The Bracero Program

The Bracero Program

The Bracero Program was a series of legislation and diplomatic agreements between the United States and Mexico that began with the signing of the Mexican Farm Labor Agreement in August 1942. Although it was signed as a short-term solution to the crisis of the shortage of farm laborers caused by the Second World War, the program ran for almost twenty years. By 1964, the debate around the migrant and farm labor policies intensified, with all parties and interest groups taking a position of what they believed would work best and why. Some felt this policy encouraged discrimination against domestic workers, whereas to others, domestic workers were too rigid and expensive for farm labor. This essay identifies the interest groups, and significant positions involved in the debate as well as the implication of this program on immigration policies.

The usage of Mexican workers or “Braceros” as they were commonly known became a significant point of debate concerning farm labor policies. The first considerable debate revolved around migrant domestic workers, and how the program had replaced them with Mexican nationals on American farms. Since agriculture was still evolving, then, farming was a seasonal affair. Mainly, growers mostly required workers during the harvesting season, which only happened periodically. As such, farm laborers would travel to one direction at a specific time to harvest a particular crop, then move to another once the harvesting period was over. Becker (1950), in his report, indicated that while workers from the northern part of Kern County, California, would leave for places such as San Jose to work in fruit, berries, and grapes in July. Both groups of workers would leave for their homes or other areas where their skills were needed once they completed their jobs on the farm. This transient nature of domestic farmworkers was not a response to lack of work, but rather because they did not have experience in all the specific crops that growers demanded.

Although this aspect did not bear significant implications on the Bracero program, the entry of Mexican immigrants to help provide harvesting labor threatened the job security of migrant domestic workers. The laborers were cheap and could do more work with fewer restrictions as compared to their American counterparts. There was an argument that migrant domestic workers had decreased, prompting an increase in foreigners, but as Marciniak (1960) states, the number of American farmworkers remained the same. Despite the decrease in the general farm population and a subsequent decline in the amount of hired individuals, farm operations concerning obtaining farm labor remained constant throughout the entire 20 year period.

The main reason, as argued by individuals opposed to the Bracero program, was that growers went behind the provisions of the policies and decided to misuse their privileges. While the law required them to provide reliable shelter, food, transportation, and meaningful wages, they barely met these set requirements. Instead, they subjected laborers to slave-like conditions and low pay (Gilmore & Gilmore, 1963). Marciniak (1960) quotes a grower who says that the payments for farm labor could only sustain the braceros but not domestic workers, implying that the wages were meager.

The second major point of the debate came from the growers’ side who argued against possible misuse of privileges accorded to them by the program. They argued that domestic workers were unreliable and too expensive for farm labor. In their view, this factor threatened to cut their profits or increase the costs of farm produce in the market, hurting the economy in the process. For instance, a grower in Moley’s (1965) L.A. Times newspaper article argued that the impending abolishment of the program would affect the cost of products. Mainly, he denoted that such an outcome would lead to farm acreage production to fall. This situation arose because farmers could not afford to sustain the high prices that domestic laborers requested. This argument is also similar to the one fronted by the California Growers farm labor committee. The group set aside funds in 1959 to create an awareness campaign to inform consumers of the problems they encountered with farm labor, which directly corresponds to the high costs of harvesting (Kennedy, 1959).

The third and last significant debating point was the exploitation of individuals from impoverished regions of Northern Mexico. Proponents of this belief argued that the program as a means of obtaining cheap labor that at best was equitable to slavery. James (1961) provides reasons why policymakers retained the subsequent amendment to the plan, which he refers to as Public Law 78 (P.L. 78) in spite of its loss of significance. This loss came after the shortage created by the war subsided. For instance, he dispels the argument made by Growers in favor of P.L. 78 that there was a shortage of farmworkers. James states that there was no shortage in agriculture, but rather the artificial lack of farm employees was as a result of abysmal lousy working conditions and wage scales. At the same time, he holds that growers’ view that domestic workers could not partake in ‘stoop’ labor was false. James signaled to it as a scheme meant to help farmers to obtain cheap labor from the Braceros.

The funds that the Braceros earned for their duty was only sustainable at face value, but could not be of any significant use once they returned home (James, 1961). Since the harvest weeks were only six weeks at most, the funds obtained would, therefore, not be enough to encourage any long term investment.

Various groups advocated for either the institution and continuance of or discontinuance of the Bracero program providing multiple reasons for such a position. These groups included labor unions, grower associations, and the rights groups, which saw the need to voice their opinion regarding the issue, which helped shape immigration and labor policies after that.

The policy had an essential place in farmers’ lives, and by default, they supported the move to institute the Braceros program and also fought hard to ensure its retention. California’s complex agricultural scene that included the growing of different crops all-round the year, with each farmer making a personal choice, created a need for temporary workers. This situation arose because each of these plants required individuals who knew how to handle them in particular (Kim, 2004). Additionally, families could only provide 35% of labor, which demanded the seeking of the remaining workforce elsewhere (Gilmore & Gilmore, 1963). Domestic migrant workers could have been enough. However, the growers felt that they were unreliable and expensive, something which would eat into their profits or raise the market costs of products. In essence, companies that depended on farm produce would have to part with more funds to obtain raw farm materials (Moldy, 1965). For instance, in a letter to honorable Augustus Hawkins, the then-Congressman from California, Arthur N. Prater, a president of processed food products, requests the leader to support the H.R. 8195 bill that would see a continuation of the Braceros program (Correspondence, 1963).

On the other side of the debate, labor unions and human rights activists opposed the program. Throughout history, labor unions are known to object practices that tend to take the advantage away from their constituents, which in these cases were farmworkers. Given the magnitude of the Bracero Program, and the number of people it affected existing and new farm labor unions sprang into action to prevent the extension of the Braceros program after 1963. The labor unions believed that the continued utilization of the program by growers lowered wages to levels that were insufficient to support domestic workers. Hence, they provided recommendations on what could be done to help save the domestic worker (Kim, 2004). For instance, the United Packinghouse Workers of America, through Walter Simcich in a 1955 letter to the Bureau of Employment Security, complaining about the inability of Public Law 78 to protect the rights of both domestic and imported workers in Imperial County (Correspondence, 1963). Farmers were ignoring the clause that demanded them to utilize home labor to its fullest before asking for foreign laborers. One such incident manifested through the case of Munoz, a grower who encouraged discrimination against domestic workers in favor of braceros (L.A. Times, 1959).

Earlier, in 1950, William Becker representing the National Farm Labor union wrote to Joaquin Valley’s committee tasked with the surveyance of agricultural labor resources describing the plight of domestic migrant workers. He also outlined steps that would help with their settling. These are but few examples of labor unions as interest groups in the debate. On the other hand, the Latin-American Community of Los Angeles, and other affiliated civil rights activists opposed the continuation of the Bracero program. Mainly, they felt it manipulated their Mexican brothers. In Cesar Chavez’s autobiography by Levy (2007), the civil rights activist conducted personal research and found out that contractors and growers were exploiting braceros. This discovery prompted him to begin activism against the program.

Policies and policy-making determine how different sectors of a country operate. As seen in the essay, one can deem them beneficial or detrimental, depending on its net effects on the masses. The Braceros program helped provide labor to farms during the Second World War, as there was a shortage. However, its extension after the war allowed Mexican farmworkers to move into the country to provide labor. Alleged misuse of the policy and selective employment saw domestic farmworkers lose jobs to the Braceros. It resulted in a significant debate that would see different interest groups fight for its discontinuance or extension, respectively. Those who encouraged discontinuance felt that the program had brought about low wages, lack of job opportunities for locals, and abuse of Braceros’ rights through cheap labor. Interest groups that held this view were labor unions, churches, and civil rights activists. On the other hand, growers and processed food companies lobbied policymakers to re-extend the program since local workers were expensive. This instance describes how interest groups can be instrumental in policy-making.