Mexican immigration and labor policy in twentieth-century America

¶ … Latin American Migration in the American Way of Life

Latin immigration was not a major problem in the beginning to the United States.

It was even encouraged for the construction of the railroad system across the borders. Mexican workers were also recruited to fill labor force shortages under the Bracero Accord. But when the labor supply stabilized, immigration policies became restrictive and discouraged the flow of migrants into the U.S. The Immigration Reform and Control Act or IRCA is a main example. Mexican immigration became a cause for concern in the 1900s due to world events, which affected the U.S. The U.S. was sending its men to the First World War. Businesses faced a problem about laborers. Women must fill the job vacancies left by men but also worried about the care and education of their children. Furthermore, they had to spend more for daycare. Minors could not be employed, especially in severely-affected sectors like agriculture, because of child labor laws. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 imposed minimum ages for employment in the agriculture sector.

Guest worker programs between the U.S. And Mexico were created initially for Mexican men only.

They were to work in the railroads and agriculture with the women tending to the home and children. The migration process was either temporary or permanent. Temporary migration was "insufficient for the full subsistence of a household," while permanent migration had "permanent work opportunities in the place of destination."

With better education and career opportunities, the American population became less willing to work in service sectors, such as agriculture and manufacturing. The migrants were more willing to take these low-paying jobs despite minimum or no benefits. The Mexican economy has been improving and education programs may now be available for its citizens. But Mexico has yet to improve wages, working conditions and benefits for citizens. It has remained a labor-surplus nation. Legal migrants are willing to leave their families to work in the U.S. Illegal migrants take serious risks to work in the U.S. Both groups want these opportunities and better living standards. Meantime, critics of migration issues believe that these guest proposals will not solve but even increase illegal migration. It will increase the burden to American society by spending more for the educational and health services of these new migrants. It is also a social process that cannot just be switched off. Mexico can no longer afford to stand pat on a "no-policy" policy and the U.S. On making unilateral decisions on these issues, which affect both countries. Mexico wants to improve living and working conditions for Mexican migrants. On the other hand, the U.S. wants to control illegal migration while providing labor for sectors needing it.

These are the respective goals to bring to the bargaining table.

Literature Review

Jargowsky writes that the concentration of poverty is a growing reality, which demands attention and amelioration. It has been observed that the concentration of immigrants, especially low-income ones, in high-poverty areas, like Los Angeles Long Beach in California in the 1990s. These newcomers are exposed to existing problems of crime, gangs, drug and alcohol abuse, poor housing and inefficient schools. But previous research, however, proposed that the concentration of immigrants can have advantages, especially to non-speakers of the dominant language. New Immigrant neighborhoods in these areas introduce parallel institutions, vernacular information networks, and cultural practice needed for a transition into a new society. However, Mexican immigrants do not transition as quickly as other immigrants from high to low-poverty neighborhoods. Poverty among Hispanics in these neighborhoods reduce economic chances of their succeeding generation. They are less likely to be employed and receive lower wages if they live in the metropolitan areas. They are exposed to high-poverty neighborhoods in these areas. Nonetheless, they and other Newly arriving immigrants who live even in the poorest neighborhoods believe that this new home offers better opportunities than the one they left behind. But the high-level poverty concentration in the areas, the social disorganization, poor quality of schooling and interactions among the neighborhoods should argue that the situation is far from benign.

She commented that foreign-born

Hispanics comprised only 9% of the total U.S. population in 1990 and only 11% in 2000. Despite the increase in Mexican immigration in recent years, Latinos represented only 9.2 million of the foreign-born population, of 31.1 million foreign-born American residents, and the overall population of 281.4 million. The absorption of Mexican immigrants has not been uniform among the States. Another delegate deplored the disparaging attitude towards Latino immigrants for failing to learn English and earning college degrees. Those with this attitude also vote against bilingual education and affirmative action programs. He cited data on the advantages of maintaining and encouraging bilingualism among young Americans as contributing to higher grades and reducing dropouts. Students who remain bilingual are viewed as better able to utilize support structures in their indigenous communities. They are also less likely to lose emotional connection with them. Another delegate emphasized the contribution of Latino immigrants to the American economy. He said that the nearly $30 billion remittances of Latino immigrants to their families in Mexico in 2003 accounted only for 4-5% of their income working in the U.S. While large sums flow to the Latin American economies from the U.S., most of the earnings of Latin immigrants in the U.S. are reinvested there.

The delegates discussed the other problems mentioned by Huntington in connection with Mexican migration.

One was falling investment in public education, which weakened the infrastructure established by previous immigrants. This infrastructure acculturated them into the American way of life. The educational role of media and foreign policy regarding scholarships to Latino immigrants were the other problems taken up.

Citrin and his team went farther by testing Huntington's hypotheses.

Huntington contended that the sheer volume, concentration, linguistic homogeneity, and other relevant characteristics of Hispanic immigrants tend to weaken and erode the dominance of English as the national and nationally unifying language. These will weaken American cultural values, and promote ethnic allegiances over a primarily American identity. Citrin and his team gathered data from the U.S. Census and conducted national and local opinion surveys in Los Angeles to test Huntington's hypotheses. Their investigation showed that second-generation Hispanics acquire English and lose grasp of native Spanish fast. They acquire a comparable work ethic with that of U.S.-born whites. Most of these Hispanics reject a purely ethnic identification. Their loyalty is to their generation. A traditional pattern of political assimilation seems prevalent at present.

Huntington believes that the American national identity is going through destabilizing changes, which threaten America's national integrity and capability to achieve its goals.

And he identifies Mexican immigration as the main or only source of this threat. He sees American identity as a fusion of democracy as its political creed and an "Anglo-Protestant" culture. This "Anglo-Protestant" culture consists of the English language, religious commitment, individualism, a strong work ethic, and a sense of obligation to a better life. Mexican immigrants' high immigration and birth rates, shared and retained language and religion and concentration in the southwest region close to their country of origin are the first imminent signs of trouble. These indicate that they will not assimilate into the American way of life like European predecessors or Asian immigrants. Huntington estimates that, at worst, America will divide into an English-speaking "Anglo-American" and a Spanish-speaking MexAmerica. In addition to immigration woes, the second threat consists of identity politics and cultural relativism, which will undermine the current "Anglo-American" culture. The Mexican wave will reject individualism and uphold group rights. The last threat to American identity is the declining patriotism among leading bureaucratic, business and intellectual elites. Their new values oppose the traditional patriotism of the majority of the American public. This opposition is detrimental to political trust and solidarity.

Most recent U.S. Census data substantially confirm massive immigration from Mexico.

The growth of the Hispanic population is almost half of the growth of the total U.S. population. This translates to one in 7 who has Hispanic roots. Recent statistics say that 40% of recent immigrants come from Mexico alone. Birth rates are also high among these newcomers. But according to 2000 Census, Hispanics were dispersing throughout the U.S. And into more integrated neighborhoods, rather than concentrating in the southwest region. Cross-sectional data are insufficient to predict or estimate assimilation. Comparing their assimilation with that of European and Asian immigrants is a problem because of the lack of such survey data and the changing classifications of ethnicity by the U.S. Census. Language may make the comparison possible. A lot of the available evidence does not include illegal immigrants from Mexico. Their actual number is difficult to estimate but is likely to have been integrated into the American mainstream. They are less educated, more likely to be employed in agriculture and other low-paying jobs, speak Spanish and live in ethnic enclaves. This under-representation points to an over-estimation of the language and political assimilation of the first-generation Mexican immigrants. At the same time, the exclusion of illegal immigrants from participation in American politics means that they have not affected national identity and national policy very much.

The U.S. Census data and local surveys provide evidence on the speedy acquisition of English and the dissipation of Spanish among the second-generation Latin immigrants.

These are, however, lower among these immigrants than non-Hispanic immigrants. Nonetheless, the rate of language assimilation between generations of Hispanic immigrants is either equal to or faster than among non-Hispanic immigrants. And living in ethnic enclaves may retain the use of Spanish, but it does not slow down the learning of English.

Data on the adoption of "Anglo-Protestant" work ethic by Mexican immigrants are limited on the importance of religion and church attendance.

Hispanics seem as religious as whites and work as hard to get ahead. But as of now, Huntington presages the rise of "MexAmerica" wherein citizens will give primary loyalty to Mexico rather than the United States. But findings of present data reveal a sustained belief in the value of the current national identity. Ethnics, particularly Hispanics, view themselves as "just an American" when describing their ethnic attribute. Otherwise, they consider themselves "ethnic-American" when making a choice between the alternative loyalties. This self-view, however, signifies that a kind of political assimilation is still underway. Patriotism is higher among them than other immigrants. This sentiment does not diminish even when they refer to themselves as "just an American." Very strong connections among the structural, cultural and political aspects of immigrant assimilation must exist before they create challenges. In the case of Mexican immigration, they do not.

Huntington fears the threat of a "segmented" instead of a "straight-line" assimilation in the MexAmerica premonition.

In this scenario, the lower status groups will remain socially and culturally separated. The data gathered by the research team suggest that young and better-educated Hispanics today are more identified with America than whites or blacks. They are also more patriotic and recognize the importance of quality public education. Their social, economic, and emotional ties to Mexico appear to diminish with each generation. This indicates an assuring upward mobility for these new immigrants that effectively eases the challenge posed by Huntington. The rest of the evidence offered by gathered data suggests that Mexican immigration is not a threat to American national identity.

Hunting may have based his apprehensions on the diminishing nationalism and patriotism among the academic, business and media elites.

But these groups may now view assimilation in another way. It may now mean the acceptance of values by dominant groups in a given society, the impact of globalization, and multiculturalism among these elite groups. Americanization may even cease to mean the commitment to the time-honored "one-nation" ideal.

Smith writes about the need of the hour to formulate a pertinent law, which respects the dignity of immigrant cultures. At the same time, it will recognize and serve the national interest in controlling our borders more securely. Even those who favor continued high rates of migration do not all agree to a too prohibitive structure at present. They tend to agree more to Peter Schuck's "pragmatic restrictionist" policies. Pragmatic restrictionists are people who are open to the argument and levels of the actual effects of immigration will be. The influence of Mexican-Americans over U.S. immigration laws is only one matter. These groups may have the right to organize themselves according to their purposes. But they are also obligated to recognize the interests of the greater national community over their ethnic purposes. This can be done without veering into realms of being "un-American" racist.

There are three basic reasons for a skeptical U.S. government policy towards the large number of Mexican immigrants at present.

They are largely uneducated and unskilled and may reduce the wages of other work groups. A liberal policy will not cohere with the current inhospitable wage and educational system towards unskilled immigrants. And the majority of these immigrants prefer to live in the southwest -- California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas -- which some historians fear can be considered Mexican.

Hypothesis and Method

The hypothesis is that Mexican immigration poses a threat to American national identity. This study uses the descriptive-normative research method in recording, describing, interpreting, analyzing and comparing gathered pertinent data from authoritative and updated sources.

Summary of Findings and Conclusion

Massive Mexican migration since 1900 has created apprehensions, which present threats to the American national identity and interests. The current growth rate of Mexican immigrants in the U.S. is now half the total U.S. population itself. About 1/5 of young and working-age Mexican males live in the U.S. today. They are less educated, poorly skilled and concentrate in poor neighborhoods in the Southwest, which can be considered Mexican jurisdiction. These immigrants come to the U.S. To improve their living and working conditions. The U.S., on the other hand, wants to control illegal migration while filling its own labor needs. Huntington proposes that current conditions in Latin immigration threatens American values, identity and values in these ways.

An examination of current U.S. Census data and local surveys conducted in select points in the Southwest shows that these apprehensions are not warranted. However, there is a need for a balanced law, which will respect ethnic rights and interests at the same time make immigrants recognize those of the greater national community.