The Bracero Program to Operation Wetback

Brittany Bower
History 083T
Dr. Grace Delgado
December 16, 2010
 1

In the United States, the Bracero Program, 1942-1964, and Operation Wetback, 1953-

1954, addressed Mexican laborers entering the country. While the Bracero Program brought

Mexican contract laborers to work on farms, Operation Wetback was a mass deportation of

illegal Mexicans in the United States. From the Bracero Program to Operation Wetback, the

attitudes towards Mexican immigrants entering the country greatly changed. The Bracero

Program originally welcomed Mexican laborers in the United States. Throughout the years,

however, the influx of illegal Mexicans in the country caused social unrest that resulted in

Operation Wetback.1 The Bracero Program was a bi-national agreement between Mexico and the

United States. The two counties worked together to bring agricultural workers to the southern

parts of the United States.2 When the Bracero Program was originally established, there were

mixed feelings throughout the United States regarding it. The American government supported

the Bracero Program when it was first established, but many farmers faced the Bracero Program

with adversity. The Mexican government also held some hostility towards the Bracero Program

because it took laborers from their country and placed them in the United States. In addition,

Mexico’s people were also forced to work in unsatisfying conditions when they were employed

in the United States through the Bracero Program.3 By the 1950s, however, the government

looked towards reforming the Bracero Program and the Mexican government did as well because

of the unsatisfactory conditions that the bracero laborers worked under. Many Americans also

felt that the bracero workers were being treated poorly within their country. American farmers,
1
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
2
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, Migra! A history of the U.S. Border Patrol (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2010),
101.
3
Otey M. Scruggs, “Texas and the Bracero Program, 1942-1947,” Review Pacific Historical 32, no. 3 (August 1963):
251-264, http://www.jstor.org/sici?origin=sfx%3Asfx&sici=0030-
8684(196308)32%3A3%3C251%3ATATBP1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G
(accessed October 22, 2010).
 2

however, supported the Bracero Program because of the cheap labor it provided for them.4 Over

time, however, the braceros acquired a tarnished reputation in the United States. This tainted

reputation occurred because of the influx of Mexican workers entering the United States through

the southern border. Many of these workers were illegal, however, which placed a bad stigma on

all Mexican laborers, even if they were legal contract laborers.5 In an article published in the

New York Times by David K. Webster in 1953, this tarnished reputation was evident when many

Americans claimed that the Bracero Program was taking away jobs from many native American

farmers and that around 500,000 Braceros were working in the country. These small farmers

were very angered by the large amounts of Mexican laborers doing agricultural jobs in the

United States.6 Even the braceros became angered with illegal Mexican workers entering the

country because of the stereotypes they were facing as a consequence of them. Many Americans,

as well as the American government, were angered by the influx of illegal Mexican workers.

Therefore, the American government implemented Operation Wetback in 1954 because they felt

threatened by the influx of illegal Mexican workers.7 Other forces that were behind the

deportation of illegal Mexican immigrants through Operation Wetback were nativist feelings

from Americans regarding Mexican immigrants, the United States’ government’s fear of national

security, and the fact that many unions believed American jobs were being stolen by Mexican

4
R. Robinson, "Taking The Fair Deal to the Fields: Truman's Commission on Migratory Labor, Public Law 78, and the
Bracero Program, 1950-1952," Agricultural History 84, no. 3 (July 1, 2010): 381 402, 
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=10-25-2015&FMT=7&DID=2122175471&RQT=309 (accessed
October 25, 2010).
5
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
6
David K. Webster, “Importing Farm Labor,” New York Times, 9 September 1959, 40,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=4&did=83687438&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1
288156994&clientId=70665 (accessed October 25, 2010).
7
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
 3

laborers.8 Many Americans felt and though there was an “illegal invasion” due to the amount of

illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States.9 The Bracero Program continued until 1964

when the controversy over the bill was no longer debated between the House of Representatives

and the Senate. By this time, primarily only farmers agreed with the Bracero Program.10

Throughout the course of the Bracero Program and Operation Wetback, there were many

political, economic, and racial factors that impacted the establishment of these programs. Over

time, the Bracero Program gained and lost support from the Mexican government, the United

States government, American farmers, and the general American population. These changing

feelings from the American public and politicians and adversity ultimately led up to Operation

Wetback on June 17, 195411 and the end of the Bracero Program in 196412.

The Bracero Program was a bilateral agreement between the United States and Mexico

that was passed on August 4, 1942. This contract allowed Mexican laborers to work in the

United States, predominantly in the northwestern and the southwestern farms.13 Most of these

workers received employment in California and there were a significant amount of braceros who

were employed there. They were substitutes for the domestic farm workers.14 The Bracero
8
Paul Allatson. Key Terms in Latino/a Cultural and Literary Study (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Press Ltd,
2007), 184.
9
Ronald L. Mize and Alicia C.S. Swords, Consuming Mexican Labor: From the Bracero
Program to NAFTA (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011), 32.
10
Gilbert Paul Carrasco, “Bracero Program,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in the United States,
http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t199.e99&srn=1&ssid=551883154#FIRSTHIT (accessed
October 15, 2010).
11
John Dillin, “How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico,” Christian Science Monitor (6 July
2006), 9, http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/ (accessed October 15).
12
Gilbert Paul Carrasco, “Bracero Program,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in the United States,
http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t199.e99&srn=1&ssid=551883154#FIRSTHIT (accessed
October 15, 2010).
13
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, Migra! A history of the U.S. Border Patrol (Berkley, CA: University of California Press,
2010), 101.
14
N. Ray Gilmore and Gladys W. Gilmore, “The Bracero in California,” Pacific Historical Review 32, no. 3 (August
1963), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4492181?&Search=yes&term=bracero&term=program&list=hide&searchUri=
%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dbracero%2Bprogram%26gw%3Djtx%26acc%3Don%26prq%3Doperation
%2Bwetback%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&item=1&ttl=1123&returnArticleService=showFullText (accessed October
24, 2010).
 4

Program permitted Mexican laborers to migrate to the United States for a short-term contract and

allowed the Mexican contract laborers to move between Mexico and the United States.15

Originally, this program was instated because many farmers, as well as the United States

government, feared that there would be a lack of agricultural labors to harvest crops during the

war that was taking place at this time. This war was World War II. For this reason, the

Department of Agriculture became the administrators of the Bracero Program.16 In addition,

many white laborers in the United States were becoming frustrated with the low wages and

“grueling” conditions that agricultural jobs provided. For this reason, thousands of Americans

sought out wartime industrial jobs instead.17 Even though the Bracero Program was originally

released as a war time effort, the program ultimately lasted until 1964. Over this period of time,

around five million bracero contracts were used and over two million Mexican laborers filled

these positions.18 The thousands of Mexican workers, known as braceros, would be imported

annually for farm work and a few other industries. The United States government would be their

employer. The Bracero Program involved only men, not their families. It was also highly

regimented because the braceros were supervised by the U.S. government and grower

associations throughout their movement in America.19

15
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
16
Otley M. Scruggs, “Texas and the Bracero Program, 1942-1947,” Review Pacific Historical 32, no. 3 (August
1963): 251-264, http://www.jstor.org/sici?origin=sfx%3Asfx&sici=0030-
8684(196308)32%3A3%3C251%3ATATBP1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G
(accessed October 22, 2010).
17
Justin Akers Chacon and Mike Davis, No One is Illegal: Fighting racism and State Violence on
the U.S.-Mexico Border (Canada: Haymarket Books, 2006), 140.
18
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, Migra! A history of the U.S. Border Patrol (Berkley, CA: University of California Press,
2010), 101.
19
Juan F. Perea, Immigrants Out!: the new nativism and the anti-immigrant impulse in the United
States (New York: New York University Press, 1997), 235-236.
 5

When the Bracero Program originally passed, the United States government and many

farmers were accepting of the Bracero Program and the influx of Mexican contract laborers

entering the United States. Many American farmers were afraid that the war that was occurring

at this time would limit the amount of laborers that could work on their farms. If this occurred,

there would not be enough workers to harvest the crops on these farms and the crops would go

bad. The Bracero Program was established in order to combat the lack of farm workers.

However, there were mixed feelings among the farmers when the Bracero Program was

established and many farmers “greeted the undertaking with undisguised hostility.” The farmers

had hoped that the Bracero Program would mirror a similar program that occurred after World

War I in which America reduced the amount of limitations put on contract laborers and granted

the farmers a large hand in the operations. However, Mexico no longer played such a submissive

role in the affairs of Mexican contract laborers. One of the greatest fears that stemmed from the

Bracero Program was that the safeguards guaranteed to the Mexican laborers, including a

minimum payment of thirty cents an hour, were “part of an effort to bring all farm labor,

domestic as well as foreign, within the orbit of existing federal labor legislation.” Because of this

fear, few farmers utilized the Bracero Program upon its passing in 1942. For this reason, when

the Bracero Program was released, there were mixed opinions about the program. The U.S.

government saw a need for the Bracero Program because of the threat that farm labor in the

country would be insufficient. Farmers also saw a need for the Bracero Program because they

needed workers to harvest their crops. However, many feared it as well because of the safeguards

set in place by the Bracero Program. For this reason, farmers in the United States were not

completely happy with the Bracero Program.20

20
Otey M. Scruggs, “TEXAS AND THE BRACERO PROGRAM, 1942-1947,” Review Pacific Historical 32, no. 3 (August
1963): 251-264, http://www.jstor.org/sici?origin=sfx%3Asfx&sici=0030-
8684(196308)32%3A3%3C251%3ATATBP1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G
 6

In the 1940s, when the Bracero Program was originally established, the Mexican

government did not fully support the bilateral agreement between the two countries. During the

1940s, Mexico was attempting to rebuild its agricultural sector through industrialization.

However, there were many factors that contributed to the large amounts of Mexican braceros that

traveled between the United States border and the Mexican border to find work. Some of these

factors included a large increase in the population in the country of Mexico and also a scarcity of

food. In addition, “land privatization, mechanization, and the export orientation of agricultural

production” also contributed to many Mexican laborers traveling between the borders to earn

money to survive.21 There were over 200,000 Mexican laborers traveling north to the United

States for work throughout the course of the Bracero Program, and the Mexican government

wanted to limit these numbers.22 Not only was the country losing one of its major national

resources, a cheap labor supply, but Mexico was embarrassed by their failed attempt in the

Mexican Revolution, which aimed to provide economic wellbeing to all Mexican citizens. The

Mexican government feared this illegal migration and agreed upon the Bracero Program as a

means to “control the international mobility of poor Mexican campesinos.”23 In addition, the

Mexican government was also reluctant to send their laborers to work in the United States

because of what happened in the past due to the Great Depression. Prior to the Great Depression

when World War I occurred, there was a need for workers in the United States which was filled

by many Mexican laborers. Additionally, there was a great deal of violence due to a revolution in

(accessed October 22, 2010).

21
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
22
James F. Creagan, "Public Law 78: A Tangle of Domestic and International Relations," Journal of Inter -- American
Studies 7, no. 4 (September 1965), 541-556, America: History & Life, http://www.jstor.org/sici?origin=sfx
%3Asfx&sici=0885-3118(196509)7%3A4%3C541%3APL7ATO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y (accessed October 26, 2010).
23
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
 7

Mexico, which also caused many Mexican workers to migrate to America. However, when the

Great Depression hit, there was a lack of jobs available in the United States, which, in turn, left

many Mexican laborers without money and stranded in America. This event caused the Mexican

government to pay millions of dollars in compensation to these individuals working in the United

States. For this reason, the Mexican government and the country as a whole were reluctant to

send their laborers to work in the United States after World War II even though there was a high

demand for jobs. Furthermore, it was argued that these Mexican workers would be needed in

their native country to sustain the production demands of World War II.24 Although the Mexican

government was against the migration of its people into the United States, they agreed on the

Bracero Program in order to attempt to regulate the migration from their country.25

In what was known as Truman’s America in the early 1950s, migrant Mexican farm

workers faced many challenges in the United States. Many of these workers were contract

workers who were employed by the Bracero Program and they legally worked in the United

States.26 The Bracero Program was also known as Public Law 78. In this bill, the guidelines for

the Bracero Program were addressed. The Bracero Program allowed for laborers from Mexico to

supply needed agricultural labor in the United States. The bracero laborers were recruited and

sent to reception centers near the American-Mexican border which housed them while

arrangements were being made for their employment in America. They were also provided

transportation to these reception centers from the recruitment centers. In addition, the Bracero
24
James F. Creagan, "Public Law 78: A Tangle of Domestic and International Relations," Journal of Inter -- American
Studies 7, no. 4 (September 1965), 541-556, America: History & Life, http://www.jstor.org/sici?origin=sfx
%3Asfx&sici=0885-3118(196509)7%3A4%3C541%3APL7ATO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y (accessed October 26, 2010).
25
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
26
R. Robinson, "Taking The Fair Deal to the Fields: Truman's Commission on Migratory Labor, Public Law 78, and
the Bracero Program, 1950-1952," Agricultural History 84, no. 3 (July 1, 2010): 381 402, 
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=10-25-2015&FMT=7&DID=2122175471&RQT=309 (accessed
October 25, 2010).
 8

workers were guaranteed subsistence and emergency medical care during transportation or at the

reception centers. Furthermore, under Public Law 78, farmers were allowed to hire other workers

who were not under contract to other employers for agricultural work. Farmers could not hire

illegal Mexican workers to perform agricultural jobs, however, and the Braceros were only

allowed to work in the United States under the contracts they were given. Any illegal workers in

the U.S. were not guaranteed any of the rights that the legal Bracero workers were given. 27 In

addition, these contracts given to the Bracero workers were for a period of one year.28 However,

a greater percentage of the Mexican laborers who were working in the United States at this time

were undocumented laborers. Unlike the Braceros who were legally documented workers, these

undocumented workers were not legally allowed to hold employment in the United States. These

undocumented workers seasonally moved to the southern part of the United States, like the

Bracero workers, from Mexico every year. However, these migrant workers, legal or illegal,

followed a migratory route seeking employment in different areas throughout the country in the

southern parts of the United States. Most farmers and their families worked for seventy days on

the farms and for thirty days engaging in other types of employment. During the 1950s, these

workers earned an annual wage of $514. Because of the low wages that they received, this group

was considered to be one of the most economically challenged groups in the United States. There

was also international competition amongst Mexican workers for employment, which also

caused hardship for this group.29 In addition, many of the legal Bracero laborers were angered by
27
U.S. Congress. Senate, Public Law. 82nd Cong., 1951. S., http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/65%20stat
%20119.pdf (accessed October 24, 2010).
28
David K. Webster, “Importing Farm Labor,” New York Times, 9 September 1959, 40,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=4&did=83687438&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1
288156994&clientId=70665 (accessed October 25, 2010).
29
R. Robinson, "Taking The Fair Deal to the Fields: Truman's Commission on Migratory Labor, Public Law 78, and
the Bracero Program, 1950-1952," Agricultural History 84, no. 3 (July 1, 2010): 381 402,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=10-25-2015&FMT=7&DID=2122175471&RQT=309 (accessed
October 25, 2010).
 9

the influx of illegal Mexican workers for the reason that they were given a bad name because of

them. Many Americans associated the illegal and Bracero workers as equals, and therefore

showed much adversity towards both groups.30

Due to these issues faced because of the Bracero Program, President Harry S. Truman

fought for the extension of federal rights for migratory farm workers. According to “Taking The

Fair Deal to the Fields: Truman's Commission on Migratory Labor, Public Law 78, and the

Bracero Program, 1950-1952” by Robert S. Robinson, the Truman administration recognized

that the bracero workers faced many challenges while they worked in the United States. For this

reason, Truman advocated measures that were created to increase the border patrol and law

enforcement between the United States and the Mexican border. He also supported the safeguard

of domestic labor in the United States. His efforts took place in a two year increment and it

involved two stages. In 1950, the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in American

Agriculture was established. This group would “gather information and make recommendations

that would provide ammunition for the administration's legislative goals.” At this time, the

government supported reforming the original Bracero Program and aiding the bracero workers.

The second stage of his efforts, which took place in 1951, presented his idea to Congress.

Truman even recruited Mexican President Miguel Alemán Valdez to help in his battle to give

migratory farm workers’ rights. However, the battle was lost due to insufficient support from

Congress. There were also many Americans who agreed with Truman’s ideas to help the Bracero

workers and curb illegal immigration. However, the American farmers and agricultural labor

employers were opposed to Truman’s efforts. Many small farms relied on inexpensive Mexican

labor and many large scale farms who engaged in large agribusinesses relied on this type of

30
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
 10

work.31 According to an article published by David K. Webster in the New York Times in 1953,

many small farmers did not support the Bracero Program in America. However, it was stated that

there was a small amount of highly organized growers’ associations who supported the program.

They had large farms and used the Mexican labor on these farms. Many small farms believed

that these large farms were putting nearly two million American farmers out of work. They also

believed that small family owned farms could no longer compete with these large organizations.

However, these large farms supported the Bracero program and the Mexican labor they received

because it benefitted their businesses.32 For these reasons, particular groups of farmers were in

opposition of the new efforts put in place to reform the Bracero Program.

Throughout the 1950s, the Mexican government also played a strong role in the Bracero

Program. At this time, according to “Mexico United of Protest of U.S. Job Policy,” published in

The Chicago Daily Tribune in 1954, there were a great deal of problems surrounding the Bracero

Program between the United States and Mexico. Much of these problems stemmed from the

wages that the bracero workers were guaranteed to receive. According to the article, “The

bracero controversy between Mexico and the United States over migratory farm labor has taken

on serious nationalistic overtones which have created a hostile reaction among all Mexicans,

with the possible exception of the economically self interested bracero himself.” The Bracero

Program sparked nationalism in Mexico spanning across of all types of people in the country.

According to officials in the U.S., Mexico wanted to challenge the United States right to set their

own wage minimum. One spokesman claimed that Mexico was attempting to “exercise
31
R. Robinson, "Taking The Fair Deal to the Fields: Truman's Commission on Migratory Labor, Public Law 78, and
the Bracero Program, 1950-1952," Agricultural History 84, no. 3 (July 1, 2010): 381 402, 
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=10-25-2015&FMT=7&DID=2122175471&RQT=309 (accessed
October 25, 2010).
32
David K. Webster, “Importing Farm Labor,” New York Times, 9 September 1959, 40,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=4&did=83687438&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=12
88156994&clientId=70665 (accessed October 25, 2010).
 11

sovereignty in our country” and that they wanted to fix wages, which was something that the

President of the United States was not even allowed to do. The United States felt as though

Mexico was trying to run the affairs if their country and were opposed to this idea. 33

However, Mexico saw this situation in a very different light. Mexico felt as though they

should be able to protect their citizens working in another country, which would include setting a

wage minimum for their citizens working in the United States under the Bracero Program. In

addition, many Mexican citizens felt as though their workers were being treated in a

discriminatory manner, even though they recognized that the braceros earned more monetary

value in the United States over their own country. This led the Mexican government and the

United States to view the guidelines set in the Bracero Program differently and there was a great

deal of controversy over how the braceros should be treated in the United States.34 In addition to

the Mexican government feeling aversion towards the Bracero Program, many citizens in the

country were unhappy with the program as well. In towns such as Irapuato where there was a

contracting station, there were mass amounts of agricultural labors who tried to obtain bracero

contracts. They came from neighboring cities in large numbers and would sleep in the city’s

parks or on the streets as they waited for a job. The influx of these workers in Mexican cities

angered the citizens of these towns and created hostility towards America and anti-American

feelings. Many Mexican governors called for help from the Mexican Federal government to

assist in regulating the number of braceros entering their own cities in Mexico. Many Mexicans

were also angered by the United States because of their alleged mistreatment of braceros,
33
Marion Wilhelm, “Mexico United in Protest of U.S. Job Policy,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 15 February 1954,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=0&did=506129592&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1
288157672&clientId=9874 (accessed October 25, 2010).
34
Marion Wilhelm, “Mexico United in Protest of U.S. Job Policy,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 15 February 1954,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=0&did=506129592&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1
288157672&clientId=9874 (accessed October 25, 2010).
 12

according to the article “Mexicans Flocking to Legal U.S. Jobs” in 1953. Rumors circulated

throughout the country that the braceros were being treated poorly and that the United States

Army gathered the bracero workers and sent them to Korea to fight in the war. These rumors

were always denied by the United States.35 For these reasons, the Bracero program created

tension between the two countries due to their opposing viewpoints.

Although the Mexican government was not pleased with their workers immigrating to the

United States for seasonal work in the early 1950s, they allowed the Bracero Program to

continue. At this time, the influx of Mexican workers applying for bracero contracts was mainly

caused by unemployment in Mexico. This unemployment stemmed from a five year agricultural

drought in the country, which led to a loss of jobs. In Mexico, workers would typically earn

under a dollar a day working on the farms. In America, they could earn around 40 to 60 cents an

hour, even if they were not legal contract labors. They could earn a higher salary in the United

States, which was a primary reason for migrating to America to work as agricultural laborers. A

report showed that bracero workers remitted $70,000,000 to their families in Mexico and illegal

workers remitted around $100,000,000.36 The Mexican government wanted the Bracero Program

to be instated for a limited period of time, yet they recognized the sociological and economic

aspects arising in their country due to the Bracero Program that were not recognized since the

program started in 1942. Mexico felt it was undesirable to have their agricultural workforce

migrate to the United States, yet the braceros wanted to do so. These workers would abandon

their families in Mexico to work in terrible conditions in the United States for the money that

35
“Mexican Flocking to Legal U.S. Jobs,” The New York Times, 12 May 1953, 25,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=0&did=84604345&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=12
89222574&clientId=70665 (accessed October 29, 2010).
36
“Mexican Flocking to Legal U.S. Jobs,” The New York Times, 12 May 1953, 25, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=0&did=84604345&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=12
89222574&clientId=70665 (accessed October 29, 2010).
 13

they could earn in their home country. As stated in “Accord is Reached on Migrant Labor,”

which was published in the New York Times in 1951, “’When the worker returns, he can no

longer accept the old rustic existence, so frugal and inferior in material gains, to the one he left

behind.’” Mexico also questioned whether or not the United States was actually in need of

Mexican agricultural needs. Many Mexicans questioned if Americans were able to do the work

that they gave to the bracero workers and wondered if it was fact that “certain priorities are

preventing American workers from performing the tasks that are being assigned to our

countrymen.” Some believed that the American workers refused to do the hard labor that their

country provided. Therefore, many Mexicans felt as though they should be economically

independent from the United States and deemed the Bracero Program unnecessary.37

Even though the Bracero Program was also established to help curb illegal immigration,

during this period of time, many illegal Mexican migrant workers were entering the United

States. There were as many as three million illegal immigrants who traveled north into America

from Canada when President Eisenhower was first elected into office.38 This influx of illegal

Mexican immigrants migrating to the United States caused irritation in America as well as

Mexico. Although throughout its course the Bracero Program brought in millions of legal

Mexican workers to work on the farms of America, the program also brought an influx of illegal

migrant workers. Many Mexican agricultural workers crossed into the United States for higher

wages letting crops die out along the Mexican border. For this reason, many Mexican agri-

businessmen and “interest groups pressured their government representatives to end

unsanctioned Mexican migration across the U. S.-Mexico border.” They also pressured their
37
“Accord is Reached on Migrant Labor,” New York Times, 21 July 1951, 23,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=0&did=89805408&SrchMode=2&sid=4&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=12
89225068&clientId=70665 (accessed October 29, 2010).
38
John Dillin, “How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico,” Christian Science Monitor (6 July
2006), 9, http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/ (accessed October 15).
 14

military to guard the border to prevent Mexican workers from illegally crossing the border into

the United States for employment. They originally opposed the Bracero Program and continued

to do so.39 Also, according to “Mexican Labor Ban Blamed for Flood of Illegal Entries”

published in the Chicago Daily Tribune in 1949, Mexico would not allow their agricultural

workers to be employed in Texas because they felt that their workers were being discriminated

against there. In addition, Mexico banned their workers from being contracted for labor in Texas

because of large number of Mexican citizens who drowned in the Rio Grande and died while

attempting to illegally enter the United States. For this reason, according to this article, there was

a large increase of illegal Mexican agricultural labors illegally entering and working in the

United States.40 The Mexican government also protested the illegal immigration of its workers

because the country needed them to support their own economy. In addition to the Mexican

government’s protest to illegal immigration to the United States, Mexican braceros also opposed

illegal Mexican immigration. The braceros felt bitter about undocumented Mexican workers

because they believed that these illegal workers lowered their wages and made working

conditions worse. This made life more difficult for the legal Mexican workers in America.

Overall, many Mexicans resented these workers because they felt that they needed the labor that

they provided in their own country.41

Although the Bracero Program was in effect in the United States in during the 1950s, in

1954, the United States government employed Operation Wetback, which was “an intensive and
39
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
40
“Mexican Labor Ban Blamed for Flood of Illegal Entries,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 24 July 1949, B21,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=0&did=489504362&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1
291607740&clientId=9874 (accessed December 4, 2010).
41
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
 15

innovative law enforcement campaign designed to confront the rapidly increasing number of

illegal border crossings by Mexican nationals.”42 Operation Wetback was a campaign that

coexisted with the Bracero Program which brought in Mexican laborers to work for a set period

of time on farms in the United States. Unlike the Bracero Program that brought in legal Mexican

laborers to work in the United States, Operation Wetback was a wide-spread crack-down on

illegal Mexican immigration.43 When the Bracero Program reached its peak number of labor

contracts given, which was over 309,000 contracts, the United States began lessening the amount

of labor contracts issued to Mexican braceros. As the amount of labor contracts given to Mexican

workers decreased, the amount of illegal and undocumented Mexican workers increased in the

United States. Also, there was a “serious breakdown in bilateral relations” between the United

States and Mexico when the U.S. became concerned with acquiring laborers for growers and also

managing what was referred to as an “’illegal invasion.’” If INS agents found illegal immigrants

in the United States, they were told to legalize these workers as bracero laborers at the worksites

in which they were employed at. For this reason, growers were able to gain a Mexican labor

force through the Bracero Program or by converting undocumented laborers into legal bracero

workers. Because of the growers’ ability to gain Mexican labor legally or illegally, the United

States government and farmers essentially created the illegal immigration issue in the United

States by attempting to “undercut” Mexico’s power in the Bracero Program. Mexico attempted to

protect their citizens from discrimination in the United States, but their efforts were “consistently

eroded by an employment sector that directly recruited labor from Mexico through extra-legal

means while the US government turned a blind eye.” 44In addition, according to Allatson’s book
42
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
43
Paul Allatson. Key Terms in Latino/a Cultural and Literary Study (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Press Ltd,
2007), 184.
44
Ronald L. Mize and Alicia C.S. Swords, Consuming Mexican Labor: From the Bracero
 16

Key Terms in Latino/a Cultural and Literary Studies, the main causes of Operation Wetback

were the fear that Mexican laborers were stealing jobs, nativists had worries about the

immigrants from Mexico, and that the United States was worried about national border

security.45 In all, Operation Wetback stemmed not only from the fear of Mexican immigration,

but also because of the rise in illegal immigrants due to the practices of the American

government and American farmers.

In the summer of 1954, Operation Wetback was implemented and around eight hundred

Border Patrol officers traveled throughout the southern border of the United States. These

officers used raids and road blocks to obtain and deport undocumented workers in the United

States.46 The Border Patrol searched for illegal Mexican immigrants in border towns. Of all the

states searched, Texas had the largest crackdown on illegal immigration.47 The Border Patrol

officers utilized around three hundred buses, jeeps, cars and also about 7 planes to search for

illegal immigrants in America.48 By June of 1954, according to “’Wetback’ Drive Slows Up” in

the New York Times, fewer “wetbacks” were being located for deportation in America. At this

time, the term wetback was used to refer to the illegal Mexican workers in the United States.

Operation Wetback, which was seen to go by faster than expected, was set in place to deport

these illegal immigrants.49

Program to NAFTA (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011), 25-32.

45
Paul Allatson. Key Terms in Latino/a Cultural and Literary Study (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Press Ltd,
2007), 184.
46
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
47
Paul Allatson. Key Terms in Latino/a Cultural and Literary Study (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Press Ltd,
2007), 184.
48
Mae M. Ngai, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 155-156.
49
“’Wetback’ Drive Slows Up,” New York Times, 19 June 1954,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=84123415&Fmt=10&clientId=9874&RQT=309&VName=HNP (accessed
October 15, 2010).
 17

Mexico was also involved in the deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegal Mexican

workers through Operation Wetback.50 The government and community of Mexico were angered

by the mass amount of its citizens traveling illegally to the United States to perform agricultural

work.51 In addition, many Mexican Americans were angered with the influx of illegal Mexican

workers entering the United States. These legal Mexican workers felt as though their jobs were

in jeopardy due to the amount of illegal immigrants who would perform their jobs for a lesser

salary.52 In an attempt to end this illegal trafficking of immigrant workers who were not granted

work under the Bracero Program, President Eisenhower used approximately 1,075 Border Patrol

agents in total to detect and deport the hundreds of thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants that

were entering American every year. Operation Wetback occurred on June 17, 1954. The original

apprehension of these illegal Mexican workers took place in California and Arizona because

there was less resistance there. Seven hundred and fifty Border Patrol agents traveled throughout

these states in farm areas with the goal of apprehending about 1,000 illegal laborers a day. By the

end of that July, more than 50,000 illegals were apprehended in Arizona and California by the

Border Patrol and approximately 488,000 illegal Mexican workers had left the country due to the

threat of being arrested. At this time, the Border Patrol agents were also moving into Texas,

Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. In September, it was estimated that nearly 80,000 illegal workers were

detected in Texas alone and between 500,000 and 700,000 illegal laborers freely left this state.

Once these illegal workers were taken into custody, they were transported by bus or by train

deep into Mexico so they could not freely reenter the United States by crossing the border. In

50
John Dillin, “How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico,” Christian Science Monitor (6 July
2006), 9, http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/ (accessed October 15).
51
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
52
Paul Allatson. Key Terms in Latino/a Cultural and Literary Study (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Press Ltd,
2007), 184.
 18

addition, tens of thousands of these individuals were taken by boat back to Mexico.53 The United

States Border Patrol worked alongside the Mexican government in order to apprehend and deport

illegals in the United States. Because Mexico and the United States worked bilaterally to

establish the Bracero Program and curb illegal immigration between the two countries, the

countries worked together to put Operation Wetback into action.54 Because of the anger that the

United States shared with Mexico over the illegal immigration problem, the two countries were

able to work together to establish Operation Wetback.

By the late 1950s and early 1960s, many farmers in the southern part of the United States

were very angered by the Bracero Program and the effect it was having on the country. In an

article published in The Chicago Daily Tribune in 1961, “Migrant Workers,” the flaws of the

Bracero Program were addressed. According to the newspaper article, the hundreds of thousands

of Mexican braceros working seasonal jobs in the United States were causing problems for

American laborers in the rural areas of the country. For instance, as claimed in The Daily

Chicago Tribune, “The situation of our own migrant farm workers, already America’s badge of

infamy, has become worse because of the importation of labor.” Many farmers at this time felt as

though the braceros working on the farms were making labor difficult for American farm

workers. One agricultural employer for the United States went as far as relating the bracero

workers to slaves claiming that, “’We used to own slaves, now we rent them from the

government.’”55 In addition, many American citizens question why millions of Mexican braceros

53
John Dillin, “How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico,” Christian Science Monitor (6 July
2006), 9, http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/ (accessed October 15).
54
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
55
D. W, “Migrant Workers,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 25 August 1961, 12,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=1&did=592627972&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1
288026075&clientId=9874 (accessed October 22, 2010).
 19

were imported to the United States every year to work as agricultural laborers when there were

around 5,000,000 unemployed American citizens in the United States.56 Overall, many

agricultural employers, as well as Americans, were no longer pleased with the Bracero Program

or its practices.

In addition to the unpleasant outlook on the Bracero Program and its practices, in the

1960s, many Americans criticized many aspects of the Bracero Program. These critiques

included the wages earned and how the government dealt with bracero labor. One major problem

addressed in an article “Migrant Workers” printed in The Chicago Daily Tribune criticized the

wages earned by migrant Mexican agricultural workers. The typical pay for one worker ranged

between sixty cents and ninety cents an hour. Some of the Mexican laborers earned wages as low

as thirty cents an hour. Since they worked seasonal jobs, typically only 143 days a year, the

average annual income of one bracero worker was around $910. These workers were not entitled

to a minimum wage or unemployment insurance even though they were legally employed in the

United States through the Bracero Program. In addition, the bracero workers faced many

injustices in the United States. They were not entitled to the same social or legal protections that

American workers were entitled to at this time. They did not have social security, workmen’s

compensation, emergency public system, or even an education. Many Americans also criticized

the Bracero Program because it forced Mexican laborers to work in conditions that repelled

American works. Not only were the wages unappealing, but they worked in unsanitary

conditions.57 Although there were certain standards set in place for the conditions braceros could
56
Gladwin Hill, “House Inquiry Set on Mexican Labor,” The New York Times, 8 June 1958, 53,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=1&did=89101301&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=12
87376204&clientId=70665 (accessed October 14, 2010).
57
D. W, “Migrant Workers,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 25 August 1961, 12,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=1&did=592627972&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1
288026075&clientId=9874 (accessed October 22, 2010).
 20

work under, in reality, these workers were forced to work in very oppressive conditions. This

mainly happened because the United States government and the growers ignored the conditions

set in place.58 Companies did not have to fix these problems because the braceros would take

these jobs regardless. There was also evidence of child labor, some as young as six or seven

years old, working on the fields to help earn wages for their families. The children were also

subjected to these harsh conditions and were not offered an opportunity for education.59 In

addition, Americans were not just angered by the mistreatment of the Braceros. They also felt as

though the braceros were taking labor jobs away from American citizens and that there was an

“illegal invasion” 60 of Mexican immigrants entering the country due to the Bracero Program.61

For these reasons, many Americans, as well as America farmers, criticized the government’s lack

of responsibility regarding the Bracero Program and its conditions.

In 1963, the House of Representatives voted to put an end to the Bracero Program. There

were mixed debates about the need for the Bracero Program at this time. At this moment in time,

the Kennedy administration was pushing to extend the Bracero Program for a year and there was

a bill that wanted to extend the bill to December 31, 1965. B. F. Sisk, a representative, argued

that braceros were needed for “stoop labor,” which were jobs that American citizens refused to

do. In the House, however, John Fogarty, a leading voice in the opposition, stated when referring

to the Bracero Program, “’If there was ever a slave labor piece of legislation adopted by
58
Juan F. Perea, Immigrants Out!: the new nativism and the anti-immigrant impulse in the United
States, (New York: New York University Press, 1997), 235-236.
59
D. W, “Migrant Workers,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 25 August 1961, 12,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=1&did=592627972&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1
288026075&clientId=9874 (accessed October 22, 2010).
60
D. W, “Migrant Workers,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 25 August 1961, 12,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=1&did=592627972&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1
288026075&clientId=9874 (accessed October 22, 2010).
61
Ronald L. Mize and Alicia C.S. Swords, Consuming Mexican Labor: From the Bracero
Program to NAFTA (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011), 25-32.
 21

Congress, this is it.’” He went on to claim that the bill was immoral as well as unconstitutional.

He felt that an extension would hinder the United States’ relationship with Mexico. Another

representative, Henry Gonzales, according to the Chicago Tribune, claimed that Americans

would do “stoop labor” if they were not paid the same low wages and that the program

“depressed the wages offered Americans for farm labor, undermining the law of supply and

demand.” They believed that the Bracero Program violated the free enterprise system that was

set up in the United States. Another representative, Charles S. Gubser, claimed that American

farm owners preferred to hire domestic workers for a higher pay to avoid the regulatory

problems associated with hiring Mexican bracero laborers.62 During the beginning of the 1960s,

there were many mixed opinions regarding the Bracero Program. Some individuals claimed that

the Bracero Program was still necessary and supported by the public. However, in the House of

Representatives, the government showed their adversity to the Bracero Program by not voting for

an extension of the program.

The Bracero Program finally came to an end in 1964. At this time, it was mainly only

farm workers who supported this system that had been set in place for over two decades. These

workers wanted the system to continue, yet little support came from the American government or

other American citizens. Many individuals were concerned by the mistreatment of the Mexican

bracero workers due to the continuous complaints they heard,63 and the viewpoints of many

Americans at this time were guided by the civil rights era.64 In addition, a great amount of people

62
“House Votes to Bar Import of Braceros,” Chicago Tribune, 30 May 1963, A5,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=29&did=572936952&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=
1288194525&clientId=9874 (accessed October 29, 2010).
63
Gilbert Paul Carrasco, “Bracero Program,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in the United States,
http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t199.e99&srn=1&ssid=551883154#FIRSTHIT (accessed
October 15, 2010).
64
Steven G. Koven and Frank Gotzke, American Immigration Policy: Confronting the Nation's Challenges (New York,
NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 2010), 134.
 22

believed that the Bracero Program was “nothing more than a farm subsidy that was being used to

depress wages.” Congress was also discouraged because the development of the Bracero

Program did not curb illegal immigration, which was one of the primary goals of the program.

Many Mexicans were determined to receive a bracero contract, and if they did not do so, many

would just enter the country illegally. Also, an economist, William H. Metzler who worked with

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, argued that the Bracero Program took job opportunities

away from Americans who were trying to find agricultural work. Another economist, Louis

Krainock, stated that there were enough American workers available to fill the job positions

taken by the braceros and that there was no need for them. There were many issues surrounding

the Bracero Program in the 1960s because there were many individuals who fought for the

protection of rights for the braceros and others who fought to protect American domestic farm

workers. This caused disruption between the House of Representatives and the Senate. In 1961

and 1963, both sides of Congress compromised and the bill was extended. However, in 1964 an

agreement could not be made between the House and the Senate. Hence, the Bracero Program

was terminated in 1964.65

Over the course of 1942 to 1964, Mexican agricultural workers have impacted American,

as well as Mexican, society and government. The Bracero Program spanned for over twenty

years bringing Mexican bracero contract laborers to work in the agricultural industry of the

southwestern United States. Over this course of time, millions of legal contract workers were

brought into the United States for work. During this time frame, not all groups of individuals in

the United States or Mexico agreed with the Bracero Program or its practices. Many protests and

efforts to revise the program occurred throughout its course. In addition, there was an influx of

65
Gilbert Paul Carrasco, “Bracero Program,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in the United States,
http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t199.e99&srn=1&ssid=551883154#FIRSTHIT (accessed
October 15, 2010).
 23

illegal Mexican migrants who also came to the United States for work. They were faced with

adversity from the American population and even the Mexican and bracero population. Hence,

Operation Wetback was implemented in 1954 to deport undocumented workers.66 In all, over this

period of time, the terms subjected to migrant Mexican braceros were debated and changed due

to economic, political, and racial unrest. These changes resulted in the creation on of the Bracero

Program, Operation Wetback, and finally the termination of the Bracero Program in 1964.67

66
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, “The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross Border Examination of
Operation Wetback, 1943-1954,” Western Quarterly 37, no. 4 (Winter 2006),
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October 22, 2010).
67
Gilbert Paul Carrasco, “Bracero Program,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in the United States,
http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t199.e99&srn=1&ssid=551883154#FIRSTHIT (accessed
October 15, 2010).
 24

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

“Accord is Reached on Migrant Labor.” New York Times, 21 July 1951, 23,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=0&did=89805408&SrchMode=2&sid=4&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD
&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1289225068&clientId=70665 (accessed October 29,
2010).

Hill, Gladwin. “House Inquiry Set on Mexican Labor.” The New York Times, 8 June 1958, 53,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=1&did=89101301&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD
&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1287376204&clientId=70665 (accessed October 14,
2010).

“House Votes to Bar Import of Braceros.” Chicago Tribune, 30 May 1963, A5,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=29&did=572936952&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQ
D&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1288194525&clientId=9874 (accessed October 29,
2010).

“Mexican Flocking to Legal U.S. Jobs.” The New York Times, 12 May 1953, 25,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=0&did=84604345&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD
&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1289222574&clientId=70665 (accessed October 29,
2010).

“Mexican Labor Ban Blamed for Flood of Illegal Entries.” Chicago Daily Tribune, 24 July 1949,
B21, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=0&did=489504362&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD
&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1291607740&clientId=9874 (accessed December 4,
2010).

U.S. Congress. Senate. Public Law. 82nd Cong., 1951. S.

 25

http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/65%20stat%20119.pdf (accessed October

24, 2010).

W, D. “Migrant Workers.” Chicago Daily Tribune, 25 August 1961, 12,

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=1&did=592627972&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD
&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1288026075&clientId=9874 (accessed October 22,
2010).
Webster, David K. “Importing Farm Labor.” New York Times, 9 September 1959, 40,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=4&did=83687438&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD
&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1288156994&clientId=70665 (accessed October 25,
2010).

“’Wetback’ Drive Slows Up.” New York Times, 19 June 1954,

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
did=84123415&Fmt=10&clientId=9874&RQT=309&VName=HNP (accessed October
15, 2010).

Wilhelm, Marion. “Mexico United in Protest of U.S. Job Policy.” Chicago Daily
Tribune, 15 February 1954, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=0&did=506129592&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD
&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1288157672&clientId=9874 (accessed October 25,
2010).

Secondary Sources:

Allatson, Paul. Key Terms in Latino/a Cultural and Literary Study. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing Press Ltd, 2007.

Burrows, Emily. "Cosecha Amarga/Bittersweet Harvest: The Bracero Program, 1942-1964."

CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship 7, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 93-94,
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml?
_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.43 (accessed October 26, 2010).

Carrasco, Gilbert Paul. “Bracero Program.” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in
the United States, http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?
entry=t199.e99&srn=1&ssid=551883154#FIRSTHIT (accessed October 15, 2010).

Chacon, Justin Akers and Mike Davis. No One is Illegal: Fighting racism and State Violence on
The U.S.-Mexico Border. Canada: Haymarket Books, 2006.

Creagan, James F. "Public Law 78: A Tangle of Domestic and International Relations." Journal
of Inter -- American Studies 7, no. 4 (September 1965): 541-556. America: History &
Life, http://www.jstor.org/sici?origin=sfx%3Asfx&sici=0885-
 26

3118(196509)7%3A4%3C541%3APL7ATO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y (accessed October 26,

2010).

Dillin, John. “How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico.” Christian Science
Monitor, 6 July 2006, 9, http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/ (accessed
October 15).
Garcia, Juan Ramon. Operation Wetback: The Mass Deportation of Mexican Undocumented
Workers in 1954. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980.

Garcilazo, Jeffrey M. "McCarthyism, Mexican Americans, and the Los

Angeles Committee for Protection of the Foreign-Born 1950-1954."Western Historical
Quarterly 32, no. 3 (September 2001): 273,
http://www.historycooperative.org//journals/whq/32.3/garcilazo.html (accessed October
25, 2010).

Gilmore, N. Ray and Gladys W. Gilmore. “The Bracero in California.” Pacific Historical
Review
32, no. 3 (August 1963), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4492181?
&Search=yes&term=bracero&term=program&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction
%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dbracero%2Bprogram%26gw%3Djtx%26acc%3Don
%26prq%3Doperation%2Bwetback%26hp%3D25%26wc
%3Don&item=1&ttl=1123&returnArticleService=showFullText (accessed October 24,
2010).

Hamann, Volker. The Impact of International Labor Migration on Regional Development: The
Example of Zacatecas, Mexico. Kassel: Kassel University Press, 2007.

Hernandez, Kelly Lytle. Migra!: A history of the U.S. Border Patrol. Berkley, CA:
University of California Press, 2010.

Hernandez, Kelly Lytle. "The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: a Cross-Border
Examination of Operation Wetback, 1943 to 1954." Western Historical Quarterly 37, no.
4 (Winter 2006): 421-444,
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/37.4/hernandez.html (accessed October
22, 2010).

Inda, Jonathan Xavier. Targeting immigrants: Government, Technology, and Ethics. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Koven, Steven G. and Frank Gotzke. American Immigration Policy: Confronting the Nation's
Challenges. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 2010.

Mize, Ronald L. and Alicia C.S. Swords. Consuming Mexican Labor: From the Bracero
 27

Program to NAFTA. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011.

Ngai, Mae M. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.

Olson, James S. "Operation Wetback: The Mass Deportation of Mexican Undocumented

Workers in 1954." Journal of the West 22, no. 1 (January 1983): 80-81,
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=104&sid=9d8b3b3c-8e1c-4e11-
b22a-be7cb6dc656f%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d
%3d#db=ahl&AN=48105593 (accessed October 24, 2010).

Perea, Juan F. Immigrants Out!: the new nativism and the anti-immigrant impulse in the United
States. New York: New York University Press, 1997.

Robinson, R.. "Taking the Fair Deal to the Fields: Truman's Commission on Migratory Labor,
Public Law 78, and the Bracero Program, 1950-1952." Agricultural
History 84, no. 3 (July 1, 2010): 381 402, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?
Ver=1&Exp=10-25-2015&FMT=7&DID=2122175471&RQT=309 (accessed October
25, 2010).

Scruggs, Otey M. "Texas and the Bracero Program, 1942-1947." Pacific Historical
Review 32, no. 3 (August 1963): 251-264, http://www.jstor.org/sici?origin=sfx
%3Asfx&sici=0030-
8684(196308)32%3A3%3C251%3ATATBP1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G
(accessed October 22, 2010).