DIY History | Transcribe | Social Justice | Chicano-Indian American Cultural Center miscellaneous newsletters, 1977-1978 |

Transcribe
Translate

Chicano-Indian American Cultural Center miscellaneous newsletters, 1977-1978

7

e following excerpt from an article by ejandro Portes explores the causes and implications of "illegal immigration" especially from Mexico into the U.S.

DETERMINANTS OF WETBACK MIGRATION can be examined from two different perspectives. From the perspective of the Mexican lower classes, illegal entry into the US furnish-es one of the few available channels for self-advancement. With lower-class pressures at the border constant, a fairly logical relationship exists between legal and illegal avenues of entry. Greater obstacles for legal migration tend to shift the movement toward illegal channels. The successful illegal entrant can later be the legal immigrant...The decrease in legal entries brought about by the end of the bracero program and a more restrictive immigration policy were generally compensated by a sharp rise in wetback migration. While illegal entries were also frequent during the bracero program, sharp increases in the wetback movement were registered ter its termination. Illegal crossing acquires the character, from this perspec-tive, of a functional substitution -- a different means toward the same end. It is possible to legislate away the structural forces giving rise to massive human pressures at the border or to control the latter with limited bureaucratic resources. The naive attempt to stop Mexican immigration with purely legislative means has only added new impetus to a nearly uncontrollable flood of illegal immigration.

From the second perspective, that of the  US, the Mexican wetback fulfills an ambigu-ous role. Ambivalence is profoundly linked in this case to the inner tensions of a progressively wealthier society whose economic structure has not allowed for effective coping with massive and persistent poverty. For the affluent, the Mexican im-migrant is a welcome arrival. He fills the bottom of the occupational ladder since he is willing to take the marginal minimum-pay jobs increasingly shunned by natives. He substantially reinforces the rapidly indling pool of private household and domestic service workers. More important, he represents a growing reserve army of labor which forces unskilled wages to a permanently low level by providing a threat to easy replacement. The Mexican wetback represents, above all, cheap, willing and available manpower. These same traits, positive as they are for the wealthier sectors, compound the problem of persistent poverty in the US. Wetback immigration con-tributes to the swelling of the ranks of the poor and indirectly weakens their hand by increasing competition in a restricted job market.

It is in the inner workings of the above two perspectives that the underlying forces promoting and sustaining wetback migration are to be sought. Little is gained by continuing the mutual accusations, the pious statement, the campaigns for formal legislation until understanding is reached about the structural context in which the movement takes place. An analysis of this kind strips away ideological preconceptions by asking two fundamental questions: (1) What groups are involved in this process? and (2) What are their interests in its outcome? Answers have both international and domestic dimensions.

At the broadest level, illegal immigration across the border involves the interests of two nations, Mexico and the US. A well-worn cliche is that pressure at the border arises because the US is a rich country and Mexico a poor one. The situation, however, is much more complex. Heavy pressures for migration to the US emerge not because Mexico has an underdeveloped and stagnant economy but be-cause her economy is in a process of rapid transition toward development.

The period prior to the Mexican Revolution saw very little migration to the US despite a situation of permanent poverty and economic stagnation. Reasons for this can be found, in part, in the effective control exercised by a rural aristocracy over the subsistence-oriented peasantry. A fundamental consequence of the Revolution was the freeing of the rural lower classes from feudal ties, making geographic mobility in search of better opportunities possible. Contrary to popular myths, if Mexico were at present at a stage of social and economic development similar to that of the less advanced countries in Latin America, wetback migration would tend to be of lower magnitude that it is now.

Saving...

7 e following excerpt from an article by ejandro Portes explores the causes and implications of "illegal immigration" especially from Mexico into the U.S. DETERMINANTS OF WETBACK MIGRATION can be examined from two different perspectives. From the perspective of the Mexican lower classes, illegal entry into the US furnish-es one of the few available channels for self-advancement. With lower-class pressures at the border constant, a fairly logical relationship exists between legal and illegal avenues of entry. Greater obstacles for legal migration tend to shift the movement toward illegal channels. The successful illegal entrant can later be the legal immigrant...The decrease in legal entries brought about by the end of the bracero program and a more restrictive immigration policy were generally compensated by a sharp rise in wetback migration. While illegal entries were also frequent during the bracero program, sharp increases in the wetback movement were registered ter its termination. Illegal crossing acquires the character, from this perspec-tive, of a functional substitution -- a different means toward the same end. It is possible to legislate away the structural forces giving rise to massive human pressures at the border or to control the latter with limited bureaucratic resources. The naive attempt to stop Mexican immigration with purely legislative means has only added new impetus to a nearly uncontrollable flood of illegal immigration. From the second perspective, that of the US, the Mexican wetback fulfills an ambigu-ous role. Ambivalence is profoundly linked in this case to the inner tensions of a progressively wealthier society whose economic structure has not allowed for effective coping with massive and persistent poverty. For the affluent, the Mexican im-migrant is a welcome arrival. He fills the bottom of the occupational ladder since he is willing to take the marginal minimum-pay jobs increasingly shunned by natives. He substantially reinforces the rapidly indling pool of private household and domestic service workers. More important, he represents a growing reserve army of labor which forces unskilled wages to a permanently low level by providing a threat to easy replacement. The Mexican wetback represents, above all, cheap, willing and available manpower. These same traits, positive as they are for the wealthier sectors, compound the problem of persistent poverty in the US. Wetback immigration con-tributes to the swelling of the ranks of the poor and indirectly weakens their hand by increasing competition in a restricted job market. It is in the inner workings of the above two perspectives that the underlying forces promoting and sustaining wetback migration are to be sought. Little is gained by continuing the mutual accusations, the pious statement, the campaigns for formal legislation until understanding is reached about the structural context in which the movement takes place. An analysis of this kind strips away ideological preconceptions by asking two fundamental questions: (1) What groups are involved in this process? and (2) What are their interests in its outcome? Answers have both international and domestic dimensions. At the broadest level, illegal immigration across the border involves the interests of two nations, Mexico and the US. A well-worn cliche is that pressure at the border arises because the US is a rich country and Mexico a poor one. The situation, however, is much more complex. Heavy pressures for migration to the US emerge not because Mexico has an underdeveloped and stagnant economy but be-cause her economy is in a process of rapid transition toward development. The period prior to the Mexican Revolution saw very little migration to the US despite a situation of permanent poverty and economic stagnation. Reasons for this can be found, in part, in the effective control exercised by a rural aristocracy over the subsistence-oriented peasantry. A fundamental consequence of the Revolution was the freeing of the rural lower classes from feudal ties, making geographic mobility in search of better opportunities possible. Contrary to popular myths, if Mexico were at present at a stage of social and economic development similar to that of the less advanced countries in Latin America, wetback migration would tend to be of lower magnitude that it is now.