on immigra- 
tion and aliens were free to come to employment in this country so long as they did not 
infringe the contract labor restrictions or fall within the classes of aliens excluded by 
law. When numerical limitations were placed on immigration in 1921, aUens resident in 
Mexico and Canada for more than 1 year were exempted from those restrictions and no 
special problems involving commuters were encountered before 1924. 

The temporary legislation of 1921 was succeeded by the Act of May 26, 1924, 
which established a permanent system of quota allocation and control. While natives of 
Western Hemisphere coimtries were not subject to the quota limitations, immigrants 
from those countries were thereafter required to obtain and present immigrant visas to 
enter the United States. In administering the 1924 Act, commuters were first considered 
temporary visitors for business and were free to continue to come to their employment 
in this country. However, on April 1, 1927, the immigration authorities reversed their 
former position and declared that aUens coming to work in the United States were to be 
classified as immigrants.^ This interpretation by the immigration authorities was im- 
mediately challenged in the courts but in 1929 it was upheld by the Supreme Court.^ 

In studying the problem at that time, the immigration authorities concluded that 
Congress had not intended to interfere with the established pattern of regular border 
crossings by workers from Mexico or Canada who conmauted to jobs in the United 
States. While such aliens could obtain immigrant visas without difficulty, they would be 
faced with an impossible task if they were required to obtain a new visa for each daily 



• General Order 86 of Apr. 1, 1927. 

' Kamuth v. Albro, 279 U.S. 231, 1929. 



2619 



reentry. Consequently, the immigration authorities devised a border crossing identi- 
fication card which could be used by aliens who frequently cross the international 
boimdary.' The issuance and use of such border crossing cards received express sanction 
by the Congress in the Ahen Registration Act of 1940. 

Thus a commuter was able to procure an immigrant visa and subsequent lawful 
admission as an immigrant. Thereafter he would obtain a border crossing identification 
card, and with that card he could enter each day to go to his job as returning to his 
immigrant status in the United States. This arrangement was in harmony with the 
estabhshed good-neighbor pohcy with Mexico and Canada, facilitated travel across 
the Mexican and Canadian borders, and avoided serious dislocations in the border areas. 
The commuter program was weU known to the Congress and was discussed and 
endorsed, by imphcation, in the comprehensive study by the Senate Judiciary Com- 
mittee which preceded enactment of the 1952 Immigration and Nationahty Act.^ 
Nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act or its legislative antecedents indicated 
that the Congress was dissatisfied with the commuter program or desired to change it 
in any way.^ In June 1963 Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary of 
the House of Representatives made a comprehensive study of commuter workers and 
there was no indication that the committee was dissatisfied with the commuter pro- 
gram as it was then administered by the Service.* The commuter program is an ad- 
ministrative apphcation of the legislative design to our Mexican and Canadian border 
areas. It is a unique arrangement which has functioned for almost 40 years and its 
special character is aptly described in the following excerpt from a decision of the Board 
of Immigration Appeals: 

"The commuter situation manifestly does not fit into any precise category 
found in the immigration statutes. The status is an artificial one, predicated 
upon international relations maintained and cherished between friendly 
neighbors." 

Acquisition of commuter status 

The first step in attaining commuter status is to achieve a lawful admission to the 
United States as an immigrant. Like all immigrants, the commuter must apply for an 
immigrant visa and must meet all of the requirements of the Immigration and Nation- 
ality Act. He must obtain a labor certification to show that there is a shortage of 
workers in the United States in his particular occupation and that his entry will not 
adversely affect wages and working conditions of U.S. residents. Upon admission, his 
entry as an immigrant is recorded and in due course he receives an alien registration 
receipt card, form 1-151, colloquially known as a green card. This alien registration 
receipt card certifies his admission to the United States as an immigrant and under 
current regulations, it can be presented as an entry document following temporary 



' Rule 3, subdividison Q, Par. 1, Immigration Rules of Jan. 1, 1930. 

* S. Rept. 1515, 81st Congress, 2d sess., p. 535. 

* Exclusion proceedings, A-7675485: Decided by the Board Mar. 16, 1954. (5 I&N Dec. 716). 

' Study of Population and Immigration Problems, Administrative Presentations III, Admission of Aliens into 
the United States for Temporary Employment and Commuter Workers, Special Series No. 11, Committee 
on the Judiciary, Subcommittee No. 1, House of Representatives. 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5B - 7 



2620 



absences from the United States of less than 1 year/ Under present procedures, the 
card has replaced the special border crossing identification card which at one time was 
issued to commuters. 

The commuter is readmitted upon presentation of his form 1-151 when coming 
from his home in Mexico or Canada to his employment in the United States. Like all 
ahens, he is not infallibly assured of a right of reentry, since if at any time he applies 
for admission to the United States there is a ground of inadmissibility, he can be 
excluded. While infrequent, a number of such cases develop each year. 

Retention of Commuter Status 

An alien is entitled to commuter status only if he has a permanent and stable job 
in this coimtry. If he does not have such a job, commuter status is not acquired.^ 
If, after he has acquired commuter status, he is out of employment in the United 
States for more than 6 months, he is deemed to have abandoned his commuter status, 
even though he may have made temporary reentries during that period for other than 
employment purposes. However, the commuter status will not be lost if the employ- 
ment in the United States has been interrupted by uncontrollable circumstances such 
as serious illness, pregnancy, or disabling injury.^ 

LEGAL CHALLENGES 

The first legal challenge to the commuter program arose out of a strike at the 
Peyton Packing Co. plant in El Paso, Tex., in 1960. Under the then existing law, the 
Secretary of Labor certified that the admission of ahens for employment at the struck 
plant would adversely affect wages and working conditions in the United States. The 
Immigration Service enforced the certification except with regard to aliens who had 
been lawfully admitted for permanent residence and who were returning from a tem- 
porary absence, since such aliens were exempt from the bar to readmission by the 
statute. The Service held that commuters were within this exempt class. In the court 
case the presiding judge took issue with the latter conclusion. He reviewed the com- 
muter program and took no position as to its legality. However, he held that com- 
muters could not be regarded as returning residents for the purposes of the certification. 
In his view a contrary holding would "make a shambles" of the aim of the provisions 
of law designed to provide safeguards for American labor. The presiding judge's deci- 
sion was rendered in denying the Government's motion for dismissal of the complaint 
and for summary judgement. However, when a proposed final judgement was pre- 
sented, the presiding judge declined to issue a mandatory order against the Attorney 
General, since by that time the case virtually had become moot and no appeal was 
taken.io 

More recently a direct assault on the commuter program was made in a law suit 
by a union and a number of its members challenging the legality of the commuter 



'8 CFR 211.1 

8 Exclusion proceedings A-11152100, decided by the Board May 11, 1960. (S I&N Dec. 643 (I960)). 
» Exclusion proceedings A-11136619, A-1132260, A-10367389, decided by the Board Dec. 12, 1958. (S I&N 
Dec. 209 (1958)). 

>» Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Rogers, 186 F. Sup. 114 (D.C. 1960). 



2621 



program." The court dismissed the suit and did not reach the merits, finding that 
the plaintiffs did not have a legal standing to challenge the validity of the alien com- 
muter program. In this case, with the motion to dismiss, the Government attached 
an affidavit from the Secretary of State which stated that termination of the com- 
muter program would have a serious adverse effect on the relations between the 
United States and Mexico and Canada. 

Number of commuters 

The Service does not maintain statistics on the number of aliens who commute to 
work in the United States since the number varies as workers give up their jobs in 
the United States or as new commuters are admitted with immigrant visas. From 
time to time a sample count is taken and the last such sampling was taken during 
January 1966. Set forth below is a chart showing the total number of commuters on 
both borders with a breakdown by regions and states in which the commuters are 
employed. The count in the Southwest region was taken on January 11, 1966, and on 
that date 42,641 commuters, of which 17,653 were employed in agriculture, entered 
the United States. 



Total 53, 329 

Northeast region ' 4, 527 

Maine 2,571 

New Hampshire 8 

New York -. 1,466 

Vermont 482 

Northwest region ' 6, 161 

Alaska 1 



19, 822 



2, 169 



2,015 



10 
136 



Northwest region — Continued 

Michigan 6, 074 

Minnesota 30 

Montana 2 

Washington 54 

Southwest region ' 42, 641 

Arizona 5, 691 

California 16, 609 

New Mexico 17 

Texas 20,324 



17, 653 

3, 195 

10, 464 

13 

3,981 



The number of conmiuters increased rapidly along the Mexican border during 
the years of the bracero program. U.S. employers assisted the best of the braceros in 
obtaining immigrant visas and status as permanent residents. These workers retained 
their domicile in Mexico and became commuters, forming a pool of legal agricultural 
workers near the border. It was this pool of available legal labor which played a major 
role in the termination of the bracero program. 

In recent years a large number of agricultural workers enter the United States 
each spring and remain in the United States for several months, following the crops 
to various parts of the coimtry. These workers go to Mexico during the -winter months. 
Some take up residence near the border and continue to commute to work in the 
United States, while others go to homes in the interior of Mexico and do not reenter 
the United States again untU the spring planting begins. Included in this group are 
some entire families. The spouse and children accompany the principal alien, with the 



" Texas State AFL-CIO v. Kennedy, 330 F. 2d 217 (C.A.D.C, 1964). 



2622 



children attending school in the United States when school is in session and attending 
school in Mexico during the winter months. All members of such families have status 
as lawful permanent residents. These migrant workers are not commuters in the 
generally accepted sense since they actually remain in the United States several 
months out of each year without returning to their homes in Mexico. Yet they are 
considered as commuters by those who oppose the commuter program. 

At places such as San Ysidro, Calexico, and El Paso there are several hundred 
commuters who enter each morning to look for work on a day basis. At El Paso there 
are a number of employment offices (operated independently and not a part of the 
Texas Employment Service) within 2 or 3 blocks of the port of entry. These offices 
have large blackboards outside the door on which job offers are entered each day. 
While the job offers are generally made by local employers seeking unskilled labor for 
relatively short periods of time, during certain seasons of the year employers from as 
far away as California utUize these offices to obtain agricultural workers. While this 
group of commuters is comprised primarily of unskilled workers, it does include artisans 
such as carpenters and masons. In addition to the employment offices, the commuters 
gather in groups near the port of entry and prospective employers come to these 
groups to bargain for workers each morning. The employers follow a procedure much 
like the "shape-up" of stevedores at the piers in port cities. The prospective employer 
will look over the group of workers available and will select those he wants for his 
particular job. Most of the yard work and home improvement work in the cities 
mentioned above is done by such commuters. 

It had been the position of the Service that a conamuter must engage in employ- 
ment which is "permanent and stable" in order to maintain his status. If that test 
were applied to the employment of the above workers, many would lose their status. 
However, in a recent decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals it was held that 
a Canadian, employed in Canada fuU time as a customs officer, could retain commuter 
status by entering the United States ia his spare time to seek part-time work as a 
carpenter.'^ Consequently, under that decision the workers mentioned above are in 
lawful status so long as they have some employment during the preceding 6 months. 

The Commuter Issues 
Opposition to the commuter program 

There has always been some opposition to commuters by U.S. residents who 
must compete with them for employment, particularly during periods of general 
unemployment, but until recent years there was little organized opposition. At this 
time there is little, if any, opposition along the Canadian border. The majority of the 
commuters are concentrated in the Detroit area and in that area they are union 
members and are well integrated into the regular work force. 

Along the Mexican border the situation is quite different. There is considerable 
organized opposition to commuters due, in large part, to the wide disparity in the 



" Exclusion proceedings A-139594S1, decided by the Board Aug. 9, 1965, and Jan. 6, 1966. (Interim decision 
1546 (Jan. 1966)). 



2623 



cost of living in Mexico as compared to the cost of living in the United States. The 
commuter residing in Mexico has a much lower cost of living than his coworker resi- 
dent of the United States. The opponents of the commuter program point to this 
fact and argue that the commuter has little incentive to seek higher wages or better 
working conditions. 

There is considerable opposition to the commuter program in the Mexican- 
American community in the state of Texas. In the west Texas area those who oppose 
the program are usually the skilled or semiskilled workers who are native bom citizens. 
In the lower Rio Grande Valley and San Antonio area the opposition is spearheaded 
by organized labor and certain of the civil rights groups. There is little opposition in 
the states of New Mexico and Arizona, probably because the number of commuters 
in those two States is very low, except for the commuters who work in the Yuma area 
in Arizona. There is some opposition in the Imperial Valley in California where there 
are a great number of commuters working in agriculture. However, in the San Diego 
area there is very little opposition even though there are a large number of commuters 
employed in industry and service occupations. The lack of opposition in this area is 
due to the fact that the commuters employed in industry and service occupations 
are largely union members. In fact, several locals in the San Diego area hold periodic 
meetings in Tijuana because so many members of the local reside in the latter city. 

At the present time labor organizations are attempting to organize agricultural 
workers in the Southwest and much attention has been focused on commuters because 
the labor organizers have alleged that commuters are used as strikebreakers. Although 
the labor organizations sought to terminate the commuter program through court 
action in 1963 recent news accounts indicate that stronger efforts will be made to 
organize the commuters. 

Opposition of Mexican-American civil rights groups 

Early in October 1966 Mr. David S. North, Assistant to the Secretary of Labor, 
was designated to prepare an agenda for a White House Conference on Civil Rights 
for Mexican-Americans and for Puerto Ricans resident in the continental United 
States. Representatives of the Service were requested to participate in the preliminary 
planning sessions dealing with problems of the Mexican-American community. At a 
planning session held on October 20, 1966, at the Department of Labor, the Associate 
Commissioner, Operations, met with a number of leaders of the Mexican-American 
community from the states of Texas, Arizona, and California. That part of the session 
devoted to immigration problems was taken up entirely with the discussion of the 
commuter program. All of the Mexican-American leaders present expressed opposition 
to commuters per se but the most outspoken opponents were the labor representatives 
and the representative of the Bishops' Committee for the Spanish Speaking from San 
Antonio, Tex., who stated they would press for termination of the program. At this 
time it appears that the problem of commuters will be included on the agenda of the 
White House Conference which is now scheduled to be held early in 1967. 

Since that planning session of October 20 it appears that there has been some 
change in the thinking of those participants who were the most outspoken opponents 



2624 



of commuters. The newspaper reports of a meeting held on Sunday, November 27, 
1966, at Rio Grande City, Tex., quoted a representative of the Bishops' Committee 
for the Spanish Speaking and one of the labor leaders who had been present at the 
plaiming session. At the meeting at Rio Grande City those attending the meeting were 
urged to be tolerant of the Mexican commuters. 

Position of the Department of Labor 

In recent years the Department of Labor has taken an increasing interest in 
commuters. The program has been discussed a number of times at meetings between 
representatives of the Service and representatives of the Department of Labor, pri- 
marily concerning the allegations that commuters have been used as strikebreakers 
and allegations, that in some areas the presence of commuter workers has a depressant 
effect on wages and working conditions. At a meeting on December 6, 1966, held at 
the Department of Labor, the Department of Labor representatives requested the 
Service to consider whether some restrictions on employment of commuters could be 
established with a twofold objective. The Department of Labor would like to prevent 
the employment of commuters (1) at any place where a labor dispute exists, or (2) at 
any place where a determination is made that the employment of commuters would 
adversely affect wages or working conditions. 

Li order to accompUsh the objectives sought by the Department of Labor, it 
it would be necessary to promulgate a regulation (1) barring the entry of commuters 
who are going to a place where there is a labor dispute or (2) going to emplojrment 
in an area where the Secretary of Labor has certified that the entry of aliens to accept 
employment would adversely affect wages and/or working conditions. Since commuters 
are considered as returning residents, any such regulation would have to apply to 
all persons lawfully admitted for permanent residence who are seeking to reenter the 
United States. It is possible that a legally defensible regulation could be promulgated 
to accompUsh the first objective. This regulation would have to be keyed to the pro- 
vision which waives immigrant visas for returning residents in possession of form 
1-151, alien registration receipt card, and in essence it would deny the benefits of the 
waiver to an alien seeking to reenter the United States for the primary purpose of 
seeking employment or returning to employment at a place where a labor dispute 
exists. As it would not be practical for the commuter to obtain an immigrant visa 
for each return to the United States, he would be forced to comply but he would 
not be precluded from obtaining other employment, however, and could retain 
commuter status by changing employment. Even though such a regulation were 
issued, there would be serious operational problems which could negate the intended 
effect of the regulation. It would be very simple for a commuter to take up temporary 
residence in the United States for the period during which the labor dispute was in 
progress. Since the commuter would not be barred from entering to seek other employ- 
ment, once admitted for that purpose he would then be free to remain here and go 
back to work at the strikeboimd plant if unable to find other employment. 

The second objective sought presents greater difficulties. The Secretary of Labor 
would have to certify that the entry of aliens to accept employment at certain areas 



2625 



would adversely affect wages and/or working conditions as a first step. Under the 
provisions of section 212(a) (14), no alien can be admitted to the United States as an 
immigrant unless the Secretary of Labor certifies that his admission will not ad- 
versely affect wages and/or working conditions of persons in similar employment in 
the United States. However, ahens who have been lawfully admitted for permanent 
residence are specifically exempted from that provision of law. Therefore, it does 
not appear that a legally defensible regulation such as the proposed regulation above 
could be promulgated to cover the second category desired by Labor. 

Support of the Commuter Program 

It can be assumed that the employers of commuter workers would oppose any 
action designed to restrict or eliminate the commuter program. In thosp areas where 
commuter workers are union members and are weU integrated into the regular work 
force, the labor unions concerned would oppose any action which would be detri- 
mental to their members. This would be particularly true in the Detroit area and 
possibly in the San Ysidro, Calif., area. 

Along the Mexican border it is believed that American business interests in the 
border communities would vigorously oppose termination of the commuter program. 
These businessmen, particularly those engaged in the retail trade, rely to great extent 
on trade with Mexican nationals and would fear that any curtailment of the corrunuter 
program would result in retahatory action by the Government of Mexico which could 
adversely affect their business. Furthermore, although commuters reside in Mexico, 
they spend a considerable portion of their income in the American community for 
goods and services. The recent news report of a study of the commuter situation at 
Laredo, Tex., stated that 80 percent of Laredo's retail sales, which approximated 
$86 million in 1966, are made to citizens of Mexico. 

Department of State Interest 

The Service can take no action which would seriously disrupt the commuter 
program without consulting with the Department of State. In the Texas AFL-CIO 
suit the Secretary of State submitted an affidavit to support the Government's motion 
to dismiss in which it was stated that termination of the conamuter program would 
have a serious adverse effect on relations between the United States and Mexico and 
Canada. Subsequent to the time that affidavit was prepared, there have been two 
actions by the U.S. Government which have had adverse effects on the economic 
situation along the border in Mexico. These were (1) the termination of the bracero 
program, and (2) the change in customs exemptions on goods purchased abroad by 
U.S. residents. Consequently, any action by the United States which would disrupt 
the commuter program would further aggravate the poor economic situation in the 
border areas in Mexico and could lead to some retahatory action by the Government 
of Mexico. 

There are two recent developments which, although not directly related to the 
commuter question, highhght the importance of consultation with the Department of 
State before taking any action to change or modify the commuter program. After his 



2626 



first meeting with the President of Mexico in April 1966, the President appointed a 
special envoy to make a detailed study of the Mexican border area with the objective 
of improving trade relations between the two countries as a step toward improving 
the economy of both sides of the border area. In addition, the Joint Presidential state- 
ment of April 16, 1966, called for the establishment of a Joint United States-Mexican 
Commission on Economic and Social Development of the Border Area to study con- 
ditions in the border area and come up with recommendations to improve the standard 
of living on both sides of the border. In an exchange of notes between the two countries 
completed on December 5, 1966, it was agreed to establish such a jouit commission and 
on January 17, 1967, the President announced the appointment of Mr. Raymond 
Telles, of El Paso, as Chairman of the U.S. Section. 



2627 



XVIII THE "COMMUTER" PROBLEM AND LOW WAGES AND 

UNEMPLOYMENT IN AMERICAN CITIES 
ON THE MEXICAN BORDER 



Prepared for the 
Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration 

by 

The Bureau of Employment Security, Office of Farm Labor Service 

United States Department of Labor 

April 1967 



2628 



THE "COMMUTER PROBLEM" AND LOW WAGES AND UNEMPLOY- 
MENT IN AMERICAN CITIES ON THE MEXICAN BORDER 

For many years the American Government has permitted alien immigrants to 
the United States to reside in Mexico and Canada and commute to jobs in the United 
States without losing their immigrant status. In effect, employment is equated with 
residence. This practice has been bitterly opposed by residents of U.S. towns on the 
Mexican border. They feel the Mexican immigrants are not reaUy immigrants to 
the United States — they only enjoy the material benefits of working for U.S. wages 
and working conditions while living in Mexico where living standards and costs are 
much less. With lower living costs than U.S. residents, aUen commuters are able, 
it is argued, to accept less pay than reasonable for U.S. residents to accept. Thus 
wage rates are undercut and American workers suffer. 

It is not just that the commuters settle for lower wages and a lower Uving standard. 
They also avoid much of the costs of pubUc services in the United States, some of which 
they enjoy: pubUc highways, medical and police protection services, shopping facUities, 
and sometimes even schools. This further reduces the real income of U.S. residents. 

Opposition to the ahen commuter was succinctly expressed in a February 3, 1961, 
Resolution of the Texas AFL-CIO Executive Board that is typical of feeling on the 
border. 

". . . the citizens along the U.S.-Mexican border . . . are the victims 
of the unfair competition for jobs of border crossers who commute daily . . . 
from the low cost-of-hving areas south of the border. These people are wiUing 
to work at a wage which is insuflficient to provide a decent standard of living 
for the American citizen living in the United States. 

"The 'commuters,' moreover, have at times been used as strikebreakers 
in an effort to destroy imions of American citizens . . . 

"There can be no hope that thousands of American citizens Uving in the 
Rio Grande Valley or El Paso or other border cities ever will be able to earn 
a hving wage so long as commuting by border crossers is permitted ..." 
This paper examines readily available data that may shed some light on the 
extent to which U.S. residents hving on the Mexican border are affected by com- 
muters. No effort is made to discuss the legal aspects of the American Goverimient's 
poUcy permitting commuting which has also been challenged by U.S. groups opposed 
to the practice. Perhaps the best discussion of this may be found ia the House Judiciary 
Committee's 1963 pubUcation, "Study of Population and Immigration Problems and 
Conamuters," an unpubhshed paper prepared by John W. Bowser, Deputy Assistant 
Commissioner, Inspections, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

Extent of commuting. Unfortunately commuters are not routinely identified in 
the operating reports of the Immigration Service. That agency has made several 



2629 



special identification checks of border crossers to try and pinpoint the volume of com- 
muting; the results of these checks are probably the best measure of commuting. The 
U.S. State Department and the Mexican governmental agency, Programma Nacional 
Fronterizo have also made estimates of commuting that yielded data roughly com- 
parable to the I&NS survey results. 

In part, some of the difficulty with understanding the commuter problem lies in 
the difference between the popular conception of what is a commuter and the technical, 
legal definition. 

The general public probably would regard anyone living in Mexico and working 
in the United States as a commuter. Furthermore, all aliens working in the United 
States would also be regarded as part of the commuter problem, even though they 
do not commute. 

In the legal sense, only aliens living in Mexico are commuters. United States 
citizens Uving in Mexico are not; aliens living and working in the United States are not. 
The situation is further compounded by the fact that most of the alien commuters have 
famUy or friends living in the United States and may themselves reside occasionally 
in the United States. Very frequently aliens wiU give U.S. addresses to their employers 
and may reside some of the time in the United States and some of the time in Mexico. 

One other problem exists. American policy basically is designed to facilitate travel 
between Mexico and the United States. Many thousands of Mexican citizens are 
permitted to enter this country for business or pleasure with entry documents that 
do not permit them to work. Undoubtedly some of these visitors do work, despite the 
best efforts of U.S. authorities. Such illegal, wetback, workers would be regarded in 
the popular mind as commuters but would not appear in any official or semiofficial 
estimate of the volume of alien commuters. Indeed, officials of the Immigration Service 
would probably deny that there are many illegal commuters. But residents of border 
communities do not agree. 

The wide difference between the popular view of the commuter problem and the 
legal view has been discussed to emphasize that the official statistics really only describe 
a limited part of a general problem. In an economic sense the public view is right. The 
existence of a large number of unskilled workers making themselves available for U.S. 
jobs serves to depress wage rates; it makes no difference whether the worker is an alien 
or a United States citizen living in Mexico; whether he is an alien residing in the United 
States; whether he enters and works legally or illegally. The impact is the same: wage 
rates are lowered. 

The latest I&NS special survey identified about 44,000 alien commuters January 
17, 1966. Almost 95 percent worked in eight border areas — El Paso, Laredo, Brownsville 
and Eagle Pass, Tex.; Nogales and San Luis, Ariz.; and Calexico and San Ysidro, Calif. 
Illustrating the fact that the alien commuters do not fuUy describe the economic impact 
of commuting, another 18,000 United States citizens fived in Mexico and worked in the 
United States — almost 30 percent of the total commuters. Table 1 lists various esti- 
mates of the volume of commuting made by different agencies and at different time 
periods; table 2 presents a comparison of alien and U.S. citizens commuting at the time 
of the latest I&NS survey. 



2630 



Table 1. — Number of Mexican alien commuters 



Major points of entry 



Jan. 24- 
Feb. 1, 
1960 1 



Mexican 

esti- 
mates ' 



BrownsvUle 2, 032 

Hidalgo 1,163 

Roma 208 

Laredo - 2,581 

Eagle Pass 1,604 

Del Rio - 513 

Fabens.-- -.. 274 

Ysleta 248 

Cordova 2,932 

Santa Fe Street 

Bridge (El Paso). 8, 592 

Arizona: 

Douglas 418 

Naco 127 

Nogales 1,614 

San Luis 4,234 

California: 

Calexico 7,616 

San Ysidro 9,281 

Minor Points of Entry.. 250 

Grand total 43, 687 



226 
805 
187 
175 
536 

99 
219 
137 

80 



2,552 

1,000 

146 

2, 239 

2, 195 

489 

267 

266 

3,455 



590 7, 605 



619 
511 
125 
209 
901 
82 
207 
115 
164 



1,796 

366 

89 

2, 490 

1,586 

237 

307 



1,729 
532 
108 
2, 382 
1,037 
314 
316 



3,000 

1,400 

400 



111 
2,273 



944 13,492 13,332 10,884 15,700 



96 470 93 307 288 

20 134 19 202 134 

108 1, 392 53 1, 464 1, 854 

3, 583 3, 654 3, 024 1, 239 1, 038 

6, 468 8, 098 7, 324 4, 692 5, 342 

3, 967 8, 460 3, 134 5, 855 5, 374 

161 219 129 87 101 

17, 457 42, 641 17, 653 34, 223 33, 867 



1, 132 



183 
15, 000-20, 000 y.y.y. i5,"006 



1 special I&NS surveys on dates indicated. 

* U.S. State Department estimates based on U.S. consulate reports. 

' Programa National FrojiteTUo: Tijuana, B.C.; Ciudad Juarez, Chih.; 

Table 2. — Workers residing in Mexico commuting to jobs in the United StateSj major entry points^ 

Jan. 17, 1966 









U.S. citizens 








U.S. citizens 






Mexican 
aliens 










Mexican 
aliens 








Total 




Per- 




Total 




Per- 








Number 


ctnt of 
total 








Number 


cent of 
total 


Texas: 










Arizona — Continued 










Brownsville 


. 3, 503 


2,032 


1,471 


42 


Nogales. 


1,882 


1,614 


268 


14 


Hidalgo 


. 2, 561 


1,163 


1,398 


55 


San Luis 


4,858 


4,234 


624 


13 


Laredo 


. 3,715 


2,581 


1, 134 


31 


California : 










Eagle Pass 


- 2,710 


1,604 


1, 106 


41 


Calexico 


9,957 


7,616 


2,341 


24 


Del Rio 


831 


513 


318 


38 


San Ysidro.. 


12, 333 


9, 281 


3, 052 


25 


Cordova 

Santa Fe 


. 4, 290 


2,932 


1,358 


32 












Total 


60, 140 


42, 580 


17, 560 


29 


Bridge 

Arizona: 

Douglas 


. 12,913 


8,592 


4,321 


33 


All other areas 


1,806 


1, 107 


699 


39 


587 


418 


169 


29 


Total 


61,946 


43, 687 


18, 259 


29 



Source; Special survey of border crossers by Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

Evidence of depressed U.S. wage scales. — Comprehensive information about wage 
rates is not available for most border areas. Most of the border towns are very small 
and not included in the statistical series that contain wage rate information. The 
discussion that follows is based primarily upon very scattered and fragmentary infor- 
mation. Notwithstanding their limitations, the data do show clearly that wage rates 
are low in the border areas. 

The presence of the alien commuters, however, is not the sole cause of low wage 
rates. Many factors determine wage levels — a surplus or shortage of workers; the kinds 
of jobs involved (higher-skilled jobs demand higher wages); the kinds of industry 
(usually durable goods manufacturing pays higher wages) ; the extent to which viable 



2631 



trade unions exist. In general, the factors which produce high wage rates are not found 
as frequently in border areas as they are in interior areas. But the factors which produce 
low wages are commonly present in the border towns and quite often are interrelated 
with the alien commuter problem. 

Most of the border areas have relatively large labor surpluses, partly because of 
the commuters, but also because of large numbers of low-skilled U.S. citizens and 
resident aliens residing in the United States. Thus, not all of the low wage problem is 
due to the commuters. 

Comparisons of area wage levels in the same state do not always reveal that 
wages in the border areas are always the lowest in the state. Interior areas in a border 
state also have large labor surpluses that cause wages in these areas to be as low, or 
lower, than wages in the border areas. The northeastern corner of Arizona, far removed 
from the border, where the poverty-stricken Navajo Indians live, is a case in point. 

Some border areas have concentrations of heavy industry, or establishments where 
the wage structure is determined by collective bargaining agreements or other factors 
not primarily concerned with conditions in the border towns. In such instances, the 
wages in the border towns may be higher than in interior areas where no such estab- 
Ushments exist. But wages on the border are seldom, if ever, higher than in the interior 
for the same kind of work at the same kind of firm. 

Texas 

Farm wage data are available from the monthly reports of the Texas Employment 
Commission. Monthly estimates of average hourly earnings in manufacturing, durable 
and nondurable goods industries are pubhshed by the Texas Employment Commission. 
Median earnings data are available from the 1960 census of population for one Texas 
border city. El Paso, and five other major Texas cities: Fort Worth, Beaumont-Port 
Arthur, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Two special surveys were made in El Paso 
and Laredo in 1961 by the Department of Labor specifically designed to explore some 
aspects of the commuter problem. These surveys contain information about wages in 
the occupations in which most commuters are employed. 

A. Farm wages. — Farm wage rates in Texas are lowest in border areas. Average 
hourly farm wages for seasonal farm work in the three agricultural reporting areas on 
the border were $0.76 in November 1966 — 31 percent less than the $1.10 average in 
the remainder of the state. The lowest wage rates are in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, 
$0.75; slightly higher in the next area, Rio Grande Plains, $0.77; and highest of all 
the border areas, $0.83 in the Trans Pecos area. 

The highest farm wages in Texas are in the areas farthest removed from the 
border — $1.20 and $1.24 in the Northern Panhandle and the High Rolling Plains. 
The following map of Texas shows the geographic pattern of average wage rates for 
seasonal farm work. 

Large numbers of alien and U.S. citizen commuters are employed in agriculture 
in the border areas. The January 17, 1966, I&NS survey identified 1,584 citizen com- 
muters and 1,282 alien commuters in the VaUey; 531 citizen and 810 alien commuters 
in the Rio Grande Plains; and 973 citizen and 1,078 ahen commuters in the Trans 



2632 



AVERAGE WAGE RATES, SEASONAL FARM WORK 

November 1966 
(Shaded areas indicate rates less thar) $.85 per hour) 




LOWER RIO GRANDE 

VALLEY 
-« 1.75 



2633 



Pecos areas. Commuters to agricultural jobs formed a very large proportion of the 
commuters in the Valley and the Rio Grande Plains areas. In the former area, 51 
percent of the U.S. citizen commuters and 37 percent of the alien commuters worked 
in farm jobs. The corresponding percentage in the Rio Grande Plains were 21 and 17 
percent. In the Trans Pecos area, where most of the commuters went to nonfarm jobs 
in El Paso, only 11 percent of the citizens and 9 percent of the alien commuters worked 
in agriculture. 

Commuters constituted a significant proportion of the seasonal farm work force 
in the border areas. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley about 15 percent of the seasonal 
farmworkers were commuters, with alien commuters making up about 7 percent of 
the seasonal farmworkers. In the Rio Grande Plains, about 9 percent of all seasonal 
workers were commuters, and 5 percent were alien commuters. In the Trans Pecos 
area almost all seasonal farmworkers were commuters. However, in this area farm 
work is a very minor activity — only about 1,500 seasonal workers were employed in 
January 1966, compared to 19,700 seasonal workers in the Valley and 15,600 in tlie 
Rio Grande Plains. 

Wage rates were higher in the Trans Pecos area than in the other two border 
areas because of two factors: the area is isolated without a large resident farm pop- 
ulation; the bulk of jobs in the area are found in the El Paso metropoKtan area where 
nonfarm wage levels tend to be higher than levels in rural areas. In contrast, the Valley 
and Rio Grande Plains areas have no large metropolitan areas. They have a large 
rural population, largely composed of Mexican-Americans, both citizens and 
resident aliens. The level of economic activity in the latter areas is much lower than 
in El Paso. The low-wage levels in the Valley and the Rio Grande Plains areas are 
probably primarily due to the large surplus of poor, unskilled, poorly educated, rural 
people (most of whom are Mexican-Americans) residing in the areas. But augmenting 
this labor surplus by adding commuters from ]Mexico, persons who are even poorer, 
more un.skilled, and less educated, serves to depress an already intolerable situation. 

B. 1960 census of population median earnings data. — Median earnings data reveal 
earnings of El Paso workers are significantly lower than in most other major Texas 
metropolitan areas. Of the 11 major occupational-sex groupings, median earnings 
were lowest in El Paso for four groupings (male clerical workers, female clerical, sales, 
and private household workers); and second lowest for three other groupings (male 
sales, clerical workers, and operatives and kindred workers). The highest El Paso 
ranked among the six areas was in the male service worker classification where it 
ranked third. 

One other aspect of the census of population data must be mentioned. Since the 
data are obtained from a household enumeration, residents of Mexico are not included 
in the census statistics because their households were not enumerated. Thus, for El 
Paso, the census statistics overstate the incomes of persons that work in that city 
because they omit the earnings of commuters who work for the most part in the city's 
lowest paid jobs. 

Table 3 contains pertinent median earnings data obtained in the 1960 census of 
population. 



2634 



Table 3. — Median earnings in 1959 of persons in the experienced labor force by sex and occupation 
[6 standard metropolitan statistical areas in Texas] 




All male workers $4, 199 

Clerical and kindred. 4, 186 

Salesworkers 4,437 

Craftsmen and 

foremen 4,691 

Masons 3,246 

Painters 3,505 

Operators 3,388 

Auto service 
station 

attendant 2, 172 

Truckdriver 3,334 

Welders 4,595 

Service workers 2, 788 

Barbers 3,022 

Cooks 2,682 

Guards 3,793 

Waiters 2,203 

Laborers, except 

farm and mine 2, 

Manufacturing 2, 775 

Nonmanufacturing, 2, 337 

All female workers 1, 836 

Clerical and kindred, 2, 656 

Bookkeepers 2, 855 

Cashiers 1,724 

Secretaries 3, 147 

Stenographers 3, 290 

Telephone operators. 2, 996 

Typists 2,601 

Salesworkers 1,292 

Operators 1,711 

Laundry 1,376 

Private household 617 

Service workers 1,130 

Industrial 

attendants 1,388 

Cooks 1,071 

Waitresses 



Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Census of Population, 1960." 

C. Manufacturing average hourly earnings. — -Wages in El Paso manufacturing 
are extremely low. El Paso ranked lowest of the eight major Texas areas (El Paso, 
Austin, San Antonio, Beaumont, Corpus Christi, Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston) 
for which the Texas Employment Commission published average hourly earnings in 
manufacturing. 

Austin and San Antonio had lower earnings for durable goods, but El Paso had 
by far the lowest average for nondurable goods. 

El Paso did not rank on the bottom for durable goods because it is the location of a 
large copper refinery and a large copper smelter. Wages in these establishments are 
high because the workers have effective trade unions. The refinery and smelter are 
branches of large corporations and collective bargaining between management and 
labor is on a regional basis, thus causing the unique situation of El Paso with its com- 
muter problem to be of little importance in the determination of wages of El Paso 
copper workers. 



2635 



Nondurable goods employment in El Paso is heavily concentrated in garment 
manufacturing — almost 75 percent of all nondurable goods workers are in this industry. 
The wage rates in garment manufacturing are little more than the minimum required 
by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Large numbers of ahen commuters (mainly women) 
are employed in this industry. The existence of this industry is a recent phenomenon 
and many local residents believe garment firms moved to El Paso to take advantage 
of the large supply of labor and the low- wage scale; both conditions are due, in part, 
to the commuter situation.' 

Table 4 contains average hourly earnings data in manufacturing in El Paso and 
other Texas cities. 

Table 4. — Aveiage hourly earnings in manufacturing industries, 8 major Texas cities, 1966 





Average 


hourly earnings 




All manu- 
facturing 


Durable 
goods 


Non- 
durable 
goods 


Texas 


$2.57 


$2.62 


$2.52 


El Paso - 


1.90 


2.46 
1.71 
3.03 


1.72 


Austin... 

Beaumont 


1.98 

3.35 


2.26 
3.48 



Average hourly earnings 

manu- Durable Non- 

turlng goods durable 

goods 



Corpus Christi $2.96 $2.57 $3.26 

DaUas 2.37 2.52 2.10 

Fort Worth 2.81 2.97 2.39 

Houston 3.00 2.87 3.16 

San Antonio 1.98 1.92 2.02 



Source: "The Texas Labor Market," Tejas Employment Commission. 

D. Special commuter survey — Laredo.— A special study of alien commuter 
problems— jobs held by commuters, wages received, and availability of domestic 
workers for these jobs — was made by the U.S. Department of Labor in the summer 
of 196L 

The study showed that commuters were employed in most occupations and indus- 
tries, but concentrated most heavily in garment manufacturing, hotels, restaurants, and 
retail trade and service establishments. A sample of firms employing 3,000 workers was 
contacted. These firms employed 438 Mexican ahens identifiable as commuters. In 
addition, the survey team suspected that other aUen employees of these firms were 
commuters, although they had given U.S. addresses to their employers. 

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 gar- 
ment manufacturing firms in the sample employed 88 alien commuters as sewing 
machine operators. The Texas Employment Commission oflSce files contained applica- 
tions from 156 unemployed L^.S. workers with this occupation. 

The survey revealed a very common pattern of firms employing alien commuters 
paying lower wages than did firms employing U.S. workers. From the data collected in 

' Other border areas in Texas, Laredo and Eagle Pass, have also attracted garment firms recently. A recent 
economic survey of Eagle Pass reports: ". . . it seems that the factors that have drawn garment manufacturers 
to Eagle Pass as a production site, conspicuously (he low cost of labor, are likely to continue in the future." (Italic 
supplied.) Robert H. Ryan, Charles T. Clark, and L. L. Schkade, "Bridge into the Future Eagle Pass, Texas," 
Area Economic Survey No. 18 (Austin: Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas, 1964) pp. 82-83. Quoted 
by Lamar B. Jones, "Mexican-American Labor Problems in Texas," unpublished Ph. D. thesis. University of 
Texas, 1965. 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. SB 



2636 



the survey, it was possible to make comparisons of the wage rates paid for 19 occupa- 
tions by firms engaged in similar activities. The firms employing only domestic workers 
paid higher rates for 15 of the occupations; in one occupation the rates paid were the 
same; and for three occupations the firms employing alien commuters paid higher rates. 
There were also instances where the same firms paid its aUen commuters less than it 
paid U.S. workers for the same work. The average of the wage rates for these 19 occupa- 
tions paid by the firms employing only U.S. workers was 38 percent higher than the 
average rates paid by the firms employing ahen commuters. Table 5 lists the occupa- 
tional wage data obtained in the survey. 

Table 5. — Occupational wage structure, Laredo, Tex., June 1961 



Average wage rate (perweek) 



Industry and occupation 



Firms Firms 

employing employing 
only domestic domestic and 
workers alien com- 

muter workers 



Hotels and motels : 

Cook 

Maid — 

Hall boy 

Waiter 

Busboy 

Bartender 

BeUboy 

Drugstores and related firms: 

Cashier 

Stock clerk 

Fountain girl 

Drug clerk 



20 
25 
15 
25 
58 
15 

27 
52 
16 

77 



$34 
17 
20 

' 18 
13 
46 

1 16 

12 

40 

2 23 
55 



Industry and occupation 



Average wage rate (per week) 

Firms Firms 

employing employing 

only domestic domestic and 
workers alien com- 

muter workers 



Grocery and related firms: 

Cashier 

Stock boy 

Produceman 

Butcher 

Warehouseman 

Miscellaneous retail firms: 

Porter 

Warehouseman 

Stockman 



$24 
35 
45 
65 
37 

53 
73 
53 



$24 
20 
35 
52 
31 

35 
21 
45 



' Plus tips. 2 Plus $3 meal allowance. 

Note.— Data were collected in the survev concerning the dlfleisnt rates paid each occupation in each firm. For some occupations monthly rates 
were reported; these were converted to weekly rates by dividing the monthly rate by 4.33. The number of workers paid each rate was not reported in 
all cases making it Impossible to compute an average rate weighted by the number o( workers paid each rate. The average rates shown in the table repre- 
sent the average o( the highest and lowest rates paid. These averages correspond quite accurately with the weighted averages computed lor the lew 
occupations where data were reported for each worker. 

E. Special commuter survey— El Paso.— The El Paso special study was similar in 
concept and scope to the Laredo survey discussed above. The survey was made in 
the summer of 1961. Seventy-five firms were surveyed. At least 1,000 alien commuters 
were employed by these firms. However, it is believed many more were employed: 
some firms did not provide information about the residence of their workers. In other 
cases, workers identified as alien residents of the United States were probably, in 
fact, residents of Mexico and had provided false addresses. One garment manufacturing 
firm, for example, claimed none of its employees were commuters; but it ran a bus to 
the border to pick up workers. 

For the most part, the alien commuters were employed in the less skilled and 
more menial occupations — busboy, dishwasher, laborer, salesclerk, maid, housecleaner, 
sewing machine operator. Alien commuters, however, were also employed in skilled 
jobs. Many worked in organized firms and were. members of trade imions. 

The data collected in the El Paso survey cannot be summarized as were the Laredo 
data (table 5). In some industries studied, all of the sample firms employed commuter 
aUens. In other mdustries, the sample firms refused to provide wage information or 



2637 



attempt to determine if any of their employees were alien commuters. The wage 
structure in other firms was determined by collective bargaining agreements negotiated 
on a national or regional basis and thus unaffected by commuters. 

Where information was supplied, it was apparent that wage rates paid alien 
commuters were usually low. In about one-half of the occupations studied, the wage 
rates paid commuters were lower than what unemployed job apph cants registered for 
work with the Texas Employment Commission said they would accept. These occupa- 
tions were: sales men and women, cooks, laundry workers, painters, carpenters, and 
general manufacturing workers. In other classifications, salesclerks, kitchen helpers, 
packinghouse workers, laborers, and truckdrivers, the commuter aliens were paid rates 
commensurate with the expectations of unemployed domestic workers. 
Following is a summary of the survey results: 

Eleven construction firms. — Six firms employed only U.S. residents; five 
employed alien commuters. Two-thirds of the firms employing only U.S. 
residents paid the union scale. Only 20 percent of the firms employing com- 
muters paid the union scale. The lowest rates were paid by the nonunion 
firms that employed commuters. 

Four retail dry goods stores. — Three firms employed alien commuters. 
They paid lower wage rates than the firm that employed only U.S. residents. 
Four wholesale and warehouse firms. — Three firms employed alien com- 
muters. The firm employing only U.S. residents paid the highest wage rates. 
AU sample firms in the following industries employed alien commuters: Garment 
manufacturing (11 firms); restaurants (five firms); meatpacking (three firms); and 
laundries (four firms). Of interest is the fact that in the one laundry where wage rate 
data were supplied for both alien commuters and U.S. residents, the conmiuters were 
paid less than $0.50 per hour while the U.S. residents were paid about $0.80 per hour. 
Insufficient wage and employment data were obtained to make any comparison 
for seven transportation and storage firms; two cotton processors; and three hotels 
and motels. 

In several industries, refineries (four firms); miscellaneous manufacturing (seven 
firms); and miscellaneous firms (five establishments), there was no difference in the 
rates paid by firms employing alien commuters and those employing U.S. workers. 
One refinery, two miscellaneous manufacturing, and two of the other miscellaneous 
firms employed commuters. 

Six other retail trade firms were included in the sample, but meaningful compari- 
sons could not be made because the nature of their operations and the occupations 
of the workers they employed were too dissimilar. 

F. Unemployment in Texas border cities. — The Texas Employment Commission 
prepares and publishes tmemployment estimates for 22 Texas cities. In 1966 these 
data revealed that unemployment in border towns was substantially greater than in 
interior cities. Laredo had the highest rate — 9.6 percent. The average rate for the four 
border areas (Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito; El Paso; Laredo; and McAllen- 
Pharr-Edinburg) was 6.6 percent, almost 95 percent greater than the 3.4-percent rate 
in the 18 interior areas. 



2638 



High unemployment rates are indicative of labor surpluses, surpluses that in 
turn cause lower wage rates as employers find it unnecessary to bid up wages to attract 
workers. The fact that unemployment is heavy and wage rates are low in the border 
towTis is not coincidental. Workers residing in Mexico contribute to the labor surplus 
by filling jobs that United States residents would otherwise have— and frequently take 
them at wage rates unacceptable to United States residents. 

Table 6 fists 1966 local unemployment rates for Texas; table 7 compares the 
volume of alien commuters in January 1966 with estimated unemployment in eacli of 
the Texas border towns for the same time period. 

Table 6. — Unemployment rates in 22 Texas cities, 1966 



4 border cities 

Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito.. 

El Paso 

Laredo 

McAlIen-Pharr-Edinburg 

18 interior cities 

Abilene 

Amarillo 

Austin 

Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange 

Corpus Christi 

Dallas 

Fort Worth 



6.5 
4.4 
9.6 
5.8 
3.4 
3.6 
2.9 
2.6 
4.0 
3.7 
2.5 
2.9 



Rate Raok 



IS interior cities — Continued 

Galveston-Texas City 4.7 

Houston 2.4 

Longview-Kilgore-Gladewater 3. 3 

Lubbock 3. S 

Midland-Odessa 3. 4 

San Angelo 3. 4 



San Antonio. 

Texarkana 

Tyler 

Waco 

Wichita Falls. 



4.3 
3.8 
3.3 
4.4 
3.0 



Source: "The 'Texas Labor Market," Texas Employment Commission. 

Table 7} — Texas border cities; unemployment and alien commuters, January 1966 



city 


Unemployed 
U.S. residents 


Allen 
com- 
muters 


City 


Unemployed 
U.S. residents 


Alien 




Number Rate 


Number Bate 




Brownsville-Harlingen-San 

Benito 

El Paso . 


.. 3,020 6.2 
. . 5, 050 4. 8 


2,032 
11, 772 


Laredo 

McAUen-Pharr-Edinburg 


_. 3,365 12.6 
.. 4,190 6.9 


2,581 
1, 163 









Source: Unemployment data Irom "The Texas Labor Market," Texas Employment Commission; alien commuter data from liNS survey, Jan. 17 



Arizona 

Afien commuters do not constitute as much of a problem in Arizona as they do in 
Texas. Only two border towns have any significant volume of afien commuter workers — 
San Luis, 4,200 and Nogales, 1,600. About 400 afien commuters cross the border at 
Douglas and another 100 at Naco. Employment and wage data for local Arizona com- 
munities are very limited, makuig it difficult to evaluate the economic impact of com- 
muters. Farm wage data are avafiable from the reports of the Arizona State Employ- 
ment Service and that agency has also pubfished some occupational wage data for 
nonfarm jobs in its annual pubfication, "Arizona Basic Economic Data." Since Arizona 
has no sizable border cities, no earnings data are avafiable from the 1960 census. 

A. Farm wage data. — Data concerning wages for seasonal farm work in Arizona 
do not reveal any adverse impact exerted by alien commuters, despite a heavy volume 
of commuting into Yuma County where over half the farm workers employed are 
commuters who cross at San Luis. In the three major farming areas in Arizona, Mari- 



2639 



copa, Pinal, and Yuma Counties, wages were highest in Yuma County, the only county 
where alien commuting occurs. The average hourly wage for seasonal farmwork ia 
Yuma County, November 1966, was $1.31 per hour versus $1.29 in Pinal County and 
$1.26 in Maricopa County. 

The reason for this anomalous situation, compared to wage patterns in other 
border areas, stems from unique conditions in the Yuma area. The farm work force 
in Yuma County for many years was dominated by Mexican aliens — Mexican contract 
workers admitted under Pubhc Law 78 and/or illegal wetback workers prior to the 
wetback cleanup in the early 1950's. There was practically no resident domestic work 
force doing seasonal farm work in Yuma County. The prevailing wage rate in Yuma 
was whatever the Department of Labor required be paid to the Mexican contract 
workers. 

When Pubhc Law 78 ended in 1964, this situation changed. No longer was the 
labor force for seasonal farm work furnished by the Government. Growers had to com- 
pete with each other for available workers by bidding up wages. For the most part, 
the workers they were trying to attract were Mexican immigrants, some of whom 
lived in Yuma County; others hved in Mexico; and stUl others moved into Yuma 
from other areas in Arizona and CaUfomia. In other areas of Arizona, the labor force 
was not so heavily composed of contract workers and the impact of Pubhc Law 78's 
termination was not as severe; more local residents were available to replace the con- 
tract workers. Thus in Yuma there was more active competition in the wage area; 
this competition was successful in attracting workers, but many of the new workers 
were Mexican immigrants who chose to live in San Luis, Mexico, rather than in the 
United States. 

Between May 1963 and January 1966, aUen commuting increased almost fourfold, 
from about 1,100 to about 4,000. (Data are not available concerning the proportion 
of the 1963 commuters that worked in farm jobs. In 1966, about 85 percent did farm 
work.) Between 1963 and 1966, wage rates for seasonal farmwork in Yuma County 
increased 35 percent, compared to a 25-percent increase in Maricopa County, and a 
10-percent increase in Pinal County where contract workers were largely eliminated 
prior to 1963. 

B. Nonfarm occupational wage data. — The Arizona State Employment Service has 
published wage rate ranges, by county, for about a dozen occupations. Separate data 
are published for two Cochise County towns, Douglas and Bisbee. Although the two 
towns are only about 20 miles apart, there is a significant difference in the pattern of 
alien commuter employment. Douglas is directly on the border and about 400 ahens 
commute to jobs in the United States from Agua Prieta, Mexico; about 75 percent of 
them work in Douglas, the remainder in farm jobs in the Elfrida area, north of the city. 
There is very limited public transportation between Bisbee and Douglas, and very few 
aUen commuters, or even Douglas residents for that matter, work in Bisbee. While 
Bisbee itself is only 10 miles from the border, the closest Mexican border town, Naco, is 
very small. Only about 100 ahen commuters cross from Naco to work in the Bisbee area. 
Thus, ahen commuters would have a much greater impact upon Douglas than upon 
Bisbee, despite the closeness of the towns. 



2640 



The Employment Service data reveal lower wage rates existing in Douglas than in 
Bisbee, indicating that the commuter situation may have adversely affected rates in 
Douglas. As shown in table 8, seven occupations are listed which can be compared. 
Comparing the low point of the wage ranges shown for each occupation, four of the oc- 
cupations in Douglas have lower rates while the other three are the same. Comparing the 
high point of the wage ranges, five of the occupations are lower in Douglas, one higher 
and one the same. 

Table 8. — Wage rates paid in Bisbee and Douglas, Ariz.: Selected occupations, 1966 

Occupation Bisbee Douglas 

Staff nurse $425 to $525 per month $400 to $525 per month. 

Stenographer $400 to $535 per month $350 to $420 per month. 

Salesperson $1.25 to $2.15 per hour $1.25 to $2 per hour. 

Cook - $10 to $14 per day $10 to $12 per day. 

Carpenter $2.50 to $4,645 ' per hour $2.50 to $4,685 i per hour. 

Auto service station attendant $1.25 to $1.50 per hour $1 to $1.25 per hour. 

Welder $3 to $4.70 per hour $1.50 to $2.75 per hour. 

1 Higher rate is union scale. 

Source: "Arizona Basic Economic Data," October 1966, Arizona State Employment Service, Phoenix, Ariz. 

Of the three Arizona counties where any appreciable volume of alien commuting 
occurs, commuting to nonfarm jobs is greatest in Santa Cruz County (Nogales is the 
major town in this county). The 1,600 alien commuters make up about one-third of 
the county's work force; over 90 percent work mainly in nonfarm jobs. In contrast, 
the ahen commuters working in Cochise County (Bisbee and Douglas) constitute only 
about 3 percent of the work force. In Yuma County (San Luis is the border entry 
point) ahen commuters make up 19 percent of the work force, but are heavily con- 
centrated in agriculture. Over half of the farmworkers employed in the county are 
ahen commuters, while only about 5 percent of the nonfarm workers are ahen commuters. 
Thus, any impact of alien commuters upon the nonfarm wage structure in Arizona 
would be primarily concentrated in Santa Cruz County. 

Occupational wage data published in "Arizona Basic Economic Data" clearly 
show that wage rates in Santa Cruz County tend to be lower than in other areas. Of 
the nine occupations for which data are available for 12 areas in the State, wage rates 
in Santa Cruz County are lowest (or tied for lowest) for five occupations — clerk typist, 
carpenter, auto service attendant, truckdriver, and welder; second lowest for stenog- 
rapher and cook; third lowest for nurse; and fourth lowest for salesperson. Table 9 
lists the occupational wage data published in "Arizona Economic Data." 

Mr. Ben Zweig, currently Executive Director of the Santa Cruz County and city 
of Nogales Economic Opportunity Community Action Committee, and formerly the 
American Consul at Nogales (1943-51) and Nuevo Laredo (1957-63), commented 
upon the commuter situation in an interesting fashion before the President's National 
Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. Mr. Zweig said, "There is no doubt the daily 
influx of more than a thousand workers into this small community depresses wages." 
He went on to state commuters live in Mexico for tv/o reasons: ". . . because living 
is cheaper, but also because they are unable to obtain immigrant visas for the immedi- 



2641 



Table 9. — Wage rates for selected occupations, by county, 1966 



Nurse (per month) 

Stenographer (per month) 

Clerk typist (per month) 

Salesperson (per hour) 

Cook (per day) 

Carpenter (per hour) 

Auto service station attendant 

(per hour) 

Truck driver, light (per hour).. 
Welder (per hour) 



$315-$335 

275-325 

240-260 

1-1. 25 

12-14 

2. 25-5. 25 



$400-8525 

350-535 

325-410 

1. 25-2. 15 

10-14 

2. 50-4. 685 



1. 10-1. 40 1-1. 50 
1.15-1.35 

2. 75-4. 97 1. 50-4. 70 



$250-8480 

285-450 

200-400 

1. 10-2 

9-22. 50 

2. 50-4. 505 

1. 25-1. 75 

2. 12-3. 78 
2. 76-4. 86 



$400-$500 

265-310 

220-265 

. 90-1. 25 

10-16 

3. 20-4. 50 



$275-$350 

260-350 

215-260 

1-1. 25 

10-12 

3-4 



$420-$463 
325-400 
270-360 

1. 10-1. 66 

10-18 

3-4. 685 



1-1. 50 1. 25-1. 75 

1. 50-2 1. 50-2 

3. 19-5. 04 2-2. 50 



Mohave 



Santa Cruz 



Yavapai 



Yuma 



Nurse (per month) 

Stenographer (per month) 

Clerk typist (per month) 

Salesperson (per hour) 

Cook (per day) 

Carpenter (per hour) 

Auto service station attendant 

(per hour) 

Truck driver, light (per hour).. 
Welder (per hour) 



$395-$420 $34O-$400 $350-$400 

300-325 285-350 275-300 

250-275 225-315 240-260 

1. 25-1. 50 1. 25-1. 40 1. 25-1. 75 

12-18 14-18 9-11 

3-5. 13 3-4. 50 2. 50-4. 385 

1. 25-1. 50 1. 25-1. 35 1. 10-1. 25 

1. 25-1. 50 1. 25-1. 75 1. 25-1. 50 

2-4. 25 2. 50-4. 65 2-2. 50 



$325-$375 

2.50-325 

200-250 

1. 25-1. 35 

10-12 

2-4. 25 



$325-$475 

240-320 

225-275 

1. 25-1. 35 

10-13 

2. 50-4. 505 



1-1. 25 1. 10-1. 35 

1. 25 1. 50-2 

1. 50-2 2. 25-2. 85 



$400-8475 

300-335 

275-316 

1. 25-1. 75 

16-20 

2. 50-4. 385 

1. 25-1. 50 

1. 35-1. 75 

2. 50-3. 25 



Source; "Arizona Basic Economic Data," October 1966, Arizona State Employment Service, Phoenix, Ariz. 

ate members of their families." According to Mr. Zweig, the reason visas caimot be 
obtained is the commuters earn such low wages they cannot prove their families would 
not become public charges. If Mr. Zweig's comments are correct, we have a situation 
that would be ludicrous if it were not so pitiful: Mexican ahens are admitted as im- 
migrants. They satisfy the public charge requirements of immigration policy by ac- 
cepting work in low paid jobs. But the jobs are so low paid they are not viewed as 
meeting the public charge requirements for the workers' families. 

The 1960 census also contains data relating to the low earnings in Santa Cruz 
County supporting the previous discussion that indicated wages in this area are among 
the lowest in the State. According to the census, median earnings in 1959 of Santa 
Cruz County male residents were $3,666 — lower than any county except Apache. 
(Earnings in this county are depressed because of the large Indian population.) For 
female residents, Santa Cruz County ranked 11th among the 14 Arizona counties. 

California 

Large numbers of aUen commuters work in California, crossing at two major 
points of entry, Calexico and San Ysidro. Calexico is in the rich farming area of the 
Imperial Valley. About 85 percent of the 7,500 to 8,000 ahen commuters work in 
agriculture. San Ysidro is within the San Diego metropolitan area and about 40 
percent of ahen commuters work in agriculture with the remainder working in a wide 
variety of nonfarm jobs. Data concerning the occupational characteristics of the 
alien commuters working in nonfarm jobs in San Diego are not available, but there 
is no reason to suspect that such workers would be much different than those crossing 
into El Paso. There they worked for the most part in the lowest skilled, most menial 
jobs. 



2642 



Data concerning wages, employment, and unemployment in border areas and 
the alien conmiuter problem in California indicate that in this state, as in Texas and 
Arizona, economic conditions are much worse on the border. 

A. Farm wages. — According to data collected by the California Department of 
Employment, farm wages in Cahfornia are lowest in the border areas. The average 
wage for seasonal farmwork in November 1966 was $1.42 per hour in the two border 
covmties. Imperial and San Diego. Wage rates for sunilar work in the remainder of the 
state were 6 percent higher. 

Most of the seasonal farm work in the border areas is done by ahen commuters. 
The number of alien commuters that cross at Calexico is equal to about 90 percent of 
seasonal farm employment in Imperial County. Some of the ahen commuters actually 
commute out of Imperial County to jobs in the Coachelle VaUey, over 60 miles north 
of the border. In all, however, alien commuters probably make up about 85 percent 
of the seasonal work force in Imperial County. The same situation prevails in San 
Diego County. The number of ahen commuters crosshig at San Ysidro is equal to 
almost all of the workers employed in seasonal farm jobs in the county. Since some 
aliens also commute out of the San Diego County, the proportion that ahens constitute 
of the seasonal work force is less than 100 percent — probably about 85 or 90 percent. 

There is also a significant volume of commuting by U.S. citizens residing in 
Mexico. About 1,600 such workers cross at Calexico to do farmwork and another 800 
enter the United States at San Ysidro. It is clear that for practical purposes nearly all 
of the seasonal farmworkers employed in San Diego and the Imperial Valley Hve in 
Mexico. 

Considering this fact, it is perhaps surprising that farm wage rates are not even 
lower. They are not because of the same factor present in the Yuma, Ariz., situation — 
the termination of Public Law 78. When this program was in existence, most of the sea- 
sonal farmwork was done by contract Mexican workers. As the program ended, farmers 
had to compete for whatever domestic workers were available. For the most part, these 
were Mexican ahens who had previously been admitted as immigrants. They accepted 
the farm jobs formerly held by ahen contract workers at the higher wage rates employ- 
ers were offering. When the ahen contract workers dominated the farm labor force, 
particularly in Imperial Coimty, farmworker housing was geared to the contract 
worker. Barracks-type housing for single male workers was the standard. Family 
housing for farmworkers was available only on a very limited basis. Thus when alien 
contract workers were replaced by U.S. citizens or ahen immigrants, ahnost the only 
available family housing was in Mexico. 

On the border in Cahfornia, as m Arizona, the end of the bracero program in- 
creased alien commuting. But at the same time it also caused sharp wage rate increases, 
thus militating against — perhaps disguising is a more apt description — the adverse 
impact of the commuter situation. Total ahen commuting jumped over 50 percent ^ 



' There is reason to suspect alien immigrant commuting increased more than 50 percent. In 1963 alien contract 
workers employed in the Imperial Valley were permitted to live in Mexico and commute to their jobs. Some of 
these workers may have been counted as commuters in the 1963 I&NS survey. 



2643 



between 1963 and 1966, but seasonal farm wages still increased 35 percent, one-fourth 
greater than the increase in wages for the same kind of work in the rest of the state. 

B. 1960 census of population median earnings data. — The published statistics of 
the 1960 census contain data for eight major metropolitan areas, one of which was 
San Diego. However, the area is so large that the smaller number of alien commuters 
would not be expected to have very much impact. The total volume of ahen commuters 
amounted to less than 3 percent of the total labor force; those working in nonfarm 
jobs to only about 1.5 percent of nonfarm emplojrment. Furthermore, the structure of 
industry in San Diego includes several relatively well paid industries. The Federal 
Government has a large naval installation in the area and several aircraft manu- 
facturing firms are also present. 

Nonetheless, there is evidence to indicate that economic conditions in San Diego 
are poorer than in other major California cities. San Diego ranked only fifth highest 
among the eight major cities in median earnings of male workers, and fourth highest 
for female workers. Earnings were lower in San Diego than in the largest urban areas, 
but higher than earnings in the interior valley cities where farming is an important 
activity. Of particular significance are the data for the occupations in which most of 
alien commuters probably work. The earnings of farm laborers, $1,621, were the lowest 
of all eight areas. Comparing Los Angeles and San Diego, the earnings of San Diego 
residents were 8 percent lower for male salesworkers; 18 percent lower for male 
farmworkers; 5 percent lower for female clerical workers; 8 percent lower for female 
salesworkers; 18 percent lower for female private household workers; and 14 percent 
lower for female service workers. As was previously mentioned, the census data, which 
are collected from households in the United States, do not fully measure the impact 
of commuters because they reside in Mexico. If commuters were included in the census 
enumeration, the census median earnings would be lower than was reported. This is 
demonstrated by social security program data. These data show, for 1965, that average 
earnings in San Diego County were seven percent lower than in Los Angeles County. 
However, the census data showed median earnings of all male workers to be only .2 
percent lower in San Diego County. The median earnings of women workers were 
about 8 percent lower. Table 10 lists earnings data from the 1960 census of population. 

C. Unemployment in California border area. — The California Department of 
Employment has prepared estimates of imemployment for both San Diego County 
and the Imperial VaUey. The unemployment rate in 1966 in San Diego was 5.2 percent, 
somewhat higher than the Los Angeles-Long Beach rate of 4.5 percent and San Fran- 
cisco-Oakland rate of 4.4 percent. In the Imperial Valley, where alien commuters 
form a much greater proportion of the work force, the unemployment rate was 10 
percent, double the average rate for the entire state. 



2644 



Table 10. — Median earnings in 1959 oj persons in the experienced labor force by sex and occupation- 
major California cities 



San Blego Angeles- 
Long 
Beach 



San San 

Bernardino- Fran- 
Riverside- Cisco- 
Ontario Oakland 



All male workers 5, 672 

Farmers and farm managers 3, 331 

Clerical and kindred 5, 259 

Salesworkers 5, 338 

Salesmen and clerks 5, 397 

Retail trade 4, 850 

Craftsmen, foremen 6, 182 

Carpenters 5, 803 

Painters 5, 368 

Plasterers 6, 468 

Operatives & kindred 5, 216 

Attendants, auto 2, 750 

Meatcutters 6, 051 

Truck drivers- 5, 390 

Welders 5, 991 

N.E.C. manufacturing 5,237 

Durable 5, 305 

Nondurable 4, 863 

Service workers 4, 042 

Barbers 4, 757 

Cooks 3, 777 

Guards -- 5, 390 

Waiters 4, 266 

Farm laborers and foremen 1, 621 

Laborers, except farm and mine 3, 753 

Manufacturing 4, 413 

Durable 4,457 

Nonmanufacturing 3, 761 

Construction 4, 370 

All female workers 2, 729 

Clerical 3, 304 

Bookkeepers 3, 318 

Cashiers 2,410 

Office machine operators 3, 606 

Secretaries 3, 525 

Stenographers 3, 589 

Telephone operators 3, 285 

Typists 3,081 

AU other 3, 277 

Salesworkers 1, 859 

Retail trade 1, 892 

Operatives 2, 866 

Laundry... 2, 226 

Private household 724 

Live out 667 

Service 1, 698 

Institute attendants 2, 369 

Cooks 2, 163 

1,464 



5,684 


5, 119 


4,498 


5,709 


5,069 


5,705 


5,998 


3,731 


6,537 


4, 317 


4,242 


3,796 


4,070 


4,500 


5, 108 


5,247 


4,982 


5, 179 


5, 182 


5, 166 


5,344 


5,828 


5,473 


5,445 


5,554 


5,216 


5,816 


5,971 


5,885 


5,467 


5,481 


5,639 


5,309 


5,913 


5,909 


4,940 


4,817 


4,775 


4,880 


4,552 


5,056 


5,107 


6,088 


6,035 


5,448 


6, 113 


5,582 


6,223 


6,435 


5,701 


5,398 


5,085 


5,907 


5, 119 


6,065 


6,188 


4,761 


5, 165 


4,510 


5,624 


4,634 


5,320 


5,511 


6,068 


6,049 


5,978 


6, 122 


5,487 


6,011 


6,534 


5,089 


5, 142 


4,404 


5,078 


4,825 


5,270 


5,339 


2,869 


2,520 


2,802 


2,730 


2,573 


3,003 


2,589 


6, 104 


5,739 


5,804 


5,747 


5,871 


6,096 


6,419 


5,550 


4,650 


4,941 


5,391 


4,987 


5,848 


5,939 


5,431 


5,879 


5,094 


5,777 


5,322 


5,832 


5,829 


5,068 


5,595 


4,306 


5, 165 


4,836 


5,320 


5,198 


5,018 


4,631 


4, 195 


5,500 


4,901 


5,113 


5,413 


5, 169 


5,922 


4,399 


4,784 


4,502 


5,518 


4,674 


3,977 


3,909 


3,594 


4,076 


3,605 


4, 193 


3,873 


4,315 


4,244 


4, 149 


4,932 


3,873 


4,501 


4,535 


4,234 


3,619 


3,737 


3,942 


3,847 


4, 321 


4,533 


4,416 


4,073 


3,357 


5,094 


4,591 


4,481 


4,258 


3,637 


3,870 


3,489 


3,631 


3,368 


4,090 


2,448 


1,964 


2,281 


1,960 


1,815 


1,785 


1,999 


2,274 


3,684 


3,462 


2,924 


3,965 


3,407 


4,473 


3,760 


3,929 


4,446 


3,109 


3.765 


4,018 


4,292 


3,817 


3,852 


4,346 


3,007 


4,021 


4, 140 


4,295 


4,603 


3,402 


3,473 


2,883 


3,841 


3,206 


4,066 


3,988 


4,309 


4,233 


3,944 


4,422 


3,906 


4,313 


4,526 


2,957 


2,154 


2,038 


3,042 


2,307 


3,165 


2,635 


3,484 


3,221 


2,927 


3,512 


3, 142 


3,577 


3,226 


3,653 


3,219 


3,016 


3,512 


3, 112 


3,638 


3,138 


2,937 


2,635 


2,248 


2,491 


2,557 


3,004 


2,408 


3,612 


3,548 


3,154 


3,526 


3,509 


3,634 


3,384 


4,034 


3,649 


3, 161 


3,945 


3,338 


3,976 


3,574 


3,799 


3,713 


3,648 


3,814 


3,388 


3,885 


3,498 


3,363 


3,369 


3,351 


3,465 


3, 147 


3,659 


3,325 


3,091 


2,887 


2,814 


3,356 


2,993 


3,244 


2,683 


3,287 


3,049 


2,628 


3,420 


3,061 


3,456 


3,093 


2,021 


1,494 


1,666 


1,936 


1,773 


2,426 


1,805 


1,935 


1,494 


1,693 


1,831 


1,783 


2,365 


1,842 


2,676 


1,733 


1,529 


1,976 


1,872 


2,696 


1,947 


2, 196 


2, 123 


2,273 


2, 199 


1,988 


2,467 


2,600 


886 


672 


654 


643 


659 


842 


691 


807 


665 


635 


623 


641 


780 


647 


1,969 


1,589 


1,594 


1,871 


1,545 


2,191 


1,843 


2,440 


2,448 


2,309 


2,390 


2, 185 


3,043 


2,492 


2,203 


1,773 


1,690 


2,020 


1,901 


2,348 


2,231 


1,638 


1,329 


1,312 


1,472 


1,354 


1,802 


1,565 



Source: U.S. Bureau o( the Census, Cefuui of Population, 1980. 



2645 



SUMMARY 

The "Commuter" Problem and Low Wages and Unemployment 
in American Cities on the Mexican Border 

• About 44,000 alien commuters live in Mexico and work in U.S. cities. 

• Another 18,000 U.S. citizens commute to their U.S. jobs from residence in Mexico. 

• 90 percent of the commuters are in eight border areas: Brownsville, Laredo, Eagle 
Pass, and El Paso, Tex.; Nogales and San Luis, Ariz.; Calexico and San Ysidro, Calif. 

• Unemployment in Texas border cities is almost 95 percent greater than in Texas 
interior cities. 

• Alien commuters work most often in the lowest skUled, most menial, and lowest 
paid jobs: seasonal farm work, maids, kitchen helpers, salesclerks, sewing machine 
operators. 

• Wages for seasonal farmwork in Texas border areas are over 30 percent less than 
in the rest of the State. 

• Firms that employ alien commuters tend to pay lower wages than firms that employ 
only U.S. residents. 

• Firms that employ ahen commuters frequently pay them less than what they pay 
U.S. residents for the same work. 

• Wage rates paid to commuters are often less than what unemployed U.S. residents 
say they are willing to accept. 

• Greatest number of alien commuters in Arizona cross the border at San Luis for 
farmwork in the Yuma area. Farm wages, however, in this area are high because the 
great number of ahen commuters is a relatively new phenomenon resulting from 
efforts to attract a new labor supply after Public Law 78 terminated. 

• Wage rates for nonfarmwork in Arizona border areas are very low in comparison to 
rates in other areas. Workers in Santa Cruz County, where most nonfarm aUen 
commuters work, have the lowest earnings in the State, except for Apache County 
where poverty on the Navajo Indian Reservation depresses earnings. 

• California farm wage rates are lowest in the border areas. The bulk of the farmwork 
force in these areas is composed of alien commuters. 

• Ahen commuters loom the largest in the Imperial Valley where they constitute about 
30 percent of the total work force, and about 85 percent of the farmwork force. 
Unemployment in this area was 10 percent of the labor force in 1966, twice the 
average rate for the entire State. 

• In San Diego, another area where large numbers of alien commuters work, wage 
rates were lower, and unemployment higher, than in Los Angeles. 



2646 



XL— THE LABOR CERTIFICATION 

Its Requirements, Its Procedures, and Its Results in the 
First Year of Operation 



Prepared for the 

Select Coiniuission on Western Hemisphere Immigration 

by 

The United States Department of Labor 



2647 



THE LABOR CERTIFICATION 

Its Requirements, Its Procedures, and Its Results in the First Year of 

Operation 

Immigration responsibilities 

Under the 1965 Immigration Act, as amended, the Secretary of Labor has the 
following responsibilities : 

1. Under Section 212(a) (14), on requests from prospective immigrant work- 
ers or employers to determine and certify to the Secretary of State and 
the Attorney General, prior to issuance of an immigrant (permanent) visa 
by the Department of State, that, 

(a) there are not sufficient workers in the United States who are able, 
willing, qualified, and available . . .; 

(b) the employment of such aliens will not adversely affect the wages and 
working conditions of United States workers similarly employed. 

2. Under section 204(b), upon request, advise the Attorney General on the 
qualifications of immigrant (permanent) workers with respect to according 
a status of third and sixth preference. 

A system of preferences for immigrants from countries outside the Western 
Hemisphere was established by the 1965 Act. Under Section 203(a), preferences 1, 2, 
4, and 5 are reserved for aliens with close family relationships to U.S. citizens or 
permanent resident aliens. Preference 7 pertains to refugees. Even though aliens qualify- 
ing for these preferences may seek work after settling in this country, the Labor Depart- 
ment has no responsibility in their admission. 

The Labor Department's certification is required for four categories of admission 
whereby aliens seek to enter the United States on the basis of permanent employment. 
A labor certification is needed by third preference, sixth preference, and non- 
preference immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere; and by 
"Special Immigrants" from Western Hemisphere countries. 

Third -preference. — Section 203(a)(3): Members of the professions, or 
scientists and artists of exceptional ability who will substantially benefit 
prospectively the national economy, cultural interests, or welfare of the 
United States. (Cannot exceed 10 percent of total numerical limitation.) 

Sixth preference.— Section 203(a)(6): Skilled and unskilled immigrant 
workers in occupations for which a shortage of employable and willing per- 
sons exists in the United States. (Cannot exceed 10 percent of total 
numerical limitation.) 

Special immigrants. — Section 101 (a) (27) (A): Immigrants bom in any 
independent country of the Western Hemisphere or the Canal Zone. (No 
limitation until July 1, 1968; thereafter 120,000 per annum, unless changed 
by interim legislation.) 



2648 



Within the Department of Labor, the Secretary delegated responsibihty for admbi- 
istering the immigration activity to the Bureau of Employment Security. The 11 
BES regional offices and over 2,000 local pubUc employment service offices provide 
an administrative framework for carryiog out the Department's i mmi gration respon- 
sibihties. Also, the employment service functions of job placement, industrial service, 
occupational analysis, and labor area information provide the information necessary 
for making determinations on availabUity of U.S. workers and adverse effect and for 
advising the Department of Justice about an alien's job qualifications. 

Implementation 

The tests of availability and adverse effect for a later certification are based on 
information from various sources. AvailabUity of American workers is determined 
from occupational information, and general and local employment data available in 
the Department of Labor, local pubUc employment service offices, professional societies, 
trade associations, labor unions, and employer recruitment efforts. In determining 
adverse effect, factors such as hours, fringe benefits, and other employment conditions 
are considered. However, the primary consideration is the employer's wage offer. 

Advisory opinions regarding an ahen's job qualifications which are made to the 
Department of Justice, upon request, under section 204(b), are based on an analysis 
of an ahen's work experience, education, and trainmg. In the professional occupations 
the ahen's formal education, as related to U.S. professional standards, is most 
important. 

Forms 

The basic forms for applying for a labor certification are forms ES-575, "AppU- 
cation for Ahen Employment Certification." 

— Part A of form ES-575, "Statement of Qualifications of Alien," details the 
ahen's identifying and personal data, education and training, special qualifi- 
cations and skills, and work experience; 
— Part B of form ES-575, "Job Offer for Ahen Employment," provides for infor- 
mation on the terms of the offer and job requirements; 
— A supplemental job offer statement (ES-575B, Supplement 1) is required for 
hve-in occupations. 
The certification procedure is put into motion by the ahen, or by an employer or 
interested person. 

Labor certifications are made either through the use of Schedules (lists of occu- 
pations) or by individual case review. These methods are responsive to economic and 
manpower changes and expedite the processing of cases. 

Schedules 

All lists of occupations are pubhshed as Regulations of the Department of Labor 
in the "Federal Register." Schedules A, B, and C consists of occupations and occupa- 
tional groups which because of the existence of certain patterns in labor supply and 
demand in the economy can be processed expeditiously. AU three Schedules are apphed 
uniformly to requests for certification from all coimtries. 



2649 



Schedule A. — The Certification List: Consists of professional occupations 
and fields of specialty in short supply nationally which are certified in ad- 
vance; for example, physicians, engineers, mathematicians, chemists, and 
physicists. Also, Schedule A specifies precertification for applications for 
aliens with an advance degree comparable to a Ph. D. or master's degree 
given in American colleges or universities and for aliens coming to the United 
States to perform duties required of them as members of bona fide religious 
organizations, provided that such duties are related to the nonprofit opera- 
tions of such organizations. Consular or immigration officials take final 
action on cases involving these occupations. No job offer or individual review 
by the Department of Labor is required. 

Schedule B. — The Noncertification List: Consists of low skill occupations 
and occupational groups requiring minimum training periods and with a 
supply of U.S. workers for which the Labor Department could not now, if 
requested, issue a certification. Examples are bus boys, hotel clerks, cook's 
helpers, farm laborers, grocery checkers, kitchen workers, and janitors. 

Schedule C. — Consists of a variety of occupations, including professional 
occupations not on Schedule A, semiprofessional, and skilled, which are gen- 
erally in short supply in certain areas of the country; for example, chefs, 
accounting clerks, arc welders, practical nurses, office machine servicemen, 
draftsmen, machinists, psychiatric aides, and stenographers. No job offer is 
required and consular or immigration officer will send the form ES-575A 
directly to the national office for final action, when it appears that an 
intending immigrant qualffies for a schedule C occupation. A review is made 
by the BES national office to determine the availabihty of American workers 
in the occupation and geographic area of intended employment. 
AU Schedules are published in the "Federal Register" and their occupational 
content is continually analyzed in terms of changing job market, economic and labor 
supply and demand conditions. This makes the lists responsive to fluctuations in 
employment levels. 

Individual Case Review 

Aliens not qualified for an occupation on Schedules A or C must locate a willing 
U.S. employer and have him file the forms ES-575 with the local office of the State 
employment service. The local office performs the initial fact-finding and documenta- 
tion on the availabihty of U.S. workers and prevailing wages in the area. Such action 
may include as many of the following as appropriate : FUe search of apph cants registered 
in the local office; advertising; contacts with imion and professional organizations; 
review of reports of employer layoff plans; completion dates of State and federal 
training programs; and contacts with other estabUshed recruiting sources. 

The apphcation forms and documentation are forwarded to a BES regional 
office. When the regional office has sufficient information on the availability of U.S. 
workers, prevailing wages, and working conditions, it issues a final determination. 
As appropriate, the employer, consular office, or Immigration Service office are notified 
of the decision. 



2650 



Review and Reconsideration 

Requests for review or reconsideration of disapprovals are made by writing 
to the Secretary of Labor in Wahington, D.C.; employers or interested parties may 
request a change in the occupational content of the Schedules or modification in the 
application of the Schedules because of geographical considerations. AUens, or their 
intending employers, denied certification, may request a review of their cases. All 
requests must be based on new or clarifying information. 

Cases Exempt from Labor Certification 

No action is required from the Labor Department for the following types of aUens: 

1. Cuban refugees paroled into the United States by the Attorney General; 

2. Persons seeking admission to engage in employment related to religion; 

3. An alien who establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he 
does not intend to seek employment in the United States; 

4. A spouse or child accompanying or following to join an alien spouse or 
parent who either has a labor certification or is a nondependent aUen who 
does not require such a certification; 

5. A woman apphcant who intends to marry a U.S. citizen or alien resident 
and who does not intend to seek employment; 

6. A person who is seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of 
engaging in a commercial or agricultural enterprise in which he has 
invested; 

7. A member of the Armed Forces; 

8. A person coming to the United States solely for the purpose of study. 

Reporting 

— A certification is an approval of a case. 

—A case involves a job offer in a specific occupation or an evaluation of an alien's 

occupational qualifications for which a certification request has been made. 

A case can involve one or more job openings. 
— A job opening is a vacant position in a specific occupation for which alien 

employment is planned. 

In 1966, the Department of Labor made 69,628 case determinations representing 
89,060 job openings. Of these, 58,253 cases representing 74,814 job openings were 
certified. Thus, 83.7 percent of the cases and 84 percent of the openings were certified. 

Certification activity was initially slow but gained momentum rapidly as Labor 
Department procedures were streamlined. In the first quarter of calendar year 1966 
(January-March), 4,660 case certifications, representing 6,420 openings for potential 
foreign workers seeking admission, were issued. In the last quarter (October- 
December), 21,249 cases, representing 26,635 openings, were certified. Thus, decentrali- 
zation and modification of fact-finding requirements greatly increased the issuance 
of labor certifications. 

In the last half of 1966 (July-December), 40,893 permanent case certifications 
were issued (approvals only). Of these permanent case certifications, 40.4 percent 



2651 



were in live-in service occupations, 24.3 percent were in professional, technical and 
managerial occupations, and 12.2 percent in the machine trades occupations. (See 
table II for major occupational distribution.) 

Engineers, accountants, architects, nurses and teachers predominated in the 
professions, while tool and dye makers and machinists led in the machine trades 
occupations. 

Requests for certification of ahens for permanent employment have been received 
from every State, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. Territories. An analysis of 
openings certified for permanent aUen employment between July 1, 1966, and 
December 31, 1966, indicates that over one-haLf were in the eastern coastal area of 
New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Peimsylvania, Maryland, and 
the District of Columbia and Rhode Island. 

The States with the largest percent of openings certified for permanent alien 
employment from July through December were New York (25.5), California (14.2), 
Michigan (5.3), New Jersey (7.2), Massachusetts (7.5), and Illinois (5.5). (See table 
III for distribution for 24 selected States.) 

New York led the number of certified openings in every occupational category 
except the machine trades, where they were a close second. Michigan ranked first 
in the machine trades occupations, second in clerical and sales, and structural work 
occupations, and third in professional and technical occupations. California accounted 
for the second largest number of certified permanent openings in the professional and 
technical, and service occupations, and ranked third in machine trades and structural 
work. 

Almost one-half (45.4 percent) of the aliens seeking admission on the basis of the 
labor certification issued between July and December 1966 were bom in Europe. 
Job openings for aliens bom in North America were approved for 30 percent of the. 
certifications. Asia followed with 11.6 percent and South America with 5.8 percent. 

Attachments Division of Immigration Services, 

Bureau of Employment Security, 
U.S. Department of Labor, 
April 6, 1967. 

Table I. — 1966 permanent Department oj Labor case and openings determinations by quarters ' 



Quarter 


Total detennlnatlons ' 


Certifications ' 


Quarter 


Total determinations ' Certifications » 


Cases Openings 


Cases Openings 


Cases Openings Cases Openings 


JanuarA'-March 

April- June 

July-September 


6, 435 8, 382 
. 15, 064 20, 175 
. 25,211 29,251 


4, 660 6, 420 
12, 700 17, 109 
19, 644 24, 650 


October-December. 

Totals 


24, 918 31, 252 21, 249 26, 635 


69,628 89,060 58,253 74,814 



1 Does not Include Slate and INS activity. 
' Includes approvals and disapprovals. 
' Approvals only. 



36-513 O - 70 - pt, 5B 



2652 



Table II. — Number and percent permanent case and openings certifications by major occupational 
categories for July 1, 1966, through December SI, 1966 ' 



Occupations! category 



Number Percent Number Percent 



Professional, Tech- 
nical & Managerial. 9, 943 

Clerical & Sales 1, 410 

Service: 

Live-in 16,504 

Other 2,043 

Farm, Fishing, For- 
estry A Related 118 



24.3 
3.5 



40.4 
5.0 



13, 071 
1,719 



16, 575 
2,010 



25.5 
3.4 



32.3 
3.9 



116 



.2 



Occupational category 



Number Percent Number Percent 



IVocessing- 752 

Machine Trades 4,947 

Bench Work 2,998 

Structural Work 1, 845 

Miscdlaneous 333 



1.8 

12.1 

7.3 

4.5 

.8 



1,061 
9,330 
3,808 
3,216 
379 



2.1 

18.2 
7.4 
6.3 

.7 



Totals.-. 40,893 100.0 51,285 100.0 



■ Does not Include State and INS activity. 

> Represents request from an employer or alien in one occapatlon. ^ », . ..„,,. ^ ^ 

■ Bepresents vacant positions lor vblch alien employment is planned. Number of potential alien workan leekinf 
certification. 



ins on basis of labor 



Table III. 



-Number and percent oj permanent certified openings by selected States, July-December 

1966^ 



Number Percent 



New York - 11,779 25.5 

California 6,544 14.3 

Massachusetts 3,480 7.5 

New Jersey 3,304 7.2 

Illinois 2,516 5.5 

Michigan 2,423 5.3 

Connecticut 2,046 4.4 

Pennsylvania 1,962 4.3 

Florida... 1,214 2.6 

Maryland 1,063 2.3 

Ohio 1,051 2.3 

Washington 1,009 2.2 

District of Columbia 834 1.8 

Texas 823 1.8 



Number Percent 



Georgia 

Indiana 

Phode Island.. 
Virgin Islands. 

Virginia 

Minnesota 

Louisiana 

Puerto Rico 

Wisconsin 

Missouri 



789 
514 
419 
412 
391 
343 
333 
284 
276 
248 



1.7 

1.1 

.9 

.9 

.8 
.7 
.7 
.6 
.6 
.5 



Subtotal 44,057 

U.S. total 46,139 



95.5 
100.0 



> Represents W percent of permanent certified openings for tbe i>eriod. 

Table IV. — Number and percent of certifications for pennanent alien's region of birth, July-December 

1966^ 



Begion 



Number Percent 



Europe 15,685 45.4 

North America 10,354 30.0 

Asia 3,992 11.6 

South America.. 2,008 5.8 

Other Western 1,608 4.7 



Number Percent 



Other Non-Weatern. 

Africa 

Oceania 



451 
247 
185 



1.3 
.7 
.5 



Total. 34,530 100.0 



■ Represents about 8S percent of tbe permanent approved cases for tbe period. 

Table V. — Number and 



percent oj certifications for permanent employtMrd by sex and age of aliens, 
July 1, 1966-December SI, 1966 ^ 



Age 



Under 45. 

45-65 

Over 65... 



14, 503 

2, 119 

21 

16, 643 



87.1 

12.8 

.1 



16, 755 

2,486 

56 



100. 19, 297 



12.9 
.3 



100.0 



■ Represents 88 percent of permanent approved caaea for ttie period. 
Source: Branch of Immigration Analysis, Bureau of Employment Security. 



2653 



United States Department of Labor 

XII. — Certification of Immigrants Approved for Permanent Employment by Occupation, Region, 
and Coimtry of Birth/ Fiscal Year 1967 



Region and country of birth 



Profes- 






Farming, 














Clerical 




flshlngT' 


Process- 


Miic,hl!<<t 


Bench 


Strno- 


Miscel- 


t«chnlcal, 


and sales 


Service 


and 


ing 


trade 


work. 


tnral 


laneous 


and 






forestry 






eto. 


work 




managerial 


















6,666 


1,425 


20, 388 
17, 624 


100 

87 


420 

392 

37 


2,337 

1,904 

167 


1,070 
808 
104 


1,613 

1,451 

79 


421 


5,552 


1,249 


382 


1,013 


189 


7,543 


11 


37 


2,865 


650 


521 


26 


201 


1,053 


182 


743 


197 


529 


124 


3,372 


15 


17 


136 


93 


410 


75 


223 


42 


2,275 


29 


88 


234 


211 


101 


39 


260 


34 


962 


1 


12 


72 


67 


17 


5 


411 


144 


325 


2 


30 


68 


76 


46 


8 


251 


66 
176 


2,626 


3 


7 

28 

7 


174 
433 

129 


75 

262 

47 


55 

162 
46 


21 


1, 114 


2,764 


13 


39 


243 


45 


796 


3 


14 


410 


32 


255 


1 


6 


109 


63 


43 


9 


107 


24 


613 


2 


2 


17 


27 


12 


4 


123 


17 


249 


1 


7 


87 


70 


15 


3 


94 


14 


141 


1 




14 


13 


6 


3 


137 


44 


710 


5 


6 


77 


42 


40 


6 



Western Hemisphere 34, 440 

North America 29,449 

Jamaica 9, 180 

Canada 6,438 

Trinidad and Tobago... 4, 771 

Mexico 3,242 

Haitiu- 1,430 

Cuba 1,110 

All other countries 3, 278 

South America 4,991 

Colombia 1,380 

Argentina 928 

Peru - 808 

BrazU 572 

ChUe 286 

All other countries 1,067 



> Included estimate of certification processed by State Department and INS on the basis of Schedule 1 



2654 



United States Department of Labor 

XIII. — Occupations of Western Hemisphere Immigrants and Percentage Reporting an Occupation, 

Calendar Years 1961-66 

Occupations of Western Hemisphere immigrants, 1961-1966 

(Selected countries and occupations) 



1966 



1965 



1964 



1963 



1962 



1961 



PBOrESSIONAL WORKERS 

Total North and South America 11,160 13,012 12,460 10,806 10,189 8,500 

Canada --- 3,703 4,629 4,376 4,047 3,532 3,541 

Mexico - 593 569 442 627 700 542 

Cuba 2,134 2,406 2,250 1,419 2,483 1,511 

Dominican Republic 463 303 251 454 353 NA 

Argentina - 628 873 1,045 719 455 477 

Colombia.. 723 799 924 631 455 355 

Haiti.. 353 497 306 302 223 NA 

Jamaica 346 176 252 255 140 NA 

Craftsmen 

Total North and South America 6, 438 7, 672 6, 849 7, 004 6, 043 5, 508 

Canada 1,415 2,320 2,184 2,036 1,639 1,842 

Mexico 883 673 551 1,433 1,706 1,488 

Cuba - 618 726 561 438 604 465 

Dominican RepubUc 839 627 362 577 211 NA 

Haiti... 250 351 142 164 98 NA 

Jamaica 212 168 168 166 143 NA 

Argentina 432 644 782 480 222 289 

Colombia.. 470 494 497 267 189 150 

Farm and Nonfarm Laborers 

Total North and South America 6,622 6,793 7,694 19,423 21,422 13,639 

Canada 1,144 2,012 1,752 1,952 1,715 1,566 

Mexico 3,908 3,313 4,693 16,172 18,703 11,266 

Cuba 275 320 299 218 199 138 

Dominican Republic 593 290 177 323 82 NA 

Jamaica 141 92 84 85 61 NA 

Private Household Workers 

Total North and South America 7,802 7,179 5,725 6,561 6,423 5,519 

Mexico 2,434 2,418 1,791 2,885 3,916 3,291 

Dominican Republic 2,473 1,368 999 1,214 367 NA 

El Salvador 276 190 161 130 120 NA 

Guatemala 213 171 199 116 70 NA 

Colombia 467 532 440 258 217 193 

Coeta Rica __ 125 455 340 292 186 NA 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor. 

Percentage oj 'Western Hemisphere immigrants reporting an occupation, 1961-66. [Selected countries.] 



All immigrants 35. 5 

North America 35.2 

South America 37. 1 

Canada 41. 9 

Mexico 21.5 

Cuba 41.0 

Dominican Republic _. _ 42.2 

Haiti 44.3 

Jamaica 52. 3 

Costa Rica 36.9 

Guatemala 52. 7 

Honduras 44.4 

Panama 31.2 

Argentina 45.5 

Brazil 40. 5 

Colombia 32. 2 

Ecuador 36. 1 

Source: U.S. Department o[ Labor. 



39.8 


41.4 


45.5 


49.3 


46.0 


40.4 


41.9 


43.6 


42.6 


40.3 


46.4 


45.6 


45.3 


45.8 


44.9 


22.4 


26.3 


42.8 


50.8 


47.6 


42.4 


46.9 


50.3 


49.5 


39.7 


51.3 


53.4 


47.1 


50.1 


NA 


54.1 


52.5 


56.9 


58.7 


NA 


48.0 


53.2 


53.6 


51.1 


NA 


52.9 


52.3 


54.9 


54.7 


NA 


49.5 


54.7 


52.7 


50.3 


NA 


54.4 


55.5 


50.2 


50.1 


NA 


42.8 


40.7 


44.0 


44.9 


NA 


45.8 


47.2 


46.2 


44.5 


40.2 


44.8 


45.9 


40.8 


39.6 


39.0 


34.4 


38.2 


46.2 


46.7 


45.0 


43.6 


41.5 


44.0 


47.0 


40.4 



2655 



United States Department of Labor 

XIV. — Labor Certification Schedules A, B, and C. 
SCHEDULE A. — Rules and Regulations 

Federal Reqister 

Vol. SI, No. US, page 1641t 

December gS, 1988 

Title 29 LABOR 

Subtitle A. — OflSce of the Secretary of Labor 

PART 60.— IMMIGRATION: AVAILABILITY OF, AND ADVERSE EFFECT UPON, AMERI- 
CAN WORKERS 

§ 60.2 Certification and noncertification schedules 

(a) Determination. — To reduce the delay in processing an alien's request for 
visa, the determiaation has been made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to section 
212(a) (14) that: 

(1) For the categories of employment described in Schedule A and in 
the'geographic areas therein set forth, there are not suflficient workers who 
are able, willing, qualified and available for employment in such categories, 
and the employment of ahens ia such categories and ia such areas will not 
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United 
States similarly employed. 

The schedules at the end of 29 CFR Part 60 are revised to read as foUows: 

Schedule A 

Group I: Persons who received an advance degree in a particular 
field of study from an institution of higher learning accredited in the 
country where the degree was obtained (comparable to a Ph. D. or 
master's degree given in American colleges or universities). 

Group II: Persons who have received a degree conferred by an 
accredited institution of higher learning in any of the following specialties 
or have experience or a combination of experience and education equiv- 
alent to such a degree: 

Accounting and Auditing ' Mathematics 

Aeronautical Engineering Mechanical Engineering 

Architecture ^ Metallurgy and Metallurgical 
Chemical Engineering Engineering 

Chemistry ' Nuclear Engineering 

Civil Engineering ^ Nursing 

Dietetics ^ Pharmacy 

Electrical Engineering Physical Therapy '■ 

Electronic Engineering Physics 
Industrial Engineering ^ 



' Occupation added Dec. 23, 1966. 



2656 



Group III: (a) Any person of any religious denomination whose 
regular profession or occupation is to conduct religious services, which 
he is authorized by his denomination to perform, and who is seeking 
admission to the United States in order to engage principally in such 
work. 

(b) Any person of any religious denomination having a rehgious 
commitment, such as a Monk, Nun, Brother, Missionary and others, 
who is seeking admission to the United States to perform the duties 
required of him by virtue of such commitment. 

(c) Any other person seeking admission to the United States to 
perform duties related to the nonprofit operation of a religious organiza- 
tion (1) if the duties which he will perform involve special skUls, training 
and experience which the alien possesses and which are related to the 
religious objectives of the organization and (2) if he intends to be engaged 
principally (more than 50 percent of his working time) in such duties. 
Examples of persons coming within this subgroup are cantors and trans- 
lators of religious tracts or texts who have the special capability of 
conveying through the translation the spiritual message to which such 
tracts or texts are directed and who will be engaged in such endeavors. 

An operation may be considered nonprofit for purposes of Group III 
if the receipts from the operation wUl be used exclusively in furtherance 
of the philanthropic or rehgious purposes of the organization. 



2657 



SCHEDULE B. — -Rules and Regulations 



TITLE 29 LABOR 



Federal Register 

Vol. SI, No. £48, page 1641S 

Friday, December S3, 1986 



Subtitle A. — Office of the Secretary of Labor 

PART 60.— IMMIGRATION: AVAILABILITY OF, AND ADVERSE EFFECT UPON, AMERI- 
CAN WORKERS 
§ 60.2 Certification and noncertiiication schedules 

(a) Determination. — To reduce the delay in processing an alien's request for 
visa, the determination has been made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to section 
212(a) (14) that: 

(2) For the categories of employment described in Schedule B, the 
determination and certification required by section 212(a) (14) cannot now 
be made: 



Schedule B 



Bakers' Helpers 
Bartenders 
Bookkeepers II 
Bus Boys 

Carpenters' Helpers 
Charwomen and Cleaners 
Clerks, Hotel 
Clerks and Checkers, 

Grocery Store 
Cook's Helpers 
Domestic Day Workers 
Electric Truck Operators 
Elevator Operators 
Fishermen and Oystermen 
Floor Man, Floor Boy and 

Floor Girl 
Groundskeepers 
Housemen and Yardmen 
Janitors 

Kitchen Workers and Helpers 
Laborers, Farm 



Laborers, Mine 

Laborers, Common 

Library Assistants 

Loopers and Toppers, Textile 

Maids, Hotel 

Material Handlers 

Packers, Markers, Bottlers, 

and related 
Painters' Helpers 
Routemen Helpers 
Sailors and Deck Hands 
Sewing Machine Operators and 

Hand-Stitchers 
Street Railway and 

Bus Conductors 
Truck Driver's Helpers 
Ushers, Recreation 

and Amusement 
Warehousemen 
Welder's Helpers 



2658 



Additional Information 

Occupational Titles (16) Deleted From Schedule B, 
December 23, 1966 



Attendants, Parking Lot 
Attendants (Service Workers 

such as Personal Service 

Attendants, Amusement 

and Recreation Service 

Attendants) 
Automobile Service 

Station Attendants 
Cashiers II 
Chauffeurs and Taxicab 

Drivers 
Clerks (general office) 
Counter and Fountain 

Workers 



Guards and Watchmen 

Housekeepers 

Launderers, Cleaners, Dyers, 

and Pressers 
Porters 

Sales Clerk, General 
Telephone Operators 
Truck Drivers and Tractor 

Drivers 
Typists, lesser skilled 
Waiters and Waitresses 



2659 



SCHEDULE C. — Rules and Regulations 

Federal Register 
Vol. S2, No. 16, -page 867 
January 25, 1967 

Title 29.— LABOR 

Subtitle A. — Office of the Secretary of Labor 

PART 60.— IMMIGRATION: AVAILABILITY OF, AND ADVERSE EFFECT UPON, AMERI- 
CAN WORKERS 

§ 60.3 Request for certification not covered by § 60.2 

(a) Any alien, or person in his behalf, seeking admission to the United States 
under sections 101 (a) (27) (A) (other than the parent, spouse, or child of a U.S. citizen 
or alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence), 203(a)(6), 
or 203(a)(8) . . . 

(b) Any ahen seeking admission to the United States otherwise subject to the 
provisions of paragraph (a) of this section whose category of employment is described 
in Schedule C may request a 212(a) (14) certification by fihng a Form ES-575-A 
describing his quahfications and may omit filing a Form ES-575-B describing his 
prospective employment in the United States. Instructions for fiUng in these circum- 
stances are available from U.S. Consular offices abroad and Embassies and Immi- 
gration and Naturalization Service offices. Such instructions will where appropriate 
require aliens to indicate where they will reside. When the Consular offices abroad or 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service send the ES-575-A's to the Department of 
Labor, all sources of labor in the area of residence will be reviewed and certification 
will be issued depending on the circumstances at that time. If the local review shows 
workers are available, or that wages or working conditions will be adversely affected, 
the certification will not be issued. Apphcations should not be sent directly to the 
U.S. Department of Labor by the ahen. 

(c) Schedule C is a list of occupations which have been found to be in short 
supply generally, although not nationwide as in Schedule A. Schedule C is reviewed 
continuously to be sure that the hst will be kept current. If information shows adverse 
effects are occurring from the use of immigrant workers, or if an adequate supply of 
qualified workers becomes available, the occupation wiU be removed from Schedule C 
promptly. 

A new Schedule C is added to the end of Part 60 to read as follows: 

Schedule C 

GROUP I 

Accounting Clerks Assemblers, Subassemblies, Aircraft 

Aircraft-Assemblers-Installers, General Assembly Mechanics, Experimental Air- 
Airplane Inspectors craft 

Airplane Mechanics Automobile-Body Repairmen 

Airplane Pilots, Commercial Automobile Mechanics 

Arc Welders Automobile Upholsterers 



2660 



Bakers 

Boring-Machine Operators 

Boring-Machine Set-Up Operators, Jig 

Boring-Mill Set-Up Operators, Horizontal 

Cabinetmakers 

Chassis Assemblers 

Chefs 

Clothes Designers 

Combination Welders 

Compositors 

Coppersmiths, Ship 

Cylindrical-Grinder Operators 

Dental-Laboratory Technicians 

Draftsmen 

Drop-Hammer Operators 

Electrical-Apphance Servicemen 

Electrical-Instrument Repairmen 

Electrical Repairmen 

Electricians, Airplane 

Electric-Motor Repairmen 

Electrocardiograph Technicians 

Electroencephalograph Technicians 

Electronics Mechanics 

Form BuUders, Aircraft 

Gamma-Facilities Operators 

Household-Applicance Repairmen 

Inspectors, Floor 

Instnmient Men, Aircraft 

Interior Decorators 

Jewelers 

Key-Punch Operators 

Linemen 

Loftsmen, Ship 

Machinists 

Maintenance Mechanics 

Maintenance Men, Factory or Mill 



Medical Technologists 

MiUing-Machine Operators 

Millwrights 

Nurses, Practical 

Office-Machine Servicemen 

Orthoptists 

Patternmakers, Plaster, Aircraft 

Pipefitters, Ship - 

Production Planners 

Psychiatric Aides 

Radio-Repairmen 

Screw-Machine Operators, Production 

Secretaries 

Sheet-Metal Workers 

Shipfitters 

Shoe Repairmen 

Skilled Garment Occupations, Master 

TaUors and Dressmakers 
Specialty Cooks 
Stenographers 
Stonecutters, Hand 
Structural-Steel Workers 
Surgical Technicians 
Systems Engineers (Data-Processing). 
Technicians, Engineering and Physical 

Sciences 
Television Service-and- Repairmen 
Template Makers, Aircraft 
Test- Reactor Operators 
Tool-and-Die Makers 
Tool-Grinder Operators 
Tool Planners 
Turret-Lathe Operators 
Watchmakers 
Wheel-Alinement Mechanics 



GROUP II 



Any person qualified as a professional or who has exceptional ability in the sciences 
or arts and whose occupation is not fisted on Schedule A. (Certification requires full 
documentation as defined in instructions for completion of the Form 575-A.) 



2661 



XV.— EXEMPTIONS FROM LABOR CERTIFICATION BASED 
UPON RELATIONSHIP 



Prepared for the 
Select Conunission on Western Hemisphere Immigration 

by 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service 
United Stales Department of Justice 



2662 



EXEMPTIONS FROM LABOR CERTIFICATION BASED 
UPON RELATIONSHIP 

Section 202(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by the Act 
of October 3, 1965, provides as follows: 

"No person shall receive any preference or priority or he discriminated 
against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, 
'place of birth, or place of residence except as specifically provided in section 
101(a)(27), section 201(b) and section 203: . . ." 
Despite the foregoing provision of the law, it may be said that the Immigration 
and Nationahty Act as amended contains withia itself in section 212(a) (14) provisions 
which discriminate against an alien in the issuance of an immigrant visa on the basis 
of his place of birth. For, if the alien was bom in the Canal Zone or an independent 
country of the Western Hemisphere, he is ineligible for the issuance of an immigrant 
visa unless he meets the requirement of obtaining a Labor Department certification 
pursuant to section 212(a) (14) even if he or she is the brother, sister, adult married 
or unmarried son or daughter of a United States citizen, or the adult unmarried son 
or daughter of a lawful permanent resident. Yet, an alien born elsewhere who has those 
relationships to the citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States may be 
accorded a first, second, fourth or fifth preference classification, and thus be exempted 
from the labor certification requirement. Since section 101 (a) (27) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act admittedly discriminates in favor of aliens born in independent 
countries of Western Hemisphere by classifying them as "special immigrants", exempt 
from the annual numerical limitation on the issuance of visas, there is no logical 
explanation of why the statute should discriminate against such aliens with respect 
to obtaining a labor certification as a prerequisite to the issuance of an immigrant visa. 
On the other hand, and equally without a logical explanation, there are certain 
relationships where it is more advantageous for the immigrant to have been bom in 
the Canal Zone or in an independent country of the Western Hemisphere, than else- 
where. For example, an immigrant born in the Canal Zone or independent country of 
the Western Hemisphere, who is the parent of a United States citizen (regardless of the 
citizen's age) or who is the parent of a lawful permanent resident, is exempt from 
the labor certification requirement. An immigrant born elsewhere, who is the parent of 
a United States citizen can be exempted from the certification requirement on the 
basis of that relationship only if the United States citizen offspring is 21 years of age 
or older, and derives no exemption from being the parent of a lawful permanent 
resident ahen. Attachment A is a chart which depicts the differences with regard to 
exemptions from the labor certification requirement based on relationship, depending 
on whether or not the immigrant was bom in the Canal Zone or an independent 



2663 



country of the Western Hemisphere (section 101 (a) (27) (A)), or whether the immigrant 
was born elsewhere. 

Also attached for ready reference, as Attachment B, are copies of section 212(a) (14), 
101 (a) (27) (A), 101(b) (1) and (2) and section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, as amended. 

Present exemptions from sec. 212{a) (14) •' Certification Requirement Based on Relationship — Immigration 
and Nationality Act, as amended by Act oj Oct. S, 1965 

Relationship of immigrant Immigrant described in sec. 101 (a) (27) (A) Other immigrants 

Parent of adult U.S.c' Exempt Exempt. 

Parent of minor U.S.c do Not exempt. 

Spouse of U.S.c do Exempt. 

Child' of U.S.c do Do. 

Married or unmarried son or daughter' of U.S.c Not exempt Do.' 

Brother or sister of U.S.c do Do.' 

Parent of LPR • alien Exempt Not exempt. 

Spouse of LPR do Exempt. 

ChUd2 of LPR do Do. 

Unmarried son or daughter ' of LPR Not exempt -. Do.' 

•LPR means lawful permanent resident alien; U.S.c. means U.S. « Son or daughter means an adult offspring, 

citizen. * Includes any accompanying or following to join spouse or child of 

2 Child means unmarried minor child as defined in sec. 101 (b) (1) of the Immigrant. 

Immigration and Nationality Act. * Includes any accompanying or following to join child of immigrant. 



2664 



XVI EMPLOYMENT OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE NATIVES 

AS TEMPORARY WORKERS 



Prepared for the 

Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration 

by 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service 
United States Department of Justice 



2665 



PROCEDURES UNDER WHICH ALIENS MAY BE ADMITTED TO 
THE UNITED STATES TEMPORARILY FOR EMPLOYMENT 

Prior Legislation 

The first general statutory restriction on the bringing of foreign labor into the 
United States was enacted in 1885 and was known as the ahen contract labor law. 
The restriction was aimed at the practice of certain employers bringing cheap labor 
into this country from abroad. This practice had begun in 1869 when advertisements 
were printed and distributed abroad offering inducements to ahens to proceed to this 
country, particularly to the coal fields, for emplojTnent. Many advertisements asserted 
that several hundred men were needed in places where there were actually no labor 
shortages. The objective was^ oversupply the labor market so that domestic laborers 
would be forced to work at reduced wages. 

The alien contract labor law made it unlawful to bring ahens into the United 
States under contract to perform labor or services, with exceptions for certain skilled 
workmen, professional actors, artists, lecturers, singers, domestic servants, ministers 
of rehgion, persons belonging to any recognized professions, and professors for colleges 
and seminaries. The act of March 3, 1891, prohibited the bringing into the United 
States of alien laborers by promise of employment through advertisements in any 
foreign country. Any alien coming to the United States in consequence of such an 
advertisement was considered a contract laborer. 

Subsequent legislation, the Acts of March 3, 1903, February 20, 1907, and Febru- 
ary 5, 1917, continued the prohibition against bringing contract laborers into the 
United States. However, the 1917 Act in the Ninth Proviso to Section 3, provided 
that inadmissible ahens (including contract laborers) seeking temporary admission 
could be admitted under conditions prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration 
and Naturalization. Also, the fourth proviso of that section permitted the importation 
of skilled labor if labor of hke kind unemployed could not be found in this country. 

During World War II, with agricultural and industrial production vital to winnmg 
the war, it became necessary to recruit workers from abroad to overcome manpower 
shortages. Acting imder special legislation and the discretionary authority contained 
in the Ninth Proviso to Section 3 of the 1917 Act, the Service permitted agricultural 
and industrial laborers from Mexico and various countries in the West Indies to be 
brought to the United States for temporary employment. The special legislation 
referred to was contained in the Act of April 29, 1943, and the Act of February 14, 
1944. The Act of April 29, 1943, permitted the entry of agricultural laborers born in 
Western Hemisphere coimtries and exempted such laborers from some of the usual 
requirements for admission to this country. The Act of February 14, 1944, allowed 
the emplojonent of agricultural laborers in packing, canning, and other processing of 



2666 



perishable seasonal agricultural products. The special legislation expired on Decem- 
ber 31, 1947. Thereafter, foreign laborers were permitted to be brought into the United 
States temporarily under the Ninth Proviso to Section 3 of the Act of February 5, 
1917. On July 12, 1951, Pubhc Law 78 was enacted by the S2d Congress to provide 
a special method of importing agricultural workers (braceros) from Mexico. The 1917 
Act was repealed by the Immigration and Nationality Act, effective December 24, 
1952. The "Bracero" program for Mexican agricultural workers expired on Decem- 
ber 31, 1964. 

THE MEXICAN "BRACERO" PROGRAIM 

{Mexican Temporary Agricultural Labor Program under the Agricultural Act of 1949, 

as Amended and Extended) 

In 1943 during World War II with the lack of agricultural labor in the United 
States, the War Foods Administration in cooperation with the Department of Labor 
and the Immigration and Naturahzation Service, established recruiting centers in 
the Republic of Mexico to supply emergency field labor in the United States by agree- 
ment between the Governments of the United States and Mexico signed the year 
before. Starting in 1951, the importation of Mexican agricultural workers was governed 
by the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended on July 12, 1951, by Public Law 78, 82d 
Congress. This Act, as amended, authorized the U.S. Secretary of Labor to recruit 
Mexican workers ("braceros") to assist in the production of agricultural commodities 
and products specified by the Secretary of Agriculture. Originally the authority to 
import Mexican workers under this Act had an expiration date of December 31, 1953. 
That date was extended by successive amendments. The last amendment was enacted 
on December 13, 1963, as Pubhc Law 88-203. It extended the authority to import 
Mexican workers under the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, until December 
31, 1964. 

The details of this recruitment program were originally set out in the Migrant 
Labor Agreement of 1951, executed by the United States and Mexican Governments. 
The law required that before Mexican farmworkers could be imported the Secretary 
of Labor had to determine and certify that: 

(1) Sufiicient domestic workers, able, willing, and qualified, were not available 
at the time and place needed to perform the work for which such braceros 
were to be employed; 

(2) the employment of such workers would not adversely affect the wages 
and working conditions of domestic workers similarly employed; and 

(3) that reasonable efforts had been made to attract domestic workers for 
such employment at wages and conditions comparable to those offered 
to braceros. 

Under the Migrant Labor Agreement with Mexico, the Secretary of Labor was 
given control over determining wage rates under which braceros would be employed. 

Amendments contained in the act of October 3, 1961, provided stronger safeguards 
for domestic workers. Formerly, braceros could be made available after a certification 
by the Secretary of Labor that reasonable efforts had been made to attract domestic 



2667 



workers at comparable wages and standard working hours. As the law was then 
amended, domestic workers had to be offered the same wages, standard working hours, 
and conditions as those offered braceros. 

In addition to the above changes the following new section was added by amend- 
ment of October 3, 1961: 

Section 504 

No worker recruited under this Title shall be made available to 
any employer or permitted to remain in the employ of the employer — 
(1) for employment in other than temporary or seasonal occupa- 
tion, except in specific cases when found by the Secretary of Labor 
necessary to avoid undue hardship; or (2) for employment to operate 
or maintain power-driven, self-propelled harvesting, planting, or 
cultivating machinery, except in specific cases when found by the 
Secretary of Labor necessary to avoid undue hardship. 
This new section of the law caused concern to farmers who had been using such 
workers. The Department of Labor ruled that the nature of agricultural emplojnment 
is such that employment for a period or periods aggregating more than half a calendar 
year must be presumed to be other than temporary or seasonal employment; there- 
fore, braceros could not be employed by any one employer or association for more 
than 180 days during a calendar year. The requirement prohibiting employment of 
"braceros" as tractor drivers or packers also was opposed by U.S. contractors. 

In 1953, there were only 178,000 braceros admitted to the United States. As a 
result of the exerted efforts of this Service to stop the illegal entrance of aliens from 
Mexico, the farmers were forced to turn to this program for required field labor. Since 
1953 the importation of Mexican agricultural laborers ("braceros") increased notice- 
ably, reaching a peak of some 450,000 in fiscal year 1957. After that year there was 
a decrease to somewhat less than 182,000 admitted to the United States during fiscal 
year 1964. Automation was a prime factor in this decrease. 

The bracero was used in all types of work requiring field labor and employed 
in the agricultural states throughout the United States. California, Texas, and 
Arizona were the principal users of bracero labor. 

Since the termination of the "bracero" program on December 31, 1964, the im- 
portation of Mexican temporary agricultural laborers has been accomplished in ac- 
cordance with the provisions of section 101 (a) (15) (H) (ii) and 214(c) of the Inmiigration 
and NationaUty Act, and implementing regulations in 8 CFR 214.2(h). 

TEMPORARY ADMISSION OF FOREIGN WORKERS AND TRAINEES UNDER THE 
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT 

Since December 24, 1952, the date on which the Immigration and Nationahty 
Act became effective, the temporary admission of foreign workers and trainees has 
been governed by the provisions of section 101 (a) (15) (H) and 214(c) of that Act, 
and implementing regulations. Section 101 (a) (15) (H) sets forth the categories of 
ahens who may be admitted temporarily to perform services or receive training. 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5B - 10 



2668 



Section 214(c) requires the filing and approval of a petition by the Attorney General 
before the temporary admission of such aUens may be authorized. 

The statute provides for two categories of temporary workers and one category 
of temporary trainees. One prerequisite equally appUcable for workers and trainees 
is that they have a residence in a foreign country which they do not intend to abandon. 
The first category of temporary workers, known as H-1, is for aliens of distinguished 
merit and ability coming to the United States to perform temporary services of an 
exceptional nature requiring such merit and ability. The second category of temporary 
workers, known as H-2, is for aUens coming to the United States to perform other 
temporary services or labor if unemployed persons capable of performing such services 
or labor cannot be found in this country. The sole trainees category is for aliens com- 
ing to the United States as "industrial" trainees. The Service has construed the term 
"industrial" in a broad sense as permitting training in any field of endeavor including 
agriculture, commerce, communications, finance, government, transportation, and the 
professions as well as in a purely industrial establishment. 

In accordance with section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the 
question of bringing any "H" alien to the United States is determined by the Com- 
missioner of Immigration and Naturalization under authority delegated to him by the 
Attorney General. The Conmiissioner makes this determination upon consideration 
of the petition filed by the prospective employer or trainer after consultation with 
appropriate agencies of the Government. The Bureau of Employment Security, 
Department of Labor, is the agency consulted with respect to H-2 aliens. 

All "H" aUens who must have visas to enter the United States are preliminarily 
examined by an American consul abroad as to admissibility before the visa is issued. 
Upon arrival of the aUen at a port of entry in the United States, he is examined for 
a<inissibiUty by an officer of the Immigration and NaturaUzation Service. In cases 
where visas are not required to enter the United States, such as in the cases of Canadian 
nationals, and agricultural workers of French, British, or Netherlands nationality who 
reside in the adjacent islands of the Caribbean area, the alien is not examined by an 
American consul abroad but undergoes immigration inspection at the port of entry. 

There have been no amendments of sections 101 (a) (15) (H) and 214(c) of the 
Immigration and NationaUty Act. 

Procedure 

A prospective employer or trainer initiates action to bring an aUen to this country 
by filing a petition in duphcate at the district office of this Service having jurisdiction 
over the area in the United States where the aUen is to be employed or trained. The 
petitioning employer may include any number of aUens in his petition. Section 281 of 
the Immigration and Nationahty Act provides that a fee of $10 be charged for the 
filing of the petition. The petition must be supported by documentary or other evidence 
to establish the aUen's eligibility for the classification sought, H-1, H-2 or H-3. 

H-l, persons of distinguished merit and ability 

If a petition is filed to accord an ahen an H-1 classification, a clear showing must 
be made that the ahen is of distinguished merit and ability and that the services he is 



2669 



to perform require such merit and ability. To be considered a person of distinguished 
merit and abihty, the alien must possess high education, technical training, specialized 
experience, or exceptional ability. 

H-2, other temporary workers 

If a petition is filed to accord an alien an H-2 classification, the petition must be 
accompanied by a certification from the Department of Labor stating that qualified 
persons in the United States are not available and that the employment of the alien 
beneficiaries will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in 
the United States similarly employed, or by a notice from that Department that such 
certification cannot be made. 
H-3, trainees 

If a petition is filed to accord an alien an H-3 classification as a trainee, the peti- 
tioner must submit a statement describing the kind of training to be given the aUen, 
the position or duties for which the training will prepare him, and giving the reason such 
training cannot be obtained outside the United States. Only incidental production 
necessary to the training is permitted provided a U.S. worker is not thereby displaced. 

Approval of petition 

When a petition is approved, the petitioner is notified and a copy of the petition 
is sent to the American consul endorsed to show the classification accorded the alien, 
the period in which the alien must obtain his visa, and the period of time for which 
the aUen's admission is authorized. In the cases of nationals who are not required to 
present visas to enter the United States, the copy of the approved petition is forwarded 
to the Service officer in charge at the alien's proposed port of entry. The validity of 
the approval of a petition for visa issuance may not exceed 1 year from the date of 
approval and, in an H-2 petition, may not exceed the date to which any Department 
of Labor certification is valid. The initial period of admission of the beneficiaries may 
not exceed the date until which the petition is valid. Subsequent extensions of tempo- 
rary stay may be made in increments of not more than 12 months each. However, 
when the originally approved petition was supported by a Department of Labor 
certification, no extension of temporary stay is authorized unless a current certification 
is issued by that Department and any extension authorized will not exceed the date 
until which the current certification is vaHd. An employer may include any number 
of aliens in a petition to extend the temporary stay of his employees. An H-2 ahen 
may not be granted an extension which would result in an unbroken stay of more 
than 3 years. Section 281 of the Act requires that a fee of $10 shall be charged for 
extension of temporary stay. 

Denial of petition 

Upon denial of a petition, the petitioner is notified of the reasons for denial and 
of the right to appeal to the regional commissioner of the Immigration and Natural- 
ization Service. By regulation, a fee of $10 is charged for filing an appeal. 

Change to or from an "H" classification 

Section 248 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides for change from one 
nonimmigrant classification to another nonimmigrant classification. Under this section, 



2670 



an "H" alien may apply for a change to a classification such as a visitor or student. 
Conversely, a nonimmigrant such as a visitor or student may apply for change to an 
"H" classification by submitting an application and paying the $25 fee required by 
section 281 of the Act. Before the application may be approved, however, the prospective 
employer or trainer must file and receive approval of a petition filed in the ahen's 
behalf. Transit aliens, crewmen, and exchange aliens are not eligible for change to 
an "H" classification. 

SPECIAL FOREIGN LABOR PROGRAMS INVOLVING WESTERN HEMISPHERE ALIENS 

Special foreign labor programs have been established for the admission of tem- 
porary workers under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Act. With regard to the ad- 
mission of such workers, House Report No. 1365, dated February 14, 1952 (pp. 44 
and 45), states: "These provisions of the bill grant the Attorney General sufficient 
authority to admit temporarily certain ahen workers, industrial, agricultural, or 
otherwise, for the purpose of alleviating labor shortages as they exist or may develop 
in certain areas or certain branches of American productive enterprises . . ." In the 
report of a special subcommittee o f the House Judiciary Committee on the adminis- 
tration of the Immigration and NationaUty Act, dated February 28, 1955, it is stated 
on page 131, "It is the sense of the subcommittee that . . . Congress intended that 
workers employed in seasonally available jobs should be considered as temporary 
workers." Because of the existence of special legislation cohtained in the Agricultural 
Act of October 31, 1949, as amended and extended, providing specifically for temporary 
employment of Mexican agricultural laborers, the Service did not approve petitions in 
behalf of such persons. That legislation expired December 31, 1964. 

The special temporary labor programs involving Western Hemisphere aliens which 
have been estabhshed are as foUows: 

British West Indian and Bahamian agricultural laborers 

During World War II, British West Indian and Bahamian laborers were brought 
to the United States to work in various agricultural operations, particularly in Florida. 
With the enactment of the Immigration and NationaUty Act of 1952, the present 
program was developed as the result of negotiations between large agricultural associa- 
tions in the United States and representatives of various governments in the West 
Indies. Presently Jamaica, Windward Islands, Leeward Islands, Barbados, Trinidad, 
Guyana, and British Honduras are actively engaged in the program. 

An agreement concerning employment of the workers must be signed by the employer 
and accepted by the Service before a petition for the workers may be approved. The 
W^st Indies government concerned requires that the employer and the employee sign 
an agreement and that the worker also sign an agreement with his government. The 
two agreements required by the West Indies government concerned specify the 
conditions with which the employer and the worker agree to comply. Workers entering 
under a petition from one association may later be transferred for work with another 
association. 



2671 



Canadian woodsmen and agricultural workers 

In February 1942, the Joint Economic Committees of Canada and the United 
States signed an agreement to facihtate the movement of farm labor across the common 
boundary. This agreement has in recent years included woodsmen and is renewed on an 
annual basis. 

The Canadian Employment Service maintains a pool of about 9,000 woodsmen 
from which to fill the quotas of various employers in the United States. The Boston 
regional office of the U.S. Bureau of Employment Security maintains controls to 
assure that the limitations set by the Canadian Government on the number of Canadian 
woodsmen who may be imported is not exceeded. 

Pursuant to the agreement of the Joint Economic Committees already referred 
to, seasonal agricultural workers from Canada have been admitted to the United 
States under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii). These workers include bean pickers, apple 
pickers, and potato pickers for Maine; apple pickers for New York; and general agri- 
cultural workers for Vermont. 

Temporary alien laborers in the American Virgin Islands 

This program was begun in 1956 as a result of recommendations by a special sub- 
committee of the House Committee on the Judiciary, which appears on page 131 of 
the Report on the Administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act, dated 
February 28, 1955. The program was intended originally only for aliens from the 
British West Indies but it has been extended to include aliens from the French and 
Dutch islands in the West Indies. 

A special agreement must be signed between the employer of the aUen worker and 
the U.S. Government, listing the conditions with which the employer agrees to comply. 

THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT 

Section 101{a){15). — The term "immigrant" means every alien except an alien 
who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens : 

(H) an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no 

intention of abandoning (i) who is of distinguished merit and ability and who 

is coming temix)rarily to the United States to perform temporary services 

of an exceptional nature requiring such merit and ability; or (ii) who is 

coming temporarily to the United States to perform other temporary services 

or labor, if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor 

cannot be found in this country; or (iii) who is coming temporarily to the 

United States as an industrial trainee. 

Section 214. — (c) The question of importing any alien as a nonimmigrant under 

section 101 (a) (15) (H) in any specific case or specific cases shall be determined by the 

Attorney General, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government, 

upon petition of the importing employer. Such petition shall be made and approved 

before the visa is granted. The petition shall be in such form and contain such 

information as the Attorney General shall prescribe. The approval of such a petition 

shall not, of itself, be construed as establishing that the alien is a nonimmigrant. 



9> I— I 



2672 



coo 



00—1 
C<IU5 






or o 

COOT 



to 00 






0<N 1-H I O «Dff« 
»0 CO I O CO tft 

■*00 irf ^ ■<*' 



-^ 



ON 

toco 



lO to CO 

^CO 



(NOO ■-' 






oicoirt I O 
Tt Tj( o I •^ 

l-H lO --I I 'O 



0-* 

NOO 



I.-HO0 



•i 

'^ 



CO Oi Oi 
lOOO 






lO-H 
00 00 
00 CO 



(N>0 

■^ o 



•^ 



N asocoN 

OOiO^ (N-< 
OOON CO'* 



•»J<CO 
t-<CO 






tl3 



^ 



■2 d to 



o ^ 



_g X r; -ki +J to 

•^3 ta— ( TO fcH ^H K^ 



i-M 



en 


e 


'O 


^ 


o 


"m 


o 




^ 









C 


'3) 





16^ 












^■S 



2673 



XXV POPULATION GROWTH IN MEXICO 



Prepared for the 
Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration 

by 

Nathan L. Whetten 
The University of Connecticut 



2674 



POPULATION GROWTH IN MEXICO 

This study is a supplement to a previous one made by the author in 1963 called 
Population Trends in Mexico ^ and differs in the following major respects. 

1. The Mexican states which border onto the United States are grouped into a 
separate region and all tabulations have been made accordingly. This means that 
developments in these states just across the United States border may be clearly 
distinguished from those farther south. 

2. The data are arranged so that changes occurring during each of the two past 
decades, 1940-50 and 1950-60, will be clearly evident. 

3. An attempt is made to estimate Mexico's probable population for 1970, not 
only for the country as a whole but also for each state ^ and region of the nation. 

REGIONS OF MEXICO 

In order to show major variations, the states are grouped into five major regions 
as indicated in figure 1. The six northern states bordering the United States are placed 
in a separate region called the U.S. Border States. It is assumed that in these states 
Mexicans are likely to have more direct contact with the United States in such capacities 
as temporary workers, daily commuters and frequent visitors (see fig. 1). They are 
likely to have more intercommunication, generally. Comparisons may thus be made of 
areas nearest the United States with areas progressively farther away. 

In the border grouping are foimd the six states of Baja California, Chihuahua, 
Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Sonora, and Tamaulipas (fig. 1). The remaining states in what 
was formerly called the North Pacific and the Northern regions are grouped into a 
region called Other Northern States (fig. 1). The rest of the regions are the same as 
those used in the 1963 study. 

The regions with their respective land areas, the 1960 population, and population 
density are shown in table 1. It will be noted that the region called U.S. Border States 
has almost twice as much land area as any other, but also is the most sparsely populated 
of any region. It contains 40.6 percent of the nation's land area but only 15.8 percent 
of its population (see table 1). It has a population density of only 6.9 inhabitants per 
square kilometer as compared with 17.8 for the country as a whole (col. 5). 

The region called Other Northern States is also sparsely populated and contains 
21.2 percent of Mexico's land area, but only 11.3 percent of her population. The density 

' It was made for the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee No. 1, House of Representatives of the 
United States. It was published as "Population Trends in Mexico," Special Series No. 5, U.S. Government Printing 
Office, Washington: 1963, pp. 51-79. 

* Mexico has two territories, Baja California Sur and Quintana Roo, as well as a Federal district. For con- 
venience, all will be referred to as states in this report. 



2675 












1^ 










■^ 










CC 


cs 


O 


ro 






_E 




o 


Q. 


5q 




<u 


X 






"o 


3 


TO 


jr 




o 


CD 


O 


O 


hS^ 


CTl 


o 


^ 


<N 


'e 


CM 


CO 


n 


CO 


s 



q <j c c 



<i> TO <c .J:; 



, IT) (D r^ 00 
<M CJ CVJ CM CNJ 



o 

3 
CO 

< 


o 
o 


"ni 

c 

3 

CD 


o 
o 

2 


2 

3 


o 

a) 


o 


o 
<u 
o 


X 


o 

TO 

1— 


ni 
J3 

0) 

3 
Q. 


n 


"* 


lO 


<£ 


r^ 


00 


en 


o 

CM 


CM 


CM 
CM 


CM 






oo m '^ m 1^ g 



H- r^ 00 CTi o 



2676 



Table 1. — Land area, number oj inhabitants, and density oj population in Mexico, 1960 



ometeia ol total Rural Urban 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 



Total, Mexico 1,967,183 100.0 34,923,129 lOa 17.8 49.3 Stt 7 

TI S Border States 798,089 40.6 5,541,100 15.8 6.9 36.2 63.8 

Other Northern StaYeV.:: 416,926 21.2 3,936,891 11.3 9.4 65.4 34.6 

Central 274,669 14 17,099,160 49.0 62.3 41.6 58.4 

Gidf of Me'xlcJ 238,999 12.1 4,056,676 11.6 16.9 58.1 41.9 

South Pacific " "' 238,500 12.1 4,289,302 12.3 18.0 73.8 26.2 



in the Other Northern States, although somewhat higher than that of the Border States, 
is only 9.4 inhabitants per square kilometer. Thus, these two northern regions to- 
gether contain 61.8 percent of the land area but only 27.1 of the population. This is 
largely because of the aridity of the land. In these two regions it is so dry that successful 
farming cannot be carried on without irrigation. Water resources are so scarce that 
there are comparatively few streams from which irrigation projects might be developed. 
The Central region is much more densely populated than any of the others since it 
has only 14 percent of the land, yet contains about half (49 percent) of the total in- 
habitants of Mexico. The population density of this region is 62.3 persons per square 
kilometer. Here is located metropohtan Mexico City where 4,871,000 inhabitants are 
crowded into the Federal District. Three of Mexico's four largest cities are also found in 
this area, including Mexico City which, in 1960, had 2,832,133 inhabitants; Guad- 
alajara with 736,800; and Puebla with 289,049. 

Finally, the Gulf and the South Pacific regions have almost identical land areas 
although the South Pacific has sUghtly more inhabitants with a population density of 
18 inhabitants per square kilometer as compared with 16.9 in the Gulf region. 

A glance at columns 6 and 7 of table 1 indicates that Mexico's population is 
almost equally divided between rural and urban inhabitants, with 50.7 percent urban. 
The population of the Border States tends to be clustered into urban areas to a greater 
extent than in any other region, with 63.8 percent urban. 

The Central area is 58.4 percent urban, the Gulf area 41.9 percent, and the Other 
Northern States 34.6. The South Pacific is the least urbanized, with only 26.2 percent 
living in urban areas and 73.8 percent hving in rural districts. 

POPULATION GROWTH 1940-50 

Mexico's population increased from 19.7 million inhabitants in 1940 to 25.8 million 
in 1950, an increase of 31.2 percent for the 10-year period and an annual average growth 
of 3.1 percent (see table 2). 

The growth was uneven among the regions. The most rapid growth is noted in 
U.S. Border States, with an average annual rate of 4.2 percent as compared with 3.2 in 
the Central region, 2.5 in the South Pacific and 2.6 in both the Other Northern and the 
Gulf regions. The growth in the individual states of each region was also imeven. 
Fantastically rapid growth was witnessed in the Border state of Baja California, where 



2677 



Table 2. — Population oj Mexico Jor 1940-50, by Regions and States 



Region and Stst« 



Total popnlaUon (tboussnds) Population 

Increases 

1940 1950 > (thousands) 



Annual 
percentage 
1940-60 increase 



Total, Mexico 19,653.5 25,791.0 

U.S. Border States 2,617.7 3,763.1 

Baja California -- 79.0 227.1 

Chihuahua - 623.9 846.4 

Coahuila ..- - 550.7 720.6 

Nuevo Le6n -- 541.1 740.2 

Sonora... -.- -- - 364.2 510.6 

Tamaulipas 458.8 718.2 

Other Northern Stetes 2, 489. 3, 138. 1 

Baja California 51.5 60.9 

Durango -- - 483.8 629.9 

Nayarit .-- - 216.7 290.1 

San Luis PotosI— - -- 678.7 856.1 

Sinaloa -- -- 492.8 635.6 

Zacatecas 565. 5 665. 5 

Central-- - 9, 430. 12, 449. 2 

Aguascalientes 161. 7 188. 1 

Distrito Federal 1,757.5 3,050.5 

Guanajuato -- - 1,046.5 1,328.7 

Hidalgo --- --- - 771.8 850.4 

Jalisco -- 1,418.3 1,746.8 

Mexico.. - 1,146.0 1,392.6 

Michoac^n 1,182.0 1,422.7 

Morelos... - 182.7 272.8 

Puebla - - 1,294 6 1,625.8 

Quer^taro. --- 244 8 286.2 

Tlaxcala -.- 224 1 284 6 

Gulf of Mexico- --- 2,432.4 3,068.9 

Campeche 90.5 122.1 

Quintana Roo 18.8 27.0 

Tabasco 285.6 362.7 

Veracruz 1,619.3 2,040.2 

Yucatin - 418.2 516.9 

South Pacific 2,684 4 3,360.0 

Collma - 78.8 112.3 

Chiapas 679.9 907.0 

Guerrero 732.9 919.4 

Oaxaca - 1,192.8 1,421.3 



6, 137. 5 

1, 145. 4 

148.0 
222. 5 
169.9 
199. 1 
146. 4 
259.4 

649. 1 

9.4 

146. 1 

73. 4 

177.4 

142.8 

loao 

3, 019. 2 

26.4 

1, 293. 

282. 2 

78. 6 
328.5 
246. 6 
240.7 

90. 1 
331.2 

41. 4 

60. 5 

636. 5 

31.6 
8.2 
77. 1 
420.9 
98.7 

675. 6 

33. 5 

227. 1 
186.5 

228. 5 



43.8 



187.3 
35.7 
30.9 
36.8 
40.2 
56.5 

26. 1 



18.3 
30.2 
33.9 
26. 1 
29.0 
17.7 



32.0 



16. 3 
73.6 
27. 
10. 2 
23. 2 
21. 5 
20. 4 
49.3 
25.6 
16.9 
27.0 



26.2 



34 9 
43. 6 
27.0 
26.0 
23.6 



25. 2 



42. 5 
33. 4 
25. 4 
19. 2 



4 2 



18.7 
3.6 
3. 1 
3.7 
40 
5.7 

2.6 



1.8 
3.0 
3.4 
2.6 
2.9 
1.8 



3.2 



1.6 
7.4 
2.7 
1.0 
2.3 
2.2 
2.0 
49 
2.6 
1.7 
2.7 



2.6 



3.5 
4 4 
2.7 
2.6 
2. 4 



43 
3. 3 
2.5 
1.9 



1 state and region unknown tor 11,763 persons in 1960. 

Data from Dlrtccidn Omeral de EUadiaUca, Ceruoi ie Poblaci&n , 1940 and 1960. 



growth for the entire 10-year period was 187.3 percent and the average annual rate 
18.7 percent. The states of Sonora and Tamaulipas of the Border region also displayed 
rapid growth, with an average annual rate of 4 and 5.7 percent, respectively. 

In the Central Region the Federal District increased 73.6 percent during the 10-year 
period, or an average of 7.4 percent annually. 

POPULATION GROWTH 1950-60 

Mexico's population growth was not only continued at a rapid rate but actually 
became accelerated considerably during the decade 1950-60. The total population in- 



2678 



creased from 25.8 million inhabitants in 1950 to 34.9 mUlion in 1960, an increase of 35.5 
percent in the 10-year period, or an average of 3.5 percent yearly (see table 3). Again, 
the greatest percentage increase was in the U.S. Border States, which experienced an 
even greater percentage increase than during the previous decade (47.3 percent as 
compared with 43.8). 

The Central Region again had the second highest rate of growth, with an increase of 
37.4 percent during the decade. The slowest rate of growth in the 1950-60 decade was 
in the Other Northern States, with a percentage of 25.5 for the decade. This region was 
followed closely by the South Pacific, with 27.7 percent. The Gulf States increased 32.2 
percent. 

Table 3. — Population oj Mexico for 1950-60 by regions and states 



Region and state 



Total population (thousands) Population 

. ~ increase 

1960 1 1960 (thousands) 



Annual 
increase percentage 
1960-60 Increase 



Total, Mexico 25,791.0 

U.S. Border States 3,763.1 

Baja California 227. 1 

Chihuahua 846.4 

Coahuila 720.6 

Nuevo Le6n 740.2 

Sonora. 510.6 

Tamaulipas. . 718.2 

Other Northern States 3, 138. 1 

Baja California 60. 9 

Durango 629.9 

Nayarit 290. 1 

San Luis Potos! 856. 1 

Sinaloa 635. 6 

Zacatecas 665. 5 

Central 12,449.2 

Aguasoalientes 188. 1 

Distrito Federal 3, 050.5 

Guanajuato 1, 328. 7 

Hidalgo 850.4 

Jalisco 1, 746.8 

Mexico 1,392.6 

Michoacin 1, 422.7 

Morelos 272.8 

Puebla 1, 625.8 

Quer^taro 286. 2 

Tlaxoala 284.6 

Gulf of Mexico 3, 068.9 

Campeche 122. 1 

Quintana Roo 27. 

Tabasco 362. 7 

Veracruz.. 2, 040. 2 

Yucatan 516. 9 

South Pacific 3, 360.0 

Colima 112.3 

Chiapas 907. 

Guerrero 919.4 

Oaxaca 1, 421. 3 



34, 923. 1 


9, 132. 1 


35.4 


5, 541. 2 


1, 778. 1 


47.3 



520.2 
1,226.8 

907. 7 
1,078.9 

783.4 
1, 024. 2 

3, 936. 8 

81.6 
760.8 
389.9 
1, 048. 3 
838.4 
817.8 



243.3 
4, 870. 9 

1, 735. 5 
994.6 

2, 443. 3 
1, 897. 8 
1,851.9 

386.3 

1, 973. 8 
355.0 
346.7 

4, 056. 7 

168.2 

50.2 

496.3 

2, 727. 9 
614. 1 

4, 289. 3 

164.4 
1,210.9 
1, 186. 7 
1, 727. 3 



293.1 
380.4 
187.1 
338.7 
272.8 
306.0 

798.7 

20.7 
130.9 

99.8 
192.2 
202.8 
152.3 



17, 099. 1 4, 649. 9 



55.2 

, 820. 4 

406.8 

144.2 

696.5 

505.2 

429.2 

113.5 

348.0 

68.8 

62. 1 



987.8 



46. 1 
23.2 
133.6 
687.7 
97.2 



929.3 



52.1 
303.9 
267.3 
306.0 



129. 1 
43.9 
26.0 
45.8 
53.4 
42.6 



25.5 



34.0 
20.8 
34.4 
22.5 
31.9 
22.9 



37.4 



29.3 
59.7 
30.6 
17.0 
39.9 
36.3 
30.2 
41.6 
21.4 
24.0 
21.8 



32.2 



37.8 
85.9 
36.8 
33.7 
18.8 



27.7 



46.4 
33.5 
29.1 
21.5 



4.7 



12.9 
4.6 
2.6 
4.6 
5.3 
4.3 



2.6 



3.4 
2. 1 
3.4 
2.3 
3.2 
2.3 



3.7 



2.9 
6.0 
3.1 
1.7 
4.0 
3.6 
3.0 
4.2 
2.1 
2.4 
2.2 



3.2 



3.8 
8.6 
3.7 
3.4 
1.9 



2.8 



4.6 
3.4 
2.9 
2.2 



' State and Region unknown tor 11,763 persons In 1960. 

Data from DireccUm Oeneral de EttaiUtica, Ceruoi de Poblaclin, 1960-60. 



2679 



There were rather wide variations in population growth among the states in each 
region. While Baja Cahfornia did not increase proportionately as much as during the 
previous decade (129.1 percent in 1950-60 as compared with 187.3 percent in 1940-50), 
the rate of increase was still 4.7 percent annually. Rates of increase in this Border 
region were greater than in the previous decade for the states of Chihuahua, Kuevo 
Leon, and Sonora. They were somewhat less than previously in Coahuila and Tamauli- 
pas, although even in this latter state the annual rate for 1950-60 was 4.3 percent. 

In the Central region, the rate of increase was greatest in the Distrito Federal, al- 
though less than the spectacular increase registered during the previous decade — 59.7 
percent in 1960 as compared with 73.6 percent in 1950. The rates of growth for the 
states of Morelos, 4.2 percent per year, and Jalisco, 4.0 percent annually, were also 
outstanding in the 1950-60 decade. 

During the decade ending in 1960, three of the five states in the Gulf region showed 
increased rates of growth, including Quintana Roo, Tabasco, and Veracruz. Campeche 
showed a slight increase and Yucatan registered a decline in the annual rate of increase 
from 2.4 percent in 1950 to 1.9 percent in 1960. 

In the Other Northern States, the rate of growth was the same for the decade 1950-60 
as for the previous decade (2.6 percent annually). This was the lowest rate in any of the 
regions in 1950-60, although only slightly lower than that of the South Pacific region 
(2.8 percent). 

Pronounced differences in regional growth of Mexico's population must be attrib- 
uted largely to internal migrations. Differences in birthrates and death rates are 
simply not great enough to account for the differences in state and regional rates of 
growth; and, as previously indicated, there has been very httle immigration. 

A recent preliminary report on a study of internal migration in Mexico,^ by 
Gustavo Cabrera, presents data indicating that aU of the Border states except Coahuila 
gained greatly from migration from other states during the decade 1950-60. The gains 
in the Border states ranged from 13.9 percent in Tamauhpas to 61.6 percent of the 
total population increase in Baja California. In no other region did so many states 
gain through internal migration from other states. In other words, there appears to be 
a definite migration to the Border states from farther south. None of the states in the 
Other Northern States gained through migration. All of them lost more than they gained 
except Nayarit, which registered no change. 

In the Central region, only three states experienced a net gain through internal 
migration from other states. These were the Federal District, with 33.3 percent and the 
two adjoining states of Mexico (32.2 percent) and Morelos with 24.2 percent. All other 
states in the Central region suffered a net loss through migration. This would indicate 
the existence of strong waves of migration into metropohtan Mexico City and surround- 
ing areas from other states, particularly in the Central region. 

ESTIMATED POPULATION GROWTH 1960-70 

The attempt to forecast future growth of a population is rather a precarious business, 
especially in a developing country where census enumerations and the registration of 

' Gustavo Cabrera, A., Estimacidn de la Migracidn Interna de Mixico, 1950-1960 (unpublished as of 1966). 



2680 



births and deaths leave much to be desired in terms of accuracy and completeness. 
Fortunately, projections were recently made for Mexico by two competent Mexican 
demographers, Benltez and Cabrera.^ In making their projections they took into 
account the birth rates and death rates over a long period of time, the infant mortality 
rate, the age and sex composition of the population, life expectancy, immigration, and 
many other factors. Their preliminary calculations led them to believe that the 1960 
population was underenumerated in the census by more than 1 rmUion inhabitants, 
mostly in the age groups under 5 years. They made adjustments upward in the various 
age groups to compensate for this underenumeration, thus increasing the reported 
population of 1960 by a corresponding amount before applying their various formulas 
to arrive at future estimates. By these methods they arrived at a total population 
estimate for Mexico in 1970 of 50,826,100 inhabitants. They further estimated a pop- 
ulation of 69,268,800 inhabitants for 1980. The authors made similar calculations for 
each state in the nation. 

For the purposes of the present study, we have computed the estimated percentage 
change by states and regions for 1960-70 as estimated by Benitez and Cabrera and 
have applied these rates of increase to the enumerated population of 1960. This will 
give a slightly more conservative estimate than theirs, although the differences will 
not be great. The results are shown in table 4. According to these estimates, the 
following observations might be made: 

1. Mexico win have an estimated population of 49,561,300 inhabitants by 1970. 
This would mean an increase of 14,638,200 people, a gain of 41.9 percent from 1960 
to 1970. It would give an average annual percentage increase of 4.2, one of the highest 
in the world (see fig. 2). 

2. The U.S. Border States are expected to have a much higher rate of growth 
than any other region, with a total increase of 56.5 percent for the 10-year period. 
Baja California would experience the largest percentage of any of the states in the 
nation, with 112.4 percent, or more than double the 1960 population. Although these 
Border States are sparsely populated, they now contain seven of the 17 largest cities 
in the nation having over 100,000 inhabitants. Two of these are located in Baja Cali- 
fornia (Mexicali and Tiajuana) and two are in the state of Chihuahua, Ciudad Juarez 
and Chihuahua City. Then there is Torreon in CoahuUa, Monterrey in Nuevo Le6n 
and Tampico in the state of Tamaulipas. The city of Monterrey is one of the three 
largest cities in Mexico and now has over 600,000 inhabitants. It is to these large 
cities and their metropolitan areas that large numbers of people are now moving from 
farther south. 

3. The Central area containing Mexico City shows the second highest estimated 
percentage growth for the decade with 42.5 percent. Much of this may be attributed 
to metropolitan Mexico City. If one deducts the Federal District from this region, the 
resulting percentage growth would be 37.2 percent. The slowest projected growth in 
this Central area is in the states of Aguascahentes and Hidalgo. The fastest growth in 



* Raul Benftez Zenteno and Gustavo Cabrera Acevedo. Projecciones de la Poblacidn de Mexico 1960-1980. Banco 
de Mexico, S.A., 1966. 



2681 




Figure 2. Growth oj population in Mexico 1800-1970. {Dotted line estimated.) Data jrom Direccion 
General de Estadistica and table 5. 

the region outside the Federal District is estimated forMorelos (56.2 percent) and the 
state of Mexico with 52.3 percent. As indicated earlier, both of these rapidly growing 
states adjoin the Federal District and obviously are participating in the rapid expansion 
of population in that large metropohtan area. 

4. The region with the lowest rate of estimated growth for 1970 is that of the South 
Pacific, with a projected increase of 31.8 percent for the decade. There is no city in 
this region with as many as 100,000 inhabitants. Commimication facilities are poor. 
The area is moimtainous, with relatively Uttle level farm land. This region contains 
the highest proportion of indigenous inhabitants and the death rate is somewhat higher 
than in other regions. 

5. The Gulf region of Mexico is calculated to have a 37-percent increase in popu- 
lation by 1970. This area contains two large cities: Veracruz and Merida, Yucatdn. 
Much of the area is semitropical and would seem to have good possibilities for future 
development. 

6. An increase of 35.1 percent is estimated for the Other Northern region. The 
largest percentages of increase for this region are projected for the states of Nayarit 
and Sinaloa, both situated along the Pacific coast and having excellent agricultural 
resources where considerable expansion may be possible, provided additional irrigation 
projects can be developed. Slower growth appears to be likely in Durango and Zaca- 
tecas, both of which are old mining centers and areas of extensive cattle raising. 



2682 



Table 4. — Population of Mexico in 1960 and projected po-pulation Jor 1970 



Total population (thousands) 1960-70 projected increase 



Region and stale 



Estimated 
annual 
percent 
increase 



Total, Mexico 34,923.1 49,561.3 

U.S. Border States 5,541.2 8,670.9 

Baja California 520.2 1,104.9 

Chihuahua 1,226.8 1,891.7 

Coahuila 907.7 1,209.1 

Nuevo Le6n 1,078.9 1,703.6 

Sonora 783.4 1,258.1 

Tamaulipas 1,024 2 1,503.5 

Other Northern States 3, 936. 8 5, 318. 1 

Baja California 81.6 108.9 

Durango 760.8 954 

Nayarit 389.9 571.2 

San Lufs Potosi 1, 048. 3 1, 423. 6 

Sinaloa 838.4 1,195.6 

Zacatecas 817.8 1,064 8 

Central 17,099. 1 24,360. 7 

Aguascalientes 243.3 309.7 

Distrito Federal 4,870. 9 7, 593. 7 

Guanajuato 1,735.5 2,348.1 

Hidalgo 994 6 1,281.0 

Jalisco 2,443. 3 3, 386. 4 

Mexico 1, 897. 8 2, 890. 3 

Michoacdn 1,851.9 2,426.0 

Morelos 386.3 603.4 

Puebla 1,973. 8 2,607. 4 

Quert'taro 355.0 461.9 

Tlaxcala 346.7 452.8 

Gulf of Mexico 4,056. 7 5, 559. 1 

Campeche 168.2 237.3 

Quintana Roo 50.2 84.5 

Tabasco 496.3 703.8 

Veracruz 2, 727. 9 3, 729. 

Yucatin 614 1 804 5 

South Pacific 4,289.3 5,652. 5 

Colima 164 4 241.0 

Chiapas 1,210. 9 1, 605. 7 

Guerrero 1, 186. 7 1,610. 4 

Oaxaca 1,727.3 2,195.4 



14, 638. 2 

3, 129. 7 

584 7 
664 9 
301. 4 
624 7 
474 7 
479. 3 

1, 381. 3 

27. 3 
193. 2 
181. 3 
375.3 
357.2 
247. 

7, 261. 6 

66.4 

2, 722. 8 
612. 6 
286. 4 
943. 1 
992. 5 
574 1 
217. 1 
633.6 
106. 9 
106. 1 

1, 502. 4 

69. 1 

34 3 

207. 5 

1, 001. 1 

190. 4 

1, 363. 5 

76.6 
394 8 
423. 7 
468. 1 



56. 5 



112. 4 
54 2 
33.2 
57. 9 
60. 6 
46.8 



35. 1 



33. 5 
25. 4 
46. 5 
35.8 
42.6 
30.2 



42.5 



27.3 
55.9 
35.3 
28.8 
38.6 
52. 3 
31.0 
56. 2 
32. 1 
30. 1 
30. 6 



37.0 



41. 1 
68.4 
41.8 
36.7 
31. 



31.8 



46.6 
32. 6 
35.7 
27. 1 



r.. 7 



11. 2 

5. 4 
3.3 
5.8 

6. 1 
4 7 



3.5 



3.4 
2.5 
47 
3.6 
4 3 
3.0 



2.7 
5.6 
3.5 

2. 9 
3.9 
5.2 

3. 1 
5. 6 
3.2 
3.0 
3. 1 



4 2 
3.7 
3. 1 



47 
3.3 
3.6 
2.7 



Table 5 shows the population increase by decades for each region in 1940-50, 
1950-60, and the estimated percentage increase for 1960-70 (see table 5). 

Perhaps it should be kept in mind that although the greatest percentage increase 
for the decade 1960-70 is projected for the U.S. Border States, these states are so 
thinly populated that the actual increase will amount to only sHghtly more than 
3 million inhabitants as compared with a projected increase of over 7 million in the 
Central region. 

How accurate will these estimates prove to be? For the country as a whole this will 
depend on what happens to the birth rates and the death rates in the immediate future. 
Since there has been very little immigration to Mexico in recent years, the explanation 



2683 



Table 5. — Population increase in Mexico by regions: 10-year intervals, 19Jfl-70 



1940-50 


Annual 


1960-60 


percent 


percent 
Increase 


percent 
Increase 


increase 



Annual 
percent 
increase 



1960-70 Estimated 

percent annual 

increase increase 
(estimated) 



Total Mexico- 
U.S. Border States.. - 

Other Northern 

Central 

Gulf of Mexico 

South Pacific 



31.2 


3.1 


35.4 


3.5 


41.9 


4.2 


43.8 


4.4 


47.3 


4.7 


56.5 


5.7 


26.1 


2.6 


25.5 


2.6 


35.1 


3.5 


32.0 


3.2 


37.4 


3.7 


42.5 


4.3 


26.2 


2.6 


32.2 


3.2 


37.0 


3.7 


25.2 


2.5 


27.7 


2.7 


31.8 


3.2 



Table 6. — Annual birth rates, death rates j and rates of natural increase in Mexico, 1940-65 * 



Rates of 
natural 
increase 



Death Rates of 

rates natural 

increase 



1940 


44.3 


23.2 


21.1 


1953 


45.0 


15.9 


29.1 


1941 


43.5 


22.1 


21.4 


1954 


46.4 


13.1 


33.3 


1942 


45.5 


22.8 


22.7 


1955 


45.1 


13.3 


31.8 


1943 


45.5 


22.4 


23.1 










1944 


44.2 

44.9 


20.6 
19.5 


23.6 
25.4 


1956 


45.2 


11.7 
12.7 


33.5 


1945 


1957 


45.5 


32.8 










1958 


42.9 


12.0 


30.9 


1946 


43.7 


19.4 


24.3 


1959 


45.6 


11.4 


34.2 


1947 


46.1 


16.6 


29.5 


1960 


44.6 


11.2 


33.4 


1948 


45.2 


16.9 


28.3 










1949 


45.2 


17.9 


27.3 


1961 


44.2 


10.4 


33.8 


1950 


45.5 


16.2 


29.3 


1962 


44.2 


10.5 


33.7 










1963 


44.1 


10.4 


33.7 


1951 


44.6 


17.3 


27.3 


1964 


44.8 


9.9 


34.9 


1952 


43.8 


15.0 


28.8 


1965 


44.2 


9.5 


34.7 



» Data from Direcci&n General de Estadistlca. 



for the exceedingly rapid increase in population must be sought in the rate of natural 
increase, i.e., the excess of births over deaths. What has been happening in this respect 
since 1940 is apparent from table 6 and figure 2. In 1940, the birth rate was recorded as 
44.3 per thousand inhabitants and the death rate as 23.2. This gave a rate of natural 
increase in population of 21.1 (see table 6). The birth rate has remained at this very 
high level and was recorded as almost identical in 1940 and in 1965 (44.2). It has fluctu- 
ated only by a few percentage points one way or the other for the past 25 years. The 
death rate, on the other hand, has fallen rapidly and steadily from 23.2 in 1940 to 
only 9.5 in 1965. The rate of natural increase, therefore, has risen from 21.4 in 1940 to 
34.7. The result is clearly evident from figure 3. 

Future increase in Mexico 's population will therefore depend largely on what happens 
to the birth rate. Obviously, any evidence of a widespread use of birth control practices 
has been conspicuously absent until now. Whether or not these will become widely 
enough accepted to make any great impact on the birth rate in the immediate future 
remains to be seen. It is interesting to note that a number of national and international 
conferences have been taking place recently among Latin American scholars, including 
Mexicans, with reference to the "population explosion" and it seems not unhkely 
that as these matters are discussed more openly, the population wiU become increasingly 
aware of the advantages to be gained in social and economic well-being through family 
planning. 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5B - 11 



2684 



Per 1.000 Population 
50 




Figure 3. Trend in birth rates, death rates, and natural increase oj population in Mexico, 1940-65. 

Data from table 6. 



Although Mexico's population has been increasing rapidly, it is important to note 
that industrial and agricultural production have more than kept pace with it. Thus, 
the Nacional Financiera, S.A., of Mexico calculates that the gross national product 
per inhabitant in Mexico has increased (at 1950 prices) from 1,150 pesos in 1940 to 
2,300 pesos in 1965. In other words, the gross national product per inhabitant has 
doubled since 1940, even taking into account the rather spectacular increase in 
population.^ 

Agricultural production has also greatly increased in recent years. There was 
considerable decline in production during 1930-40 but this has been overcome and 
the production index per capita rose from 134.9 in 1940 to 598.3 in 1965.* This increase 
in agriculture production has been due to a number of factors, including the develop- 
ment of irrigation projects which have brought new land into production, the im- 
provement of seed selection, the establishment of agricultural experiment stations and 
extension services. 

These improvements are by no means imiversal in Mexico, however, since a large 
proportion of the farmland is still tilled on a subsistence basis on tiny plots with tech- 
niques that have seen Uttle or no improvement since colonial times. 



• Nacional Financiera, S.A. La Economia Mexicana en Cifras, Mexico, 1966, table 10, p. 53. 

• Nacional Financiera, S.A., op. cit., p. 61. 



2685 



In conclusion, it should be pointed out that although Mexico's population is 
increasing very rapidly, her agricultural and industrial production seem to have kept 
pace accordingly. How long this •will continue is problematical. Certainly there are 
other problems that have a bearing on the population problem. One of these is the 
lack of an equitable distribution of the fruits of increased production. Despite seeming 
prosperity in many quarters, widespread poverty still prevails throughout the country. 
While production has greatly increased on some farms, most are too small to provide 
a living for their inhabitants. As a result of overcrowding on the farms, there are 
constant streams of migration of population from rural areas to the rapidly growing 
cities. Many of these migrants move into the city slums, where they become virtually 
trapped in substandard and overcrowded housing. According to the census of 1960 
55.6 percent of all dwellings in Mexico contained only one room per family. In the 
urban areas, 44.5 percent of the dwellings had only one room, as did 66.2 percent in 
the rural areas.'' 

Looking toward the future, it seems unlikely that the death rate will decline 
much more in the immediate future, without greatly improved living standards 
among large segments of the population. Future growth of population, therefore, 
depends largely on the birth rate which, as yet, shows few if any signs of declining. 
What the future will offer in this regard remains to be seen. 



'' Annuario Estadislico de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 1962-63, Mexico, 1965, p. 119. 



2686 

rFrom "Farm Labor Developments," November 1968, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Washington, D.C.] 

Restrictive Admission Standards : Probable Impact on Mexican Alien 

Commuters 

(By Stanley M. Knebel) 

Every weekday morning, thousands of residents of Mexican towns near the 
U.S. border commute to jobs in the United States. At the border, they show their 
1-151 identification card.s, popuhirly linown as "green cards," which entitle them 
to talie employment in the United States. It has generally been recognized that 
the unrestricted admission of greencard workers on a daily basis adversely 
affects the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. residents. 
However, comprehensive data detailing the extent and significance of alien com- 
muter employment have not been available before this year. 

In November and December of 1967, the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service required that each holder of an 1-151 identification card who was a daily 
border crosser complete a <iuestionnaire which called for his occupation and 
place of employment. During January 1968, the Department of Labor conducted a 
special employment and wage survey of establishments that employed com- 
muters lin the Laredo, Texas area. Based on the data collected in these two 
studies, certain conclusions can be drawn in regard to the number, occupational 
distribution, and wages of daily commuter.s. It is also possible to estimate the 
impact on the commuter flow that would result from various restrictive wage 
standards. This article summarizes the two studies and discusses the probable 
impact of alternative restrictions. 

number of alien commuters 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service survey showed some 40,000 
workers commuting daily across the Mexican border to work in the United 
States. Crossing points in Texas accounted for 49 percent of the total, while 3cS 
percent crossed into California and 13 percent into Arizona. ( See Table 1. ) 
More than four-fifths of the commuters were concentrated at five ports of entry 
along the border : 29 ijercent at El Paso, Texas ; 19 percent at each of the two 
major California parts, San Ysidro and Calexio ; 9 percent at San Luis, Arizona ; 
and 7 percent at Laredo, Texas. The only other crossing points with more than 
500 commuters were Brownsville, Hidalgo, and Eagle Pass, Texas and Nogales. 
Arizona. ( See Tables 2, 3, and 4. ) 



2687 



TABLE 1.— 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 

Secreta ries 

Other business occupations 

Hotel and restaurant occupations 

Bartenders 

Bellhops. 

Chambermaids 

Cooks 

Kitchen helpers 

Waiters, waitresses 

Other hotel and 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 

Service station workers 

Upholsterers _. 

Warehousemen _ 

Miscellaneous... 



40, 176 


19,714 


15, 284 


5 178 






2, 421 


1,801 


521 


99 






895 


732 
319 

750 


131 
153 
237 


32 


487 


15 


1,039 


52 






3, 285 


2,405 


429 


451 



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 



167 
233 
1,248 
232 
309 
150 
66 



1,308 



56 
25 
100 
390 
410 
228 
4 



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 



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 



37 
74 
258 
13 
27 
25 
17 



115 



4,513 



37 



13 

131 

3,428 





25 

23 

18 

1 

211 

53 

198 

45 

1 

54 

3 

68 
19 
3 

37 
145 



Source: I. & N.S. Commuter Census, November-December 1967. 



2688 

TABLE 2— NUMBER OF MEXICAN ALIEN COMMUTERS IN ARIZONA, BY PORT OF ENTRY AND OCCUPATION, 1967 



Occupation 



Total 



San Luis 



Nogales Douglas 



99 


12 


56 


12 


19 


32 
15 
52 


5 


7 


17 
12 
27 


5 
1 
6 


5 
2 
12 


451 


52 


372 


21 


6 



Total 5,178 3,553 1,118 380 

Building occupations 

Carpenters 

Painters 

Other building occupations.. 

Business occupations _ 

I'ashiers 37 34 3 

C'erks, office 74 5 69 

Clerks, sales __ 258 40 201 12 

Clerks, stock and receiving 13 3 9 1 

Managers 27 3 22 1 

Secretaries 25 1 22 2 

Other business occupations... 17 15 2 

Hotel and restaurant occupations 115 12 77 13 

Bartenders 9 7 

Busboys 3 2 1 

Chambermaids 15 1 14 

Cooks 29 5 15 

Kitchen helpers... 29 3 15 

Waiters, waitresses.. 30 1 25 

Other occupations 4,513 3,477 613 334 

Automobile shop workers 37 9 21 2 

Custodial workers 13 11 1 

Drivers, truck 131 76 31 18 

Farmworkers. 3,428 3,146 73 169 

Food processing occupations 25 7 8 4 

Gardeners.. 23 2 20 1 

Hospital helpers 18 18 

Jewelers 10 10 

Laborers, general 211 22 138 38 

Laundry workers 53 5 16 29 

Maids, private household.. 198 41 118 29 

Metalworkers 45 1 36 7 

Parking lot attendants 10 10 

Professional occupations 54 1 50 3 

Repair occupations 3 2 1 

Sewing machine operators.. 68 39 17 11 

Service station workers 19 1 13 4 

Upholsterers 3 12 

Warehousemen 37 1 35 

Miscellaneous. 145 125 2 17 



1 Sasabe and Naco, Ariz., and Columbus, N. Mex. 

Source: I. & N.S. Commuter Census, November-December 1967. 



2689 



TABLE 3— NUMBER OF MEXICAN ALIEN COMMUTERS, IN CALIFORNIA, BY PORT OF ENTRY AND OCCUPATION, 

1967 



Occupation 



Total 



San Ysidro 



Calexico Other ports ' 



Total.. 

Building occupations. 

Carpenters. 

Painters 

Other building occupations 

Business occupations 

Cashiers 

Clerks, office. _ 

Clerks, sales... _ 

Clerks, stock and receiving 

Ma nagers 

Secretaries 

Other business occupations 

Hotel and restaurant occupations 

Bartenders, 

Bellhops 

Busboys 

Chambermaids 

Cooks.. 

Kitchen helpers _ 

Waiters, waitresses.. 

Other hotel and 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 

Repai r occupations 

Sewing machine operators 

Service station workers. 

Upholsterers 

Warehousemen 

Miscellaneous 



15,284 


7,535 


7,690 


59 


521 


431 


87 


3 


131 
153 
237 


112 
142 
177 


17 
11 
59 


2 



1 


429 


234 


189 


6 



28 
47 
207 
64 
41 
24 
18 



812 



28 
10 
109 
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 



749 



22 
8 
104 
104 
211 
223 
60 
17 



6,121 



184 

15 

108 

109 

2,894 

91 

38 

264 

281 

12 

21 

571 

236 

327 

135 

33 

40 

42 

277 

46 

88 

47 

262 



9 
12 
122 
21 
10 
8 
7 



62 



7,352 



69 

4 

7 

206 

6,248 





35 

19 

5 

1 

365 

9 

83 

12 

1 

4 

7 

13 

10 

6 

7 

241 



49 





1 


29 



1 


4 

2 





2 



10 



' Tecate and Andrade. 

Source: I. & N.S. Commuter Census, November-December 1967. 



2690 

TABLE 4.-NUMBER OF MEXICAN ALIEN COMMUTERS IN TEXAS, BY PORT OF ENTRY AND OCCUPATION, 1967 



Occupation 



Total Paso ' Fabens 



Del Eagle 

Rio Pass Laredo 



irowns- 
ville 



Hidalgo 



Total -. 19,714 11,760 

Building occupations 

Carpenters 

Painters _ 

Other building occupations.. 

Business occupations 

Cashiers 167 58 

Clerks, office 233 93 

Clerks, sales 1,248 454 

Clerks, stock and receiving.. 232 145 

Managers 309 171 

Secretaries 150 51 

Other business occupations... 66 25 

Hotel and restaurant occupations.. 1,308 965 

Bartenders 56 42 

Bellhops 25 21 

Busboys 95 70 

Cooks 390 254 

Kitchen helpers 410 368 

Waiters, waitresses 220 139 

Other hotel and restaurant 
occupations 

Other occupations 

Automobile shop workers 246 133 

Beauty operators and 

barbers 53 45 

Custodial workers 215 175 

Drivers, truck 647 382 

Farmworkers 3,436 1,461 

Fishermen 92 1 

Florists 3 1 

Food processing occupations.. 524 164 

Gardeners 210 123 

Hospital helpers 53 42 

Jewelers 16 8 

Laborers, general 2,517 1,598 

Laundry workers 292 203 

Maids, private household 2,169 1,630 

Metalworkers 1,435 1,217 

Parking lot attendants 12 11 

Professional occupations 244 145 

Repair occupations 196 153 

Sewing machine operators 809 554 

Service station workers 150 67 

Upholsterers 125 84 

Warehousemen 164 78 

Miscellaneous _. 592 315 



279 



317 1,635 2,669 1,917 



937 



. 1,801 


1,208 


2 


26 


67 


196 


169 


123 10 






732 


458 
214 
536 




2 


14 
9 
3 


35 
11 
21 


79 
27 
90 


89 
25 
55 


53 4 


319 


33 


. 750 


37 6 


2,405 


997 





20 


247 


818 


249 


69 5 



16 

27 

148 

7 

24 
15 
10 



65 
92 

419 
70 
77 
69 
26 



20 

17 

167 

5 

25 
15 





141 



30 



4 


4 























14,200 


8,590 


277 


248 


1,269 


1,514 


1,403 


715 


184 









4 


4 














1 


17 


16 


6 


16 


5 


38 


121 


45 


30 


204 


2 


682 


312 


168 


459 











5 


86 











1 





1 





1 


4 


11 


19 


319 


6 





6 


11 


46 


23 


1 








1 


4 


I 


5 








2 


2 


2 


2 


39 


107 


144 


188 


361 


71 





8 


8 


38 


27 


8 


11 


19 


113 


227 


114 


52 





60 


32 


23 


82 


21 











1 








1 


3 


15 


51 


26 


1 





4 


3 


17 


15 


4 


5 


15 


128 


70 


32 


5 





4 


13 


35 


22 


8 





2 


5 


25 


7 


2 








2 


69 


11 


4 





5 


44 


184 


20 


13 



' Includes Cordova and Ysleta. 

- Fort Hancock, Presidio, Roma, and Progresso. 

Source: I. & N. S. Commuter Census, November-December 1967. 



OCCUPATIONS OP COMMUTERS 

Farmwork was the occupation reported by 16,035 border crossers, or 40 percent 
of the total — a far greater number than in any other occupation.^ Tlie propor- 
tions were 66 percent for Arizona entry points, 60 i)ercent in California, but only 
17 percent in Texas. The major entry points for the Yuma and Imi)erial Valley 
vegetable and citrus areas are San Luis, Arizona and Calexico, California, where 
S{) and 91 percent, respectively, of the commuters were farmv^forkers. 



1 The surve.v was conducted in November and December when seasonal agricultural em- 
ployment is at or near the peak of activity in border areas. The 16,035 farmworkers included 
7,743 who had been doing migratory farmwork in the United States. They returned to 
Mexico during the survey period and began working as commuters. It is reasonable to 
assume that most of these workers would migrate again in the spring. 



2691 

Nine percent of tjie commuters designated themselves simply as laborers. They 
probably represent a large portion of the low-skilled segment of the labor force 
in a wide variety of industrial, service, construction, and other enterprises in 
some border towns. 

Maids in private households were the thii'd most numerous single occupation, 
comprising 7 percent of all commuters. Most of them entered at El Paso or San 
Ysidro (near San Diego). 

Among Lusiness occupations, sales clerks were most numerous by a considerable 
margin. Comniuter.s in business occupations, as a group, comprised 8 percent of 
the total. Those in hotel and restaurant occupations accounted for 6 percent and 
those in building occupations another 6 percent. Other significant concentrations 
were metal workers (4 percent) and sewing-machine operators (3 percent). 

SCOPE AND METHOD OF LAREDO SURVEY 

In the course of the I&NS Census, information was obtained about the place 
of employment and occupation for each commuter. In Laredo, Texas, data were 
obtained for 2,669 commuters. Of these, 20 percent were employed as farm- 
workers and household domestics. Excluding these workers from the totals 
reduces the number of commuters to 2,121. A sample of 90 establishments in 
which 5 or more commuters had been employed at the time of the I&NS Census 
was selected. In addition, a subsample of eight gasoline service stations employ- 
ing less than five commuters was surveyed. Of the 9S establishments, one re- 
fused to provide data, one was out of business, and a third could not be located. 
The other 95 all provided data about the wage rates paid to commuters and U.S. 
residents employed in the same occupations. In all, wage data were obtained for 
1,075 residents and 60.S commuters employed in 48 broad occupational groupings. 

There were 25 occupations in which five or more commuters were employed. 
These accounted for 84 percent of the residents and 94 percent of the commuters 
in the sample. 

EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE FINDINGS OF THE LAREDO STUDY 

The 608 conunuters employed in the 95 establishments covered by the survey 
constituted 28 percent of the 2,121 commuters reported by I&NS who were not 
farm laborers or household domestics. 

Although 48 separate occupations were reported for the commuters in the 
survey, there was a concentration of workers employed as salesclerks, laborers, 
general clerks, warehousemen, salesmen, and truck drivers. 

Average hourly earnings for the 25 surveyed occupations in which five or more 
commuters were employed ranged from $.81 for busboys and $.86 for service- 
station attendants to $2.10 for customs appraisers. (Table 5.) 

Commuters and re.sident workers employed in the same establishment received 
identical wages in each occupational classification. 

A wage of $1.40 per hour was the rate most commonly paid to surveyed com- 
muters (Table 6). This rate was the Federal minimum in effect at the time of 
the survey and, of the 608 workers in the sample. 48 percent were being paid 
precisely this amount. :Moreover. 76 i>ercent (including some workers not covered 
by the Federal minimum wage law) were receiving $1.40 per hour or less. This 
would indicate that the ready availability of alien commuters senses to keep the 
level of wage rates closely tied to the minimum, where applicable, and even 
lower for workers not protected by law. 

IMPACT ON COMMUTERS OF RESTRICTIV^E ADMISSION STANDARDS 

Various proposals have been made to restrict the admission of the commuters. 
During the 90th Congress, a bill ( S. 2790) was introduced in the Senate which 
would permit a commuter to reenter 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 employment of such alien will not ad- 
versely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States 
similarly employed. . . ." To implement this requirement, a test of adverse effect 
on wages would have to he specified. 



2692 

TABLE 5.-AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE RATES AND PREVAILING WAGE RATES FOR SELECTED OCCUPATIONS IN 
WHICH COMMUTERS ARE EMPLOYED AND THE PROPORTIONS OF COMMUTERS PAID LESS THAN SPECIFIED 
AMOUNTS, LAREDO, TEX., JANUARY 1968 



Percent and number of commuters earning less than- 



Occupation 







Prevailing 


$1.40 


per 


$1.60 


per 


Average 
hourly 
earn- 


Prevail- 


vtrage 


rate 


tiou 


r 


hou 


r 


rate ' 3 


Per- 


Num- 


Per- 


Num- 


Per- 


Num- 


ings 1 2 




cent 


ber 


cent 


ber 


cent 


ber 






14.0 


175 


24.8 


311 


80.0 


1,001 








$2.10 


$2.15 


41.7 


8 














1.71 


1.65 


45.5 


8 








36.4 


6 


.81 


.70 








100.0 


17 


100.0 


17 


1.65 


1.60 




















1.33 


1.40 














100.0 


63 


1.49 


1.40 














54.5 


81 


1.54 


1.60 


8.3 


1 








8.3 


1 


1.40 


1.40 














100.0 


16 


1.09 


.95 








100.0 


9 


100.0 


9 


1.13 


1.25 


42.9 


7 


100.0 


16 


100.0 


16 


1.43 


1.45 








15.0 


22 


85.0 


127 


1.49 


1.40 














72.7 


15 


.95 


.95 


15.4 


3 


100.0 


19 


100.0 


19 


1.47 


1.40 














80.0 


5 


1.36 


1.40 


11.5 


32 


11.5 


32 


97.2 


270 


1.65 


1.40 


66.7 


42 


66.7 


42 


88.9 


56 


1.71 


1.55 


45.5 


26 








54.5 


32 


1.05 


1.05 








100.0 


31 


100.0 


31 


.86 


.70 








85.0 


25 


100.0 


30 


1.47 


1.40 














66.7 


4 


1.34 


1.40 


17.8 


8 


17.8 


8 


100.0 


45 


1.59 


1.35 


9.1 


2 


72.7 


16 


81.8 


18 


1.76 


1.40 














50.0 


31 


.87 


.70 








100.0 


52 


100.0 


52 


1.47 


1.40 


28.7 


22 


28.7 


22 


73.7 


57 



Total, specified occupations. 

Appraiser, custom 

Bookkeeper 

Busboy 

Butcher 

Cashier 

Clerk, general 

Clerk-typist 

Clerk, receiving and shipping 

Kitchen helper 

Laundry machine presser 

La borer 

Material handler 

Chambermaid 

Machinist, shop 

Sales clerk 

Salesman 

Secretary 

Sew/ing machine operator 

Service station attendant _. 

Stenographer -.. 

Stockman 

Tailor _.. 

Truckdriver 

Walter-waitress 

Warehouseman. 



> Based on rates paid to both commuters and U.S. residents. 

2 The data were tabulated in 10-cent intervals and the average hourly earnings were computed on the basis of the 
midpoints of the wage intervals. 

3 The midpoint of the wage interval containing the largest number of workers, provided this Interval comprised at least 
30 percent of all workers in the sample employed in this occupation. If thare is no such Interval, then the midpoint of the 
interval containing the median is the prevailing wage rate. 

Source: Wage survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor, January 1968. 

For expository purposes, the following tests are considered in this paper : 

1. Prevailing-rate concept — a commuter would be denied certification if he is 
employed in, or is seeking a job at, a wage rate less than that found to be pre- 
vailing in the occupation in the area of employment. 

2. Adverse-effect wage rate concept — a conmiuter would be denied certification 
for employment at a wage rate below that specified by the Secretary of Labor, 
e.g., $1.40 i>er hour or $1.60 i)er hour. 

In Table 5, estimates have been made of the percent and number of workers in 
principal occupations that would have been denied cerfification in Jannaiy 1968 
under the adverse-effect tests set forth above. 

Only 14 percent of the coirunuters engaged in 2'5 occupations shown in Table 5 
would have been refused readmission if the prevailing rate in each occupation 
were the standard for certification. But if the .wage test for certification were an 
adverse-effect rate of $1.40 per hour, nearly 25 percent of the commuters in the 25 
selected occupations would not have been permitted to enter the United States at 
the wage rates they were then receiving. Approximately 80 i>ercent of them would 
have been denied certification if the wage standard had been $1.60 per hour. 
Table 6, which takes into account a broader range of occupations, shows 28 
percent of the commuters earning less than $1.40 an hour and 80 percent under 
$1.60. 

Excluded from Table 5 and Table 6 are the farmhands and household domestic 
workers. Because their wages are very low, almost all of them would have been 
denied admission under either the $1.40 or the $1.60 adverse-effect standard. 



2693 

Because the Laredo survey was conducted in January 1968, the estimated im- 
pact on the commuter flow at the SI. 60 rate is probably overstated. At the time 
of the survey, the FLSA minimum was $1.40 per hour. A substantial number of 
establishments included in the survey are covered by the Federal minimum wage 
law. Wage rates in these establishments were increased to no less than $1.60 on 
February 1, 1968, and commuters in their employ, therefore, would not be denied 
certification because of standard wage offers. 

A City of Laredo ordinance, which became effective February 1, 1968, shortly 
after the Labor Department sun-ey was made, provides a minimum wage of $1.00 
and hour (to be raised to $1.15 an hour after September 1, 1969). Several cate- 
gories of employees are exempt, however, most notably domestic servants and 
employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Less than 12 percent of the 
commuters in the 48 occupations surveyed by the Labor Department would have 
been affected by the $1.00-an-hour minimum. 

TABLE 6.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUTERS • BY WAGE RATE, LAREDO, TEX., JANUARY 1968 



Wage interval 



Percent of 
total 2 



Cumulative 
percentage 2 



$0.70andless 4.6 

$0.71 to $0.80 1.1 

$0.81 to $0.90 .2 

$0.91 to $1.00 6.3 

$1.01 to $1.10 5.0 

$1.11 to $1.20 1.1 

$1.21 to $1.30 3.9 

$1.31 to $1.39 5.6 

$1.40 47.7 

$1.41 to $1.50 3.6 

$1.51 to $1.59 .5 

$1.60 7.9 

$1.61 to $1.70 5.0 

$1.71 to $1.80 1.3 



4.6 
5.7 
5.9 
12.2 
17.2 
18.4 
22.3 
27.9 
75.6 
79.2 
79.7 
87.6 
92.6 
93.9 



Wage interval 



Percent of 
total 2 



Cumulative 
percentage 2 



$1.81 to $1.90 .3 94.2 

$1.91 to $2.00 2.0 96.2 

$2.01 to $2.10 .5 96.7 

$2.11 to $2.20 .5 97.1 

$2.21 to $2.30 .5 97.6 

$2.31 to $2.40 .3 97.9 

$2.41 to $2.50. .7 98.6 

$2.51 to $2.60 .2 98.7 

$2.61 to $2.70 .2 98.9 

$2.71 to $2.80 98.9 

$2.81 to $2.90 98.9 

$2.91 to $3.00 .5 99.4 

Over $3.00 .6 100.0 



1 Excludes farmworkers and maids in private households. 

2 Percent of all commuters in the 48 occupations covered by the survey. 

Note: Due to rounding, percentages may not add to toals. 

Source: Wage survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor, January 1968. 



APPLICABILITY TO OTHER BORDER COMMUNITIES 

The 2,669 daily commuters to Laredo constituted almost 11 percent of the 
total labor force in that area. By way of contrast, 7.535 commuters crossed daily 
through the San Ysidro border station into the San Diego area, but they were 
only 2 percent of the work force. Table 7 compares the commuters counted by 
I&NS at each of the major points of entry with employment in nearby U.S. border 
counties for time periods as comparable as iK>s«ible to the time of the sur\'ey. 

The employment of green-card commuters in the Laredo area is per\^asive. They 
work in almost all establishments of any size, although they are concentrated in 
the relatively low-skilled jobs. In other border areas with a labor force com- 
parable to Laredo's, commuteT employment probably followed very much the same 
pattern. And even in a large area where the proiwrtion of the labor force ma'de up 
by commuters is relatively smaller, it is likely that, because of their concentration 
in unskilled jobs, the commuters considerably influence the wages and working 
conditions prevailing in certain occupations. 

Another consideration is that the commuters who enter at such points as 
Calexico, San Luis, and Hidalgo are employed for the most part in agriculture. 
If an adverse-effect-rate standard of $1.40 or $1.60 i)er hour were established, 
then a significant number of the workers seeking admission to Califoniia would 
be denied certification, as would nearly all the commuters regularly employed 
in agriculture in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. 

In summary, the estimates of impact on commuter admissions which would 
result from e.stablishment of restrictive standards that were derived from the 
Laredo wage and employment data are probably generally applicable, with varia- 
tions dependent on the occupational mix, to other border areas. 



2694 



TABLE 7. 



-NUMBER OF COMMUTERS ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES BY MAJOR POINT OF ENTRY ALONG THE 
MEXICAN BORDER AND EMPLOYMENT IN SELECTED LABOR AREAS, 1967 



Point of entry 



Number of 
commuters 
admitted U.S. border county 



Total 



Employment in county 



Agricul- Nonagri- 
ture culture Date 



Commuters 

as percent of 

total work 

force 



California: 

San Ysidro_._ 
Calexico 

Arizona: 

San Luis 

Negates 

Naco 

Douglas 

Texas: 

El Paso2 

Fabens 

Del Rio.. 

Eagle Pass 

Laredo 

Roma 

Hidalgo. 

Brownsville... 



7,535 San Diego 380,500 11,300 

7,690 Imperial 27,500 6,900 

3,552 Yuma 24,803 9,100 

1,118 Santa Cruz 5,150 203 

3^^ jCochise 18,150 2,203 

^^'^^^ }eI Paso 110,350 2,400 

317 Val Verde 9,540 1,050 

1,635 Maverick 6,655 975 

2,669 Webb 25,130 2,000 

gjl I Hidalgo and Starr.. 57,040 9,430 

1,917 Cameron 41,310 2,900 



369,300 December. 
20.600 ...do 

15,703 (I) 
4,950 (1) 

15,950 (1) 



107,950 December. 

8,490 ...do 

5,680 ...do. 

23,120 ...do 

47,610 ...do 

38,410 ...do 



1 Estimated annual average employment for 1987. 

- Includes points of entry at Cordova (3,491 commuters) and Ysleta(423cDmTijters). 

Source: I. & N.S. Commuter Census, Nove-nber-December 1957, and State employment security agency reports. 



[From Farm Labor Developments, U..S. Department of Labor, September-October, 196i7] 
Characteristics of Mexican Immigrants Working on Farms 

The typical Mexican immigrant working in agriculture in the United States : 

Is employed in California or Texas. 

Is in his 30's or 40's. 

Entered the country in the IO.jO's or early UIGO's. 

This profile was drawn from information on a sample of the cards aliens are 
required to file annually with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, show- 
ing current address, occupation, and other information. The sample included 
about 23,600 cai'ds of Mexicans. 3.7 percent of the 631, (><):> Mexicans who filed 
alien address cards in 1()6;">. Table I shows the distribution, by labor force status, 
of the Mexicans reporting in 1965, estimated on the basis of the sample. 

Mexicans admitted as immigrants to the I'nited States are commonly referred 
to, especially in the Soiithwe.^-tern States, as "green carders." They are .so called 
because of the color of the Alien Registration Cards (Form I-ini) issuetl to 
immigrant aliens of all nationalities. Few restrictions are placed on immigrant 
aliens after admission to the Fniteil State.s. They canaiot vote or hold public office. 
Some States do not allow them to be licensed for certain occuijations. Otherwise, 
they have much the same rights and obligations as I'nited States citizens. They 
must pay taxes, are subject to the military draft, and may travel or live where 
they please. Some of the Mexicans, in fact, continue to live in Mexico and migrate 
seasonally to the United States or commute daily to .jobs in border areas like 
the Rio (Jrande and Imperial Valleys. Some eventually become United States 
citizens; others remain indefinitely in the United States without becoming 
citizens. 



282, 800 


44.8 


4, 400 


.7 


34,700 


5.5 


7,600 


1.2 


4, 400 


.7 


8, 200 


1.3 


5, 100 


.8 


28, 400 


4.5 


40, 400 


6.4 


14, 500 


2.3 


25, 900 


4.1 


109,200 


17.3 






152,100 


24.1 


41,000 


6.5 


36, 600 


5.8 


3, 200 


.5 


59, 300 


9.4 


56, 200 


8.9 



2605 

TABLE 1.— DISTRIBUTION, BY LABOR FORCE STATUS, OF MEXICANS FILING ALIEN ADDRESS CARDS IN 1965 

Labor force status Number Percent 

Total ---- ---- --- 631,100 100.0 

Occu pations reported .total 

Farmers and farm managers - - 

Farm laborers and foremen 

Professional, technical, and kindred workers... 

Managers, officials, and proprietors ..-. 

Clerical and kindred workers 

Sa leswor kers 

Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers 

Operatives and kindred workers 

Private household workers 

Se rvice workers 

Laborers except farm and mine 

Housewives 

Retired 

Students 

Unemployed 

Under 14 years old 

Unknown (no entry on card) 

Although they have received more publicity than other occupational categories 
of green carders, farmworkers make up only a small fraction of the total. Only 
5.5 percent of the Mexicans in the sample entered their occupations as farm 
laborers or foremen and another 0.7 percent as farmers or farm managers. Ex- 
pansion of the sample data indicates some 30,000 green carders in agricultural 
occupations. However, this is undoubtedly a minimum figure, comprising those 
Mexicans who considered themselves full-time farmworkers. It is most un- 
likely that it includes all Mexican immigrants who engage in farmwork at one 
time or another during the year. Some of the more than 100,000 workers who 
designated themselves as general laborers probably do farmwork at least oc- 
casionally. Some of those listing themselves as housewives, students, or unem- 
ployed may work on farms during periods of i^eak seasonal activity. Finally, 
some of the sizable group of "unknowns," those who left blank the occui>ational 
designation on the card, are probably farmworkers. 

Based on the sample for all nationalities combined, 57,500 alien immigrants 
reported agricultural occupations in 1965. The 39,100 Mexicans made up more 
than two-thirds of this total. There were 3,650 Canadians, 1,200 Germans, and 
1,000 Poles. Japanese and Filipinos probably accounted for most of the re- 
mainder, although a breakout of data for the.se nationalities is not available. 

Immigrant aliens with visas to reside permanently in the United States 
should not be confused with Mexicans admitted for temporary employment in 
agriculture. The latter, usually called "braceros," are under contract and may 
not be employed for more than 120 days. They were formerly admitted under 
Public Law 78 which expired at the end of 1964. A few thousand braceros were 
brought in under the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965 and 1966 but the 
importation was on a far smaller .scale than under Public Law 78. The end of 
Public Law 78 made farmwork in California (by far the largest bracero-using 
State) more attractive to domestic workers and caused larger numbers of them, 
including green carders, to take farm jobs. 



2696 



STATE OF RESIDENCE 



Approximately 60 percent of the agricultural green carders were in Cali- 
fornia, and another 25 percent were in Texas. Arizona and New Mexico were 
the only other States with significant concentrations of green carders. The 
table below shows the total number of Mexicans filing alien address cards in these 
States in 1965, and the number and percent reporting agricultural occupations : 





Total reporting 


In agriculture 




state 


address program ' 


Number 


Percent 


Arizona . .- 


30,700 


2,600 
24,100 

1,650 

10,000 

750 


8.5 


California 


315,500 


7.6 


New IVlexico 

Texas . - -. 


._. 12,2C0 

201,400 


13.5 
5.0 


Otiier States _... 


71,200 


1.0 


Total 


631,000 


39,100 


6.2 



1 Source: Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1S£5. 

The 24,000 green-card farmworkers in California comprised only 20 percent of 
the State's seasonal hired farmworkers (annual average in 1965). The cor- 
responding portion in Texas was slightly less than 10 percent. As previously 
noted, however, these proportions may be augmented at certain seasons of the 
year by people who occasionally do farmwork, such as some of the general 
laborers, housewives, students, and "unknowns." 

YEAR OF ENTRY 

Most of the Mexican aliens who reiwrted agricultural occupations in 1965 
were relative newcomers. The year of entry for 35 percent of them was in the 
period of 1961 through 1964. This was a higher proportion than for any other 
occupational category. Other unskilled categories had the next highest pro- 
portions of entrants during this period : Private household workers, 32 percent ; 
general laborers, 25 percent ; and service workers, 23 percent. These proportions 
tend to support the thesis that newly arrived immigrants start in unskilled 
jobs and move up to more skilled jobs as they acquire work experience and 
language proficiency. 

For another 38 percent of the Mexicans in agricultural occupations, the year 
of entry was in the decade 1951-60. Thus, about 28,600 green-earder farmwork- 
ers, nearly three-fourths of the total, entei'ed the United States after 1950. 

Onl.v a trickle of green carders, 4 percent of the total, came to the United States 
to work in agriculture during the war years and the immediate postwar period, 
1941-50. Still fewer, 1 percent of the total, came during the years of economic 
depression, 1931-40. Eight percent of the registrants reported a year of entry 
in the 1921-30 decade and another 11 i>ercent in the 1911-20 decade. Only 3 per- 
cent of them entered before 1911. The table below shows the number of entrants 
for work in agriculture and the annual averages during these periods : 

Period Total Annual average 

1961-^4 _ _ 

1951-60_... _ 

1941-50_ 

1931-40 

1921-30 

1911-20 

Before 1911... 

Total 39,100 

Although survey data are not available for years since 1964, information from 
other sources shows very few Mexican immigrants have been admitted for agri- 
cultural work since Immigration and Nationality Act amendments became effec- 



13,700 


3.425 


14,900 


1,490 


1,500 


150 


400 


40 


3, 100 


310 


4,300 


430 


1,200.... 





2697 

tive in December 1965. The amendments require aliens seeking to immigrate to 
the United States for employment to obtain a certification from the Secretary of 
Labor to the Secretary of State and to the Attorney General that : 

"(A) there are not suflScient workers in the United States who are able, 
willing, qualified, and available at the time of application for a visa and admis- 
sion to the United States and at the place to which the alien is destined to per- 
form such skilled or unskilled labor, and (B) the employment of such aliens will 
not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of the workers in the 
United States similarly employed." 

Under these criteria, less than 100 Mexicans have been permitted to immigrate 
for farm jobs, mostly as foremen or machinery operators. There may be a few 
additional farmworkers among Mexicans who did not enter under the employ- 
ment certification procedure but were admitted on other grounds, e.g., as spouses 
of United States citizens or aliens previously admitted for permanent residence. 
They are allowed to work but the number taking jobs in agriculture is not likely 
to be large. 

Even before the amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, the 
Department of Labor had taken action to reduce the number of new Mexican 
immigrants. Beginning July 1, 1963, the State Department informed the Labor 
Department of every individual visa request by prospective immigrants who 
intended to work in the United States. Between that time and December 1965, 
when the new Immigration and Nationality Act amendments became effective, 
entry of prosi>ective Mexican immigrants (with some exceptions) was precluded 
if the Department of Lal)or certified that workers were available in the United 
States or that such workers would be adversely affected by admission of the 
Mexican immigrants. During these 2% years, 23,010 prospective entrants for 
farmwork were examined, and only 2,518 were admitted. The impact of this 
policy is shown by a comparison of admission figures for the fiscal years imme- 
diately before and after the effective date of the policy, July 1, 1963. Admissions 
of Mexican immigrants with reported occupations dropiied from 23,643 to 8,655. 
The number decreased sharply in all occupational groups, but a drop from 6,797 
to 1,748 in the farm laborers and foremen category was the greatest decline. 

SEX AND AGE 

Only 6 percent, or 2,400, of the workers were women. As previously noted, 
some of the 152,000 women who registered as housewives may do farmwork 
during periods of peak seasonal activity. The women farmworkers tended to be 
younger than men. More than three-fifths of them listed their ages as 40 years 
or under, compared with two-fifths of the men. 

The age distribution of the green carders in agriculture indicates a decrease 
in their number over the next few years. Only one of six was less than 30 years 
old at the time of the 1965 registration while two of six were over 50: 

Age group Number Percent 

Under21 

21to30 

31 to40 

41to50_ _ 

51to60 

Over 60 

Total . 39,100 100 

The current policy severely restricting admission of immigrants for agricul- 
tural work prevents an influx of young workers from Mexico. At the same time, 
the ranks of the middle-age<l and elderly farmworkers will be thinned not only 
by retirement and death, but also by the tendency of the immigrants to move 
from agricultural to nonagricultural work. The result should be a net decrease 
in the number of green carders in agriculture. 

Source Note : This article was prepared by James C. Nix, labor economist, Office of 
Farm Labor Service, Bureau of Emplo.vment Security. The Immigration and Naturalization 
Service cooperated by selecting the sample of alien address cards, coding for machine 
tabulation the information on the cards, and reviewing the final report. 



800 


2 


5, 500 


14 


10,200 


26 


9,400 


24 


6,200 


16 


7, 000 


18 



2699 



UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 



STAFF REPORT 



THE COMMUTER ON THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5B - 12 



2700 



INTRODUCTION 



One of the most commonly voiced concerns of the Mexican 
American community in the border area is with the commuter, the 
Mexican alien who resides in Mexico and commutes to work across 
the border in the United States, \l forcing domestic workers to 
compete for wages with workers living in a much lower cost economy. 
Commuters represent a supply of workers in excess of the demand 
who depress the wage rate, displace the domestic worker, and lower 
his living standard. The commuter poses an even greater threat to 
the economic well being of the domestic worker when he serves as a 
strike-breaker, as he has done in Starr County, Texas and Delano, 
California, thus stifling the organizing and collective bargaining 
efforts of the American laborer. _2/ 

As viewed in the 1968 Report of the Senate Migratory Labor 
Subcommittee, The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the United States , 
"(t)he problems created by the commuter are manifest": 

The Mexican aliens, as a group, are a readily 
available, low- wage work force which under- 
mines the standards American workers generally 
enjoy throughout the rest of the country. More 
importantly, the normal play of free enterprise 
principles is subverted and prevented from opera- 
ting to develop standards along the border comensu- 
rate with the American standard. So long as Mexican 
aliens are allowed indiscriminately to work in the 
American economy, and take their wages back to the 
low-cost Mexican economy, the growth of the American 
standards will continue to be stultified. _3/ 

_1/ There is also, but to a smaller extent, commuter traffic across the 
American-Canadian border. Canadian commuters do not depress local 
economic conditions, as do Mexican commuters, because they live in a 
substantially identical cost-of-living economy, work in highly unionized 
occupations and are highly unionized themselves. Being well assimilated 
into the labor force, they offer no undue competition to American labor. 

2/ See p. 17 infra . 

^/ Senate Migratory Labor Subcommittee, The Migratory Farm Labor Problem 
in the United States, S. Doc. No. 1006, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 45 (1968). 



2701 



WHAT IS A COMMUTER? 



The term "commuter" is taken by most residents of the border 
area to refer to all persons who travel to their work on the 
American side of the border from their place of actual residence 
in Mexico, whether they commute daily or on a less frequent basis. 
Several classes of persons commute to work across the border, 
including American citizens living in Mexico and Mexican citizens 
with temporary visas (commonly referred to as "white carders"). 
The latter group acquires employment here in violation of their 
limited status. In its strict legal sense (and as it will be 
used here) the term "commuter" is limited to immigrants lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence and gainfully employed here, but 
who retain actual residence in Mexico (sometimes referred to as 
"green carders", although, in fact, all immigrants, whether or not 
"commuters" are issued "green cards"). 

There is wide disagreement about the actual extent of the 
commuter traffic. The Immigration and Naturalization Service con- 
ducted a survey on January 11 and 17, 1966, finding a total of 
43,687 commuters. The United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, 
AFL-CIO, on the other hand, has estimated the number to be closer 
to 150,000, l>rhile the former estimate includes only daily commuters 
working along the border, the latter includes aliens remaining here 
for periods of weeks or months, usually working in areas farther 
North. 

The commuter should not be confused with the non- immigrant 
Mexican contract laborer previously brought in for seasonal employment 
under Public Law 78 (known as the "bracero" program) and recently 
brought in under section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act of 1952. The bracero program was originally 
established during World War II to augment the American labor shortage. 
Thereafter, Congress continually extended it (even when there was 
domestic unemployment) under pressure from an agri-business which 
had to come to assume a vested interest in this cheap labor, supply. 

In 1964, after the national conscience took stock of the rising 
rate of agricultural unemployment, the increasing of discrepancy be- 
tween farm labor wage rates and those for comparable work, and the 
worsening conditions in migrant labor camps. Public Law 78 was 
terminated. 4/ The effect of this termination was softened by the 



—' Report from the Secretary of Labor, Year of Transition — Seasonal 
Farm Labor 2 (1965). 



2702 



admission of a decreasing number of contract laborers under the above 
mentioned provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. During 
the last year of the bracero program 177,736 Mexican laborers were 
admitted; in 1965, under the new procedure, the number was reduced to 
20,286. In 1966 the number decreased to 8,647 and in 1967 to 7,703. 
The year 1968 was the first year in which there was no admission of 
contract laborers and marks the final phasing-out of the contract 
labor program. 

Like all persons immigrating to the United States, the commuter 
must apply for and obtain the status of a permanent resident alien 
and receive an alien registration card (Form 1-151, commonly referred 
to as a "green card") as evidence of his lawful admission. Under 
section 212(a) (14) of the Act, in order to qualify for employment in 
the United States, the applicant must secure certification from the 
Secretary of Labor to the effect that: 

there are not sufficient workers in the United 
States who are able, willing, qualified and 
available at the time of application for a visa 
and admission to the United States and at the 
place to which the alien is destined to perform 
such skilled or unskilled labor, and the employ- 
ment of such aliens will not adversely affect 
- the wages and working conditions of the workers 
in the United States similarly employed._5/ 

Under the present Immigration and Naturalization Service (herein- 
after "Service") interpretation and enforcement of this section, com- 
pliance with this provision need only be made at the time of the 
commuter's original entry. Once his status is secured he may enter 
and leave the country at will, working wherever he pleases, regardless 
of the effect he might have on domestic working conditions. _6/ 

A 1967 amendment to the regulations _7/ bars the employment of 
green card holders (commuters and residents) at locations where a 



5/ Immigration and Nationality Act, i212(a)(14), 8 U.S.C. §1182. 
_6/ See discussion of Amalgamated Meet Cutters case p. 9 infra . 
y Title 8, §211(b). 



2703 



labor dispute has been certified by the Secretary of Labor. On 
July 10 and 27, 1967, some 16 work stoppages were certified in Rio 
Grande Valley of Texas, El Paso, Texas and in Southern California, 
with the effect of preventing commuters from accepting employment 
at the struck concerns. Even commuters who have secured their immi- 
grant stai:us are covered by the section. A major exception exists, 
however, with regard to workers already employed at the struck 
concern at the time of certification. This exception renders 
the regulation somewhat ineffective in preventing commuters from 
working as strikebreakers since an employer usually has ample time 
after a labor dispute occurs to hire needed alien employees before 
the dispute is certified. This problem could be met if the regula- 
tion were modified so as to exclude all green carders not employed at 
the time that the dispute began. 

Once admitted, a commuter is entitled to most of the rights and 
privileges of an ordinary citizen except' the right to vote and hold 
public office. Unlike most of the more than 650,000 Mexican aliens 
currently possessing green cards, commuters are not seeking eventual, 
citizenship. Instead they look upon their green cards as nothing 
more than work permits. In fact, by law commuters cannot claim 
naturalization benefits; it has been held that actual domicile here 
is a prerequisite to naturalized citizenship. Si 

LEGAL BACKGROUND OF AND LEGAL CHALLENGES TO THE COMMUTER SYSTEM 

The commuter system has deep roots. People have commuted to work 
across the United States-Mexico border since the border' s inception. 
Up until the 1920s this traffic was unrestricted. In 192A a quota 
system was established which, while not restricting Mexicans directly, 
required Mexican immigrants to present immigrant visas for entry. _9/ 
An exception to the Act's definition of the term "immigrant" ("any 
alien departing from any place outside the United States destined 
for the United States" JLO/) was made for "an alien visiting the 
United States temporarily as a tourist or temporarily for business 
or pleasure" . _11/ At first commuters were considered as being here 

8/ Petition of Wright, 42 F. Supp. 306 (1941); In re Barron, 26 F.2d 106 
(1928); Petition of Correa, 79 F.Supp. 265 (1948). 
±1 Immigration Act of 1924, Ch. 90, 43 Stat. §153. 



10/ Idi §3. 
11/ Hi 13(2), 



2704 



"temporarily for business" and deemed not to be immigrants and, hence, 
were allowed to continue their employment pattern unrestricted. In 
1927 immigration authorities reversed this position and classified 
commuters as immigrants. 12 / 

Two commuters contested this new classification and the Supreme 
Court, finding that one of the "great purposes" of immigration legisla- 
tion "was to protect American labor against the influx of foreign 
labor", held unanimously that the term "business" was not meant to 
Include everyday employment. The commuter was not to be exempt from 
the immigrant status. 13 / 

The Immigration authorities, however, saw their duty as the 
protection of diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico 
rather than the protection of American labor. In a paper by the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service prepared for the Select Commis- 
sion on Western Hemisphere Immigration, the Service stated: 

In studying the problem (status of the commuter) at 
that time, the immigration authorities concluded 
that Congress had not intended to interfere with 
the established pattern of regular border crossings 
by workers from Mexico or Canada who commuted to 
jobs in the United States. While such aliens could 
obtain immigrant visas without difficulty, they would 
be faced with an impossible task if they were re- 
quired to obtain a new visa for each daily reentry. 
Consequently, the immigration authorities devised 
a border crossing identification card which could 
be used by aliens who frequently cross the inter- 
national boundary. The issuance and use of such 
border crossing cards received express sanction 



lit General Order 86 of Apr. 1, 1927. 

JL3/ Karnuth v. United States jexrel. Albro, 279 U.S. 229, 243, 244, (1929), 



2705 



by the Congress in the Alien Registration Act 
of 1940. 

Thus a commuter was able to procure an immigrant 
visa and subsequent lawful admission as an immigrant. 
Thereafter he would obtain a border crossing identifi- 
cation card, and with that card he could enter each 
day to go to his job as returning to his immigrant 
status in the United States. This arrangement was in 
harmony with the established good-neighbor policy 
with Mexico and Canada, facilitated travel across 
the Mexican and Canadian borders, and avoided serious 
dislocations in the border areas. 14 / 

Actually, the commuter system is without express statutory basis. 
In fact the term "commuter" is not to be found in the Act. Its special 
character has been described by the Board of Immigration Appeals in the 
following way: 

The commuter situation manifestly does not fit into 
any precise category found in the immigration statutes. 
The status is an artificial one, predicated upon good 
international relations maintained and cherished between 
friendly neighbors. 15 / 

In Gordon & Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure , (1959) this 
description is found: 

Where this employment (of Canadians and Mexicans) is 
permanent in character administrative ingenuity has 
devised a "commuter" status, which enables the Canadian 
or Mexican to obtain lawful admission for permanent 
residence in order that he may be able to pursue his 
employment here, and his right to enter each day is 
attested by his alien registration receipt card. Of 
course, this device is an amiable fiction . . . . 167 
(Emphasis added.) 



14/ Report of the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration 
Commuters, Historical Background, Legal Challenges, and Issues 101 (1968), 

15/ Matter of M.D.S., 7 Immigration and Naturalization Dec. 209 (1958). 

16 / Gordon and Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure 127 (1959). 



2706 



Due to the absence of statutory foundation, immigration authorities 
have attempted to justify the commuter program's existence by its long- 
standing history, the fact that the program has long been well kno\m 
to Congress and the fact that it was discussed and impliedly endorsed 
by the Senate Judiciary Committee study preceding the passage of the Act 
of 1952. "Nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act of its legisla- 
tive antecedents indicated that the Congress was dissatisfied with the 
comir.uter program or desired to change it in any way". _17/ The continuation 
of the commuter program after the 1952 Act was endorsed by the Board of 
Immigration Appeals in the Matter of H. , 5 I. & N., Dec. 716, 1954. 

It also has been argued that the structure of the statutory and 
regulatory provisions facilitating re-entry supports the commuter program. 
Section 211(b) of the Act provides that 

. . . under such conditions as may be by regulations 
prescribed, returning resident immigrants, defined 
in section 101(a)(27) (B) . . . may be readmitted to 
the United States by the Attorney General in his 
discretion without being required to obtain a pass- 
port, immigration visa, reentry permit or other docu- 
ments. 

A "returning resident immigrant" is defined by the statutory defini- 
tion alluded to as "an immigrant, lawfully admitted for permanent resi- 
dence, who is returning from a temporary visit abroad." In turn, section 
101 (a) (20) defines the term "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" 
as ". . . the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of 
residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance 
with the immigration laws, such status not having changed". As pointed 
out by L. Paul Winings, past General Counsel for the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, in defining the term "lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence", the Act 

. . . does not say one who has been admitted for 

permanent residence and has established such 

residence in the United States. What it says 

is that it is the status of having been accorded 

the privilege of permanent residence. In other 

words, I have paid my way into the ballpark; if 

I want to go out temporarily, I can come back in. 18/ 



j,7/ See n. 15 s upra , at 102. 

!§'' House Judiciary Committee, Study of Population and Immigration, Administr; 
tive Presentations (III), Admission of Aliens into the United States for 
Temporary Employment and "Commuter Workers" 167 (1963). 



2707 



The regulation promulgated persuant to section 211(b), however, 
dots not provide for the re-entry of persons "lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence" as that term is defined by the Act. Instead 
it says: 

In lieu of an immigrant visa, an immigrant 
alien returning to an unrelinquished lawful 
permanent residence in the United States after 
a temporary absence abroad not exceeding 1 year 
may present Form 1-151, Alien Registration 
Receipt Card, duly issued to him . . . 19 / 
(Emphasis added.) 

Although the immigration authorities take the position that this 
section was not meant to be exclusive, a strong argument can be made 
that by its wording it in fact excludes commuters. As one commentator 
has noted, a commuter "is not returning to an unrelinquished, lawful, 
permanent residence after a temporary absence not exceeding one year 
because his residence is not in the United States and as a rule 
he ha/s/ maintained . . . residence in a foreign country for a period 
exceeding one year." 20 / 

In Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Rogers , 21 / a case involving the 
Service's interpretation and enforcement of aforementioned section 
212(a) (14) of the Act (precluding admission of aliens for skilled 
or unskilled labor when the Secretary of Labor certifies that such 
admission would adversely affect American labor) , doubt was cast 
upon the Service' s position. That case involved a strike situation 
where a certification had been made. In response, the Service 
instructed the authorities at the relevant points of entry that 
during the effectiveness of the certification no aliens applying 
for admission and destined for employment at the struck operation, 
"except returning lawfully domiciled resident aliens", should be 
admitted. 

The Service took the position that commuters are "aliens 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence". The Court disagreed - 
"It is clear that Mexican commuters do not reside in the United 
States, and that it therefore is not possible for them to be aliens 

JL9/ 8 CER. 211.1 (6). 

20 / Newman, The Legality of the "Commuters" or "Green Card Holders" 
Working in the United States, in Cabinet Committee Hearings on Mexican 
American Affairs 63 (1968). 

n/ 186 F.Supp. 114 (D.C. D. C.) (1960). 



2708 



lawfully admitted for permanent residence." Any other construction, 
the Court felt, would "... make shambles of a provision which . , ." 
was designed to " . . . assure strong safeguards for American labor". Il l 
The suit had become moot by the time that final judgment was entered, 
and hence was not appealed by the Service. "However, the administra- 
tive authorities do not believe (the decision) is correct and do not 
follow it". 23/ 

The rationale in the Amalgamated Meat Cutters decision is equally 
relevant to the validity of the whole commuter system and, logically, 
should compel a conclusion contrary to that taken by the Service. 
The Court by way of obiter dictum , however, expressly limited its 
holding in this respect: 

This should not mean, however, that Mexicans or 
Canadians cannot commute to work in the United 
States. The defendants can utilize the documentary 
requirements and administrative procedures they think 
best under the applicable law for aliens who work in 
this country and live in Mexico or Canada. If the 
defendants are satisfied that an alien can enter the 
United States to work here, they could then permit 
the alien to commute. But when the Secretary of 
Labor has issued a certification under s212(a)(14) 
pertaining to particular employment, such as an 
alien would be excludable. It is not sufficient 
to resort to an "amiable fiction" to justify a 
wholesale evasion of the Secretary's certification — 
Mexican commuters destined for the employment covered 
by the certification must be excluded just as any 
other Mexican non-resident alien. 24 / 

The commuter program was squarely attacked in a 1964 case, Texas 
State AFL-CIO v. Kennedy, 25 / where workers from the Texas border area, 
alleging economic detriment, sued the immigration authorities for in- 
junctive relief against continuation of the commuter system. The Court 
avoided reaching the merits by dismissing the action on the grounds 
that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. Since 1964 the law of 
standing has changed readically, 7^1 and a similar suit has- recently 
been brought by California Rural Legal Assistance in behalf of 
California farm workers displaced by commuters taking temporary 



22/ Id. at 119. 

23/ Immigration and Nationality Act, with Amendments and Notes on Related 

Laws 231 (5th ed. 1966). 

24/ See n. 21 supra , at 119. 

25/ 330 F.2d 217 (C.A. D.C. 1964). 

26/ See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), overruling the 45 year old 
barrier to standing, Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), and 
repudiating its doctrine of judicial restraint in this area. 



2709 



employment in California and freely returning to Mexico for a period 
of weeks or months. 22.1 ^^^ complaint seeks an order requiring 
Immigration officials to deny admission to "returning resident 
immigrants" who fail to demonstrate a bona fide permanent residence 
in the United States (e.g., commuters). "In determining the question 
of bona fide permanent residence . . .", the plaintiffs suggest 
the following indicia might be considered: 

1. Possession of a U.S. Selective Service 
classification card in the alien's name, 
reflecting a United States address. 

2. Possession of state and federal income tax 
returns in the alien' s name, showing residence 
in the United States. 

3. A driver's license in the alien's name issued 
by a State of the United States, reflecting a 
United States residence. 

4. A vehicle registration in the alien's name 
reflecting a United States residence. 

5. If the alien is married, the fact that both 
vife and children reside in the United States. 

6. Evidence that his children attend school in 
the United States, or that a child was born in the 

United States. 

7. Evidence of active membership in clubs, 
associations or unions organized or incorporated 
in the United States. 

8. Convincing evidence of permanent employment 
in the United States. 

9. Rent receipts, other than from a labor camp, 
hotel or motel, tending to evidence permanent 
residence in the United States. 

10. Place of employment, occupation and length of 
employment. 28 / 

111 Gooch, et al . vrciark, et al. . Civil No. 49500 (N. D. Cal., 1968). 

28/ Brief for Plaintiff at 10, Gooch, et al . v. Clarke et al .. n. 28, supra . 



2710 



Although the Service deems the commuter status to be consistent 
witrh the letter and intent of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 
1952, it has been held that a commuter cannot even become a citizen 
(the assumed purpose for immigration under the Act) because, by 
definition, his assimilated status does not conform to the standard 
of residency (actual domicile in the United States) required by 
the Act for naturalization. _29/ 

Similarly, although a commuter must notify his Selective Service 
board of his current address, _30/ he is not actually subject to be 
drafted since he is not a resident of the United States under current 
Selective Service regulations _31/ because he did not reside in the 
United States for the required three month period. 

Commuters also are treated differently from other "immigrants" 
with regard to Federal income tax status. An alien who has established 
residence in the United States is liable for Federal income tax on his 
entire income, from sources both within and without the United States. 
Whether an alien is a resident depends on the facts and circumstances 
of each case. The type of visa issued is only one of the elements 
considered. In response to an inquiry on this matter from the House 
Judiciary Committee, the Internal Revenue Service had this to say 
about commuters: 

It appears from the information submitted that 
the aliens about whom you are inquiring have 
never established a residence in the United 
States, but have obtained permanent visas 
merely to facilitate their entry into and 
departure from this country. Under such 
circumstances, the status of these in- 
dividuals is that of nonresident aliens. 32/ 



29/ See n. 9, supra. 

30/ See I 35 of the Alien Registration Act of 1940, as amended, and 
regulations issued thereunder. 

31/ 32 C.F.R. 611.13(a)(6), 611.13(b)(7) ,(1944) . 

32 / See n. 19 supra , at 170. 



2711 



rience commuters, unlike other green card holders, are not subject 
to Federal income tax on income from sources outside this country. 



THE IMPACT OF COM>aJTER TRAFFIC 

Much of the border area has relatively large labor surpluses, 
partly because of the large number of low skilled U.S. citizens 
and resident aliens residing in the area. J3/ Commuters, however, 
make up a significant part of the work force in many of the border 
communities. Although accurate statistics are not kept by the 
Immigration and Naturalization authorities, sample counts of the 
number of commuters crossing the border are taken from time to time. 
One such count, taken on January 11, 1966, showed that_ _42,641 
commuters, of which 17,653 were employed in agriculture, entered 
the United States. The impact of these commuters on the labor 
market has been enormous. It has been estimated that over 17% of 
the labor market in El Paso, Texas, are commuters. Further estimates 
have shown that 5% of the San Diego, California, labor market and 23Z 
of the Bro^msville, Texas, labor market are commuters. Their presence 
can be directly related to high unemployment rates in these areas. 34/ 

Many people have commented on the impact of the commuter traffic 
in the border area. Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, speaking 
on a proposed amendment to Section 212 of Immigration and Nationality 
Act, said: 

In El Paso, where unemployment is currently 
some 35 percent greater than the State average, 
the estimated number of commuters in 1966 was 
more than double the number of unemployed. In 
El Centre, California, where the unemployment 
rate is currently 13.1 percent, the estimated 
number of commuters in 1966 was nearly double 
the number of unemployed. 35 / 



33 / Report of the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration , 
The "Commuter Problem" and Low Wages and Unemployment in American Cities 
on the Mexican Border 116 (1968). 

34/ Moore, Mexican-Americans: Problems and Prospects 12 (1967). 

35/ 133 Cong, Rec. 205 il4 (daily ed. Dec. 14, 1967). 



2712 



A report by the Social Action Commission of the Catholic Diocese 
of El Paso indicated that one of the reasons for the low wages in El 
Paso is because "... the Mexican American must compete with some 
25,000 workers from Mexico . . . legal alien commuters, U.S. citizens, 
and illegal entrants . . . who daily cross the bridge from Juarez 
to work in El Paso. Generally speaking, the workers from Mexico 
find no inconvenience in working for the barest of wages in El Paso." 36 / 

The employment of commuters in areas of high unemployment is a 
characteristic of the communities along the border area. Data 
published by the Texas Employment Commission in 1966, shows that the 
unemployment rate in the border towns on that date was substantially 
greater than in the interior cities. (See Table I) Laredo had the 
highest rate - 9.6%. The average rate for the four border areas 
(Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito; El Paso; Laredo; and McAllen- 
Pharr-Edinburg) was 6.6%, compared with the 3.4 percent rate for the 
other 18 interior areas for which data was given. 37 / 

In a special survey held in Laredo by the Department of Labor 
during the summer of 1961, when the unemployment rate was 11.3%, the 
Department reported that a large number of unemployed American workers 
had the same occupational skills as the employed alien commuters. 



36/ Catholic Conference Office of Immigration (Oct. 11, 1968). 
Organized labor also has shown concern. The following resolution was 
passed by the Texas AFL-CIO in Jan. 1968: 

. . . (T)housands of commuter aliens who cross the 
border daily to work, cause the unemployment of 
American citizens and create unfair competition 
in the labor market by working for sub- standard 
wages and then returning to Mexico at night where 
their living costs are much lower. 

37 / These unemployment rates, supplied by the Texas Employment Commission, 
are somewhat conservative since they are based upon the number of persons 
registered with the T.E.C. offices. Many farm workers secure employment 
through the crew leader and never register with the T.E.C. 



2713 



Table I 

Unemployment Rates in 22 Texas Cities 
1966 



City Rate Rank 

4 Border Cities 6.6 

Brownsvillc-Harlingen-San Benito 6.5 21 

El Paso 4.4 17 

Laredo 9.6 22 

McAllcn-Pharr-Edinburg 5.8 20 

18 Interior Cities 3.4 

Abilene 3.6 11 

Amarillo 2.9 4 

Austin 2.6 3 

Beaumont -Port Arthur-Orange 4.0 15 

Corpus Christi 3.7 12 

Dallas 2.5 2 

Fort Worth 2.9 4 

Galveston-Texas City 4.7 19 

Houston 2.4 1 

Longview-Kilgore-Gladewater 3.3 8 

Lubbock 3.8 • 13 

Midland-Odessa 3.4 9 

San Angelo 3.4 9 

San Antonio 4.3 16 

Texarkana 3.8 13 

Tyler 3.3 7 

Waco 4.4 17 

Wichita Falls 3.0 6 



SOURCE: The Texas Labor Market , Texas Employment Commission. 



2714 



While two garment manufacturers employed 88 commuters as sewing 
machine operators, the Texas Employment Commission office had on 
file applications from 156 unemployed U.S. workers qualified for 
that position. _38/ The survey showed that commuters were not limited 
to the garment industry, but were employed in hotels, restaurants, 
the retail trades and service establishments. The survey included 
a sample of firms employing 3,000 workers. 

(T)hese firms employed 438 Mexican aliens 
identifiable as commuters. In addition, the 
survey team suspected that other alien employees 
of these firms were commuters, although they had 
given U.S. addresses to their employers. 39 / 

The survey also included data on 19 occupational areas: 

(T)he firms employing only domestic workers paid 
higher rates for 15 occupations; in one occupation 
the rates paid were the same; and for three occupa- 
tions the firms employing alien commuters paid 
higher rates. There were also instances where the 
same firms paid its alien commuters less than it 
. paid U.S. workers for the same work. The average 
of the wage rates for these 19 occupation areas 
paid by the finns employing only U.S. workers was 
38 percent higher than the average rates paid by 
the firms employing alien commuters. _40/ (See 
Table II) 

United States Commission on Civil Rights field investigations in 
Laredo showed similar discrepancies in the trucking industry. For 
instance it was reported that Brown Express Lines, which hires few 
commuters, pays drivers $3.39 an hour; Alamo Express Lines, employing 
proportionately more commuters, pays $1.85 an hour. 41/ 



38/ See n. 34 at 120. 

39/ Id^ at 120. 
40/ JMi at 121. 

41/ Interview with Mr. David Jacobs, AFL-CIO,in Laredo, Texas, Sept. 10, 
1968. 



2715 



o u 
f= o 



CD 



3 E-< 



M U 



t3 C' 

c ■!->; 
o c 



C rt 






? I 

»^- L . . . _ 

P." r " " " " 

.:?■ h- O CO rOVDMD 
ro r^ CU r4 .-(,;}• M 
<-> I 



^ O ir\ CM r-1 

CV^CJ ro 1^ ro 



IPv r-l L'N 



M 


W 


A. P- 


•H 


•i-l 


•P 


-P 


M 


w 


3 


3 


rH 


H 


P< P. 



CO O irM/\ LPi CO VTN 
ir\ CM OJ H C\J LTA r^ 



CM ur\H 



CM oo^ vo r^ 



o 



•p 






rt 








H 




^< 


...^ 




.3 


o 


•s 



o O o ,1:) 

jj ^ -p /-( 

CJ d rt O 

o :^ ::;::: w w w 



o n 1-1 c 



,0 W ti 







g 


>,s 







^0 


^^ 


3 











y, 3 
-J 


73 


CI 



10 O O -P J-i 

c; P ;-i :3 03 
o 00 Ph w :s 



to o '-< 



o 



tW •-! > C -P 



C O 'S -p 



c; to o c; 



rJ 



o a y 



ro m CO 

LTN t-- L'^ 



O > ,0 ,c 

■H -r- o to 

a i-> o c3 s 
o ,0 P.-P 

a o 

■d « -H o ^ 

HO) x: -P 

O X> 4^ CJ 

U C -P 

o >. c > 

^ O c.i O 1 

c 2 ^ o 



c3 y 

o y 

J^ 3 

y CI* 

> 



C O -P c 

:m ? f^ E-i 

o O 

o y Pi 

C " o • 

o o ^ y 

o ^ -p 

S O ^ 



o ,c 
u o 
d 
w y 
y 



'd ^ 60 Jh 

y w o o o 

■u n rt M ^-1 

u ■^ o o 

o > "d 

p4 y rzJ d y 

O -1^ vH -P 

u zi ci o u 

M P. w o 



•^ /:: w G -u 

y y !-i t-i /I 
;i d y 

y ,« o 

w ;< • Jh 

y 'd o "d y 

•P -H ? -H p 

rt d d 

^1 f!, <M ft d 

o -P 

n d 

^< V( y "d 

y y p 

^ d y 






M <H y 
C O ^ 



y 
■P ^ 



P y >> -H 

d ^ ^ "d JJ 

^ 3 T) d P< 

o c y 3 

o •(J p y 

O O ^ 1.1 y 

.c c^o y o 

y t-i -H ,G 

;i y uo :'- 

•H • o P -H o 

:; . 17 • j:: «M 
,:;j my 

1 ;-! ro -p y y 

y ; O • d ^ ^ 

LhiP.-:^ ^h P -!•' 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5B - 13 



2716 



The pattern of commuter involvement in the Laredo labor market 
is found elsewhere with comparable effects. As in Laredo, a survey 
was conducted by the Department of Labor in El Paso, Texas, during 
the summer of 1961. About 1,000 commuters were employed in the 75 
firms surveyed. It was noted, however, that "... these figures 
might be more because one firm indicated that it did not employ 
coirmuters but sent a bus to the border each day to pick up workers." 42 / 
The average wage in manufacturing in El Paso is extremely low. That 
city ranked lowest of the eight major Texas areas for which the Texas 
Employment Commission supplied data. (See Table III) 

In El Paso, nondurable goods employment is heavily concentrated 
in garment manufacturing -- almost 757. of all nondurable goods workers 
are in this industry. The wage rate in garment manufacturing is little 
more than the minimum required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Large 
numbers of commuters (mainly women) are employed in this occupation. 
Many people believe that the presence here of the garment industry, 
a recent phenomenon, is due to the large supply of labor and low 
vages — both conditions owing, in part, to the commuter program. 43 / 
The El Paso survey concluded by showing that out of 11 construction 
firms 5 employed commuters; out of 4 retail dry goods firms, 3 
employed commuters; out of 4 wholesale and warehouse firms, 3 employed 
commuters. In all these cases the firms employing commuters paid the 
lowest wages. 44 / 

The impact of the commuter is particularly acute in agriculture 
where mechanization is rapidly reducing job opportunities. Due to 
the high concentration of farms along the border and the fact that 
commuters often work in the lowest skilled, lowest paid jobs, farm 
workers, who are already underpaid, are the first to suffer com- 
petition from the commuter. Furthermore, the use of commuters as 
strike breakers (see discussion on page 17, infra ) is especially 
damaging to this group's organizational struggles. 

The wages paid farm workers in the border area are substantially 
lower than in interior regions. In the Rio Grande Valley, where 
37% of the alien commuters worked on farm jobs, the 1966 wage rate 
was $.75 per hour, 31% less than the $1.10 average in the rest of 
ftie state. 45/ Similarly, California farm rates are the lowest in 
the border areas where the bulk of the farm labor force is composed 
of commuters. The commuter's impact is also reflected in the 

42/ See n. 34 at 121. 
43/ Jdi at 120. 
44/ Id^ at 122. 
45/ Id. at 119. 



2717 



Table III. Average Hourly Earnings in Manufacturing Industries 

Eight Major Texas Cities 
1966 



Average Hourly Earnings 





All Nanu- 


Durable 


Nondurable 




facturins 
$2.57 


Goods 


Goods 


Texas 


$2.62 


$2.52 


El Paso 


1.90 


2.46 


1.72 


Austin 


1.98 


1.71 


2.26 


Beaumont 


3.35 


3.03 


3.A8 


Corpus Christi 


2.96 


2.57 


3.26 


Dallas 


2.37 


2.52 


2.10 


Fort Worth 


2.81 


2.97 


2.39 


Houston 


3.00 


2.87 


3.16 


San Antonio 


1.98 


1.92 


2.02 



SOURCE: T he Texas Labor Market , Texas Employment Coirmission. 



2718 



agricultural unemployment rate. For example, "commuters constitute 
about 857o of the farmwork force in California's Imperial Valley, 
where unemployment in 1966 was 10% of the labor force, twice the 
average for the entire state." 46 / 

EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGAL ENTRANTS AND WHITE CARDERS 

It is important to note the role of illegal entrants and white 
carders (see discussion on page 2, infra ) in the employment picture 
in the border area. During 1967 the Border Patrol apprehended 86,845 
deportable Mexicans working illegally, many in the border area. Of 
tnis number 27,830 were working in agriculture, 5,906 in trades, crafts 
and industry, and 53,109 in other occupations. 47/ 

The border crossing statistics kept are inadequate to accurately 
gauge the extent of white card employment. There are approximately 
1,250,000 current white cared holders, and about 450,000 new white 
cards are issued annually. In 1968 there were 25,000 white carders 
who were deported, most of these for illegal employment. 48/ But it 
Is felt by many residents of the border area that deportation figures 
do not fairly represent the number of white carders actually employed. 49 / 



46/ ^ee n. 3 at 45. 

47 / Immigration and Naturalization Annual Report 93 (1967). 

48/ Interview with Mr. Donald Coppock, Deputy Associate Commissioner for 
Domestic Control, Immigration and Naturalization Service, in Wash.,D.C., 
October 15, 1968. 

49 / Interview with Mr. Henry Munoz, Jr., Texas AFL-CIO, in Austin, Texas, 
Sept. 10, 1968. The Service's recognition of the illegal employment of 
white carders was evidenced by a recent announcement of proposed regulation 
changes. Under current regulations white carders are issued undated cards 
and are expected to return within 72 hours and travel no farther than 150 
miles from the border. "Government officials say the lack of dates on the 
present crossing cards makes it almost impossible to enforce regulations." 

The proposed changes would limit the travel on undated cards to within 
25 miles of the border. For those wishing to travel further a supple- 
mental card that is dated will be issued allowing a 15 day visit. Of 
course these new limitations will not affect the employment pattern of 
white carders along the border area. See San Antonio Express, p. 1 
(Nov. 29, 1968). 



2719 



This is because many white cared workers are employed in occupations 
with low visibility and even with the best efforts of immigration 
authorities, they cannot be easily discovered. Many white card 
holders use their 72 hour passes to engage in menial work as domestic 
maids, dishwashers, hotel and motel workers, and construction workers. 
Others work in such semi-skilled jobs as masonry and carpentry. 50 / 

One reason for this wholesale employment of white carders is the 
lacl: of legislation effectively preventing employers from knowingly 
hiring these workers. As it now stands, the law contains provisions 
expressly facilitating such employment. Section 274(4) of the Act, 
prohibiting the harboring and concealing of aliens, contains the 
following proviso: 

. . . for the purposes of this section, employment 
including the usual and normal practices incident 
to employment shall not be deemed to constitute 
harboring. _51/ (Emphasis added.) 

The need for legislation correcting this situation is manifest. 

USE OF COMMUTERS AS STRIKE-BREAKERS 

Organized labor has been deeply concerned with the use of commuters 
as "strike-breakers, when workers were engaged in the process of trying 
to negotiate conditions covering their wages" . 52/ The recent strike 
in Starr County, Texas, presented an example of the use of commuters 
during labor disputes. In a hearing held by the Senate Subcommittee 
on Migratory Farm Workers Organizing Committee of the AFL-CIO, had this 
to say about one of the farms which his organization picketed; 

Mr. Padilla: La Casita Farms, which we are on strike 
with. And this is a bona fide certified 
strike, issued by the State of Texas, the 
Texas Employment Commission. I witnessed 
that they load the bus full of Mexican 
nationals, and escort them right into the 
fields, and now they tell us that we don't 
have a right to picket, to talk to them. 



50/ J[d. 

51 / See Immigration and Nationality Act, n.5, supra. 

52 / Hearings on § 8 , 195, 197, 198 Before the Subcomm. on Migratory Labor 
of the Senate Comm. on Labor and Public Welfare , 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 
pt. 1, at 170 (1967). 



2720 



Mr. Yarborough: You mean that La Casita Farms took their 
transportation to the bridge and picked 
these workers up with the green cards and . 
brought them straight up to their farms, 
and put them on the farms? 

Mr. Padilla: That is correct, sir. 53 / 

Domingo Arrendondo, Strike Chairman, United Farm Workers Organizing 
Committee, AFL-CIO, said with regard to the Starr County strike: 

(T)he problem about these green carders is that 
they come to work from Mexico every day. They will 
come in the morning and they will go back at night. 
Now that the minimum wage came up, or a little bit 
right after the strike started, they raised the 
price on these workers from 85 cents or 80 cents 
to $1 an hour and to $1.50. That was just a symbol 
to break the strike movement, to keep these people 
from joining the strike for better wages, or for a 
contract, or a union contract. We went and talked 
to these people at the bridge, international bridge. 
We told them to cooperate with us for better wages 
and working conditions, but they will always say that 
if their friend had already signed that they would sign, 
that they would sign but they would probably get laid 
off their jobs. So,. really we couldn't get no where 
convincing them that a union is something that a worker 
needs. (Sic) 54 / 

A result of the misuse of green card workers as strike-breakers 
was the aforementioned 1967 amendment to the INS regulation, barring 
employment of green card holders at locations where a labor dispute 
has been certified by the Secretary of Labor. 55 / 

53/ Id. at 334. 
54/ _Id. at 363. 
55/ See n. 7. 



2721 



RELATIONSHIP OF COMhfUTER TRAFFIC TO MIGRATION 

As a result of its impact on wages, unemployment and working 
conditions, the commuter traffic contributes to the annual massive 
migration of Mexican Americans from the border area. The Social 
Action Department of the Texas Catholic Conference estimates that 
because of the lack of opportunities in South Texas, 88, 700 farm 
workers must migrate to other areas of the country every "year In 
differ to find employment. These are people who live in the border 
areas and would other\d.se seek employment there, but for the satura- 
tion of the labor market by the commuters. The Committee had this 
to say: 

Unfortunately, because of the vast supply of 
green carders . . . the domestic workers are 
unable to compete with the depressed wages 
that result from the availability of cheap 
labor to the growers. This accounts for the 
fact that almost one-half of the Texas migrant 
workers come from the four counties of the 
Lower Rio Grande Valley. 56/ 

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS TO THE COMMUTER PROBLEM 

Various recommendations have been made to alleviate conditions 
caused by the commuter program. Henry Munoz, Jr., speaking for the 
Texas AFL-CIO, urged that the Department of Labor issue a regulation 
for a minimum wage law of $1.25 to be applicable to green- card holders 
and commuters. 57 / 

In a letter from Chairman Richard M. Scammon and Stanley H. Ruttenberg, 
of the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, the following 
recommendations to the President regarding commuters were made: 

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. 



56/ See n. 52 at 61. 

57 / Munoz, View of Organized Labor 3. 



2722 



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. 

Within a grace period, action should be taken 
to terminate the commuter status of present 
"green cards" holders. 58/ 

On December 14, 1967 Senator Edward Kennedy, a member of the 
Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, introduced a bill in Congress 
to amend Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As the 
Senator explained, the amendment would not eliminate the commuter 
system, but refine its current operation. The bill in essence provides 
"... that each commuter alien must be regularly certified every 6 
months by the Department of Labor that his presence in the United 
States to seek or continue employment does not adversely affect the 
wages and working conditions of American workers similarly employed. 
The bill provides for the revocation of a commuter alien's labor 
clearance if he violates administrative regulations, such as a ban 
on strike breaking, prescribed by the Department of Labor and the 
Immigration Service to carry out the purpose of this bill". 59/ 



58/ Letter from Richard M. Scammon and Stanley H. Ruttenberg to President 

Johnson, July 22, 1968. 

591 113 Cong. Rec. 205 (December 14, 1967). The amendment reads as follows: 

S. 2790 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the I ' nited States of America 
in Congress assembled. That section 212 of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Act is amended by 
adding 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 contiguous to the United States and is 
returning 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 employment of such alien will not adversely affect 
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." 



2723 



This bill has received strong opposition from Chamber of Commerce 
groups, farm grower organizations, and retailers. The Laredo Chamber 
of Commerce has gone on record as being opposed to any change in the 
commuter system. _60/ This opposition is based on economic reasons. 
Laredo, last year, had retail sales of over 90 million dollars, much 
of this being to commuters. Business interests feel that if anything 
happens to change the status of commuters their towns will become 
"ghost touTis" . Organized growers are afraid that they will be cut 
off from a valuable supply of labor. Willis Deines, attorney for the 
Texas Citrus and Vegetable Growers, indicated why his group is opposition 
to the Kennedy Bill: ". . . It is axiomatic that if our growers do not 
have a source of labor that can be depended upon to do their farming 
operations, particularly in the harvest of perishables, then of course 
we would not have an industry." 61 / 

Businessmen in the Valley area have indicated a fear that any 
effort to terminate the commuter program will result in a retaliatory 
refusal by Mexico to allow its citizens to carry on their extensive 
trade in American border totms. The suggestion by Antonio Carrillo 
Flores, Foreign Secretary of Mexico, that Mexican commuters have 
"acquired rights", lends authority to this suspicion. 62 / 

The American government also has officially voiced its concern 
with diplomatic relations in approaching the commuter problem. In 
the aforementioned case of Texas State AFL-CTO v. Robert Kennedy, et al. , 
where the legality of the commuter program was put into issue. Secretary 
of State Dean Rusk, submitted an affidavit opposing interference with 
the commuter program on the grounds that it v7ould " . . .do harm to good 
neighbor relations in the area". _63/ He stated further: 

(l)f as a result of a substantial reduction 
in the commuter traffic across the border 
between Mexico and the United States, a 
significant number of Mexican nationals 
would be deprived of their earning power, 
the trade between the two countries along 



60/ See Laredo Times , p. 4 (Mar. 1, 1968). 

61/ W. 

62/ See Laredo Times , p. 4 (Feb. 4, 1968). 

63 / Brief for Defendant, Texas State AFL-CIO v. Robert F. Kennedy, et al., 
Civil No. 3468-61, n. 25, supra. 



2724 



the border would be substantially reduced. 
We could expect that this would have an immediate 
depressing effect on the economy of the region 
on both sides of the border. Moreover, the loss 
of gainful employment and dollar earnings by 
30,000 to 50,000 Mexican nationals, estimated 
at over $50 million annually, might compel the 
government of Mexico to consider compensating 
steps, which would do further damage to the 
economic life of the region. 

The Mexican American in the border area is thus charged with the 
responsibility of protecting our diplomatic relations. The economic 
burdens involved in this charge, he may justifiably feel, should be borne 
by the Nation as a whole, not thrust upon a minority of its citizens. 



2725 



Green Cards Labor and the Delano Grape Strike: A Study of Post-Bracero 
Mexican National Farm Workers in the San Joaquin Valley, 1968 

(Prepared by Richard A. Fineberg for the Council for Christian Social Action 
and Board of Homeland Ministries, United Church of Christ, October 31, 1968) 

CONTENTS 

I. Introduction 

II. Legal Dimensions of the Green Card Question 

III. Physical Dimensions of the Green Card Question 

A. Intniduction 

B. Profile of the Delano Table Grape Region 

1. Location, Acreage and Varieties of Grapes 

2. The Work Force : Number, Habitat, Ethnic Composition 

IV. The Green Carder in the Delano Table Grape Harvest Force : Survey Results 

and Conclusions 

A. Introduction 

B. Data on Green Carders in Delano 

C. Green Card Seasonal Commuters and Labor Disputes 

D. Proposal for a Strengthened Regulation 

E. INS and Enforcement of Border Regulations 

V. Appendices 

A. Sample Intervievf Schedule 

B. Maps 

1. San Joaquin Valley 

2. Delano Table Grape Area 

C. Tables 

D. Miscellaneous Data 

Acknowledgments 

This study, which is an integral part of my doctoral program at Claremont 
Graduate School, was made possible by: (1) a research grant from the CouBcil 
for Christian Social Action and Board for Homeland Ministries, United Church 
of Christ; (2) the time and courtesies extended to me by county, state and fed- 
eral oflScials, growers and their representatives, labor organizers, farm workers 
and numerous other persons connected with California farm labor ; (3) the 
cooperation of the members of the survey team who worked with me in the field. 

Above and beyond the support of many friends, 1, owe a special debt to Doug 
Mitchell, Assistant Chaplain at The Claremont College, for his c-ontinual advice 
and encouragement. 

Responsibility for the contents of this report, of course, rests entirely with me. 
Questions, comments and criticisms will be welcomed and may be addressed to 
the author as follows: Richard A. Fineberg, 5201 Palmer Canyon, Claremont, 
Calif. 91711. 



2726 

I. INTRODUCTION 

There is no quick or easy solution to the labor dispute which polarizes Delano, 
California, the center of the largest table-grap producing area in the United 
States. The problem is a tangled one : The United Farm Workers Organizing 
Committee (UFWOC) seeks collective bargaining elections to determine whether 
or not workers employed by California table grape farmers desire union repre- 
sentation. In each of nine elections or card checks conducted at ranches pro- 
ducing winery grapes to ascertain' workers' desires, the workers have endorsed 
UFWOC.^ Table grape growers, however, remain rigid in their unwillingness to 
countenance the possibility of losing an election and being forced to recognize 
the union.^ As the strike drags on, the growers continue to tap the complex and 
constantly shifting pattern of farm labor in the San Joaquin Valley to harvest 
their crop in spite of UFWOC's organization efforts. 

Who harvests the grapes? Among those persons who have not heeded the 
union's call to picket rather than pick are: (1) those farm workers whose pov- 
erty and family responsibility prevent them from joining the picket line of a 
newly-formed union; (2) housewives and students who work temporarily during 
the peak harvest season; (3) Mexican nationals with no legal status in the 
United States (illegal-entry "wetbacks") : (4) Mexican nations with permanent 
resident visas which enable them to work in the U.S. and spend a substantial 
portion of the year in Mexico. Although this report focuses primarily on the 
Mexican national permanent alien resident, field study conducted during the 
summer of 1968 indicates that all four types of strikebreakers are being em- 
ployed in large quantities during the Delano grape harvest. 

Workers of Mexican descent comprise the great majority of the labor which 
harvests the crops produced by California's thriving agricultural industries. More 
than half of the Mexican-descent workers are Mexican nationals. The Mexican 
national working in California's fields may have one of three legal statuses. In 
popular terminology he may be identified as a wetback, a bracero or a green card. 
It will be useful at the outset to differentiate these three statuses in order to 
clarify the problems with which we are dealing. 

Wetbacks. — During fiscal 1967 the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) located 108,327 deportable Mexican aliens. Of that total, about 78,0(X) 
entered the U.S. by crossing the land border between Mexico and the southwestern 
United States. Although some enter overtly with forged or altered documents, 
almost all of the 78,000 are catalogued as "surrepititious entries" with no papers 
whatsoever.' Although it is diflBcult to ascertain how many illegal aliens are 
engaged in farm labor in California (estimates range from 2 to 25 percent of the 
labor force), it is certain that there are many "wetbacks" working in the fields.* 

Braceros. — Braceros were admitted to the U.S. under PL 78 which terminated 
December 31, 1964. Under PL 78 braceros received temporary permits to work for 
specified contracting employers for a limited period of time. Although some 
braceros have been authorized in special cases since the termination of PL 78, the 
large-scale use of bracerO' labor has ceased. There were no braceros authorized for 
California farm labor diiring the period in which this project was conducted. 

Green Cards. — The Mexican National permanent alien resident is commonly 
referred to as a green card or green carder. The term derives from the color of 
the INS Form 1-151 registration card he carries bearing his picture and identifi- 
cation number. 

3.210,678 permanent alien resident green cards reported their addresses to INS 
in January 1967. Of that total, 668,514 were Mexican nationals. About 53 per cent 
of the Mexican nationals (354,000) listed California as their home state.^ The 
green card may be used at the border in lieu of a visa for re-entry. Many green- 
carders — ostensibly immigrants — maintain homes and families in Mexico and use 
their green card to cross the border to work in the U.S. Those green card holders 
who live in border regions are permitted to cross the border daily, working in the 
U.S. by day and returning home to Mexico by night. Green carders also commute 



1 California wineries at which contracts with UFWOC are in effect include Almaden, 
Christian Brothers, DiGiorgio, Gallo, Goldberg, Novitiate, Paul Masson, Perelli-Minetti and 
Schenley. 

3 Provisions of the National Labor Relations Act which guarantee workers in industry 
the right to collective bargaining do not extend to farmworkers. 

3 Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1967, pp. 11-12. 
*i, o'"/i?? ^^^ ® months from March through August, 1968, it has been reported that more 

K^ 2,000 illegal entry Mexican aliens were apprehended in Kern County alone. 

^ Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1967, p. 2S. ' 



2727 

on a seasonal basis, harvesting crops in California during the summer, for 
example, and returning home to Mexico to vacation during the vpinter. 

Are green card seasonal commuters, vs^orking either intentionally or uninten- 
tionally to the detriment of unionization efforts, a significant factor in the Delano 
table grape harvest? This is the question to vphich the following study is 
addressed. 

II. LEGAL DIMENSIONS OF THE GREEN CARD QUESTION 

Federal immigration law is of central importance to the green card question. 
Acts of Congress are the basis for the administrative procedures followed by INS 
and its Border Patrol field units. The legal dimensions of the green card issue 
revolve around the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, PL 414 (the 
McCarran- Walter Act) , as amended in 1965 by PL 89-236, and administrative reg- 
ulations pursuant to those acts. 

PL 414 allowed non-immigrant temporary workers to enter the U.S. as long as 
the Secretary of Labor did not certify that their presence would have an adverse 
effect on the wages and working conditions of U.S. domestics similarly employed. 
Moreover, Mexican aliens were allowed to enter the U.S. as Western Hemisphere 
special immigrants without consideration of their impact on domestic working 
conditions and wages. ^ PL 89-236, however, modified the original act with .specific 
provisions designed "to protect the American labor market from the infiux of both 
skilled and unskilled labor". 2 Specifically, the new law enacted by Congress in 1965 
stipulates that no immigrant visa for the purpose of temporary labor can be issued 
unless the Secretary of Labor has certified that the domestic labor supply is inade- 
quate and that the entry of such aliens would not adversely affect the wages and 
working conditions of indiiiduals in the same occupation. These amendments to 
PL 414 notwithstanding, the green card continues to be used in lieu of a visa at the 
border, enabling a green carder to work in the United States while maintaining 
his permanent home in Mexico.^ 

The ease with which the Mexican national green carder may cross the border 
has special bearing on domestic labor disputes : The green carder who maintains 
his permanent residence in Mexico is liable to upset the balance between labor 
and management by seeking work at the site of a labor dispute. 

Thus the green card commuter, geared to the lower cost of Mexican living in- 
dex and lacking a stake in the i-esolution of domestic labor disputes, is liable to 
affect a strike to the detriment of the goals sought by striking domestic workers. 
In this instance the commuting alien is not filling a normal labor shortage as en- 
visioned in either PL 414 or PL 89-236 ; rather, he is filling a labor demand arti- 
ficially created by the strike. 

It is to prevent this misapplication of immigration procedures from interfer- 
ing with domestic labor disputes that a Federal Regulation, designated 8 CFR 
211.1(b) (1) was pi'omulgated on June 10, 1967, to restrict the use of a green 
card for re-entry by a would-be strike-breaker. According to the Federal Register 
in which the new regulation was published, "The basis and purpose of the . . . 
(regulation) is to preclude the use of Form 1-151 by a lawful permanent alien 
resident in lieu of his obtaining ... a re-entry permit when such use would 
adversely affect a domestic labor dispute".* The regulation itself, however, is 
a good deal less prescriptive : 

W^hen the Secretary of Labor determines and announces that a labor dispute 
involving a work stoppage or layoff of employees is in progress at a named place 
of employment. Form 1-151 shall be invalid when presented in lieu of an immi- 
grant visa or re-entry permit by an alien who has departed for and seeks re-entry 
from any foreign place and who, prior to his departure or during his temporary 
absence abroad has in any manner entered into an arrangement to return to the 
United States for the primary purpose, or seeks re-entry with the intention, of 
accepting employment at the place where the Secretary of Labor has determined 



1 See 8 use Sec. 1101 fa) (27) (A), 8 USC Sec. 1182(a) (14). 

3 U.S. Congressional and Administrative News, 1965, Senate Rept. 748, p. .3333. 

3 The practice of allowing green card holders to return to the U.S. without restriction Is 
presently being challenged in court. (Joe Gooch and Rafael Bustamente et al. v. Ramsey 
Clark, et al., filed June 25, 196S, in U.S. District Court, San Francisco). The thrust of this 
complaint is that the temporary immigration of green card holders who actually reside in 
Mexico has an adverse effect on both the wages and working conditions of California farm- 
workers and that all green card commuters should therefore be excluded from reentry. The 
plaintiffs seek to compel INS to distinguish at the border between lawfully readmissible 
permanent alien residents and green card commuters who would not be readmissible under 
the 1965 modifications to the McCarran-Walter Act. 

* 32 Federal Register 112 (June 10, 1967). 



2728 

that a labor dispute exists, or of fontinuinK employment which commenced at 
such place subsequent to the date of the Secretary of Labor's determination." 

A decision handed down in tlie Central District Court of California August 2, 
1968, upheld the limited validity of 8 CFR 211.1(b) (1). The decision held that 
an alien who has not perfected his status as a permanent resident is still '"at 
sufferance of the Attorney General". In other words, the Attorney General still 
has discretionary powers over the re-adraission of a green card who has not es- 
tablished his lawful permanent residence in the United States. The regulation 
is therefore valid when limited, in the phrasing of the Immigration Service 
Counsel, "to aliens who live In a foreign country".' 

Although 8 CFR 211.1(b) (1) remains on the books, the letter of the law and 
Its application in practice are sometimes entirely different matters. In practice 
the regulation apimars to have virtually no force whatsoever. UFWOO officials 
note that INS has yet to utilize tlie regulation to effect what the union feels to be 
the regulation's expressed purpose : to prevent green card holders from crossing 
the border to work as strike-breakers. 

III. PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OP THE OREEN CARD QUESTION 

A. Introduction 

How important is the green card issue to the labor dispute in the table grape 
industi-y? The relative importance of the problem Ls contingent upon the inci- 
dence of green carders who still maintain Mexican residence to the total number 
of workers on struck ranches. A quantitative inquiry, then, is clearly necessary. 
Two kinds of data are involved — immigration and farm labor statistics. 

Meaningful farm labor statistics are difficult to obtain because the farm labor 
pool is highly fluid and conditions will vary markedly from week to week, county 
to county, crop to crop and camp to cnmp. ConsequentHy, basic statistics on farm 
labor should be used cautiously and should be regarded as estimates rather than 
precivse quantification. This is particularly true of the primary source for infor- 
mation on farm labor in California, the reporting section of the Farm Labor 
Service of tin? State Department of Employment. 

With regard to green card holders, prior to this summer INS had no publicly 
available information on the incidence of green card commuters: and no precise 
information on green carders in fai-m labor.' During the past summer INS began 
to remedy this situation by instituting a series of procedures designed to enable 
immigration authorities to distinguish among temporary border crossers, daily 
and seasonal commuters, as well as to identify green card holders working on 
struck ranches. How effective this system will be remains to be seen. 

This project was concedved In response to the need for concrete information on 
the green card worker in the Delano table grape harvest. Before we turn to the 
study itself, a thumbnail sketch of the I>elano region and the table grape harvest 
force will be useful to put the problem into focus. 

B. Profile of the Delano Tahlc Grape Rcf/ion 

1. Tiocation, Acreaf/e ami Varieties of (Jrapea. — Last year 89% of this nation's 
grapes were grown in California.^ California table grape growers harvested over 
80.(K)0 acreas." The Delano region is the largest t}ible-gra]>e producing region in 
the country. Lying in a rough triangle bounded by the towns of McFarland, 
Barlimart and Ducor (see map. Appendix II), this area includes approximately 
10,0(X) acres of table grapes in Kern County and 18,000 in Tulare County. Thomp- 



" Giumnrrn v. I&NS (Memorandum of Decision, U.S. District Court, L.A., August 2, 1968). 

' The IJ.a. Departmpnt of Labor hns attompted to extract data on greeu cnrd farm labor 
from a sample of the cards which aliens must file with INS in .January of each year. See 
"ChnracterlHticR of Me.\lcaii Immigrants Working on Farms", Farm Labor DcveJoptnenta, 
Septemher-Ootober 1087 (Fourth iHsue), pp. .^(i-41. According to this study, some green 
card holders "contlniue to live In Mexico and migrate seasonally to the TTniled States or 
commute <liiily to jobs In border areas". This study has two major shortcomings : First, the 
month during which nddrcss forms must be filed with INR — ^.Tanuary — Is precisely (he time 
at which the green card seasonal commuter is most Hicely to be out of the country. Second, 
more than half of the occupations reported on the sample were general laborers, housewivea, 
students, unemployed or unknown. Many of these persons, the study notes, probably engage 
in farm labor "at one time or anotlier during the year". 

* California, Department of Employmenit, Farm Labor Service, California Annual Farm 
Labor Report, 1907, p. 5. 

'California, Department of Agriculture, Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Cnli~ 
fornia Fruita: 1967 Annual Summary, p. 3. 



2729 

sou seedles grapes, the most common variety in the Delano vicinity, account for 
about 16,000 acres. Much of the remaining acreage in the Delano vicinity is 
planted in the Emperor variety. The peak Thompson harvest in this area occurs 
in late August; the Emperor harvest does not begin until early September, after 
the peak Thompson harvert is virtually completed.* 

2. The Work Force: Number, Habitat, Ethnic Composition. — During the week 
of the peak Thompson harvest in the Delano vicinity in IJKiS, the Farm Labor 
Service estimated that 8,500 workers were picking grapes in Kern and Tulare 
Counties." The majority of those workers were located in the Delano region, 
although many were working on scattered grape ranches outside the area. 

One grower described as "typical" employed a maximum peak harvest work 
force of one person per 2.12 acres. If that ratio held for other ranches and the 
entire Thompson crop reciuired simultaneous harvesting, the total work force 
in the Delano vic"inity for that i)eriod would be 7,5r)0 workers. The Thompson 
harvest, however, is in fact stretched out over a period of several weeks and 
not all acreage is harvested simultaneously. The growers' estimate of "more 
than 5,000 workers" seems to be a reasonable one." 

During the i^eak Thompson seedless harvest in 1968, approximately 2400 work- 
ers were living in about 00 grower-owned or grower-operate<l camps in the Delano 
vicinity.' At that time most of the remaining grape pickers, numbering i>erhaps 
3,000, lived in various scattered communities in the vicinity (see map. Appendix 
B). 

The work force includes a large number of students and housewives who are 
not full-time field workers. A study conducted in Kern County in 1961 showed that 
nearly half of the farm labor force was comprised of seasonjilly-employed wives 
and youths.'* Other studies indicate that students and nou-student women have 
been utilized in increasing numbers throughout the San Joaquin Valley since 
the termination of the bracero program." It seems reasonable, therefore, to esti- 
mate that housewives and students comprise a minimum of 40% of the peak 
labor force harvesting Delano grapes. 

Depending on the source and the definition of niigrancy. estimates vary widely 
on the number of migratory worI«'rs engaged in tlie Delano table gra|K' harvest. 
Field data accumulated in the process of this study indicate that during the 1068 
harvest Hi'Vr of the workers living in grower-owned or grower-oiM^rated camps 
lived or worked in one other area outside the daily coninniting area, 'S1'>'a lived 
or worked in two or more other areas, and .S2% lived and worked only in the 
Delano vicinity. Among the community residents who worked the graije harvest 
the degree of migrancy was somewhat lower but still significant. ( See Appendix 
D). 

Estimates regarding the ethnic conii>osition of the Delano table grape work 
force also vary. Although a large number of Anglos and Negroes work in other 
ngricxiltural activities in Kern County, e.g., iK)tatoes, cotton and sugar beets), 
there are virtually no Anglos and few Negroes harvesting table grapes. One 
grower estimates that 40% of the labor force is Mexican, 40%' Filipino, the 
remaining 20% predominantly Puerto Ricnn and Arabian. With regards to work- 
ers of Mexican des<«ent this estimate .seems rather low : A spokesman for the 
Delano growers has acknowledged that the percentage of Mexi(;an national green 
card holders alone may be as high as 40%. The latter estimate Is in line with 
figures from routine Border Patrol field checks conducted during 1968." 



• Base<I on infarmation and estimafps provided by the Kern and Tulare County grape 
specialists of the California Department or Agriculture and the Delano-Earllraart Irrigation 
District. 

*Callfornln, Department of Employment, Farm Labor Service, Weekly Farm Labor 
Report, AiigiiHt 24. 19fi7. 

• The Delano Orape Story . . . From the Growers' View (Delano : South Central 
Farmers' Committe<', 1968). 

'' See Appendix C, Table One. 

8 William H. Metzler, Farm Mechanization and Labor Stabilization ("Technological 
Change and Farm I^iibor Use, Kern County, California, 1961", Pt. II ; Berkeley : Gianlnl 
Foundation! Research Reports, 5 96,'>), pp. 20-24. 

• See for example .Tiimw W. Becket, The Domestic Farm Laborer : A Study of Yolo County 
Tomato Pirkers ("Department of Agricultural Education: Research Monographs", No. 2; 
Davis : Tlniversity of California, 1900). 

'"According to Border Patrol checks covering 4.S9.'i workers at 24 struck ranches dtiring 
early 1908, 2,009 were green card holders. A Border Patrol field ranch check conducted 
during the peak Thf>mpson harvest in vineyards In the Delano vicinity Indicated that 83 
of 195 workers Investigated (42.6% ) were green card holders. 



2730 

With this background sketch of the work force in the Delano table grape in- 
dustry in mind we now turn to the problem with which this study is concerned : 
Do green card holders who take advantage of loopholes in immigration pro- 
cedures to return to Mexico for extended periods of time constitute a significant 
portion of the Delano table grape harvest force? 

IV. THE GRB3:n CABDEK in the DELANO TABLE GRAPE HARVEST FOKOE : SURVEY RESULTS 

AND CONCLUSIONS 

A. introduction 

This survey was conducted in the Delano table grape region of Kern and Tulare 
Counties during the peak Thompson seedless harvest week of August 1^23, 
1968. The period of time was limited to five days in order to minimize the possi- 
bility of double-counting as workers moved in and out of the area. Interviewers 
covered 60 grower-owned labor camps in the area. Survey teams also worked in 
the rural communities of Terra Bella, Earlimart, Richgrove, Ducor and McFar- 
land, as well as in Delano. (Interviewing was also conducted outside the Delano 
table grape region at the Tulare County Farm Labor Center in Woodville and the 
Wasco Farm Labor Camp, as well as in ,a privately-operated tract; in Shaf ter ; 
results from the latter three locations are not tabulated here.) 

Interviewers used a uniform survey schedule (see Appendix A) and usually 
worked in pairs; at least one person in each team was bi-lingual (more than 
two thirds of the Mexican-descent interviews were conducted in Spanish). A 
total of 368 forms were filled out. Of these, 219 were taken in grower camps and 
149 in rural or semi-rural communities. 

In considering the data from this survey the reader is advised to remember 
that this project was conducted in a troubled atmosphere resulting from the 
continuing labor dispute. Workers were often reluctant to talk to outsiders, even 
with the permission of their employer. At one camp, for example, an interviewer 
noticed that many potential subjects left the barracks hastily by one door as 
he entered the other. Unwillingness to be interviewed was particularly noticeable 
among Mexican-descent workers. Due to wide-spread union publicity informing 
green carders that their employment at struck ranches might jeopardize their 
legal status in the U.S., it would be reasonable to assume that green card 
seasonal commuters would be especially unwilling to be interviewed or might 
falsify information concerning their immigration status. When these factors are 
taken into consideration, the incidence of alleged seasonal commuting among 
green card holders reported below is strikingly high. Moreover, it seems probably 
that the incidence would be much higher if random surveying under non-stress 
conditions were possible. 

Interview teams sought to conduct interviews at random but the tendency 
for potentially deportable aliens to avoid attention of any sort probably resulted 
in a skewed sample. Therefore the data reported below may be taken as indica- 
tive of the minimum degree to which this migratory pattern is prevalent among 
Delano table grape pickers of Mexican descent. 

B. Data on Green Carders in Delano 

With regard to green card holders and the Delano table grape harvest, the 
data presented in the tables ( App. C) point to the following conclusions : 

1. The majority of the Mexican-descent workers are green carders. — 61.2% of 
the Mexican-descent subjects (74 out of 121) were green card aliens. 

2. Many Mexican green card holders have entered or re-entered this country 
during the last two years. — 41.2% of the Mexican-descent subjects (49 out of 
119) were green carders who had crossed the border since January 1967. 

3. Many green carders spend extended periods of time in Mexico. — 26.5% of 
the Mexican-descent subjects (30 out of 118) were green cards who had re- 
entered the U.S. since January 1967 after spending one month or more in Mexico. 

4. This migratory pattern is particularly noticeable in labor camps, but it is 
also prevalent in rural commumities. — In grower-oviTied or grower-operated 
camps, 44 out of 67 Mexican-descent subjects were green card holders, of whom 
15 out of 63 (23.8%) had spent three consecutive months or more in Mexico since 
January 1967. One would expect farm workers living in rural communities to 
be significantly less transient than those living in labor camps. Nevertheless 
even in community dwellings 30 out of 54 Mexican-descent subjects were green 
card holders and 6 out of 54 (11.1%) had spent three consecutive months or 
more in Mexico since January 1967. 



2731 

C. Green Card Seasonal Commuters and Labor Disputes 

What effect does this incidence of green card seasonal commuting have on 
domestic labor disputes such as the one in the table grai>e industry? In all 
probability the green card commuter will not be receptive to a unionization move- 
ment. He comes to the U.S. to earn money, returns to Mexico to spend it. He does 
this because he is able to work for higher wages in the U.S. than he could in 
Mexico. His American-earned income, applied to the lower Mexican cost of liv- 
ing, gives him added purchasing power across the border. (Mexicans frequently 
observe that a dollar equals 12i^ pesos but that 12% pesos buys much more in 
Mexico than a dollar does in the U.S.) The green card holder thus is in a posi- 
tion to take advantage of a legal-administrative loophole which allows him the 
best of both worlds — American wages which may be spent on a foreign economy 
at a favorable exchange rate. Under these conditions he is hardly likely to leave 
his home in Mexico and come to California to join a strike on behalf of U.S. 
domestic whose interests are quite different from his own. If he has any stake in 
the socio-political processes of the U.S., it is to preserve the status quo, not to 
alter the system. In broad terms, the green card sea.sonal commuter has an ad- 
verse effect on the efforts of domestic farm workers to organize a union. 

Green card seasonal commuters who work struck ranches may have a much 
greater impact in labor disputes than their numbers alone would indicate : Even 
though the domestic worker may know that his wages are substandard and may 
desire collective bargaining to remedy the situation, he will not be very likely 
to join the picket line if he fears that he can easily be replaced by a green card 
strike-breaker. Half a loaf being better than none, the threat of green card 
strike-breakers may serve to hold many potential domestic strikers to their jobs. 

D. Proposal for a Strengthened Regulation 

The burden of this report is that the incidence of green card seasonal commuting 
and its adverse effects on domestic labor disputes warrant effective enforce- 
ment of regulations to remedy the problem. The regulation restricting the em- 
ployment of green card holders at struck ranches, 8 CFR 211.1(b) (1), has had 
virtually no effect on the California table grape strike. Its exact meaning is 
unclear; its complicated verbiage is considerably weaker than the statement of 
purpose which introduces it in the Federal Register. Moreover, at a critical point 
during the Coachella strike last June, INS was enjoined by a court order which 
prevented the Border Patrol from enforcing the regulation for several weeks. 

One of the chief defects of 8 CFR 211.1(b) (1) is the inherent difficulty in 
interpreting and enforcing such basically ambiguous criteria as ''primary pur- 
pose" and "intention" for crossing the border. INS reverts to location of perma- 
nent residence as the tangible criterion for establishing the primary purpose 
or intention with which a green carder crosses the border. Two difficulties 
immediately arise : First, the so-called permanent domicile of an agricultural 
worker is liable to be rather impermanent. Even if he does have a permanent 
residence — in Texas, for example — investigation necessary for proper verifica- 
tion of this fact may prove difficult and costly. Already pressed with increasing 
illegal entry problems stemming from Mexico's population boom and economic 
difficulties, INS does not seem to be in a position to provide the manpower which 
investigation of alleged permanent residence for each green card strike breaker 
would entail. The second problem is that INS tends to associate the permanent 
domicile with the location of the green carder's family. That guideline may have 
worked when the typical green card was a male, single or travelling alone. In 
1968, however, many green cards were travelling with their families, thus render- 
ing obsolete this criterion for residence.^ 

As an alternative to the elusive criteria of intention and purpose stipulated 
by 8 CFR 211.1(b)(1) a new regulation might focus on the length of time 



^The green card in California agriculture is usually characterized as a single male (pos- 
sibly married with family in Mexico or Texas) who moves frequently to earn the highest 
possible wages. (See for example James W. Becket. The Domestic Farm Laborer: A Study 
of Yolo County Tomato Pickers, University of California Davis, Department of Applied 
Behavioral Sciences, Research Monograph #2. 1966. pp. 20-21.) This picture may no longer 
be valid. In the pilot study for this project, extensive interviewing was conducted In OEO 
flash-peak housing units in St^mislaus County. Oxit of 41 families interviewed, 30 were green 
card holders. Contrary to the classifical picture, the typical green card in these camps 
seemed fairly stationary, hoeing tomatoes at $1.50 per hour rather than looking elsewhere 
for fruit-picking jobs which would offer substantially higher piece-rate wages. 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5B - 14 



2732 

spent ia Mexico. The green card might be declared invalid for use at a struck 
ranch until the holder has demonstrated the validity of his immigrant status. 
Perfection of permanent alien resident status (a concept upheld by the Giumarra 
V. INS decision) would be achieved by the green card bolder who lives in the 
U.S. continuously for one year, exclusive of a limited number of visits to Mexico 
not totalling more than a specified number of days (say, for example, 3 visits 
and 30 days). After one year of continuous residence in the U.S., the permanent 
alien resident would he entitled to seek employment at a struck ranch if he so 
desired. Such a procedure would not restrict the green card holder's right to 
crass the border freely. If properly enforced, however, it would accomplish the 
purpose for which 8 CFR 211.1(b) (1) was supposedly framed; to preclude the 
use of a green card for border crossing to work at a struck ranch. 

E. INS and Enforcement of Border Regulations 

The letter of the law notwithstanding, INS will continue to play a key role 
in the green card problem. Restrictions on green card seasonal commuting can 
be no stronger than the will and capabilities of INS to enforce them. 

An unpublished U.S. Department of Labor report which issued from an in- 
vestigation of the green card problem in Delano last Spring noted that INS 
field investigations were "rather superficial." At that time, Labor Department 
officials observed, when the Border Patrol encountered aliens working at struck 
ranches in possible violation of immigration regulations they made no effort 
to remove or detain the suspected violators. 

According to the Labor Department report, this negligence permitted the sus- 
pected alien to leave the area temporarily, only to return at a later date when 
no longer under scrutiny by INS.^ 

INS has instituted new procedures apparently designed to tighten up enforce- 
ment of immigration provisions, but the routine field-ranch check conducted in 
the Delano vicinity August 21 did not appear to be very thorough. Although 
Border Patrol ground units were checking for violations of green card regula- 
tions (they found none), the light-aircraft pilot guiding the ground units to 
field crews indicated that he was choosing crews without any regard for the 
strike below and that he had not been advised as to which ranches below had 
labor disputes "which might require more thorough Border Patrol checking. 
During the check the ground unit inadvertently "lost" two presumable wet- 
backs when they field the field in which they had been working. That closed 
the incident for the Border Patrol, but it would have been a fairly simple matter 
to locate the camp in which the two lived in order to apprehend them. In fact, 
a member of this research team, without prior knowledge of the Border Patrol 
check or the suspected wetbacks who had fled, identified the camp later the same 
day when he overheard a conversation about the incident while requesting 
permission to conduct interviews at the camp in which they lived. In another 
camp within the area which the Border Patrol had checked that morning, inter- 
viewers working on this project located two probable illegal entries who claimed 
to have lost their green cards and several other probable violators of 8 CFR 
211.1(b)(1). Both camps belonged to growers involved in the labor dispute. 

In view of the presence of a significant number of green card seasonal com- 
muters working in the Delano table grape industry, a stronger and more clearly- 
worded regulation governing the use o fa green card for border-crossing to 
break a strike would seem to be in order. Getting a stronger regulation on the 
books, however, is only the first step. It is evident that even if a new green card 
regulation were to be promulgated, it could be given teeth only by vigorous and 
thorough eiiforcement on the part of INS. 



APPENDIXES 



A. Sample Interview Schedule 

B. Maps 

1. San .Toaquiu Valley 

2. Delano Table Grape Area 

C. Tables 

D. Miscellaneous Data 



^ The Department of Labor filed "The Alien Commuter Problem" when Its representatives 
to the combined Labor-Justice task force inquiry which met in Delano May &-7, 1968, did 
not concur with the report INS representatives drafted for the Attorney General See Los 
Angeles Times, June 21, 1968, p. 3. 



2733 



SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY PARIi LABOR SURVET 

INTRODUCTION: This project seeks to provide better understanding of ths 

problems facing' farm workers and growers by obtaining accurate 
j.iiformation about migratory patterns — How many workers 
actually do migrate? Hovr far do they travel? V/ith family? Etc. 

This study is being conducted by a graduate stuient as part of 
his Ph. D. program. It has no connection with union activity 
or any government organization. 

IJe do not need your name; the purpose of this study is merely 
to learn about migratory patterns; your time and cooperation 
vill be very much appreciated. 

1. Location: / / 2. Date: Aug. / / 5. Hale / / Female / / 

4. iiexican / / Anglo / / Negro / / ?ilipino / / *^.R. / / Other / / 

5; Age / / 6. Education: Grad e/l 2 3 '^r 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 IJZ Other / / 

I. Single? / / Harried? / / 8. Is your inmediate family i/ith you? Yes / / Mb / / 

8 a. I? "NO": V/here is your family? / / 

9- How many months a year do you work in the fields? / / 
10. I'fhat crop are you working now? / / ?or whom ?/ / 

II. IIow long have you vjorked for your present employer? / / 



12. l/hat other crops have you iforked during the past two years? / 
15. What other areas have you worked in during the past two years? / 
K. V/here do you expect to go after the grape harvest is finished? 
Stay here / / Go to: / / U.S. / / ile::ioo 

15. VJhat do you ezpect.to do after the grape harvest is complete? 

Farm v;or k/ / Othe r/ / 

16. Last year Tfhere did you spend the v;inter? U.S. / / ilexico / / 

17. Date of last entry into U.S. from Ilerico / / 
How long were you there-? Less than one \;eek / / 

More than one week / weeks / months / 

17. Green-carder? Yes / / No /^7 (asked / / inferred / / ) 

ADDITIONAL DATA: 

18. Intervievf in: English / / Espenol / / 

19. Data Reliable? Yes/~7 No /~7 

20. Comments; 



2734 



CALIFORNIA : SAt^ JOAdU/M VAU-Zy 



Sdcramenlo 



Fresno '\ 



^S- areas studied 

Stanislaus Countu 

^SafiJocufim Ualleu 
Tulare Coutttu 
KernCdutttu 



m 




N 


3aienfff/d\ 


V,. 



Los Att^efes 



2735 



DCLANO TABLE GRAPE AREA 



^ 



? 






\ 



^•C"^ Fresno^ 




DcLano 

y CIS CO m I . 

C I 

Skafter • -jV 

,^^» 3akersfieU 
\ iurtt Cotuttu 



^ 



2736 

APPENDIX C: TABLES 

Table No. 1. — Delano -vicinity labor camps owned or operated by Table Grape 

Growers 

Camps registered with State division of building and housing standards 71 

Camps located for survey 62 

Camps operating during survey 51 

Camps closed during survey 11 

Camps not located 9 

TABLE NO. 2.— DELANO-VICINITY GROWER CAMPS IN OPERATION, BY NUMBER AND ESTIMATED POPULATION 

i 

Number of Estimated 

camps population 

Operating camps, 2 or more complete interviews taken 34 1 1,405 

Operating camps visited, no Interviews taken 1 9 ] 

Operating camps visited, occupants unwilling or hostile J- 4 > 2795 

Operating camps, access denied by grower or owner 1 4 | 

Camps not located, presumed operatings 9 • 207 

Total - 60 2,407 

1 Population estimated on basis of interviewers' observations, statements of occupants and, where possible, camp or 
crew bookkeeper's records. 

2 Field estimates available for 8 of 17 camps. When not available, the following basif for estimation was used: In 43 
camps where field estimates were made, the ratios between those estimates and the maximum capacity listed with the 
Division of Building and Housing Standards was established. The ratio was used as the basis of estimation on camps for 
which field estimates were not possible. 

3 All treated as open to compensate for the possibility of unregistered camps in the Delano vicinity. 
* Population estimated by the method described in footnote 2 above. 

TABLE NO. 3.— NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS TAKEN, BY ETHNIC ORIGIN, IN AND OUT OF CAMPS 



Ethnic origin In camp 


Out camp 


Total 


Mexican descent. j 91 


131 


222 


Other ... . .. 128 


18 


146 






Filipino 97 .. 






Puerto Rican 20 .. 

Arabian. _ 5 .. 




Negro 1 




Chinese 1 




Japanese . . . 1 . . 


Korean.. . ... 1 . 


Notstated 2 . 










Total 219 


149 


368 






TABLE No. 4.-MEXICAN-DESCENT INTERVIEW FORMS TABULATED AND DISCOUNTED 


In camp 


Out camp 


Total 


Mexican-descent subjects interviewed ... 91 


131 


222 






Forms tabulated 67 


54 
77 


121 


Forms discounted 24 


101 







2737 

TABLE NO. 5— MEXICAN-DESCENT INTERVIEW FORMS DISCOUNTED, BY REASON FOR DISCOUNTING 

Reason for discounting In camp Out camp 

Altered green card ' 

Allegedly "lost" green card 

Form incomplete 

Subject unwilling to answer some questions 

Vague, shifting, or self-contradicting 

Interview deemed unreliable by interviewer, reason not stated 

Not farmworker _ 

Other.. 

Total... 24 77 

' Immigration documents examined only when subject volunteered to show them. 

2 One statistical twin" excluded because his responses duplicated his older brother's tabulated biography; one inter- 
view conducted in a rural home rented from a grower and registered as a camp. 

' 41 interviews taken in housing outside Delano grape area: 13 interviews discounted because interviewer's understand- 
ing of Spanish was inadequate. 

TABLE NO. 6.— NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF MEXICAN-DESCENT INTERVIEW FORMS TABULATED, BY GREEN 

CARD STATUS, IN AND OUT CAMP 

In camp Out camp Total 



1 





2 





1 





5 





4 





8 


9 


1 


14 


s2 


3 54 



Number 


Percent 


Number 


Percent 


Number 


Percent 


44 


65.7 
34.3 


30 
24 


55.6 
44.4 


74 
47 


61.2 


23 


38.8 







Green card.. 

Not green card_ 

Total. 67 100.0 54 100.0 121 100.0 

TABLE NO. 7.— MEXICAN-DESCENT GREEN CARDS BY DATE OF ENTRY OR LAST REENTRY INTO UNITED STATES, 
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MEXICAN-DESCENT FORMS TABULATED, IN AND OUT CAMP 





In camp 




Out camp 




Total 






Number 


Percent 


Number 


Percent 


Number 


Percent 


Total domestic and green card 
Mexican-descent forms tabulated... 


•65 


100.0 


54 


100.0 


119 


100.0 


Mexican-descent green cards tabulated, 
by date of entry or last reentry: 

1968 

1967 

1966 

1965-«0.. _ 

1959 or before. 


28 
2 
2 
5 
5 


43.1 
3.1 
3.1 
7.7 
7.7 


15 
4 
1 
6 
4 


27.8 
7.4 
1.9 

11.1 
7.4 


43 
6 
3 

11 
9 


36.1 
5.0 
2.5 
9.2 
7.6 


Total. 


>42 


64.6 


30 


55.6 


72 


60.5 



I Discounts 2 green card holders who did not state when they had crossed the border. 



2738 

TABLE NO. 8.— MEXICAN-DESCENT GREEN CARDS ENTERING UNITED STATES IN 1967 OR 1968, BY ALLEGED LENGTH 

OF STAY IN MEXICO 



In camp Out camp Total 



Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 



163 


100.0 


54 


100.0 


117 


100.0 


1 28 


44.4 


19 


35.2 


47 


40.2 







2 


3.2 


-.. 




2 


1.7 


1 


1.6 


1 


1.9 


2 


1.7 


4 


6.3 


6 


11.1 


10 


8.5 


1 


1.6 


2 


3.7 


3 


2.6 


3 


4.8 


3 


5.6 


6 


5.1 


2 


3.2 


1 


1.9 


3 


2.6 


4 


6.3 


1 


1.9 


5 


4.3 


2 


3.2 


2 


3.7 


4 


3.4 


5 


7.9 


2 


3.7 


7 


6.0 


2 


3.4 


_.. 




2 


1.7 


2 


3.2 


1 


1.9 


3 


2.6 



Total domestic and green card 
Mexican-descent forms 
tabulated 

Total green cards entering or 
reentering United States 
since January 1967 

Allegedly immigrated 

Frequent border crosser 

Length of stay in Mexico prior to re- 
entry since January 1967: 

Less than 2 weeks 

2 to 4 weeks 

1 month or more 

2 months or more 

3 months or more 

4 months or more 

5 months or more 

6 months or more 

7 months to 1 year 

1 Discounts 2 green cards who had crossed the border since January 1967 but did not state the amount of time spent in 
Mexico prior to entering/reentering the United States. 

Appendix D : Miscexlaneous Data 

The following information, gathered in the course of this research project, is 
included here because the author feels that this data is necessary to an informed 
evaluation of the Delano labor dispute and may not be easily accessible to the 
casual observer. The material presented below is limited to the factual basis 
for statements contained in The Delano Grape Story from the Grower's View, a 
widely-distributed pamphlet published by the Delano Growers' South Central 
Farmers Committee. No attempt is made here to speak to the value judgments 
held by the growers, whose clear-cut hostility to UFWOC is easily recognizable 
throughout the tract. The data presented below is focused on migrancy and 
wages, two of the issues which are frequently puzzling to the uninitiated reader. 



The degree to which the Delano Table Grape harvest force has its roots in the 
Delano area is a subject of much controversy and confusion. As growers point 
out, migrant workers are more difficult to organize because they don't stay in one 
place long enough for convenient recruiting. The Delano Grape Story makes the 
claim that the Delano harvest is regularly picked by a "well-settled, non-migrant 
work force", How stable is the work force at the struck Delano ranches? We 
shall investigate this question with regard to: (a) migrancy, (b) the turn-over 
rate at Delano grape ranches and (c) the degree to which year-round employment 
is provided by Delano grape ranches. 

A. Migrancy. — According to the growers, "approximately 90% of the more 
than 5,000 pickers hired at the peak of the harvest in Delano are residents of the 
area". The basis for this statement? The Delano Grape Story elaborates: 

"Payroll records provide the proof. A typical payroll, for example, reveals that 
70% of the growers' employees in 1967 lived in Delano, 13% in McFarland, 6% 
in Bakersfield, 1% in Richgrove, and 10% with home addresses outside of the 
inunediate living or commuting area." 

It must be noted that payroll records cited do not provide adequate proof 
for the growers' contention. The addresses listed on i»ayroll records are mailing 
addresses, not home addresses as the growers claim. Examination of the pay- 
roll cited above, for example, showed that nearly one-third of the local addresses 
were Post Office Boxes, not residences. Moreover, the payroll cited is not in 
fact "typical" of Delano growers : Although more than 40% of the workers em- 
ployed by Delano growers at peak harvest live in labor camps owned or operated 
by growers, the rancher whose payroll is cited is one of the few growers who 
does not provide housing for temporary workers. In view of the fact that he has 
no labor camps, it is to be expected that the workers employed at his ranch, 
which lies just outside Delano, might live in the Delano vicinity during the time 
that they work for him. 



2739 

Field study conducted in the Delano vicinity during the summer of 1968 does 
not substantiate growers' claims that 90% of their workers are permanent resi- 
dents of the Delano area. 

Out of 206 Mexican-descent and Filipino grape workers employed on Delano 
ranches only 66 said they had worked and lived only in the Delano vicinity 
during the last two seasons ; 72 said they had worked or lived in one other 
area outside the daily commuting range ; and 68 listed two or more areas/ These 
figures confirm those of a study, conducted in Kern County before the strike 
began, which showed that approximately 60% of the grape workers were 
migrants." 

B. Turn-over Rate. — The Delano Grape Story claims that "more than 5,000 
grape workers have regularly picked the crops in fields that are supposed to be 
struck." In view of numerous eye-witness accounts to the contrary, this state- 
ment must be examined carefully. Are the pickers presently employed the same 
people who were working for the growers when the strike began? Out of 194 
workers interviewed in 34 grower-owaied or grower-operated labor camps iu 
the Delano vicinity during the 1968 harvest. 111 (57%) were in their first year 
with their present employer; 140 (72%) had not worked for their present 
employer prior to 1966; only 30 (16%) had worked for their present employer — 
either continually or on a seasonal basis — for more than five years. Among the 
recent entrants to California's struck vineyards were 17 Filipinos who had begun 
field work in the U.S. since 1966, three Korean college students working for the 
summer under special work permits which supplement their student visas, in 
addition to several Arabians and Puerto Rieans. 

This high turn-over rate is particularly significant when one considers the 
growers' claim that their workers already exercise what the growers term 
"grass-roots collective bargaining power." According to The Delano Grape Story, 
growers meet often vi^ith their workers to discuss wages, working conditions 
and grievances. The manner in which growers resolve workers' complaints through 
"grass-roots collective bargaining" is demonstrated by the fact that more than 
half of the workers interviewed in growers' camps had never worked for their 
current employer before 1968. Many of the pickers interviewed did not even know 
the name of the grower by whom they were employed ; they only knew the name 
of their crew-boss or supervisor. 

C. Year-round Employment. — "Between harvests," says The Delano Grape 
Story, "Delano growers employ approximately 2,500 workers in such tasks as 
pruning, irrigating, cultivating, etc. . . . For many — mostly family heads — 
Delano vineyards provide almost year-round employment." Weekly figures on 
farm labor in California show that employment in table grapes is far less con- 
sistent than growers' statements would indicate. According to reports filed by 
the Kern County Farm Labor Service of the State Department of Employment, 
personnel requirements for table grapes in Kern County during the 1967-68 
season fluctuated in the following manner : ^ 
Dec. 2. 1967 : 200 workers. 

Dec. 18-Jan. 27 : Pruning and tying plants — 3,200 workers peak requirement. 
Feb. 24, 1968 : 200 workers. 
March 30, 1968 : workers. 

May 13-June 1 : Thinning and gridling vines — 3.500 workers peak requirement. 
July 13, 1968 : 800 workers. 
Aug. 7-Sept. 2 : Harvest — 5,000 workers needed at peak. 

According to Metzler, in 1961 grape workers in Kern County worked 119 days 
out of the year ; full employment would be 250 days.* 

II. 

The earnings of the average grape worker will vary with the type of work 
and the labor supply available. According to one payroll described by growers as 
"typical," the average hourly 1966 harvest wage was $2.19. The average for the 
periods when work was available during the remaining nine months of the 
year was $1.57 per hour. ( These figures indicate that if a grape worker in the 

1 If the figures listed above are weighted to take into account the ratio between workers 
livine: in labor camps and workers living in communities in the Delano vicinity, 46% listed 
no other areas lived or worked in during the past two seasons ; 40% listed one other area ; 
14% listed two or more areas. The data gathered for this study indicates that if questions 
concerning other areas lived or worked in had been stressed by interviewers, the percentage 
of workers listing other areas would have been significantly higher. ^ ^ ^ ,■ 

2 William H Metzler, Technological Change and Farm Labor Use, Kern County, Can- 
fornia, 1961, (Berkeley : Giannini Foundation, 1964), Pt. I, pp. 38, 40, 90 ; Pt. II, p. 46. 

3 Weelfly Farm Labor Report, #881-A. 
* Metzler, op. cit., Pt. II, p. 27. 



2740 

Delano area worked twelve full weeks at harvest rates and were fortunate 
enoush to find work in the vineyards for three-quarters of the remainder of the 
vear his annual income would still fall below $3,(X)0. — ) 

The Delano growers boast that during the 1967 season more experienced 
nickers earned $2.50 and more per hour. It should be remembered that when 
-rowers cite rates of pay, they are usually speaking of their best workers on 
the best days of the peak harvest. Because picking is conducted on a piece-rate 
basis harvest wages vary widely and most workers earn far less than the 
optimum figure. By comparison, during August 1968 the average industrial worker 
in California earned $3.46 per hour."^ . , ,. t^ io^,> 

Although the average earnings of California farm workers— including Delano 
grape pickers— are higher than those of farm workers in most other states, the 
wages paid by California farmers leave their workers almost at the bottom of 
the economic and social ladder, below everyone but the more destitute farm 
workers in other states. According to a 1963 state report .== California's agricultural 
workers "remain among the most poorly paid, poorly fed and poorly housed 
California citizens". Moreover, the gap between the farm workers and the rest 
of society is widening: In 1948. the average California farm worker earned bZ% 
of the hourly wage received by his counterpart in manufacturing. Jn 1965 average 
farm worker hourly earnings were 46% of the wage earned by the average worker 
in manufacturing.* . . „ 

According to The Delano Grape Story, one reason that growers oppose unioniza- 
tion is that labor prices must be kept down in order to compete with increasing 
grape imports from South America. Official figures on U.S. imports do not sub- 
stantiate the growers' case : Over the past three decades, grape imports have 
never amounted to more than one per cent of domestic production. Furthermore. 
U S grape imports for fiscal 1967 were slightly below the 1965-67 three-year 
average and grape imports from South America declined in each of those years. 



1 /vO« AwfireJeg Times, Oct. 14, 1968, pt. II. p. 6. . c. ,. * nou 

'Governor's Advisory Commission on Housing Problems (Sacramento, btate of x^&u- 

'^s^j s b<»partment of Agriculture, Human Resources Division ; U.S. Department of Labor, 
Bulletin No 1370-5. Cited In Correspondence from the Special Assistant to the Director, 
Bureau of Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor. Oct. 29, 196S^ 

*US Federal-State Market News Service. Grapes, Raisins, Wine, 1966 Season (Jsan 
Francisco, 1968), p. 7.5. Five-year averages for grape Imports as percentage of total domestic 
production : 

19.S6-40, 0.7%. 
1941-45,0.1%. 
1946-50.0.4%. 
1951-55,0.7%. 
1956-60, 0.5%. 

1961-65,0.7%. ^ ^ . ,4. 

6 U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Imports, TftUSA Commodity by Country, annual rept. 
no. FT 246 (Washington : Government Printing Office. 1965-1967). «- ^v 

The U.S. imported 1,4.^0,009 cu. ft. of grapes in 1967, compared to a 1965-67 three-year 
average of 1,4.'?7,6S0 cu. ft. Imports from South America totalled 642,861 cu. ft. In 19bD, 
compared to 592,704 cu. ft. in 1967. I 



2741 

[From: Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law] 

COMMENT 

The Amiable Fiction— Alien 
Commuters Under Our Immigration 

Laws 

Charles Gordon 

HE ALIEN COMMUTER'S STATUS is a device of conven- 
ience, designed to cope with an anomalous situation under the 
immigration laws. Since 1924 those laws have classified entrant 

aliens as nonimmigrants (who 
enter for temporary stay) and 
immigrants (who enter for per- 
manent residence).^ Soon af- 
ter the enactment of the 1924 
Immigration Act" it was discov- 
ered that those classifications 
did not adequately deal with 
the situation of aliens in adjacent countries who commuted daily 
across the border to jobs in the United States, usually returning to 
their "foreign" homes each night. 

In 1927 the Supreme Court ruled that a nonimmigrant could not 
accept employment in the United States.^ The impact of this ruling 
threatened the jobs of thousands of commuting aliens, with antic- 
ipated dislocation in the economy of many border communities and 
in our friendly, reciprocal intercourse with adjacent countries. To 
avert this potential embarrassment and disruption, the special com- 
muter status was established by administrative regulation."* Aliens 
residing in adjacent countries who had stable jobs in this country 

• The views expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent 
the views of the Department of Justice. 

1 Immigration and Nationality Act, § 101(a)(15), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15) (1964). 

2 Act of May 26, 1924, ch. 190, 43 Stat. 153. 

3 Karnuth v. Albro, 279 U.S. 231 (1929). 

* The history and development of the commuter practice, including a description of 
the regulation inaugurating it, is discussed in Matter of L., 4 I. & N. Dec. 454 (1951); 
Matter of M.D.S., 8 I. & N. Dec. 209 (1958); HOUSE JUDICIARY CoMM., SUBCOMM. 
No. 1, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., Study of Population and Immigration Problems, 
Special Series No. II (G.P.O. 1963). The commuter concept is not now recited in the 
administrative regulations. See note 8 infra. 



2742 

were admitted as immigrants, ostensibly for permanent residence. 
They were thus able to continue their employment in this country 
and to return to their foreign homes each night by exhibiting a 
border crossing card attesting their immigrant status.^ In recent 
years the identifying document has been the Alien Registration Re- 
ceipt Card (Form I-m), popularly referred to as the "green card," 
which recognizes the bearer's lawful admission to the United States 
and is acceptable as a reentry document for lawful residents return- 
ing from a temporary absence abroad not exceeding 1 year.^ Con- 
sequently the alien commuters are often known as "green carders," 
but this designation is misleading, since Form 1-151 is issued to all 
aliens who have been lawfully admitted to the United States for 
permanent residence^ — the majority of whom actually reside in the 
United States. 

Although the commuter status has never specifically been au- 
thorized by statute, it has been sanctioned by administrative inter- 
pretation and practice in the ensuing 41 years.^ Moreover, this 
status was noted with apparent approval in the comprehensive re- 
port of the Senate Judiciary Committee which preceded enactment 
of the basic 1952 recodification of the immigration laws.* The 
1952 Act defines lawful admission for permanent residence as "the 
status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing 
permanently in the United States as an immigrant."*" Under the 
administrative reading of this language, an alien commuter is recog- 



5 Since the commuter status depends on continued employment in the United States, 
it has been decreed that interruption of such employment for a period of 6 months will 
terminate the status, unless the interruption was caused by uncontrollable circumstances, 
such as serious illness, pregnancy, or disabling injury. Matter of M.D.S., 8 I. & N. Dec. 
209 (1958). Cf. Matter of L., 8 I. & N. Dec. 643 (I960) (never obtained job in United 

States before pregnancy); Matter of Gerhard, 12 I. & N. Dec. (Int. Dec. No. 1823, 

1967) (gave up job, but was reemployed within 6 months). 

^See 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(b) (1968). An amusing sidelight is that in recent years the 
Form 1-151 has been blue and not green. Yet the popular usage is hard to change, and 
the holders are generally still called "green carders." 

7 8 CF.R. § 264.1(b) (1968). 

8 Indeed, the commuter concept has not been explicitly recited in the administrative 
regulations for many years, but has been supported by administrative practice and ad- 
judications. See Matter of L., 4 I. & N. Dec. 454 ( 1951 ) ; Matter of iM.D.S., 8 I. & N. 
Dec. 209 (1958). 

8S. REP. No. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 535 (1950) (A resident alien's border 
crossing card may be issued to "an alien who has been admitted for lawful permanent 
residence but who resides in foreign contiguous territory and is employed in the United 
States, the so-called commuter."). See also S. Rep. No. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 4 
(1952); H.R. Rep. No. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 32 (1952). 

10 Immigration and Nationality Act, § 101(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (20) 
(1964) (emphasis added). 



2743 

nized as having that privilege even if he has not actually established 
residence in the United States. The administrative authorities have 
found that Congress recognized and approved the commuter prac- 
tice, at least implicitly, in the 1952 Act.^' They have found nothing 
in the far-reaching revision of the statute in 1965*- to indicate that 
Congress was dissatisfied with the administrative practice or wished 
to change it. 

Throughout most of its 40-year history the alien commuter pro- 
gram has encountered little dissent. However, opposition has de- 
veloped in recent years, particularly from labor organizations oper- 
ating in the regions adjacent to the Mexican border. Opponents of 
the program contend that alien commuters from Mexico, living in a 
country with lower living standards than the United States, unfairly 
depreciate wages and working conditions in this country. More- 
over, it has been contended that such commuters impede the union- 
ization efforts of American workers. *•■* It should be noted that in 
recent years there have been no criticisms of the operation of the 
commuter program along the Canadian border, since the standards 
of living on both sides of the Canadian border are reasonably com- 
parable and the affected industries on the American side are gen- 
erally unionized. 

In its inception the commuter program dealt with the so-called 
"daily" commuter, who usually returned to his home across the 
border each night. In the past few years there has been a large 
influx of "seasonal" workers who come to this country for agri- 
cultural work, follow the crops during the growing and harvesting 
seasons, and then return to their homes in Mexico after a stay of 
several months in the United States. The major rise in number and 
importance of the seasonal commuters occurred after the termina- 
tion in 1964 of the "bracero" program, under which many thousands 
of Mexican nationals were imported each year for temporary em- 
ployment in the United States.^* In January 1966 there were 53,329 

11 Matter of H.O., 5 I. & N. Dec. 716 (1954); Matter of M.D.S., 8 L & N. Dec. 209 
(1958). 

12 Act of Oct. 3, 1965, 79 Stat. 911. 

13 Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, Commuters, 
S. Rep. No. 1006, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 99-109, 111-30 (1968). 

!■* See 1 Gordon & Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 6.9 (rev. 
ed. 1966), which points out that the bracero program operated for a number of years 
pursuant to specific statutory and treaty arrangements for the importation of temporary 
agricultural workers from Mexico. The bracero differed from the commuter in that he 
was admitted temporarily, while the commuter has attained a lawful admission for per- 
manent residence. 



2744 

daily commuters, of whom 42,641 entered from Mexico, and the 
balance from Canada. ^^ The number of seasonal commuters has 
never been definitely ascertained, and it is currently being tabulated 
by the Immigration and Naturali2ation Service. 

In an effort to deal with some of the alleged abuses in the alien 
commuter program, the Department of Justice in 1967 promulgated 
a regulation prohibiting the entry of alien commuters coming to 
accept employment at a plant where the Secretary of Labor has 
certified that a labor dispute exists.^** Labor spokesmen have urged 
that further measures be taken, including the imposition of a re- 
quirement that alien commuters be subject to the present statutory 
mandates^' which preclude the entry of most immigrants unless they 
obtain a certification from the Secretary of Labor that their prospec- 
tive employment will not adversely affect American labor inter- 
ests.^® However, under explicit terms the "labor certification" 
requirements of the statute are inapplicable to returning lawful 
residents,^® and it has been the administrative view that since alien 
commuters are regarded as returning lawful residents the labor cer- 
tification requirements cannot be applied to them unless the statute 
is changed.'" A bill which would require alien commuters to obtain 
labor certifications every 6 months has been introduced by Senator 
Edward F. Kennedy and Representative Michael A. Feighan, but has 
not yet been enacted.-^ 

There have been a number of court challenges to various aspects 
of the commuter program, none of which arrived at a definitive 
resolution. The first of these was Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. 
Rogers,^^ which considered the effect of a labor certification issued 
during a strike at the Peyton Packing Co. of El Paso, Texas. The 
court declined to regard alien commuters as returning lawful per- 
manent residents and found them barred from reentry under the 
terms of the Secretary of Labor's certification. The government 



*5 Survey by Immigration and Naturalization Service, reproduced in SELECT COM- 
MISSION ON Western Hemisphere Immigration, Commuters, supra note 13, at 
114-15. 

i« 8 CF.R. § 211.1(b)(1), ^^weWei, 32 Fed. Reg. 8378 (1967). 

17 Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a) (14) (1964). 

18 See Gooch v. Clark, Civ. No. 49500 (N.D. Cal. 1968). 
i»M 

^^See id. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Rogers, 186 F. Supp. 114 (D.D.C. 
I960). 

21 S. 1694 and H.R. 9505, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 

22 186 F. Supp. 114 (D.D.C. I960). 



2745 

was prepared to challenge this ruling on appeal, but the strike was 
settled and the case became moot. 

A broader challenge to the legality of the entire commuter pro- 
gram, brought by a union and a number of individuals, was unsuc- 
cessful in Texas State AFL-CIO p. Kennedy -^ However, the court's 
ruling was premised on the narrow ground that plaintiffs lacked 
legal standing to sue and did not adjudicate the merits. While 
limiting its holding to this technical ground, a lack of sympathy 
with the litigation seems manifest in the following excerpt from the 
court's opinion: 

The present case involves the rights of many thousands of human 
beings to continued employment in this country. Those persons are 
entitled to have their status and their rights adjudicated on the par- 
ticular facts of their own cases, the circumstances of their entry, 
the representations made to them, and the nature of their own con- 
duct, and any other factors which might reasonably be urged on 
their behalf. . . . Certainly it would be most unjust to allow a labor 
organization and its members to attack the status of many thou- 
sands of aliens — not even naming them as individual defendants 
— with the aim of dislodging them from their jobs, so that those 
jobs might then perhaps be obtained for union members.^* 

In 1968 another lawsuit, arising out of a strike by agricultural 
workers in California, was brought to challenge the validity of the 
regulation precluding the entry of "green card" commuters for em- 
ployment at an establishment where a labor dispute had been cer- 
tified."^ In effect, this lawsuit entailed an attempt to assert that 
the alien commuter had an unassailable right to entry, which could 
not be restricted by the Attorney General's regulation. Again the 
merits were not resolved, and the suit was dismissed on the ground 
that plaintiffs (a grower and some individuals against whom de- 
portation proceedings were pending) lacked legal standing to bring 
the litigation.-" Finally, another lawsuit, brought by two individ- 
ual plaintiffs on behalf of all similarly affected, once more chal- 
lenges the legality of the entire commuter program.-' The govern- 
ment is again contending that the plaintiffs lack legal standing to 
sue and the court has not yet announced its decision. Of course, a 
dismissal on this ground would leave the merits still unresolved. 

23 330 F.2d 217 (D.C. Cir.), cert, denied, 379 U.S. 826 (1964). 

2'* 330 F.2d at 219. The court also found that the Amalgamated Meat Cutters case, 
supra note 20, "is not persuasive authority for the maintenance of suits of the present 
sort." 

25 Cermeno-Cerna v. Farrell, 291 F. Supp. 521 (CD. Cal. 1968). 

'^Id. at 530. The corporate plaintiff has appealed from the dismissal of its suit. 

-• Gooch V. Clark. Civ. No. 49500 (N.D. Cal. 1968). 



2746 

At the present juncture, the legality (;f the commuter program has 
not been definitively passed upon by any court. 

The status of the alien commuter has been described as an 
"amiable fiction."-"* It has been a useful administrative device, con- 
tinuing for more than 40 years with apparent congressional ap- 
proval, to cope with a practical situation which does not fit pre- 
cisely into conventional molds. Changing needs and problems 
have generated discussion of the desirability of continuing this pro- 
gram in its present form.^ Any consideration of possible changes 
would necessarily have to take into account the interests of the many 
thousands of aliens who have been employed in reliance on this 
program, often for many years;*'" the need to safeguard American 
labor; the effect on our friendly relations with neighboring coun- 
tries;^^ and the effect on the industry and commerce of the border 
communities in the United States. The assessment and resolution 
of these competing interests is a matter of national policy, to be 
decided by Congress. It is unlikely that there will be any significant 
changes in the administrative approach to the commuter problem. 
As I have noted, proposals to end or modify the program have been 
rejected by the administrators on the ground that they have been 
enforcing the will of Congress. Consequently, it may be anticipated 
that unless changes are enacted by Congress or required by the 
courts, the alien commuter program will continue to operate as it 
has for the past 40 years. Thus, if changes are to- be made, they 
apparently will have to be accomplished by new legislation. Since 
we are dealing essentially with legislative purpose, it seems desirable 
that this purpose be clearly articulated. 

There are several possible alternatives Congress might pursue. 
The first is to enact no new legislation, which would leave the 

28 1 Gordon & RoseNFIELD, supra note 14, § 2.8b; Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. 
Rogers, 186 F. Supp. 114, 119 (D.D.C. I960). However, this fiction has not been 
deemed to qualify a commuter for naturalization benefits, which depend on actual re- 
sidence in the United States for prescribed periods, following lawful admission for per- 
manent residence. In re Barron, 26 F.2d 106 (E.D. Mich. 1928); Petition of Wright, 
42 F. Supp. 306 (E.D. Mich. 1941). See also Immigration and Nationality Aa, §§ 
101(a)(33), 316(a), 8 U.S.C.§§ 1101(a), 142^(a) (1964). 

29 See, e.g., SELECT COMMISSION ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE IMMIGRATION, COM- 
MUTERS, supra note 13, at 99-109, 111-30; Rummel, Current Developments in Farm 
Labor Laii;, 19 HASTINGS L.J. 371 (1968). 

30 See note 24 supra & accompanying text. 

31 In affidavits submitted to the court in Texas State AFL-CIO v. Kennedy, 330 F.2d 
217 (D.C. Cir.), cert, denied, 379 U.S. 826 (1964), and in Gooch v. Clark Civ. No. 
49500 (N.D. Cal. 1968), the Secretary of State asserted that termination of the alien 
commuter program would have an adverse effect on the foreign relations of the United 
States. 



2747 

commuter program untouched. The second is to terminate the pro- 
gram forthwith — a prospect not favored by many, in the light of 
its patently disruptive effect on border communities and on the 
affected individuals. The third alternative is to require the com- 
muters to obtain periodic labor certifications, a solution proposed in 
Senator Kennedy's bill"'' and favored by labor organizations and by 
the Department of Labor. Finally, there is a proposal by two mem- 
bers of the Select Commission on Western flemisphere Immigra- 
tion""*^ that the present commuter program be phased out within a 
specified period of years, that thereafter lawful admission for 
permanent residence include a commitment to establish a residence 
in the United States, and that special work permits be issued to non- 
residents under appropriate safeguards protecting American labor 
to satisfy the needs of the border communities. This final proposal 
has a number of desirable features. First, it deals fairly and hu- 
manely with the many thousands of commuters who have relied on 
the present practice and gives them a reasonable period of time to 
make other employment arrangements or to establish residence in 
the United States, if they are so disposed. Second, it takes into ac- 
count the needs of the border communities and avoids disruption of 
their economies and of friendly relations with neighboring countries. 
Finally, it makes adequate provision for safeguarding American la- 
bor interests. This proposal may well suggest a sound and enlight- 
ened solution for the commuter problem. 

^^See S. 2790, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968), now co-sponsored in the 91st Congress 
by Representative Feighan and others. See note 21 supra. 

33 The report of this Commission {see note 13 supra) made no specific recommen- 
dations. After publication of the report, a letter dated July 22, 1968, and signed by 
Richard M. Scammon, Chairman, and Stanley H. Ruttenberg, a Commission member, 
was addressed to President Johnson, and presented the recommendations discussed in the 
text. 



36-513 O - 70 - pt, 5B - 15 



2748 

U.S. District Court, Central District of California 
Juan CiaiMENO-CERNA, Et Al., plaintiffs, 

V. 

Raymond F. Farrell, Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, Et Al., defendants 

CIVIL no. G8-403-K, MEMORANDUM OF DECISION 

Plaintiffs, including Giumarra Vineyards Corporation (hereafter "Giumarra"), 
filed their complaints March 12, 1968, seeking a declaration that the enactment of 
8 C.F.R. 211.1(b) (1)^ is "arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to the 
Constitution and laws of the United States" and that deportation proceedings 
commenced agiainst plaintiffs Juan Cermeno-Cerna, Juan de Jesus Cermeno-Ruiz, 
Benjamin Zermeno-Lerna, Jose M. Jasso-Ramos, Candelario Acosta-Puente, Jose 
R. Santillanes-Diaz, Nicholas Ramirez-Mora, Jesus Valdez-Murguia, Juan Manuel 
Jasso-Juarez and Efren Ramirez-Rojas (hereafter collectively called "individual 
plaintiffs") are "void and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United 
States." 

Amending their complaint on July 5, 1968, plaintiffs added to their prayer for 
relief a request for a temporary and permanent injunction restraining defendants 
from doing any act in regard to the operation, enforcement or execution of the 
challenged regulation and further alleged a class action "in behalf of themselves 
and all other immigrants lawfully admitted for residence" and a class of owners 
of certain places of employment. 

The matter proceeded to trial upon the amended complaint and the answer 
of defendants raising the following issues : 

1. Jurisdiction of the Court over the subject matter of the action ; 

2. Failure of individual plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies ; 
and 

3. Standing of individual plaintiffs and Giumarra to either challenge the 
validity of 8 C.F.R. 211.1 (b)(1) or to maintain the action. 

At trial no evidence was presented upon the issue regarding the maintenance 
of a class action and therefore that question is moot. In any event, resolution of 
that question is not necessary to a determination of the central issues presented 
to the Court for decision. 

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTION 

{a) Jurisdiction to enjoin deportation proceedings. — Individual plaintiffs are 
each now the subject of deportation proceedings instituted pursuant to Section 
242(b) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b).' Within that 



1 For the purposes of this action, plaintiffs question only the amendment made June 7, 
1967. which added the followins lanjjuage : 

"When the Secretary of Labor determines and announces that a labor dispute involving 
a work stoppage or layoff of employees is in progress at a named place of employment, 
Form 1-151 shall be invalid when presented in lieu of an immigrant visa or reentry permit 
by an alien who 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 
arrangement 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." 

Further reference to S C.F.R. 211.1(b) in this opinion shall be limited to this language 
unless specifically indicated otherwise. 

= 8 U.S.C. § 12.52(b) provides: 

"(b) A special inquiry oflicer shall conduct proceedings under this section to determine 
the deportability of any alien, and shall administer oaths, present and receive evidence, 
interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien or witnesses, and, as authorized by 
the Attorney General, shall make determinations, including order of deportation. Determi- 
nation of deportability in any case shall be made only upon a record made in a proceeding 
before a special innuiry officer, at which the alien shall have reasonable opportunity to 
be present, unless by reason of the alien's mental incompetency it is impracticable for 
him to be present, in which case the Attorney General shall prescribe necessary and proper 
safeguards for the rights and privileges of such alien. If anv alien has been given a 
reasonable opportunity to be present at a proceeding under this section, and without 
reasonable cause fails or refuses to attend or remain in attendance at such proceeding, 
the special inquiry officer may proceed to a determination in like manner as if the alien 
were present. In any case or class of cases in which the Attorney General believes that 
such procedure would be of aid in making a determination, he may require specificallv 
or by regulation that an additional immigration officer shall be assigned to present the 
evidence on behalf of the United States and in such case such additional immigration 
omcer shall have authority to present evidence, and to interrogate, examine and cross- 



2749 

section is found the "sole and exclusive procedure for determining the deporta- 
bility of an alien." 

Judicial review of deportation proceedings is limited to those procedures pre- 
scribed in 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq. excepting those specific provisions of 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1105(a) the most pertinent distinction providing a six (6) months statute of 
limitations for filing of the petition for review from a final order of deportation. 

A review of the statutory and case law clearly compels the determination that 
the Court is without jurisdiction to stay these deiwrtation proceedings. This 
should not be construed to indicate that this Court would be without jurisdic- 
tion to stay execution of a final order of deportation pending judicial review 
under proper circumstances. 

(ft) Jurisdiction to determine validity of regulations. — 5 U.S.C. §704^ pro- 
vides for judicial review of agency actions where there is "no other adequate 
remedy in a court." Individual plaintiffs have been arrested and placed upon 
bond con:litioned upon their refraining from returning to the employment of their 
(mployer at the time of their arre.'^t. This action was taken in the guise of 
enforcement of the provision-! of the questioned regulation. Being unable to 
attack this procedure in any other forum, it would appear that this Court has 
jurisdiction to determine the validity of the regulation as requested here. 

Certainly the administrative proceedings cannot provide for a determination 
of the validity of 8 C.F.R. 211.1(b)(1). The Special Inquiry Oflficer can make 
only a determination of whether or not the regulation is applicable to the 
factual situation presented by each individual plaintiff in a deportation hearing, 
an 1 upon finding the facts, apply the regulation regardless of its validity. 

Considering the type of review requested herein, the Supreme Court, in 
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140-41 (1967), says : 

"The Administrative Procedure Act provides specifically not only for review 
of '[a]gency action made reviewable by statute' but also for review of 'final 
agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court,' 5 U.S.C. 
§ 704. The legislative material elucidating that seminal act manifests a con- 
gressional intention that it cover a broad sijectrum of administrative actions, 

examine the alien or other witnesses in the proceedings. Nothing in the preceding sentence 
shall be construed to diminish the authority conferred upon the special inquiry officer 
conducting such proceedings. 

"No special inquiry officer shall conduct a proceeding in any case under this section 
in which he shall have i)articlpated in investigative functions or in which he shall have 
participated (except as provided in this subsection) in prosecuting functions. Proceedings 
before a special inquiry officer acting under the provisions of this section shall be In 
accordance with such regulations, not inconsistent with this chapter, as the Attorney 
General shall prescribe. Such regulations shall include requirements that — - 

"(1) the alien shall be given notice, reasonable under all the circumstances, of 

the nature of the charges against him and of the time and place at which the 

proceedings will be held ; 

"(2) the alien shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to 

the Government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such proceedings, as he 

shall choose ; 

"(3) the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against 

him, to present evidence in his own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented 

by the Government ; and 

"(4) no decision of deportability shall be valid unless it is based upon reasonable 

substantial, find probative evidence. 
The procedure so prescribed shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for determining 
the deportability of an alien under this section. In any case in which an alien is ordered 
deported from the United States under the provisions of this chapter, or of any other 
law or treaty, the decision of the Attorney General shall be final. In the discretion of 
the Attorney General, and under such regulations as he may prescribe, deportation pro- 
ceedings, including issuance of a warrant of arrest, and a finding of deportability under 
this section need not be required in the case of any alien who admits to belonging to a 
class of aliens who are deportable under section 1251 of this title if such alien volun- 
tarily departs from the United States at his own expense, or is removed at Government 
expense as hereinafter authorized, unless the Attornev General has reason to believe that 
such alien is deportable under paragraphs (4)-(7). " (11), (12), (14)-(17), or (18) of 
section 1251 (a) of this title. If any alien who is authorized to depart voluntarily 
under the preceding sentence is financially unable to depart at his own expense and the 
Attorney General deems his removal to be in the best interest of the United States, the 
expense of such removal may be paid from the appropriation for the enforcement of 
this chapter." 

' 5 U.S.C. § 704 provides : 

"Agency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is 
no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review. A preliminary, pro- 
cedural, or Intermediate agency action or ruling not directly reviewable is subject to review 
on the review of the final agency action. Except as otherwise expressl.v required by statute, 
agency action otherwise final is final for the purposes of this section whether or not there 
has been presented or determined an application for a declaratory order, for any form 
of reconsideration, or. unless the agency otherwise requires by rule and provides that 
the action meanwhile is inoperative, for an appeal to superior agency authority." 



2750 

and this Court has echoed that theme by noting that the Administrative Pro- 
cedure Act's 'generous review provisions' must be given a 'hospitable' interpreta- 
tion. Shatighncfisy v. Pcdreiro, 349 U.S. 48, ol ; see United States v. Interstate 
Conimerce Comm'n 337 U.S. 426, 433-435; Brownell v. Tom We Sluing, supra; 
Heikkila v. Barber, supra, at 379-380, the Court held that only upon a showing 
of 'clear and convincing evidence' of a contrary legislative intent should the 
courts restrict access to judicial review." 

We are faced here only with the legal question of the scope of the delegated 
power of the Attorney General,* not with the Court predetermining a question 
which could be raised at a deportation liearing. There is no procedure for que.s- 
tioning the scope of the delegated power of the Attorney General within the 
deportation process. Plaintiffs' only adequate or effective relief can be granted 
in this Court. See Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958). Under these circum- 
stances, this Court has jurisdiction, both under the Administrative Procedure 
Act, 5 U.S.C. § § 701-706, and in the, exercise of its discretionai'y powers imder 
the Declaratory Judgement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. 

VALIDITY OF 8 C.F.K. 211.1(b)(1) 

The basic considerations for determining the validity of an administrative 
regulation are articulated by the Supreme Court in Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 
459, 470 (1900) : 

"[A] regulation . . . should not be disregarded or annulled unless, in the 
judgment of the court, it is plainly and palpably inconsistent with law. 
Those who insist that such a regulation is invalid must make its invalidity so 
manifest that the court has no choice except to hold that the Secretary has 
exceeded his authority and employed means that are not all appropriate to 
the end specified in the act of Congress." 

Plaintiffs complain that there can be found no authority for the Attorney 
General to administratively create a new class of alien for admission to the 
United States. Defendants contend that the Attorney General is given broad 
authority to promulgate the regulation challenged here by Section 103(a) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a). Defendants further 
suggest that specific authority can be found in Section 211(b) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1181(b). 

8 U.S.C. § 1103(a) provides in part : 

"The Attorney General shall be charged with the administration and enforce- 
ment of . . . all . . . laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of 
aliens. . . . He shall establish such regulations ... as he deems necessary for 
carrying out his authority under the provisions of this chapter." 

The power given the Attorney General is broad within the delegated authority 
given by Congress. But such power must be exercised in promulgating regulations 
that carry out the statutory scheme of admission or readmission of aliens. It 
must also be exercised within the limits of procedural and substantive due 
process. 

8 U.S.C. § 1181(b) provides: 

"Notwithstanding the provision?* of section 1182(a) (20) of this title in such 
cases or in such classes of cases and under such conditions as may be by regula- 
tion prescribed, returning re.«ident immigrants, defined In section 1101(a) (27) 
(B) of this title, who are otherwise admissible may be readmitted to the United 
States by the Attorney General in his discretion without being requii'ed to obtain 
a passport, immigrant visa, reentry permit or other documentation." ° 

The power of Congress to legislate in connection with immigration and 
naturalization of aliens is plenary. Congress may in the exercise of that power 
exclude aliens from the Uniteil States, impose conditions of entry or reentry, 
and regulate their conduct and fix their rights while in the United States. Admin- 
istration of these powers by the Attorney General is not an unconstitutional 
delegation of power. U.S. ex rel. CireeUa v. SahJi. 216 F. 2d 33 (7th Cir. 1954). 
ecrt. denied 348 U. S. 964 ( 1955 ) . 



* Reference herein to action of the Attorney General Includes the acts of each of the 
defendants herein as his duly delegated renresentatiyes. 

5 8 U.S.C. S 1182 (a) (20) vroyides : 

"(20) Except as otherwise specifically proyided in this chai)ter. any Immigrant \vho at 
the time of application for admission Is not in possession of a yalid unexpired immigrant 
visa, reentry permit, border crossing Identification card, or other yalid entry docment 
required by this chapter, and a yalid unexDlred passport, or other suitable travel document, 
or document of Ifientity and nationa'lty. if such fiocnment is requirci un<ipr the regulations 
issued by the Attorney General pursuant to section llSl(a) of this title." 



2751 

An immigrant to the United States must generally possess a valid unexpired 
immigrant visa upon any entry to the United States." Excepted from this general 
requirement are immigrants who qualify pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (27) (B). 
This imigrant "lawfully admitted for permanent residence who is returning 
from a temporary visit abroad" ' has by regulation of the Attorney General been 
permitted to use Form 1-151 in lieu of an immigrant visa or reentry permit 
"when returning to an unrelinquished lawful permanent residence in the United 
States after a temporary absence abroad not exceeding 1 year." 8 C.F.R. 211.1 
(b) (1). This determination of documentation as applied to an 1101(a) (27) (B) 
immigrant is within the specifically delegated power of 211(b) of the Immigra- 
tion and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1181(b). That could be said to end the 
inquiry here. 

But plaintiffs claim that the challenged portion of 8 C.F.R. 211.1(b)(1) is 
discriminatory in creating a new class of immigrant, i.e., an 1101(a) (27) (B) 
immigrant who works for an employer certified by the Secretary of Labor as being 
involved in a labor dispute. In response, defendants claim that the challenged 
regulation is not being interpreted to apply to an 1101(a) (27) (B) immigrant 
and that the regulation must be read against the background of Rosenberg v. 
Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963). 

A reading of the challenged portion of 8 C.F.R. 211.1 (b) (1) would indicate that 
it applies to (1) an alien, (2) who has departed from the United States, and 
(3) seeks reentry from any foreign place, (4) for the primary purpose or inten- 
tion of accepting or returning to employment, (5) at a place where the Secretary 
of Labor has determined that a labor dispute exists. The regulation thus classifies 
returning immigrants as : 

1. Those returning to employers not certified by the Secretary of Labor 
can use their 1-151 green card for entry ; and 

2. Those returning to employers certified by the Secretary of Labor who 
cannot use their 1-151 green card for entry. 

Certainly, without more, such a distinction is arbitrary and without rational 
basis when applied to immigrants admitted for permanent residence to the United 
States who are exei-cising a privilege to travel to and from their native land to 
their adopted one. Such a distinction cannot stand within the rationale of Boiling 
V. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954). Recognizing that aliens outside the United States 
cannot complain of a lack of due process or equal protection of the law, it is 
clear that aliens residing or present within the United States must be afforded 
both procedural and substantive due process and equal protection. GaJvan v. Press, 
347 U.S. 522 (1954). 

Defendants urge upon the Court that such a classification is reasonable and 
authorized by Congress by its enactment of Section 212(a) (14) of the Immigra- 
tion and Nationality Act 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (14).* Tlie Court does not read that 
section, nor does the legislative history " support defendants' contention. Congress 
delegated power to the Attorney General in conjunction with qualification by the 
Secretary of Labor for initial entry into the United States "for the purpose of 
performing skilled or unskilled labor." Nowhere is there found support for dele- 
gation of a continuing concern by the Secretary of Labor or the Attorney General 
in the field of alien labor controls. 

The Court must, where permissible, within constitutional and statutory con- 
siderations give viability to an administrative regulation. In such circumstances 
the interpretation given the regulation by the promulgating authority should 
be controlling where it can reasonably be applied within the language used. 



« See 8 U.S.C. § 1181(a). 

^ These "special Imnilprants" are issued a Form 1-151 generally referred to as a "green 
card." Each of the individual plaintiffs are green card holders. 

8 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (14) provides: 

"(14) Aliens seeking to enter the United States, for the purpose of performing skilled or 
unskilled labor, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary 
of State and to the Attorney General that (A) there are not sufficient workers in the United 
States who are able, willing, qualified, and available at the time of application for a visa 
and admission to the United States and at the place to which the alien is destined to 
perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and (B) the employment of such aliens will not 
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of the workers in the United States 
similarly employed. The exclusion of aliens under this paragraph shall apply to special 
immigrants defined in section 1101 (a ) (27) (A) of this title, (other than the parents, 
spouses, or children or United States citizens or of aliens lawfully admitted to the United 
States for permanent residence), to preference immigrant aliens described in sections 
11.5,3(a) (.3) and 11.5.S(a) of this title, and to nonpreference immigrant aliens described 
in section 115.3(a) (8) of this title." 

9 1965 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3333. 333.3-3334, 3342-3.343, 3345, 1952 U.S. Code 
Cong. & Ad. News 1653, 1697-1968. 1 705. 



2752 

Charles Gordon, General Counsel of the United States Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, tells the Court that : 

"The sole purpose of this regulation \A'as to deal with aliens who have been law- 
fully admitted to the United States for permanent residence but who actually 
live in a foreign country and come to the United States periodically to work, 
and who seek entry into the United States for the purpose of engaging in employ- 
ment at a place where the Secretary of Labor has certified that a labor dispute 
exists. The limited impact of the regulation is to restrict the use of the alien 
registration receipt card (the so-called green card) as a document for entry 
into the United States by aliens who live in a foreign country." 

Counsel for defendants has classified this group as aliens commonly known 
as "commuters" who hold Form 1-151 green cards. 

Historically the "commuter" has been classified as the alien holding a Form 
1-151 green card who has not qualified or is not qualifying by maintaining a 
permanent residence within the United States. In other words, an alien using a 
status he has not ijerfected. Present statutory law would require such an alien 
to obtain an imigrant visa or reentry permit for each entry into the United 
States. Since these commuters were largely aliens working in the United States 
border communities and living in contiguous foreign territory there was created 
the "amiable fiction" of equating employment with permanent residence. This 
was done without statutory recognition of such a definition. See Amalgamated 
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen, v. Rogers, 186 F. Supp. 114 (D. Col. 1980). 
Counsel for defendants advises that this "amiable fiction" is more recently being 
extended beyond border town employment to seasonal workers staying for longer 
periods of time. However applied, it remains a "fiction." 

Recognizing that "commuters" have no statutory or constitutional status, but 
entry is at the sufferance of the Attorney General, until Congress acts to deter- 
mine the status of the "commuter," the Court should not intervene. More particu- 
larly since these aliens do not qualify for considerations of due process or equal 
protection of the law. If found here, they most certainly are entitled and are being 
afforded procedural due process to determine the legality or illegality of their 
presence. 

In such a context and limiting application of 8 C.F.R. 211.1(b) (1) to "aliens 
who live in a foreign country," the regulation is valid as an exercise of the gen- 
erally delegated power of the Attorney General in the enforcement of the immi- 
gration laws. 

STATUS OF PLAINTIFFS 

1. Plaintiff Giumarra Vineyards Corporation 

Guimarra is the employer of individual plaintiff.s. On July 28, 1987, Robert C 
Goodwin, Administrator of the Bureau of Employment Security, United States 
Department of Labor, pursuant to authority delegated by W. Willard Wirtz, 
Secretary of Labor, determined that Guimarra was in a "labor dispute involving 
a work stoppage or layoff of employees." 

In Braude v. Wirtz, 350 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9 Cir. 1965), the Court disposed of 
a similar claim of status by an employer : 

"In our view, api>ellants have shown neither a legal wrong nor a legal right to 
be free of the effects they attribute the determinations complained of will have 
upon their businesses. 

* * * j^ Hf -Hn if 

"We therefore conclude that the growers' allegations are insufllicient to show 
that they have suffered a 'legal wrong' or that they have been 'adversely affected 
or aggrieved * * * within the meaning of any relevant statute ; and that as a 
necessary result, they are without standing to sue." 

The Court having adopted the interpretation of the challenged regulation as 
applying to "aliens who lives in a foreign country" is led to the conclusion that 
Guimarra has no standing to complain of the exclusion of aliens from th& United 
States nor to compilain of deportation of aliens illegally within the United States. ' 

2. Plaintiffs Juan Cermeno-Cerna, Juan de Jesus Cermeno-Ruiz, Benjamin 

Zermrno-Tjerna, Jose M. Jasso-Ramos, Candelario Acosta-Puente, Jose R. 

Santlllanes-Diaz, Nicolas Ramirez-Mora, Jesus Valdez-Murguia, Juan Manuel 

Jasso-Juarez avd Efren Ramircz-Rojas 

This action is brought by these individual plaintiffs pursuant to the Declaratory 

Jude-ment Act. ?8 U.S.C. 8U331. 1361, 2201 and the Administrative Procedure 

Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq., 701, et seq. 



2753 

The evidence as to each of the individual plaintiffs shows that each of them is 
admitted for permanent residence in the United States and has been issued 1-151 
green cards. Deportation proceedings have been instituted pursuant to the chal- 
lenged regulation against each of the individual plaintiffs as the result of their 
departures from the United States and return to employment at Giumarra. But 
defendants simultaneously contend that individual plaintiffs have no standing to 
bring this action. Resolution of that conflict mu.st be made to determine the 
standing of individual plaintiffs. 

To have standing to question the challenged regulations these individual 
plaintiffs must be i>ersons "'suffering legal wrong . . . within the meaning of a 
relevant statute." " Braudc v. Wvrts, supra. 

The evidence as presented by each of the individual plaintiffs shows that each 
have been admitted for i>ermanent residence in the United States and when 
leaving their residence, either from labor camps supplied by their employers or 
from rented homes, they left belongings in the United States and in each instance 
intended to return after a vacation to rest and visit with their families and 
friends. 

The regulation as interpreted by defendants and as approved in this opinion 
applies to "aliens who live in a foreign country." The evidence shows that each 
of the individual plaintiffs qualify for inclusion within the provisions of 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a) (27) (B) immigrants. Therefore, individual plaintiffs are not parties 
who can claim injury "within the meaning of a relevant statute" and thus have 
no standing to attack the challenged regulation. 

Judgment for defendants. This opinion shall be considered as the findings of 
fact, conclusions of law and judgment. 

Let it be entered accordingly. 

Dated : August 2, 1968. 

Manuel L. Real, 
V.S. District Judge. 

In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California 

(No. 495(X)) 

Joe Gooch and Rafael Bustamexte, on behalf of tliem.selves and a class of 
persons similarly situated but too numerous to mention, Plaintiffs, 

V. 

Ramsey Clark. Attorney General of the United States, Harlan B. Carter, Re- 
gional Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United 
States, and C. W. Fullilove, District Director, Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion Service of the United States, defendants. 

George Meant, I'resident, and William F. Schnitzler, Secretary-Treasurer for 
and on behalf of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Indus- 
trial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and for and on behalf of its affliates and 
their members, plaintiffs in intervention. 



Ramsey Clark, Attorney General of the United States, Harlan B. Carter, Re- 
gional Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United 
States, and C. W. Fullilove, District Director. Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion Service of the United States, defendants. 

memorandum opinion and order granting motion for summary judgment 

This is a class action for a writ of mandamus to compel the Attorney General 
and officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to exclude certain 
non-resident aliens. Jurisdiction is asserted under 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 703 and 
28 U.S.C. § 1361. 

Plaintiffs are domestic farm workers.^ They claim to be injured by comi)etition 
from the so-called "alien commuter.s". The latter are aliens who reside in an 
adjacent country and enter the United States periodically for purposes of em- 
ployment, returning thereafter to their places of residence. While each com- 



"5 U.S.C. § 702. 

* Certain labor organizations have also been granted permission to intervene as plaintiffs 
to represent the Interests of other domestic workers. 



2754 

muter has been made eligible, by the appropriate United States authorities, to 
establish permanent residence in this country, none has exercised the privilege 
nor indicated an Intention to do so. Based upon the continuing eligibility for 
permanent residence, each commuter has been allowed entry and reentry into 
the United States upon presentation of an alien registration receipt card, Form 
1-151 (the "green card"). This card shows the holder to have been lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence in the United States. 

Plaintiffs claim this practice is contrary to the specific language of 8 U.S.C. 
§§ 1181(b) and 1182(a) (14), and 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(b) (1). They seek a writ of 
mandamus requiring compliance with those sections as interpreted by plaintiffs. 
Defendants have moved for summary judgment. After extensive briefing by all 
parties, the case is ready for decision. 

Defendants urge that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the administrative 
practice here involved. They rely mo.st heavily on Texas State AFL-CIO v. Ken- 
nedy, 330 F.2d 717 (D.C. Cir. 1964), in which union members challenging the 
same commuter practice were held to lack standing because "mere economic 
competition made possible by governmental action (even if allegedly illegal) 
does not give standing to sue in the courts to restrain such action. Tennessee 
Electric Poicer Co. v. TV A, 306 U.S. 118 ( 1939) ." 330 F.2d at 219. 

The Texas State decision may, at an earlier time, have been persuasive au- 
thority on the question in this case, but recent decisions of the Supreme 
Court run counter to its holding. The Supreme Court has expanded the availa- 
bility of judicial review of administrative. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 
887 U.S. 136 (1967), and has laid down guidelines on standing. Flast v. Cohen, 
392 U.S. 83 (1968). Under Flast, plaintiffs here plainly have suflScient adverse 
and personal interest in the outcome of the litigation to assure that the issues 
will be properly presented in an adversary context. 

Perhaps even more important, the Supreme Court has limited the doctrines 
of Tennessee Electric Poicer Co. v. TVA and the other cases relied on by the 
Texas State court. In Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 390 U.'S. 1 (1968), the 
Supreme Court distinguished that the line of cases, saying : "when the particular 
statutory provision invoked does reflect a legislative purpose to protect a com- 
petitive interest, the injured competitor has standing to require compliance with 
that provision." 390 U.S. at 6. See Jaffe, Standing to Secure Judicial Review: 
Private Actions, 75 Harv. L. Rev. 255, 266 (1961). In the present case, it is 
abundantly clear that one of the major purposes of the Immigration Act was to 
protect American labor against the influx of foreign labor. Kamuth v. U.S., 279 
U.S. 231, 243 (1929). The 1965 amendments to the Act reflect the same purpose. 
S. Rep. No. 748, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965), reprinted in 1965 US. Code Cong, 
d Admin. News, 3328-29. 

Under the doctrine of Hardin, this Court holds that plaintiffs have standing. 

The remaining que.stion is whether proper construction of the Act as amended 
requires exclusion of the "alien conunuter" as a matter of law. Defendants 
frankly concede that no explicit statutory or constitutional provision protects 
the commuter against exclusion. Cermeno-Cema v. Farrcll, 291 F. Supp. 521, 
529 (CD. Cal. 1968)." Rather defendants rely upon the long practice of the 
Immigration and Xatui-alizatioh Service in treating the commuter as a special 
immigrant defined in 8 I'.S.C. § 1101(a) (27) (B) as "an immigrant, lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence, who is returning from a temporary visit 
abroad."'^ This interpretation by the Service persists and has been unvarying 
since passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. See Deposition 
of Charles Gordon, General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- 
ice, pp. 9-12. 

Such classification of the commuter as a special immigrant under § 1101(a) 
(27) (B) has two effects. It exempts the commuter from the certification re- 



- For a brief summar.v of the history of the commuter practice since 1924, see Amalga- 
mated Meat Cutters d- Butcher Worktnen of North America, AFL-CIO v. Rogers, 186 F. 
Supp. 114. 117 (D.D.C. 1960). 

3 S U.S.C. § 1101 (a) (27) proviiles in full : 

(27) The term "special immigrant" means — 

(A) an immigrant who was born in any independent foreign country of the Western 
Hemisiphere or in the Canal Zone aind the spouse and cliildiren. of any such immigrant, 
if accompanying, or following to .ioin him : Provided, That no immigrant visa shall be 
issued pursuant to this clause until the consular officer is in receipt of a determination 
made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of section 1182 (a) (14) of 
this title : 

(B) an immigrant, lawfully admitted for permanent residence, who is returning from 
a temporary visit abroad. . . . 



2755 

quirements for aliens seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of per- 
forming skilled or unskilled labor. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (14).* It also allows the 
Attorney General, in his discretion, to utilize the informal documentation pro- 
visions of 8 r.H.C. § 1181 (b) ,° and to grant the commuted entry upon presentation 
of his Form I-l."il green card. 

Plaintiffs challenge the Service's practice on the ground that it is precluded 
by the 196") amendments to the Immigration Act. The challenge centers on the 
change in § 1181 ( b ) . which, prior to 1965, provided : 

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1182(a) (20) of this title . . . 
otherwi.sc adniixniblc aliens latvfuUy admitted for permanent residence who 
depart from the United States temporarily may be readmitted to the United 
States by the Attorney General in his discretion without being required to 
obtain a passport, immigrant visa, reentry permit or other documentation. 
(Emphasis added ; for text of § 1182(a) (20), see footnote 4.) 
This section was amended in 1965 to read : 

Notwithstanding the jirovisions of section 1182(a) (20) of this title . . ., 
returninf) resident immigrants, defined in seetion 1101 (a) (27) (B) of this 
title, who are othenrise admissible may be readmitted to the United States 
by the Attorney General in his discretion without being required to obtain 
a passport, immigrant visa, reentry permit or other documentation. (Em- 
phasis added.) 
Plaintiffs urge that the change in wording of the emphasized portions now re- 
quires exclusion of the commuter who is not a permanent resident of the United 
States returning from a temporary visit abroad. 

While the amendment is susceptible to that interpretation, it is also suscepti- 
ble to an interpretation that, by its specific reference to § 1101(a) (27) (B), it 
tacitly approves the long-standing practice of the Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion Service. Moreover, Congress had made no changes in the definition of "im- 
migrant" under § 1101(a) (27) (B), and nothing in the legislative history of the 
1965 amendments indicates that Congress in any way intended to change or 
prohibit the commuters' right of entry. In fact, the final Senate Report and Con- 
ference Report on the 1965 amendments do not mention the change in § 1181(b) 
nor its purpose, even in the portion giving a section-by-section analysis of the 



^8 U.S.C. §§1182 (a) (14) and (a) (20) provide: 
§ 1182. 

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the following classes of aliens shall be 
ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States : 
**♦*♦♦♦ 

(14) Aliens seeking to enter the United States, for the purpose of performing skilled or 
unskilled labor, unless the .Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary 
of State and to the Attorney General that (A) there are not sufficient workers in the United 
States who are able, willing, qualified, and available at the time of application for a visa 
and admission to the United States and at tlie place to which the alien is destined to per- 
form such skilled or unskilled labor, and (B) the employment of such aliens will not ad- 
versely affect the wages and working conditions of the workers in the United States simi- 
larly employed. The exclusion of aliens under this paragraph shall apply to special 
immigrants defined in section 1101 (a) (27) (A ) of this title (other than the parents, 
spouses, or children of United States citizens or of aliens lawfully admitted to the United 
States for permanent residence), to preference immigrant aliens described in sections 
1153(a) (3) and 1153(a) (6) of this title, and to nonpreference immigrant aliens described 
in section 1153(a)(8) of this title; 

******* 

(20) excpipt as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any immigrant who at the 
time of application for admission is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, 
reentry permit, border crnsislng Identification card, or other valid entry docume!it required 
by this chapter, and a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or docu- 
ment of identity and nationality, if sucli document is required under the regulations issued 
by the Attorney General pursuant to section 1181(a) of this title. . . . 

6 8 U.S.C. § 1181 providies: 

,§ 1181, 

(a) Except asi provided in subsection (b) of this section, no immigrant shall be admitted 
into the United States unless at the time of application for admission he (1) has a valid 
unexpired immigrant visa or was born subsequent to the isisuance of such visa of the accom- 
panying parent, andl (2) presents a valid unexpired passport or ot'^er suitable travel docu- 
ment or document of identity and nationalit.y, if such document is required under the 
regulations is.sued hy the Attorney General. . . 

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1182 (a)' (20) of this title in such cases or 
m such classes of cases and under such conditions as mav be bv regulations prescribed, 
returning resident immigrants, defined in seetion 1101 (a ) "(27) (B) of this titliP. who are 
otherwise admissible may be readmitted to the United States by the Attorney General in 
nis discretion without being refjuired to obtain a passport, immigrant visa, reentry permit 
or other documentation. 



1 

2756 



amendments, -See S. Rep. No. 748, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965), reprinted in 1965 
U.S. Code Cong, d Admin. News, 3328, 3342. 

For many year.s, Congress has been aware of the commuter practice and of 
the administrative decisions upholding it. Tliere liave been Congressional hear- 
ings, see, e.g., IStudi/ of Population and Immigrution Problems, Special Series No. 
11, lief ore the Subeommittee No. 1 of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 88th 
Cong., l.st Sess. (1963). None of the hearings has resulted in any report adverse 
to the practice nor in any recommendation to abolish it. This Congressional 
inaction has s^^ecial significance in the light of the consistent administrative deci- 
sions and the refusal in 1964 by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 
in Texas State, to declare the practice unlawful. 

If Congress wishes to end that practice, it has the power to do so. The issue 
here is not as to the power of Congress ; it is, rather, as to the interpretation to be 
given an exercise of that power in the 1965 amendments under consideration. 

In the light of the long history of the commuter practice, the unvarying ad- 
ministrative interpretation allowing commuter entry, and the potential foreign 
policy consequences involved in termination,^ it is hardly reasonable to assume 
that Congress intended to make such a radical change by an obscure amendment 
to § 1181(b), not even referred to in any legislative history. 

The Court should not attribute to Congress any such casual and off-handed 
disposition of so important a matter — esjiecially when the language of Congres- 
sional amendment can be interpreted consistently with continuation of a long- 
standing practice of which Congress had full knowledge. 

Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. Let judgment be entered 
accordingly. 

Dated : June 19. 1969. 



Judge. 

The Legality of the "Commuteks" or "Green-Card Holders" AVorking in 

THE United States 

(By Philip M. Newman) 

It is my intention to review the principles of law that in my opinion apply to 
the status of the alien who has been issued an Alien Registration Receipt card 
designated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as form 1-151, who 
resides outside of the United States and is gainfully employed in the United 
States. It is a well-known fact that many such aliens are maintaining their true 
and legal residence outside of the country and are steadily employed in various 
occupations on a permanent basis in the United States. They cross the borders 
daily to pursue their employment and return to their established homes in the 
foreign country. They have been referred to as "commuters" or as "green-card 
holders". This di.scussion does not include the status of either the person who 
has entered the United States under a treaty or agreement with a foreign country 
or a person admitted specially as a business visitor to engage in a specific and 
temporary type of business activity or temporary employment. 

It is a basic and established principle of law that only aliens who have been 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence can be gainfully employed in the 
United States. The only qualification of this principle is the aforementioned 
aliens who are admitted on a temporary basis pursuant to treaty, agreement, 
or special ijermits. It is, therefore, necessary to determine if the commuters 
to which I now refer have the status of a resident alien in order that they may 
be lawfully, permanently employed in the United States. 

The aliens have at some time or another, been issued immigrants' visas by 
an American Consul in a foreign country enabling them to enter the United 
States as residents and theerfore have qualified to seek and pursue any occupa- 
tion or employment. What happens subsequently is what raises the question of 
the legality of their status and which is the subject matter of this discussion. 



8 See Affidavit of Dean Rusk. Secretary of State, indicating, inter alia, that the practice 
contributes to friendly relations with Canada and Mexico, that termination would be 
deleterious to those relations and that economic advantages result from the practice. 



2757 

In the usual case, after the alien has been properly documented as stated above, 
he will establish or retain his home in the adjacent foreign country. He may own 
the property where he resides, his children may go to school in the place where 
he resides and for all purposes all he does is cross the border to work. By statutes 
and court decisions, "resident" is considered the principal place of abode, that 
is a matter of intent to reside, plus physical presence. Black's Law Dictionary 
defines residence as "A factual place of abode". Title 8 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations at Section 211.1(b) provides that an unexpired visa should be pre- 
sented by aliens entering the United States, except when returning to unrelin- 
quished, lawful, i^ermanent residence after a temporary absence abroad not 
exceeding one year. It follows, therefore, that the alien who has been issued an 
Alien Registration Receipt card ("green card") is not returning to an unrelin- 
quished, lawful, permanent residence after a temporary absence not exceeding 
one year because his residence is not in the United States and as a rule he had 
maintained that residence in a foreign country for a period exceeding one year. 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service has established the fiction of the 
commuter without any statutory authority. Their rationale has been "to equate 
employment with domicile". This fiction was reviewed at length in the matter 
of Carmen Burciaga-Salcedo (file A-12699434) decided by the Board of Immi- 
gration Api>eals May 31, 1966. In that decision, the Board of Appeals concedes 
the lack of statutory basis for the status of a commuter but accepts it and 
applies it. 

I do not purport to be a sociologist nor an economist, and for that reason I 
will not extend my discussion into the sociological, economic, or political aspects 
of this problem. Perhaps contradictorily, I should in passing state that during 
a discussion I had with a prominent officer of the Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion Service regarding this matter, we came to the conclusion that from a legal 
point of view, the commuter program is contrary to law and that the best 
approach to a humane solution would be for a directive to be issued by the 
appropriate authority notifying the "green-card holders" or "commuters" that 
their privileges to enter the country under the present conditions and circum- 
stances would be terminated after a specified reasonable period of time to enable 
them to lawfully reside within the United States \inder the conditions of their 
documents of entry. 

An article from the AFT^CIO Federationist, July 1969, follows.) 



2758 

Low-Wage Lures South of the Bobdeb 
(By David T. Lopez) 

From the boundless beaches where the Rio Grande joins the Gulf of Mexico 
at the tip of Texas, our southern border runs up the river, then turns west under 
New Mexico, Arizona and California, meeting the Pacific near San Diego. 

The 1,800-mile- long border area between the United States and Mexico is one 
of sharp contrasts. There are lush orange groves and arid goat country, deep 
canyons and flatlands, teeming urban centers and desolate wastelands. 

As far back as one cares to go, however, there has been one common denomi- 
nator for the land and the people of the border; a chronic, pervasive ix>verty 
that has joined citizens of both the United States and Mexico in an endless 
communion of despair. 

For generations, the root of the economic problem has been the worker who 
resides in Mexico, where the living is cheap, but who is allowed by a twisted 
immigration law to work in the United States. 

The Mexican "commuter," as he is known, will work for a little as 3o or 50 
cents on hour so he is eagerly sought out by employers while many United 
States residents are unemployed most of the year. 

When a union on the border strikes there is an endless supply of "commuter" 
strikebreakers, delighted to work at the federal minimum wage. 

The "commuter" system made a border city, Laredo. Texas, "the poorest city 
in the country," according to a national news magazine, and a border county, 
Starr County, Texas, scene of beatings of striking farm workers by Texas 
Rangers, the county with the lowest family income in the nation. 

Insistent protests by organized labor at local, state and national levels have 
limited the problem of what the Immigration Service calls the "non-resident 
alien." But token action was enough to move employers into coming up with an 
even more insidious and devastating program. 

The new plan is known by many names : PRONAF (from the Spanish-language 
words for National Border Program), or the Border Industrialization Program, 
or — 'to the American unions which have seen hundreds of jobs rush across the 
border^ — "runaway plants." 

Regardless of the name, the program was aptly described by Dr. Ramiro Casso 
of McAUen, Texas, a physician friendly to the farm workers, as "bringing the 
mountain to Mohammed." 

"They figured they might not be able to keep bringing in cheap labor from 
Mexico to jobs in this country, so they are taking the jobs out of the country to 
the cheap labor in Mexico," Dr. Casso said. 

In essence, the plan, supported by the governments of both countries, is for 
American businesses to set up along a zone 12.5 miles deep just across the border 
in Mexico. The attractions offered are special tax and tariff concessions by 
Mexico, similar tariff concessions by the United States, and labor at sweat-shop 
ratesi. 

The cheap-wage attraction is loudly touted by chambers of commerce on both 
sides of the border. 

J. Oarl Meyer, executive secretary of the Development Authority for Tucson's 
Expansion (DATE), boasts, "The Mexican border station at Nogales marks 
the gateway to an inexhaustible 30-cent-an-hour labor supply." Nogales, on the 
border, is an hour's drive from Tucson in southern Arizona. 

Why would Tucson be so anxious to lure plants to Mexico? The answer is 
what promoters of ithe runaway industries call the "twin-plant concept." Sup- 
posedly, this calls for the company to set up a plant on the United States side 
of the border to be the "twin" of the one in Mexico. 

Actually, the "itwins" on the U.S. side, if and when they are established, turn 
out at best to resemble poor cousins. They employ far fewer workers and are 
designed mainly to justify a special import tariff on the Mexican-manufactured 
goods, which supposedly are to be "finished" in this country. 

An example of the concept are the "'twins" of Transitron, an electronics com- 
ponent manufacturer, employing about 75 in Laredo and 1,500 in Nuevo Laredo, 
Mexico. 

"Finishing" could mean little more than pasting on a label. Many plants on the 
U.S. side hire Mexican residents anyway. Attempts to organize are met by threats 
to move the rest of the operation to Mexico. And for every job supposedly estab- 
lished on the American side, at least 10 jobs are being set up in Mexico and often 
at the direct expense of American workers. 



2759 

The United Rubber Workers represent employes of Mattel, the toy manufac- 
turer, at two plants in the Los Angeles area. Since Mattel opened a toy plant in 
Mexicali in 1967, some 820 union workers at the City of Industry plant have lost 
their jobs, and the Hawthorne operation has been similarly affected. 

The losses can be documented by shift and job classification, but a Mattel 
executive denied to the Los Angeles Times that a single job has been lost. Other 
less restrained entrepreneurs talk about the program creating "new jobs" for 
the United States. 

More revealing, however, are statements made by officers of a company that 
specializes in subcontracting electronic assembly work in Tijuana, Mexico, near 
San Diego. 

Enrique Mier y Teran, manager of IMEC, S.A., the Mexican branch of Inter- 
national Manufacturing, Electronics and Consulting Corp., puts it plainly : ''I 
believe tremendously that the future of Tijuana lies in selling its labor." 

At the Beverly Hills offices of IMEC, a division of the Republic Corp. conglom- 
erate, R. Lee Hill, operations manager, said : "We should ship $800,000 to 
$1,000,000 in labor (from Tijuana) in 1969." 

Trinkets sold to tourists in border markets may bear an imprint, "Made in 
Mexico," but the products of the special industry program not only are not 
labeled, but often are even hard to trace. Portable television sets sold by Sears, 
Roebuck and Co., for example, are bought from Warwick Eletcronics Inc. of 
Chicago, which initially subcontracted the work to IMEC, S.A., in Tijuana. 

Kayser-Roth has its Catalina-brand sportswear cut at two small plants in 
California and Arizona, but the sewing is done at a larger operation in Mexicali, 
Mexico. 

District 12 President Bill Drohan of the lUE in Los Angeles said that among 
the firms represented in the expanding electronics complex in Tijuana are Litton 
Industries. Control Data Corp., and Fairchild Camera. Dozens of less well-known 
electronic firms are scattered throughout the border area. 

Vice President Leonard Levy, director of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers 
West Coast Region, I'eports getting worried calls from his staff as more of the 
companies represented by the union establish Mexican operations. 

"El Paso, where probably more work pants and sport slacks are manufac- 
tured than any other place in the country, stands to be hurt very badly," Levy 
said. "Just recently. Hicks-Ponder, which has three plants in Texas and Arizona, 
set up in Jujirez ( across from El Paso) . And I just got a call from a representative 
in Bl Paso. He said a company where we are hoping to get an election soon is 
talking about going to Mexico." 

Amalgamated has organized many of the Mexican residents commuting to U.S. 
Jobs, helping them get fair wages. Recently, however, there have been so many 
"illegals" (in Texas known as "wetbacks" because they sometimes wade the Rio 
Grande) that there is conjecture about employer "deals" with immigration 
officers. 

At the office of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union in Los 
Angeles, Vice President Sam Otto said that already there are about 30 American 
garment plants in Mexicali and about 20 in Tijuana. 

"In Mexicali, where the border is a tall wire fence, the American and Mexican 
plants are almost side by side." Otto said. "Some cutting is done on this side, and 
sometimes when the water pressure in Mexico is not enough, they press the 
clothes on this side, but the rest of the work is done in Mexico." 

"But ypu sure don't see many 'Made in Mexico' labels, and of course, not 
■enough union labels," he added. 

Among the actions called for by the AFL-CIO Executive Council in its Febru- 
ary 1969 statement on U.S. -Mexican Border Problems was the adequate labeling of 
goods wholly or partially manufactured in the Mexico border plants. 

The U.S. State Department tried to discourage opposition to the Mexican plan 
when it began in 1966 by assuring American labor that American plants would 
not be moved, that the idea was to move to Mexico plants which otherwise would 
have become established in other low-wage areas abroad, such as Hong Kong or 
Taiwan. 

The line was echoed by the Mexican government. Mexican Minister of Industry 
and Commerce Octaviano Campos Salas, in a press conference August 6, 1968, 
told reporters : "The Mexican government does not encourage a massive exodus 
of American companies to the Mexican side of the border . . . specially when 
they operate normally and profitably in the United States." 



1 



2760 



Less than one year later, it is apparent that there is an increasing exodus of 
jobs and Industries from the United States, perhaps without Mexican "encourage- 
ment," but certainly with the same considerable concessions given to any others. 

The Mattel experience of the United Rubber Workers, and the manifold prob- 
lems of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers and the ILGWU, certainly are not 
isolated examples. 

When 'Transitron opened its plant in Nuevo Laredo. Mexico, employing some 
1.500 electronic assemblers, a similar operation of the same company in Kansas 
City, Mo., lost about 4.5 percent of its work force. When the plant in Mexico had a 
three-week work stoppage, employment and overtime shot up in Kansias City, only 
to fall again at the end of the stoppage. 

Standard Components Division of Standard Kollsman Industries, which opened 
a television tuner plant in Ciudad Acuna, across from Del Rio, Texas, has 
announced it may double production in 1970, with possible displacement of 800 
workers in a similar plant of the company In Oshkosh, Wis. 

lUE President Paul Jennings, who with AFL-CIO Vice Presidents .Joseph D. 
Keenan. David Dubinsky and Jacob Potofsky served as a special subcommittee 
of the AFL-CIO Executive Council studying the problem, said that 48,000 jobs in 
the manufacture of radio and television sets and components alone were lost from 
1966 to 1968. 

In Harlingen, Texas, close to the border, the Albertti Seafoods Co. won a decer- 
tification election against the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen, 
then moved most of its Texas plant into an expanded operation in Mexico. 

Two other plants organized by the Butchers in the area, Booth Fisheries and 
United Foods, both processors of shrimp, have decreased their operations tre- 
mendously, displacing more than 1,000 workers, since similar processing plants 
opened just across the border. 

Last year, a newsletter which analyses Latin American affairs in the United 
States said that Mexican economists are projecting an eventual employment of 
300.000 workers by the border industries, with a production of one billion dollars 
of goods a year, multiplying tenfold the already serious effect of the program on 
American unions and the considerable impairment of the federal minimum wage 
law. 

Two agents of TMEC are reported contacting electronic plants in Southern 
California. An American company which provides sewing machines for the Mexi- 
can garment plants reportedly has trucks soliciting manufacturers in Los Angeles 
to send their cut patterns to be sewn in Mexico. 

Nowhere in the elaborate brochures and prospectuses prepared by DATE of 
Tucson, or the El Paso Chamber of Commerce, or Joe Richards and Associates of 
Laredo, is there any mention of the Mexican program being an alternative to 
plants in Europe or the Far Bast. Their approach is direct : "If you have a labor- 
intensive production, move to Mexico." The same pitch is carried in Wall Street 
Journal advertisements. 

Joe Richards and Associates says in its brochure : "The only requirements for 
participation in Mexico's border industrialization program are that production 
be exported in its entirety and that Mexican labor be used." The firm offers 
assistance in securing permits, handling customs, furnishing legal and other pro- 
fessional services, compiling statistics, negotiating leases, and selling and financ- 
ing the product "worldwide," according to the brochure. 

Exactly which manufacturers are being lured to Mexico is virtually impossible 
to determine before the fact, and the established plants are as easy to inspect as 
the Chinese Communist atomic plants. Photographers hired in Laredo, El Paso 
and San Diego all were unable to come up with pictures inside existing plants. 
They said they were denied permiss-ion to enter the plants and shooed away by 
guards. 

United Press International, in a recent dispatch noted, "The stampede of 
American firms for locations south of the border has been a quiet one. Most of 
them are so security conscious they won't even admit what they manufacture 
until they actually have signed the papers and agreed to build their plants in 
Mexico." 

The government has joined the hide-and-seek game. A meeting in El Paso last 
April to tempt U.S. manufacturers to go into Mexico was sponsored by the U.S. 
Department Of Commerce as an "Executive Conference on World Trade." Jen- 
nings, protesting to President Nixon said in a telegram : "The Department of 
Commerce has no business serving as a front for international cheap labor 
manipulators." 



2761 

A similar conference was held in Brownsville in May, and more are scheduled. 

The solicitousness of the government toward businessmen is not matched by its 
attitude toward labox-. 

Henry Munoz Jr., equal opportunities director of the Texas AFL-CIO, re- 
quested information on the border program in February 1968, from Raymond 
Tulles, until recently chairman of the U.S. Section of the U.S.-Mexico Commis- 
sion for Border Development and Friendship. 

When Munoz got a reply, it was five months later, from the State Department. 
The letter said : "Unfortunately most of the information you requested is un- 
available to us." 

Andres Sandoval, a Texas AFL-CIO field representative, said that he asked 
Telles about the Viorder industry program, and Telles replied : "What border 
are you speaking of?" 

Speaking to a group of businessmen on the program, former U.S. Ambassador 
to Mexico Fulton J. Freeman said, "I have great confidence that this 1.800-mile 
boundary can continue to serve as an inspiring example of constructive and har- 
monious relations and of actions to the mutual benefit of two friendly neighbor- 
ing nations." 

The "inspiring example" may be as disastrous for Mexico as it is for the 
United States. 

In Nuevo Laredo, a 19-year-old girl named Maria Luisa sees her new job with 
Transitron in terms of a chance to get out of Mexico. "Well, maybe now I have 
a better chance of going to the United States," she said. "Maybe I'll get a 
chance to learn something." 

Last year, Maria Luisa was a live-in maid, earning the equivalent of $8 a 
week her meals and Sunday off. She said she still works six days, long hours at 
more intensive work, and now takes home $14 a week. She went through the 
three-week stoppage because, among other things, workers were not getting the 
mandatory one-half hour off for lunch. 

"They say we are going to get $26 a week when we finish our training, but 
who knows?" Maria Luisa said. "I have been working here more than seven 
months now. We all know the government, in order to bring these factories down, 
made a deal with the United States so that they don't have to pay us good money 
like they pay the American workers." 

How much does she think U.S. workers get? "At least $60 or $75 a week," she 
said. "We ought to get the same for the same work. Well, maybe at least $50." 

Through joint border committees, AFL-CIO unions along the border share 
information freely with their counterparts in the Mexican Confederation of 
Workers (CTM), and Maria Luisa's union representatives will have a chance to 
know exactly how much American workers are getting for the same jobs under 
an lUE contract. 

In negotiations with other electronics manufacturers, however, CTM repre- 
sentatives recently reported they were told by the employers that the govern- 
ment would not authorize any more than a 10 percent increase from the present 
earnings around the Mexican minimum wage because the workers were not 
classed as "professionals." 

Ambassador Freeman listed as one of the alleged benefits of the industry pro- 
gram that residents of the Mexican side of the border spend 50 to 80 percent of 
their earnings in the United States. 

lUE Representative Juan Mariscal, a native of Mexico, recently conducted an 
extensive survey, and his findings are much different. Housing, food, and serv- 
ices, including medical attention, are at least 50 percent cheaper on the Mexican 
side of the border, he said. Consumer goods like clothes and appliances are priced 
about the same. 

If Freeman were correct, then, the Mexican workers earning about $25 a week 
or less, would spend most of that either for expensive consumer goods made in 
the U.S., or for items which they can get more cheaply in Mexico. 

Asked if she shops in the United States, Maria Luisa replied angrily, "Are 
you crazy? You forget I get paid Mexican wages. Maybe I could buy some of the 
used clothing sold from boxes on the sidewalks, but the 'gringos' can keep that 
junk." 

The only times she has been shopping in tha United States, she said, have been 
when her cousin, a secretary in Mexico City, sends her some money to buy her 
some clothes or cosmetics not available in Mexico. "She always tells me to get 
something for myself," Maria Luisa said. "I get some hose, or maybe a sweater." 



2762 

Ambassador Freeman*s confusion is perhaps understandable. American shops 
on the border do sell a large quantity of consumer goods, particularly clothing and 
cosmetics, to Mexicans. 

A simple check with store clerks, however, quickly shows that these sales are of 
the most expensive merchandise, almost always to businessmen, artists or govern- 
ment oflScials from Mexico City or other principal cities of the Mexican interior. 
The buyers spend $300 or $400 cash at a time. They certaintly could not be $25 a 
week industrial workers. 

Maria Luisa's responses were fairly representative of those given by other 
workers in Matamoros, Reynosa, Piedras Negras, Ciudad Acuna, Juarez, Nogales, 
Mexican and Tijuana, border cities across or near Brownsville, McAUen, Eagle 
Pass, Del Rio and El Paso, Texas ; Nogales, Arizona, and Calexico and San Diego, 
California. In sum, Maria Luisa does not feel particularly lucky in having found 
an industrial job. 

"I don't like to be treated badly," she said. "The senora where I was a maid 
was very nice to me. At the job now I'm always nervous." 

A manager of one of the Tijuana plants would be surprised to hear such com- 
ments. He considers that American business is a blessing to the Mexican workers. 
"You can always tell a new gal," he said. "The first couple of days tliey gobble 
up six or seven doughnuts at every break." 

Maria Luisa said : "I work on these small things under a microscope, and they 
get very angry if we make any mistake or if we don't work fast enough. The 
foreuKiu always is trying to date us, and if we say no, we have problems, or we 
can get fired." 

Professor Pedro Perez Ibarra, general secretary both of the Nuevo Laredo 
CTM and the electronic workers local, describes Maria Luisa's bosses as "slave 
drivers of the worst sort." 

He said he believes the three-week stoppage at Transitron was only the 
beginning of their problems. "These companies feel that Mexico is just a field ripe 
for exploitation," he .said. "We're going to show them that's not so." 

American plants are being established in the Mexico border zone so quickly, and 
security is so tight, that up-to-date figures are hard to get. Most observers esti- 
mate that already there are 30,000 to 50,000 workers employed in the runaway 
plants, but the total easily could exceed twice that. 

There is general agreement, however, that at least 75 percent of the employes 
are women. Mariscal says that has created another problem. 

"They are destroying the Mexican family along the border," he said. "Up to 
just a few years ago, Mexican women did not work outside the home after they 
were married. Now you see many wives working while the husbands are 
unemployed." 

"Mexicans are proud, and nothing hurts a man's pride more than to feel 
'mantenido' (kept) by his woman," he said. ".Some of the men can't cope with it. 
They take to drinking, or they cross the border illegally to try to find work. 
Many don't go back." 

A number of economists have pointed out other adverse effects the program 
probably will have in Mexico. One article suggests that productivity is signifi- 
cantly lower in Mexican plants, and that even the great disparity in wages may 
not be sufficient to keep the plants in Mexico long. 

The same article claims that many companies are moving to Mexico just to 
postpone major capital investments in modern equipment. When the companies 
finally are forced to make the investment, they probably will want to return to 
the better trained American workers. A sudden withdrawal of such companies and 
the resulting unemployment would leave the area worse off than it was be-fore 
the plants came in, according to the economists. 

Several plants established in Tijuana have shut down, but information on the 
reasons is skimp and conflicting at this time. 

What is proving to be easily the most regrettable effect of the program on 
either side, however, is that the promise of new jobs acts like a magnet to attract 
thousands of families from the Mexican interior to the already overcrowded Mexi- 
can border cjties. 

Because of the "commuter" practice and the "bracero" agreement for Mexican 
farm labor ( now terminated ) , Tijuana exploded in 30 years from 20,000 to 400,000 
population. Unemployment now is estimated at close to 50 percent, and more people 
arrive daily. 






2763 

Approaching Tijuana, or Juarez, wliich also has multipled rapidly to its present 
500,000 population, one is struck by the pathetic sight of countless slum dwellings 
precariously clinging to the hillsides. 

Recent Mexican government figures indicate the country's population is rap- 
idly urbanizing, but a full 25 percent still is ''economically inactive." There are 
so many peasants migrating to Mexico City and the cities of the northern Mexico 
border that tliey have become a national institution with a popular nickname. 

Partly because of the way they load all their belongings on their backs, and 
mostly because they have no idea where they will land once they leave their 
rural homes, these migrating peasants are known as "parachutists." 

For ar family of such "paracaidistas." Esteban Macias, 34, and his wife and 
their .seven children, their landing was in an unimaginably squalid .slum over- 
looking El Paso across the border. 

For almost three months, they lived in a cave, until they could gather enough 
scraps of wood, cardboard and flattened tin cans to make a shack which does not 
look like it could stand a healthy sneeze. 

Macias was no stranger to poverty, but on the border the oppressive struggle 
has left him drained and submissive, an old man before 40. "My life is gone, and 
I have nothing," he said. "Nothing for me. Nothing to leave my children." 

The Macias family increa.singly is dependent for support on Susano, at 15 the 
oldest son, who is a "commuter." 

Officially, the U.S. government counts 12.000 "commuters" crossing from Oiudad 
Juarez to jobs in El Paso. The figure certainly is more likely tvvice that. Susano, 
who just a few months ago had never seen the United States, is not counted as a 
"Mexican alien commuter," and neither are about 45 to 65 percent of the "com- 
muters" who cross with documents purporting to prove they are American 
citizens. 

Some of the "commuters" actually are citizens. Susano, not having been born 
in the United States, "rents" a birth certificate. For $2 paid in advance, he can 
use the certificate for one day to cross into the United States, where he can 
earn $G to $8, if he finds work. 

When there is no work, he's out $2. and if he doesn't like the deal, there are 
plenty of others waiting to take his place. 

"Sometimes I have to work for even $3 a day, just to pay for 'el pasaporte,' 
bridge toll or bus fare, and have something left over to feed my little brothers." 
Susano said. 

If he doesn't maintain himself as a steady customer, someone about his age 
(and the age on the birth certificate) will be found and will be taught by rote 
the facts on the document which immigration officials, if they have the time, 
will ask: "Where were you born? On what date? What is your mother's name?" 

If he loses his turn, Susano will have to take his chances with jobs on the 
Mexican side, where the going rate is about 75 cents a day and work is much 
harder to find. 

The evidence of the abject ix)verty faced by the thousands who hoped to find 
a new and better life on the border is everywhere. In Tijuana, the lean-to's sit 
on the right-of-way between the highway to Mexicali and the fenced-off property. 
In Nuexo Laredo, they are but a minute from the million-dollar man.sion of the 
Longoria family. In Matamoros and Ciudad Acuiia, they trail along the river. 

In Piedras Negras, a young "wetback" named Enrique described what despera- 
tion bom of poverty can bring. Over coffee, obviously pained by the memory, he 
told this story : 

"We were screaming, praying, crying. It was so hot I could feel sweat pouring 
down my body. 

"I v:as suffocating, yet when I tried to breathe the stench made me dizzy and 
turned my stomach. I must have gone crazy for some time, because all I re- 
member is that finally I was so tired I wouldn't move. 

"I knew — we all knew^ — we were going to die." 

Enrique was one of 47 Mexicans attempting to enter the United States illegally 
who were locked in a hot and unventilated van so long that all had to be hospital- 
ized and three died. 

He left his wife and five children 50 pesos. $4, for food and took the rest of 
their meager savings and some borrowed money to seek work in the United 
States. At Piedras Negras, he found a recruiter who signed him up for jobs of 
$2 and $3 an hour in Chicago, and offered to take him there for a fee. 



3-513 O - 70 - pt. 5B - 16 



2764 

Tn the early mornin? hours of Sept. 30, 1968, Enrique and the 46 others, all 
from the northern Mexico countryside, hi;ddled in the darkness near the river 
across from Eajsle Pass. At about 2 a.m., they were led into the river and waded 
across, where $50 was collected from each. They then walked to a ravine near 
a deserted road where the man with the van picked them up around noon and 
collected another $50 before letting each one board. 

The men were crowded into a space 7 by 16 feet, and when the door was closed 
the heat and lack of fresh air quickly became intolerable. They iwunded on the 
sides and begged the driver to let them out. He replied the door had been pad- 
locked and he did not have the key. The van was driven to San Antonio, more than 
150 miles away, and there it was parked and abandoned. 

Passers-by heard noises from the van and called police, and tlie men were res- 
cued many iiour.'^ after their ordeal began. The three from whom rescue came too 
late received pauj^r's burials in San Antonio. 

Enrique and the other survivors were returned to Mexico by the U.S. Immi- 
gration Service. But Enrique did not go home. 

'•I can't go back until I have the money to pay back what I owe and to give 
my wife for what she has suffered without me." he .said. 

That may take some time. In Piedras Negras. working as a laborer in the day 
and cleaning up three bars and a restaurant at night he seldom makes as much 
as $1*2 a AA-eek. (Piedras Negras is about 75 miles from ^larroteran, where 156 
coal miners who were earning $6 to $17 a week recently were buried by an 
explosion.) 

Enrique is looking for a good job, but he is not optimistic. "Every day more 
come. They get off the buses by the dozen. Or they say they come by train, or 
walking or asking for rides, any way they can." 

Why do they keep coming if there are no jobs? "They hear there's much money 
to be made on 'la frontera' (the border)." Enrique «aid. "They're fools like me. 
Some may be lucky, but most of them come to suffer." 

"What's worse," he said, "some bring their families. Here you can't grow food. 
You don't have any land, or chickens, or goats for milk. For everything you 
have to pay. 

"Those are the ones I pity. You see them get more and more desperate. Then 
they get drunk because some little one died, or because their daughter ran off 
and they think she's selling herself to the 'gringos.' At least my woman and my 
children, they're where they can get food, too little maybe, but still enough to 
live. God keep them." 

Crossing from Mexicali into the U.S. at Calexico. one can't escape seeing a 
large sign in two languages informing "commuters" that their crossing cards, 
which "allow them to work in the United States" are not to be used to work 
at places where labor disputes have been certified by the Department of Labor. 
A list, the sign informs anyone interested, is avilable in the immigration oflSce. 

In preparation for their drive in the Coachella Valley of California, members 
of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee recently followed five bus- 
loads and assorted cars and pick-ups full of "commuter" farm workers going 
from Calexico the 90 or so miles to Coachella. 

The buses stopiied at many of the farms on the certified strike list, and the 
UFWOC members questioned the workers as they got off. They discovered that 
most of the "commuters"' had to arise at 1 a.m. to catch the bus and had long 
trips home after they were returned to Calexico. 

"I figured they were spending 16 hours for 8 hours pay," says the Rev. Jim 
Drake, nn aide to UFWOC Director Cesar Chavez. "That figures around 80 cents 
an hour.'' 

"Most of them didn't know they were going to work at a struck place," Drake 
said. "Rut once they got there, they had the choice of staying in the bus for 
eight hours without pay, or getting commercial transportation back, or, of course, 
going to work. In other words, they had no choice." 

In T^xas. a January 1968 survey showed 80 percent of the "commuters" inter- 
viewed in Laredo were earning less than $1.60 an hour. 

The presence of a seemingly limitless supply of ••commuter" labor com- 
pounds the daily work of union representatives on the border. 

David L. Jacobs, business agent of a Laborers local in Laredo, recalls a group 
of cafeteria workers striking for union recognition. "One of the pickets had a 
sign saying they were paid 25 cents an hour," Jacobs said. "The owner was 
very angry when he saw it. He said he actually was paying 32 cents." 



2765 

The strike resulted in recognition and a contract calling for $1 an hour in the 
third year. 

In EI Paso, Hector R. Garcia, president of the El Paso Central Labor Union, 
tells of a recent strike in which, after a 20-year bargaining history, the union 
had to remain out six months to keep arbitration in the agreement. Garcia said 
the union struck with 250 of 256 production employees on a Thursday to see 
300 strikebreakers hired by the following Monday at $1.60 an hour. 

By letting selfish economic interests mold its policy toward Mexico, the United 
States has managed to bring about the worst imaginable situations on either 
side of the border. 

On the United States side, there is talk of putting up picket lines at the 
international bridges to keep out the "commuters." 

On the Mexican side, anti-American literature circulates freely and thousands 
of industrial workers, students, and teachers call themselves "communists'" 
because they can't think of any other word which can adequately express their 
antipathy towards the United States. And one hears often repeated, not always 
with a smile, the plaintive lament of a former Mexican President, who said: 
"Poor Mexico — so far from God — and so close to the United States." 



2766 

Affidavits of 3 Persons Alleging IXS Intimidation, Harassment, Detention, 
AND Destructive Exposure of Pictures Taken at Border-Crossing Points 

affidavit 

My name is Ed Gaida. I live at 426i/^ West Woodla^^■n, San Antonio. Texas. My 
permanent occupation is that of a professional photograplier. I have been retained 
by the United States Commission on Civil Rights to photograph various condi- 
tions in the Rio Grande Valley. 

On Wednesday, November 27, 1968, I arrived by private automobile at the 
International Bridge at Hidalgo, Texas, which is just outside of the town of 
Hidalgo. Accompanying me was Mr. Duane Gibson, who is employed by the 
Texas Council of Churches and is a resident of the area. We arrived at the bridge 
at approximately 5 :30 in the morning, parking the car approximately a block 
from the actual customs house or border crossing point. Our purpose was to take 
pictures of Mexican nationals — often referred ito as commuters, green-card 
workers — crossing the International Bridge in order to do agricultural day labor 
in Texas. Mr. Gibson, who is familiar with the conditions in the Valley, had told 
me that at this particular time of the year this particular border crossing point 
would be quite active at this hour of morning because green peppers were being 
harvested in the area and that quite a large number of workers Avould be 
crossing the border from Mexico to work in the United States. Trucks were 
waiting to take the workers to farms in the area. 

Since it was too dark to photograph at that time we waited in the car until 
about 6:1.5 or 6:30. We then got out of our car and I walked across the street 
to a small waiting station — a bus waiting station — and started to take pictures 
of the people coming across the bridge, trying to photograph people who might be 
actual farm workers. I had two cameras with me, both of them around my neck. 
The specific shots that I was trying for at the time were the workers showing 
their credentials to the American official who would check them and nod them 
on through. 

I had taken two or three frames on a roll of film when an official appeared and 
asked me where I was from. His exact words were, "Where are you boys from?" 
I replied that I was from San Antonio. He asked me what I was doing and I told 
him that I was photographing green-card workers crossing the border. He asked 
me who I was taking these pictures for and I told him that I was taking them 
for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. There was no further word from him: 
he turned around and walked into the building there, the Customs house. 

This official, I inferred from his insignia, was an employee of the Texas Liquor 
Control Board. They are responsible, I believe, for affixing tax stamps to alcoholic 
beverages which are purchased in Mexico and brought across the border into 
Texas. 

At this time Mr. Gibson had been standing apjiroximately 15 feet from me. He 
was also shooting pictures. I call to Mr. Gibson and told him that I suspected 
that we were going to be in for some questioning about our reasons for being 
there. 

A'ery shortly after that. I would say within two minutes, it was certainly no 
more than that, an official came out of the building, ran over to where we were, 
literally, jogging — not a full gallop, but he was in a hurry to get to us. He came 
over and informed me that I was breaking the law. In fact he said this three or 
four times. He stated that it was against the law to take photographs at a port 
of entry to the United States without prior iiermission from the head of the port. 
And he kept asking me whether I knew that I was breaking the law. I said no, 
that I didn't and I asked him where I might speak to the head of the port— 
whose name was Mr. Snowball — and ask his permission. He informed Tue that the 
head of the port would not be there until after eight o'clock in the morning. He 
said that we had to come into the building and give our names and addresses. 
Mr. Gibson and I therefore walked into the offices there in the Customs house and 
we wrote down our names and addresses. He asked us to produce our driver's 
licenses to check to see whether what we had written agreed with what we had on 
our identification. He then told us that we could leave. The man who required us 
to give him our identification wore the uniform of a United States customs 
official. 

We walked out of the building, the customs building, across tlie street and 
down to where I had parked my automobile. We opened the doors of the car 



2767 

when suddenly a car bearing the insignia of the Sheriff or the Marshal of Hidalgo 
County drove up behind my car. In the car was a Deputy Marshal, who was 
wearing a gun, and the same customs official who had required us to produce our 
identification. The latter asked me who I worked for. His words were, "Does it 
have something to do with civil rights?" I said yes. He asked me whether I had 
any identification to prove that I worked for the Civil Rights Commission and I 
told him that I and that it was back in my motel room and that I would be happy 
to go get it for him. 

He then walked around to the other side of the car — the side opposite the 
driver's side — opened the door and proceeded to search my car, opening my large 
camera bag and throwing some coats and hats and things that I had lying on the 
back seat around. He then returned to the driver's side of the car and told Mr. 
Gibson and me that he was going to take our cameras. He took one camera from 
me — leaving the other — and he took Mr. Gibson's camera and then told us that we 
have to drive our car over to the Customs house where he would give us a receipt 
for the cameras he was taking. The camera he took from me is worth approxi- 
mately $400. 

I let liim take the cameras because I didn't know really whether or not I was 
breaking the law. I had no knowledge of any law concerning photography at a 
port of entry. I also felt at the same time that it was better to let him have the 
cameras than to argue with him because I did not know what my rights were. 
He perhaps would have forcibly detained me by putting me in jail or he could 
have turned me over to the Deputy Marshal. 

After taking the receipt Mr. Gibson and I got into my automobile and drove 
back to my motel room in McAUen. I called a friend of my family — a McAllen 
businessman — and asked him to intercede for me with Mr. Snowball. He returned 
my call approximately 15 minutes later and told me to go down and pick up my 
cameras and if there was any problem I was to call him and he would take care 
of it. 

Mr. Gibson and I got into the car and drove back to the Customs house. It was 
then about nine o'clock. I asked to see Mr. Snowball, who then came out. I 
introduced Mr. Gibson and myself and I presented him the letter I had from Mr. 
Clarence Hunter of the Civil Rights Commission. 

While Mr. Snowball was reading my letter I glanced at the wall over the desk 
and noticed that there was a frame there containing a li.st of statutes governing 
ports of entry to the United States. One of the sections was on photography. I 
cannot quote it verbatim but it says that photographs shall be ijermitted to be 
taken at ports of entry and that the only time permission is necessary from the 
head of the port is if the photographs are to be used for commercial or adver- 
tising purposes. 

When Mr. Snowball finished reading my letter I asked him, "Mr. Snowball, 
exactly what law have I broken?" He told me very nonchalantly that there was 
no law against taking photographs at border crossings or ports of entry to the 
United States. And I asked him if ithis was true why had the official that morn- 
ing informed me so very emphatically that I was breaking the law. I received no 
answer. Mr. Snowball then told me that he didn't like people misrepresenting 
them.selves as government employees and I told him that I was not misrepresent- 
ing myself and the letter which he had just read proved that I was actually 
there on business for the Commission on Civil Rights. I received no answer from 
Mr. Snowball to that point. 

Mr. Snowball then said, "Well, we don't like people sneaking around." I told 
him that I had not been sneaking around — I was standing right out in the broad 
open taking pictures. Again he did not reply. I presented Mr. Snowball with the 
receipt for the two cameras and he returned the cameras to me and to Mr. 
Gibson and told us that we were free to take pictures. It was, hov/ever, at this 
time approximately 9:15 in the morning which meant that all the commuting 
workers, green-card workers, had already crossed from Mexico into the United 
States and were well on their way to the fields if not already in the fields working. 

Thus, I was unable to obtain any photographs of green-card workers crossing 
the border; in other words I was unable to fulfill my assignment for the Civil 
Rights Commission. 

When I returned to San Antonio I sent all my film to a professional photo- 
finishing concern in Dallas. Texas. All of the film was high-speed Ektachrome 
film which gives color transparencies. When my slides were returned to me there 
were no pictures of workers crossing the border, although I know positively that 



2768 

I shot at least two or three frames on the roll of the workers. I was taking pic- 
tures with the telephoto lens of the workers presenting their credentials to the 
immigration oflBcial inside the building. 

Edwin E. Gaida. 
The State of Texas, 

County of Bexar. 
Before me. the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said Bexar County, 
Texas, on this day personally appeared ED GAIDA known to me to be the person 
whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me 
that he executed the same for the purposes and con.sideration therein expressed. 
Given Under my Hand and Seal of Office, This 12th dav of December, 1968 
A.D., 1968. 

Rose Annelle McClung 
Notary Public, Bexar County, Texas. 



February 7, 1969. 
To Whom It May Concern: 

February 3rd : I, Narcise Aleman. went to the Texas Employment Commission 
OflSce to be processed to find a job. I was notified by an employee of the Texas 
Employment Commission office that I would find a job if I would go to the 
Reynosa International Bridge, south of McAUen, Texais. The employee said that 
farm workers were hired there. 

February 4th : Marcos Lopez, from McAUen, Texas, and I arrived at the Rey- 
nosa International Bridge around 5:00 a.m. Marco.^ drove around the conglom- 
eration of people slowly, and from the car I took a picture of people, all dressed 
as farm workers, boarding a bus. We then parked the car and I moved away 
from it, taking pictures of the lines of trucks that were waiting to load people 
and in some cases loading them. After taking a few photographs of people, trucks, 
and people boarding trucks, I walked over to the checkpoint from which all of 
these people proceeded. 

From outside the building, through the glass wall, I snapped a picture of the 
steady flow of people from Mexico, all dressed as farm workers. Immediately, 
all of three immigration officers surrounded me and demanded the film. I said, 
"No, it is my film." Then one of them said. "Then destroy the film." I replied, 
"Why should I?" I offered to return the picture after it was developed, but they 
said to expose it, to which I answered that I had already turned it to the next 
picture. Then I was told that I should come into the building while they called 
their boss, Mr. Snowball. Then, the Mexican-American officer ask-d, "Who are 
you? What are you doing here?" I told him my name and said, in Spanish, that 
I was working for the National Student Association and we were conducting 
an academic study of the area to learn what effect the influx of Green Carders 
had upon the citizens of the Rio Grande Valley and how this affected the educa- 
tional level of the Mexican-American students, but he did not seem cor^vinced. 
He asked to see my identlflcation papers and I informed him that I had forgotten 
my billfold at home. Then to officer said that I could not prove who I was or 
what I was doing. I told him that it was my word against his. He said, "Yes. but 
I work here." I said, "Yes. but I pay the taxes that pay your salary." Second 
officer : "You have violated a federal regulation that prohibits taking photographs 
on federal property." "Tliere is no national security involved here." "Neverthe- 
less." "Show me the regulation under which you are holding me." Second officer : 
"I don't have to." The same officer continued, "Leave the camera here and you 
can pick it up after eight." "How do I know you won't destroy the film while 
I am gone?" Same officer, "Then you will have to '«tay here until our boss comes." 
"That's all right, I'll just keep the camera." All during this dialogue there were 
people coming through the checkpoint. While they were coming through, the offi- 
cers took turns asking me questions and threatening me with arrest. 

Finally, after what seemed like a long time, they said that they had called 
the City Marshall. I was too scared to think of measuring the time that I was 
interrogated at the checkpoint, or to get the officers' names, or even to think 
that I was on federal property and that the Ridalgo, Texas city marshall had 
no jurisdiction on federal property ; therefore, he could not legally arrest me. 

I tried to determine for sure what I was being arrested for, but all they said 



2769 

was for taking pictures on federal proi>erty. I said that I needed to know in 
order to notify my attorney, but tlie city marsliall said. "You do that later, 
right now, you come with me." At this point, he took me by the arm and led 
me to his car. One of the officers signed a blank and did not fill in what I was 
charged with. For all practical purposes, I was being charged with that officer's 
signature. I explained in the car to the city marshall, in Spanish, what I was 
doing and whom I worked for. I tried to get him to say that I was under arrest, 
but he just kept saying that I was being "detained." It was not until about two 
hours later that I was able to talk to the judge and she said that there was no 
regulation and that I was free to go. After all of that fear and discomfort, 
there was no law that I had violated, but because three federal employees 
thought themselves above the law and invented a law that never existed, I 
went through all that hell. 

We the undersigned witness that the above text is correct and true to the best 
of our ability. 

Narcise Aleman. 

Marcos Lopez. 



Affidavit 

My name i.s Duane Gibson. I live at 218 AV. Gare, Pharr, Texas. I am working 
with the migrant ministry of the Texas Council of Churches, in the lower Rio 
Grande Valley. 

On the morning of November 27. 1968, I was with Ed Gaida. 426^^ West Wood- 
lawn, San Antonio, Texas. We arrived at the International Bridge outside of 
Hidalgo, Texas, at approximately 5:30 in the morning. I was with Mr. Gaida 
until about 10:30 that morning, when he left the valley to return to San 
Antonio. 

I have read the Affidavit of Mr. Gaida. concerning what happened to the two 
of us at the bridge that morning, and affirm that it is true. As in his report. 
My camera was also taken away, and returned several hours later. 

On the evening of November 26, 1968, I removed a roll of 20 exposure film from 
my camera and put in a roll of 36 exposure film. That evening I took several pic- 
tures on the new roll. Then, at the bridge on Wednesday morning, November 27, 
1968, I took three more pictures before having my camera taken away. To my 
knowledge, my camera was in fine working order at the time it was taken away. 
As I have said, it was returned to me several hours later by Mr. Snowball. 

Later that afternoon, I was using the camera elsewhere, and noticed that the 
built-in light meter seemed to fail to function. During the next several days I 
finished that roll of film, and had it developed with the roll of 20 exposures. 
When they were returned, all 20 pictures on the first roll were ok, and the ones 
taken up to and including the pictures taken at the bridge on the second film 
were ok. There was not a single good picture from any of the frames on the 
rest of the film. I had a local studio .send the camera to the New York Com- 
pany (Voightlander) for repair. I received word that because the camera had 
been dropped, the light meter needed to be replaced and several adjustments 
were needed. I have never dropped the camera, or mishandled it. This repair 
bill cost me $49.40. I feel that the meter was broken while in the hands of 
the Customs' Agent at the International Bridge, and, by law, they had no right 
to take the cameras from us. 

Duane Gibson. 

The State of Texas, 
County of Hidalgo 

Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said county of Hidalgo. 
Texas, on this day personally appeared Duane Gibson known to me to be the 
person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged 
to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein 
expressed. 

Given Under my Hand and Seal of Office, this 5th day of February, 1969 
A.D., 1969. 



2770 

LABOR DISPUTES— CURRENT, JULY 23, 1969 



Date 
Employer Address determined 



CALIFORNIA (AGRICULTURAL) 

Giumarra Vineyards Corp Post Office Bin 1969, Bakersfield July 28,1967 

W. B. Camp, Jr .- Post Office Box 576, Bakersfield Jan. 31, 1968 

Anton Caratan & Sons Route 1, Box 720, Delano Do. 

M. Caratan Route 1, Box 258, Delano Do. 

Jake Cesare 1835 Terrace Place, Delano Do. 

Louis Carlo & Sons. Route 1, Box 360, Delano Do. 

Bruno Dispoto Post Office Box 1148, Delano Do. 

P.J. Divizich Fruit Corp. Post Office Box 97, Ducor -. Do. 

Frank Gallo Post Office Box 337, McFarland Do. 

Geqrge A, Lucas & Sons Post Office Box 74, Earlimarf Do. 

Frank A. Lucich.. Post Office Box 1266, Delano Do. 

John Pagliarulo - - Route 1, Box 869, Delano Do. 

Pandol & Sons... . Route 2, Box 388, Delano... Do. 

Gene Radovich _ Post Office Box 69, Delano Do. 

Jack Radovich Corner of Road 200 and Avenue 4, Richgrove Do. 

Sandrini Bros... Route 1, Box 362, McFarland Do. 

D. M. Steele & Sons Post Office Box 1350, Delano. Do. 

Tudor & Sons Route 1, Box 217, Delano Do. 

A & N Zaninovich Trocha Strip between Road 184 and Road 188, Delano. Do. 

George Zaninovich 1837 Terrace Dr., Delano Do. 

Marko Zaninovich Route 1, Box 725, Earlimart Do. 

Marion Zaninovich Avenue 24, Road 192, Richgrove Do. 

Vincent Zaninovich 1839 19th St., Val Verde Lane, Delano Do. 

Vincent Zaninovich & Sons Post Office Box 1268, Delano Do. 

Chuchian Farms Route 1, Box 66, Coachella June 18, 1968 

David Freedman Co., Inc Post Office Box 501, Thermal June 20, 1968 

Ara Herbekian/Mel-Pack Ranch Post Office Box 534, Thermal June 26, 1968 

Coachella Vineyards... 561474 Highw/ay 111, Thermal Do. 

John Zaninovich.. 2124 Riviera Dr., Vista. June 28, 1968 

Ross Cariaga 1120 Date St., Coachella Do. 

H. & M. Ranch Co Highway 99, Oasis Do. 

Richard Bagdasarian.. Post Office Box 698, Mecca.. Do. 

Richard Glass & Co., Inc... Post Office Drawer SSS, Indio. Do. 

Cy Muradick & Sons. 81078 Avenue 45, Indio July 2,1968 

R. W. Blackburn & Sons Route 2, Box 266, Thermal July 5, 1968 

Karahadian & Son, Inc.. Post Office Box 756, Thermal Dn 

Eugene Nalbandian, Inc.. Post Office Box 665, Lamont July 19, 1968 

John Kovacevich Post Office Bin 448, Arvin... Do. 

William Mosesian Route 6, Box 522, Bakersfield Do. 

Berge Kerorian 2720 Rio Vista Dr., Bakersfield... Do. 

Charles Malovich.. Post Office Box 541, Arvin.. Do. 

Kern Valley Farms Post Office Box 505, Lamont July 23, 1968 

Frank Guidera Post Office Box 2384, Bakersfield July 31,1968 

Johnston Farms Edison Highway, Edison... Aug. 7, 1968 

R & L Farms (Roberts and Laborde) 986 Davis Ave., Post Office Box 326, McFarland Feb. 19, 1969 

CALIFORNIA (nonagricultural) 

Bermite Co. (Division of Whittaker Corp.) Post 0;fice Box 1751, Indio Apr. 23, 1969 

TEXAS (AGRICULTURAL) 

Griffin & Brand (Trophy Farms) Post Office Box 1840, McAllen July 10, 1957 

La Casita Farms Rio Grande City Do. 

A. B. Margo Farms do Do. 

Rancho Grande & Ringgold Farms do.. Do. 

Starr Farms Co. (Los Puertos Plantation) Rio Grande City, Starr Co Do. 

Sun-Tex Farms do Do. 

TEXAS (NONAGRICULTURAL) 

Transport Co. of Texas 2728 Agnes St., Post Office Box 151, Corpus Christi.. May 3, 1968 

Alamo Express, Inc 51 Essex St., San Antonio June 14, 1968 

Darbyshire Steel Co., Inc 1900 E. Paisano Dr., El Paso. Mar. 7, 1969 

Texas Steel Corp Post Office Box 991, Harlingen July 2,1969 

Source: Immigration and naturalization Service, Justice Department, Washington, D.C. 



The "Green-Carder" as a Farm Laborer — Pros and Cons Regarding the 
Resident Alien Situation 

(By E. Russell Carter, National Council of Churches) 

The Section on Migrant Ministi'y has joined many other agencies and in- 
dividuals concerned with the many social-economic problems related to one degree 
or another with immigration policies and regulations, in searching for some 



2771 

means to stabilize and regularize the movement of alien traffic in the USA as it 
relates to farm labor. 

The so-called "green card" issue is seen by many as the one major factor 
threatening the success in building of community among farm workers, in 
organizing for betterment, and general reduction of the high percentage of un- 
employment of domestic laborers in our nation. Quite obvious is the negative 
impact of certain of our immigration practices and enforcement ix»licies on 
the efforts of farm workers to improve their lot. We have been persistently 
consistent for many years in saying this must be changed. 

Vice President Humphrey, in a letter to Cesar Chavez seems to agree to the fact 
that an answer must be found. He states : 

"If the fault is looseness in enforcement, the enforcement must be changed 
and tightened. If the fault is in the national administrative policy, then 
that must be changed. I think you are correct in your analysis that no 
reasonable degree of fairness in recognizing the rights of farm workers, on 
a comparable basis with other American workers, can occur without sub- 
stantive change in enforcement of immigration procedures to accompany 
the extension of the NLRA to farm workers." 
With this we all agree. 

But to be able to come up with the reasonable and workable solution of an 
unbelievably complex and baffling problem, we must become thoroughly cog- 
nizant of its complexity, clear as to its ramifications, and perhaps dispel our- 
selves of some generally held assumptions. 

I have attempted to gather some facts and observations from various quarters. 
These include the U.S. Department of Labor, Attorney General Ramsey Clark, 
the Immigration office of Church World Service, and others. Such has, to a de- 
gree, clarified my thinking and also, even more, mystified me. I am sure the fol- 
lowing remarks may have the same effect upon some of you. 

However, to the point that we may eventually find a constructive solution to 
this vexing problem, let me try by spelling out some assumptions oft times 
heard in our circles. 

ASSUMPTION I 

Bearers of alien registration cards (Form 1-151) known as "green carders" 
are compelled by law to establish residence in the U.S. within a specified time. 

False While it is true that an applicant requests the "green card" for the 
I)urpose of establishing residence in the U.S., once the card is issued he is under 
few restrictions, including any compulsion to remain physically in such resi- 
dence or even in the country. 

Actually what a "green card" really does is extend "permanent residence rights 
in the U.S." or the right to cxitabli.sh resideney if so desired, with no provisions 
to make mandatory physical presence in such rcsiidence. Charles Gordon and 
Harry Rosenfield. writing in Immigration Law and Proeedure, Volume 1, 1967, 
describes this device as an "amiable fiction, since the commuter is coming tem- 
porarily and usually returns to his home in Canada or Mexico each night." 

ASSUMPTION II 

In light of the "establishment of residence in the U.S.," clause commuting as 
witnessed on the U.S. Mexican border and the Windsor*, Canada-Detroit "fron- 
tier" is illegal. 

False Since there is no legal requirement for the recipient to re.side in resi- 
dence in the U.S.A. even though he petitioned for the alien visa which extends 
lawful admission for permanent residence prior to issuance of the "green card," 
he is free to "travel or live where be pleases." As stated by James C. Nix, labor 
economist. Office of Farm Labor Service, Bureau of Employment Security, 

"They must pay taxes, are subject to the military draft, and may travel 
or live where they please. Some of the Mexicans, in fact, continue to live 
in Mexico and migrate .seasonally to the Ignited States or commute daily 
to jobs in border areas like the Rio Grande and Imperial Valleys." 

ASSUMPTION III 

The "green card" concern is primarily one of the Mexican farm tcorker and 
must therefore be dealt with basically in that frame of reference. 

False Although they perhaps have more publicity than other occupational 
categories of "green carders," Mexican farm itorkers make up only a small 



I 



2772 

fraction of the total. Only 5.5 percent of a sample in a recent survey entered 
their occupations as farm workers or foremen and another .7 i>ercent as farmers 
or farm managers. 

In 1965, of a total of 681.100 Mexicans filing alien address cards in the U.S., 
34,700 were identified as farm laborers and foremen. 

This category was exceeded b.y those filing as operatives and kindred workers, 
laborers (except farm and mine), housewives, students, tho.se retired, and 
children under 14 years. 

ASSUMPTION IV 

The "green carder" concern in the U.S. is primarily that of the southwest or 
California scene involving Mexicans with only limited relationship to the 
national scene. 

False In 1065 there were 280,212 new alien registration cards (Form 1-151) 
issued in the U.S.A. These represented practically every category in the occupa- 
tional field ranging from the "unemployed" to highly skilled labor and practically 
every profession. The.*e came from an exceedingly wide range of countries. 

Therefore, in recalling the figure of 34,700 Mexican farm icorkcr.s of that year, 
we must reach the reasonable conclusion, that the phenomena of the southwest 
Mexican "green carder" as he relates to the employment scene of that area, must 
be considei'ed as part, and a relatively small part at that, of a national phe- 
nomenon, and that any remedial action or program must "make sense" for the 
total situation and not narrowly restricted to that area which involves farm 
concerns only, often even more narrowly restricted in our thinking to the 
southwest and west. 

ASSUMPTION V 

Since the Secretary of Labor in 1965 issued a directive that no "green carder" 
will be certified for work in situations where labor disputes exist, the presence 
of either resident or commuter "green carders" at work on "struck farms" 
is a violation of such a directive. 

False In the fir.st place the Secretaries directive docs not apply to those 
''green cards" which were issued prior to the issuance of the direct ive. 

Therefore any "green carder" having received such a card prior to that time 
is free to work in such situations. 

Secondly, "only tho.se aliens in possession of alien registration receipt cards, 
indicating that they have been granted permanent residence rights in the U.S. 
(the so-called green card), irho entered the U.S. subsequent to the Secretary of 
Labor finding that a labor dispute exists at a given place of employment, and 
intend to be employed and actually are employed by that employer, come within 
the scope of (the) regulation." (Included in a letter from U.S. Department of 
Justice, August 12, 1968). 

The Department of Justice points out that. 

"the vast majority of the holders of "green cards." over three million of 
them, who maintain their year round residence in fact in the U.S. are not 
precluded by this regulation from being employed at a struck place of 
employment." 

ASSUMPTION VI 

What is needed to solve this problem is a change in the law to compel holders 
of the "green cards" to in fact establish permanent residence in the U.S.A. 
within six months after issuance of such alien registration receipt card, and 
thus eliminate the commuter traffic so prevalent today. 

Largely False Such a proposal poses considerable pros and cons whioh should 
be carefully weighed. 

1. Such a law would have to apply "across the board" to all holders of the 
"green card," not just the farm workers commuting from Mexico to work in the 
southwest or west. 

2. Such a law would fail, it seems to this writer, to eliminate commuting. 
There is no law in the U.S.A. which dares to state that a citizen, native born or 
naturalized, who has an established re-sidenee in the country is required to live 
in it. Indeed no law restricts a resident of the U.S. from living and working 
abroad indefinitely, or even commuting to such a country if he desires. Such 
privilege would extend to the immigrant who becomes a resident citizen of the 
U.S.A. 



2773 

3. There would be certain gain in such a law should it be enforceable, in that 
it perhaps would : 

(a) tend to decrease commuting, 

(&) tend to increase a resident population, which could feasibly open up 

opportunities ; 

1. for education, and enlightenment re : issues, loyalties, commitments, 
etc., 

2. better enable organizing efforts which are so seriously hampered if 
not eliminated in a predominantly commuter situation. 

Let us not let the complexity and frustrating aspects of this problem frighten 
u.q off. They are certainly not listed to indicate any de.sire on my part to back 
off from this situation. Rather, it is an effort to indicate in some degree the 
frame of reference, the platform from which we have to work and devise our 
procedure and strategy. It is a problem far greater than our.selves. Let us recog- 
nize it as such and admit it. In so doing we may be tapping many shoulders of 
potential allies we know not of. 

What seems to be called for at this point? 

1. As pointed out, there are laws on the books and administrative rulings in 
the record. As inadequate as they may be, a meticulous administration of these 
laws and rulings must be forthcoming. We have a responsibility to watch-dog this 
one. 

2. W^hile the nature and shape of new and strengthened legislation is very foggy 
at this point, there must be continuous study and exploration of such possibilities, 
keeping in mind the broad and inclusive aspects of the problem. 

3. While we must not depend upon it, time itself may tend to lead to a solution. 
Writing in Farm Labor Developments, U.S. Department of Labor of Manpower 
Administration, James C. Nix states: 

"The current policy severely restricting admission of immigrants for 
agricultural work prevents an influx of young workers from Mexico. At the 
same time, the ranks of the middle-aged and elderly farm workers will be 
thinned out not only by retirement and death, but aLso by the tendency of 
the immigrants to move from agricultural to non-agricultural work. The 
results should be a net decrease in the number of "green carders" in 
agriculture." 

4. In the final analysis, however, we come to recognize the ludicrous fact that 
the ultimate and telling force to control or even eliminate this major threat to 
indigenous organization and self betterment is a strong and effective indigenous 
organization itself. If time would allow someone should research the effect the 
United Auto AVorkers, for in.stance, has on the number of Canadian commuters 
crossing into Detroit who are working in the automobile plants irithout sanction 
of the union. Such organization and control, in my estimation, is the one effective 
and long term means of solving this baffling problem, as arduous, long-term and 
heartbreaking as it may be. 



2774 



THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 



THE SHORT-RUN SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE TERMINATION 
OF PUBLIC LAV7 78 ON THE CALIFORNIA FARM LABOR MARKET 
FOR 1965-1967 



by 

THE REVEREND VICTOR PAUL SALANDINI, M.A. 



A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the School of 
Arts and Science of The Catholic University of America 
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the 
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 



June, 1969 
Washington, D,C, 



2775 



DISSERTATION 



THE SHORT-RUN SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE TERMINATION OF PUBLIC 
LAW 78 ON THE CALIFORNIA FARM LABOR t-lARKET FOR 1965-1967 



Prior to 1870 Califoimia was a grain and cattle country, 
characterized by specialization and large-scale ownership. 
Subsequently a continuing abundant supply of labor along with 
production and marketing conditions offered the opportunity 
for a highly profitable transition to labor-intensive fruit 
and vegetable farming. Thus, in California, the pattern of 
seasonal labor use evolved into dependence upon large numbers 
of migratory seasonal farm workers as the magnitude of 
demands for hired farm labor was too great to be fulfilled by 
relying upon the work of all members of the farm family and 
the cooperative exchange of work with neighbors. 

Of equal significance are the sources of supply of the 
seasonally hired labor upon which California agriculture has 
depended. Originally these sources included Chinese, Japanese, 
and other Asians. After their exclusion industrial inactivity 
led to a great infltjx of American vagrants. 

World War I saw this supply of labor depleted. Growers 
turned to Mexico as their latest source of labor, and Mexicans 
came to dominate the seasonal farm labor scene until the Great 
Depression. With the onset of World War II a renewed interest 
in employing Mexican nationals led to formalizing of the 
provisions whereby farm workers under contract could enter the 
United States until 1947. After several years of unsatisfactory 
experience Public Law 78 was enacted in 1951 in response to 
demands of the Mexican Government and a possible farm labor 
shortage arising from the Korean emergency. 

Recognizing that farm labor shortages no longer existed 
and that employment opportunities, wage rates, and working 
conditions of the domestic farm worker desperately needed 
improving, Congress did not extend the Mexican contract farm 
labor program after December 31, 1964. 

This dissertation examines the short-run socio-economic 
effects of this program. It concludes that the large-scale 
employment of Mexican contract workers resulted in over- 
production of fruits and vegetables and had a depressing effect 
on farm market prices. It further concludes that the program 
deprived domestic farm workers of employment opportunities, 
adversely affected their wage rates, and lowered measurably 
their living standards. It was ever3^here evident that a 
positive farm manpower policy was needed. 

Strong emphasis is given to the fact that a large, undefined 
labor supply of illegal entrants and resident aliens is 
available in the Southwest. Therefore, effects of the termi- 
nation of Public Law 78 were only minimal and transient. 



2776 



INTRODUCTION 

Foreij^n workers have been an important source of 
farm labor in California from the beginning. With the 
entry of the United States into V/orld V/ar II demand for 
production mounted at a time when American farm workers 
were entering defense emplojmient. As a result, an agree- 
ment was reached with the Mexican Government that Mexican 
workers would be brought officially into the United States 
to assist in agricultural work. The interesting story of 
the interaction of politics and economics in this endeavor 
is examined here with major emphasis being given to the 
resulting social and economic effects on the California 
farm labor market. 

Statement of the Problem 
One of the most complex problems in the economic 
and social environment of today derives from seasonal farm 
employment. For the farmer the ever-present problem is 
getting a sufficient amount of capable labor to meet the 
peak harvest needs. For the seasonal farm worker the 
perennial problem is that of securing employment in order 
to meet living expenses. Synthesizing of these incongruous 
needs into a workable program has increasingly claimed the 
interest and concern of the American public. 



2777 



California's industrialized form of agriculture 
depends on wage laborers. The number of these workers 
needed varies widely from season to season and from crop 
to crop. Harvesting of the different fruits and vegetables 
is the major labor-consuming operation. The ensuing 
variation in the levels of employment may readily be seen 
from the high and low emplojTn(=nt figures for four counties 
for the years 1955, 1958, 1961, 1964, 1965, and 1967 shown 
in Table 1. For example, emplo3anent in San Joaquin County 
in 1955 varied from a low of 13,960 in March to a high of 
37,000 in October, a difference of almost twice the low 
employment figure. 

This wide spread between the high and low number 
of workers required for these counties points up how 
dependent the area is on a flexible supply of local and 
migrant temporary labor. Except in Ventura County the 
peak demand was two or three times the number required in 
the month of lowest labor needs. Total agricultural 
employment in these counties was used as giving a better 
idea of the magnitude of unemployment and underemployment 
existing in the farm labor force. Underemployment of 
farmers and unpaid family workers and year-ro\ind hired 
domestic workers makes for a loss to society in lower 
production and results in the standard of living of these 
groups being lower even if not intolerable. It is 
recognized that totals and averages can obscure facts and 



2778 



TABLE 1 

MINIKUM AND MAXIMU!'! EMPLOYMENT OF FARM WORKERS 
FOR SELECTED COUNTIES AND YEARS 





MINIMA 


MAXIMU!--! 


County and Year 




Number 




Number 




Month 


Work in e; 


Month 


Working 


Imperial County 










1955 


August 


8,590 


January 


16,290 


1958 


AU2;ust 


9,210 


December 


21,180 


1961 


Au!5ust 


7,010 


February 


18,190 


1964 


August 


4,810 


November 


13,770 


1965 


September 


4,980 


November 


10,850 


1967 


December 


4,640 


November 


13,830 


Monterey County 










1955 


. January 


5,130 . 


September 


11,680 


1958 


January 


5,790 


July 


16,280 


1961 


January 


5,700 


September 


18,160 


1964 


January 


7,420 


September 


19,530 


1965 


January 


5,760 


June 


15,530 


1967 


January 


6,310 


July 


14,000 


San Joaquin County 










1955 


March 


13,960 


October 


37,000 


1958 


December 


14,890 


September 


34,560 


1961 


December 


13,000 


October 


29,760 


1964 


March 


11,650 


June 


27,680 


1965 


March 


11,750 


June 


25,650 


1967 


November 


11,000 


October 


24,580 


Ventura County 










1955 


January 


8,820 


October 


12,970 


1958 


January 


10,570 


October 


16,040 


1961 


December 


10,460 


October 


14,920 


1964 


November 


8,500 


May 


13,780 


1965 


January 


8,040 


July 


13,080 


1967 


January 


9,110 


May 


12,490 



Source: California State Department of Employment, 
Report # 88 IM 



2779 



trends and therefore mislead. For instance, all e;roups 

of workers in Imperial County tended to fluctuate constantly 

1 
v/hereas this was not true for the other three counties. 

A major effort to do something about the plight 
of the American farm worker culminated in the termination 
of Public Law 78 on December 31, 1964. Public Law 78, 
enacted in 1951, became an enduring arrangement for what 
had begun in 1942 as a war-time measure to offset farm 
labor shortages. The bracero program under Public Law 78 
had as its purpose to provide a source of supplemental farm 
labor through the contracting of Mexican nationals to per- 
form seasonal farm hand labor in areas of the United States 
where the Secretary of Labor certified that there was a 
farm labor shortage. 

Many varied but interrelated questions concerning 
the possible socio-economic consequences attended the termi- 
nation of the program. The important implications for 
growers centered around the need for and the ability to 
obtain workers or to make adjustments in production. 

To domestic farm workers, termination of the 
program and the resulting increase in grower competition 
for domestic workers were expected to mean increased employ- 
ment opportunities, higher wages, and improved working 
conditions. 

1 
Having lived in Imperial Vallev from 1957-1962, 
the author is aware of the facts that families go North 
in the summer because of the high temperatures and that 
most of the fairmers have the status of operators rather 
than owners. That is, unpaid family members in the farm 
labor force varied in this county but not in the others. 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5B - 17 



2780 



Public officials were faced v;ith the need to 
develop programs to provide maximuTi employment opportuni- 
ties for domestic year-round and seasonal hired workers 
and at the same time to help growers meet their peak 

seasonal labor needs. The United States Department of Labor 

2 
launched an intensive program to meet these needs. 

Probably the most significant action undertaken by the 

Secretary of labor was that of prescribing an increase in 

the hourly wage standards that must be offered to domestic 

workers to obtain certification that domestic vrorkers were 

3 
not available. Concern was also expressed by the Fairmers 

Home Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, 

over the possibility that discontinuance of Public Law 78 

would have a major impact on its housing program as the 

Mexican contract workers were single men and their potential 

4 
replacements would have differing housing needs. 

Scope and Importance of the Study 
The general objective of this dissertation is to 
provide a better understanding of the socio-economic 

2 

California, Department of Employment, California 
Annual Farm Labor Report , 1<565, pp. 19-21. 
3 

U.S. Department of Labor, Regulations Governing 
Applications for Foreign Workers for Temporar^^ Agricultural 
Employment in the United States under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act . December 19, 1964. 
4 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 
Service, Termination of the Bracero Program , Agricultural 
Economic Report 77, June 1965, p. iii. 



2781 



consequences of termination of the program for contracting 
Mexican farm labor. Specifically, the study deals with the 
controversy surroundin?^ the program - the balancing of the 
needs of the growers for additional labor as^ainst the needs 
of domestic farm workers for regular employment at adequate 
wages, under acceptable working and living conditions. 

California was selected for the study because 
agriculture is particularly significant to the State's 
economy, and many unique features of its agriculture are 
now being profitably adopted throughout the United States. 
Moreover, it is the nation's highest user of hired farm 
labor. Thus the need to secure supplemental farm labor is 
greatest. To meet this need California has throughout its 
history turned to foreign sources - first the Chinese, 
then the Japanese, and finally the Mexicans in 1917, 

Characteristics of California's agriculture, giving 
rise to the need for large nximbers of seasonal workers and 
thereby to the use of foreign labor to meet the need, are 
elaborated upon in Chapter I. Chapter II sets forth the 
details of Public Law 78 and subsequent regulations and 
requirements for obtaining foreign workers and describes 
the many different groups that make up the seasonal farm 
work force. Thus a breakdown of the California farm labor 
force into its various components, each with its own 
particular problems and special impact on the operation of 
the farm work force as a whole, sets the stage for the 
analysis to follow. 



2782 



Solutions for economic problems common to a 
community or an area are often closely intertwined with 
the legislative process. The confirmation of a solution 
by legislators does not mean, hov^ever, that the differences 
in position of various groups have been clearly understood 
and the problem resolved in a manner that does not unfairly 
impinge on a particular group. Discussion may have to 
continue for a long time, as can be seen in Chapter III, 
before the issues become clarified and a better solution 
found. 

It was thought that the entire discussion of 
short-run socio-economic effects might be lost on readers 
who have not had an opportunity to become aware of the 
unique economic and natural characteristics affecting 
agricultural labor use and the large, undefined sources 
adding to the supply of farm labor available. Hence, 
these important economic factors are explicitly stated in 
Chapter IV, 

The research was conducted in Imperial, Ventura, 
Monterey, and San Joaquin Counties. These counties are 
areas in which contracted Mexican farm laborers constitute 
a significant part of the labor force. Data on the 
specific crops of asparagus, lemons, lettuce, strawberries, 
tomatoes, and Valencia oranges are used in the analysis. 
(Location of these counties and crops are shown in Figure 1.) 
They are both labor-intensive and the principal crops of the 
chosen counties. Moreover, it is felt that these counties 



2783 



FIG. I - SELECTED COUNTIES AND CROP ACTIVITIES 



CALIFORNIA 




2784 



and crops are representative of broader areas so that the 
research results will have application to importation of 
foreign seasonal workers for agriculture in the future. 
Among the topics for analysis are the following: 

1. Problems of the growers (Chapter V) 

a) adequacy of the farm labor supply for acreage 
under cultivation; 

b) shifts in location and curtailment of farm 
production ; 

c) adverse effects on the growers' competitive 
place in domestic and foreign markets, 

2. Conditions of the farm worker (Chapter VI) 

a) factors affecting farm wage rates and compari- 
son of hourly wage rates in agriculture with those in 
industry J 

b) employment opportunities as indicated by annual 
earnings and lack of need for public assistance; 

c) adequacy of housing facilities, field sani- 
tation, and safety measures. 

The contrast between conditions of emplojmient of 
the industrial worker and the farm worker leads to a full 
discussion of the role unions have and might come to play 
in solving worker related problems in agriculture. 

Chapter VII focuses on loss of job opportunities, 
on the depressing effect on wage rates, and on impairment 
of working conditions for the domestic farm labor force 
resulting from the existence of a supplemental farm labor 
supply. 



2785 

PART III. EVALUATION OF DATA AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 
CHAPTER VII 

SHORT-RUN SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF 
PUBLIC LAW 78: CONCLUSIONS 

Throughout the Congressional debates there were 
assertions and reports of the economic effects of Public 
Law 78. Many of the statements on economic effects 
directly conflicted. The material belov; based on previous 
chapters is set forth as a basis from v;hich to develop 
constructive solutions for dealing with what was admit- 
tedly a difficult and serious problem. 



Imbalance between Agricultural 
Output and Demand 



It Is apparent that the most important economic 
effect for the farmer is the change in net income position. 
The California farmer has at his command legal machinery 
granted by both Federal and State governments to stabilize 
and improve his marketing returns. In the context or 
seeking a permanent solution to the economic problems 
farmers face, economists express doubts as to the validity 
of the present programs used. Economic analysis indicates 
that farmers should strengthen their bargaining position 
in the market place. 



2786 



There has been excess production of farm coiranod- 
ities compared to the quantities demanded by domestic and 
foreign consumers at existing prices. 'rhile the absolute 
effect on output of the use of foreign nationals for farm 
work has not in most cases been large, the effect relative 
to the excess output is significant. Large expenditures 
have been thought necessary in order to provide a satis- 
factory level of income for farm operators and the members 
of their families. As is well known, several billion 
dollars have been spent to restrict agricultural output, 
to maintain agricultural prices, and to dispose of agri- 
cultural products acquired by the Federal Government through 
its price-support operations. Even so, net income of farm 
operators has declined over the past decade owing to lower 
prices and increased expenditures for capital and taxes. 

To make the presentation of the economic effects on 
growers specific and not abstract, evaluation of the data 
will be briefly summarized under topical headings 

Adequacy of Labor for Acreage under Cultivation 

Acreage under cultivation for the six commercially 
important crops selected correlate with the bracero program 
as follows: 

Tomatoes for processing . - Acreage under cultivation 
of this crop fluctuated widely from year to year indicating 
that labor supply was not the only factor involved. 
Willingness of available labor to do the "stoop labor" 
required may have been. During the years 1955-1959 when 



2787 



Mexican contract labor was the impjortant labor supply, the 
trend in tomato acreage was markedly upward. Acreage was 
lower in most of the years 1960-1964 when alien residents 
made up a significant part of the supplemental labor 
supply. In the years 1965-1967, with mechanization 
the acreage zoomed up from 34,830 acres in 1965 to 49,200, 
or slightly more than 40 percent. 

Asparagus . - The trend in yearly acreage of 
asparagus under cultivation has been consistently down. 
Availability of Mexican nationals on a large-scale in 1955- 
1959 barely halted this trend. 

Lettuce. - Acreage under cultivation of summer 
lettuce showed no clear trend during the period 1951-1967. 
On the other hand, the trend in acreage of winter lettuce 
has been steadily upward, even after the termination of 
the bracero program, 

Stawberries , - The acreage of strawberries in the 
peak bracero years 1955-1959 increased from a five-year 
(1951-1954) average of 1,020 acres to 4,450 - an increase 
of 400 percent. After 1959 acreage of strawberries has 
declined as production shifted to Mexico. 

Valencia oranges and lemons . - These crops take 
five years to bear fruit and could not be expected to show 
significant changes in response to short-term changes in 
labor supply. The increase in bearing acreage of lemons 
in early 1960 's would indicate an increase in planting 
during the peak bracero years. Approximately the 
same number of acres were taken out of lemons after 



2788 



1963, Acreage of Valencia oranges during the period 1951- 
1967 decreased from 132,477 to 63,425, or slightly more 
than one-half, as a result of industrial and urban encroach- 
ment on existing orchards. 

Shifts in Location and Changes in Production 

Changes in production for the six selected crops 
do not correlate with termination of the bracero program. 
Variations in farm production were attributed to weather 
conditions according to government and university researchers. 
Production of lettuce and Valencia oranges increased from 
1964 to 1965 while production of canning tomatoes, asparagus, 
strawberries, and lemons dropped. In 1966 production of 
the crops was up except for strawberries and asparagus 
which are in a long-term trend downward. 

Crop losses from termination of the program were 

reported. These could not be confirmed directly. For 

example, one large farm, Salinas Strawberries in Monterey 

County, would neither confirm nor deny losses when they 

were queried. The U.S. Department of Labor and a study at 

the University of California attributed crop losses to 

weather conditions. In any case. Congressman McFall in 

an interview said that labor was available, but growers' r.-^ 

association did not ask for it because of the provision 

that workers must be provided at least 30 days of 

1 
employment, ,^J 

1 

Interviev/ with Congressman John McFall, March 5, 
1969. 



2789 



Strawberry production had been shifting to Mexico 

since the late 1950 's. It is believed that there has also 

been increased production of tomatoes in Mexico by American 

farm enterprises. This increase, however, could not 

correctly be viewed as shifting. Production in San Joaquin 

County alone increased by 25 percent in 1966 and was higher 

in 1967 than for any year of the period 1962-1965, 

Moreover, the Agricultural Attache at the American Embassy, 

Mexico City, said that the reported increase by American 

2 
producers in liexico could not be confirmed. 

Adverse Effects on the Growers Competitive Position 
in Domestic and Foreign Markets 

Domestically, increases in the prices that consumers 
pay for fruits and vegetables were in keeping with the 
general increase in the cost of living. The largest part 
of the increases in prices went to middlemen. Farm values,' 
that is prices paid to the farmer, only increased by 
approximately the amount of the increase in labor cost. 

Prices of farm products from the United States 
have never been competitive in foreign markets. The increase 
in imports and decrease in exports of fruits and vegetables 
predates the bracero program. 

As far as net income is concerned, farmers are in 
a price-cost squeeze, T"nis situation does not arise from 
the cost of labor, but from expenditures for capital and 
increases in taxes, 

2 

Letter from Agricultural Attache, American Embassy, 
Mexico City, to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Robert G, 
Harper, March 15, 1966. 



2790 



Foreign Labor and the Domestic Farm Workers 

Public Law 78 placed the res^xDnsibility on the 
Secretary of Labor to see that the employment of braceros 
would not "adversely affect the wages and working conditions 
of domestic agricultural v/orkers," Provisions for 
protecting domestic farm workers restricted the employment 
of Mexican v.'orkers to areas where the Secretary of Labor 
certified (1) that sufficient domestic workers v/ho are able, 
willing, and qualified were unavilable; (2) that the 
employment of Mexicans would not adversely affect wages and 
working conditions of domestic agricultural workers 
similarly employed;, and (3) that reasonable efforts had 
been made to attract domestic workers at wages, hours, and 
working conditions comparable to those offered the 
foreigners. 

Factors Affecting Farm Wage Rates and Comparison with 
Those of Industry 

During the period from 1951 to 1959, farm wage 
rates in California were stabilized in most crops. Some 
wage rates in activities employing Mexican contract workers 
were even depressed. The prevailing wage set unilaterally 
by the farmers had been self -perpetuating. 

Agricultural vzages were not only adversely affected 
in certain crop activities by employment of imiported workers 
but in whole areas. A comparison of wage rates in those 
California counties and crops in v;hich braceros were employed 



2791 



in large numbers shows that lower wages were paid there 
than in those in which Mexicans were not used in any great 
nimber. 

Domination of the farm labor force by Mexican 
workers came increasingly to exist in many areas and crop 
activities of the Southwest, Farm associations created a 
need for the bracero. Growers then had a controlled 
labor market. The manner in which the Mexican contract 
program was administered removed the possibility of any 
sort of v;age negotiations between employer and employee. 
Under conditions where an employer previously v/ould have 
adjusted his wages up.7ard, it was no longer necessary for 
him to do so. If the domestic worker did not accept the 
stated wage, the grower became eligible for Mexican 
contract workers on the grounds that there was a labor 
shortage. 

The success which farmers had in controlling their 
labor cost and worker-related costs is explicity not only 
in the stability of the farm wage rates but also by 
comparison with increases in wages for production work 
in manufacturing. The decrease in the relative well- 
being of the farm worker compared to the production v;orker 
in manufacturing v/as much greater in California than on a 
nationv/ide basis. 

As a result of wage hearings in 1956, the Bureau 
of Emplo^nnent Security formulated the policy that the pay- 
ment by users of braceros of wage rates which were 



2792 



significantly lower than those paid by nonusers v/ould be 

considered as an indication of an adverse effect. Then 

in 1958 the "90-10" rule was enunciated. This rule 

required that at least 90 percent of the braceros had to 

have earnings of not less than fifty cents an hour during 

any biv;eekly myroll period unless the user could prove 

that more than ten percent of the braceros did not fulfill 

properly the requirements of the v;ork contract. 

Consultants appointed by Secretary of Labor 

James P. Mitchell in 1959 reported that "wage rates in 

activities employing Mexicans have lagged behind the wage 

levels for farm work generally ... between 1953 and 1958, 

the hourly farm v/age rate in the United States increased 

14 percent ... in areas using Mexican nationals . . . the 

3 
average rate either remained unchanged or decreased," 

They recommended that the Secretary of Labor be authorized 

to establish V7age rates for Mexicans at prevailing levels 

and at no less than was necessary to avoid an adverse 

effect on United States v/orkers. This recommendation was 

implemented on July 13, 1960, with the creation of policy 

and procedures for setting minimum wage rates for bracero 

labor at "adverse effect" levels rather than at 

"prevailing rates." 

If, as has been argued, this was not a simple 

case of maladministration, to be corrected by alteration 

3 
U.S. Dei^artment of Labor, Consultants to the 
Secretary of Labor, Mexican Farm Labor Program Consultants 
Report, p. 1. 



2793 



of the administrative practices employed, a serious 
question arises as to v;hether the necessary conditions 
exist for an equitable program of meeting supplemental 
labor needs of agricultiore by bringing in foreign workers. 

The 1960 's provided a further test. Under 
adverse effect determinations a new program of estab- 
lishing agricultural wages had been initiated. In many 
areas the up^-zard rate adjustments were made. In other 
areas the farmers discontinued the use of lle::ican nationals. 
Firm administration of the lav; resulted in better v/ages 
and curtailment of the program where the purpose of 
securing braceros had been low V7ages and the feasibility 
of exploitation, not the advertised reason of a shortage 
of domestic v;orkers. 

The U.S. Government by operating a farm labor 
program had intervened in the farm labor market, eliminated 
competition on the demand side and prevented the estab- 
lishment of a competitive wage in a free market. 

After the termination of Public Law 78 on 
December 31, 1964, the Secretary of Labor felt it necessary 
to continue to issue adverse effect rates. Moreover, 
the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee has been 
successful in negotiating contracts with some of the 
large grape growers v;hich included wages above the adverse 
effect rate. 



2794 



Employnent Opjxjrtunities 

Public Lav/ 70 fed on the unemployinent and poverty 
in Mexico and created unemployment in the United States. 
Rural unemplo^nnent and underemployment which have alv/ays 
been high v/ere made higher. 

Termination of Public Law 7B definitely improved 
the opportunities for employment of the domestic workers. 
No longer did domestic farm workers have to migrate to 
other areas or seek jobs in activities in which the 
Mexican national had not depressed wages and conditions 
of employment belov7 standards that were tolerable to him. 
No longer did the grov;er have the alternative betv/een a 
less costly single riexican national who could be housed 
in a barracks and use bathing facilities without any 
partitioning for privacy, and a domestic v/orlcer with a 
family v7ho had to have at least minimal facilities. 
VThile green card holders and v;etbacks quickly took up 
many of the job opportunities, the domestic v/orkers still 
benefited, as shown by a lower unemployment rate and a 
marked increase in the number of days worked. 

Adequacy of living and working conditions 

There is also evidence that the American farm 
V7orker v;ill inherit improvements v/on for the foreign worker • 
The Mexican program focused attention on the plight of the 
farm v/orker. Termination of the program brought increased 



2795 



efforts in the areas of housing, field sanitation, and 
safety as a means of attracting and keeping a domestic 
farm work force. 

Effect on Farm Cxganization 

No thought v;as given in Public Lav7 78 to the effect 
on the competitive position of the small farmers although 
it is a point that came up each time in the Congressional 
hearings. 

There is no doubt that the bracero program provided 
certain real economic advantages for corporation-type 
farms over the family-type farm. (According to the 1950 
Census of Agriculture, 51.9 percent of U.S. farms used 
no hired labor. ) Employment of Ilexican contract workers 
was largely concentrated in five states - Texas, California, 
Arkansas, Arizona, and New Mexico. This concentration of 
hired labor meant lower labor costs for the large farms 
and permitted sharp increases in production. Consequently, 
the prices to all farmers were lower, but the smaller 
margin of profit on the increased volume of production by 
the large growers compensated for the price reduction. 
Another consideration was that the family labor was only 
worth the lower wage rate of the bracero labor. 

President John F. Kennedy in signing the extension 
of Public Lav7 78 in 1961 said: 

The continuance of a program to import agri- 
cultural v;orkers is dangerous - 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5B - 18 



2796 



Because it has an adverse effect upon the 
overv/helminq majority of our farmers vrhose 
enterprises are small or moderate sized - 
and who must compete V7ith the handful of 
agricultural enterprises that are able to 
exploit cutrate foreign labor. - 

The demands for hired labor are generated by 

relatively few farms in California. The largest farms 

(sales over $40,000) employed 86,6 percent of the hired 

labor in California in 1964. Other farms (80.1 percent 

of the total) accounted for 13.4 percent of the farm 

5 
labor used. 

The contrast of these proportions reflects the 
basis for e;:pecting a significant economic advantage for 
the largest farms. Such labor then is employed, for the 
most part, not by the small independent family farmer, 
but rather by processing companies, employer associations, 
and big growers. 

This economic disadvantage of the small farmer 
'was emphasized repeatedly in Congressional hearings by 
such critics of the bracero program as Senator McGovern: 

But as we move into the type of factcr^-in-the 
field agriculture which I think the foreign labor 
program has encouraged, we are undercutting the 
advantage that the independent farmer has in 
providing his ov/n labor. V7e are putting him into 
competition with the larger units that can emoloy 
this low cost foreign labor on a large scale. 

_ 

Statement of President John F. Kennedy, Office of 
the l>rhite House Secretary, October 4, 1961. 
5 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 
Census of Ag riculture; 1964 , Vol. I, pt 48, California, 
pp. 50-51, 
6 

U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Agriculture, 
Mexican Farm I.abor Program , Hearings , 95th Cong,, 2d sess,, 
1960, p, 171. 



2797 



Holding down the wage rates of hired labor had 
the effect of holding down the value of the labor of the 

small farmer. Coupled with declining farm prices from 

i 
large supplies of vegetables and fruit grown by hired 

labor paid 50 cents per hour and the need for increasing 

expenditures for capital and taxes, many small operations 

were unprofitable and sold out to larger farms. 

The total number of farms in California decreased 

by more than a third between 1954 and 1964, This was a 

more rapid decline than for any previous decade. On the 

other hand, there was a record rate of growth in size of 

farms, as measured by the value of farm products sold. 

The sharpest decline was in the number of small farms with 

less than $2,500 of marketings. Farms with sales of 

7 
$10,000 and over increased by more than a third. Data 

on the trend in the size of farms after 1964 will not 
become available until 1974, 

In summary, advantages to the growers of Public 
Law 78 are doubtful. Disadvantages to the domestic farm 
workers were clear cut and significant in that wage rates 
were stabilized, employment opportunities were lost, and 
working conditions impaired. Effects of the termination 
of Public Law 78 were only minimal and transient on the 
growers. On the other hand, domestic farm workers bene- 
fited from the termination, 

7 "^ 

U.S, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 
Census of Agricultu re, 1954, 1964, and earlier issues. 



2798 

I From the New York Times, May 4, 1969] 

Unions Deplore Influx of Mexican Laborers Along the Border 

(By Homer Bigart) 

CoACHELLA. Calif. — Every weekday in Calexico. 100 miles south of here, 
thousands of Mexicans stream across the border at dawn looking for work. 

And every evening, weary after long hours of stoop labor in the field or at 
menial tasks in the towns, they troop back to Mexieali and their Jiomes. 

The same phenomenon is observed all along the frontier area from San Diego 
to Brownsville, Tex. 

It is welcomed by farmers, ranchers and fruit growers, by gringo housewives 
and service industries and by Chambers of Commerce and the new factories that 
have been lured south to the border by the promise of an endless supply of cheap 
labor. 

But the influx is deplored by labor unions and by the five million Mexican- 
Amerifans who live in the Southwest. 

The commuters lower wage levels and depress working conditions. Most of the 
border area has a surplus of low-.'-killed labor, and unemployment is high. 

Nowhere is the alien commuter traflSc more resented than in the Coaehella 
Valley, 125 miles southeast of Los Angeles 

Here aliens were used as strikebreakers la.st year when Cesar Chavez and his 
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee tried to extend the California 
grape strike. 

IMPACT ON GRAPE STRIKE 

Mr. Chavez and his predominantly INIexican-American band of strike organizers 
were swamped last year by a flood of "green carders" brought up from the border 
on trucks by the grape growers. 

The green carder is a Mexican citizen who says he has a job in the TTnited 
States and who applies at an American consulate for a permanent residence visa. 

But he is not obliged to live in the United States or seek naturalization, a 
Justice Department spokesman said recently. 

To qualify for employment in the United State.^ the applicant is supposed to 
show that his work would "not adversely affect the wages and working condi- 
tions" of United States citizens similarly employed. 

Enforcement of this provision would keep green carders off the farms, for the 
agricultural labor market is usually glutted. 

According to a recent staff report of the United States Commission on Civil 
Rights, most of the 684,533 Mexican aliens holding green alien registration cards 
(as of Jan. 1968) actually reside in this country. 

But the commuters, estimated anywhere from 40,000 to 150,000. "look upon 
their green cards as nothing more than work permits," the report said. 

BAR ON STRIKEBREAKING 

Use of green carders as strikebreakers was supposedly barred in 1967 by an 
amendment to the immigration and naturalization regulations. 

But the Coaehella Valley grape growers were able to obtain an injunction 
last year preventing immigration authorities from enforcing the new ban during 
the grape harvest. 

A Federal judge said the ban violated the equal protection clause of the 14tli 
Amendment. His injunction broke the .strike. 

Another crisis will develop before long when Mr. Chavez calls for a fresh 
confrontation with the table grape growers of Coaehella. 

On April 12 Mr. Chavez visited Coaehella and .said he would call a walkout of 
vineyard workers unless the growers agreed to negotiate a contract. 

No date was set — "It's one of the few secrets we have," Mr. Chavez told report- 
ers — ^but it would probably coincide with the harvest, which starts in May and 
continues into July. 

Both sides, U.F.AV.O.C. and the growers, are conducting propaganda campaigns 
along the border. Through paid commercials on two Mexican radio stations, 
U.F.W.O.C. is asking Mexicans to stay away from Coaehella. The growers are 
distributing leaflets encouraging commuters to work in the vineyards. 



2799 

BEDRIDDEN ORGANIZER 

For the last eight months, Mr. Chavez has been forced to spend naost of the 
time bedridden in his tiny cottage in Delano, a town in the San Joaquin Valley 
250 miles northwest of here, where the strike began four years ago. 

The gentle, ascetic apostle of nonviolence, who went on a 25-day fast last year 
to deter militants from rioting, is suffering from a painful back ailment. 

The Kennedy family sent out Dr. Janet G. Travell, personal physician to John 
F. Kennedy before and during his tenure in the White House. Dr. Travell eased 
Mr. Chavez's muscle spasms and discovered a probable source of the trouble — 
his right leg is considerably .shorter than the left. 

Directing the strike at Coachella is a Chavez lieutenant, the Rev. James L. 
Drake, a United Church of Christ clergyman, who .said the situation "looks a 
little frightening." 

"I'his is tough country," said Mr. Drake, who was brought up in the desert 
town of Thermal nearby. "It's close to the border, and there is more disregard 
for human life." 

An unusual asi^ect of the grape strike has been the difficulty of organizing 
several thousand aging Filipino workers who were brought to California as single 
men in the 1920's and, according to Mr. Drake, were warned by growers that they 
would be deported if they ever tried to marry a white girl. 

FILIPINO PLIGHT CITED 

These graying bachelors — still referred to by growers as "my Filipino boys" — 
were per]>etually frightened not only of marriage but also of being ejected from 
their sack in the migrants' barracks if they dared organize, Mr. Drake said. 

Many of the Filipinos kept fighting cocks, he added, and would inquire pite- 
ou.sly : "AVhat will happen to my chicken if I join the union?" 

"They are really slaves, just shells of men." Mr. Drake said. 

This year the Coachella strike will be a little better organized, Mr. Drake said, 
explaining that last year all the early effort went into the California Presidential 
primary campaign of Senator Robert F. Kennedy who had promised to do some- 
thing about the green carders." 

Mr. Chavez, however, warned of a long tough fight. 

"There are no short cuts," he said. "We won't fall into the trap of violence. 
Non-violence is the only way to achieve lasting gains. 

"When you are in a movement full of i>ent up emotions, the progress may seem 
slow. But we must remain free and easy, making light of victory, making light 
of defeat." 

Mr. Chavez said the boycott remained the best weapon against the grape 
growers. But he and his committee also hoped Congress would curb the green 
card strikebreaker. 

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who is a member 
of the Senate Subcommitte on Migratory Labor, has introduced a bill requiring 
that each commuter alien be certified every six months by the Labor Department 
that his presence does not depress wages and working conditions of American 
workers similarly employed. Under its terms, the commuter's labor clearance 
would be revoked if he engaged in strikebreaking. 

Senator Walter F. Mondale, Democrat of Minnesota, the subcommittee chair- 
man, recently visited a border crossing on the Rio Grande near McAllen, Tex., 
disguised in a battered pair of khaki trousers and an old sweater. Senator Mon- 
dale reported seeing hundreds of Mexicans streaming into the United States 
waving green cards he suspected might be counterfeit. 

To stop this "hemorrhage of people," which he felt was inflicting a permanent 
economic depression on south Texas, Senator Mondale asked Arnulfo Guerra, a 
Mexican-American lawyer who is an authority on immigration, to draft a bill 
obliging green carders to live in the United States. 

The Senator also noted that many commuters were United States citizens who 
apparently found the cost of living cheaper on the Mexican side and he wondered 
if Congress had the power to limit their movement. 

INTERFERENCE OPPOSED 

The State Department has opposed interference with the commuter program. 

It would deprive many Mexican nationals of their earning power, reduce trade 
along the frontier and perhaps cause the Mexican Government to retaliate, the 
State Department feels. 



2800 

Meanwhile attempts by Mr. Chavez to organize farm workers in Texas have 
been completely frustrated by the ready availability of cheap labor, by court 
injunctions and by alleged harassment from the Texas Rangers. 

Efforts by other unions to organize frontier industries, including El Paso's 
new textile factories (where the wage rate is little more than the minimum re- 
quired by the Fair Labor Standards Act) have also collapsed. Thousands of com- 
muters are employed in garment mills that have sprung up in the last few years. 

'The number one problem is the green carder," said James D. Givens, secretary- 
treasurer of the El Paso Central Labor Union and vice president of the Texas 
AFL-CIO. "I guess 25,000 commute from Juarez." 

"We feel sure the plants tell these commuters they'll lose their green cards if 
they join the imion," Mr. Givens said. 

William L. Kircher, director of organization for the American Federation of 
Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, charged that the immigration 
service had "turned a blind eye to wholesale violations of the green card." 

"commuter ticket" scored 

"In its pure and simple form, the green card is a demonstration of the United 
States Open Door policy on immigration," Mr. Kircher said. "And since the ALP- 
CIO believes in liberal immigration we are for the concept of the gren card. 

"But in practice the green card has been used as a commuter ticket to cheap 
jobs, strike-breaking, scabbing, sub-standard wages, all the things that undermine 
the United States economic base." 

Jerome Cohen, attorney for Mr. Chavez's organizing committee, said : 

"Until the Immigration Service begins to bring criminal charges against the 
labor contractors and growers who harbor and conceal illegal immigrants in viola- 
tion of Federal laws, the Immigration Service won't be doing its job. Now it's serv- 
ing as a shuttle system for illegals." 

A spokesman for the Immigration and Naturalization Service said the green 
card (actually, it's now baby blue) was becoming harder to get. 

Starting last July, the Government put a 120,000-a-year quota on permanent 
residence visas for immigrants from the entire Western Hemisphere. A Mexican 
has to wait about a year to get one, he said. 



United States District Court, 

Del Rio, Tex., March 27, 1969. 
Hon. Edward M. Kennei>y, 
Senate Office Building, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Senator Kennedy : Enclosed is a clipping from the San Antonio Express 
Thursday, March 27, 1969, which caught my attention this morning. 

I surely hope you are successful in getting a change in the law effected. My 
concern is reflected by the attached xerox copy of a letter I wrote January 18, 
1965, to the Honorable Nicholas Katzenbach. Similar letters were written to 
Senators Yarborough, Tower and others in an effort to get something done. In 
the border districts, we have a problem of wetback smuggling. Attached is a 
newspaper account of a case that I finally disposed of here yesterday. The "slave 
traders" do not help our public relations with our neighbor to the south. 

I have also read with interest the observ^ations of Senator Walter F. Mondale 
in connection with his observation of border crossings between Hidalgo and 
Reynosa, Mexico, as described in the enclosed clipping from the Del Rio paper 
Wednesday, March 26, 1969. I wish you and Senator Mondale would visit El Paso 
some time, and make a similar observation of what happens early in the morning 
and late in the evening in that city at the International Bridges. 

As a last thought, I might mention that the ability of farmers, ranchers, manu- 
facturers, housewives, plumbers, builders, electricians, etc., to hire wetback labor 
in the border areas is an unfair discrimination against the same iieople who 
are in those businesses in areas where wetback labor is not made available. The 
cost of production is not comparable nor is the profit the same. 

I might mention, also, the token prosecution of aliens is not a way to achieve 
effective observance of the law or respect for the law. For the Border Patrol to 
spend a lot of money to apprehend a man (frequently from the same ranch or 
farm) only to put him across the river, and then beat the Immigration back, 
like a cat reentering the screen door immediately after it is put out, achieves 



2801 

nothing but a "Car 54" image of law enforcement oflBcers. The Department of 
Justice or the Immigration Service do not seem to liave any policy as to when 
a repeated offender is to be prosecuted, nor do they have any means of prompt 
identification of the individual through the FBI to determine his prior record, 
federal or state. 

The Immigration Service does keep a record of place of apprehension of aliens. 
When I reviewed a portion of their files, I found that the same ranchers and 
farmers repeatedly employed aliens, and in many instances the same alien, if 
the law would just provide a fine for the U.S. Commissioner (Magistrate) to 
assess, say up to $200.00, like a traflic case, the employers would soon fall in line 
in refusing employment. A $25.00 fine, plus the trouble and notoriety incident 
to the offense, would .soon take the profit out of it for the employer and I think 
we would then find that the employer would be like the pedestrian or the 
motorist, he would only cross the street when the lights indicated "green." No 
innocent man could complain because the burden would be on the government 
to prove knowingly. If an employer doesn't know an employee is a wetback 
initially, the employer would not be long in finding out. The illegal entrant car- 
ries his stamp in many ways, readily identifiable by the most flagrant exploiter. 

On the chance you may be interested in recommendations, I attach a copy of a 
letter of June 27, 1966, from our local U.S. Commissioner in El Paso, to Senator 
Tydings, because it mentions some recommendations for statutory changes in 
connection with the Immigration law enforcement problem. 

I am taking the privilege of making known to you my sentiments because I 
want you to know my reason for wishing you success in your endeavors in this 
area. 

With kindest personal regards, I am 
Cordially yours, 

D. W, SUTTLE, 

United States District Judge. 
Enclosures. 

United States District Court, 

Western District of Texas, 
El Paso, Tex., January 18, 1965. 
Hon. Nicholas Katzenbach, 
Attorney General of the United States, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Attorney General Katzenbach : With your permission, I would like to 
review with you the problem of the congestion of our border United States District 
Courts with illegal entrant eases, the cause, the result, and what, if anything, 
can be done about the matter. 

The cause lies in the proviso contained in Section 1324 of Title 8, United States 
Code Annotated, reading, in substance, as follows : 

"(a) Any person * * * * who * * * * (3) wilfully or knowingly conceals, 
harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield 
from detection, in any place, including any building or any means of trans- 
portation ; or 

" (4) wilfully or knowiingly encourages or induces, or attempts to encourage 
or induce, either directly or indirectly, the entry into the United States of 
any alien * * * * not duly admitted by an immigration ofiicer or not law- 
fully entitled to enter or reside within the United States under the terms of 
this chapter or any other law relating to the immigration or expulsion of 
aliens, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be pun- 
ished by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or by imprisonment for a term not ex- 
ceeding five years or both, for each alien in respect to whom any violation of 
this subsection occurs : Provided, hoivcver, That for the purposes of this 
section, employment (including the usual and normal practices incident to 
employment) shall not be deemed to constitute harboring." 
Enough of our United States citizens are willing to exploit the need, the pov- 
erty, the hunger, the ignorance, and the status of these illegal entrants at the rate 
of $2.00 to $2.50 per day, to encourage the victims to keep coming. So long as these 
unfortunate people can find employment here they will continue to come, and 
until the employers are deterred the employment will continue. The stream or 
flow of applicants would cease if the source of employment would dry up. All that 
is needed is for the potential employer to desist from the employment of the alien ! 
The result of present practices of the principals is a curious one under the 
law — the exploited ends up being apprehended, tried and imprisoned as a felon, 



2802 

while the exploiter or profiteer goes free with implied approval of his conduct. 
The situation is analogous to the evil of child labor, outlawed many years ago. 

The enforcement cost to the Immigration Service and the Courts is appalling. 
From the apprehension to commitment there are some 80 forms alone to be filled 
out by the Service. Add to this the cost of administrative deportations, bus, train 
and air lifts, guards, trials and penal institutions, and you have the $2.00 or 
$2.50 per day "cheap labor" co.sting our government a fantastic premium, not 
included as an A.S.C. benefit. The local employer saves money by hiring the 
illegal entrant, but the same man costs the government far more than the employer 
saves that uses him. 

Aside from the immoral aspect of the conduct of the principals, you have the 
social impact on depression of the wage level among our own native born hand 
labor people, the cost of unemployment payments, and other known and un- 
known social and economic factors. No United States born citizen can compete 
with the illegal entrant labor market and support his family and send his chil- 
dren to American schools on a 25 cents per hour income. 

Incidentally, but for the work of the Immigration Service, the United States 
would be flooded with illegal foreign labor and foreign felons. As it is, many 
of those convicted in our Courts are found to have venereal diseases, tuberculosis, 
and bad criminal I'ecords. both in Mexico and the United States. These are some 
of the same people who have evaded immigration screening and obtained work 
on home places in this country. 

Now as to the solution. After much thought, consultation with Senior United 
States District Judge R. E. Thomason, of P]l Paso, Chief Judge Adrian A. Spears 
of San Antonio, United States District Judge Homer Thornberry of Austin, 
United States District Judge Leo Bi'ewster, of Fort Worth. Immigration officials 
and the United States District Attorney here, I have come to the conclusion that 
the remedy lies in the amending of Section 1324 of Title 8, United States Code, 
above quoted, in one of the following ways : 

( 1 ) I^liminate the "South Texas" clause or proviso ; 

(2) Reduce the offense to a misdemeanor to "harbor" the felon ; 

(3) Provide anyone found to have employed aliens on two or more suc- 
cessive occasions shall lose the benefit of the proviso or exception as to 
"harboring" ; 

(4) Imposition of some kind of sanction to prohibit the collection of 
A.S.C. payments or other forms of agricultural benefits. 

You can probably think of other amendments or methods, and, of course, any 
and all suggestions to remedy the situation should be con.sidered and, if accept- 
able as helpful to correct the situation, adopted. 

For your information and consideration I enclose, also, a copy of my letter 
of date January 11. 1965, addressed to Mr. Herbert Nice, District Director, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

Please let me hear from you as to what, if anything, you think can be done 
about the problem. 

Sincerely .yours, 

D. W. SuTTLE, United States District Judge. 

June 21, 1966. 
h'e: S. SJflo, Federal Magistrates Act of 1966. 
Hon. Joseph D. Tydings, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery, 
Senate Building 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Senator Tydings : Pursuant to the request of my siiperior, the Honorable 
D. W. Suttle, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, I 
am submitting some comments for what they may be worth on the proposed 
changes in the U.S. Commissioner system. I have not had an opnortunity to ac- 
tually discus's the proposed legislation with Judge Suttle because he is in Del Rio, 
Texas, holding Court and I am in El Paso, but I am .sending him a copy of this 
letter, and he may wish to disclaim my views once he sees them. 

First let me say I think the Bill as a whole is an excellent piece of work, and 
which is obviously the result of a great deal of thought and study, and which 
should result in a substantial improvement over the present situation. I am sure 
that the personal views of the varioiis commis.sioners throughout the nation will 
depend to some extent on how this bill would favorablv or unfavorably alter 
their present positions. For those with fairly small case loads, there will be 



2803 

little ur no thaiige since they will all probably be deputy magistrates and receive 
swbstantiallv the same amount of money in salary that they have received in the 
past under the fee system. The personal reaction of those with heavier case loads, 
however, will depend on whether they will be made deputy magistrates to he paid 
the maximum of $11,000 or close to it on a part-time basis, or somewhere close to 
the $22,500 maximum as a full time United States Magistrate. In other words, 
those with substantial case loads either present or contemplated, will take a look 
at their hole cards in deciding whether or not they would want to be appointed to 
the new position. dei)ending upon how it will afEect his overall income. For ex- 
ample, a Commissioner who presently makes close to the maximum of $10,500 
under the fee system on a part-time basis and has a law practice which makes 
him $7,500 or more in addition to what he gets as commissioner will probably not 
want to be appointed as a full time United States Magistrate at a salary of, say, 
$12,500 when such appointment would preclude him from engaging in any outside 
practice of the law. These Commissioners with substantial case loads will, there- 
fore, most likely all want to either be appointed U.S. Deputy Magistrates at the 
maximum and still be allowed to practice, or take the full time joh -at or close to 
the $22,500 maximum as United States Magistrate with no outside practice. I 
realize that this is a problem which the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts 
will have to resolve in conjunction with the various District Judges, Judicial 
Councils of the Circuits and the Judicial Conference of the United States if the 
Bill is passed, but I thought it worth mentioning to you as a context out of which 
most of the comments by the present Commissioners and perhaps District Judges 
will come. 

Addressing my remarks more specifically to what effect this Legislation will 
have in this immediate area of the nation, I want to discuss the most obvious 
situation which this legislation could greatly improve. I have noted in several 
instances in the transcript of proceedings of hearings before the Committee that 
the numerous immigration cases on the southern border of the United States was 
mentioned as a type of case which the Commissioner could properly dispose of if 
his petty offense jurisdiction was expanded so as to authorize him to try such 
eases occuring off of as well as on government reservations. The Federal Magi- 
strates Bill as written does hold out a promise of alleviating part of this problem 
as it now stands by authorizing the new Magistrate to try the immigration cases 
where the defendant is charged with any offense carrying no more than one year 
penalty. If this Bill is truly intended to relieve the District Court of these im- 
migration cases of the less important tyi>e, however, it appears to do only half of 
the job. My strongest suggestion is to couple the Federal Magistrates Act of 1966 
along with some amendments to the immigration laws which would relieve the 
Di.strict Court of virtually all of the immigration eases, instead of only about half 
of them, as the proposed legislation would now do. To be more specific, among all 
of the immigration charges wliich are now filed the only ones which would be 
triable before the Magistrate if the legislation passes, are those in which the of- 
fense alleged is a violation of Title 8, United States Code, Section 1325, which is 
commonly know around here as the simple illegal entry statute. However, at 
present this constitutes only a third or less of the immigration case load. 

In order to give you a little more background about the immigration problem as 
a whole, it is important to know that approximately 700 cases are filed a year by 
the Immigration Service before the U.S. Commissioner in El Paso. The situation 
on the border here is such that these are made up ordinarily of only the more 
aggravated cases, because there are .simply too many of them to file on all who are 
arrested. For example, during the month of May, 1966, the Immigration Service 
arrested approximately 1200 aliens in the El Paso area alone, filing on only 106 
before me. Out of these 106. we had a general variety of the various immigration 
violations, including IS USC Section 1546 (false or altered immigration cards), 
with a maximum of 5 years ; 8 USC Section 1326 (illegal entry after deportation) , 
with a maximum of 2 years ; 8 USC Section 1325 (illegal entry), with a maximum 
of 6 months and a $500.00 fine; 18 USC Section 911 (false claim of U.S. citizen- 
ship), with a maximum of 3 years; and 8 USC Section 1324 (alien smuggling 
or tran.sporting), with a maximum of 5 years. Ordinarily, ahout one-third or less 
of the total number of cases filed in any one year or month are the 1325 cases. All 
of the other cases compose the other two-thirds or more, and they are all felonies 
in that they carry over a year penalty. The Immigration Service could actually 
file on the 1326 cases — illegal entry after deportation — as 1325's but the maximum 
penalty would only be 6 months, and some of them definitely deserve more time 
than that, although most of them could fit properly into a category where the sen- 



2804 

tence would be up to a year maximum. By amending Section 1325 to allow a maxi- 
mum penalty for the first offense of up to one year, the Immigration Service coud 
Uien me probably lo'A and possibly more of all of the cases they now file. If this 
was done and the Statute amended so as to include attempts, they would probaWy 
file almost all of their immigration cases under this Section, regardless of the 
?vDe of Conduct actually involved, because the Statute is so broad that it is cap- 
able of accurately describing virtually any type of conduct which the Immigra ion 
Service wishes to prosecute for. For example, the alien smuggling or transport ng 
?flses 8 use 1324 are sometimes filed on for the lesser offense by charging the 
alleged transporter or smuggler with aiding and abetting the alien in violating 
Section 1325. I would suggest that in order to allow the Immigration ^Ser^uce to 
file the vast majority if not all of the cases they wish to prosecute before tHe 
Magistrate that Section 1325 be amended to read as follows (with the proposed 

amended words underlined) : ^ , . x- lo^^ „fi,«^ 

Any alien who (1) enters tlie United States at any time or place other 
than as designated by Immigration Officers, or (2) eludes examination or in- 
spection by Immigration Officers, or (3) obtains entry to the United States 
by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment 
of a material fact, or attempts to do any of the above acts, shall for the 
first commission of any such offense, be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon 
conviction thereof be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year, 
or by a fine of not more than $500.00, or by both, and for a subsequent com- 
mission of any such offenses shall be guilty of felony and upon conviction 
thereof shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years, or 
by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both. 
An excellent illustration of this problem occured only this morning before me. 
We had a case in which a Juarez, Mexico, taxi driver attempted to smuggle in an 
alien by concealing her in the trunk of his cab. They were apprehended at the 
port of entry prior to actually being admitted to the United States. If the Magi- 
strates Act were in effect and 8 USC 1325 amended so as to include attempts, they 
could have filed on the smuggler for aiding and abetting the alien in attempting 
to elude examination or inspection by immigration officers, in violation of 8 FSC 

1325 (2) and Section 2 of Title 18. The alien would be filed on for the attempt and 
both cases could be disposed of before the magistrate. As it stands now, tbey 
could not charge him with aiding and abetting the commission of the lesser offense 
because 1325 does not make it illegal to merely attempt to do any of the acts 
mentioned. He was charged Avith the more serious offense of illegally attempting 
to bring the alien into the U.S. under 8 USC 1324(a) (1), although his sentence 
will probably be no more than 6 months and more likely will be about 90 days, in 
the event he is convicted. The alien, although violating no law, had to be filed on 
and placed under bond as a material witness in order to secure her attendance 
in the event of a trial. She could be charged With 1325 if it was amended to in- 
clude attempts and this would avoid the oft-heard critcism about the Federal 
Courts detaining people in jail who are not charged with and did not violate any 
law. If no bond is required of these aliens as witnesses, we would never see them 
again and the case most likely is lofet forever. 

At the present time, even those immigration cases which are felonies ordinarily 
receive a sentence of a year or less. In some very aggravated cases, of course, 
the 1326 cases do receive the maximum sentence of 2 years. The Immigration 
Service could still continue to file these more aggravated ca.ses at the District 
Court level. 

The reason I have added the word "attempt" in the suggested amendment to 

1326 is that such language would allow Immigration to file virtually all of the 
case.s they now file under that Section where common experience taught them 
that the defendant would probably not receive more than a year even if prose- 
cuted for a more serious offense in the District Court. The conduct involved often 
fits not only one of the more serious felony statutes but also is aptly described 
by the language of one of the subsections of 1325. For example, anyone who makes 
a false claim of United States citizenship while attempting to gain entry into our 
country from Mexico would obviously violate Section 1325 (3) if that Section 
were amended so as to include an attempt to obtain entry as an offense. If that 
were done, the man could be filed on under Section 1325 and his case disposed 
of before the magistrate as an offense carrying a year or less, rather than 
taking up the District Court time when his sentence will probably be less than a 



2805 

year in such Court. Another example would be the false or altered immigration 
card cases, 18 USC, Section 1546, which carries a 5 year maximum, in that 
anyone who presents such an altered or false immigration card at the border 
while attempting to obtain entry also would violate Section 1325(3) if amended 
as suggested. The reason these false card cases are filed on even though the 
entry is not accomplished at the time the man is apprehended with the fal.se card 
at the port of entry is that most of these cards are made in such a professional 
manner that they often get by at the port of entry on numerous occasions and 
the individual may have used the card for years, successfully entering into the 
United States, residing and working here, and is simply caught at the bridge 
upon a return trip after a little visit back in Mexico for a while. As an ex- 
prosecutor, I am sure you can see why the government has a much easier case 
to prove that he attempte<l to obtain entry by presenting the false card at the 
time he was actually apprehended rather than require the government to prove 
that he actually did obtain entry with it several months back while residing 
here, which the goverinnent obviously never knew about when it was going on, 
and would be hard put to prove. 

If the increasing of the penalty under 1325 was deemed too harsh or potentially 
too expensive because the defendants would then be entitled to appointed counsel 
under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 (which i^etty offenders are not entitled 
to now), then I suggest nevertheless that the law be changetl to include attempts, 
and that perhaps 1326 be amended to include a first offense with a maximum of 
1 year. In any event, I feel that some legislation in addition to what you have 
proposed in the Federal Magistrates Act of 1966 is needed to fully carry out the 
intent of your Act in trying to relieve the U.S. District Courts along the southern 
border of the United States from the heavy load of immigration cases which 
often carry heavy i>enalties but in which heavy penalties are very rarely ever 
passed out. 

I do not know whether or not your Committee intended to look into all of the 
side effects which your present Bills has, but I think now is the time and the 
place to cure this immigration case load problem and I fail to see how anyone 
would really have any objection. I think without specifically doing this in the 
immigration area, you are only half .solving the problem insofar as the Federal 
Courts along the border is concerned. 

I believe my background of experience in the Federal Courts here qualifies me 
to express this opinion because I have siient the vast majority of time since my 
graduation from Law School in the Federal Courts. Upon my graduation from the 
University of Texas Law School, I served as law clerk to United States District 
Judge R. E. Thompson for two years, served as Assistant in charge of the United 
States Attorney's OflSce in El Paso from 1961 to early 1965, after which I served 
as part-time law clerk to Judge Suttle, and was appointed United States Com- 
missioner here in El Paso on January 31 of this year. The Administrative Office 
of the U.S. Courts and the Department of Ju.stice will both be able to tell you 
from statistics in their files that this El Paso Court is one of the busiest Courts in 
the country, not only because of the immigration cases, but because of a huge 
variety of other more serious federal criminal cases and a substantial number of 
civil cases. As part of the legislative histoi-y supporting the creation of two 
additional judgeships in this District, the report of the Senate Judiciary Com- 
mittee revealed that the Western District of Texas as a whole had the second 
largest criminal case load in the country, taking into account weighted and non- 
weighted cases. Out of all of the Western District of Texas, the El Paso Division 
has more than half of the total criminal cases, meaning that one division handles 
as many criminal cases, both immigration and miscellaneous, as all other five 
divisions combined. Approximately half of the criminal cases are filed by the 
Immigration Service. If the District Courts here could be relieved of this 
immigration problem as a ivhole, the Courts could devote their time to the more 
important bu.siness involving suits between citizens of our own country. 

I am hopeful that these suggestions will be of assistance to you in carrying 
out the full intent of what I think your excellent Bill hopes to accomplish. If you 
have any questions of me concerning this or any need for further explanations, 
I will certainly be glad to help in any way possible. 

Thank you for your interest in this matter. 
Sincerely yours, 

Fred J. Morton. 



2806 

[From the San Antonio Express, Mar. 27, 1969] 
Alien Smugglers Get 43 Years 

Del Rio. — Three men involved in an international smuggling ring of Mexican 
alien.s were sentenced here Wednesday to a total of 43 years in prison. 

John T. Eguia, 31, of Dilley, the admitted leader of the ring, received a total 
of 23 years after he had pleaded guilty to five cases including the Sept. 30, 1968 
tran.-portation of 47 aliens from Eagle Pass to San Antonio which resulted in 
the death of three of the aliens. 

Receiving a total of 10 years each in the same case were Carlos Becerra, 29, 
of 2719 Durango St.. and Joe Roy Campos, 30, of 523 Cumberland St., both in San 
Antonio. 

A fourth suspect involved in the smuggling ring, Leandro Sada-Gonzalez, 19, of 
Dilley, was committed to the custody of the U.S. attorney general for an indefinite 
period as a youthful offender. Sada-Gonzalez had pleaded guilty to two counts of 
transporting aliens after he was arrested last July 29 near Spcok, Tex., with a 
camper loaded with 15 alien.s. 

All four had entered their guilty pleas here before U.S. Dist. Judge D. W. 
Suttle on Feb. 17. Judge Suttle handed down the sentences Wednesday afternoon 
in a docket crowded with other alien cases. 

The eases against Eguia, Becerra and Campos, however, were so technical that 
it took some two hours to dispose of them despite the fact that the cases had been 
outlined in detail in the Feb. 17 trial. 

In the Sept. 30 ca.^e in which 47 aliens paid $50 to be transported to Chicago 
but ended up in San Antonio in an unventilated van truck, Eguia had pleaded 
guilty to 10 counts. He received three years on the first five counts to run con- 
secutively for a total of 15 years. On the second five counts, Eguia received three 
years on each count to run concurrently, still giving him only 15 years to serve 
on this case. 

On four other separate cases, he received a total of two years each to run con- 
secutively after he had i^erved the 15 years, giving him a total of 23 years to serve 
on all five cases. 

Becerra had pleaded guilty to 10 counts and Campos to five counts on the Sept. 
30 case. They received a total of 10 years each. 

Families of all of the defendants were in court Wednesday and watched as 
they were turned oved to the cu.stody of deputy U.S. marshals. 



[From the Valley Morning News, March l,9i68] 
Illegal Border Crossing Blame Controvert Aired 

Hidalgo, Tex. — ^Sen. Walter F. Mondale, D-Minn., and Bob Sanchez, chairman 
of the Migratory Labor Committee for the American GI Forum, agree many per- 
sons cross the Mexican-Texas border here illegally. 

What they disagree on is who is to blame for the illegal crossings. 

Sen. Mondale, after spending about two hours watching border crossings be- 
tween Hidalgo and Reynosa, Mex.. last week says immigration officials are, lax 
in checking cards which allow Mexicans to cross the border and work in the United 
States. 

Sanchez says the hands of immigration oflScials are tied by federal regulations. 

Mondale, the new chairman of the migratory labor subcommittee, said Tuesday 
he saw a steady stream of people cro.^sing the bridge in Hidalgo and he said he 
felt many were cro.ssing illegally. 

"It's hard to believe all those people who stream across the border each 
morning are living in the U.S.," he said after his visit last week. 

Mondale said many holders of the so-called "green cards," which allow Mexi- 
cans to work in the United States, get the cards illegally. 

"There are businesses and growers who benefit from this system and there is 
evidence of less-than-total enthusiasm for enforcing what rules we have." 

Sanchez, while agreeing with Mondale that many persons cross the border 
illegally, said "only a new attitude in Congress and in the Department of State" 
can control the traffic. 

"Our immigration agents can't do more than they are doing unless they have 
the support of the highest level of the administration," Sanchez said. "They do 
not have it at the present time." 

He said present Washington policy allows commuters from Mexico to "come 
and go they please." 



2807 

Sanchez said the State Department "doesn't want to injure relations with 
Mexico," resulting in stripping immigration agents of the power to stop illegal 
border crossings. 

Tightening of Restrictions on Immigkant Mexican Laborers 

Washington. — Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. Michael A. 
Feighan, D-Ohio, introduced legislation Wednesday that would tighten restric- 
tions on immigrant Mexican laborers. 

"This alien work force is a major factor contributing to the grinding poverty, 
high unemployment and low wages in the border areas," they said in a joint 
statement. 

The legislation would require that commuter aliens "must be certified every 
six months by the Department of Labor that their presence in the United States 
to seek or continue employment does not adversely affect the wages and working 
conditions of American workers similarly employed." 

Tlie bill also calls for criminal prosecution of individuals who willfully and 
knowingly employ aliens in the country illegally. 



Cesar Chavez Sues Attorney General 

December 1, 1969. 
Cesar Chavez, Director of the United Farm workers Organizing Committee, 
AFI^CIO, announced today that suit had been filed against Attorney General 
John Mitchell and two top officials of the United States Immigration and Natur- 
alization Service in the U.S. Di.-trict Court for the District of Columbia to "bring 
an end to governmental policies permitting table grape growers to illegally use 
Mexican nationals as strike-breakers in the fields of CalifornUa." 

Andrew Imutan, Vice President of the United Farm Workers Organizing Com- 
mittee, and Manuel Vasquez, the Union's Washington Representative, speaking 
for Cesar Chavez, discussed the suit at a pre.ss conference today. They read a 
statement from Cesar Chavez : 

"I have no dispute with the thousands of Mexican nationals who are in 
the I'nited States as green-carders an dwho live and work here. But to bring 
permanent residents of other countries into the United States to break our 
strike on the basi.'i of a card or piece of paper they received 10 or 20 years ago 
is illegal and unfair. I don't understand a government which cries for law and 
order and refuses the protection of its laws and regulations to its most desti- 
tute people. I hope the courts will tell the Immigration Department what we 
have told them for years — that farm laborers deserve the protection of the 
laws as well as the'agricultural interests they seem so often to represent." 
The suit was filed by the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL- 
CIO, and Robert Bustos and Lupe Murquia, two farm workers, on behalf of all 
farm laborers in the southwest United States who are citizens or resident aliens. 
The complaint asserts that each year thousands of Mexican nationals main- 
taining iiermanent residences in Mexico are allowed to use green cards to enter 
the United States by the Imnnigration and Naturalization Service to work in 
California farms and vineyards for several weeks or months without requiring 
immigrant visas. These green carders are not eligible to obtain immigrant visas 
because the Secretary of Labor has determined that no need for additional farm 
labor exists. In allowing the green carders to enter the United States without 
immigrant visas, the suit alleges, the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
has violated both the Immigration and Naturalization Act and its own regulations 
which prohibit foreign nationals from using green cards to enter the U.S. unless 
they are returning to an "unrelinquished permanent residence" in the United 
States. 

The complaint also alleges that the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
had violated its regulations which prohibit green carders from entering the 
United States for the purpose of "seeking employment at a place where a labor 
dispute, exists." Since 1965, the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee 
has been engaged in a labor dispute with the growers of table grapes in California 
who yearly emuloy the entering Mexican nationals. 

The plaintiffs seek a determination by the District Court that Attorney Gen- 



2808 

eral Mitcliell has failed to enforce federal statutes and regulations which would 
prohibit Mexican nationals with permanent residences in Mexico from coming 
temporarily to the T'nited States to engage in farm labor. 

United States District Court for the District of Columbia 



Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, for Permanent Injunction, and Relief in 

Nature of Mandamus 

Robert Bustos and Lupe Murquia, on behalf of themselves and a class of persons 
similarly situated but too numerous to mention ; and United Farm WoRKEa?s 
Organizing Committee, an unincorporated association, 

plaintiffs. 

V. 

John Mitchell, Attorney General of the I'nited States ; Raymond Farrell. 
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States ; 
and Harlan B. Carter. Regional Commissioner, Immigration and Naturali- 
zation Service of the United States, 

defendants. 
First Claim 

jurisdiction 

1. Jurisdiction in this case is invoked pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702, 703, pertaining 
to judicial review of the acts of agencies of the United States; 28 U.S.C. 1361, 
which authorizes the district courts to entertain an action in the nature of man- 
damus compeling an officer of the United States to perform a duty owing to 
plaintiffs; 28 T'.S.C. 1331, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over ca.ses in 
volving federal questions ; and 11 D.C. Code 521, which confers general jurisdic- 
tion upon the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The 
suit seeks a declaratory judgment under 28 UiS.C. 1331, an injunction and relief 
in the nature of mandamus. The amount in controver.sy exceeds $10,000 without 
interest and costs. 

PARTIES 

2. Plaintiff Robert Bustos is a citizen of the United States and of the State of 
California, and at all times herein mentioned has been engaged in farm labor. 
Plaintiff Lupe Murquia is an alien permanent resident of the United States and 
of the State of California and at all times herein mentioned has been engaged in 
farm labor. The wages, hours, and conditions of employment of plaintiffs Bustos, 
and persons similarly situated are and will be adversely affected by the continua- 
tion of unlawful practices and policies herein complained of. Plaintiff United 
Farm Workers Organizing Committee is an unincorporated association with its 
principal offices in the State of California. Said United Farm Workers Organizing 
Committee is organized to represent farm laborers in collective bargaining with 
respect to their wages, hours, and conditions of employment. Said association is 
authorized to and does bring this suit in behalf of its members, who are citizens 
and alien permanent residents of the United States and/or the State of Cali- 
fornia and elsewhere, whose wages, hours, and conditions of employment are and 
will be adversely affected by the continuation of the unlawful practices and 
policies of defendants herein complained of. 

3. Plaintiffs Bustos and Murquia bring this action pursuant to Rule 23(a) of 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and all others 
similarly situated, to wit : citizens and alien permanent residents of the United 
States engaged in farm labor in the State of California. The number of such farm 
laborers is so large that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court 
There are common questions of law and fact relating to all such farm laborers 
who seek the same relief for the same legal wrongs herein complained of. Plain- 
tiffs' claims are typical of the claims of said class and plaintiffs will fairly and 
adequately protect the interests of said cla.ss. 

4. Defendant John Mitchell is Attorney General of the United States. Defendant 
Raymond Farrell is the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service of the United States. Defendant Harland B. Carter is the Regional Com- 
missioner of the Southwest Region of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service of the United States. 



2809 

5. Defendants, in concert and individually, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1103(a) and 
related statutes and regulations, are responsible for the administration and en- 
forcement of the laws pertaining to the terms and conditions under which Mexi- 
can nationals may enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in farm 
labor. 

FACTS 

6. Each year thousands of Mexican nationals enter the United States and 
work as farm laborers in the State of California during the picking season and 
other periods when farm owners employ supplemental laborers. The Mexican 
nationals, about whom plaintiffs complain, enter the State of California for sev- 
eral weeks or months to perform such farm labor, but retain their permanent 
residences in Mexico. They may stay days or weeks at a particular location in 
the State of California and then move on to another location or locations where 
farm labor is being employed or they may remain during the entire ]>eriod in the 
United States at a particular location. They may leave their families in Mexico or 
bring them to the United States. Whatever the differences in their working pat- 
terns, all the said Mexican nationals have their permanent residences in Mexico; 
they return to those residences for a significant portion of every year; while 
they come to the United States yearly, they have no intent to remain perma- 
nently in this country. 

NATURE OF CLAIM 

7. This suit, in the first claim, seeks relief against the admission of Mexican 
nationals with unrelinquished permanent residences in Mexico who come tem- 
porarily to the United States to engage in farm labor by using Alien Registration 
Receipt Cards issued them by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The 
first claim alleges that the Immigration and Nationality Act and the regulations 
issued pursuant to it require such Mexican nationals to obtain valid immigra- 
tion visas to enter the United States. Such Mexican nationals are not eligible to 
obtain immigration visas because the Secretary of Labor has determined that the 
supply of domestic farm labor is sufficient and that admission of farm laborers 
would adversely affect wages and working conditions. 

8. The Mexican nationals, about whom plaintiffs complain, originally came to 
the United States under immigrant visas as immigrant aliens. Under section 
101(a) (15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (15) ), all 
aliens are classified as immigrants except aliens coming within the ten specific 
classes enumerated in that section who are classified as non-immigrants. Subsec- 
tion 101(a) (15) (H) provides that an alien "who is coming temporarily to the 
United States to perform other temporary services or labor" and who has "a 
residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning" is a 
non-iramigrant alien. When said Mexican nationals entered the United States, 
they <-laimed that they had the intention of becoming permanent residents of the 
United States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, therefore, deter- 
mined that they did not come within Section 101(a) (15) (H) or any of the 
other enumerated classes of non-immigrant aliens in Section 101(a) (15) and 
deemed that they were immigrant aliens.. 

9. Immigrant aliens, unless they are returning resident immigrants, may not 
enter the United States without a valid immigrant visa. Such visas permit immi- 
grant aliens to enter or reenter the United States only for a period of four 
months. Sections 211 and 221(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
8 U.S.C. 1181, 1201(c). Under Section 101(a) (27) (A) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (27) (A) ), any persons born in the Western 
Hemisphere may receive an immigrant visa only if the Secretary of Labor makes 
a favorable determination under Section 212(a) (14). Section 212(a) (14) allows 
such persons to receive immigrant visas "to enter the United States, for the pur- 
pose of performing skilled or unskilled labor," only if "the Secretary of Labor 
has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and Attorney General that 
(a) there are not sufficient workers in the United States who are able, willing, 
qualified, and available at the time of application for a \isa and admission to the 
United States and at the place to which the alien is destined to perform such 
skilled or unskilled labor, and ( b ) employment of such aliens will not adversely 
affect the wages and working conditions of the workers in the United States 
similarly employed." 

10. Since on or about 1065, the Secretary of Labor has made no certification 
under Section 212(a) (14) of the need for additional farm labor. Instead, the 
Secretary of Labor has determined, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 60.2, that the supply of 



2810 

domestic farm labor is suflficient and that admission of farm laborers would 
adversely affect wages and working conditions. Schedule B, following 20 O.F.R. 
60.6. As a result, immigrant aliens have not been eligible to obtain visas to enter 
the United States in order to work as farm laborers since 1965. The Mexican 
nationals, about whom plaintiffs complain, first obtained immigrant visas to 
work as farm laborers prior to 1965. 

11. Defendants have issued the Mexican nationals, about whom plaintiffs 
complain. Alien Registration Receipt Cards, sometimes known as green cards 
(Form 1-151). Defendants have allowed such Mexican nationals to use these 
cards instead of immigrant visas in order to enter the United States to work as 
farm laborers and continue to allow them to use these cards to enter for this 
purpose. Defendants, by this practice, have not required said Mexican nationals 
to apply for innnigrant visas every four months in order to reenter the United 
States as farm laborers even though the Secretary of Labor has determined that 
the supply of domestic farm labor is sufficient and that admission of farm laborers 
would adversely affect wages and working conditions. 29 C.F.R. 60.2, and Sched- 
ule B following 29 C.F.R. 60.6. As a result, said Mexican nationals are con- 
tinuing to utilize the cards indefinitely in order to enter the United States to 
work as farm laborers. 

12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants claim that they have 
authority to issue Alien Registration Receipt Cards to the Mexican nationals, 
about whom plaintiffs complain, under Section 211(b) of the Immigration and 
Xationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1181(b). That section allows the Attorney General to 
admit "returning resident immigrants, defined in Section 101(a) (27) (B)," with- 
out an immigrant visa. Section 101(a) (27) (B) of the Immigration and Na- 
tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (27) (B)) applies to an "immigrant, lawfully 
admitted for i)ermanent residence, who is returning from a temiwrary residence 
abroad." The regulations, promulgated by the Department of Justice pursuant to 
Section 211, provide that an immigrant alien may only use an Alien Registration 
Receipt Card to enter the United States if he is "returning to an unrelinquished 
lawful permanent residence in the United States after a temporary absence 
abroad." 8 C.F.R. 211.1(b) (2). 

13. The Mexican nationals, about whom plaintiffs complain, are not "return- 
ing resident immigrants" under Section 211(b) of the Immigration and Xation- 
ality Act because they are not residents of the United States and are therefore 
not returning to residences in the United States. Instead, they are leaving their 
permanent residences in Mexico when they enter the United States. They are 
not "returning from a temporary residence abroad" under Section 101(a) (27) (B) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act because their temporary residence is in 
the United States and their permanent residence is in Mexico. They are not 
"returning to an unrelinquished lawful permanent residence in the United 
States after a temporai-y absence abroad" under 8 C.F.R. 211.1(b)(2) becau.«e 
they do not have an unrelinciuished permanent residence in this country and 
they have not been temporarily absent abroad. Defendants have, therefore, 
illegally issued Alien Registration Receipt Cards to said Mexican nationals 
in lieu of an immigrant visa and have illegally allowed them to continue to use 
these cards to continue to enter the United States. 

14. Defendants have the power and duty to enforce the aforesaid statutes and 
regulations, to require the Mexican nationals, about whom plaintiffs complain, 
to obtain immigrant visas to enter the United States, and to proscribe their 
entrance into the United States upon the basis of Alien Registration Receipt 
Cards. 

15. Plaintiffs on numerous occasions in the past have made written demands 
on defendants that they carry out their duty to exclude the Mexican nationals 
about whom plaintiffs complain. Defendants have failed and refused to do so. 

16. At all times herein mentioned, defendants have been able to perform their 
duties, but notwithstanding such ability and despite the aforementioned de- 
mands, defendants have failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, 
to enforce the statutes and regulations specified above designed to protect the 
wages and working conditions of plaintiffs against foreign labor. They have 
failed and refu.sed, and continue to fail and refuse, to require the Mexican 
nationals, about whom plaintiffs complain, to procure valid, unexpired immi- 
grant visas under Section 211(a). Said failure and refusal is unlawful and 
contrary to said statutes and regulations as heretofore set out. 

17. Defendants' acts and omissions have resulted and continue to result in 
injury to the named plaintiffs and members of the individual plaintiffs' class 
in the following respects : 



2811 

(a) They have from time to time been unable to obtain jobs when able, 
willing, qualifiecl, and available because of competition from the Mexican 
nationals, about whom plaintiffs complain ; 

(b) They have received lower wages than they would have without the 
competition of such Mexican nationals ; 

(e) They have been forced to work imder substandard sanitary, health, 
safety and other working conditions which are significantly below those of 
other industries in California ; 

(d) They have been hindered in their efforts to organize effective collec- 
tive bargaining units. 
Unless defendants are required to give effect to the statutes and regulations 
herein set out, plaintiffs will continue to suffer severe and irreparable injury 
to their economic and physical well-being and that of their families and 
dependents. 

18. The statutes and regulations relied upon above in this claim were enacted 
and promulgated specifically to benefit plaintiffs and to protect them from the 
harm complained of. 

19. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy and adequate administrative remedy 
in that no administrative procedure exists, statutory or otherwise, to challenge 
the failure of the defendants to perform their duty. No action for damages would 
adequately compensate plaintiffs. Unless defendants are required to give full 
force and effect to the statutes and regulations, set forth above, plaintiffs will 
continue to suffer severe and irreparable harm. Only a declaration or order by 
this Court requiring defendants to perform duties owed the plaintiffs would be 
sufficient to provide to plaintiffs the benefit of the laws enacted by Congress and 
of the regulations promulgated pursuant to those laws. 

Second Claim 
jurisdiction, parties, and pacts 

20. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-6, 
inclusive, of the first claiui and incorporate them herein by reference a- if fully 
set forth. 

NATURE OF CLAIM 

21. This suit, in the second claim, seeks to have defendants reclassify, as 
non-immigrant aliens, all Mexican nationals who come temporarily to the 
United States as farm laborers and have residence in Mexico which they have no 
intention of abandoning and who are now considered as immigrant aliens. As 
non-immigrant aliens, such Mexican nationals are not entitled to enter the United 
States because there are unemployed persons in the United States capable of 
performing farm labor and because no employer has satisfied other criteria 
established by the Secretary of Labor. 

22. The Mexican nationals, about whom plaintiffs complain, originally came 
to the United States under immigrant visas as immigrant aliens. Section 101 
(a) (15) (H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (15) (H) ) 
provides that an alien "who is coming temporarily to the United States to per- 
form other temporary services or labor'' and who has "a residence in a foreign 
country which he has no intention of abandoning" is a nou-immigrant alien. 
However, when said Mexican nationals entered the United States, they claimed 
that they had the intention of becoming permanent residents of the United 
States. They, therefore, did not come within Section 101(a) (15) (H) or any of 
the other enumerated classes of non-immigrant aliens in Section 101(a) (15) 
and were deemed immigrant aliens. 

23. All the Mexican nationals, about whom plaintiffs complain, are now, and 
should be classified as, non-immigrant aliens rather than immigrant aliens. 
Said Mexican nationals seek to return under Section 101(a) (27) (B) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (27) (B) ) which applies to 
an immigrant "lawfully admitted for permanent residence, who is returning from 
a temporary visit abroad." Section 101(a) (20) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a ) (20) ) 
defines "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" as "the status of having 
been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United 
States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status 
not having changed." In fact, the status of said Mexican nationals has changed. 

Whatever their original intent might have been, they are not now permanent 
residents of the United States and, when they periodically reenter this country 
they have no present intent to become permanent residents. Instead, they come 
36-513— 70— pt. 5B 19 



2812 

temporarily to tlie United States each year in order to obtain temporary employ- 
ment and have residences in Mexico which they have no intention of abandonin?. 
Defendants have illegally failed to reclassify said Mexican nations under Section 
101(a) (15) (H) as non-immigrants. 

24. As non-immigrant aliens, the Mexican nationals, about whom plaintiffs 
complain, are barred from entry into the United States. They cannot enter the 
United States pursuant to Alien Registration Receipt Cards because these cards 
may only be issued to immigrant aliens. 8 C.F.R. 211.1(b). They can not enter 
the United States pursuant to Alien Registration Cards or on any other basis 
because Section 101(a) (15) (H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows 
such non-immigrant aliens to enter the United States only, "if unemployed 
persons capable of performing such services or labor cannot be found in this 
country." Non-immigrant aliens may only enter the United States pursuant to 
this section if the prospective employer satisfies criteria established by the 
Seci'etary of Labor, including that he has made an effort to recruit farm workers 
locally, has offered wages, housing and other fringe benefits at specified levels, 
and has abidide by state and local labor, health, and housing laws. 20 C.F.R. 
602.10. Since no employer has satisfied these criteria, no non-immigrant aliens 
have been admitted into the Southwestern United States pursuant to Section 
101(a) (15) ( H) since 1967. 

25. Defendants have the power and duty to enforce the aforesaid statutes 
and regulations and to redetermine the status of each alien seeking admission or 
readmission to the United States. Aliens not authorized to be admitted must be 
excluded. 

26. Plaintiffs on numerous occasions in the past have made written demands 
on defendants that they carry out their duty to exclude the Mexican nationais 
about whom plaintiffs complain. Defendants have failed and refused to do so. 

27. At all times herein mentioned, defendants have been able to perform their 
duties, but notwithstanding such ability and despite the aforementioned demands, 
defendants have failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to enforce the 
statutes and regulations specified above designed to protect the wages and work- 
ing conditions of plaintiffs against foreign labor. They have failed and refused, 
and continue to fail and refuse, to reclassify aliens maintaining a permanent 
residence in Mexico, returning to the United States for the puiijose of temporary 
farm labor under the authority of an Alien Registration Receipt Card, as non- 
immigrants under Section 101(a) (15) (H) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act. Said failure and refusal is unlawful and contrary to said statutes and 
regulations as heretofore set out. 

28. Defendants' acts and omissions have resulted and continue to result in 
injury to the named plaintiffs and members of the individual plaintiffs' class 
as set forth in paragraph 17 of the first claim, which are incorporated herein by 
reference. 

29. The statutes and regulations relied upon above in this claim were enacted 
and promulgated specifically to benefit plaintiffs and to protect them from the 
harm complained of. 

30. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy and adequate administrative remedy in 
that no administrative procedure exists, statutor.v or otherwise, to challenge 
the failure of the defendants to perform their duty. No action at law for damages 
would adequately compensate plaintiffs. Unless defendants are required to give 
full force and effect to the statutes and regulations, set forth above, plaintiffs 
will continue to ^suffer severe and irreparable harm. Only a declaration or order 
by this Court requiring defendants to perform duties owed the plaintiffs would 
be sufficient to provide to plaintiffs the benefit of the laws enacted by Congress 
and of the regulations promulgated pursuant to those laws. 

Third Claim 
jurisdiction, parties and facts 

31. Plaintiffs reallege each and ever.v allegation contained in paragraphs 1-6, 
inclusive, of the first claim and incorporate them herein by reference as if fully 
set forth. 

32. Plaintiff Robert Bustos was employed prior to September 8, 1965, by 
growers of table grajies in the Counties of Kern and Tulare in the State of 
California. Plaintiff Lnpe Murquia was employed prior to September 8. 1965 i 
1>y growers of table grapes in the Counties of Kern and Tulare in the State of ^ 
California. Plaintiff United Farm Workers Organizing Committee represents; 



2S13 

farm laborers who have been and/or still are employed by growers of table 
grapes iu the Counties of Tulare and Kern and elsewhere in the State of Cali- 
fornia. Said United Farm Workers Organizing Committee called a strike against 
these growers on September 8, 1965, and the strike has continued and still con- 
tinues to this date. Plaintiffs Robert Bustos and Lupe Murquia at all times 
herein mentioned have been members of Farm Workers Organizing Committee 
and have not worked for such growers since September 8, 1965. 

3.3. Plaintiffs Bustos and Murquia bring this action pursuant to Rule 23(a) 
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and all others 
similarly situated, to wit : citizens and alien permanent residents of the United 
States engaged in farm labor in the State of California who are meiiibi-i-a oi 
plaintiff United Farm Workers Organizing Committee and who have been 
participating in a labor dispute with table grape growers in the Counties of 
Kern and Tulare. The numbers of such farm laborers is large and it is imprac- 
tical to bring them all before the Court. There are common questions of law and 
fact relating to all such farm laborers who seek the same relief for the same 
legal wrongs herein complained of. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims 
of said class and the plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests 
of said class. 

34. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 8-13, inclusive, 
of the first claim and incorporate them herein by reference as it fully set forth. 

NATURE OF CLAIM 

35. This suit, in the third claim, seeks to prohibit Mexican nationals having 
an Alien Registration Receipt Card from entering the United States to accept 
employment at a place where the Secretary of Labor has determined a labor 
dispute exists. 

36. An immigrant alien may not enter the United States pursuant to an Alien 
Registration Receipt Card (Form 1-151) "when the Secretary of Labor deter- 
mines and announces that a labor dispute involving a work stoppage or layoff 
of employees is in progress at a named place of employment" and if the alien, 
prior to his departure or during his temporary absence abroad, has "entered 
into an arrangement 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 con- 
tinuing employment which commenced at such place subsequent to the date of 
the Secretary of Labor's determinatien." 8 C.F.R. 211.1(b)(1). 

37. The Secretary of Labor has determined that a labor dispute exists between 
plaintiff United Farm Workers Organizing Committee and a number of growers 
of table grapes in the Counties of Kern and Tulare and elsewhere in the State 
of California, including those who employed plaintiffs Robert Bustos and Lupe 
Murquia, other members of the class they represent, and members of plaintiff 
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee. 

38. Despite said determination, large numbers of Mexican nationals, about 
whom plaintiffs complain, have departed from the United States subsequent to 
the Secretary's determination and have reentered and continue to reenter the 
United States under authority of Alien Registration Receipt Cards under ar- 
rangements with, and with the intention of working for, said table grape grow- 
ers. Defendants have failed to enforce 8 C.F.R. 211.1(b)(1) to prevent this. 

39. Defendants have the power and duty to enforce 8 C.F.R. 211.1(b)(1). 
Aliens not authorized to be admitted must be excluded. 

40. Plaintiffs on numerous occasions in the past have made written demands 
on defendants that they carry out their duty to exclude the Mexican nationals 
about whom plaintiffs complain. Defendants have failed and i-efused to do so. 

41. At all times herein mentioned, defendants have been able to perform their 
duties, but notwithstanding such ability and despite the aforementioned de- 
mands, defendants have failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse to 
enforce 8 C.F.R. 211.1(b)(1). They have failed and refused, and continue to 
fail and refuse, to apply this regulation to the Mexican nationals, who are the 
subjects of this action. Said failure and refu.sal is unlawful and contrary to 
said regulation. 

42. Defendants' acts and omissions have resulted and continue to result in 
injury to the named plaintiffs and members of the individual plaintiffs' class 
as set forth in paragraph 17 of the first claim, which is incorporated herein by 
reference. In addition, the effectiveness of the strike of plaintiff United Farm 



2814 

Workers Organizing Committee lias been reduced, by the availability of the 
Mexican nationals, about whom plaintiffs complain, as farm labor. 

43. The regulation relied upon above, 8 C.F.R. 211.1(b) (1), was promulgated 
specifically to benefit plaintiffs and to protect them from the harm complained of. 

44. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy and adequate administrative remedy in 
that no administrative procedure exists, statutory or otherwise, to challenge the 
failure of the defendants to perform their duty. No action at law for damages 
would adequately compensate plaintiffs. Unless defendants are required to give 
full force and effect to 8 C.F.R. 211.1(b)(1), plaintiffs will continue to suffer 
severe and irreparable harm. Only a declaration or order by this Court requiring 
defendants to perform duties owed the plaintiffs would be sufficient to provide 
to plaintiffs the benefit of the laws enacted by Congress and of the regulations 
promulgated pursuant to those laws. 

Wherefore, plaintiffs pray that this Court : 

1. D'clare that immigrant aliens who are not returning to an actual, unre- 
linquished, permanent residence in the United States may not enter or reenter 
the United States in order to engage in agricultural labor unless they have a 
valid unexpired immigrant visa issued pursuant to a certification made under 
8 U.S.C. 1182 (a) (14) by the Secretary of Labor. 

2. Declare that aliens who enter or reenter the United States under the 
authority of Alien Registration Receipt Cards in order to perform temporary 
agricultural labor and who have a residence in Mexico which they do not intend 
to abandon must be reclassified as immigrant aliens under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (15) 
(H) and that these non-immigrant aliens may not enter or i-eenter the United 
States unless there are no unemployed persons within the United States capable 
of performing such agricultural labor and unless the criteria established by the 
Secretary of Labor in 20 C.F.R. 602.10 are complied with. 

3. Declare that no aliens seeking reentry into the United States through pres- 
entation of Alien Registration Receipt Cards may be admitted under 8 C.F.R. 
211.1(b) (1) if their intention is either to work at any place where the Secretary 
of Labor has determined that a labor di.<^pnte exists, or is to continue employ- 
ment which commenced after that determination. 

4. Order defendants, their agents and employees forthwith to carry out their 
duty to implement 8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (27), 8 U.S.C. 1181 (a) and (b), 8 U.S.C. 
1201(c) and 8 C.F.R. 211.1, by requiring all immigrant aliens who seek to enter 
or reenter the United States in order to engage in agricultural employment 
through presentation of Alien Registration Receipt Cards and who are not 
returning to an actual, vmrelinquished, permanent residence in the United States 
after a temporary visit abroad, to present a valid unexpired immigrant visa 
issued pursuant to a certification made under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (14) by the Secre- 
tary of Labor. 

5. Order defendants, their agents and employees forthwith to carry out their 
duty to reclassify all immigrant aliens, who seek to enter or reenter the United 
States in order to engage temporarily in agricultural employment and who have 
residences in Mexico that they have no intention of abandoning, as non-immigrant 
aliens under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (1.5) (H) who may not enter or reenter the United 
States unless no unemployed persons in the United States are capable of per- 
forming such agricultural labor and unless the criteria established by the Secre- 
tary of Labor in 20 C.F.R. 602.10 are complied with. 

6. Order defendants, their agents and employees forthwith to carry out their 
duty to implement 8 C.F.R. 211.1(b) (1) requiring that all aliens seeking reentry 
into the United States through presentation of Alien Registration Receipt Cards 
be refused admission if their intention either is to work at any place where the 
Secretary of Labor has determined that a labor dispute exists, or is to continue 
employment which commenced after said determination. 

7. Enjoin defendants, their agents, and employees from continuing to allow 
immigrant aliens who seek to engage in agricultural employment and who are 
not returning to an actual, unrelinquished, permanent residence in the United 
States after a temporary visit abroad from entering or reentering the United 
States through presentation of Alien Registration Receipt Cards without valid : 
immigrant visas in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (27), 8 U.S.C. 1181 (a) and (b), 
and 8 U.S.C. 1201(c). 

8. Enjoin defendants, their agents, and employees from continuing to treat! 
aliens v,iio seek to enter or reenter the United States under authority of Alien 
Registration Receipt Cards in order to engage temporarily in agricultural employ- 
ment and who have residences in Mexico which they have no intention of aban- 
doning, as immigrant aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (15). 



2815 

9. Enjoin defendants, their agents, and employees from allowing aliens to 
reenter the United States through presentation of Alien Registration Receipt 
Cards if their intention is either to work at any place where the Secretary of 
Labor has determined that a labor dispute exists or to continue employment 
which commenced after said determination in violation of 8 C.F.R. 211.1(b) (1). 

10. Determine that plaintiffs are entitled to the costs. 

11. Provide such other relief to the plaintiffs as the Court may consider just 
and proper. 

Gaby Bellow, Esq., 
668 35th Street, Manhattan Beach, Calif. 
Geery Cohen, Esq., 
Post Office Box ISO, Delano, Calif. 
Bruce J. Tereis, Esq., 
1152 Swann Street NW., Washington, D.C. 

(Attorneys for Plaintiffs). 
Dated : December 1, 1969. 

[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 22, 1969] 

Exploiting the Poor 

Gentlemen, I have spent my entire life in Texas. My work has 
taken me into the poorest counties, towns, barrios and homes in the 
Southwest. I have seen, as you may have, the slums of South El 
Paso, the squalor at the edge of Phoenix, and the hopelessness in 
towns like Laredo and Calexico. I have stood in the pre-dawn hours 
at the bridge in Roma, Texas, and seen busloads of strikebreakers 
from Mexico being transported across the border to defeat the efforts 
of poor American citizens to improve themselves. These are things 
we must work to change. 

This personal note, quietly eloquent, was injected in the statement in support 
of HR 12667 made on behalf of the Division for Poverty and the Division for 
Migration and Refugee Service of the United States Catholic Conference by the 
Rev. John E. McCarthy before a House Labor subcommittee. It added a particu- 
larly persuasive touch to his factual report on how so-called "green card" work- 
ing permits for commuting aliens are being abused to perpetuate the shocking 
poverty and unemployment along the Mexican border, a situation which could 
be corrected by the pending legislation. 

Although workers in the industrialized portions of the United States won 
their fight for unionism more than 30 years ago and have become at least reason- 
ably affluent, the conditions still prevailing in California vineyards and Texas 
cotton fields are worse than feudal. And efforts to improve them — such as the 
courageous campaign of Cesar Chavez and the Delano gi'ape-pickers — are seri- 
ously hindered by the exploitation of Mexicans as strikebreakers, poor people 
often unaware that they are being pitted against other poor people. 

Influential but socially irresponsible groups have been able to exclude farm 
workers from the rights accorded to other workers — to their profit and to the 
shame of the rest of us. But efforts are being stepped up on behalf of those who 
ask no more than fair play. Elimination of the "green card" abuse is necessary 
to clear the national conscience. 



[From the Congressional Record — Senate, Nov. 20, 1969] 

Court Rules That Farmers Hiring Illegal Foreign Labor Liable for 

Damages 

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, as chairman of the Migratory Labor Sub- 
committee, I have seen firsthand the depresing effect on living and working con- 
ditions caused by the presence of foreign workers in agriculture. While some 
of these foreign workers are in the United States under .some color of law, there 
have been an increasing niunber of foreign woi-kers that enter this country ille- 
gally. They are called wetbacks, because many gain entry by swimming across 
the Rio Grande. 

In an unprecedented decision a California court has ruled that domestic farm- 
workers have a right to prevent agricultural employers from hiring wetbacks 
in order to depress wages and working conditions, since the use of wetbacks to 



2816 

the detriment of local workers would be an unfair business practice. The suit 
follows the settlement of a previous action when a grower agreed to request that 
prospective agricultural employees offer proof of lawful status in the United 
States, such as an alien registration receipt card, commonly known as a green 
card, or a valid draft card, or a local drivers license. 

Legal action undertaken by California Rural Legal Assistance on behalf of 
farmworkers punctuates the failure of the Government to effectively implement 
laws enacted by Congress for the protection of domestic labor. The immigration 
laws provide that alien workers shall not be imported if their use will have an 
adverse effect on domestic wages and working conditions — 8 U.S.C. 1182 (a) 14. 
Consistent with controls on foreign labor, Congress prohibited directly or in- 
directly inducing illegal entry into the United States or harboring or concealing 
illegal entrants from discovery. However, a loophole exempts the employment 
of illegal entrants from the statute — 8 U.S.C. 1324. This provision which has made 
it easy for illegal entrants to obtain employment both on the farms and increas- 
ingly in the cities, contributes substantially to the presence in the United States 
of perhaps as many as 400,000 aliens who entered illegally, have no right to ))e 
here, but who deprive low-income domestic workers of jobs. In the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1969, the Immigration and Naturalization Service reported the 
apprehension of 151,000 illegal entrants, possibly only one-third of those aliens 
who escaped detection. 

The use of wetbacks coincides with high unemployment and low wages. At 
the cui'rent rate of unemplo.vment perhaps as many as one out of every six 
unemployed American workers could be out of work because of the use of illegal 
entrants. On the farms only one worker in eight works more than 2.")0 days of 
the year, and average hourly earnings — $1.48— are at most one-half those pre- 
vailing in the industrial sector — $3.01. 

In Sonoma County, Calif., a rich agricultural area where workers are challeng- 
ing the unemployment of wetbacks, another group of workers covered by Federal 
and State minimum wage laws has brought suit against an employer charging 
that they were paid an average of 30 cerits per hour on a piece rate to harvest 
pears and prunes. Applicants for farm labor jobs in the same county were double 
growers' requests for workers even at periods of peak utilization. 

While illegal entrant use was formerly predominantly agricultural, current 
patterns show a dramatic shift to permanent low and semiskilled employment 
in industry and in the cities. Additionally the incidence of illegal alien labor has 
gradually spread from the Southwest to other areas of the country. In Los 
Angeles where the unemployment rate is about 5 percent compared with 3.5 
percent nationally — August 1969 — up to 4,000 illegr.l entrants are a pprf bended 
each month. Recent w^etback apprehensions in rural areas similarl.v reflect a 
shift in vretback employment to more permanent jobs such as wineries and light 
manufacturing. Wetbacks deprive American low-income workers of possibly 
$100 million every year. 

The easy employment of Mexican nationals at wages ranging from five to 10 
times the amount earned in Mexico has led to the development of a lucrative 
and sophisticated series of smuggling syndicates which extract up to $300 from 
Mexican workers to get them into the United States and find them work. 
These syndicates, which are feared by residents on both sides of the border, 
are not above resorting to bribery and violence and have been linked, by four 
Franciscan fathers working with Mexican nationals, to the marihuana traffic 
as vrell. 

Because of the magnitude of the problem and the apparent disinterest in ade- 
quately enforcing the law. efforts at controlling the illegal entrant have been 
diligent but puny. Multiple returnees are permitted to leave voluntarily or are 
transported to the interior of Mexico at the expense of the U.S. Government. 
Smugglers are prosecuted but frequently plead guilty to a lesser offense, or 
receive a minimal sentence. 

Law suits such as the Santa Rosa case could have some deterrent effect on the 
unlimited employment opportunities which wetbacks now have in the United 
States, in possibly requiring more responsible employers to reqiiest that Spanish- 
speaking males who seek employment provide some evidence that they are 
entitled to be in the United States. But only the repeal of the employment exemp- 
tion — 8 U.S.C. 1324 — can provide law enforcement officials with an effective deter- 
rent to the widespread use of illegal entrant labor. 

Furthermore. Mr. President, this case illustrates the excellent service provided 
by California Rural Legal Assistance, and other legal service programs through- 



2S17 

out this Nation, in bringing liigh quality legal service to the poor in order that 
their interests are adequately represented and laws designed for their protection 
are actually enforced. 

It is important that poor people have the sam& administrative and judicial 
remedies that are available to, and exercised by, all Americans. Unfortunately, 
the ability of legal services programs to continue to provide these valuable and 
basic services to the poor is in jeopardy because of the regressive amendment 
recently adopted by the Senate. This case presents yet another example of why I 
fought to defeat that amendment. It is ironic that the existence of an OEO pro- 
gram is threatened merely because it is providing services that it is designed to 
offer, services that nonpoor Americans take for granted. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two articles, one from the Los 
Angeles Times, and another from the Washington Post, that report this court 
case be printed in the Record, along with an article from the October 20, 1969, 
issue of the Nation. 

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the Record, 
as follows : 

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 19, 1969] 
CALIFORNIA FARJIS WARNED ON HIRING WETBACKS 

(By John Berthelsen) 

Santa Rosa, Calif. — A Superior Court judge here has ruled that farmers are 
liable to punishment if they refuse to give jobs to American citizens while hiring 
illegal Mexican immigrants. 

The victory is one step in a long fight by California Rural Legal Assistance 
Inc., an agency of the Office of Economic Opportunity, to stop the use of illegal 
migrants by farmers and growers. The ruling v.ill enable other agricultural work- 
ers to obtain injunctions against employers using such poorly paid labor. 

The decision may also have an etfect on the long and bitter grape strike in 
California's central valleys. Leaders of the strike claim that growers have used 
illegal aliens as strikebreakers. 

The decision was handed down late last week by Superior Court Judge Joseph 
Murphy. He rejected a move to block a $20,000 damage action against apple 
grower Donald Orr of Healdsburg, a town north of San Francisco. Orr's attor- 
neys contended that laborers Eleno Riojas and Guadlupe Guitan had no right 
to ))ring the action, which accused Orr of employing illegal immigi*ants. Murphy 
ruled that the right was provided under the unfair business practices law. 

Attorneys for the CRLA representing Riojas and Guitan also sought an injunc- 
tion ordering farm employers to require prospective workers to show alien regis- 
tration cards, draft cards or local drivers' licenses as legal proof of residence. 

The judge rejected this bid, saying it was inappropriate since the working 
season was over. He added it was "not a determination on whether it should be 
ordered" — leaving the door open for similar injunctions during next year's 
growing season. 

"The impact of this decision is going to send tremors throughout California 
agriculture." said the plaintiff's attorney. Sheldon Greene. 
"The Border Patrol estimates that as much as .$100 million a year is being taken 
out of the United States by illegal workers. A total of 1-51.000 border-jumpers 
were caught between June 1968 and July 19(59—63,000 of them in California, 
and 4,000 in Los Angeles alone. 



[From the Los Angeles Times, Oct. 10, 1969] 

ILLEGAL ALIEN EMPLOTERS LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE ACTION, COURT RULES — JUDGE SATS 
DAMAGES ARE POSSIBLE UNDER CODE WHICH PROHIBITS UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 
AND COMPETITION 

(By Harry Bernstein) 

Growers and other employers who hire aliens illegally are liable for puntive 
dnmages under a law prohibiting unfair business competition, a California court 
has ruled. 

Millions of Mexican citizens have illegally crossed the border since World 
War II, taking jobs that unions and other groups have complained should have 
gone to unemployed U.S. citizens. 

Wheji the illegal aliens are caught they are normally sent back to Mexico, but 
there is no punishment of either the alien or the U.S. employer. 



1 

2818 



However, Superior Judge Joseph P. Murphy ruled in Santa Rosa Thursday 
that punishment is possible under the state's civil code, which forbids unfair 
business practices and unfair competition. 

By hiring an illegal alien the employer may be engaging in unfair business 
practices, he found, since the action could serve to depress wages or working con- 
ditions of U.S. citizens who want the job, too. 

Case Filed hy Legal Group 

The case was filed by the California Rural Legal Assistance, a federally-funded 
war-on-poverty project. 

Sheldon Greene, general counsel for GRLA, said the case is a class action on 
behalf of all farm workers. 

(In a similar case last Aug. 28, Santa Clara County Superior Judge Joseph 
Kelly ruled that a mushroom-growing firm must refrain from hiring aliens 
illegally and open its employment records to the CRLA) . 

The judge said a final decision on whether the Orr Fruit Co. must pay any or 
all of the $20,100 damages sought by CRLA will be made after a hearing on the 
specific facts in the case. 

But Greene noted that the unprecedented part of the decision is the court's 
ruling that the, state law can be used, in effect, to punish employers who hire 
illegal aliens in competition with U.S. workers. 

Greene said new Department of Immigration figures show that in the past year 
151,000 illegal aliens were caught nationally, including 63,000 in California. 

But for every one alien apprehended, it is estimated that another two are not 
caught, Greene added : 

"We estimate that these aliens send $100 a million a year back to Mexico. An 
employer could check on the status of his employes by simply asking to see a 
drivers' license, draft card or some other identification." 

The Orr Fruit Co. denied knowingly using illegal aliens. 

Greene said that "obviously the wetbacks don't come over to this country to see 
their Aunt Emma or visit Palm Springs. They come to get work, and if U.S. 
employers were stopped from hiring them, then the flood of wetbacks would stop." 

(The illegal aliens became known as wetbacks because many of them swam 
across the Rio Grande to cross into this country. ) 



[From the Nation, Oct. 20, 1969] 
OPEEATION SISYPHUS : WETBACKS, GROWERS AND POVEETT 

(By Sheldon L. Greene)^ 

San Francisco. — The bracero program died in 1968, after a long illness. Under 
its provisions, 4.5 million Mexican temporary workers were brought into the 
United States between 1942 and 1963 as supplementary farm labor. Officially 
terminated by Congress in 1963 — long after the World War II labor shortage 
which it was intended to ease had ended — it finally trickled to a halt in August 
1968 when Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz denied a request by California 
tomato growers for 2,200 Mexican farm workers. He characterized this refusal 
of legal entry as "a historic step towards healing the migrant workers sore in 
California and in the entire United States." But current 1968-69 immigration 
records show the apprehejision of 150.000 Mexican nationals who had entered the 
United States illegally, and the incidence of these wetbacks in American em- 
ployment is perhaps triple the number caught. This would suggest that Secretary 
Wirtz's cure is at the most cosmetic. 

Illegal entry by Mexican nationals has afflicted domestic low-income workers 
since world War II. In 1942, after Mexico had agreed to supply temporary workers 
under the bracero program, Texas farmers refused to meet agreed wages and 
working conditions. In respon.'^e, Mexico for a time cut off the supply of workers, 
but U.S. Immigration authorities permitted thousands of Mexicans to cross the 
border illegally. They were then apprehended and "paroled" to Texas farmers, 
thus avoiding the terms of the international labor agreement. Farmers and 
border industries got cheap labor; domestic farm workers and El Paso garment 



1 Mr. Greene is general counsel for California Rural Legal Assistance and a specialist 
In litigation challenging the employment of nonresident alien labor. 



2819 

workers and meat packers suffered wartime inflation but were forced to accept 
low wages if ttiey wanted to work at all. 

In 1954 the President's Commission on Migratory Labor studied the border labor 
problem and concluded : "The United States, having engaged in a program giving 
preference in contracting to those who had broken the law, has encouraged a 
violation of the immigration laws. Our government has thus become a contributor 
to the growth of an illegal traffic which it has responsibility to prevent." 

That same year, the Justice Department launched Operation Wetback, a round- 
up of more than a million illegal entrants in an area stretching as far as St. 
Louis and Chicago. San Antonio alone harbored 3.31,000. The roundup seemed so 
succes.sful that the Immigration and Naturalization Service stated optimistically 
in its 19.55 report that it had ended the wetback problem. The boast proved 
premature. 

The Border Patrol and the Investigation Section of the INS are diligent, 
outnumbered and outmaneuvered. The comparatively few illegal entrants who 
attempt to cross the natural, and for the most part barren, frontier on foot are 
easily spotted by the continual overhead observation of Border Patrol spotter 
planes; tliey are then picked up by ground patrols which run along exfoliated 
drag strips. Some few aliens risk their lives in airless car trunks and campers, or 
precariously flattened on a ledge beneath passenger cars. Such trips cost from 
$100 to $300. One recently ended in death by asphyxiation.' 

But for 70 to 80 per cent of the illegal entrants access is neither hazardous nor 
romantic. More than a million Mexican aliens carry visitors' permits. These sal- 
mon-colored cards, issued by the Mexican Government at a cost of about $80, 
authorize visits of seventy-two hours in an area not more than 25 miles from the 
border. 

But the aliens, most of them, are not looking forward to a visit. The typical 
wetback meets an agent in Mexico who provides him with a routing or a contact. 
Once across the border, he is transported to a city, often Los Angeles, and there 
referred to a job. In some instances, the agents provide ti'ansportation by selling 
a group of wetbacks an automobile, in which they can better elude detection. 
Those who lar-k the cash are offerfd a "go now, pay later" plan under which the 
price of the car is deducted from the future wages. 

Once inside, the alien easily merges into urban or rural Chicago barrios. Any- 
one can get a Social Security card by flling an application ; proof of legitimate 
entry or birth certificate is not required. Employers record the Social Security 
number and couldn't care less about the worker's .status. It is a felony to induce 
nn alien to enter the United States, to transport him or to harbor him from 
detection ; but conservative legislators from farm districts have managed to ex- 
empt the employer of an illegal entrant from that chain of complicity, even when 
the employee is known to be a wetback. 

Agriculture absorbs the bulk of the illegal entrants. During fiscal 1968, 88,9.50 
of those apprehended were doing farm work. Wetbacks are preferred by most 
farmers because they are thought to work harder than Americans and to 
complain less about conditions. The minimum wage for farm work in California is 
$1.65 an hour ; wetbacks in labor camps are lucky to earn $1.35, not enough to 
live on in California but four times the Mexican minimum wage. The rich regions 
of California are dotted with the grim labor camps which formerly housed 
braceros. Wetbacks now live in many of them, hidden well off public roads on 
land posted against trespassing. 

While most wetbacks seek farm work during the busy seasons, substantial 
numbers are kept on the year around, or find off-season jobs during the very 
periods when domestic farm workers, residents of the area, are unemployed and 
dependent on public assistance. Winter unemployment in farm regions runs as 
high as 16 per cent of the domestic labor force ; in California alone idle farm 
workers require $15 million in public assistance. Ten thousand wetbacks were 
caught in the five states that make up the Southwest in February 1969. From 
this figure one can assume that from 10,000 to 40,000 low-income families were 
disi)laced from jobs by wetbacks during the winter months, at a cost in taxes 
and loss of domestic wages amounting to tens of millions. 

Surveys show that the prevalence of wetbacks also depress wage levels, and en- 
courages employers to ignore the laws governing wages and working conditions. 
Union leaders find it difficult to organize in areas saturated with wetbacks. A 
nationally reported example is the stubborn resistance Cesar Chavez's United 
Farm Workers Organizing Committee has encountred in its efforts to sign con- 
tracts with the California table grape growers. Strikes are not a compelling argu- 



- 2820 

ment with employers who can rely on Mexican nationals, and the union has been 
forced to organize a nation-wide consumer boycott of table grai^e^ to achieve its 
purpose. 

Displacement of local workers by wetbacks is no longer a predominantly rural 
problem, since illegal entrants increasingly gravitate to more permanent jobs in 
the cities. From 1,500 to 3,000 of them are caught each month in the Los Angeles 
metropolitan area. Recently, the Border Patrol uncovered a smuggling operation 
which specialized in supplying wetbacks for industrial jobs in Chicago. 

Despite the seemingly impressive figures on apprehensions, the wetback prob- 
lem is not being brought under control. The program is hampered from the start 
by a shortage of manpower and equipment. As one patrolman in the Stockton. 
Calif., area put it : "We stake out Route 99 and the smugglers hear of it and 
take another road. There aren't enough of lis to cover all the main highways all 
the time." On any given day, approximately 300 oflBcers are on duty in the five 
Southwestern states. 

A more basic problem than the size of the Border Patrol is the ease of entry 
afforded by the visitor's card and the absence of administrative controls on its 
use. The zone of travel i)e,rraitted by these cards (with no record kept of entry 
and departure) was recently reduced from 150 to 25 miles from the border and 
that is making it easier to tag violators en route to the big cities. Since the re- 
duction, systematic road checks on approaches to Los Angeles have turned up 
hundreds of aliens with no residency documents. 

However. Border Patrol ofiicials complain privately of the Justice Depart- 
ment's failure to require fingerprints as part of the permit procedure. Lacking 
that identification, it is almost impossible to spot previous violators when they 
reappear at the border, and wetbacks who have been returned to Mexico reenter 
again and again, visitor's permit in hand. ALso, since no record is kept as to when 
a seventy-two-hour visit begins, a Mexican who has eluded detection for weeks or 
mouths can depart unquestioned. 

The very volume of violators has dictated an informal handling of those caught, 
and this also fails to discourage the increasing traffic. Illegal entry is a crime for 
which the violator may be prosecuted in the federal courts and formally deported 
by the INS. Reentry after such a deportation is a felony. But resort to these 
remedies is infrequent. The present policy is to allow the illegal entrant to leave 
voluntarily within three days of apprehension. Often he is permitted to get to the 
border on his own. Or he may be taken to a detention center in El Paso, Tex., or 
Bl Centro, Calif., to await bus transportation to the interior of Mexico at U.S. 
Government expense. Not only does the wetback get a free trip home but back 
wages are collected for him by Border Patrolmen. Voluntary return is likened by 
an INS adminLstrator to a "game warden who discovers a hunter without a license 
and helps him carry the deer he's killed out of the park." Multiple returnees are 
seldom prosecuted and are formally deported only after the fourth, fifth or sixth 
entry, unless they are caught assisting other wetbacks to cro.ss the border. A 
formal deportation procedure takes no more than fifteen minutes, and does not re- 
quire the services of an attorney, but the INS claims that there are insufficient 
hearing officers to handle all the possible cases and that in any case deportation 
wouldn't stop the alien from trying again. Authorities do not even officially notify 
a grower when illegal entrants are found on his land. 

United States attorneys and judges regard illegal entry as an economic crime 
of low priority and most Americans sympathize with the wetback, who is after 
all a very poor man trying to get ahead. Few jurists or juries appreciate the 
relationship between illegal entry and the plight of the domestic poor. Federal 
prosecutors have little time even for wetback smugglers, accepting only aggra- 
vated cases of prosecution. Despite the high apprehension rate in Northern Cali- 
fornia — 8,500 in x\ugust 196S — there has been almost no prosecution of smugglers 
or transporters. Officials suggest that strict enforcement, involving due process 
for each alien, would choke court dockets, overburden U.S. attorneys and tie up 
patrolmen as witnesses. The more pessimistic add that extensive prosecution 
would ultimately fill the prisons to capacity — a line of reasoning not applied to 
marijuana cases. INS investigators are hampered by the taciturnity of wet- 
backs, who refuse to say how they entered the country or who helped them to do 
so. Aware that failure to cooperate will not land him in jail, the alien has no in- 
ducement to reveal what he knows of the smuggling operation. 

Recent lawsuits brought in California by domestic farm workers against grow- 
ers using wetbacks allege that such employment is an unfair business practice 
calculated to lower their wages, diminish their employment opportunity and force 



2821 

them to seek public assistance at tlie taxpayers' expense. Wtiile emplojineut of il- 
legal entrants is exempt from the legal sanctions against harboring wetbacks, 
farm workers charge that growers are nevertheless criminally implicated, since 
offering wetbacks employment and shelter from detection is aiding and abetting 
in the crime of illegal entry. This resort to self-help law enforcement by the poor 
is a reflection on the failure of the Justice Department to perform its duties. 

The ambivalance of the INS in the area of illegal entry is striking. The search 
for violators is persistent but ineffectual, and it seems clear that more could be 
done. The service operates on a budget of $86,450,000, more than half of which 
is committed to the four states bordering Mexico. Detention and transportation of 
apprehended illegal entrants alone cosits $1.6 million, yet no funds can be found 
to hire more hearing officers and increase the number of formal deportations. 
Nor is there money to increase the Border Patrol and investigation staff, despite 
increased illegal entry and the much heavier work load demonstrated by the 
higher apprehension rates. 

An obvious need is the fingerprint identification of seventy-two-hour permit 
holders. INS officials argue that it would be impractical to match the fingerprints 
of apprehended wetbacks against those of 1 million cardholders. Yet the need to 
check at most 500 fingerprints a day, the ostensible average number of wetbacks 
caught in the peak months, is small campared to the FBI's work load of 32,000 
identifications a day from a file of 15 million sets of prints. 

The replacement of cards at four-month intervals would make it easier to re- 
voke the cards of violators. A requirement that holders of the unlimited entry 
permit post a bond to secure observance of the terms of entry, a device authorized 
in related immigration laws, could be an effective deterrent. Other steps could be 
taken to provide more effective enforcement. A recent act which authorizes a 
federal magistrate to handle petty crimes could undoubtedly speed the prosecu- 
tion of numerous smuggliing offenses as misdemeanors. Formal deportation fol- 
lowing the second illegal entry within two years, the power to assess administra- 
tive fines in lieu of prosecution (thereby attaching a portion of the wages earned), 
and even the right to confiscate the vehicle used in the transportation of illegal 
aliens, as is done in narcotics smuggling, would also discourage the border 
hoppers. 

Important remedial legislation is before House and Senate. A bill to prohibit the 
intentional employment of a person illegally in the United States was introduced 
on March 26, 1969 by Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Michael Feighan. The 
measure is cosponsored by nine Senators and twenty-three Representatives. But 
even if passed, it will not result in many prosecutions, since the present difficulties 
of proving smuggling will be compounded when the federal attorney nuist submit 
his case to a jury. However, the abrogation of the employment exemption, com- 
bined with occasional well-publicized prosecutions and stiff fines, should cure 
many employers of hiring wetbacks at bargain rates. Similarly, a bill introduced 
by Senator Mondale would amend the National Labor Relations Act to make it an 
unfair labor practice to employ aliens unlawfully present in the country, or to 
hire nonresident commuter aliens during a labor dispute. Any of these measures, 
applied for several years, would provide increasingly effective deterrence to il- 
legal entry. 

Even so, the problem of the wetback will remain as long as the Mexican-Ameri- 
can border is open, the border economies remain interdependent, and American 
earnings are five to ten times the Mexican wage. But in our increasingly tech- 
nological society, with the chronic unemployment among low-income unskilled 
and semi-skilled workers, it is a problem which cannot be ignored. The continued 
use of nonresident Mexican labor in border areas, a concession to the artificiality 
of the border, should be coupled with affirmative enforcement of wage standards 
and labor laws to provide domestic workers with earnings commensurate with 
living costs, at least equal access to jobs, and the freedom to bargain collectively. 
Moreover, urban and rural areas distant from the border have no interdepend- 
ence with the Mexican population and economy. Lack of enforcement in such 
places, except for the futile apprehension-return cycle, is really a subsidy to cer- 
tain industries and subvert the Administration's policy to "move people' off the 
welfare roles and onto the payrolls." 

Despite the good record of the Border Patrol, administrative deficiencies in 
coping with the infiow of illegal entrants cannot be explained entirely by a lack 
of imagination or a lack of funds. It is not pure fantasy to conclude that the 
policy of the Justice Department on illegal entry is to do just enough to avoid 
wholesale criticism, without arousing the serious anger of anti-union employers 
who favor an abundance of cheap labor. 



2822 

PERTINENT LEGISLATION 

S. 2568 INTKODUCTION OF A BiLL ALLEVIATING THE BOEDER COMMUTEE LABOE 

Peoblem 

Mr. MoNDALE. Mr. President, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to 
amend the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, so as to make it an un- 
fair labor practice for an employer to employ any alien unlawfully present in 
the United States, or to employ aliens whose principal dwelling places are in a 
foreign country during a labor dispute. 

Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, 
I am acutely aware of the adverse social and economic impact caused by commut- 
ers who cross the U.S.-Mexican border to work in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, 
and California. Recent hearings hy the Migratory Lahor Subcommittee revealed 
the severity of this problem. 

The commuters I refer to are workers, predominantly from Mexico, that gain 
entry into the United States for a day, or a week, or a month or more, by dis- 
playing either a form 1-151 — ^permanent alien registration card — commonly re- 
ferred to as a green card — or a certificate showing a U.S. birthplace, or a tem- 
porary 3-day visa — ^white card — or a baptismal certificate. Large numbers of il- 
legal entrants also come across the border to work in the United States. 

The ready availability of workers along the horder areas has contributed to the 
depression of living and working conditions in the United States and Mexico, and 
has created a situation resembling our 1930's depression economy. Illustrative of 
the commuter's adverse impact on our economy are the following data : 90 per- 
cent of commuters are in eight border areas from Texas, Arizona, and California ; 
unemployment in Texas border cities is almost 95 percent greater than in Texas 
interior "cities ; alien commuters work most often in the lowest skilled, most 
menial and lowest paid jobs ; wages for seasonal farmwork in Texas border areas 
are over 30 percent less than in the rest of the State; firms that employ com- 
muters tend to pay lower wages than firms that employ only U.S. residents and 
tend to pay lower wages than are paid U.S. residents for the same work; wage 
rates paid to commuters are often less than what unemployed U.S. residents say 
they are able to accept; California farm wage rates are lowest in the border 
areas where the bulk of the farm labor force is composed of commuters ; com- 
muters constitute about 85 percent of the farmwork force in California Imperial 
Valley, where unemployment in 1966 was 10 percent of the labor force, twice the 
average rate for the entire State. Furthermore, an adverse impact on the Mexi- 
can economy is created by the introduction of U.S. dollars. 

Another major adverse effect is that community and union organization efforts 
are rendered diflacult and often ineffective due to the ready availability of work- 
ers at such low wages and poor living conditions. By permitting commuters to 
work indiscriminately in our economy and then take their wages back to the low- 
cost, low-wage Mexican economy, living and wage standards of U.S. citizens are 
undermined, decent job opportunities are damaged, and there is an impact 
throughout our entire Nation. The economic depression no doubt causes U.S. citi- 
zens to migrate north, and to our cities, in a desperate search for work. Com- 
muters too often have little or no stake in the resolution of domestic labor dis- 
putes or in a sustained effort to improve living conditions. They simply return to 
the Mexican economy with their earnings. It is widely recognized that commuters 
are used as strikebreakers during labor organizing efforts to obtain collective 
bargaining agreements in California and Texas. It has been reliably estimated 
that 40 percent of the workers at 24 struck grape ranches in the California area in 
1968 where IMexican national green-card holders. 

This situation has a particular impact on the migrant and seasonal farm- 
workers who is powerless to affect his own unemployment and underemployment, 
powerless to fight job displacement, and powerless in union or community or- 
ganization efforts to improve his living and working conditions. 

A proposal that is designed to alleviate some aspects of the commuter problem 
is contained in a bill which I am introducing today. The proposal would add a 
new section 8(a) (6) to the National Labor Relations Act making it an unfair 
labor practice for an employer to hire any alien unlawfully present in the United 
States, or for an employer to hire during a labor dispute as replacements for a 
regular employee, any person lawfully admitted to the United States whose per- 
manent residence is in a country contiguous to the United States. It is further 
proposed that the present section 10(1) of the NLRA be amended to provide 
mandatory and speedy injunctions for violations of the proposed new section 



2823 

8(a)(6). The proposal contemplates coverage of the agriculture industry even 
if legislative proposals — such as S. 8 — to remove the exclusion of agriculture em- 
ployees are not enacted. 

Other proposals relating to the border commuter labor problem are already 
under consideration. Today Congressmaii Frank Thompson, of New Jersey, is 
introducing a bill similar to the bill I now aui introducing, and hearings are 
scheduled on his bill for next week. Senator Edward Kennedy has introduced 
another bill (S. 1694), which I am cosponsoring, that would amend our Immi- 
gration and Naturalization laws l)y refining the commuter labor system. I 
understand that the Judiciary Suli; ommittee, which has legislative jurisdiction, 
and on which Senator Kennedy serves, will soon be holding hearings on that bill. 
There are companion bills to the Kennedy bill on the House side. I do hope 
that hearings, in addition to the investigative hearings already conducted by 
the Migratory Labor Subcommittee, can be held soon on my proposal today. 

The investigative hearings held by the Migratory Labor Subcommittee on 
May 28 and 29, 1969, confinaed the fact that the border commuter labor problem 
is quite complicated and diilieult to deiine. It is not subject to easy solution. One 
matter is certain, however, and it is that the best way to cure the problems of 
poverty, low wages and deplorable living conditions along our Southwestern 
border communities is to remove the barriers that stand in front of human 
beings who are trying to gain their fair share of the American dream that has 
been denied them for so long. A major hurdle to strong, effective, self-help 
union and community organization is the continuation of the commuter sys- 
tem as we know it today. My bill will hopefully eliminate at least one aspect" of 
the problem by making it an unfair Labor practice under the NLRA for employers 
to hire illegal entrants and commuter strikebreakers. I am open to further sug- 
gestions to alleviating the problem from my colleagues and interested parties. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in 
the Record. 

The presiding officer: The bill will be received and appropriately referred; 
and, without objection, tbe bill will be printed in the Record. 

The bill (S. 2."568) to amend the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 
so as to make it an unfair labor practice for an employer to emi)loy any alien 
unlawfully present in the United States, or to employ aliens whose principal 
dwelling places are in a foreign country during a labor dispute, introduced by Mr. 
MoNDALE, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on 
Labor and Public Welfare, and ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows : 

S. 2568 

Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled. That section 8(a) and section 10(1) of the 
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, are amended as follows : 

Section 1. Add a new paragraph to section 8(a) to read as follows: 

"(6) to employ any alien unlawully present in the United States; or hire 
during a labor dispute as replacements for a person or persons ordinarily 
employed by such employer any alien lawfully admitted to the United States 
for permanent residence whose principal, actual dwelling place is in a foreign 
country contiguous to the United States; Provided that this section 8(a)(6) 
shall apply to any employer, whether or not he employs 'employees' as defined 
in section 2(3)." 

Sec. 2. Amend the first sentence of section 10(1) of the National Labor Rela- 
tions Act by adding the words "or section 8(a) (6)," after "or section 8(b) (7),". 



[S. 2568 and H.R. 12667, 91st Cong., first sess.] 

A BILL To amend the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, so as to make it an 
unfair labor practice for an employer to employ any alien unlawfully present in the 
United States, or to employ aliens whose principal dwelling places are in a foreign country 
during a labor dispute 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That section 8(a) and section 10(1) of the 
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, are amended as follows : 

Add a new paragraph to section 8(a) to read as follows : 

"(6) to employ any alien unlawfully present in the United States; or to hire 
during a labor dispute as replacements for a person or persons ordinarily 



2824 

employed by such employer any alien lawfully admitted to the United States for 
permanent " residence whose principal actual dwelling place is in a foreign 
country contiguous to the United States: Provided, That this section 8(a)(6) 
shall apply to any employer, whether or not he employs 'employees' as defined m 
section 2(3)." ^^ ^. , ,- , 

Sec. 2. Amend the first sentence of section 10(1) of the National Labor 
Relations Act by adding the words "or section 8(a)(6)," after "or section 
8(b)(7),". 

Employment of Aliens as Strikebreakers 
purpose of h.r. 12667 

HR 12667 would amend section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, 
as amended to make it an unfair labor practice for an employer to employ any 
alien unlawfully present in the United States or to hire aliens lawfully admitted 
to the United States for permanent residence whose principal, actual dwelling 
place is in a foreign country contiguous to the United States as replacements 
during a labor dispute for persons ordinarily employed by such employer. 

It is aimed at the problem of "border commuters" or "green carders" who 
come into the United States each day from Mexico to work in border communi- 
ties, causing adverse social and economic effects on wage and working standards 
of American industry. 

ANALYSIS OF H.R. 12 667 

Section 8(a) of the act sets forth various types of activities on the part of 
employers that are designated as "unfair labor practices." H.R. 12667 would 
add an additional paragraph (6) to section 8(a) to make it an unfair labor prac- 
tice under the act for an employer to hire aliens under two sets of circum- 
stances — (1) any alien unlawfully present in the United States; or (2) any alien 
lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence whose principal, 
actual dwelling place is in a foreign country contiguous to the United States if 
such alien is being hired during a labor dispute as a replacement for a person or 
persons ordinarily employed by such employer. 

The bill further provides that this new section 8(a) (6) shall apply to any 
employer, whether or not he employs "employees" as defined in section 2(3) of 
the act. The effect of this proviso in section 1 of H.R. 12667 would be to eliminate 
from the definition of employee the restriction against including an individual 
employed as an agricultural laborer as well as other categories of persons 
excluded under section 2(3), such as domestic service workers, independent con- 
tractors, persons employed by parents or spouses, supervisory employees, or 
those individuals subject to the Railway Labor Act. 

Finally the provisions of section 2 of H.R. 12667 would amend section 10(1) 
of the act relating to injunctive relief to prevent unfair labor practices under 
the act by adding the new section 8(a) (6) to the categories of unfair labor prac- 
tices for which the remedies contained in section 10 ( 1 ) apply. 

CHANGES MADE IN EXISTING LAW BY H.R. 12667 

(New matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is pro- 
posed is shown in roman. ) 
Sections (a)— New Langiiarje After 8{(i) (5) 

"S(a)(6) to employ any alien unlawfully present in the United States; or 
to hire during a labor dispute as replacements for a person or persons ordinarily 
employed hy such employer any alien lawfully admitted to the United States for 
permanent residence whose principal, actual dwelling place is in a foreign coun- 
try contiguous to the United States: Provided, That this section 8{a) (6) shall 
apply to any employer, whether or not he employs 'employees' as defined in 
sect ion 2 (3)." 
Amendment to Section 10(1) Made in Section 2 of H.R. 12G(;7 

"(1) Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor 
practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (A), (B), or (C) of section 8(b) 
or section 8(e) or section 8(b) (7) or section S (a) (6), the preliminary investiga- 
tion of such charge shall be made forthwith and given priority over all other cases 
exrei(t casosi of like character in the office where it is filed or to which it is 
referred ♦ * *.'• 



2825 

(.From the Congressional Record — Senate, Mar. 26, 1969] 

S. 1694 — Inteodxjction of a Bill to Amend the Immigration and Nation alitt 
Act — Alien Commuter (Green Card) System 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Harris, Hart, 
Mondale, Muskie, Nelson, Pell, Tydings, Williams of New Jersey, and Yar- 
BOROUGH, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to amend the Immigration 
and Nationality Act. 

A companion bill is being introduced in the other body by the chairman of its 
Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Representative Michael A. Feighan, 
of Ohio. 

Mr. President, unemployment rates exceeding 10 percent are common in many 
border communities from Texas to California. Earnings in border areas are lower 
than average earnings in the border States as a whole. 

This is a deplorable situation, an indication of severe economic depression. 
There are many reasons for these conditions. There is, for example, no strong 
economic base along the border. The area is largely rural — agriculture is \he 
major industiT- Until recently, farmworkers were excluded from social legis- 
lation designed to protect most other workers in our economy. 

And even now, despite such changes as the extension of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act to agriculture, farmworkers still receive far from equal treatment. 
Wages are low- — and partly because new machinery and new patterns of pro- 
duction have been introduced in agriculture, a labor surplus situation exists. 
As a result, industries attracted to border communities are usually in the low- 
wage category. The kinds of jobs available in the border areas are not the better 
jobs found elsewhere in the American economy. 

Moreover, border residents are often of Mexican descent — or recent immigrants 
from 3Iexieo. They have suffered, and continue to suffer economic and social 
discrimination — a vicious and evil discrimination because of their national 
origin ; and a more subtle discrimination, but no less evil — arising out of the fact 
that Mexican-Americans are so often poverty sti'icken, poorly educated, unable to 
speak English, and seldom able to compete for jobs and opportunities in a society 
dominated by Anglos. 

But there is another reason for the poor working and living conditions along 
the border- — a reason which this Nation largely ignores, but which it cannot 
deny. In a very important way, these living conditions are imposed upon our 
residents, by the presence of a readily available and low-paid alien work force 
from Mexico which undermines the standards American workers generally enjoy 
throughout the rest of the country. 

This alien work force is a major factor contributing to the grinding poverty, 
high unemployment, and low wages in the border areas. The facts are in the 
record of hearings and in the last report of the Labor and Public Welfare Sub- 
committee on Migratory Labor. They are in the record of hearings conducted 
in California during the last Congress by Repi-esentative John V. Tunney. They 
are in the record of hearings I conducted several months ago as acting chair- 
man of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration. They are in the final report 
of the Select Commi.ssion on Western Hemisphere Immigration, established by 
the Immigration Act of 196-"), and in the record of hearings conducted by the 
Commission last year in San Diego, El Paso, and Brownsville. They are in a 
recent .stalT report issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and in addi- 
tional surveys made by the Department of Labor, various unions, and other 
public and private agencies. 

Mr. President, rather than give a lengthy recital of these fact.s, I ask unan- 
imous consent that the staff report of the Civil Rights Commission, as well as 
a report prepared by Mr. Stanley M. Knebel of the Department of Labor, and 
excerpts from a statement I made in this chamber during the last Congress, be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. 

The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

( See exhibits 1. 2, and 3. ) 

Mr. Kennedy'. Mr. President, the alien work force from Mexico comes into 
the country through various channels. There is first of all the movement of 
workers under the so-called alien commuter system administered by the Im- 
migration and Naturalization Service. This system, a creature of administrative 
ingenuity without a statutory base, permits Canadian and Mexican workers who 
haA'e been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, and 
who hold alien registration receipt cards — commonly known as "green cards" — 



2826 

] 

to reside in Canada or Mexico and regularly commute across the border to 
places of employment in the United States. 

For reasons difficult to understand, until little more than a year ago — and 
only at the request of myself and others — no effect was made to routinely 
identify commuters in the operating reports of the Immigration and Natural- 
ization Service. A census of the commuter movement was taken, however, during 
November and December 1967. 

This census identified some 40,176 commuters, including 16,713 farm workers, 
employed mainly in California. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a breakthrough of the commuter 
census be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. 

The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(See exhibit 4). 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. President, the census figure undoubtedly represents a sub- 
stantial segment of the commuter traffic, especially on a daily or weekly basis. 
But it does not include an undetermined number of individuals who remain in 
this country for many weeks or months, usually employed in areas far north of 
the border. 

For this reason, former Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz has estimated the 
number of commuters at some 100,000. The United Farm Workers Organizing 
Committee puts it closer to 1.50,000. 

But whatever their numbers, there is no doubt that the commuter movement 
adversely afEects the wages and working conditions of our own residents in the 
border cities and towns of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. Some- 
thing must be done in the interest of these workers and the well-being of their 
families. 

A second source of low-wage labor is found among Mexican nationals who 
enter the United States as bona fide visitors, usually on 72-hour passes— com- 
monly known as "white cards.'' Statistics compiled by the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service are not adequate to gage the full extent of employment 
among these visitors. Nevertheless, it is estimated that some 1,250,000 white 
cards are currently in use, and that more than 200,000 new cards are issued 
annually. 

Because the cards are undated and no record of entry is made at the border, 
Mexican nationals find them an extremely convenient vehicle to enter the United 
States^and with impunity acquire employment, remaining for extended peri- 
ods of time in violation of thir limited status as 3-day visitors. Moreover, there 
are no efCective statutory or administrative regulations to deter employers from 
knowingly hiring the alien visitors. In fact, as it now stands, the Immigration 
and Naturalization Act expressly facilitates their employment. 

Section 274 of the act, which prohibits the harboring and concealing of aliens, 
contains this proviso : 

For the purposes of this section, employment, including the usual and 
normal practices incident to employment, shall not be deemed to con- 
stitute harboring. 

During fiscal year 1968, Immigration and Naturalization Service officers lo- 
cated nearly 26,000 deportable aliens, nearly all for illegal employment, among 
white card holders in the United States. 

I share the view of many, however, that this figure is probably an unfair repre- 
sentation of the number of white carders actually employed. But, again, regard- 
less of their number, the 26,000 figure clearly underscores a problem in the illegal 
use of white cards by Mexican nationals. And the number of those apprehended 
is rising annually. The Immigration and Naturalization Service recognizes this 
disgraceful situation. But I fail to understand why stronger remedial action is not 
being taken. The long-term progress of our border communities, and the im- 
mediate well-being of American workers and their families, demands it. 

Finally, the reservoir of low-paid Mexican labor is substantially augmented 
by an undetermined number of illegal entrants — the so-called "wetbacks." There 
is agreement in nearly all quarters that this has once again become a serious 
problem. An indication is seen in the growing number of illegal entrants located 
by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In fiscal year 1963, the number 
stood at 20,797. In the last fiscal year it reached 117,184. And tens of thousands 
have been added to this figure since last July 1. 

In this connection, the smuggling of alien workers from Mexico has become a 
lucrative business. Aliens are paying up to $200 to be smuggled into the coun- 



2827 

try, and brought to jobs as far nortb as Chicago. In the last calendar year, in the 
southwest region alone, some 7,S33 aliens were located who allegedly were smug- 
gled or assisted in entering illegally, or were subsequently transported within 
the United States in furtherance of an illegal entry. The border patrol reports 
that 714 principals were apprehended as violating the criminal statutes relating 
to the smuggling of aliens. 

This traffic in human cargo which has resulted in the cruel death of several 
must end. A greater effort is needed to enforce the law — not only in stopping 
the smuggling of aliens, but also in deterring the entry of any illegal worker, 
whatever his means for crossing the border. 

The influx of an alien work force from Mexico, to compete for the limited 
number of jobs available in border areas, is compounding an already serious 
situation, and, understandably, producing bitter resentment among the severely 
disadvantaged American workers. 

In these days of increased agitation by those who find they have no redress of 
grievances, the alien worker issue could well become explosive, with grave local 
and international consequences. I believe the situation demands the very urgent 
and active concern of the administration and the Congress. It demands an orderly 
pursuit of justice and fair play. Some measure of relief is needed promptly. The 
bill we introduce today is a modest attempt to begin this effort. 

Section 1 of the bill pertains to the commuter system. A major thrvist of our 
immigration laws has always been to protect the working conditions and job 
opportunities of American workers. As it currently operates, the 40-year-old com- 
muter system, not provided for in these laws, but directly related to them, does 
not carry out this objective. It is true that potential commuters .imong many of 
the current applicants for an immigrant visa are covered by the Labor Clearance 
Provisions of the Immigration xlct of 196-5. 

But once an applicant is given permanent resident status as a bona fide im- 
migrant — once he receives his green card — for all practical purposes he holds in 
his hand a permanent work permit for employment in the United States. I do 
not believe aliens should be given the unique privilege of being considered bona 
fide immigrants for purposes of employment in this country when they clioose 
to reside across the border and fail to become immigrants in the sense contem- 
plated by law and, more importantly, when their emplojrment is so clearly detri- 
mental to the economic conditions, the job opportunities, and the organizing and 
collective bargaining efforts of American workers. 

The proposed amendment to section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act does not end the commuter system, but it does refine its current operations. 
The amendment simply says that each commuter alien must be regularly certi- 
fied every 6 months by the Department of Labor, that his presence in the United 
States to seek or continue employment does not adversely affect the wages and 
working conditions of American workers similarly employed. The amendment 
provides for the revocation of a commuter alien's labor clearance, if he violates 
administrative regulations, such as a ban on strikebreaking — and this regulation 
needs strengthening — prescribed by the Department of Labor and the Immigra- 
tion and Naturalization Service to carry out the purpose of this amendment. 

Section 2 of the bill removes the provision in section 274(a) (4) of the Immi- 
gration and Nationality Act, which exempts fx'om criminal sanctions individuals 
who willfully and knowingly employ aliens who are in the country illegally- The 
proviso was placed in the basic immigration statute many years ago, to protect 
the use of the so-called "wetbacks" by American employers. The time is long 
overdue to strike it from the statute books. 

I believe that the enactment of this bill, if coupled with a strengthening and 
a more effective implementation of administrative regulations, will contribute 
a great deal to a reasonable and humane remedy of the chronic problems posed 
by the influx of workers from Mexico. 

I fully appreciate that the commuter system, and the flow of nationals from 
neighboring countries into the United States, evolved from a recognition of the 
special relations which we have had with these countries over the years. And I 
believe the parties concerned can continue to enjoy the mutual benefits of these 
relations, while at the same time curbing the adverse efi'ects of commuter aliens, 
including the exploitation of the aliens themselves. In fact, a solution to these 
festering problems can only help to insure that the spirit of cordiality at the 
border will continue without difficulty in the years ahead. 

I am hopeful that Congress will act on this bill promptly. 

The Presiding Officer. The bill will be received and appropriately referred. 

36-513— 70— pt. 5B 20 



. 282S 

The bill (S. 1694) entitled "Immigration Act Amendments of 1969," introduced 
by Mr. Kennedy (for himself and other Senators), was received, read twice by 
its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Exhibit 3 

excerpts from statement on senate floor by senator edward m. kennedy, 

december 14, 1967 

There is no doubt that the commuter movement adversely effects the wages and 
working conditions of our own citizens and residents, especially those living in the 
cities and towns along the Mexican border — in Arizona, California, New Mexico 
and Texas. The commuter movement from Mexico is a factor contributing to 
the grinding poverty, high unemployment, and low wages in the border areas. 

Border areas consistently have higher rates of unemployment than do interior 
areas. In many cases, the rates are very much greater. 

The rates available in 13 border areas for the first 6 months of this year are 
typical of annual figures available since 1957. Last June, for example, in none of 
these 13 areas was the unemployment rate lower than the average rate for the 
State. Twelve of these border areas were in Texas — ^the unemployment rate in 
seven of the Texas areas was more than double the statewide rate of 3.7 percent. 
In one area. Crystal City in Zavala County, the rate was much greater — 11.3 
percent. 

In 1966, in only one of 19 border areas for which data were available, was the 
unemployment rate lower than the average rate for the State. 

Over the last 10 years, available data permitted 138 comparisons of annual 
average unemployment rates in border areas with those at the State level. In 129 
cases, border area rates were higher than the State average. 

It is a deplorable situation — an indication of severe economic depression — ^that 
unemployment rates exceeding 10 percent are common in such Texas communities 
as Laredo, Eagle Pass, Zapata, Brackettville, Cotulla, Crystal City and in 
El Centro, Calif. 

The influx of commuters from Mexico is contributing to the high unemploy- 
ment rates in border areas. 

These commuter.? are a significant part of the work force in many communities. 
In some areas their number nearly equals the number of unemployed American 
workers. In El Paso, where unemployment is currently some 35 percent greater 
than the State average, the estimated number of commuters in 1966 was more 
than double the number of unemployed. In El Centro, Calif., where the unemploy- 
ment rate is currently 13.1 percent, the estimated Humber of commuters in 1966 
was nearly double the number of unemployed. There is every reason to believe 
the situation has not changed for the better. If anything, it has been aggravated 
by the frequent use of commuters as strikebreakers. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record at the con- 
clusion of my remarks statistical summaries of unemployment rates in border 
areas over the last 10 years, and an additional table on unemployment and alien 
coumiuters in 1966 for selected border areas. 

The Presiding Officer- Without objection, it is so ordered. 

( See exhibits 3, 4, and 5. ) 

Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Mr. President, aside from the commuter influx 
contributing to high unemployment in border areas, it also contributes to de- 
pressed wage rates. Industry by industry, county by county, the pattern is the 
same — earnings in border areas are lower than average earnings in the State. 
This is true in more than 90 percent of those cases where available information 
has made a comparison possible. 

Although the most definitive date available is based on nonfarm weekly wage 
rates in 1965, the Department of Labor infoitns me that the situation remains 
unchanged. The average weekly nonfarm wage in Imperial County, Calif., is $20 
less than the average in the State as a whole — in Santa Cruz County, Ariz., it is 
$29 less— in nine of the Texas border counties it is at least $25 less, and often 
more. 

The differential is even greater in wage rates for farmwork — especially in the 
lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. A year ago, hourly wages in the valley 



2829 

a^^eraged approximately 75 cents — some 22 cents less than the 97 cents average 
at the State level. As a result of the new farm labor coverage of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, there has been a sharp increase in farm wage rates in the valley, 
and the gap between farm wages in this area and the State as a whole is begin- 
ning tu narrow. Currently it is some 16 cents — the diffential between 89 cents in 
the valley and $1.05 at the State level. 

But this is belated progress — because for at least 10 years, not only have farm 
wages in the valley been low, they have also failed to show the gains recorded 
elsewhere in the State. In 1956 the hourly wage in the valley was 84 percent of 
the State average — it had dropped to 77 percent by 1966. 

Today, largely as a result of the new farm labor coverage of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, the ratio has climbed to some 85 percent. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record at the con- 
clusion of my remarks a statistical summary of average weekly earnings of non- 
farm workers in border areas during the first quarter of 1965, and a second table 
listing average hourly wage rates for seasonal farmworkers in Texas border 
areas. 

The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

( See exhibits 6 nd 7. ) 

Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Mr. President, to illustrate further the con- 
tribution of commuters to depressed wage rates in border areas, I will refer to 
the results of a special survey conducted in 1961, by the Department of Labor in 
Laredo and El Paso. The survey concerned the jobs held by commuters, the wages 
received, and the availability of domestic workers for these jobs. Again, the situa- 
tion has changed little from the time the survey was made, in fact, there is reason 
to believe it has worsened. 

The survey indicates that, although commuters were employed in most occupa- 
tions and industries, they were heavily concentrated in the garment industry, 
hotels, restaurants, and retail trade and service establishments. 

In the Laredo survey, the Department of Labor contacted a sampling of firms 
employing some 3,000 workers — of whom 438 were easily identified as commuters. 

The survey team reported that additional workers were suspected of being com- 
muters, but could not be readily identified. 

The Laredo survey revealed at least two things. First, that a large number of 
unemployed American workers had the same occupational skills as alien com- 
muters — this in a community where unemployment was heavy — 11.3 percent. For 
example, the two garment firms in the sampling employed 88 commuters as sew- 
ing machine operators. Files of the Texas Employment Commission contained 
applications from 156 unemployed American workers with this same occupation. 

Second, the survey shows that firms employing alien commuters paid lower 
wages than did firms employing American workers. This was not the exception— 
but a very common pattern, for 19 occupations where sufficient data were avail- 
able. Moreover, there were cases where a single firm employing both commuters 
and Americans would pay the commuters less than the Americans similarly 
employed. 

And finally, the average wage paid by those firms employing only American 
workers was 38 percent higher than the average wage paid by those firms employ- 
ing commuters as well. 

The El Paso survey produced similar results. 

I should add here some recent information compiled by the Department of 
Labor which greatly adds to the seriousness of the wage problem. 

The common pattern of low wages in the border areas has led to a high inci- 
dence of minimum wage law violations. The Department reports that in fiscal 
year 1967, 20 percent of the violations in the four border States occurred in 
"counties contiguous to the Mexican border. Yet, these counties had only 6 per- 
cent of the nonfarm work force in these four States. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record at the con- 
clusion of my remarks a table listing occupational wage data obtained in the 
Laredo survey and a brief summary of the survey in El Paso. 

The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(See exhibits 8 and 9). 



2830 



EXHIBIT 3 
UNEIVIPLOYIVIENT RATES IN BORDER AREAS, JANUARY-JUNE 1967 





Counties 








1967 






State and labor market area 


June 


May 


April 


March 


February 


January 






5.4 
5.3 

(2) 

3.7 

5.0 
7.3 

10.6 
6.8 
5.6 
9.3 
9.8 

8.8 

7^8> 
11.3 
7.3 
7.7 


4.9 
4.6 
(') 
2.7 

3.8 
6.2 

7.4 

5.6 

(0 

(0 

(') 

0) 
0) 
0) 
0) 

(') 

0) 


5.3 
4.9 
13.1 
2.6 

3.7 
6.3 

9.0 
5.6 
6.1 
7.9 
11.7 

8.5 
7.0 
4.4 
10.7 
6.0 
4.3 


5.7 
5.1 
(0 
2.7 

3.8 
6.0 

9.0 
6.3 


6.0 
5.2 
(') 

3.0 

4.0 
5.8 

9.9 
6.2 
8.8 
12.8 
14.4 

8.5 
(') 

12.4 
14.3 
7.6 
5.2 


5.5 


San Diego... 


... San Diego 


5.0 


ElCentro... .- 


0) 




3.0 


Border areas: 
El Paso 


... El Paso 


3.9 


Brownsville-Harlingen-San 
Benito. 

Laredo- 

IVlcAllen _ 

Del Rio 

Eagle Pass... — 

Zapata_.- — 

Areas close to the border: 


Cameron 

... Webb 

. . Hidalgo and Starr. 

... ValVarda 

... Maverick 

... Zapata 

Kinney. 


5.9 

11.4 
6.3 
0) 
0) 
0) 

0) 


Carrizo Springs 

Cotulla... 


Dimmit 


0) 


... La Salle 

... Zavala 

Jim Hogg- 


0) 
0) 
{') 


Raymondville 


Willacy.. 


0) 







1 Information not available. 

Source: Bureau of Employment Security, U.S. Department of Labor. 

EXHIBIT 4 
BORDER AREA UNEMPLOYMENT RATES ANNUAL AVERAGES, 1957-66 



State and labor 
























market area 


Counties 


1966 


196b 


1964 


1963 


1962 


1961 


1960 


19b9 


1958 


19b/ 






.. 5.0 


5.9 


6.0 


6.0 


5.8 


6.9 


5.8 


4.8 


6.4 


4.2 


San Diego 

El Centro . 


San Diego.. 


. 5.2 
.- 9.6 
.. 3.2 


7.2 
10.1 
4.2 


7.b 
9.6 
4.8 


/./ 
9.2 
5.4 


/.9 
9.0 
5.3 


/.b 
8.6 
6.0 


6.4 

(0 

5.3 


3.9 
(') 

4.6 


4.8 

(') 

5.3 


3.1 


.. Imperial 


0) 


Texas. - 


4.0 


Border areas: 
























El Paso 


El Paso 


.. 4.4 
,- 6.4 


b.8 
7.6 


6.U 
8.5 


6.2 
9.1 


b.b 
9.7 


5.6 


4.9 


3.4 
(0 


3.9 


4.U 


Brownsville-Harlingen- 
San Benito. 
Laredo 


Cameron.. 


C) 


.. Webb 


.. 9.6 


11.3 


11.9 


12.0 


10.1 


9.1 


9.4 


9.2 


8.6 


9.3 


McAllen 


.. Hidalgo and Starr... 


.. 6.1 


7.0 


8.0 


8.6 


9.U 


(') 


(') 


(') 


(') 


(') 


Del Rio 


.. Val Verda... 

.. Maverick. 


.. 6.2 

.. 11.2 


7.7 

14.4 


9.2 
14.7 


9.1 
15.1 


9.4 
13.8 


10.0 
12.4 


8.0 
9.5 


8.b 

11.4 


6.0 
10.4 


9.2 


Eagle Pass. 


14.4 


Zapata... _. 


.. Zapata. 


.. 11.0 


12.8 


12.6 


14.3 


13.1 


12.4 


13.1 


12.2 


6.7 


6.9 


Areas close to the border: 
























Brackettville 


. Kinney 


.. 7.7 


8.6 


11. y 


10. b 


12.2 


11.2 


9.9 


8.6 


10.4 


y.8 


Carizzo Springs 


.. Dimmit 


.. 10.6 


7.1 


/.O 


6./ 


(>) 


(') 


(') 


(') 


(') 


<M 


Cotulla 


.. La Salle 


.. 10.0 


12.2 


12.3 


13.2 


11.8 


8.4 


A 4 


8.2 


11.7 


9./ 


Crystal City... 

Nebronville 


,. Zavala 


.. 12.5 


12.3 


13.3 


12.9 


13.6 


6./ 


A 4 


/. / 


8.6 


4.5 


. Jim Hogg 


.. 9.5 


11.5 


11.8 


10.1 


10.6 


10.9 


9.2 


9.8 


10.6 


10. 2 


Raymondville.. -.- 


.. Willacy 


.. 9.1 


9.1 


9.5 


1U.2 


10.0 


.<'> 


M> 


M> 


L^!^ 


y?, 


Arizona 




.. 3.8 


5.1 


5.1 


b.U 


b.l 


5.8 


4./ 


4.7 


5.7 


3.9 


Tucson ___ _ 


.. Pima.-- 


.. 4.1 


6.2 


6.5 


5.8 


4.9 


b./ 


b.l 


4.8 


6.0 


4.1 


Douglas and Bisbee 


. Cochise 


. 3.1 


(») 


0) 


(') 


(1) 


(') 


(') 


(') 


(U 


(') 


Nogales 

Yuma 


. Santa Cruz 


.. 5.0 
.. 5.1 




(•) 


0) 




(0 




8 


0) 


(') 


.. Yuma... 


(') 



> Information not available. 

Source: Bureau of Employment Security, U.S. Department of Labor. 



2831 

EXHIBIT 5 
BORDER CITIES— UNEMPLOYMENT AND ALIEN COMMUTERS, JANUARY 1966 



City 



Unemployed U.S. residents 
Number 



Brownsville-Harllngen-San Benito, Tex. 

El Paso, Tex 

Laredo, Tex. 

McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg, Tex 

El Centro, Calif 

San Diego, Calif 



3,020 
5,050 
3,365 
4,190 
3,675 
22, 300 





Alien 


Rate 


commuters 


6.2 


2,032 


4.8 


11,772 


12.6 


2,581 


6.9 


1,163 


10.7 


7,616 


5.2 


9,281 



Source: Unemployment data from the Texas Labor Market, Texas Employment Commission, and labor market reports 
of the California Department of Employment; alien commuter data from I. & H.S. survey, Jan. 17, 1966. 



EXHIBIT 6 
THE BORDER COUNTIES -AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS OF NONFARM WORKERS, JANUARY-MARCH 1965 



Selected industries 



Total Contract 

non- construe- Manufac- 

farm Mining tion turing 



Trans- 
porta- 
tion, 
commu- 
nication, 
and 
public 
utilities 



Whole- 
sale 
trade 



Retail 
trade 



Finance 
insur- 
ance, 
and real 
estate 



Services 



Border States $103 

Border counties 91 

California 113 

Border counties 107 

San Diego 107 

Imperial. 93 

Arizona 94 

Border counties 87 

Yuma. 74 

Pima 88 

Santa Cruz 65 

Cochise 101 

New Mexico 89 

Border counties 78 

Hidalgo 69 

Luna 73 

Dona Ana 80 

Texas 87 

Border counties 67 

El Paso 76 

Hudspeth 68 

Jeff Davis 76 

Presidio 53 

Brewster 52 

Terrell 67 

Val-Verde. 57 

Kinney 58 

Maverick 48 

Webb 53 

Zapata 54 

Starr.. 68 

Hidalgo.. 59 

Cameron.. 58 



$117 
132 
147 
151 
152 
122 
139 
145 
101 
145 
0) 

(1) 

125 
85 
C) 
(0 
85 
126 
101 
94 
70 
(0 
C) 
C) 
0) 
0) 

"i04" 
79 
86 
102 
107 
111 



$121 
116 
142 
140 
140 
134 
124 
114 
102 
117 
70 
(0 
97 
92 
(1) 
109 
86 
91 
79 
85 



$125 
122 
132 
147 
147 
124 
117 
112 
84 
116 
53 
117 
106 
138 
(0 
78 
165 
108 
73 
78 



0) - — 

54 (1) 
78 (1) 
26 (>) 
87 (I) 
38 

70 (1) 

67 60 

0) 

0) --- 

68 62 

71 65 



$117 
106 
128 
122 
122 
107 
115 
106 
110 
108 
85 
104 
104 
82 
93 
87 
79 
98 
90 
113 
0) 
0) 
60 
67 
111 
79 
0) 
64 
62 
64 
68 
81 
58 



$121 

98 

131 

120 

122 

10 7 

108 

86 

57 

104 

82 

82 

105 

97 



100 
107 
82 

103 



50 
74 
C) 
67 
(0 
92 
66 
(') 
43 
62 
70 



$74 
68 
83 
79 
79 
77 
68 
67 
74 
67 
61 
60 
62 
60 
57 
57 
61 
60 
53 
60 
48 
31 
50 
44 
53 
49 
32 
39 
48 
23 
38 
40 
49 



$101 
94 
106 
102 
102 
85 
97 
94 
90 
96 
87 
86 
89 
78 
73 
82 
78 
91 
80 
85 
(0 
(') 
87 
75 
54 
74 
(0 
70 
67 
64 
68 
72 
78 



66 
92 
74 
75 
71 
67 
66 
61 
67 
45 
67 
84 
61 
47 
43 
64 
61 
49 
54 
15 
38 
35 
37 
36 
42 
37 
34 
39 
31 
35 
46 
48 



1 Data not published to avoid disclosing information from individual establishments. 

Source: Based on data published in 1965 County Business Patterns, U.S. Department of Commerce. Average weekly 
earnings computed by dividing quarterly payroll by March employment by 13. Result rounded to nearest dollar. 



. 2832 

EXHIBIT 7 

TEXAS BORDER AREAS-AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE RATE FOR SEASONAL FARM ACTIVITIES, WIID-NOVEMBER 

1956-65 



Area 



1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 



State of Texas $0.97 $0.87 $0.78 $0.76 $0.73 $0.56 $0.55 $0.56 $0.52 $0.58 $0.51 

Lower Rio Grande 

Valley .. .75 .65 .60 .58 

Rio Grande Plains... .77 .73 .68 .68 

Trans-Pecos_ .83 .82 .71 .71 



.59 


.43 


.43 


.43 


.43 


.43 


.43 


.67 


.49 


.46 


.46 


(0 


.50 


.4/ 


.71 


.50 


.50 


.50 


.50 


.50 


.50 



1 Information not available. 

Source: Office of Farm Labor Service, Bureau of Employment Security, U.S. Department of Labor. Based upon reports 
prepared by the Texas Employment Commission. 

EXHIBIT 8 

OCCUPATIONAL WAGE STRUCTURE-LAREDO, TEX., JUNE 1961 i 



Industry and occupation 



Hotels and motels: 

Cook 

Maid... 

Hallboy_._ 

Waiter 

Busboy.. -.- 

Bartender 

Bellboy 

Drugstores and related firms: 

Cashier - 

Stock clerk. „ 

Fountain girl... ._ 

Drug clerk , 

Grocery and related firms: 

Cashier 

Stockboy 

Produceman 

Butcher 

Warehouseman 

Miscellaneous retail firms: 

Porter 

Warehouseman 

Stockman 



Average wage rate 




(per week) 








Firms 


Firms 


en- 


ploying 


employing 


domestic and 


only domestic 


alien com- 


workers 


muter workers 


$58 




$34 


20 




17 


25 




20 


2 15 




2 18 


2 25 




13 


58 




"6 


2 15 




2 16 


27 




12 


52 




40 


16 




s 23 


77 




55 


24 ■ 




24 


35 




20 


45 




35 


65 




52 


37 




31 


53 




35 


73 


21 


53 


45 



1 Data were collected in the survey concerning the different rates paid each occupation in each firm. For some occupations 
monthly rates were reported; these were converted to weekly rates by dividing the monthly rate by 4.33. The number of 
workers paid each rate was not reported in all cases, making it impossible to compute an average rate weighted by the 
number of workers paid each rate. The average rates shown in the table represent the average of the highest and lowest 
rates paid. These averages correspond quite accurately with the weighted averages computed tor the few occupations 
where data were reported for each workers. 

2 Plus tips. 

3 Plus $3 meal allowance. 

Exhibit 9 

Following is a summary of the El Paso survey results : 

Eleven con struct ion firms. Six firms employed only U.S. residents ; five employed 
alien commuters. Two-thirds of tlie firms employing only U.S. residents paid the 
union scale. Only 20 percent of the firms employing commuters paid the union 
scale. The lowest rates were paid by the non-union firms that employed 
commuters. 

Fonr retail dry goods stores. Three firms employed alien commuters. They 
paid lower wage rates than the firms that employed only U.S. residents. 

Fovr 'Wholesale and warehouse fi,rms. Three firms employed alien commuters. 
The firm employing only U.S. residents paid the highest wage rates. 

All sample firms in the following industries employed alien commuters : gar- 
ment manufacturing (11 firms) ; restaurants (five firms) ; meatpacking (three 
firms) : and laundries (four firms). Of interest is the fact that in the one laundry 



2833 

where wage rate data were supplied for both alien commuters and U.S. residents, 
the commuters were paid less than $.50 per hour while the U.S. residents were 
paid about $.80 per hour. 

Insufficient wage and employment data were obtained to make any comparison 
for seven transportation and storage firms; two cotton processors; and three 
hotels and motels. 

In i^everal industries, refineries (four firms) ; miscellaneous manufacturing 
(seven flrm.'^) : and miscellaneous fii-ms (five establishments), there was no 
difference in the rates paid by firms employing alien commuters and those employ- 
ing U.S. workers. One refinery, two miscellaneous manufacturing, and two of tlie 
other miscellaneous firms employed commuters. 

Six other retail trade firms were included in the sample, but meaningful com- 
parison could not be made because the nature of their operations and the occu- 
pations of the workers they eniiiloyed were too dissimilar. 

EXHIBIT 4 
COMMUTER WORKERS IDENTIFIED BY OCCUPATIONAL CLASS, NOV. 1, 1957, THROUGH DEC. 31, 1967 



Port 





Building 










trades and 




Sales and 


Private 


Industrial 


construction 


Agricultural 


service 


household 


workers 


workers 


workers 


v;orkers 


workers 



Total 



California: 

SanYsidro __ 2,005 409 2,827 1,950 344 7 535 

Tecate._ 6 4 30 14 2 56 

Calexico... 195 93 6,810 517 75 7,690 

Andrade 10 2 3 

Arizona: 

San Luis 39 14 3.325 146 29 3.553 

Lukeville 

Sasabe 3 3 

Nogales 179 136 6 682 115 1 118 

Naco 3 31 10 4? 3 94 

M °»?"^'^^-„--,--L '^^ 28 175 99 30 380 

New Mexico: Columbus 2 1 23 1 30 

Texas: 

El Paso: 

Santa Fe Bridge 1,801 844 1,038 2,725 1,388 7,846 

Cordova 1,145 704 136 1,387 119 3,491 

Ysleta 132 60 155 46 20 423 

Fabens 60 14 195 1 9 279 

FortHancock 3 1 46 3 53 

PresiHio __. 1 3 17 2 1 24 

Del Rio 144 55 18 70 20 317 

Eagle Pass 185 147 751 398 154 1,635 

Laredo 106 212 321 1,825 205 2,769 

Roma 1 7 54 10 1 73 

Hidalgo 70 146 472 199 50 937 

Progreso 6 41 2 1 50 

Brownsville 724 215 198 632 148 1,917 

Total ._ 6,850 3,140 3 16,713 10.756 2,717 40,176 

' Includes 7,743 agricultural workers who came to the border from the interior of the United States during the count and 
commenced working as commuters. It is anticipated these workers will return to the interior of the United States in the 
spring to work as migrants. 



Mr. MoxDALE. Mr. President. I join with Senator Kennedy and others in the 
introduction of a bill to amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act to i*e.g- 
ulate the green-card commuter problem. 

"Green-card commuters" are persons who have been granted permanent alien 
resident status as bona fide immigi-ants, but who, nonetheless, reside in Mexico 
or Canada and regularly enter the United States solely for the purposes of 
employment. 

The problems created by the commuter immigrant are manifest, particularly 
along the ^Mexican border. Given the poor working and living conditions along 
the northern border of Mexico, Mexican aliens, as a group, serve as a readily 
available, low-wage work force wliich uiKlermines the standards workers gen- 
erally en.i'oy throughout the re.'^^t of the United States. As a result, the forces of 
free enterprise are prevented from operating to develop standards along the 
border commensurate with normal American standards. 

The depressed wage rates that result are satisfactory recompense for the com- 
muter immigrant since he can return to Mexico daily or weekly with his earnings 



2834 

to live in a much lower cost economy. These green-card commuters simply fail 
to become immigrants in the sense contemplated by the law. And their employ- 
ment in this country is clearly detrimental to the economic conditions, the job 
opportunities, and the organizing and collective bargaining efforts of American 
workers, because they have little or no stake in the resolution of domestic labor 
disputes'. Indeed, it is clear that these nonresident commuters, as well as illegal 
entrants, are widely used as strike breakers. 

The bill seeks to remedy this serious problem. While it may need perfecting 
amendments, I believe the bill provides a sound basis on which to eliminate cur- 
rent abuses of our immigration laws. A major goal of our immigration laws has 
always been the reasonable protection of working conditions and job opportuni- 
ties for American workers, and this S.ill is consistent with that goal. 

The bill's purpose is consistent with my personal conviction that our Nation 
must promote an open border policy — a policy that permits people and trade to 
flow across our borders without undue restriction. The bill seeks merely to elim- 
inate widespread abuses of our immigration policies — abuses that run entirely 
contrary to our Nation's dedication to justice and fair play — and I support it 

for that reason. 

[S. 1694, 91st Cong., first sess.] 

A BILL, Immigration Act Amendments of 1969 

Be it enacted l)y 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 U.S.C. 1182), is amended by adding 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 contiguous to the United States 
and is returning from a temporary stay in such foreign country to seek or con- 
tinue 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 employment 
of swh alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of work- 
ers i:i 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." 

Sec. 2. Section 274(a) (4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. as amended 
(8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(4)), is amended by striking out the colon and "Provided, 
however, That for the purposes of this section, employment (including the usual 
and normal practices incident to employment) shall not be deemed to constitute 
harboring". 

[From the Congressional Record, Mar. 4, 1970] 

S. 3545 iNTRODtJCTION OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ACT 1970 

Mr. MusKiE. Mr. President, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to 
amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, to require an immigrant alien to 
establish and maintain a permanent, bona fide residence as a condition for 
entering and remaining in the United States, and for other purposes. I ask 
unanimoii ; consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record following my 
remarks. 

The Presiding Officer. "Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(See exhibit 1.) 

Mr. MusKiE. Mr. President, all immigi-ants to the United States must generally 
have valid immigrant visas upon any entry or reentry to the United States. 
Exempted from this general rule are immigrants, who are returning to an un- 
relinquished lawful permanent residence in the United States after a temporary 
absence abroad not exceeding 1 year. Such persons are issued a Form 1-151, 
generally referred to as a "green card" and by regulation of the Attorney General 
are permitted to use this "green card" in lieu of an immigration visa or reentry 
permit. The Attorney General has and clearly should continue to have authority 
to promulgate, such regulations. 

This bill is directed at an outgrowth and abuse of the above regulations con- 
cerning the "greencarders" who is classified as an alien immigrant but who does' 
not, in fact, maintain a l)ona fide permanent residence in the United States. This 
type of "greencarder" continues to reside in a foreign country and commutes* 
daily or frequently to work in the United States. The immigration and National- 



2835 

ity Act normally requires such aliens to obtain an immigrant visa or reentry 
permit for each entry into this country. However, since these commuters or 
"greencarders" wei'e primarily aliens working in U.S. border towns and living in 
contignous foreign territory, an "amiable fiction" was ci'eated whereliy employ- 
ment was equated with permanent residence. Despite the fiction that the com- 
muter is an immigrant, it is clear that what really has been established is a work 
permit system. This "amiable fiction" in its early years applies only to daily 
commiit rs in border towns. More recently, however, it has been extended far 
beyond border towns to seasonal workers who stay in the United States for longer 
periods of time. However applied, it is still a fiction, a product of bureaucratic 
accommodation. 

SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM 

A count made by the Immigration Service on October 31, 1969, indicates over 
49,000 "greencarders" crossed the Mexican border on that day alone. It is impor- 
tant, moreover, to note that in the past few years there has been a large increase 
in the number of seasonal workers who enter this country to follow the crops for 
several weeks or months, and then return to their homes in Mexico. The number 
of seasonal workers has never been definitely established. Estimates n;n from 
100,000 to 400,000. We do know, however, that the numbers are high and that the 
presence of these workers has an adverse economic and social effect on American 
labor. 

EXTENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS 

The extent of the economic and social problems resulting from the commuter 
system has been documented in a report prepared by the U.S. Department of 
Labor for the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigi'ation. I ask 
unanimous consent that pages 113-130 of this report be reprinted in tlie Record 
following my remarks. They are well worth reading. The report correlates the 
employment of commuter aliens with low wages and chronic unemployment 
among domestic workers. 

The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

( See exhibit 2. ) 

Mr. Muskie. Characteristic of this data is a study made in Laredo, Tex. 
At the time of the survey, unemployment was 11.3 percent of the total domestic 
labor force. Two large garment manufacturing firms were found to employ 88 
commuters as sewing machine operators at the very time the Texas Employment 
Service listed 156 U.S. sewing machine operators as unemployed. A comparison 
of wages paid by firms employing only U.S. workers was found to be 38 percent 
higher than the wages paid by firms employing commuters in identical occupa- 
tions. 

Another Labor Department report submitted to former Secretary of Labor 
Willard Wirtz by a high-level departmental factfinding group which visited 
Delano, Calif., in May of 1968, spells out additional odious economic, social, and 
administrative problems stemming from the commuter system. This report found 
among other things, that commuters were in fact being used as strikebreakers 
to the detriment of American workers. I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
this report be printed in the Record following my remarks. 

The Presiding Officer. Without objection it is so ordered. 

(See exhibit 3.) 

Mr. Muskie. The 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act 
place a limitation of 120.000 on total annual immigration to the United States 
from all nations in the Western Hemisphere. Given this limited quota, it seems 
unfair that a single one of these 120,000 positions be used by any person who 
does not intent to come to pei-manently and physically live, work in, and become 
a part of American society. 

The legislation I am introducing today recognizes that the commuter problem 
will be eliminated only by specific congressional action. In a recent article ap- 
pearing in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law— volume 
1, No. 2, spring 1969— Mr. Charles Gordon, General Counsel for the U.S. Im- 
migration and Naturalization Service, states : 

"It is unlikely that there will be any significant changes in the administrative 
approach to the commuter problem. As I have noted, proposals to end or modify 
the program have been rejected by the administrators on the ground that they 
have been enforcing the will of Congress. Consequently, it may be expected that 
unless changes are enacted by Congress the alien commuter program will con- 
tinue to operate as it has for the past 40 years. Thus, if changes are to be made, 
they apparently will have to be accomplished by new legislation." 



2836 

I believe there is mucli merit to tlie argument tliat border communitie.s are 
integrated economic units. Our border towns need the services of Canadian and 
Mexican \torlvers. Many businessmen depend upon residents of Canada and Mex- 
ico for much of their sales. Conversely. Canadian and Mexican border towns rely 
heavily on the incomes of commuters. Nonetheless, I believe that when Canadian 
and Mexican resident working in the United States should not be exploited and 
that their presence siaould not depress our own labor standards. The legislation 
I am introducing reflects these realities. It does not propose to bar alien com- 
muters from working in the United States. 

Specifically, my bill : 

First. Would redefine the term "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" 
under the Immigration Nationality Act. I intend by this redefinition and other 
amendments to make it clear that all immigrants after initial admission must 
permanently and physically reside in the United States. In short, it is my express 
intent to abolish the commuter system. 

Second. Would establish a nonresident work permit system. By recognizing the 
interdependence of border communities this new form of border crossing author- 
ization is designed for use by nonresidents aliens wiio wish i>ermanent employ- 
ment in U.S. border towns. Accordingly, its use will be limited to authorized 
work locations not more than 20 miles from the U.S. border. This provision, I 
believe, will preserve freedom of movement and a healthy interconnection between 
the economies of our border towns. At the same time we abolish one of the abuses 
of the commuter system — the impact of the farther-ranging "green card" com- 
muter — which has no relationship to the interconnection of our border economy 
and which has been disruptive and harmful to nonresident American workers. 

Work permits would be issued only after the Secretary of Labor certified that 
American workers are not available and, if none are available, that the wages and 
working conditions of Americans similarly employed would not be adversely 
affected. I have included a provision for periodic review of such certifications. My 
intention is to give the Secretary of Labor wide discretion in determining under 
what conditions work permits should be granted or withdrawn. Specifically, I 
have in mind situations where work-permit holders are used as strike breakers. 
In such cases the Secretary of Labor would revoke the work permit. In brief, I 
would grant to the Secretary of Labor authority to promulgate such rules and 
regulations as he feels are needed to implement these amendments. 

Third. The bill would establish a 2-year grace period during which time the 
present commuter system would be phased out. I recognize that a practice of 
40 years standing cannot be abolished overnight without hardship on those who 
have heretofore attained commuter status. In order to deal fairly and humanely 
with the many thousands of commuters who have relied on present practice, my 
bill would provide for a reasonable grace period during which all present com- 
muters must either, first, move to the United States, thus becoming bona fide 
residents, or second, transfer to a nonresident work permit status. Should neither 
step be taken within that 2-year grace period, their commuter status would be 
terminated. No new commuters would be admitted after the effective date of this 
act. During the 2-year grace period all existing commuters will be subject to the 
same rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor vis-a-vis work 
permit holders. 

Fourth. There is evidence that a large number of commuters under the provi- 
sions of this bill would make a bona fide move to the United States. I fully recog- 
nize that such moves are difficult and in many cases would presuppose the moving 
of entire families. 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service, for immigration purposes, would 
extend to an entire family the same priority date as fheir U.S, "green card" 
principal. This would move the families of green card holders high up on the 
immigration waiting list and considerably lengthen the waiting period of immi- 
grants presently on the list who wish to enter the United States from the Western 
Hemisphere. To reduce or minimize this period of additional waiting, my bill 
would authorize a total of 12,000 numbers to be added to the Western Hemisphere 
numerical limit for the use of new permanent residents during the 2-year period 
following the enactment of this act. 

Fiftli. This legislation would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by 
eliminating the present exemption applicable to employers from the so-called 
"harboring" provisions of section 274(a) (4). The affect of this proposed amend- 
ment would make it a criminal oifense for employers willfully or knowinsrly to 
induce the entry of any alien not lawfully entitled to enter or reside in the United 
States. It is my intention that section 274(a) (4), as amended by my proposal, will 



2837 

also apply to employers who knowingly employ, among others, nonresident "work 
permit" holders who are no longer entitled to stay in the United States, or who 
are working beyond 20 miles of the border, as well as aliens who are in the United 
States on a so-called "72-hour" visitors card — Form I-1S6. 

Sixth. This bill would establish a new civil action provision, which may be 
invoked in a Federal court by any i>erson, or his representative, who has been 
aggrieved by any other person as a result of violations of these amendments. For 
example, if any employer, 75 miles from the border, knowingly hired an alien 
who was in the United States on a ••72-hO'ur" visitors card or hired an alien 
"work pennit" holder, any person aggrieved by the hiring of such an alien would 
by this legislation have the right to seek redress in the nearest Federal court. 

'Seventh. As mentioned above, there is evidence that many commuters and their 
families would move to the United States. Recognizing that such a mass move- 
ment would have an impact on border town school systems, my bill would 
authorize on a one-time basis only, $25 million for the school systems affected by 
provisions of this act, as determined by the Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare. 

Eighth. In addition, all possible manpower and employment assistance should 
be given. Specifically, I have in mind that the Secretary of Labor, either directly 
or through the appropriate State public employment service, should provide man- 
power training and employment assistance to all commuter families where the 
need exists. Because it is unlikely that such families will know that training and 
employment assistance is available, I would urge that the Secretary of Labor, 
working with infonnation provided by the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- 
ice, seek out such commuters and inform them and their families of training and 
employment opportunities. To assure that such assistance is provided my bill 
would authorize an additional $25 million in Manpower Act — MDTA — funds. 

By finding commuter families, developing their abilities through training, and 
matching them with jobs, we can significantly ease the impact of the move to the 
United States. 

Mr. President, I urge early and favorable consideration of this bill. I am fully 
aware how complex are the human, economic, and legal problems to which this 
hill would apply. I can a.ssure you, however, that much thought and expert con- 
sultation has been devoted to devising a bill that would bring a greater measure 
of social justice to the inhabitants of the Southwest, and especially those along 
both sides of the Mexican-American border. 

The Pbesidi^'Ct Officer. The bill will be received and appropriately referred : 
and, without objection, the bill and other material will be printed in the Record, 
as requested by the Senator from Maine. 

The bill (S. 3545) to require an immigrant alien to maintain a permanent 
residence as a condition for entering and remaining in the United 'States, and for 
other purposes, introduced by Mr. Muskie (for himself and other Senators), was 
received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows : 



Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assemUed, That this Act may be cited as the "Immigra- 
tion and Nationality Act Amendments of 1970". 

IMMIGRANTS 

Sec. 2. (a) Section 101(a) (20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1101(a) (20) ) is amended to read as follows : 

"(20) The term 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence' means the status 
of an immigrant who — 

"(A) has been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the 
United States in accordance with the immigration laws ; 

"(B) at the time of making an application for an immigrant visa, intends to re- 
side permanently in the United States ; and 

"(C) following his admission into the United States as a permanent resident, 
thereafter permanently and physically resides in the United States; such status 
not having changed." 

( b ) Section 212 ( a ) of such Act is amended — 

(1) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (31) and in.serting in 
lieu thereof a semicolon ; and 

(2) by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph : 



2838 

"(32) Any alien who seeks to procure, has sought to procure, or has procured 
an immigrant visa without any intent to reside permanently in the United 
St<ates." 

(c) Section 221(a) (1) of such Act is amended by inserting after "section 
222" the following: "(including the statement and oath required by subsectiou 
(a) (2) of such section)". 

(d) Section 222(a) of such Act is amended — 

(a) by inserting after the subsection designation "(a)" the following: "(1)"; 

(a) by striking out the following: "whether or not he intends to remain in 
the United States permanently ;" ; and 

(b) by inserting at the end thereof the following new paragraph : 

"(2) Each immigrant shall sign a separate statement, under oath, at the end 
of such application that he intends to reside permanently in the United States. 
The statement of such intent shall be considered a material fact of the appli- 
cation." 

(e) Section 241 (a) of such Act is amended — ■ 

(1) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (18) and inserting in 
lieu thereof a semicolon and "or" ; and 

(2) by adding at the end thereof the following new pai-a graph : 

"(19) was admitted as an immigrant and failed to maintain the immigrant 
status in which he was admitted or to which it was adjusted pursuant to section 
245, or to comply with the conditions of such status." 

(f) The introductory matter proceeding paragraph (1) of section 244(a) of 
such Act is amended by inserting after "suspension of deportation" the follow- 
ing: "(which application shall include a statement signed by the alien, under 
oath, that he intends to reside permanently in the United States) ". 

(g) Section 245(a) ( 1) of such Act is amended by inserting after "such adjust- 
ment" the following: "(which application shall include a statement signed by the 
alien, under oath, that he intends to reside permanently in the United States)". 

Sec. 3. Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended — 

(1) by striking out of subsection (a) (4) the colon and the following: "Pro- 
vided, however. That for the purposes of this section, employment (including the 
usr.iil and normal practices incident to employment) shall not be deemed to con- 
stitute harboring" ; and 

(2) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection : 

"(c) (1) A person, or his representative, who is aggrieved by another person 
who commits an act in violation of clause (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subsection (a) 
of this section, may commence a civil action, without regard to the amount 
in controversy, in the judicial district in which the defendant resides, has his 
principal place of business, or in which the defendant may be found. 

"(2) If the court finds that the defendant has committed any act in violation 
of any such clause, it shall order the defendant to cease such violation imme- 
diately, and grant such other relief as the court considers appropriate. Failure 
to obey an order may be punished by the court as contempt of the court." 

NONEESIDENT WORK PERMITS 

Sec. 4. (a) Section 101(a) (15) (H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "or (iv) who is going to 
commute regularly to the United States to perform skilled or unskilled services or 
labor at a point not more than twenty miles away from a border between the 
United States and the foreign country of residence of such alien ;" 

(b) Section 214 (e) of such Act is amended — 

(1) by inserting after the designation "section 101 (a) (15) (H) " the following : 
"(i), (ii),or (iii)";and 

(2) by inserting after the first sentence the following new sentence: "The 
question of importing an alien as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a) (15) (H) 
(iv) in any specific case or specific cases shall be determined by the Attorney Gen- 
eral, upon petition of the person who intends to employ such alien, and only after 
the Secretary of Labor has certified to the Attorney General that (1) there are 
not suflBcient workers in the United S^^ites w'lo art' able, willing, qualified, and 
available at the time and at the place to which the alien is destined to i^erform 
such skilled or unskilled services or labor, and (2) the employment of such alien 
will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of the workers in the 
United States similarly employed." 

(c) (1) Chapter 7 of title II of such Act is amended by adding at the end 
thereof the following new section : 



2839 

"termination of employment status 

"Sec. 365A. The status of an alien admitted to the United States as a non- 
immigrant under section 101(a) (15) (H) (iv) shall terminate when the employ- 
ment Avith the employer petitioning for the admission of such alien ends. The 
employer filing the petition for such alien, shall, within fivp days after the alien 
ceases working for such employer, notify the Attorney Geiu'ral in writing that 
the employment has terminated and the date of such termination. The employer 
shall also furnish such additional information as the Attorney General may 
require." 

(2) The table of contents of such Act is amended by inserting between items 
265 and 266 the following new item : 

"Sec. 26.5A. Termination of employment status." 

(d) Section 266 of such Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
following new subsection : 

"(e) Any employer who fails to give the written notice to the Attorney Gen- 
eral, as required by section 265A. shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, 
upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $200 or be imprisoned not more 
than thirty days, or both." 

(e) (1) Chapter 9 of title II of such Act is amended by adding at the end 
thereof the following new section : 

"review of nonimmigrant labor certifications 

"Sec. 293. Not less than once every six months, the Secretary of Labor shall 
review the certification he has made under the second sentence of section 214(c) 
on behalf of an alien admitted as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a) (15) (H) 
(iv). If upon review the requirements of such sentence are no longer met, the 
Secretary of Labor shall revoke such certification and shall so notify the Attorney 
General immediately, and the alien shall be subject to deportation. The Secretary 
of Labor shall have authority to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to 
carry out his duties under such sentence and this section." 

( 2 ) The table of contents of such Act is amended by inserting after item 292 
the following new item : 

"Sec 293. Review of nonimmigrant labor certifications." 

(f) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence prior to the date of 
enactment of this Act (as such term was defined in section 101(a) (20) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act prior to such date) may be reclassified, if 
otherwise eligible, as a nonimmigrant alien under section 101(a) (15) (H) of 
such Act, as amended by this section. 

WESTERN hemisphere NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS 

Sec 5. During the two-year period following the date of enactment of this Act, 
beginning on the first day of the first month following such date, a total of 12,000 
aliens may be classified as special immigrants, as defined by section 101(a) (27) 
(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which total shall be exclusive of 
special immigrants who are immediate relatives of T'nited States citizens as 
described by section 201 (1») of such Act and shall be in addition to the total 
authorized by section 21 ( e) of the Act of Oct<vber 3, 196-5. 

ASSISTANCE TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

Sec 6. In order to minimize the impact upon school districts resulting from the 
provisions of this Act, there is authorized to be appropriated to the Commissioner 
of Education an amount not to exceed $25,000,000, to be administered by the 
Commissioner for operating expenses of school districts determined by the Com- 
missioner to have an increased enrollment as a result of the provisions of this 
Act. The Commissioner shall distribute the funds authorized by this section, in 
such manner and under such conditions as he may determine, on an equitable 
basis after considering the impact of the additional numbers of children enrolled 
in the schools of each local educational agency as a result of this Act and the 
amount appropriated pursuant to this Act. Such amount shall remain available 
until expended. 

MANPOWER TRAINING 

Sec 7. There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Labor an 
amount not to exceed $25,000,000, to be expended for manpower development and 
training programs authorized by the Manpower Development and Training Act 



2S40 

of 1962, title I of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, or any otlier manpower 
development and training program administered by or through the Department 
of Labor, for aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent resi- 
dence prior to the date of enaetment of this Act, and their families. The Secre- 
tary shall distribute the funds authorized by this section, in such manner and 
under such conditions as he may determine, on an equitable basis after consider- 
ing the numbers of such aliens and their families locating in any State. 

APPLICABILITY 

Sec. S. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the amendments made by 
section 2 of this Act shall apply only to an alien who has not been granted an 
immigrant visa prior to the date of enactment of this Act. 

(b) The amendments made by section 2 of this Act shall apply, commencing 
2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, to any immigrant who was 
granted an immigrant vi.sa prior to the date of enactment of this Act. 



Exhibit 2 — The "Commuter" Problem a>:d Low Wares and Uxemploymext 
IN American Cities on the Mexican Border 

(Prepared for the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration by 
The Bureau of Employment Security, Office of Farm Labor Service, U.S. 
Department of Labor, April 1967) 

For many years the American Government has permitted alien immigrants 
to the United' States to reside in Mexico and Canada and commute t(i jobs in the 
United States without losing their immigrant status. In effect, employment is 
equated with residence. This practice has been bitterly opposed by residents of 
U.S. towns on the Mexican border. They feel the Mexican immigrants are not 
really immigrants to the United States — they only enjoy the material benefits of 
worlving for U.S. wages and working conditions while living in Mexico where 
living standards and costs are much less. With lower living costs than U.S. resi- 
dents, alien commuters are able, it is argued, to accept less pay than reasonable 
for U.S. residents to accept. Thus wage rates are undercut and American workers 
suffer. 

It is not just that the commuters .settle for lower wages and a lower living 
standard. They also avoid much of the ro.-its of public services in the United 
States, some of which they enjoy : public highways, medical and police pro- 
tection services, shopping facilities, and sometimes even schools. This further 
reduces the real income of U.S. residents. 

Opposition to the alien commuter was succinctly expressed in a February 3, 
1961, Resolution of the Texas AFL-CIO Executive Board that is typical of feel- 
ing on the border. 

"The citizens along the U.S. -Mexican border . . . are the victims of the unfair 
competition for jobs of border crossers who commute daily . . . from the low 
cost-of-living areas south of the border. These people are willing to work at a 
wage which is insufficient to provide a decent .standard of living for the American 
citizen living in the United States. 

"The 'commuters,' moreover, have at times been used as strikebreakers in an 
effort to destroy unions of American citizens . . . 

"There can be no hope that thousands of American citizens living in the Rio 
Grande Valley or El Paso or other border cities ever will be able to earn a living 
wage so long as commuting by border cros.sers is permitted . . ." 

This paper examines readily available data that may shed some light on the 
extent to which U.S. residents living on the Mexican border are affected by com- 



2S41 

niuter.s. No effort is mjacle to discuss 'the legal aspects of the American Goveru- 




W. Bowser, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Inspections, U.S. Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. — 

Extent of cnmmuthig. Unfortunately commuters are not routinely identified in 
the operating- reports of the Immigration Service. That agencv has made several 
special identification checl^s of border crossers to trv and pinpoint the volume of 
commuting: the results of these chocks are probably tlie best measure of com- 
muting. Tlie U.S. State Department and the Mexican governmental agency. Pro- 
grama Nacional Fronterizo have also made estimates of commuting that yielded 
data roughly comparable to the I&NS survey results. 

In part, some of the difiiculty with understanding the commuter problem lies in 
the difference between the popular conception of what is a commuter and "the 
technical, legal definition. 

The general public probably would regard anyone living in [Mexico and working 
in the United States as a commuter. Furthermore, all aliens working in the United 
States would also be regarded as part of the commuter problem, even though 
they do not commute. 

In the legal sense, only alienft living in IMexico are commuter.'^. United States 
citizens living in Mexico are not : aliens living and working in the United States 
are not. The situation is further compounded by the fact that most of the alien 
commuters have family or friends living in the United States and may themselves 
reside occasionally in the United States. Very frequently aliens will give U.S. 
addresses to their employers and may reside some of the time in the United 
States and some of the time in Mexico. 

One other problem exists. American policy basically is designed to facilitate 
travel between [Mexico and the United States. [Many thousands of Mexican citi- 
zens are permitted to enter this country for Imsiness or pleasure with entry 
documents that do not permit them to work. T'ndoubtedly some of these visitors 
do work, despite the best efforts of U.S. authorities. Such illegal, wetback, work- 
ers would be regarded in the popular mind as commuters but would not appear in 
any ouioial or semioflacial estimate of the volume of alien commuters. Indeed, 
officials of the Immigration Service would probably deny that there are many 
illegal commuters. But residents of border communities do not agree. 

The wide difference between the popular view of the commuter problem and 
the legal view has been discussed to emphasize that the oflicial statistics really 
only describe a limited part of a general prolilem. In an economic sense the public 
view is right. The existence of a large number of unskilled jobs serves to depres.s 
wage rates ; it makes no difference whether the worker is an alien or a United 
States citizen living in Mexico; whether he is an alien residing in the United 
States ; whether he enters and works legally or illegally. The impact is the same : 
wage rates are lowered. 

Tht^ latest I&NS special survey identified about 44,000 alien commuters Janu- 
ary 17, 1966. Almost {>5 percent worked in eight border areas — El Paso, Laredo. 
Rrownsville and F]agle Pass, Tex. : Nogales and San Luis. Ariz. : and Calexico and 
San Ysidro. Calif. Illustrating the fact that the alien commuters do not fully 
describe the economic impact of commuting, another 18.000 United States citizens 
lived in Mexic(» and worked in the United States — ^aimost 30 percent of the total 
c;immuters. Titljle 1 lists various estimates of the volume of commuting made by 
different agencies and at different time periods : taljle 2 presents a comparison of 
alien and U.S. citizens commuting at the time of the latest I&NS survey. 



{ 



2842 



TABLE l.-NUMBER OF MEXICAN ALIEN COMMUTERS 



Jan. 17, 1966 1 Jan. 11,1966 3 



In 



In 
agri- 
Total culture 



agri- May 17, May 8, 
Total culture 1963 1 1963 3 



January 
1960 2 



Jan. 24- Mexican 
Feb. 1, esti- 

1960 1 mates i 



Major points of entry: 

Brownsville... 2,032 226 

Hidalgo 1,163 805 

Roma. 208 187 

Laredo 2,581 175 

Eagle Pass 1,604 536 

Del Rio - 513 99 

Fabens _ 274 219 

Ysleta _ 248 137 

Cordova 2,932 80 

Santa Fe Street Bridge (El 

Paso) 8,592 

Arizona: 

Douglas.... 418 

Naco 127 

Nogales 1,614 

San Luis.. 4,234 

California: 

Calexico 7,616 6,468 

SanYsidro 9,281 3,967 

Minor points of entry 250 161 

Grand total 43,687 17,457 



2,552 

1,000 

146 

2,239 

2,195 

489 

267 

266 

3,455 



619 
511 
125 
209 
901 
82 
207 
115 
164 



1,796 

366 

89 

2,490 

1,586 

237 

307 



1,729 
532 
108 
2,382 
1,037 
314 
316 



135 



3,500 



3,000 

1,400 

400 



111 
2,273 



590 7,605 944 13,492 13,332 10,884 



15,700 



96 470 93 

20 134 19 

108 1, 392 53 

3,583 3,654 3,024 



307 288 

202 134 

1, 464 1, 854 

1,239 1,038 



1,132 



8,098 
8,460 



• 219 
42, 641 



7,324 
3,134 



129 
17, 653 



4,692 
5,855 



87 
34, 223 



5,342 

5,374 



101 
33, 867 



183 
15,000- 
20, 000 



15,000 



1 Special I. & N.S. surveys on dates indicated. 

2 U.S. State Department estimates based on U.S. consulate reports. 

3 Programa Nacional Fronterizo: Tijuana, B.C.; Ciudad Juarez, Chiti.; and Matamoros, Tamps., Mexico, 1962. The 
Mexican figures probably include commuters w^ho are U.S. citizens residing in Mexico. 



TABLE 2. 



-WORKERS RESIDING IN MEXICO COMMUTING TO JOBS IN THE UNITED STATES, MAJOR ENTRY POINTS, 

JAN. 1, 1966 



Texas: 

Brownsville 

Hidalgo 

Laredo 

Eagle Pass 

Del Rio 

Cordova 

Santa Fe Bridge 

Arizona: 

Douglas 

Nogales 

San Luis 

California: 

Calexico 

San Ysidro 

Total 

All other areas 

Total 







U.S. citizens 






Mexican 




Percent 


Total 


aliens 


Number 


of total 


3,503 


2,032 


1,471 


42 


2,561 


1,163 


1,398 


55 


3,715 


2,581 


1,134 


31 


2,710 


1,604 


1,106 


41 


831 


513 


318 


38 


4,290 


2,932 


1,358 


32 


12,913 


8,592 


4,321 


33 


587 


418 


169 


29 


1,882 


1,614 


268 


14 


4,858 


4,234 


624 


13 


9,957 


7,616 


2,341 


24 


12, 333 


9,281 


3,052 


25 


60, 140 


42, 580 


17, 560 


29 


1,806 


1,107 


699 


39 



61,946 



43, 687 



18, 259 



Source: Special survey of border crossers by Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

Evidence of depressed U.8. wage scales. — Compreliensive information about 
wage rates is not available for most border areas. Most of the border towns are 
very small and not included in the statistical series that contain wage rate infor- 
mation. The discussion that follows is based primarily upon very scattered and 
fragmentary information. Notnathstanding their limitations, the data do show 
clearly that wage rates are low in the border areas. 

The presence of the alien commuters, however, is not the sole cause of low wage 
rates. Many factors determine wage levels — a surplus or shortage of workers ; the 
kinds of jobs involved (higher-skilled jobs demand higher wages) ; the kinds of 
industry (usually durable goods manufacturing pays higher wages) ; the extent 



2843 

to Avhich viable trade unions exist. In general, the factors which produce high 
wage rates are not found as frequently in border areas as they are in interior 
areas. But the factors which produce low wages are commonly present in the 
border towns and quite often are interrelated with the alien commuter problem. 

Most of the border areas have relatively large labor surpluses, partly because 
of the commuters, but also because of large numbers of low-skilled U.S. citizens 
and resident aliens residing in the United States. Thus, not all of the low wage 
problem is due to the commuters. 

Comparisons of area wage levels in the same state do not always reveal that 
wages in the border areas are always the lowest in the state. Interior areas in a 
border state also have large labor surpluses that cause wages in these areas to be 
as low, or lower, than wages in the border areas. The northeastern corner of 
Arizona, far removed from the border, where the poverty-stricken Navajo Indians 
live, is a case in point. 

Some border areas have concentrations of heavy industry, or establishments 
where the wage structure is determined by collective bargaining agreements or 
other factors not primarily concerned with conditions in the border towns. In 
such instances, the wages in the border towns may be higher than in interior 
areas where no such establishments exist. But wages on the border are seldom, 
if ever, higher than in the interior for the same kind of work at the same kind 
of firm. 

TEXAS 

Farm wage data are available from the monthly reports of the Texas Employ- 
ment Commission. Monthly estimates of average hourly earnings in manufactur- 
ing, durable and nondurable goods industries are published by the Texas Employ- 
ment Commission. Median earnings data are available from the 1960 census of 
population for one Texas border city, El Paso, and five other ma.ior Texas cities : 
Fort Worth, Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Two spe- 
cial surveys Avere made in El Paso and Laredo in 1961 by the Department of Labor 
specifically designed to explore some asiiects of the commuter problem. These 
surveys contain information about wages in the occupations in which most 
commuters are employed. 

A. Farm wages. — Farm wage rates in Texas are lowest in border areas. Aver- 
age hourly farm wages for seasonal farm work in the three agricultural reporting 
areas on the border Avere $0.76 in November 1966 — 31 percent less than the $1.10 
average in the remainder of. the state. The lowest wage rates are in the Lower 
Rio Grande Valley, $0.75 ; slightly higher in the next area, Rio Grande Plains, 
$0.77 ; and highest of all the border areas, $0.83 in the Trans Pecos area. 

The highest farm wages in Texas are in the areas farthest removed from the 
border — $1.20 and $1.24 in the Northern Panhandle and the High Rolling Plains. 
The following map of Texas shows the geographic pattern of average wage rates 
for seasonal farmwork. 

Large numbers of alien and I'.S. citizen commuters are employed in agricul- 
ture in the border areas. The January 17, 1966, I&NS survey identifietl 1,584 
citizen commuters and 1,282 alien coimnuiters in the Valley ; 531 citizen and 810 
alien commuters in the Rio Grande Plains ; and 973 citizen and 1,078 alien com- 
muters in the Trans Pecos areas. Commuters to agricultural jobs formed a very 
large proportion of the commuters in the Valley and the Rio Grande Plains areas. 
In the former area, 51 percent of the U.S. citizen commuters and 37 percent of the 
alien commuters worked in farm jobs. The corresponding i>ercentage in the Rio 
Grande Plains were 21 and 17 percent. In the Trans Pecos area, where most of 
the commuters went to nonfarm jobs in El Paso, only 11 percent of the citizens 
and 9 percent of the alien commuters worked in agriculture. 

Commuters constituted a significant proportion of the seasonal farm work 
force in the border areas. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley about 15 percent of the 
seasonal farmworkers were commuters, with alien commuters making up about 
7 percent of the .seasonal farmworkers. In the Rio Grande Plains, about 9 ixrcent 
of all seasonal workers were commuters, and 5 percent were alien commuters. In 
the Trans Pecos area almost all seasonal farmworkers were commuters. However, 
in this area farm work is a very minor activity — only about 1,500 seasonal work- 
ers were employed in January 1966, compared to 19,700 seasonal workers in the 
Valley and 15,600 in the Rio Grande Plains. 

Wage rates were higher in the Trans Pecos area than in the other two border 
areas because of two factors : the area is isolated without a large resident farm 
population ; the bulk of jobs in the area are found in the El Pa.so metropolitan 
area where nonfarm wage levels tend to be higher than levels in rural areas. In 

36-513 O - 70 - pt. 5B - 21 



2844 

contrast, the Valley and Rio Grande Plains areas have no large metropolitan 
areas. They have a large rural population, largely composed of Mexican- 
Americans, both citizens and resident aliens. The level of economic activity in the 
latter areas is much lower than in El Paso. The low-wage levels in the Valley and 
the Rio Grande Plains areas are prohably primarily due to the large surplus of 
poor, unskilled, poorly educated, rural people (most of whom are Mexican- 
American) residing in the areas. But augmenting this labor surplus by adding 
commuters from Mexico, persons who are even poorer, more unskilled, and less 
educated, serves to depress an already intolerable situation. 

B. 1960 ccnsu.s of uopuhttion median earnings data.- — Median earnings data 
reveal earnings of El Paso workers are significantly lower than in most other 
major Texas metropolitan areas. Of the 11 major occupational-sex groupings, 
median earnings were lowest in P]l Paso for four groupings (male clerical work- 
ers, female clerical, .sales, and private household workers) ; and second lowest 
for three other groupings (male sales, clerical workers, and operatives and Idn- 
dred wox'kers). The highest El Paso ranked among the six areas was in the male 
service worker classification where it ranked third. 

(One otlier asi)ect of the cen.sus of popxdation data must be mentioned. Since the 
data are obtained from a household enumeration, residents of ^Mexico are not 
included in the census statistics because their households were not enumerated. 
Thus, for El Pa.so, the census statistics overstate the incomes of persons that -work 
in that city because tliey omit the earnings of commuters who work for the most 
part in the city's lowe.st paid jobs. 

Table 3 contains pertinent median earnings data obtained in the 1960 census of 
population. 



2845 



^-1.— «^,— if-t.-<,-HtD^>— «.— •tc-M^Ot. 



*t— tmtoir)f0^0csj»-HCDPomtoinvDfo^co 



- Ol^^ ^^^^L 



CNi^^r^oo oor 






3tOCO'3'CT>CDOOtDCr)tO'-^tC 



S'-'^d-ooirj— 'coocsjf— ir 



. oococsoooi- 



^foooooroco^r 



c^lfnc^lcs|eNc^Je^Jro(^c^l^r•-<c^J<>^c^Je^Jc^J'-•c^J»-^'— 'csjt-H,_HC0C\j«-^csjrOf^ 



■«a-~ -^ LO u^ ^" ro '^' csj' CO in CN fo csT rn csj cnT cv- 



jrooo^o^«3'^^c 






3— ■CM^^CMCO'^C 



rmcocsj^m<^mto 






(ITS ^ t£> LO un c 

fro«^Jro^"csj'c 



sr^Lncsjo^r^to^00ooo^toC5i/^cD 



j^.r-tDOQDtDCDr^OOtO' 



r 00 ^r^^^' 



j'-^cgcM^H ( 



^3- "d- ^H «a- ' 



)csifO'a'fnLn*d-'*'-^f^eNi-Hcsi«a-c\jLOcNj^^^-«CM' 



OrOcsjCN4"=*'*'«— «OOCMt— tfvJCTiCl'— <tD 



tDCTlCT>r^C:3'— '•— «O^LntO*:J-CT» 



5tOCsjintDO^oor 



ooco'5roo*g-oo'^r^mr^csjoocooo<^<*^'~'<^*^L. 



jooootoi— itncn-— «c 



jr^fO^csiO 



t- « 



coLOcotOLO^cALntDOcOLOOu 



■QDtotD^T^-^rcDtnmuO'— "^tou^fOf^CNjcsj^ 



^csj'^totisroLrjto.— »ocsjCT>^^«— 'trp^to^a-oo'- 



esj r^ ^^ ^3- (£> a> ■ 



"O^CMror^oooiCTiL 



■'a-oocsiCNJ^^rofoCMroc^f 



5,_csicvj'— ''~'f^^^'~*f 



,CSJ^H^^.— I 



) t^ in in ;o fo I. 



rint-H.- ^Lr><^intOLnLn^QDtDfOc^'^«*tO' 






rinoocvjCMforotoLnJ 
■5CT)0oc\j0Ocr)C3oor^; 
^Lnr--o«x>r->cNjcor^' 



jtooor-^"— <csjo^tDc 



rc^o^^oi*— 'r^^^f^oo 



to r^ ^ 00 •-< -"^ 
^^ cooor^ 00 
tc— ' coo CTl 



)rocsim^3-CMfn«^cocNJc 



J ^^ <SJ Csl ^^ rO CO CNi CM --^ ^^ <— " -^' 



I 1 1 I ! 1 ^ I I 1 I 1 1 ! 

I I 1 ' 1 I"° 1 1 1 I I 1 I 

I I I 1 1 ilo ! ! ! > ) I I 

' i ig ; i io ; i i ; i i 

-^ ;e ; ; :S : : : : ; ; 

oj I a> ' I 'to 

■a ) o . ' ' a> . ' 

c 1"" I ' ' y £ ' "2 ' ' ' ' 



£•=■1- 



; o ^ O0.C; Z: 



I ' 1 ■ 1-0 ' ' 

' ; • ' J c ; ; 

' ', '12 'ti ', '' 

' i I o e/> ra 1 ' 

<2 1 >nS-^~ I S 






^S.iJCDOCjS ^^^ 






j-r; ?• o o : 






2846 

C. Manufacturing average hourly earnings. — Wages in El Paso manufacturing 
are extremely Imv. El Paso ranked lowest of the eight major Texas areas (El 
Paso, Austin, San Antonio, Beaumont, Corpus Christi, Dallas, Fort Worth, and 
Houston ) for which the Texas Employment Commission published average hourly 
earnings in manufacturing. 

Austin and San Antonio had lower earnings for durable goods, but El Paso had 
by far the lowest average for nondurable goods. 

El Paso did not rank on the bottom for durable goods because it is the location 
of a large copper refinery and a large copi>er smelter. Wages in these establish- 
ments are high because the workers have effective trade unions. The refinery 
and smelter are branches of large corporations and collective bargaining between 
management and labor is on a regional basis, thus causing the unique situation 
of El Paso with its commuter problem to be of little importance in the 
determination of wages of El Paso copper workers. 

Nondurable goods employment in El Paso is heavily concentrated in garment 
manufacturing — almost 75 percent of all nondurable goods workers are in this 
industry. The wage rates in garment manufacturing are little more than the 
minimum required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Large numbers of alien 
commuters ( mainly women ) are employed in this industry. The existence of this 
industry is a recent phenomenon and many local residents believe garment firms 
moved to El Paso to take advantage of the large supply of labor and the low- 
wage scale ; both conditions are due, in part, to the commuter situation.^ 

Table 4 contains average hourly earnings data in manufacturing in El Paso 
and other Texas cities. 



TABLE 4- 


-AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS 


IN 


MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, 8 MAJOR TEXAS CITIES, 


1966 




Average hourly earnings 






Average hourly earnings 






All manu- 
facturing 


Durable 
goods 




Non- 
durable 
goods 


All manu- 
facturing 


Durable 
goods 


Non- 
durable 
goods 


Texas.- 
El Paso 


$2.57 
1.90 


$2.62 

2.46 
1.71 
3.03 




$2.52 

1.72 
1.26 
3.48 


Corpus Christi... 

Dallas 

Fort Worth 

Houston 

San Antonio 


2.96 
2.37 
2.81 
3.00 
1.98 


2.57 
2.52 
2.97 
2.87 
1.92 


3.26 
2.10 
2.39 


Austin 

Beaumont 


1.98 
3.35 


3.16 
2.02 



Source: "The Texas Labor Market," Texas Employment Commission 



D. Special commuter survey — Laredo. — A special study of alien commuter 
problems — jobs held by commuters, wages received, and availability of domestic 
workers for these jobs — was made by the U.S. Department of Labor in the sum- 
mer of 1961. 

The study showed that commuters were employed in most occupations and 
industries, but concentrated most heavily in garment manufacturing, hotels, 
restaurants, and retail trade and service establishments. A sample of firms em- 
ploying 3,000 workers was contacted. These firms employed 438 Mexican aliens 
identifiable as commuters. In addition, the survey team suspected that other 
alien employees of these firms were commuters, although they had given U.S. 
addresses to their employers. 

When the survey was conducted, unemployment was very heavy in Laredo — 
11.3 percent. Large numbers of T".S. workers had the same occupational skills as 
the alien commuters and were unemployed at the time of the survey. For ex- 
ample, the two garment manufacturing firms in the sample employed 88 alien 
commuters as sewing machine operators. The Texas -Employment Commission 
oflSce files contained applications from 156 unemployed IT.S. workers with this 
occupation. 



''■ Other border areas in Texas, Laredo and Eagle Pass, have also attracted garment firms- 
recently. A recent economic survey of Eagle Pass reports : ". . . it seems that the factors 
that have drawn garment manufacturers to Eagle Pass as a production site, conspicuously 
the low cost of labor, are likely to continue in the future." (Italic supplied.) Robert H. 
Ryan, Charles T. Clark, and L. L. Schkade, "Bridge into the Future Eagle Pass, Texas," 
Area Economic Survey No. 18 (Austin : Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas, 
1964) pp. 82-83. Quoted by Lamar B. Jones, "Mexican-American Labor Problems in Texas," 
unpublished Ph. D. thesis. University of Texas, 1965. 



2847 



The survey revealed a very common pattern of firms employing alien com- 
muters paying lower wages than did firms employing U.S. workers. J'rom the 
data collected in the survey, it was possible to make comparisons of the wage 
rates paid for 19 occupations by firms engaged in similar activities. The firms 
employing only domestic workers paid higher rates for 15 of the occupations ; in 
one occupation the rates paid were the same : and for three occupations the firms 
employing alien commuters paid higher rates. There were also instances where 
the same firms paid its alien commuters less than it paid U.S. workers for the 
same work. The average of the wage rates for these 19 occupations paid by the 
firms employing only U.S. workers was 38 percent higher than the average rates 
paid by the firms employing alien commuters. Table 5 lists the occupational wage 
data obtained in survey. 

TABLE 5.— OCCUPATIONAL WAGE STRUCTURE, LAREDO, TEX., JUNE 1961 





Average wage rate 




Average wage rate 




(per week) 




(per week) 






Firms 




Firms 




Firms 


employing 




Firms 


employing 




employing 


domestic and 




employing 


domestic and 




only 


alien 




only 


alien 




domestic 


commuter 




domestic 


commuter 


Industry and occupation 


workers 


workers 


Industry and occupation 


workers 


workers 


Hotels and motels: 






Grocery and related firms: 






Cook -- 


$58 


$34 


Cashier 


$24 


$24 


Maid _... 


20 


17 


Stockboy 


35 


20 


Hallboy... -- 


25 


20 


Produceman 


45 


35 


Waiter 


115 
125 


118 
13 


Butcher 

Warehouseman 


65 
37 


52 


Busboy 

Bartender 


31 


58 


46 


Miscellaneous retail firms: 






Bellboy. 


115 


116 


Porter _ 


53 


35 


Drugstores and related firms: 






Warehouseman 


73 


21 


Cashier 


27 
52 
16 


12 

40 

2 23 


Stockman _ 


53 


45 


Stock clerk 




Fountain girl. 




Drug clerk. _._ 


77 


55 









Plus tips. 



2 Plus $3 meal allowance. 



Note.— Data were collected in the survey concerning the different rates paid each occupation in each firm. For some 
occupations monthly rates were reported, these were converted to weekly rates by dividing the monthly rate by 4.33. 
The number of workers paid each rate was not reported in all cases, making it impossible to compute an average rate 
weighted by the number of workers paid each rate. The averaga rates shown in the table repressnt ths average of the 
highest and lowest rates paid. These averages correspond quite accurately with the weighted averages computed for the 
few occupations where data were reported for each worker. 

E. Special commuter survey — El Paso. — The El Paso special study was similar 
in concept and scope to the Laredo survey discussed above. The survey was made 
in the summer of 1961. Seventy-five firms were surveyed. At least 1,000 alien com- 
muters were employed by these firms. However, it is believed many more were 
employed: some firms did not provide information about the residence of their 
workers. In other cases, workers identified as alien residents of the United States 
were probably, in fact, residents of Mexico and had provided false addresses. One 
garment manufacturing firm, for example, claimed none of its employees were 
commuters : but it ran a bus to the border to pick up workers. 

For the most part, the alien commuters were employed in the less skilled and 
more menial occupations — busboy, dishwasher, laborer, salesclerk, maid, house- 
cleaner, sewing machine operator. Alien commuters, however, Avere also employed 
in skilled jobs. Many worked in organized firms and were members of trade 
unions. 

The data collected in the El Paso survey cannot be summarized as were the 
Laredo data (table 5). In some industries studied, all of the sample firms em- 
ployed commuter aliens. In other industries, the sample firms refused to provide 
wage information or attempt to determine if any of their employees were alien 
commuters. The wage .structure in other firms was determined by collective bar- 
gaining agreements negotiated on a national or regional basis and thus unaffected 
by commuters. 

AVhere information was supplied, it was apparent that wage rates paid alien 
commuters were usually low. In about one-half of the occupations studied, the 
wage rates paid commuters were lower than what unemployed job applicants 
registered for w"ork with the Texas Employment Commission said they w^ould 



2848 

accept. These occupations were : sales men and women, cooks, laundry workers, 
painters, carpenters, and general manufacturing workers. In other classifications, 
saLesclerks, kitchen helpers, packinghouse workers, laborers, and truckdrivers, 
the commuter aliens were paid rates commensurate with the expectations of 
unemployed domestic workers. 

Following is a summary of the survey results : 

Eleven construction firms. — ^Six firms employed only IJ.iS. residents ; fiv'e em- 
I)loyed alien commuters. Two-thirds of the firms employing only U.S. re.sidents 
paid the union scale. Only 20 percent of the firms employing commuters paid the 
union scale. The lowest rates were paid by the nonunion firms that employed 
commuters. 

Four retail dry goods stores. — Three firms employed alien commuters. They 
paid lower wage rates than the firm that employed only U.S. residents. 

Four tvholesale and warehouse firms. — Three firms employed alien commuters. 
The firm employing only U.S. residents paid the highest wage rates. 

All sample firms in the following industries employed alien commuters : Gar- 
ment manufacturing (11 firms) : restaurants (five firms) : meatpacking (three 
firms) ; and laundries (four firms). Of interest is the fact that in the one laundry 
where wage rate data were supplied for both alien commuters and T\S. residents, 
the commuters were paid less than $0.r)0 per hour while the I\S. residents were 
paid about ^0.80 per hour. 

Insufficient wage and employment data were obtained to make any comparison 
for seven transportation and storage firms ; two cotton processors ; and three 
hotels and motels. 

In several industries, refineries (four firms) ; miscellaneous manufacturing 
(seven firms) : and miscellaneous firms (five establishments), there was no dif- 
ference in the rates paid by firms employing alien commuters and those employing 
U.S. workers. One refinery, two miscellaneous manufacturing, and two of the 
other miscellaneous firms employ.ed commuters. 

Six other retail trade firms were included in the .sample, but meaningtul com- 
l)arisons could not be made because the nature of their operations and the occu- 
I)ations of the workers they employed were too dissimilar. 

F. rnemployment in Texas border cities. — The Texas Employment Commission 
prepares and publishes unemployment estimates for 22 Texas cities. In 1966 these 
data revealed that unemployment in border towns was substantially greater than 
in interior cities. Laredo had the highest rate — 9.6 perceTit. The average rate for 
the four border areas (Rrownsville-Harlingen-San Benito: El Paso; Laredo; and 
McAllen-Plmrr-Edinburg) was 6.6 percent, almost 95 percent greater than the 
3.4-percent rate in the IS interior areas. 

High unemployment rates are indicative of labor surpluses, surpluses that in 
turn cause lower wage rates as employers find it unnecessary to bid up wages to 
attract workers. The fact that unemployment is heavy and wage rates are low in 
the border towns is not coincidental. Workers residing in Mexico contribute to 
the labor surplus by filling jobs that United States residents would otherwise 
have — and frequently take them at wage rates unacceptable to United States 
residents. 

Table 6 lists 1966 local unemployment rates for Texas : table 7 compares the 
volume of alien commuters in January 1966 with estimated unemployment in 
each of the Texas border towns for the .same time period. 

TABLES.— UNEMPLOYMENT RATES IN 22 TEXAS CITIES, 1966 



City 


Rate 


Rank 


City 


Rate 


Rank 


4 border cities 

Brownsvllle-Harlingen-San Benito. . 
El Paso 


6.6 . 

6.5 

4.4 

9.6 

5.8 

3.4 . 

3.6 

2.9 

2.6 

4.0 

3.7 

2.5 

2.9 


"'21 
17 
22 
20 

"li 

4 
3 

15 
12 
2 
4 


18 interior cities— Continued 

Galveston-Texas City 

Houston 

Longview-Kilgore-Gladewater 

Lubbock 

Midland-Odessa 


4.7 
2.4 
3.3 
3.8 
3.4 
3.4 
4.3 
3.8 
3.3 
4.4 
3.0 


19 
1 


Laredo 

McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg 

18 interior cities . . 


8 
13 
9 


Abilene 


San Angelo 

San Antonio 

Texarkana 

Tyler 

Waco... 

Wichita Falls 


9 


Amarillo ._ _ 

Austin 

Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange 

Corpus Christi 

Dallas 


16 
13 

7 
17 

6 


Fort Worth 











Source: "The Texas Labor Market," Texas Employment Commission. 



2849 



TABLE 7.-TEXAS BORDER CITIES; UNEMPLOYMENT AND ALIEN COMMUTERS, JANUARY 1966 



Unemployed U.S. 
residents 



City 



Number 



Rate 



Alien 
commuters 



Brownsviile-Harlin- 
gen-San Benito_. 
El Paso 



3,020 
5,050 



6.2 
4.8 



2,032 
11,772 



Unemployed U.S. 
residents 



City 



Number 



Rate 



Alien 
commuters 



Laredo 

McAllen-Pharr- 
Edinburg 



3,365 
4,190 



12.6 
6.9 



2,581 
1,163 



Source: Unemployment data from "The Texas Labor Market," Texas Employment Commission; alien commuter data 
from I. & N.S. survey, Jan. 17, 1966. 

ARIZONA 

Alien commuters do not constitute as mucli of a problem in Arizona as they do 
in Texas. Only two border towns have any significant volume of alien commuter 
workers — San Luis, 4,200 and Xogales, 1,600. About 400 alien commuters cross the 
border at Douglas and another 100 at Xaco. Employment and wage data for local 
Arizona communities are very limited, making it difficult to evaluate the eco- 
nomic impact of commuters. Farm wage data are available from the reports of 
the Arizona State Employment Service and that Agency lias also published 
some occupational wage data for nonfarm jobs in its annual publication, 
"Arizona Basic Economic Data." Since Arizona has no sizable border cities, 
no earnings data are available from the 1960 census. 

A. Farm ivagc data. — Data concerning wages for seasonal farm work in Ari- 
zona do not reveal any adverse impact exerted by alien commuters, despite a 
heavy volume of commuting into Yuma County where over half the farm workers 
employed are commuters who cross at San Luis. In the three major farming areas 
in Arizona, Maricopa, Pinal, and Yuma Counties, wages were highest in Yuma 
County, the only county where alien commuting occurs. The average hourly wage 
for seasonal farmwork in Y'uma County, November 1966, was $1.31 i^er hour 
versus $1.29 in Pinal County and $1.26 in Maricopa County. 

The reason for this anomalous situation, compared to wage patterns in other 
border areas, stems from unique conditions in the Y'uma area. The farm work 
force in Y'uma County for many years was dominated by Mexican aliens — Mex- 
ican contract workers admitted under Public Law 78 and/or illegal wetback 
workers prior to the wetback cleanup in the early 1950"s. There was practically 
no resident domestic work force doing seasonal farm work in Yuma County. The 
prevailing wage rate in Yuma was Avhatever the Department of Labor required 
be paid to the Mexican contract workers. 

When Public Law 78 ended in 1964, this situation changed. No longer was the 
labor force for seasonal farm work furnished by the Government. Growers had 
to comi>ete with each other for available workers by bidding up wages. For the 
most part, the workers they were trying to attract were Mexican immigrants, 
some of whom lived in Yuma County ; others lived in Mexico ; and still others 
moved into Yuma from other areas in Arizona and California. In other areas of 
Arizona, the labor force was not so heavily composed of contract workers and 
the impact of Public LaAV 78's termination was not as severe ; more local residents 
were available to replace the contract workers. Thus in Yuma there was more 
active competition in the wage area ; this competition was successful in 
attracting workers, but many of the new workers were Mexican immigrants who 
chose to live in San Luis, Mexico, rather than in the United States. 

Between May 1963 and January 1966, alien commuting increased almost four- 
fold, from about 1,100 to about 4,000. (Data are not available concerning the 
proportion of the 1963 commuters that worked in farm jobs. In 1966, about 85 per- 
cent did farm work. ) Between 1963 and 1966, wage rates for seasonal farmwork 
in Yuma County increased 35 ijercent, compared to a 25-percent increase increase 
in Maricopa County, and a lO-iiercent increase in Pinal County where contract 
workers were largely eliminated prior to 1963. 

B. Nonfarm occupational wage data. — The Arizona State Employment Service 
has published wage rate ranges, by county, for about a dozen occupations. Sepa- 
rate data are published for tAvo Cochise County towns, Douglas and Bisbee. 
Although the two towns are only about 20 miles apart, there is a significant differ- 
ence in the pattern of alien commuter employment. Douglas is directly on the bor- 
der and about 400 aliens commute to jobs in the United States from Agua Prieta. 
Mexico ; about 75 percent of them work in Douglas, the remainder in farm jobs in 
the Elfrida areas, north of the city. There is very limited public transportation 



2850 

between Bisbee and Douglas, and very few alien commuters, or even Douglas 
residents for that matter, work in Bisbee. While Bisbee itself is only 10 miles 
from the border, the closest Mexican border town, Naco, is very small. Only about 
100 alien commuters cross from Naco to work in the Bisbee area. Thus, alien 
commuters would have a much greater impact upon Douglas than upon Bisbee 
despite the closeness of the towns. 

The Employment Service data reveal lower wage rates existing in Douglas than 
in Bisbee, indicating that the commuter situation may have adversely affected 
rates in Douglas. As shown in table 8, seven occupations are listed which can be 
compared. Comparing the low ix>int of the wage ranges shown lor each occupa- 
tion, four of the occupations in Douglas have loAver rates while the other three 
are the same. Comparing the high point of the wage ranges, five of the occupations 
are lower in Douglas, one higher and one the same. 

TABLE 8.— WAGE RATES PAID IN BISBEE AND DOUGLAS, ARIZ.: SELECTED OCCUPATIONS, 1966 

Occupation Bisbee Douglas 

Staff nurse. $425 to $525 per month $400 to $525 per month. 

Stenographer $400 to $535 per month $350 to $420 per month. 

Salesperson $1.25 to $2.15 per hour $1.25 to $2 per hour. 

Cook $10 to $14 per day $1 to $12 per day. 

Carpenter $2.50 to $4,645 i per hour $2.50 to $4,685 i per hour. 

Auto service station attendant $1.25 to $1.50 per hour $1 to $1.25 per hour. 

Welder $3 to $4.70 per hour $1.50 to $2.75 per hour. 

1 Higher rate is union scale. 

Source: "Arizona Basic Economic Data," October 1966, Arizona State Employment Service, Phoenix, Ariz. 

Of the three Arizona counties where any appreciable volume of alien commut- 
ing occurs, commuting to nonfarm jobs is greatest in Santa Cruz County (Nogales 
is the major town in this county). The 1,600 alien commuters make up about one- 
third of the county's work force ; over 90 percent work mainly in nonfarm jobs. 
In contrast, the alien commuters working in Cochise County (Bisbee and Doug- 
las) constitute only about 3 percent of the work force. In Yuma County (San 
Louis is the border entry point) alien commuters make up 19 percent of the work 
force, but are heavily concentrated in agriculture. Over half of the farmworkers 
employed in the county are alien commuters, while only about 5 percent of the 
nonfarm workers are alien commuters. Thus, any impact of alien commuters upon 
the nonfarm wage structure in Arizona would be primarily concentrated in Santa 
Cruz County. 

Occupational wage data published in "Arizona Basic Economic Data" clearly 
show that wage rates in Santa Cruz County tend to be lower than in other area.s. 
Of the nine occupations for which data are available for 12 areas in the State, 
wage rates in Santa Cruz County are lowest (or tied for lowest) for five occupa- 
tions — clerk typist, carpenter, auto .service attendant, truckdriver, and welder ; 
second lowest for stenographer and cook ; third lowest for nurse ; and fourth low- 
est for .salesperson. Tiable 9 lists the occupation wage data published in "Arizona 
Economic Data." 



2851 



ununcouooinoiOLn 
p^ro*- T^csicoinp^CNj 

^ O r^ I" i LOLOC3 

OCsiCMCSJ OCMfOU^ 



I cbin i ^ 



CM Csj O •— ' ^^ 



I C3 O 1 ^ I I • 

uSiTiOin CM •— • "^ 

CM CM CM CM 
CO 



irscNiCNJCNJ ci^H csj 
CO . in . . 

(^1 lA "^ 2 ** T V 5^ 

ooocNjiA CO in lA ^ 
«»rslCNJtvi tslcsjin 

f*^ • _: '^i 



joM^SSt^ 



po g 52 If oo in 

-* T •? _• A ■* 

i±)cvir-.cs ] 

CSI CO^^^^ CO 



CO ro rsi . J " _• 



Tim 1^ i"'.^ 



irj rr> CM 1— • J . • o ,_• 



^O O CSl O U^^- 
OO LTD CD J_ Vrt CD f 



M ^CM^ 

^QCM^r 



csi m ^^ ^^ ^H oo u^ 

ir> ir> "ST • I <^ _: 

o in c^J in I •— ' 

OfOCOCvJ CD 



f'lAiTS^'i'X'i!! 
i/ir^^'-H irtoinin 



'C3.C3.-: _ 



' i-S £^ S.O o2 
: c/3 o t/j o o < t- S 



2852 

Mr. Ben Zweig, currently Executive Director of the Santa Cruz County and 
city of Nogales Economic Opportunity 'Community Action Committee, and for- 
merly the American Consul at Nogales (1043-.")!) and Xuveo Laredo (1957-63), 
commented upon the commuter situation in an interesting fashion befor? the 
President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. Mr. Zweig said, 
"There is no doubt the daily influx of more than a thousand workers into this 
small community depresises wages." He went on to state commuters live in Mexico 
for two reasons : ". . . because living is cheaper, but also because they are unable 
to obtain immigrant visas for the immediate 'members of their families." Accord- 
ing to Mr. Zweig, the reason visas cannot be obtained is the commuters earn such 
low wages they cannot prove their families would not become public charges. If 
Mr. Zweig's comments are correct, we have a situation that would be ludicrous if 
It were not so pitiful : Mexican aliens are admitted as immigrants. They satisfy 
the public charge requirements of immigration policy by accepting work in low 
paid jobs. But the jobs are so low paid they are not viewed as meeting the public 
charge requirements for the Avorkers' families. 

The 1960 census also contains data relating to the low earnings in Santa Cruz 
County supporting the previous discussion tliat indicated wages in this area are 
among the lowest in the State. According to the census, median earnings in 1959 
of Santa Cruz County male residents were $3,666 — lower than any county except 
Apache. ( Earnings in this county are depres.sed because of the large Indian popu- 
lation. ) For female residents, Santa Cruz County ranked 11th among the 14 
Arizona counties. 

CALIFORNIA 

Large numbers of alien commuters work in California, crossing at two major 
points of entry, Calexico and San Ysidro. Calexico is in the rich farming area of 
the Imperial Valley. About 85 percent of the 7,500 to 8,000 alien commuters work 
in agriculture. San Ysidro is within the San Diego metropolitan area and about 
40 percent of alien commuters work in agriculture with the remainder working 
in a wide variety of nonfarm jobs. Data concerning the occupational character- 
istics of the alien commuters working in nonfarm job.s in San Diego are not 
available, but there is no reason to suspect that such workers would be much 
different than those crossing into El Paso. There they worked for the most part 
in the lowest skilled, most menial jobs. 

Data concerning wages, employment, and unemployment in border areas and 
the alien commuter problem in California indicate that in this state, as in Texas 
and Arizona, economic conditions are much worse on the border. 

A. Farm wages. — According to data collected by the California Department of 
Employment, farm wages in California are lowest in the border areas. The aver- 
age wage for .seasonal farmwork in November 1966 was $1.42 per hour in the two 
border counties, Imperial and San Diego. Wage rates for similar work in the 
remainder of the .state Avere 6 percent higlier. 

Most of the seasonal farm work in the border areas is done by alien commuters. 
The number of alien commuters that cross at Calexico is equal to about 90 percent 
of seasonal farm employment in Imperial County. Some of the alien commuters 
actually commute out of Imperial County to jobs in the Coachelle A'alley, over 60 
miles north of the border. In all, however, alien commuters probably make up 
about 85 percent of the seasonal work force in Imperial County. The .same situa- 
tion prevails in San Diego County. The number of alien commuters crossing at 
San Ysidro is equal to almo.st all of the workers employed in seasonal farm jobs 
in the county. Since some aliens also commute out of the San Diego County, the 
proportion that aliens constitute of the seasonal work force is less than 100 per- 
cent — probably about 85 or 90 percent. 

There is also a significant volume of commuting by U.S. citizens residing in 
Mexico. About 1,600 such workers cross at Calexico to do farmwork and another 
SOO enter the United States at San Ysidro. It is clear that for practical purposes 
nearly all of the seasonal farmworkers employed in San Diego and the Imperial 
Valley live in Mexico. 

Considering this fact, it is perhaps surprising that farm wage rates are not 
even lower. They are not because of the .same factor present in the Yuma, Ariz., 
situation — ^the termination of Public Law 78. When this program was in existence. 



2853 

most of the seasonal farmAvork was done by contract Mexican workers. As the 
program ended, farmers had to compete for whatever domestic workers were 
available. For the most part, these were Mexican aliens who had previously been 
adnutted as immigrants. They accepted the farm jobs formerly held by alien 
contract workers at the higher wage rates employers were offering. When the 
alien contract workers dominated the farm labor force, particularly in Imi^erial 
County, farmworker housing was geared to the contract worker. Barracks-tyiJe 
housing for single male workers was the standard. Family housing for farm- 
workers was available only on a very limited basis. Thus when alien contract 
workers were replace<l by U.S. citizens or alien immigrants, almost the only 
available family housing was in Mexico. 

(On the border in California, as in Arizona, the end of the bracero program 
increased alien commuting. But at the same time it also caused sharp wage rate 
increases, thus militating against — ^perhai^s disguising is a more apt description — 
the adverse impact of the commuter situation. Total alien commuting jumped 
over 50 percent ■ between 10G3 and 1966, but seasonal farm wages still increased 
35 percent, one-fourth greater than the increase in wages for the same kind of 
work in the rest of the state. 

B. 1960 census of popidatioti median earnings data. — The published statistics of 
the 1960 census contain data for eight major metropolitan areas, one of which 
was San Diego. However, the area is so large that the smaller number of alien 
commuters would not be expecteti to have very much impact. The total volume of 
alien commuters amounted to less than 3 percent of the total labor force ; those 
working in nonfarm jobs to only about 1.5 percent of nonfarm employment. 
Furthermore, the structure of industry in San Diego includes several relatively 
well paid industries. The Fedei'al Government has a large naval installation in the 
area and several aircraft manufacturing firms are al.so present. 

Nonetheless, there is evidence to indicate that economic conditions in San 
Diego are poorer than in other major California cities. San Diego ranked only 
fifth highesit among the eight major cities in median earnings of male workers, 
and fourth highest for female workers. Earnings were lower in San Diego than 
in the largest urban areas, but higher than earnings in the interior valley cities 
where farming is an important activity. Of particular significance are the data 
for the occupations in which most of alien commuters probably work. The earn- 
ings of farm laborers, $1,621, were the lowest of all eight areas. Comparing Los 
Angeles and San Diego, the earnings of San Diego residents were 8 percent lower 
for male sale.sworkers ; IS i)ercent lower for male farmworkers ; 5 i^ercent lower 
for female clerical workei's ; 8 percent lower for female sale.SAvorkers ; 18 percent 
lower for female private household workers ; and 14 i>ereeTit lower for female 
service workers. 

As was previously mentioned, the census data, which are collected from house- 
holds in the United States, do not fully measure the impact of commuters because 
they reside in Mexico. If commuters were included in the census enumeration, 
the census median earnings would be loiw.er than was reported. This is demon- 
strated by social security program data. The.se data show, for 1965, that average 
earnings in San Diego County were seven iiercent lower than in Los Angeles 
County. However, the census data showed median earnings of all male workers 
to be only .2 percent lower in San Diego County. The median earnings of women 
workers "were about 8 iiercent lower. Table 10 lists earnings data from the 1960 
census of population. 

€. Vnemployment in California border area. — The California Department of 
Employment has prepared e.sitimates of unemployment for both San Diego County 
and the Imix'rial Valley. Tlie unemployment rate in 1966 in San Diego was 5.2 
percent, somewhat higher than the Lose Angeles-Long Beach rate of 4.5 percent 
and San Francisco-Oakland rate of 4.4 percent. In the Imperial Valley, where 
alien commuters form a much greater proportion of the work force, the unem- 
ployment rate was 10 iJercent, double the average rate for the entire state. 



2 There is reason to suspect alien immigrant commuting? increased more than .50 percent. 
In 1963 alien contract workers employed in the Imperial Valley were permitted to live in 
Mexico and commute to their jobs. Some of these workers may have been counted as com- 
muters in the 1963 I&NS survey. 



2854 



ooo-^s- -^ or 






"> OO •— • ^T CTl 01 Ol CTl CTl OO CO *T f 



l"CT>00'-^'3"tDOOU^u 



^oooo^ror^rnooto 



LO'<a'U^LnLnLncDtDLOtDLorsjtDL 



rcsjCMmro^co^ 



iricst^tficotDcoLoci'— 'Ococoooc^C3fnoocn«— t^H-— "OO^coesiLntOfO 

r-^^.— toocncscsJCDcoCDcsicDCJoooorOf— <Ln.— iLr>ro^OCT»^*'CsicsiOfn 



CTi to esj tool c 
to a> OO'— ' oij 

O P^ .— < CM CO U 



r-r--u^co«— «r^cvjto«— •esjLDcor^'— lOOLOr^oootOto 



1.— «tD^3-OOinOOO^C00001U^tOOOOOL 



|-CT>t£>000^^^00 



»roa^LOLr>^3-irsir>*3-u 



>eNJCTJ^'CT>OCOr--'ei-CsJOOCDr 

>«a-r-LnmoO'— 'OcvjCsjr--rO' 



■ OT r — tD O 00 



r-^co^rCTico-— <totocsi^-c 
OCT>a^otooocnr^ooo" 

^<f CO to CO •— • CO CO ^" CO * 



3r-*'^oo.— <r-«C3C)0^d-o^cDeT) 



4in ^ lti op in ( 
^CT>^d-«=rr^^a-cDLncT)^a"6b( 



r»— «'a-(rttnCT)'3-a^r-^r-«.CT>0" 



.-^roLn.— ir-co^3-aia> 



^OOtOCsl^OOO^- 



r coooco"— " c 



r-.co^r 
_ o OO ^• 
^^oooo> 

CSJCO 



^t£).— • rocrxx*' 



■Jr^O- 



JC3a^cDCT>irj-^csjo^«a-CT>foO'— •cMcoiococo 
rcsjcoLTir-^cDCOCsjo^a-^Hf-^r^ootD^s-'^rr^ro 
*Lnf-^cDoOLn*^^>o^csnDooocNj^^co^cNj 

i" esT 1^ '^^ aS" liS" ^ iJ^ CO ^ CO ^ CO CM CO ^ ^ CO ^ 



OO coo CVI OO * 



5 00.— «^^000»0»«;fO*-Hoo®0^*'^^ 



tor--r-«ooooaiOr 



3C3<^tOOOtO^L 



rtor^'d-^CTicsjcsja* 



j^t^LncsK^iTiLfj uS"'^ Lnco'cr^-^co»-*cocococo" 



CM<-HO^OOP-.CDCMfOOOOOtDO.— "CS.— tr^LrSCOCM 

r-^roLncocr)Loooc3tDU3'— 'Lriina^o^coca'S'^ 
(^cocNcorooO'— »ooco^3-CMr^C)coa)CNiCOOOo 



-otD*— •cocor>.«— 'O 
- rocsHOr^^T^ar^co 



>"ta-tDir)m;oiocsjtou 



|-'3TOLn^-<--*CO" 



E^ 



_, E 

'-0 £ ' 



.._ 4-- V) QJ I 



: -S -g -5 o ' 



■ 5^ 






3^ EtS 
! o o 



2855 



mtDOOOO^-^rooL 



1000P--CT)eNJOOCT>'0' 






) O) CO ^ CO oo * 



CsimcOCMf*^C*^O0COCNIC 



.— .CslCSt — . 



Lnp««.oo^^tDLno»^cDtDu^cDr*«.c\jo ^^oooocsi 
cor>.ro^enr^oom'*ir>eMtDo>co^ooo>^:*'^-^ 
<— "Lr)co^coo>ootoc\j^;r^a-cocD'i^oor^>— "Ofooo 

oo co'co^ro fo CO e^foro CO CNrcNrcsTcNr CNi"fo"c\r^ 



.eNiCMp«».OOOOOr^fO— <roroe\jooo^»— iiriLO.— n 



r— <u^C3fooo^a-a>cor-»oor 



*ooo>cocounooo^ro 



1 Csj CO ^^ .— 1 ^^ ^^ 



esjCsJCSJi— "CD>^^3"LntDCI>tD— «C0CT100fOr-.OOCNI 

^.— If— tOicsj^s-^^tOLncsjfncor-^CTi^TCNjr-o^cMf^ 
CO CO cv^esToo ro oo ro ro ro^^^csT .— <cnj"cm —7 



OOr^tOOO^-'— *00.— «^OOtOCOCT>CO^UO^-O^OCNJ 

rocM*—«^iocD^ur)^^CNjQOOrsir«.LOCoo>o 0)>— 4 
oo^ocsi'— •— «corocx)cOtocoir»CMtDcou^cococo 

csjc^jcocsTcoPOPorocCcg ^^^CNJ" ^csT^^ 



^r«— »a>tnooo^coa>r*-cn^3-^fopoeNimoiooroo> 
ir>cM^-<ro^r^"^^cDOO^ro>o>corsjr^tooo^^r^cM 

>— •Csjcsjcoi^'^f^f^oocs^s-^a-r-^-tDtoirs^r^co 

csjcorocNif^'^^f^f^f^*^'— ^•— ••— 'C^T ■— (csTf-Hi— 7 



^rror-^cM^o^co.— *r-.— .LOtDtotDi — ^ctjocooo 
ooldco-- 'JI^CTJtoCTJOOcsjror^ajoocstD^a-C) " 



CT> ^^ to OltC^* 



■jooco-- •ooooa>vd-CMco 



) C\J — tCM Csj 



ogo— 1.— lO cvsioooooor*>.mo^tocsjcsj«OOtOtat 
r^coco^«0'^i^cMOcsioooooocNjr*.CDcoro^* 

OJ CO CO Csl*^ COpr5COCOCO.— (^^CsJCM ^-t CsTcsT'" 






; — oS 



2856 

SUMMARY 

The "commuter" problem and low wages and unemployment in American cities on 
the Mexican border 

About 44,000 alien commuters live in Mexico and work in U.S. cities. 

Another 18,000 U.S. citizens commute to their U.S. jobs from residence in 
Mexico. 

90 percent of the commuters are in eight border areas : Brownsville, Laredo, 
Eagle Pass, and El Paso, Tex. ; Nogales and San Luis, Ariz. ; Calexico and San 
Ysidro, Calif. 

Unemployment in Texas border cities is almost 95 i>ercent greater than in 
Texas interior cities. 

Alien commuters work most often in the lowest skilled, most menial, and lowest 
paid jobs: seasonal farmwork, maids, kitchen helpers, sales clerks, sewing 
machince operators. 

Wages for seasonal farmwork in Texas border areas are over 30 i>ercent less 
than in the rest of the State. 

Firms that employ alien commuters tend to pay lower wages than firms that 
employ only U.S. residents. 

Firms that employ alien commuters frequently pay them less than what they 
pay U.S. residents for the same work. 

Wage rates paid to commuters are often less than what unemployed U.S. 
residents say they are willing to accept. 

Greatest number of alien commuters in Arizona cross the border at San Luis 
for farmwork in the Yuma area. Farm wages, however, in this area are high 
because the great number of alien commuters is a relatively new phenomenon 
resulting from efforts to attract a new labor supply after Public Law 78 
terminated. 

Wage rates for nonfarmwork in Arizona border areas are very low in compari- 
son to rates in other areas. Workers in Santa Cruz County, where most nonfarm 
alien commuters work, have the lowest earnings in the State, except for Apache 
County where poverty on the Navajo Indian Reservation depresses earnings. 

California farm wage rates are lowest in the border areas. The bulk of the 
farmwork force in these areas is composed of alien commuters. 

Alien commuters loom the largest in the Imperial Valley where they constitute 
about 30 i>ercent of the total work force, and about 85 i>ercent of the farmwork 
force. Unemployment in this area was 10 i^ercent of the labor force in 1966, twice 
the average rate for the entire State. 

In San Diego, another area w^here large numbers of alien commuters work, 
wage rates were lower, and unemployment higher, than in Los Angeles. 



Exhibit 3 

U.S. Department of Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, June 19, 1968. 
Hon. Ramsey Clark, 
Attorney General, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Ramsey : I am enclosing a report with recommendations from the Labor 
Department staff on the Delano situation. I have seen a draft of the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service report, and I realize there are some differences in 
interpretation of the troubled relations between the INS and the United Farm 
Workers Organizing Committee in California. Our staff believes that the hostility 
and mistrust are .so deep that there must have been some cause, whether it be 
poor judgment, lack of communication, or whatever. They also l)elieve some 
ameliorative .steps have been taken. However, the basic problem still li.es in j 
the whole concept of immigrants who reside in another country. The aggrava- ' 
tion of this low-skilled and low-wage work force on the workers of the Southwest 
grows daily. Much of the energy and anger of the growing Mexican-American 
militancy in the Southwest is aimed at the workers who live in Mexico, but l 
who claim the economic benefits of being a I^.S. citizen. The Mexicaii-American t 
social groups and the unions such as the T^FWOC cannot rest until this problem 
has been resolved. 



2857 

Therefore, I urge that the Federal Government move to control the impact of 
the commuters. A new and simpler strike regulation which excludes all com- 
muters from struck firms should be promulgated immediately. A system of 
identifying commuters should he devisetl, and to that end, I will provide Labor 
Department staff to help absorb the workload. Ultimately, all commuters should 
be excluded unless they can prove they are not adversely affecting U.S. workers. 

I urge your careful consideration of this matter. Stan Ruttenberg and I would 
like to discuss this with you personally at the earliest opportunity. 
Sincerely, 

WiLLARD WiRTZ, 

Secretary of Labor. 
Alien Commuter Problems 

(Report of Labor Department members of joint Labor-Justice fact-finding group) 

Because of pronounced irreconciliable differences in their reactions to meetings 
and discussions with union officials during the Delano visit, the Task Force 
members have agreed to submit .separate reports. This report, then, is submitted" 
by the Labor Department representatives of the joint Justice-Labor Task Force. 

On Monday, May 6, the members of a joint fact-finding group of the Justice 
Department and Labor Department met in Bakersfield, California. Present were : 

Mario Noto, A.ssociate Commissioner, INS. 

Charles Gordon, General Counsel, INS, 

Donald Coppock, Deputy Associate Commissioner, in Charge of Border Patrol, 
INS. 

Michael Fargione, Deputy Regional Director. Southwest Region, INS. 

Leonard W. Oilman, Associate Deputy Regional Director, Southwest Region, 
in Charge of Travel Control, INS. 
Frank Borda, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Manpower, DOL. 

Ken Robertson, Regional Manpower Administrator, San Francisco, DOL. 

Lawrence W. Rogers, Assistant to the Admini.strator, BES, DOL. 

Roberto Ornales, Mexican American Desk Director, Manpower Administration, 
DOL. 

Mr. Noto outlined the mandate given to the task force by the Attorney General 
as follows : Review the entire situation concerning the use of commuter green 
card workers by employees in the Delano area. The examination was to assure 
that the proper policy emphasis on enforcement of the regulation was made 
clear to all Immigration and Naturalization Service personnel. The procedures 
for adminis'tering the regulation were to be examined to see what improvements 
could be made. Finally, meetings would be held with the United Farm Workers 
Organizing Committee to create a proi>er liaison with that organization. 

The task force discussed the various problems they might encounter in Delano 
in carrying out the Attorney General's directive. The prominent problem seemed 
to be the attitude which the union and its members have toward the Immigra- 
tion and Naturalization Service, which specifically is alleged discrimination by 
the Service against the union and its members in favor of the employers in this 
particular area. 

Subsequent to the foregoing discussions, the Labor Department representatives 
urged that the task force convene at Delano. California, since the problems to 
be reviewed centered around that city. The INS members agreed, although there 
were some misgivings that undue public attention might result. 

Mr. Cesar Chaves, Director. 

Mr. James Drake, Member. 

Mr. Jerry Cohen. Counsel. 

Mr. Leroy Chapfield. Administrative Officer. 

Mr. Marshall Ganz, Executive Board Member. 

Mr. Larry Itliong. Assistant Director. 

Mr. William Kircher, Director of Organization, AFL-CIO. 

Mr. Kircher had been present at the meeting with the Attorney General when 
I it was agreed to form the fact-finding committee. He presented the problem of 
the union. It soon became evident that the basic complaint of the union was 
that Immigration Service personnel were not enforcing the regulation restricting 
the use of commuter workers at strikebound firms. There were numerous meet- 
ings during this one day at which the union representatives fully aired their 
grievances. The union representatives repeatedly stated they were not asking 
for special treatment ; they were only asking that the regulation be vigorously 
enforced. In essence, the union's allegations were : 



2858 

1. The attitude of the Border Patrol is "provincial," anti-union, and anti- 
Mexican. This attitude was linked to the treatment which the union felt it had 
received at the hands of IXS supervisory field staff. The union reported several 
instances of brusque and uncooperative encounters with District Directors in 
San Francisco and Los Angeles and the officers in charge of the Bakersfield 
office. The union felt that the INS supervisors did not want to cooperate with 
the union in the enforcement of the regulation, and that this attitude was trans- 
mitted to the Border Patrolmen. 

2. That the Border patrol favors the "growers" in the enforcement of their 
responsibilities. Border Patrolmen do not adequately interrogate green card 
workers to ascertain if they are subject to the regulation. Field checks are far 
to brief. Border Patrolmen are too willing to accept inj\dequate answers as 
evidence that particular individuals are not subject to the regulation. 

3. That the union has additional information regarding aliens illegally in 
the U.S., but will not furnish it to the Service unless it could be satisfied that 
the Service will take action on it. 

4. That violators of 8 CFR 211.1 (b) are not apprehended by the INS and 
prevented from working in the struck fields. The (»nly exception was 10 cases 
which the Union maintains were acted on by INS only after a civil suit was filed 
by the Union against the 10 employees and their employer. 

The Union developed one general question wliich it presented to the INS to 
elicit answers on the policy and procedures for enforcing S CFR 211.1 (b). The 
INS officials offered, instead, a list of 14 questions and answers, prepared by the 
Service for internal use at all operating levels (Attachment "A"). However, the 
Union would not examine it nor accept it. There was discussion of various i»rob- 
lem situations, and ultimately the INS agreed to provide the Union with a state- 
ment about how the regulation works. 

In response to Union allegations that the Service had not taken action on 
violations reported by the Union, the Service offered to furnish to tlie Union 
representatives the results of the investigations which have been conducted and 
actions taken thereon. The Supervisory Patrol Inspectors of the Bakersfield 
station were called in and they were subjected to examination by the Union 
I'epresenta fives and by members of the task force. 

During the examination it was apparent that the Union's allegations had 
merit, at least in the lack of evidence available to show that the INS had acted 
on complaints. The demeanor of the officers and the Union representatives made 
it apparent that considerable hostility and antagonism exist. From the in- 
completeness of information available concerning the officers' prior investigatory 
work it appeared that the investigations were either very superficial or the 
records were totally inadequate to support the conclusions made by the officers. 

The Bakersfield officers explained the modus operandi used by the Border 
Patrol in locating and processing illegal aliens. As evidence of its good faith, 
the Service agreed that with respect to 3S cases in which the Union had ex- 
pressed an interest and which had been referred by the Border Patrol for fur- 
ther investigation to determine whether there had been any violations of 8 CFR 
211.1(b), the Service would furnish them on the following day with detailed 
information concerning actions taken and results achieved. This was done on 
the following day and no further question was raised by the Union with respect 
to these cases. 

In response to the allegations made by the Union representatives that the 
Border Patrol of the Service was not searching for illegal aliens. INS furnished 
the group with a statistical account of the result of Border Patrol efforts made 
between February 8, 1968 and April 30, 1968. This was not acceptable to the 
Union officials since the results showed few persons found on struck farms 
who were covered by the regulation. Rather, the Union felt this supported their 
contention that the INS was not doing an adequate job of .seeking out violators 
and properly interrogating suspected violators. 

In support of allegations made by the Union that the Service attitude was anti- 
Union. ITnion representatives cited alleged instances of remarks made and atti- 
tudes shown by Service officers which were interpreted by them to reflect such 
attitudes. A typical example cited by the T^nion is reflected in a statement made 
by a person who alleges to relate an incident between Service District Director 
at San Francisco and one Jose Lune (Attachment "C"). It is observed at this 
point that at a conference held with INS officials on May 8, 1968 at San Pedro, 
California, the Service District Director at San Francisco denied the Union's 
interpretation of the incident in question, and in support thereof produced a 



2859 

letter which expressed appreciation by Union representatives for wliat is now 
characterized as an antagonistic attitude (Attachment "D"). However, it should 
be noted that the letter essentially is a polite thank you note returning $10 
advanced by the District Director. 

On May 7, 1968 additional meetings were held. During the morning the mem- 
bers of the task force actually observed and participated in Border Patrol field 
operations in locating and examining aliens employed on struck farms. While 
the members of the task force were favorably impressed by the inquiries con- 
ducted by Patrol ofl3cers during these investigations, the nature and conduct 
of the investigations indicated that prior investigations, and some of the current 
procedures, were inadequate to give meaningful protection to U.S. workers as 
contemplated by the regulations. 

1. The questioning of suspect aliens was a time-consuming process. The brief 
time spent in some prior investigations observed by Union representatives, a 
charge not denied by the Bakersfield oiBcers, would indicate the prior investi- 
gations were rather superficial, if the current investigations are a representative 
standard. 

2. Of the small group questioned a significant number of suspect aliens were 
found. In fact, one alien who by his own statement was clearly in violation of 
the regulation, was found. 

3. There was no effort made by the Border Patrolmen to immediately remove 
suspect aliens. The Border Patrol procedures call for only identifying the sus- 
pect aliens and their referring the case to other INS personnel for further, more 
detailed investigation. This permits the suspect alien to leave the employer or 
the area, only to return clandestinely, if he so chooses, at another time when 
he is not under scrutiny by INS officials. Unless there is an immediate investi- 
gation and removal of suspect aliens the enforcement of the regulation will con- 
tinue to be a problem. 

During the meetings on May 7 the same matters which had been discussed pre- 
viously were reiterated. The Service representatives agreed to make any neces- 
sary changes in the procedures of the Border Patrol. The Union representative 
demanded that in demonstration of good faith, the group should reduce to writ- 
ing the matters on which changes in procedures had been agreetl to. During this 
discussion the Justice Department representatives declined to incorporate a com- 
mitment made the preceding day that the Service would establish a system to 
identify all commuters by using some sort of special identification marks on the 
1-151. The Justice Department representatives felt the expense of such an oper- 
ation precluded the adoption at this time but that they would consider it fur- 
ther. Unfortunately, the failure to keep what the Union and Labor Department 
representatives felt was an unequivocal commitment exacerbated relations be- 
tween the INS and Union representatives. 

Additional tension was created when the Justice Department representatives 
declined to personally investigate some of the aliens cited by the Union as being 
in violation of the regulation. Earlier the union representatives had made an 
issue about turning such information over to INS because they felt thorough 
investigations would not be made. The Union information had been treated with 
some disdain by INS officials in the past who characterized investigations of their 
data as "wild goose chases." After being assured that their information would be 
«^arefully investigated, they changed their position about not furnishing it to 
INS as a good faith demonstration on their part. They were completely taken 
aback by the failure of the task force to make personal investigations. INS did 
bring officers into Delano immediately to investigate the cases, which helped 
ease the situation. Both the Justice and Labor Department representatives were 
invited by the Union to observe the network established by the Union in Delano 
and surrounding communities to identify suspect aliens. The Labor Department 
representatives joined the union representatives on such a tour the night of 
May 7. No investigations were made and none of the commuters were either 
visited or interrogated. 

Notwithstanding the heightened tension at the end of the meetings, the Memo- 
randum of Conver.sation finally agreed upon (Attachment "E") was accepted 
by the Union as an act of good faith on the part of INS. 

As the meeting came to an end, it was most evident that while there remained 
an undertone of hostility and suspicion toward INS by the Union representatives, 
the climate was markedly improved over what it had been. It is believed that the 
Union has accepted the good faith of the Service as a result of the discussions 
held. 

(36-513 0— TO^pt. 5B 22 



2860 

On May 8 the Immigration members of the Task Force proceeded to San Pedro, 
California, where a meeting of supervisory officers involved in this operation was 
convened. 

The Labor Department representatives continued meeting with the I'nion 
representatives May 8. The Union's picketing operation was observed, its head- 
quarters office was visited. Strike problems and Government policy were dis- 
cussed at great length. On May 9 the Labor Department representatives met with 
members of its regional staff in San Francisco. The Delano discussions and com- 
mitments were discussed. Plans were discussed for the investigation of several 
farms to determine if they were still involved in the labor dispute. The extreme 
sensitivity of the Delano situation was emphasized and the regional staff was 
cautioned concerning the necessity of maintaining a fair, impartial and luibiased 
posture toward both sides in the dispute. 

FINDINGS OF LABOR DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVES 

1. That the issue at Delano really goes far beyond the narrow problem of the 
enforcement of 8 CFR 211.1(b) or even that of a dispute between a trade union 
and several employers. T^nderlying the situation at Delano is the striving of a 
minority group, Mexican-Americans, that has suffered odious economic, political 
and administrative discrimination for many years. The aspirations of this group 
are now centered in the Delano struggle, i)rimarily because the Union leader, 
Mr. Cesar Chavez, has succeeded in projecting himself as not only a trade union 
leader, but as a charismatic leader of a i)eople fighting for redress of long 
accumulated grievances. It is highly significant that the Union is referred to as 
"la causa," that the folk hero of the members is Emilio Zapato, that its patron 
is the Virgin of Guadalupe. All are symbolic of the struggles of an oppressed 
people. Unless the Delano issue is recognized for what it is, an integral part 
of the present civil rights struggle in Axneriea, measures to solve the particular 
issues investigated by the Task Force are likely to be ineffectual. 

2. That there is considerable distrust and resentment by the United Farm 
Workers Organizing Committee, and probably shared by the Mexican-American 
community, of Government agencies and employees arising both as a survival 
of past feelings and as a result of current attitudes and practices. 

3. That Mexican alien immigrants witli homes in Mexico have been, and are 
now, employed on farms involved in the labor dispute despite the promulgation 
of 8 CFR 211.1(b). This arises because of insufficient enforcement techniques, 
but, more importantly, because the regulations do not provide meaningful protec- 
tion to U.S. workers. In essence, U.S. workers are looking to the regulation to 
provide more of a safeguard of U.S. wages and working conditions than it can 
give. Enforcement measures are considered very inadequate and the Government 
attitude toward the workers' plight viewed as a deceitful sham simply because 
the regulation is not preventing commuters from working as strike breakers. 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF LABOR DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVES 

1. That the commitments made by the task force be honored. Specifically this 
means implementing the Memorandum of Conversation (Attachment "E") and 
furnishing the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee with a response to 
its questions to the task force. 

2. That INS undertake a systematic program of identifying all commuters, 
seasonal or daily, to facilitate the identification of aliens possibly subject to 
8 CFR 211.1(b). To assist in this the Labor Department will make staff lielp 
available to INS. Once this identification is completed, only holders of this card 
could cross the border. The ordinary green card holder would be required to 
have a re-entry i>ermit. 

3. That the enforcement techniques of INS be changed. Aliens suspected of 
being in violation of 8 CFR 211.1(b) should be removed from the farms in 
question as soon as grounds for such a suspicion are found. The INS invesitiga- 
tory staff stationed in Delano should be increased ; this includes both Border 
Patrol and INS staff. Union allegations concerning aliens employed in violation 
of 8 CFR 211.1(b) should be investigated promptly and complete written reports 
of the investigations made prompt