Search the history of over 505 billion pages on the Internet.
Open Library
Full text of "Migrant and seasonal farmworker powerlessness. Hearings, Ninety-first Congress, first and second sessions .."
See other formats
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 Imper