LOS GOLONDRINOS1 Charlene Miller University of California Berkeley The worst work in the United States is better than the best here.2 Demand for labor in the United States during the years of the First World Wtr, the inter-war year ,s and those of the Se_ond World War, brought many golondrinos3 or braceros4 over the Mexico-United States border. The workers who came during and following the First World War were predominately from areas of Mexico bordering or close to the United States-Mexico border, although workers did come to the United States from other parts of Mexico) (Moore 1949:31, 34). Taylor, for example, writes that the demand for labor in the United States during 1917 and 1920 was strongly felt in Arandas, Jalisco (Taylor 1933:36). The even greater demand for workers during the years of-the Second World War brought more braceros into the United States, and because of organized recruitment and because of a central recruitment center in Mexico, D.F., the majority of the workers came from central Mexico rather than from the northern areas as was earlier the case (Moore 1949:34). The first of the war-time labor agreements to bring in braceros was made between Mexico and the United States during August of 1942. Under this agreement, the War Food Administrator (later the Department of Agri- culture) was considered the employer. Provision was made under this war- time arrangement to transport and sustain the bracero's family and to protect and educate his children, but by consent of Mexico and the United States, no families were actually brought into the United States ([163: 236, 238). This original 1942 agreement was extended in 1943, 1944, and in 1945 (Moore 1949:33).6 The crops are all in and the peaches are rotting The oranges are piled in their creosote dumps You're flying them back to the Mexico border To pay all their money to wade back again. Goodbye to my Juan, goodbye Rosalita Adios, mis amigos, Jesus and Maria You won't have a name when you ride the big airplane, And all they will call you will be deportee. Some of us are illegal and some are not wanted Our work contract's out and we have to move on Six-hundred miles to that Mexican border They chase us like outlaws, like rustlers, like thieves. (From the "Song of the Deportees" Guthrie and Hoffman 1962:8.) Immediately following the Second World War, the problem of a great influx of wetbacks into the United States brought the whole question of bracero labor up for consideration. Under the agreement negotiated in 1948, work contracts were to be made directly between the grower or growers' organization and the individual workers tfwith the intervention of the governments to assure compliance with certain standards." The grower was to obtain certification from the United States Employment Service that there was a local need for workers which could not be filled by domestic workers at the prevailing wages. Consent was then obtained from the Immi- gration and Naturalization Service to hire bracero laborO Although workers were guaranteed "free, hygienic lodgings of a type used by domestic agri- cultural workers in the area,t no minimum wage was set by the treaty of 1948, and there was no specified agency with the actual power to enforce the obligations of the agreement ([41] 15, 16). This attempt to control the illegal entry of bracero laborers was, as one critic put it, "Like making international agreements about locusts" ([22]e.24). In 1936, only 650 wet- backs had been caught in the United States ([214]:35), but the figures jumped to 278,538 in 1949 to 458,215 in 1950, and to 500,628 in 1951 ([14] 47) o8 American farmers continued to choose wetback labor over bracero labor, and the Mexican govermnent grew increasingly irritated over the seeming weaknesses in the 19148 agreement and the increasing flow of wetback labor across the border ([221:24). Solving the wetback problem was, of course, not so much that of remedyying specific conditions of border control but of doing something about the factors operative in the economics of Mexico and the United States which made workers from Mexico seek employment in the United States ([23]:408).9 By 1951, however, the Mexican govermnent made certain specific demands of the United States government. An agency of the United States government was to handle recrultment of braceros; both governments were to "redouble efforts to stop illegal entries"t; any farmer who violated the contract was to be deprived of braceros ([18]:414). Under the new agreement, contracting was to take place on Mexican territory ([20]: 300). Public Law 78 was enacted in 1951 "for the purpose of assisting in such producticn of agricultural commodities as the Secretary of Agriculture deems necessary, by supplying agricultural workers from the Republic of Mexico" (Galarza 1956:6), and was not intended to be a permanent ruling. It was hoped that legal and controlled importation of braceros would be a solu- tion to the wetback problem and also help alleviate the labor shortage of farm labor due to the Korean War (Mayer 1961:35 and [6:1149). "Whenever United States employment is at such a level that Mexican workers are needed to supplement the United States labor force and whenever they can be spared temporarily from Mexico, we of course welcome their valuable assistance to our farming community if they will cross the border legally."tl1 The United States did welcome the braceros--the following chart shows the number of braceros admitted from 1949 until 1962. 1949 143,455 1956 416,833 1950 1169052 1957 450,9422 1951 1159742 1958 4189885 1952 223,541 1959 447,535 1953 1789606 1960 427,240 1954 213,763 1961 2949149 1955 337,996 1962 2829556 ([141:47)11 The "temporary" Public Law 78 was extended in 1954, 1956, 1958, 1961, and is currently being considered for extension. Se ve mal a los Mexicanos en los Estados Unidos.12 One grower, speaking of the Mexican farm labor program, said that "we used to own slaves, now we rent them from the govern- ment."13 Because of increasing reports of the injustices of the bracero program, Secretary of Labor, James P. Mitchell, urged investigation of the program between the third and fourth renewal of Public Law 78. This inves- tigation led to the shutdown of several bracero camps and lirought improve- ments in others. The study also urged that real protection be given domes- tic farm workers against the adverse effect on wages and employment caused by the importation of braceros, that there be guarantees that domestic workers would have at least the same benefits as braceros, and that the bracero program be limited to unskilled seasonal jobs on nonsurplus crops. The relationships between bracero and domestic labor have very important bearing on the whole question of continuing to import Mexican nationals and will be considered, in greater detail, later in this paper.l4 Meanwhile, we tried to get into the United States legally. We went to the Center every day and finally got all the papers filled out. The next step was to show up at the United States Customs House. We got in line in front of the office and waited . . . There were people from all ends of the Republic, all dirty, in rags, and starving. Most of the men were so weak that the strong Mexicali sun made them walk like drunkards. I saw one or two just fall over dead, poor things. Really, they seemed like souls in anguish. It was a sad thing, all right, a sad thing to see. Every- body was anxious to get through; I understood their desperation because I felt the same way. . . . The actual process of becoming a bracero is a complicated and quite often a time-consuning one. During the months of My, June, and July, the major period of contracting takes place, and thousands of would-be braceros descend upon the three current recruiting centers of Chihuahua, Monterrey, and Empalme. Admission to the recruiting center is only the first step toward the coveted economic opportunity of working in the United States (Cunningham 1957:501). Empalme, Sonora, is the processing center for the West and Southwestern states, and since these areas employ the greatest numbers of braceros, it is Empalme that draws the largest number of hope- fuls. Before a man can be contracted, it is necessary to have his name on the official list at Empalme (using it as an example). The principal method of getting on the list is to obtain a letter of recommendation from the local city authorities, generally from the Presidente of the munic pio. It is often the custom to pay mordida17 to obtain the all-important letter of recommendation. With this letter, the prospectivg bracero travels, at his own expense, to one of the recruitment centers,1 shows the letter, gets his name on the list, and then waits for his name to be called (Soto 1959 - 258-9 ) A more recent method of getting on the official list at Empalme is to work for at least fifteen days for the cotton growers in the area. They then issue a letter which will get the prospective bracero on the list. Another method is to work, without charge, for the local municipl govern- ment whlch then, in turn, issues the necessary recommendation.1O Then, with his name on the official list, the prospective bracero waits to hear his name called over the loudspeaker. Critics of the bracero program have focused a great deal of their criticism on this period of waiting. During the peak time of recruitment, Chihuahua, Monterrey, and Enpalme are over- flowing with men who have no lodging, only hope of a job, and who are actually quite rootless. Manuel Sanchez' description of the dirty, starving, weak men gathered at the recruitment center is no exaggeration, and there are those who take full advantage of the conditions by overcharging for food and by stealing and gambling, When a man hears his name called, he has gained entry into the camp. He is then given a preliminary health examination by Mexican doctors who are indirectly employed by the United States Public Health Service. These doctors work on a contract basis through arrangements made by the United States Puiblic Health Service with the Mexican govermnent ([1]:75). The men admitted to the camp are screened by Mexican officials and by the United States Immigration Service officers to eliminate as far as possible the "unfit" and "undesirable" (Cunningham 1957:501). Officers working for the United States Department of Labor also are sent to Mexico, and help to make selections in the migratory centers.20 Those wiho are selected at the migratory camps are sent in special trains or by bus, at United States' expense, to the brace reception and contracting centers Just inside the United States border. After the men reach the contracting center, they are given a more thorough physical exami- nation by United States Public Health Service officials. The men are dusted with DDT, X-rays are taken, and final tests are made to check for venereal diseases ([14]:75, 79). The men are also given a mue intensive security check than-they received at the recruitment center. At the contracting centers, the b:aceros are assigned to work for various employers. Assign- ments are made by reading specific work contracts to groups of men assembled in a large hall. After hearing the contract read in Spanish the men stand if the,y wish to be hired by the specific farmer or grower offering the con- tract. (The specific terms of the contract state: (1) the bracero will be paid the same prevailing wage as offered to domestic farm workers in what- ever area he works, (2) $1.75 per day will be taken from his earnings for meals, (3) the bracero will be given free "hygienic" lodging, and (4) the bracero has the right to '"determine wages, hours and working conditions by arbitration through his own economic organizations" (LeBerthon 1957:123).3 If a man does not sign a contract within five days, he is sent back to Mexico (Eldridge 1957:63). Those who have accepted contracts are trans- ported, at the employer's expense, to the place in the United States where the work is to be done. At the end of the specific work period stated in the contract, the employer is obligated to take the worker back to the con- tracting center where he was hired. The bracero can then be rehired for another temporary period if there is a prospective employer waiting at the contracting center, or, if no employer is available, he is taken back to the recruiting center, and must then find his own way back to his home at his expense (Cunningham 1957:501). "So long as the United States govermnent permits the- importation, legally-or illegally, of 500,000 or more Mexican nationals each year, the24 earnings of farm workers cannot rise much higher than the present levelsl' Much of the debate concerning the value of the bracero program has revolved around the effects of importation of Mexican nationals on tie domestic labor supply and the supposed necessity for bracero labor. A common statement is that workers in the United States will not do work for which it is necessary to stoop or kneel, and that the use of bracero labor is, therefore, imperative (McWilllams 1950:286). At the March 1963 hearings concerning the Mexican farm labor program, Jeffery Cohelan, Representative from California to the House, dismissed this argument as a fiction of the growers' imaginations. He said: Growers say that domestic workers cannot be found who will do stoop labor. I say that growers should first give this theory a stiff test--and that this should be done without the assurance that if they fail, braceros will be rushed across the border to fill their needs. The easy availability of foreign labor acts as a damper on any- sincere recruiting program ([14]:90). Helen Gahagan Douglas, speaking for the National Advisory Committee on Farm Labor, nade a similar statement at the hearings: I think it should be obvious to anyone who has examined the situation that the availability of Mexican contract workers is one of the chief reasons why efforts to improve the conditions of American farmworkers and thus to improve the supply of farm labor, have not kept pace with other developments in agriculture. Later in her presentation at the hearings she added: The use of braceros, through the years, has driven down wages in the crops they dominate and thus created an artificial labor scarcity, which has been used as a reason for more braceros and has caused a cyclical deterioration in conditions ([14]:145). In back of much of this argument, however,. is the fact that stoop- labor jobs often demand so much skill that it takes $75 to $100 to train a worker, Growers, therefore, want to employ only men who can be forced to return to the same job year after year, and this is not the case, supposed- ly, with domestic farm workers. Workers who are isolated from the general labor market, it is argued, will be the ones who return to the same jobs, and foreigners are considered excellent because of their isolation being insured through controlled importation and deportation (McWilliams 1950: 287). The fact that Mexican nationals are isolated from the general labor supply of the United States and that they form a "controlled" source of seasonal labor cannot be denied. A comparison of contracting and recon- tracting figures for 1958-1962 shows that a sizable percentage of braceros actually are recontracted. Contracted Recontracted 1962 282,515 46,oll 1961 294,355 68,887 1960 427,353 68h401 1959 447,760 60,9774 1958 4189976 55,140 ([1h4:9) Although he glves no source for his percentages, Fred Eldridge says that fifty percent of those applying for work in the United States become professional braceros (1957:64)o "We are convinced that exploitation of imported foreign nationals, which has been profitably practiced by ghe large commercial farm operators in the United States must be stopped,"126 There has been considerable ques- tion as to whom and what concerns in the United States the bracero program actually benefits. Although the plea throughout the 1963 hearings on the Mexican farm labor program was that there should be no discontinuation of the bracero labor importation because it would most hurt the small grower and farmer,27 statistics show that less than one percent of all the farms in the United States hired all of the Mexicans contracted in 1962,-and that the vast majority of the small family farmers hired no labor at all. Andrew J. Biemiller, director of the Legislative Department of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, speaking at the 1963 hearings, stated that over one half of all farms in the United States use no hired workers at all and most of the rest rely only slightly on them ([14hI:146, 195). It is argued that importation of Mexican nationals favors the large rancher over the small because he can afford trips to the border to contract men as he needs them and can send back workers if necessary (Thunder 1953: 599). It has been further said that the whole question of whom the bracero program actually benefits rests not so much on the size of farming opera- tions, but on the type of crops produced. Strawberries, for example, and many other fruits and vegetables require rapid hand picking and are, there- fore, crops which are more likely to require use of bracero labor ([14]:36). McDonagh's article on attitudes toward farm laborers gi'ves still further insight. into the question of bracero labor. McDonagh found that ten percent of the hundred ranchers he interviewed felt that Mexican labor was more costly than domestic labor, twenty-nine percent believed that it was cheaper, and sixty-one percent felt that there was no difference in cost. When asked about the advantages of Mexican nationals over domestic laborers, forty-four percent of the ranchers felt that the braceros were more dependable, eighteen percent reported that bracero labor was more readily available, eighteen percent said that braceros were "not afraid of hard work," ten percent felt that Mexican nationals were "generally a super- ior type of person," and ten percent saw the chief advantage of bracero labor in that "the law cannot take them away." Other advantages reported were, "braceros will not strike,." "they will not migrate," and "they are willing to take orders." In terms of efficiency, forty-eight percent felt that braceros were more efficient than domestic workers, thirty-eight per- cent reported that bracero labor was less efficient, and fourteen percent felt that there was no difference. McDonagh's findings show that the ranchers he interviewed assign the bracero the highest ranking of all groups of farm laborers. McDonagh concludes that "the great chasm of social distance"l between rancher and domestic migratory labor may account for the steady demand that a large number of Mexican nationals be maintained. Ranchers, he feels, have come to rely on the Mexican national as a dependable source of labor in an area2gf a fluctuating labor supply and perishable crops (McDonagh 1955:10- 18).20 The considerations discussed are extremely important to the whole question of the value of the bracero program and whether it will continue to be extended in the future. The repercussions of the program will receive further discussion later in this paper. My wife a d I, we talk, We agree. I will become a bracero for one year. 9 The important concern of this paper lies in the meaning of the bracero program to each man and to his family, and although much of the information regarding this aspect of the bracero question is sparse, it is possible, considering Mexican family patterns, to make certain inferences concerning the effects of being a bracero. To Mnuel Sanchez, as it must be to many men, the whole idea of coming to the United States as a bracero was one of adventure. When Alberto saw the state I was in, he said, "Compadre. listen, I think we'd better get out of here. You're going to end up bad. We'd better go be braceroso Let's go to work across the border." He kept talking that way until he convinced me. I just stopped by the house to ask my father for his blessing, and to put on an extra pair of overalls and my new windbreaker. At first, my father didn't want me to go, but he finally gave me his blessing. We went to-say good-bye to my brother-in-law and compadre Faustino and the first thing we knew, he had latched on to us and came along. I said, "Okay, then, here go the three of us." I had eight pesos in my pocket when we set out for California (Lewi's 1961:190). 130 i Within the "strong tradition favoring sex expression for the male," it would seem that becoming a bracero is, to many, directly an extension of masculine expression, of machismo. The entire bracero program is male dominated--the camps are camps for single men, the work crews are made up of men, and the men are transported in groups. Being a bracero is a mas- culine advanture to many, and although the experience is no fraternity picnic and in Manuel Sanchez' words, "Well, you have to get used to the fields. Que barbarol Oh, it was hard, hard, hard," it is still, in many aspects, a kind of extension of men's night at the local cantina. To have the male gone from the Mexican family as a bracero seems to be an extension of already existing patterns. Families of whom I have first-hand knowledge have managed to carry on in basically the same fashion as when the male was present. Mexican mles quite often will be gone from the household for various reasons, and leaving the family to search for work in another area is rather an established pattern. Because so much of this data is from first-hand knowledge rather than from monographs or statistical sources, it is by very nature subjective. It may be that the families I have had contact with are atypical, but in the absence of the male, the women carried on as they always had, but often with more freedom and openness. Although the male had been the titular "head of the family" during his presence, during the times when he was not in the home, the family unit did not fall apart. This then, is the end of the story of the Mexican National. He is home again. Unless he is very lucky, he has encountered ignorance, prejudice, and discrimination; he has learned what loneliness in the midst of a crowd can mean; he has suffered exploitation, abuse, and injustice. If he is lucky, the bracero may have returned to Mexico a little richer; if unlucky, he may be poorer. In either case he certainly is wiser (Galarza 1956:80), Although there are those who claim that braceros serve as goodwill ambassadors for the United States, there are also those who claim the oppo- site0 Joseph P. Lyford's article, "An Army of Ill-Will Ambassadors" (1957: 18-19), is an exmple of this feeling. Manuel Sanchez says the reverse. "The braceros I knew all agreed on one thing, that the United States was 'a toda madre.' That means it's the best" (Lewis 1961:338). Despite the cries of those who feel that the experience in the United States promotes more un- favorable attitudes toward the United States than positive attitudes, the evidence seems to demonstrate the contrary. William Form and Julius Rivera, in evaluating a Mexican border vil- lage, found that a positive attitude toward the United States was associated with the amount of contact with American life, particularly contact as a bracero. One indication of the positive feeling toward the United States is the fact that twenty-five percent of their sample had returned to the United States for two or more times (1959:335, 339). The recontracting figures on page 55 above would indicate that something is quite positive about the experience in the United States, for in 1962 approximately six percent of the braceros recontracted, four percent in 1961 seven percent in 1960, sever percent in 1959, and eight percent in 1958 ([143:9). Robert M. Sayre, Acting Director of the Office of Caribbean and Mex- ican Affairs, United States Department of State, speaking before the House Sub-Committee on Migrant Labor, quoted immigrant visa issuance figures, which, he felt, indicated the positive effects of the bracero program. In 1955 there were 37,681 visa issuances and 53,684 in 1961; the pending appli- cations for immigrant visas also showed an increase from 63,475 in 1961 to 140,511 in 1962. These figures indicate, however, a correlation with the decrease in yearly numbers of braceros admitted into the United States. As the number of braceros was almost halved between 1960 and 1961, the number of applications for immigrant visas greatly increased. In Mr. Sayre's pres- entation before the House sub-committee he stressed that the bracero program was valuable In promotion of understanding between the United States and Mexico([14h]39-41) The following quotation from Simpson's Mny Mexicos clearly-shows the positive aspects of the bracero program reflected through a man who was once a bracero in the United States: Those I talked with had nothing but praise for the treatment they had received. At a road patrol station in the mountains of COxaca, the sergeant in commnd discovered that I was from California. "I worked in California for two seasons," he told me with obvious pride. ftIt was wonderful. I got to be a pruner in the orange groves of Ana- heim, the best job they had. You have to be good to be a pruner, for the crop depends upon good pruning. They paid me seventy American cents an hour! Say, do you think you could get me back there?" (1960: 313). A good bracero who does not spend his money foolishly can return with his pockets fat with dollars.31 One of the most persistent arguments in favor of the bracero program is that work in the United States provides the returning bracero with a large amount of capital which he could not have earned in a comparable period of time or under comparable conditions in Mexico. Repeated again and again is the statement that the capital earned in the United States, put to use in the Mexican community from which the bracero comes, can provide him and his fam- ily with an entirely new way of life. The story of Rafael Tamayo from Ocotlan, Jalisco, is one of the many which are related in support of this justification of the bracero program. In-Rafael Tamayo's words, "I came to America because my family and I are very poor. I am a campesino. I earn seven pesos a day, . . Vi Mith the money Rafael earns as a bracero, he hopes to return home, go to a patron near Ocotlan and rent land. "I will raise garbanzos and corn,1' he says (Eldridge 1957:63). In his report be- fore the House sub-committee, Robert M. Sayre quoted the average annual per capita income in many Mexican areas as $100; the average remittances sent home by each bracero total, according to his figures, at least $100 (14k]: 39), It seems obvious that the bracero program does bring capital rewards in a shorter period of time than would be possible if the worker were to remain in Mexico. The question, however, lies in the actual value of these relatively large sums of money that are earned in the United States. Al- though there are significant earnings for each bracero, what is done with the money and what effect does working in the Unrited States actually have? Returning to the Rafael Tamayo discussed above--he has hopes of renting land when he comes back to Mexico. Chances are, his work in the United States will have given him the money, not to change or transform his life in Mexico as many champions of the bracero program would have one believe, but to live in relatively the same manner with a little more capital. He will sharecrop or rent land, in all probability, because land is hard to purchase in Jalisco, and it is likely that he did the same before he worked in the United States--the difference will most likely lie in the amount of land sharecropped or rented. In the majority of the cases, the money earned as a bracero in the United States must partially go to pay back the money and the interest on the money which was originally borrowed for the trip to the recruitment center and perhaps for payment of family living expenses during the male's absence. Although this is largely speculation, it would seem that a great deal of the money earned in the United States does not actually find its way into the Mexican economy in ways which the champions of the program would hope. Because the spending pattern of the village Mexican is quite opposed to the Puritan ethic, it seems safe to imagine that a large percen- tage of the money brought home from working in the United States is spent on gifts, on drinks, and on entertainment for the Mexican village, and that it often does not find its way into capitalistic ventures. Taylor's information from Arandas would seem to indicate that this speculation has validity. He writes that the economic status of the great majority of those returning to Arandas after having worked in the United States was practically the same as it had been before they had gone. He says that many spent their money in ways which made no permanent change in their status. The practice of many, returning to the village, was "to come to Arandas, stay without working until their money was gone--drinking, dancing, etc,--then to return to the United States; but they are ragged nowt (1933.58). Gamio Leon also adds confirmation of this patternm Some are overwhelmed by the environment to which they return, he says. They spend all their savings paying debts, in celebration of the town's saint's day, or in drinking (1961:30). 60 It can be argued that the money goes to a specific group of people in Mexico, and therefore has more far-reaching and more intensive effects than the statistics would indicate. Gilberto Flores-Munoz, Mexican Minister of Agriculture, in a speech to a farm organization meeting in Culiacan, said that the bracero program was directly responsible for creating a middle- class farmer in Mexico ([14]:300-301). Success stories abound in Baker's article, "Braceros Farm for Mexico" (1953:3-5ff). He feels that the "agri- cultural revolution"t which is taking place along the western coast of Mexicc particularly from Nogales to Sinaloa to Nayarit to Guadalajara, is largely due to the braceros who, after completing their contracts, have returned to use their earnings to go into farming for themselves in Mexico. He tells of Pablo Ramos of Obregon who spent a few years as a contract laborer in California, and came home with money and experience. With government aid he bought undeveloped land, cleared it, and now grows rice and wheat. Indi- cations of his extreme success are his tractor, thresher, disc plow, new Chevrolet plckup truck, and his land plane. It would seem that in spite of these examples of capitalistic dreams come true, pieces of the complete story of the effects of the bracero pro- gram are remarkably missing. Although it my very well be true that the program has telescoped and expanded effects not directly in proportion to the capital gained in the United States, it seems that all of the necessary data concerning -hat is actually done with the money is not present. A few stories of success and a general impression of the spending patterns of the Mexican villager are not enough. It seems that a thorough investigation of the men who have worked in the United States as contract laborers and how they have actually used their money when they returned home is imperative before this issue can be settled. It seems q'tite llkely and certainly is documented that a certain percentage of the braceros do invest their money in ways that mean a real economic or social gain in their favor. There certainly are men who return home to invest their money in sharecropping or renting a larger proportion of land, who are able to save enough to afford to marry, to buy a house, or to open a small business,32 but it would seem that there are also many men who return home to find that they have no real lasting economic gain to show for their work in the United States. They haver, perhaps, gained social status because of the large amounts of money they have spent in buying drinks for the village locals at the cantina, but in terms of long-range, economic upward-mobility, they have little to show. Before a statement such as Robert Sayre's, declaring that sudden loss of the dollar income of Mexi- can workers would be a serious blow to their family income ([14h:40) can be made, it would seem that a much more thorough study of the real use made of bracero earnings and the actual importance to Mexican families be carried out0O A further economic aspect of bracero earnings lies in Mexican balan- ces of irnternational payments. Although it has been claimed that bracero earnings form an all-important part, Cline says that the remittances from braceros actually constitute a minor but constant element in Mexican balan- ces of payment. Table I shows earnings from tourism, frontier transactions, and bracero remittances from 1953 through 1958. Tables II and III are in- cluded for comparison with Table I showing bracero remittances. 61 TAHEE I EARNINGS FROM TOURISM, FRO1rIER IRANSACTIONS, AND BERACO REMITTAXDES 1953 - 1958 ($ million) Tourism/Frontier Bracero Remittances* PeriAod Percent of Total Percent of Total Amount Income Amount Income 1953 313.6 31.0 33.7 3.3 1954 342.6 32.3 27.9 2.6 1955 349.9 27.5 25.o 1.9 1956 508.2 36.2 37.8 2.7 1957 591.5 42.1 33.2 2.4 1958 559.6 40.3 35.7 2.5 1959 (9 mos.) 480.6 45.0 22.2 2.0 *In 1962, the Bank of Mexico indicated bracero remittances of $37 million ([1441:39). Source: Cline 1962:297. TABLE II NET NATIONAL INCOME, 1950 AND 1957 Amounts _ (in million pesos) Percent 1950 1957 1950 1957 Primary Activities 11,864 19,665 21.5 2L4.2 Agriculture Secondary Activities Mining, Petroleum, Industria 15,375 21,646 28.8 27.1 Tertiary Activities Commerce, etc. 28,027 38,783 149.7 148.7 Totals 55,266 90,094 100.0 1000D Source: Cline 1962:349. 62 TAELE III GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT AND NATIONAL INCOME, 1948 - 1959 ('000 million pesos) Gross National Product National Income Toetrms Real Terms Rate of Annual Monetary Real Terms Year 5~ Y |ReaTeemss Growth(el) Tem easTrm 1948 31.7 36.1 T -- 28.8 32.4 1949 35.2 37,6 4.0 31.7 33.9 1950 41.5 41.5 9.14 37.5 37.5 1951 51.8 44.5 6.8 46.8 40.2 1952 58.3 4500 1.1 52.0 40.1 1953 5603 4404 -1.3 50.2 39.6 1954 66.5 47.8 7,1 59.2 42.6 1955 84.0 52,5 8.9 74.8 46.7 1956 9400 560o 6.3 814.0 50.0 1957 103.0 58.0 3.4 92.0 52.0 1958 114.0 60.6 403 101.8 54.3 1959 122.0 63.4 2.14 10900 56.8 Source: Cline 1962:3149. "For mary, the experience in the United States vale nada."33 The impact of the time spent in the United States by braceros can certainly be evaluated in terms other than monetary ones. It is interesting to see that the opinion regarding the learning experience afforded braceros by their time spent in the United States differs just as much as that re- garding the economic impact of the bracero program. The opinion that the time spent in the United States represents a period of intensive learning, learning which is then put into use in the bracero's community, is expressed by Verne Baker. Writing about the great advances in agriculture along the Pacific coastal regions of northern Mexico, Baker states that it is the braceros, returning from work in the United States, who are rapidly taking the lead in applying the new methods they have learned in the United States (1953:3). He reports that Sonora, Sinaloa, and Baja California have profited most by the returning braceros, for it is here that they can most easily put into use the techniques of irrigation, crop planting, and so forth that they have learned working in areas of similar climate in the United States. (Because most bracero labor is used in California, Texas, and Arizona, areas where land and climate and crops are similar, great amounts of learning take place and are put into use when braceros return from these areas to Sonora, Sina- loa, and Baja California.) Practically all of the men have learned some English and have had the experience 1tequ4valent to an intense vocational agriculture course" (Baker 1953:3, 5)0L4 On the other hand, there are those who feel that while 63 the experience of being in the United States and working here is certainly valuable in terms of exposure to new ways, it is often of little or no im- portance in the original Mexican commnnity once the bracero returns home. As Taylor says, something is certainly learned by the wide experiences in the United States, but he stresses that the outstanding fact in Arandas is that the knowledge gained was not put to use (1933:59). Writing nearly thirty years later, Carlos Gamio Leon expresses views very similar to those of Taylor. In the new envirbrnment of the United States, the bracero is practically obligated to change his "material life" for the better. He is exposed, in the work camp, to beds, furniture, milk, meat, breads, and shoes which may not have been part of his daily experience in the village from which he came. Braceros also have new experiences with tools and intensive cultivation of crops, but Gamio Leon feels that the bracero is really not suited for any sort of educational role in his home community. In the first pla *, the average time spent by a bracero in the United States is 2.9 months,) and this is too short a time for any long- lasting changes to take place. Gamio Leon also stresses that the tasks performed by braceros are generally simple, endlessly repeated ones which teach little about all-encompassing farming techniques which could be put into practice in Mexican villages. He also feels that the braceros do not have sufficient economic resources for putting many of the innovations learned through their experience in the United States into practice in their home conmmnities (1961:30). To substantiate his position, Gamio Leon gives the example of one bracero he met in the United States and subsequently visited in the bracero'a home village. He was surprised to find the man "plowing fields in Mexico and wearing short trousers and sandals, eating chili and torillas and beans, and living in a little hut scarcely different from the rest, even though he had amassed some savings in the United States." The man explained that his parents and almost all of his neighbors lived in this fashion, and not want- ing to be nor enjoying being different, he had gone back to the old customs. When he had returned from the United States, people in his village had ridi- culed his new ways of doing things and the fact that he spoke in English. (Gamio Leon does say that this particular man was able to have a small in- fluence on farming methods, for some of the villagers imitated a few of his innovations [1961:30].) Taylor reports that he was more impressed by the relatively small degree of change in attitudes and ways of living of those returning to Arandas from the United States thlan by the material change which the experi- ence sometimes produced in the economic condition of individuals. Because braceros often work with men who also speak no English and have relatively little contact with English speakers in the United States, Taylor notes as a "conspicuous index of the lack of effective contact with American culture," the high proportion of people returning to Arandas who could speak practi- cally no English. As one informant said, "I didn't learn English because I worked with puros Mexicanos." Taylor concludes that it was not so much the hostile pressure from the comnity (possibly excepting religion) that caused those returning from the United States to fail to affect the culture more markedly, as it was their usual inability to make effective contact with American culture 64 when in the United States (1933:55). It is men who come to the United States as braceros. They stay in relatively isolated camps, generally only with other braceros, and their length of time in the United States is certainly limited. The tasks which they perform are difficult and tiring, and there is little time for contact with Anglo customs. Taylor stresses, as does Gamio Leon, that men coming back to Mexico generally lack sufficient economic power to put new ideas into effect. He adds that the great difference in physical and economic conditions makes it extremely difficult to apply meth- ods learned in the United States in the Mexican village community. From the recent vote in the House of Representatives,36 it seems that the bracero program is going to be extended for one year. Although an exten- sion has been voted each time the twelve-year-old Public Law 78 has come up for reconsideration, those opposing the bracero program continue to be ex- tremely vocal... The evils in the regulation of the conditions of the program have largely been removed. As a result of the reports of Ernesto Galarza and others, the abuses in the program have been checked and reform measures en- acted9 the most important of which, perhaps, is that of denying bracero labor to any employer who is found to be violating the conditions of Public Law 78. The main criticisms against the bracero program come from those con- cerned with domestic farm labor. Although there are those who feel that American farm workers are beyond concern and should get out of agriculture and into industry if there ever is to be any hope of improving their condi- tion (Eldridge 1957:64), there are equally as many who feel that the bracero program is directly involved in the poor conditions of domestic farm labor- ers, Rebecca Smaltz of the Natlonal Consuners League stated this latter position very strongly before the House S-ub-Comittee on the Mexican Fam Labor Program. "Public Law 78 perpetuates a. system of colonialism which solves no long-run problems for the !UnLported fcreign worker, degrades him as well as the domestic worker he replaces, and lessens the stature of the United States around the world" (1963:197). A common retort of the growers is that they would be unable to find reliable domestic labor to do the jobs now done by bracero labor. The reply to this reasoning is very clearly stated by Cohelan, as quoted earlier, that only when growers offer domestic laborers the same conditions as those offered the braceros, offer domestic laborers a fair wage, and know that the government will not rush bracero labor into the United States the minute that growers report that no domestic labor is available, will the domestic farm worker have any chance of proving himself.37 The House sub-committee hearings are filled with the reports of those who feel that the existence of an infinite supply of labor from Mexico depresses wages to a level at which American domestic laborers cannot com- pete. By lowering wages, the program encourages migration of domestic farm workers out of the bracero dominated areas. An example of this effect was given by Henry B. Gonzalez, Representative from Texas to the House. He questioned why domestic labor is recruited from Southwest Texas to work in Wisconsin when growers feel that the domestic laborers are unsuitable for work in Texas. Domestic laborers are driven north, he contends, because they are not offered a decent wage in Texas, and bracero laborers are avail- able to fill the necessary jobs in Texas at the prevailing low wages ([lh]: 319). The whole argument on the part of the growers seems to be a cyclical one. It would seem that those who testify that the need for bracero labor in the United States will continue as long as the program, itself, contin- ues are correct. The whole program is a self-perpetuating one, especially as it affects the existing wages in the areas where bracero labor is used, for bracero labor has no other choice than to work for the price offered by the employers'. From reading the reports of the hearings concerning migrant labor, it would seem that the bracero program does tend to make conditions of American domestic farm labor more difficult. Although it may not be true that braceros serve as a kind of "slave labor" as many report, it is cor- rect that the Northwestern states that have almost stopped using bracero labor have been able to find a readily available supply of domestic labor at the times when it was needed and at prlces which were agreeable to both employer and employee. The entire bracero program is under intensive scru- tiny, and it seems possible that the numbers of braceros brought into the United States will continue to decrease as they have over the past few years. Whether the program continues or is dropped, there is a great need to answer many questions in order to evaluate its effects adequately. What specifically is done with the capital brought home from the United States by the individual bracero? What innovations learned from working In the United States are actually put into practice in the local community? Is the money earned by braceros actually concentrated among a specific percentage of the population in such a way as to make the effects of the bracero program actually more intensive than the statistics would indicate? There are considerations which cannot be specifically debated because of the paucity of the kind of personal data necessary. The bracero certainly has an economic importance for Mexico, and being a bracero generally means economic gain for the individual Mexican. However, the lasting effects of the program are not as considerable as one might be led to believe, and this is largely due to the community organi- zation of the areas in Mexico to whfich the braceros return. As the econ- omic condition in Mexico continues to improve, and perhaps through such programs as Adolfo Lopez Mateo's efforts to offset loss in United States bracero demand by stepping up land distri bution and colonization programs, the bracero program may cease to have a significant economic importance for Mexico. An excellent summation of the present status of the bracero program is Eldridge's statement: "Countries with high standards of living find themselves short of unskilled labor; those with low standards usually have such labor in surplus. The bracero seems to be the answer" (1957064). NOTES 1Editor's note: In the interest of textual continuity, biblio- graphical entries of corporate or anonymous authors have been alphabetized and numbered. For example, ([161:236, 238) appears rather than ("Migra- tion--Admission of Agricultural Workers into the United Statesl" 1948:236, 238). These numerical entries precede alphabetical entries in the bibliog- raphy. 2informant from Arandas, Jalisco (Taylor 193340). 66 3Slang term for braceros ([1811:4h). 4Day laborers. Term generally refers to those who come to the United States to work. 5After World War I, the immigration act of 1917 forbade admission of workers under contract, but provided for temporary admission to the United States to seek employment ([]4:16). 6 An excellent coverage of the bracero program during World Wr II is Robert C. Jones' book Los Braceros Mexicanos en los Estados Unidos Durante el Perlodo Belico. He lists the number of braceros during 1942 as ,203, those for 1945 as522,098, and those for 1944 as 62,170. As of July 15, 1944 California had received the most braceros (35,280), Montana 4,434, Washing- ton 4,332, Oregon 3,670, Colorado 3,335, Idaho, 2,410, Michigan 2,006, Ari- zona 1,850, Nebraska 1,495, Minnesota 1,299, Wyoming 961, Nevada 691, Utah 689, N. Dakota 432, S. Dakota 300, Kansas 298, Wisconsin 191--to give an idea of the distribution of workers. In the winter of 1944-45 there were 27,000 braceros in the United States (Jones 1946026). 7Term for illegal entrants into the United States from Mexico. Word is derived from the fact that many swam the Rio Grande from the Mexican to the United States side, and therefore had wet backs, 'For an account of the history of wetback labor and the need for it in the Rio Grande Valley region of Texas see Stilwell 1947l14-17. 8For a table showing the numbers of Mexicans located in "illegal status" In the United States from 1949 through 1962 see ([14]:47ff). 'A comprehensive account of Mexican agricultural conditions can be found in Luclo Mendieta y Nunez's El Problema Agrario de Mexico, 1959. l0President Dwight D. Eisenhower, White House Press Release, March 16, 1954. 1-1 9 Bracero labor is used primrily with fruits, nuts, vegetables, and in some areas with sugar beets and cotton rather than with field crops which are thoroughly mechanized (Eldridge 1957:64). For tables on employment of braceros by state see ([14-]:27, 28). 12Informant from Arandas, Jalisco (Taylor 1933:48). 13From report prepared for Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor (Mayer 1961:35). 14Braceros were guaranteed, under Public Law 78, a minimum wage of fifty cents an hour, employment for at least two-thirds of their contract period, free transportation to their job, and various housing advantages (Mayer 1961:34). Manuel Snchez (Lewis 1961:328). 16This certificado or pmiso is a document which states that the man is of good background, is unemployed, and owns no land given him by the government which he should be farming. The mayor has received, via the governor of the state, a quota from Mexico City. The Mexican government issues quotas to the various states based on the monthly needs furnished by the United States government. Along with this document, the prospective bracero must also have a paper showing that he has completed his compulsory military training (Eldridge 1957:63). 67 'Literally, bite. The socially acceptable bribe that is so much a part of the political and governmental processes of Mexico. 18Braceros come from all twenty-nine states and the two territories of Mexico ([14]:40). 19These permits are called libres and are issued by the Presidente of Empalme. They state that the man in particular is in transit from a state permitting recruitment of bracero labor and has been in no.trouble while in Empalme. To facilitate "prompt issuance" of such a permit, it is "suggested" that the bracero work for the town three days without pay (Eldridge 1957:63). 20At the recruitment center, the man is checked for aptitude and given a brief security check to see that he has no criminal record and that there is no indication that he has been a member of a "front organization." He is measured, fingerprinted, vaccinated for smallpox, and given American papers and a copy of his contract. Of the 450,000 Mexicans who passed through the three recruiting stations in 1956, only .046 percent were rejected for all reasons (Eldridge 1957:64). 21These centers are maintained by the United States govermnent, but are paid for by the farmers and growers in the United States ([17]1:488). 22Less than 2 percent of the prospective braceros were rejected at the five reception centers during 1956 (Eldridge 1957:64). 23Ernesto Galarza's report, Strangers in our Fields, carefully docu- ments the abuses of the contract terms0 These include those in housing, wages, and food, and his report notes several Instances of attempts made by braceros to organize and the subsequent suppression of organization by em- ployers and the blacklisting of braceros who complained or had been involved in any sort of organizational efforts. 24President H. L. Mitchell of the National Fam Labor Union ([10]5). 2Hank Hasiwar has written a very impassioned article (1951: 23-5ff) about the displacement of American farm workers in the Imperial Valley, California, by braceros, Speaking on KPFA, Emma Gunterman of Gridley, California decried the use of braceros because they displace the domestic farm workers ([2]). 26 Mitchell 1949:20. 27According to this argument, the small grower or farmer is less likely to have the necessary monetary funds to afford a more mechanized source of labor, and any creation of a labor shortage, e.g. termination of the bracero program, would cripple the smaller farmers ([14]:36). 28The chief disadvantages of bracero labor reported by the growers are also of interest. Thirty-two percent felt that provision of housing was the chief disadvantage of bracero labor, 16 percent listed bookkeeping and red tape, 12 percent felt that the language barrier was the greatest disadvantage, 12 percent spoke of the transportation costs, 8 percent of the problems of occupational tralning, 8 percent spoke of the braceros fear of climbing tall date trees, and 4 percent listed the costs of com- pensat ion insurance. 29Rafael Tamayo (Eldridge 1957:63). 68 30For a further discussion of machismo,and the Mexican male, see Pa2 1961:65-88, "The Sons of La Malinche," and Ramos 1962-54-72, "Psychoanalysis of the Mexican." 3hFrom the Evening Star, Washington, D.C., April 19, 1962 ([14]:69). 32For example, "Toni Barranco came to the United States as a bracero, picked lemons for six months and returned to Mexico with $500 in cash. With this money he was able to get married and to buy a house. Now.Toni has a new job and is living the good life" ([U7b28). 33Informnt from Arandas, Jalisco (Taylor 1933:60). 34simpson, too, has favorable remarks concerning the effects of the bracero program. "Thousands of returning braceros brought to all parts of Mexico new ideas, new techniques, new habits. One bracero I talked with had saved more than a thousand dollars, with which he was going to buy a tractor for the use of his village. Braceros remember the good food and the abun- dant markets they found here, Each goes home with as many large bundles of clothing as he can carry" (1960:313). 35Under the terms of the bracero program, a man is not allowed to work in the United States longer than a three-year period with one contract- ing ( [14]:49). 36For a coverage of the present status of the bracero program see: [3] and [12]. 37It is oftern said that the Mexican National is offered more than the domestic worker--for example, the Mexican National is guaranteed subsistence unless he is offered at least sixty-four hours of work in a two-week period, and the domestic is not given such a guarantee. Unlike the domestic worker, the Mexican Natioonal, if not paid by the employer what is due him, is guar- anteed payment by the United States Government, and the government brings suit against the fanrer ("Migrant Labor" 1959*37). BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous or corporate author [1] 1954 And now brtceros, America 90587 (March 6). [2] 1963 Beyond the bracero program, KPFA, Saturday, October 19, 2:45 P.M. [3] 1963 Bracero program wins House vote, The New York Times, Western Edi- tion, Friday, November 1:1+. [4] 1949 Braceros, Americas 1h14-17+ (March). [5] 1951 Braceros, Fortune 43:58:9+ (April). [6] 1959 Braceros and migrants, America 102:149 (November 7). [7] 1953 Bulge of braceros at the border, Life 36:26-9 (February 15). [8] 1955 Cooperation is paying dividends, American Federationalist 62:25-7 (November). [9] 1954 Extension of migrant agreement with Mexico, United States Depart- ment of State Bulletin 30:53 (January II). [10] 1951 Farm workers map fight, American Federationalist 58:5 (December). 69 1961 1963 1958 1963 1959 1948 [17] 1961 1951 1948 1951 [21] 1954 1951 1951 1951 Green light for braceros, America 105:359 (May 2?7) House OKs braceros for a year, San Francisco Chronicle, Friday, November 1:1+. Mexican agricultural labor, Monthly Labor Review 81532-3 (May). Mexlcan farm labor program; Hearings before the sub-committee on equipment, supplies, and manpower of the committee on agri- culture, House of Representatives, 88th Congress, First Session on H.R. 1836 and H.R 2009, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office (March 27, 28, and 29). Migrant workers' plight, Fortune 60:274+ (November). Migration--admission of agricultural workers into the United States, International Labour Review 58:236-8 (August). Migratory labor; Hearings before the sub-committee on migratory labor of the committee on labor and public welfare, U.S. Senate, 87-th Congress, First and Second Sessions on S. 1129, A Bill to Stabilize the Domestic Labor Force, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office (April 12, 13 and May 17 18). Also, February 8, 9, 1962 and July 26 and August 7, 1962. New deal for braceros, Newsweek 37:44 (February 19). Summ,er brings the Mexicans, Commonweal 48:275-8 (July 2). U.S. and Mexico reach agreement on agricultural workers, U.S. Department of State Bulletin 24.300 (February 19). U.S.-Mexican agreement on farm labor, U.S. Department of State Bulletin 30:467-8 (March 29). The wetbacks, Time 57:24 (April 9). Wetbacks, cotton, and Korea, The Nation 172)408 (May 5). Wetbacks swarm in, Life 30:33-7 (May 21). Baker, Verne A. 1953 Braceros farm for Mexico, Americas 5:3-5+ (September), Cline, Hovard A. 1962 Mexico--revolution to evolution 1940-1960. London, Oxford University Press. Cunningham, Robert R. 1957 North and south of the border, America 97:500-2 (August 17). Eldridge, Fred 1957 Helping hands from Mexico, Saturday Evening Post 230:28-9+ (August 10). Form, William H. and Rivera, Julius 1959 Work contracts and international evaluations: the case of a Mexican border village, Social Forces 37:33)4-9 (May). Galarza, Ernesto 1952 They work for pennies, American Federationalist 59:10-13 (April). 1956 Strangers in our fields. Washington, D.C., United States Sec- tion, Joint United States-Mexico Trade Union Committee, [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [18] [19] [20] [22] [23] [24] 70 Gamio Leon, Carlos -1961 Braceros bring home new. ways, Americas 13028-30 (May). Goodwin, Robert C, 1958 Exchange on farm workers from Mexico, Commonweal 68:353-4 (July 4). Guthrie, Woodie and Hoffman, Marty 1962 Song of the deportees; reprints from Sing Out! New York, Oak Publications Inc. :8-9 (vol0 4). Hasiwar, Hank 1951 Darkness in the valley, American Federationalist 58:23-5+ (June). Hayner, Norman S. 1942 Notes on the changing Mexican family, American Sociological - - Review 7:489-97 (August). Jones, Robert C. 1946 Los Braceros Mexicancs en los Estados Unidos Durante el Periodo Belico. Washington, D.C., Union Panamericana, Oficina de Infor- macion Obrera y Social. Lewis, Oscar 1961 The children of Sanchez--autobiography of a Mexican family. New York, Random House, Inc., Vintage Books. Lyford, Joseph P0 1957 An army of ill-will ambassadors, The New Republic 136:18-19 (March h). Mayer, Arnold 1961 The grapes of wrath vintage 1961, The Reporter 2h:3h-7 (Feb. 2). McDonagh, Edward C. 1955 Attitudes toward ethnic farm workers in Coachella Valley, Soci- ology and Social Research 40hlO-i8 (Sept.-Oct.). McLellan, Andrew C. 1955 Thirty cents an hour!, American Federationalist 62:23-4 (May). McWilliams, Carey 1950 Migrants: inquiry or inquest, The Nation 171:236-7 (Sept. 30). Mendieta y Nunez, Lucio 1959 El Problema Agrario de Mexico. Mexico, D.F., Editorial Porrua, S.A. Mitchell, H. L. 1949 Why import farm workers, American Federationalist 56:20-1 (Feb.). Moore, Wilbert E. 1949 America's migration treaties during World War II, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 262:31-8 (March). Paz, Octavio 1961 The labyrinth of solitude--life and thought in Mexico. New York, Grove Press, Inc. Ramos, Samuel 1962 Profile of man and culture in Mexico. Austin, University of Texas Pressg Inc. 71 Romualdi, Serafino 1954 Hands across the border, American Federationalist 61:19-20 (June). Simpson, Les-ley Byrd - 1960 Many Mexicos. Berkeley, University of California Press. Soto, Anthony 1959 The bracero story, Commonweal 71:258-60 (Nov. 27). Stilwell, Hart 1947 Portrait of the mgic valley, The New Republic 116:14-17 (April 7). Taylor, Paul 1933 A Spanish-American peasant community--Arandas in Jalisco. Berkeley, University of California Press, Ibero-Americana:4. Thunder, Joseph 1953 Feature IfX,11 America 89:599-600 (Sept. 19).