Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s, Revised Edition.

Decade of Betrayal

Decade of Betrayal

Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s

Revised Edition

FRANCISCO E. BALDERRAMA

AND RAYMOND RODRÍGUEZ

ISBN for this digital edition: 978-0-8263-3974-4

© 2006 by the University of New Mexico Press

All rights reserved. Published 2006

Revised edition.

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

20   19   18   17   16   15                     5   6   7   8   9   10

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS HAS CATALOGED THE PRINTED EDITION AS FOLLOWS:

Balderrama, Francisco E.

Decade of betrayal : Mexican repatriation in the 1930s /

Francisco E. Balderrama and Raymond Rodríguez.— Rev. ed.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN-13: 978-0-8263-3973-7 (pbk. : alk. paper)

ISBN-10: 0-8263-3973-5 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Mexican Americans—History—20th century.

2. Mexican Americans—Economic conditions.

3. Depressions—1929—United States.

4. Return migration—Mexico—History—20th century.

5. Mexicans—United States—Economic conditions.

6. Mexican Americans—Employment—History—20th century.

7. Mexicans—Employment—United States—History—20th century.

8. Mexico—Economic conditions—1918–

I. Rodríguez, Raymond, 1926– II. Title.

E184.M5B35 2006

323.1168’7207309043—dc22

2005024861

Book design and type composition by Kathleen Sparkes

Cover art by Nora Mendoza

To our beloved families and heirs,

without whose inspiration and support

it would have been impossible to complete this work.

And to the memory of those whose lives were

affected by the ordeal of repatriation

Contents

Acknowledgments

Introduction: Saludos

Immigration: Al Norte

The Family: La Vida

Deportation: Adiós, Migra

Welfare: El Condado

Repatriation: Afuera

Revolutionary Mexico: Para Los Mexicanos

Colonization: Pan y Tierra

Adjustment: Agringados

Accommodation: Al Otro Lado

Repatriation in Retrospect: ¿Qué Pasó?

Epilogue: Fin

Sources and Methodology

Notes

Bibliography

Index

Acknowledgments

Our sincere appreciation goes to the Ford Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities, whose generous grants made this research and project feasible. We also wish to acknowledge the Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores in permitting us to utilize its Archivo in Mexico City and the U.S. National Archives for their generous help and cooperation in making documents available. And mil gracias to repatriation survivors who shared their tragic and illuminating experiences.

A migrant family of Mexicans on the road with tire trouble, February 1936. Photograph by Dorothea Lange, courtesy of the Library of Congress, FSA Project.

Introduction

Saludos

For all Americans, the decade of the 1930s was one filled with frustration and disenchantment. The very tenets of our democratic/capitalistic system came under close scrutiny and vociferous criticism. Some critics diagnosed the system’s condition as terminal and predicted its imminent demise. Fed by record unemployment, rampant hunger, and a dulling omnipresent sense of despair, the dire predictions seemed on the verge of becoming realities.

Americans, reeling from the economic disorientation of the depression, sought a convenient scapegoat. They found it in the Mexican community. In a frenzy of anti-Mexican hysteria, wholesale punitive measures were proposed and undertaken by government officials at the federal, state, and local levels. Laws were passed depriving Mexicans of jobs in the public and private sectors. Immigration and deportation laws were enacted to restrict emigration and hasten the departure of those already here. Contributing to the brutalizing experience were the mass deportation roundups and repatriation drives. Violence and scare-head tactics were utilized to get rid of the burdensome and unwanted horde. An incessant cry of get rid of the Mexicans swept the country.

Although the Mexican community was especially hard hit by the depression and endured incredible suffering, discrimination, and maltreatment, barrio residents did not lose hope. With unwavering determination, they withstood the onslaught unleashed against them. In their efforts to survive, a cadre of grassroots organizations developed. However, the lack of resources seriously impeded their efforts to combat the ever-worsening crisis. Nonetheless, the groups made a valiant attempt to assist colonia residents as well as Mexicans who decided to leave the United States or were being repatriated. In many instances, those unable to eke out a living, but too proud to accept charity or to apply for welfare, opted to return to Mexico.

For thousands of indigents, the option of returning to Mexico presented what appeared to be a viable alternative to a life and an economy gone sour. Visions and promises of a better life and the push/pull effect of the border convinced many depression-weary families to return to la madre patria, Mexico. The bewildered repatriates were victims of a tragedy that they did not understand and which defied all logic. Many believed the depression was merely a scheme to get rid of them and to ship them back to Mexico. This belief was reinforced by the fact that other ethnic groups were not being hassled and repatriated.

Across the nation, colonias and barrios literally disappeared as families lost the struggle to survive. The oft-repeated phrase "el diablo nos está llevando, things are going to hell," seemed to aptly sum up the situation. A gnawing, fatalistic sense of apprehension prevailed as families remaining behind tried to hang on to the last vestiges of a normal life. There was little the beleaguered communities could do but wait for the depression to end and for the anti-Mexican hysteria to subside.

Many Americans sincerely believed that getting rid of the Mexicans would create a host of new jobs. According to the zealots, alleviating the unemployment situation would automatically end the depression. Succumbing to vocal outcries, employers laid off their Mexican workers. A few employers regretted their action and helped their former workers return to Mexico. Travel arrangements and transportation costs were often shared by local charity organizations and county relief agencies. Welfare officials cynically calculated how much money they could save by getting rid of the unemployed Mexicans. Some businessmen, growers, and church groups felt compelled to protest against the callous, often illegal methods used in expelling the Mexicans. The Spanish-language press on both sides of the border vociferously protested the harsh treatment accorded their compatriots. They resented the fact that no other racial or ethnic group was subjected to as much abuse as the Mexican community.

The Mexican government, although still struggling to recover from the effects of the 1910 Revolution and its aftermath, endeavored to assist returning Nationals and their American-born children. A series of programs and concessions including suspension of import duties, reduced transportation costs, subsidized colonization ventures, and guaranteed loans were implemented. However, the unceasing stream of refugees strained the nation’s resources and created a backlash among local residents.

The difficulties encountered in attempting to adjust to two conflicting cultures exacerbated the situation. Adults found that the family and friends they had left behind were now total strangers. The Mexico they remembered no longer existed. For American-born children, trying to adjust to life in Mexico proved to be a very traumatic experience. Their turmoil would not end until they returned to the land of their birth. But the deep-seated scars of rejection by both cultures would remain imbedded in their lives forever.

In recounting the tragic experiences and suffering endured by the Mexican community caught in the throes of the depression, deportation, and repatriation, Decade of Betrayal explores the most crucial and significant series of events ever to befall a group of immigrants and their children. It delineates the resultant consequences on both sides of the border, from the American and Mexican perspectives. However, its uniqueness lies in emphasizing the calamitous experiences of the individuals who underwent the ordeal of betrayal, adjustment, and shame. In doing so, it adds to the studies conducted by economist Paul Taylor, anthropologist Manuel Gamio, and sociologist Emory Bogardus during the 1930s. These eminent scholars initiated a new era in the field of American and Mexican historiography by focusing on the role of Mexicans in the United States.

Other researchers did not focus on the Mexican repatriations until the 1970s, with the emergence of the study of Chicano history. Abraham Hoffman’s Unwanted Mexican Americans emphasized repatriation policy primarily as it was carried out in Los Angeles. Mercedes Carreras de Velasco’s Los Mexicanos que devolvió la crisis outlined the Mexican government’s orientation toward repatriation.¹ Additional depression studies have appeared in the 1980s and 1990s. Significant works have focused on the role of the urban center of San Antonio, Texas; industrial workers in the Midwest area of Detroit; and the exploitation of women in the canneries of southern California.²

More recently, significant studies have appeared contributing to our understanding of repatriation. Repatriation has been explored as a leading factor among others in two respective investigations of the depression. George Sánchez’s Becoming Mexican American regarded the repatriations in Los Angeles as an influence on the formation of the ethnic and cultural identity of Mexican Americans. In Mexican Workers and the American Dream, Camille Guerin-Gonzales studied the American dream, with its promise of opportunity, and how it became a justification for exploitation, including repatriation of rural Mexicanos in California. In El valle del Río Bravo Tamaulipas, en la décade de 1930, Mexican scholar Fernando Saúl Alanis Enciso also has uncovered new information and presented important findings regarding the policies of President Lázaro Cárdenas and its impact on the repatriation of Mexicans. These works substantiate the impact and significance of repatriation on the Mexican population.³

Decade of Betrayal provides the first comprehensive treatment of the repatriation movement in the United States and Mexico. The work chronicles the treatment of the Mexican community by American and Mexican authorities during the decade of the Great Depression. The emphasis is on relating the story rather than exploring sociological theories. Decade of Betrayal is a social history rather than historical sociology. The narrative is based largely upon archival materials and oral interviews in order to present a comprehensive view of the Mexican experience during the decade.

The work makes an important contribution to the field of Mexican American and Chicano studies. It adds significantly to the limited number of works dealing with Mexicans and Mexican Americans during the decade of the Great Depression. Consequently, it should be of interest not only to scholars or students of Mexican American history, but also to individuals interested in ethnic or race relations and their effect on society and governmental policy.

In telling this tragic story, a sincere effort has been made to enable readers to understand and appreciate the full extent of the calamity. The courage and perseverance of Mexican Nationals, Mexican Americans, and their children, as exemplified in this volume, should serve as an inspiration not only for their heirs, but for all who share and continue to believe in the American dream. Inexplicable as it may seem, it was that dream that nurtured and sustained many of the repatriates during their banishment and exile in Mexico. The hope and desire to someday return to the land of their birth aided and abetted them when tearful despair seemed to be their only destiny. This was especially true among teenagers who longed to return to their native land. In some instances, many years passed before the dream became a reality. For those who had arrived in Mexico as very young children or as mature adults, there was no reason to return; often there was nothing to go back to. For those who desired to return, the lure of steady jobs and good wages during the World War II era provided added incentive for coming home and fulfilling their dream. A number of young men returned in time to render military service to their country and most did so willingly despite the treatment that had been accorded them and their families.

Repatriates who returned to the United States were so busy assimilating, working, and raising families, that they did not have time, or cared to dwell on the fate that had befallen them in their youth. Few of them ever discussed the ordeal with their children. Bits and pieces of conversation were overheard from time to time but most of their offspring had to wait until the advent of Chicano Studies classes before becoming fully aware of the extent of the deportation and repatriation terror unleashed against the Mexican community during the Great Depression. An interest and burgeoning curiosity led their children and grandchildren to explore the ordeal and to emulate the indomitable spirit exemplified by their elders.

Their quest has been invigorated, in part, by legislative hearings, a lawsuit, and the resulting media coverage. A topic that had been essentially ignored, even in history texts, was suddenly accorded a degree of attention that surpassed anything ever conceived. There is talk of demanding a formal apology, a fiscal remuneration and inclusion of the topic of repatriation in the educational curriculum. The belief and hope is that by creating public awareness, hysteria will not be allowed to overcome an innate sense of decency and fair play, to the detriment of some other unpopular or suspect minority group. A nation that ceases to be governed by law and justice places itself in dire peril.

A truckload of Mexican migrants returning to their homes in the Rio Grande Valley from Mississippi where they had been picking cotton in October 1939. Photograph by Russell Lee, courtesy of the Library of Congress, FSA Project.

Immigration

Al Norte

Changing one’s place of residence in the eternal quest for a better life is a common historical phenomenon. The wave of expatriates continues unabated to the present time.¹ The ebb and flow of migration has always resulted in increased tension and apprehension. This has been especially true when immigration involved significant numbers of newcomers or outsiders. Differences in class, language, religion, culture, and race or ethnicity have traditionally tended to estrange new arrivals from the established or native residents. These diverse factors have fostered divisiveness and exerted a negative influence even in modern times. There were many critical factors that determined an immigrant’s role and place in their newly adopted society.

Mexicans emigrating to the United States during the early decades of the twentieth century encountered the same problems and challenges as former immigrants. They found that their adjustment to American society was profoundly influenced by such factors as social class, culture, language, religion, and ethnicity. Seemingly, no immigrant group has escaped the stigma attached to their particular nationality or place of origin. All newcomers must pay their dues before being accepted or assimilated by their adopted country. By a sheer stroke of fate, massive immigration from Mexico coincided with the end of massive European immigration.

Traditionally, it has been the lure of steady employment and wages surpassing what they could earn at home that has enticed Mexicans to come to America. Not many of them made the trek north with the intention of becoming permanent residents or of seeking U.S. citizenship. They came por sólo un poquito tiempo (for only a little while). Most of them intended to return home after they had accumulated a financial nest egg. The passage of time and acculturation to Yankee ways dimmed or subverted their original intent. For them, the border was merely an inconvenience. Prior to 1924, traffic moved easily in both directions almost at will and facilitated field hands returning home after the harvest season.

Although Mexicans are often regarded or treated as recent arrivals, they are actually part of a well-established community in the United States. Mexicans have resided in the Southwest—especially in the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas—since the halcyon days of the missions and the ranchos of storied folklore. However, the number of Mexican Nationals increased dramatically when immigrants began pouring into the area after the turn of the century. The large numbers of Mexicans . . . arriving daily to Los Angeles, observed Mexican Consul Guillermo Andrade, is truly notable.² In 1908, economist Victor S. Clark echoed Andrade’s observation. In a report to the U.S. Labor Department, he noted that an increasing number of Mexicans were living outside of the Southwest.³ This dispersement continued to grow over the years. By the 1920s Mexicans could be found harvesting sugar beets in Minnesota, laying railroad tracks in Kansas, packing meat in Chicago, mining coal in Oklahoma, assembling cars in Detroit, canning fish in Alaska, and sharecropping in Louisiana.

Adventurous immigrant families and single men fanned out across the United States from border to border and sea to sea. Among them were Genaro Torres and three companions who worked their way along the gulf states and eventually settled in Portsmouth, Virginia in 1916. There, the town’s only Spanish-speaking family befriended them. Torres, formerly a major in Francisco Villa’s army, finally felt safe and secure. He had been captured at the battle of Agua Prieta, across the border from Douglas, Arizona, and sentenced to death by the Federales, but had escaped. Fearing for his life and safety, he obtained a safe-conduct pass to leave Mexico.⁴ Like many other immigrants, he had no intention of remaining permanently in the United States. He planned to return to Mexico as soon as it was opportune or safe to do so.

In Portsmouth, Torres got a job in a shoe repair shop and learned the cobbler’s trade. Like many married men, once established he sent for his wife, who was waiting for him in the city of Guanajuato with their three young children. Before joining the Villistas, Torres had been the mayordomo of a local hacienda. Due to his influential connections, his wife, Wenceslada, affectionately known as Vence, was able to obtain a letter guaranteeing her safe passage to the border. This enabled Vence to join her husband Genaro without any serious incident, even during the chaos of the Mexican Revolution.⁵

The massive flow of Mexicans to the United States grew dramatically during and after the 1910 Mexican Revolution. The increase was reflected in the official statistics of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service as well as in reports of Mexico’s Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (SRE), the Department of Foreign Relations. While the two governments varied in their reporting procedures, the assessments by both indicated that at least half a million Mexicans entered the United States legally between 1899 and 1928.⁶ United States census takers in 1930 calculated that approximately 1,422,533 Mexican Nationals and Mexican Americans lived in the United States.⁷ Knowledgeable historians and demographers have concluded that by 1930 more than 10 percent of Mexico’s entire population was residing in the United States.

The preceding statistics were undeniable evidence that Mexicans were the largest new immigrant group in the United States. These quantitative figures provided misleading undercounts. Research indicates that in all probability more than a million Mexicans entered the United States before the advent of the Great Depression. These revised estimates have taken into account those who entered without proper documentation. These undocumented migrants, as is the case even today, feared detection and avoided government surveys and census takers.⁸ Even though a precise count was impossible, Mexican emigration was truly phenomenal and ranks as one of the great mass movements in history. The onset of immigration drastically transformed the nature and character of the Spanish-speaking population in the American Southwest. It also added extensively to the growth of Mexican colonias and enclaves in other parts of the United States. Except for the state of New Mexico, where the offspring of the settlers who came during the Spanish/Mexican era remained a majority, in other areas the new immigrants quickly outnumbered the original Spanish or Mexican residents.

Mexican immigrants were usually associated with unskilled, backbreaking jobs and marginal or menial occupations. The Dillingham Commission Report, an early immigration study, noted that the members of this race have always been the hewers of wood and drawers of water.⁹ The caste-like employment pattern that developed was a very effective way of denying Mexican Nationals as well as native-born U.S. Mexicans the opportunity to attain better or higher-paying jobs. Even though some Mexicans had the requisite skills, training, or experience qualifying them for skilled positions, they were restricted to pico y pala, or pick and shovel work. The prevailing discrimination encountered in seeking meaningful employment was readily attested to by many early immigrants. Merchant Eduardo Negrete and optometrist Dr. Reynaldo Carreón recalled the prejudicial treatment accorded them by American society when attempting to market their goods and services.¹⁰

In spite of being relegated to unskilled, poor-paying jobs, Mexicans continued to trek north. During the early part of the century, crossing over into the United States was relatively easy. Immigrants Ramón Curiel from Jalisco, Pablo Alcántara from Durango, and Jesús Casárez from Michoacán all recalled that their entry into the United States consisted merely of walking or wading across the border. Others, such as Juan Rodríguez, avoided the inconvenience of wading the river by paying a penny to walk across a small footbridge spanning the Rio Grande.¹¹ These and numerous other testimonies confirm the fact that there were few legal barriers imposed on Mexican immigration during the early decades of the twentieth century. It should be noted that Congress did not impose the eight-dollar head tax or require Mexican Nationals to pass a literacy test until 1917.¹² While many immigration laws were passed during this early period, their enforcement was usually extremely lax.

There were seldom more than sixty Bureau of Immigration agents stationed along the entire length of the U.S.–Mexican border at any one time. This was ludicrous, to say the least, for the International Boundary between the two countries stretches from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. This is a distance of nearly two thousand miles and spans the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. In 1924, Congress, recognizing the growing traffic along the border, belatedly established the U.S. Border Patrol with a complement of 450 agents. This limited force was responsible for patrolling both the Mexican and Canadian borders. The primary impetus for creating the new agency was to stop the smuggling of Asians and Europeans into the United States. Those aliens, rather than the Mexicans, were perceived as a threat to the integrity of America’s northern and southern borders. Although deterring Mexican immigration was not the main concern of the bill, the new legislation did establish regulations that could be applied to immigrants from Mexico.¹³

However, the Border Patrol and the Immigration Service exercised their extensive police powers selectively. This was done in order to serve the needs of influential growers and industrialists. Regulations were loosely enforced when Mexican workers were needed to harvest crops or increase production in the mines or on the assembly lines. Conversely, the strict letter of the law was applied when Mexican labor exceeded the seasonal demand. Then, deportation raids at the work sites, usually before payday, became common occurrences. The raids were sometimes conducted at the request of unscrupulous employers. The Border Patrol and the Immigration Service were often assisted in their roundups by local police and sheriff’s deputies.¹⁴ It is therefore not surprising that Mexican communities viewed local law-enforcement agencies with fear, enmity, and distrust.

Although the United States government did not consider the Mexicans a serious immigration threat during the early twentieth century, neither were they greeted or welcomed with open arms. Mexicans were often accorded rude treatment, even when following official procedures and seeking legal entry. Immigration officials consistently displayed disdain and obnoxious behavior toward Mexican Nationals. Immigrants were repeatedly forced to wait long, tedious hours before being serviced. It was not unusual for them to wait patiently all day long only to be told that they must return again the following day and endure the same arduous procedure. During the process, all immigrants, men, women, and children, were herded into crowded, examination pens. As many as five hundred to six hundred persons were detained there for endless hours without benefit of drinking fountains or toilet facilities. Mexican immigrants viewed the mass public baths and clothing disinfections as indignities.¹⁵

The immigrants resolutely endured these degrading procedures because they had no other choice. America provided their only hope for a better life. Parents sought gainful employment for themselves and educational opportunities for their children. Neither of these was deemed readily available in their native land. A variety of socioeconomic and political factors combined to generate and foster the compelling necessity to leave the land of their birth. For Mexicans, a major factor contributing to their plight was the scarcity of good farmland. Early twentieth-century Mexico was an agriculturally oriented nation. Over 90 percent of the people lived on farms, ranches, or in rural villages. Yet, despite long, arduous backbreaking work, even in the best of times, its agrarian population barely eked out a living. Each year, fewer and fewer farmers were able to support themselves by tilling the increasingly marginal land. The amount of good farmland barely equaled that found in the combined states of Iowa and Nebraska.

Sparse rainfall also made agriculture a difficult and precarious undertaking. Only about 12 percent of Mexico receives adequate and timely rainfall. This is particularly critical in the Central Plateau, where the majority of the Mexican population has traditionally resided. Only 10 percent of the Central Plateau is suitable for the production of foodstuffs. This region includes the states of México, Guanajuato, San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Hidalgo, Jalisco, and Aguascalientes. This area contributed more than two-thirds of Mexico’s immigrants to the United States.¹⁶ Compounding the situation was Mexico’s dramatic increase in population. Demographers have estimated that Mexico mushroomed from approximately nine million people in 1876 to over fifteen million inhabitants in 1910.¹⁷

Coincidentally, this period encompassed the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz. Under his reign, Mexico experienced an expanding land monopoly controlled by a few rich agriculturalists, commonly referred to as hacendados. These individuals were often foreign or absentee landowners living in Mexico City, the United States, or Europe. Aided by favorable government legislation and a sympathetic legal system, these land barons acquired massive tracts of Mexico’s national domain as well as control of ejidos, lands formerly farmed collectively.¹⁸ This avaricious accumulation of land resulted in over five million families losing their small farms or plots of land. In 1910, the agricultural population of Jalisco, Michoacán, and Guanajuato was at a record high of approximately 2,537,625 persons. Nonetheless, only 3.2 percent of the rural heads of households owned any property.¹⁹

The disparity between the increase in population and the loss of land and homesteads made life in the countryside extremely austere for countless campesinos, or farm workers. These two factors created a large, landless labor force that could be readily exploited. Wages for rural peasants never rose above fifteen cents per day from 1876 to 1910, the span of the Porfiriato dictatorship. Whereas wages remained low, the costs of basic commodities and food increased significantly. The price of corn, the staple of the poor working class, rose by more than 50 percent from 1877 to 1903.²⁰ Such a momentous increase in this vital mainstay of the campesino’s diet was due to a shift in agricultural priorities.

A booming international market for sugar, coffee, henequen, cotton, and cattle meant greater profits. This financial windfall convinced large landowners to shift to ranching and the cultivation of export crops. Predictably, less land was allocated to the planting of crops required for sustaining the peones’ meager diet. Visitors to the Porfirian countryside often encountered campesinos who were barely able to subsist on a near-starvation diet of corn tortillas, beans, and a few vegetables. Hunger and malnutrition were accepted facts of life. Reports of actual starvation in the Mexican countryside were not uncommon.

Accolades were heaped on Porfirio Díaz’s administration for creating a stable government and a profitable commercial environment. This achievement was attributed to the pax porfiriato, the first prolonged era of peace and order in Mexico since the overthrow of Spanish rule. An equally critical factor was the extensive increase of foreign investments. Given what amounted to carte blanche by the government, foreign investors took the lead in developing the lucrative oil and railroad industries. Foreigners were also the chief proponents in reviving the mining and textiles industries, which once had been thriving enterprises but had been allowed to languish and stagnate.

This overpowering foreign influence gave rise to the popular refrain, Mexico, mother of foreigners and stepmother of Mexicans. The statement probably best summarized the pro-foreign policies and practices of the Porfiriato regime. In reality, along with foreign entrepreneurs, a small, elite native bourgeoisie developed. It believed fervently in the sanctity of the free-market concept of supply and demand. However, the vast majority of Mexicans did not share in nor benefit from the nation’s economic growth. To the contrary, low wages and a declining standard of living further eroded the miserable lot of the average campesino. Thus, many of them, in their relentless search for survival, were forced to leave their rural pueblos and mountain villages in the hope of earning a decent living elsewhere. A few were fortunate enough to find gainful employment in the revitalized mining and textiles industries or in the new oil exploration and railroad-building enterprises. A campesino could earn fifty cents a day working on the railroad, or el traque.²¹ It was a skill many of them would later find useful in the United States.

By Mexican standards, wages were significantly higher in the northern part of the country. In comparison to other regions, the frontier borderlands traditionally provided better employment opportunities. This was apparent even during the turn of the century. Miners who earned twenty-five cents a day in the Central Plateau could earn three times as much in the quarries of the northern border states.²² In spite of the rigorous climate and harsh conditions, the lure of a living wage was too tempting to resist. Once in northern Mexico, the substantially higher wages and steady work to be had on the American side of the border acted as an irresistible magnet. Campesinos simply crossed the línea, or international boundary. According to Lucas Lucio, José B. Solórzano, and Enrique Vásquez, these aspects were irresistible factors in influencing their personal decision to emigrate to the United States.²³

Although pressing economic need was the overwhelming force compelling Mexicans to cross the Río Bravo del Norte, some immigrants were also victims of the political turmoil sweeping the country. The Revolution of 1910, the first social revolution of the twentieth century, began as a crusade against the tyrannical and corrupt dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz, but it soon developed into a bitter civil war to determine which revolutionary faction would rule Mexico. The Revolution shook the very foundations of Mexico’s rigid society. It is frequently cited as a major factor in inducing Mexicans to emigrate. Yet contrary to this popular belief, immigration figures during the war-torn period from 1910 to 1920 were lower than for either the ante- or postbellum years.²⁴ The ensuing land-tenure issue was more effective in driving people out of Mexico than the war’s lethal bullets or its wanton destruction had been.

The Revolution and its bitter aftermath created a situation that gave the United States an aura of a safe haven. The refugees included not only poor campesinos but also gente decente, or people of stature. Among the latter was Adolfo de la Huerta, a major political figure who had served as interim president in 1920. After leading an unsuccessful rebellion against President Alvaro Obregón in 1923, de la Huerta, like many of his disillusioned compatriots, fled to the United States.

Many Catholics seeking sanctuary from the religious upheaval and persecution that followed the Revolution also fled the country. Since gaining its independence from Spain, the central government’s relationship with the Catholic Church can best be characterized as tenuous. Nevertheless, a modus vivendi had been worked out between the two entities during the Díaz dictatorship. However, the Revolution disrupted the government’s precarious relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. Apart from the government, the Church with its vast wealth was the nation’s second major institution. Its position was unquestionable since approximately 50 percent of the land was owned or controlled by the Church.

Open confrontation between the Church and the revolutionary government flared when Archbishop Primate José Mora y del Río, the Church’s leading spokesman, publicly opposed implementation of the 1917 Constitution. Church leadership viewed the Constitution as a charter for the secularization of Mexico because it espoused the socialist principles and ideals of the Revolution. The revolutionary document sanctioned what the Church considered were radical changes in areas that had traditionally been within its domain. The Church’s primary objection was the secularization of public education. It was not prepared to cede control over the minds and morals of the young to a government espousing socialistic ideas.

In essence, the gauntlet had been thrown down and the Church could either submit or defy the government, by force if necessary. The leaders of the holy crusade managed to mobilize and field armies against the revolutionary infidels. Marching under the banner of "Viva Cristo Rey! Long, live Christ the King!, some twenty-five thousand Catholics fought the government’s armies from 1926 to 1929. The battle cry of Viva Cristo Rey" christened this insurrection as the Cristero War or the Cristero Revolt. The government’s ruthless suppression of the rebellion precipitated enormous destruction of property and loss of life. Due to the vast amount of destruction in the El Bajío region, the area accounted for over 50 percent of the immigrants fleeing Mexico during the height of the revolt in 1926 and 1927.²⁵ Resident expatriates, among them Catholic lay leaders José David Orozco and Julio C. Guerrero, welcomed their banished compatriots.²⁶

The Cristero Revolt affected families on both sides of the border. Among those adversely affected by the Cristero Revolt were Genero Torres and his family, who had earlier settled in Portsmouth, Virginia. In 1924, the family decided it was safe to return to la madre patria (motherland) and made their way from Virginia to El Paso. There, we learned that the Cristero Revolt was brewing, recalled Dan Torres, who had been born while the family lived in Virginia.²⁷ Since we were Methodists, we did not believe it would be safe for us to continue our journey. Since we had relatives in California, it seemed a good time to visit them. My dad eventually opened his own shoe repair shop and earned his living as a cobbler.²⁸

Although the revolutionary government prided itself on overthrowing the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz and crushing the religious revolt, it was not able to cope with the emigration problem. Emigration actually increased after the 1910 Revolution, much to the chagrin and embarrassment of the new ruling junta. Part of the exodus was due to circumstances beyond the new government’s control. A decade of war had claimed one-tenth of Mexico’s population and its economy was in ruins. The Cristero Revolt and de la Huerta’s insurrection made a bad situation worse. As a result, the government was saddled with financial and social obligations that it was not in a position to resolve.

Plagued with a myriad of domestic problems, the question of emigration was assigned a low priority as the nation struggled to survive. Despite its internal problems and chaotic state, the revolutionary government did attempt to provide some degree of protection for citizens emigrating to the United States. It endeavored to do so via the provisions in Article 123 of the 1917 Constitution. Article 123 stipulated that Mexican immigrants must have a valid, signed contract indicating hours, wages, and conditions of employment. By 1920 the government had designed a model contract to facilitate implementation of the stated requirements. Unfortunately, this administrative gesture was doomed to failure because the contract proved to be legally unenforceable. Effective implementation required the cooperation of the American government, but it was not forthcoming. The proposed contract, therefore, could not be relied upon to produce any benefits.

In truth, both nations benefited by ignoring Article 123’s protective constraints. Like the Porfiristas, the revolutionary government recognized that emigration served as an important safety valve for relieving political and economic pressures at home. Each campesino who left lessened the burden on the nation’s faltering economy. It also meant one less malcontent demanding economic change and political reform. A recurring benefit to the local economy was the fact that Nationals in the United States regularly sent money home to their families. This financial largesse helped to relieve economic pressure on the government.

Especially effective in attracting Mexican workers to the United States was the presence of American economic interests in Mexico. American businesses played key roles, particularly in the major industries of mining, ranching, and railroads prevalent in northern Mexico. Investor William Cornell Green operated mines in Cananea, mining magnate Solomon R. Guggenheim built smelters in Monterrey, and mogul William Randolph Hearst owned ranches in Chihuahua.²⁹ American companies conducting business in Mexico frequently transported Mexican employees across the border to American plants and facilities. A classic example was Anaconda Copper, which relocated Mexican employees as early as 1908 from northern Sonora to southern Arizona.³⁰

Railroad companies and agricultural bureaus followed the example of Anaconda Copper. Other companies preferred obtaining Mexican labor through the use of free-lance labor contractors known as contratistas or enganchistas. Enganchistas, representing major American firms, were common in the border cities by the end of the first decade of the twentieth century.³¹ A recruitment handbill distributed by the Ford Motor Company enticed José Santos Herrada and other Mexicans to leave San Antonio, Texas and to relocate in Detroit, Michigan. The lure of steady work and earning five dollars a day as promised in the handbill was impossible to resist.³² In addition to recruiting workers in the border states, enganchistas frequently crossed the border, going as far south as the Central Plateau in a relentless search for Mexican labor. Although the hiring of Mexicans to work in the United States was in clear violation of the contract labor law of 1885, seldom did the contratista’s flagrant disregard of the law lead to criminal charges, convictions, or substantial fines. J. O. White Driggs, of Idaho, for example, frequently advertised for Mexican workers to harvest peas and consistently failed to pay wages. According to numerous complaints received by the Mexican Embassy, he was over $5,000 in arrears.³³ Recovery of lost wages was virtually impossible and unscrupulous employers defaulted workers with impunity. Often, they were abetted by law enforcement officials.

The enormous profits to be made from the illicit traffic were too tempting and made the risk worthwhile. Additional profits were drawn from fees garnisheed from the wages of the workers. Excessive profiteering was generated by charging the workmen exorbitant prices for transportation and sustenance.³⁴ Among the more notorious cases of ill treatment by enganchistas was the virtual imprisonment of Mexican laborers on ships from San Francisco and Seattle bound for the salmon canneries in Alaska. Money paid in advance enticed Mexican workers to sign contracts to work in Alaska. Contracts were written only in English and were usually incomprehensible to most Mexican workers. The contracts required cannery workers to follow all orders given by the foreman: to work all day, seven days a week, and to eat only Chinese food. The employees were also required to waive all rights to request higher wages or better working conditions.³⁵ As early as 1917, the Mexican embassy complained to the American State Department upon learning of Mexican workers being shanghaied to Alaska. Even though the State Department requested action from both the Department of Labor and Department of Commerce, the Mexican embassy reported that nothing tangible has been obtained. This violation of human rights continued unabated. In 1931, fourteen years later, Mexico City’s El Universal Gráfico headlined 5,000 Mexicans living as virtual slaves in Alaska. The newspaper claimed that thousands of Mexicans were stranded in California without work, and were willing to sign up for jobs in the canneries.³⁶

The contratistas were a vital factor in providing the workers needed for the spectacular economic growth taking place in the southwestern states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Mexican labor was needed to produce the raw materials and foodstuffs required by the burgeoning industrialization in the Northeast. The number of Mexican workers in the United States increased significantly. The need for cheap labor coincided with the restriction of immigration from Asia and Europe. Beginning in the 1880s, exclusionary laws denied entry to Asian immigrants, particularly to the Chinese and Japanese. Massive European immigration was severely curtailed by the outbreak of World War I. Fear of Bolshevism and disillusionment with postwar Europe resulted in the enactment of immigration quota laws in 1917, 1921, and 1924.³⁷

Afraid that the emerging immigration quotas would severely restrict their accessibility to Mexican workers, growers and ranchers took their case to Congress. Agriculturists clamored for the right to import the Mexican workers needed by corporate agriculture and large-scale ranching. Massive reclamation and irrigation projects had been undertaken with the passage of the Newlands Reclamation Act in 1902. These projects made possible the extensive irrigation required for planting melons in the Imperial Valley of California, citrus crops in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, and cotton in the Salt River Valley of Arizona. The sudden extensive development made a cheap source of labor necessary. Growers pleaded for the admission of Mexican workers because nothing else was available.³⁸

Profitable farming depended on a skilled and readily available labor force. Agricultural production, particularly during the critical harvest season, entailed a labor-intensive process employing vast numbers of agricultural workers. Even more workers were required with the advent of refrigerated railroad cars and improved methods of preserving and packaging vegetables. Perishable, but highly profitable, exotic fruits and vegetables could now be shipped to the heavily populated eastern cities. Farmers and ranchers first doubled and then tripled production as markets grew and profits soared.

Agricultural expansion stimulated extensive railroad construction in the Southwest. By 1909 there were six railroad companies servicing the region. They employed more than six thousand Mexicans to lay track and to maintain the right-of-way. Working on el traque provided ready employment and a relatively easy transition for many Mexicans. Many of those who laid track in Mexico before migrating north found employment on American railroads. Working on the various railroad lines contributed significantly toward establishing a Mexican presence beyond the Pacific Southwest. As a result of their jobs, Nationals traveled to the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest, the Northeast, and virtually every other region of the country. Slowly, around each rail terminus, new enclaves developed. A classic example was Chicago, with a population of approximately twenty-five thousand Mexicans. In Chicago, in addition to working for the railroad, Mexicans secured employment in meat-packing plants, in machine shops, in steel mills, and on the assembly lines. In 1928, the Mexican Consulate in Chicago reported that Mexicans were obtaining better jobs and estimated that more than four hundred young Mexicans were employed as clerks and semiskilled workmen by Stewart Electric, International Harvester, Victor X-Ray, and Western Electric. Better-paying jobs in similar industries were also available to Mexicans in Omaha, Gary, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and other major cities of the Midwest and Eastern seaboard.³⁹

Only the sugar-beet industry rivaled the railroads in serving as a powerful catalyst in establishing Mexican communities where none had ever existed before. The presence of Mexicans outside of the American Southwest, especially in the Midwest and the mountain states, astonished American society. How in the world did they [the Mexicans] get way up here; when and why did they come?⁴⁰ The preceding comment was how the International Institute of the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) began its report on Mexicans in St. Paul, Minnesota. In investigating the Mexicans, as part of its mandate to assist immigrants and ethnic groups in adjusting to American society, the International Institute concluded that prejudice and lack of education were the two outstanding problems faced by Mexican immigrants. The YWCA study was surprised to discover that there were some 1,459 Mexicans living in St. Paul, Minnesota and observed that many of them were former employees of members of the Sugar Beet Growers Association.⁴¹

The important relationship between the Mexican and the sugar-beet growers began when the Dingley Tariff Act of 1897 placed a high tax on foreign sugar. This tariff made domestic production of sugar highly profitable, and the sugar beet industry boomed. The industry expanded dramatically from producing 793,000 tons of sugar in 1899 to 3,902,000 tons in 1909 and 7 million tons in 1929.⁴² According to a 1933 estimate, the Mexican beet-worker population totaled 55,000, one-third more than in the late 1920s.⁴³ The betabelero, the Mexican sugar-beet worker, became the primary source of labor. They replaced the Poles, Russians, and others who had labored in the fields before the 1929 immigration quota law went into effect.

Mining also experienced an unprecedented boom. As in agriculture and manufacturing, mining required a readily available and cheap labor force. Mexicans filled this need perfectly. They usually worked longer shifts and did the most perilous jobs in the bowels of the earth without proper safeguards, lighting, or ventilation. In spite of this, they were paid only half of what white miners earned. The mines were situated in isolated company towns, and workers were strictly segregated. No fraternization or interaction between Mexican and Anglo miners was permitted. Among the worst