The Exploitation of the Braceros
Men in the Bracero Program were
exploited throughout the years of the programs existence between the years 1942
and 1965. Every time laws were being put into place to protect them or give
them something, like insurance or other benefits, it would get voted down and leave
the conditions the same. Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland explains, “controversies
have arisen and will no doubt arise again in respect of the proper
classification of individuals in border line cases” (Molina). This was
regarding the rights of citizenship and can be applied to the treatment of the
braceros, since there were loopholes in the contract between the United States
and Mexico. According to Ana Rosas the program targeted men with families
because it was thought that the affective ties to Mexico would make the
contract laborers more apt to return home after their contracts expired. More
specifically men from Jalisco and Guanajuato were aggressively targeted for
program participation (Rosas). This lead to families being torn apart and
children growing up without fathers, who would generally only visit for a short
time before they returned to the United States to work. These men had to pay a
$1000 fee just to become a bracero (Uranga).
The Bracero Program policed Mexican families in an effort to control the effects of feeling longing and loss (Rosas), which they felt would lead to them bring their families to the United States. One way they attempted to control these effects was that Postal officials would read letters between loved ones. They not only read these letters but would even withhold letters that may have promoted what the deemed premature reunification (Rosas). Not only were their letters being censored but also their employers would exploit them.
“Employers like Montalvo Growers Association would deduct fees for rental of gloves as well as social security payments for each worker” (Rosas). “Soon after receiving a check with these deductions, the workers would be laid off from these jobs” (Rosas). These fees surprised the bracero workers and feared that asking questions about them as not to hurt their opportunity to get hired somewhere else. Plus “the Bracero Program facilitated undocumented migration at levels that far surpassed the numbers of ‘legal’ braceros - both through the development of a migration infrastructure and through employers' encouragement of braceros to overstay the limited tenure of their contracts. Preferring the undocumented workers, employers could evade the bond and contracting fees, minimum employment periods, fixed wages and other safeguards required in employing braceros” (De Genova). This was just another way for these growers to make a few more bucks at the expense of the desperate labor force. Some local officials even quarantined the contract laborers in their migrant camps and limited any mobility that might provoke desires to create new families in the United States (De Genova).
The newspaper clipping below from the Los Angeles Times, from 22 September 1951, depicts the average bracero as being happy and privileged to be a part of the program. It begins by describing the Bracero Program worker as heroes who were being rushed to the fields of California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Utah from the reception centers in Imperial Valley. Then the story goes on to say that these workers were usually farm boys from all over Mexico. The article tries to glorify the braceros and makes a good attempt at humanizing them; however, the reality of the situation was that many of the farms using braceros, as explained in the “Exploitations” tab, dehumanized them and treated them more like tools than people. Lastly the article depicts how the Bracero Program was ideally supposed to be operated but unfortunately this was not what with the program. Even though many men were exploited and subjected to inhumane conditions some men that passed through the program likely benefited from it and were able to avoid these bad places.
The Bracero Program policed Mexican families in an effort to control the effects of feeling longing and loss (Rosas), which they felt would lead to them bring their families to the United States. One way they attempted to control these effects was that Postal officials would read letters between loved ones. They not only read these letters but would even withhold letters that may have promoted what the deemed premature reunification (Rosas). Not only were their letters being censored but also their employers would exploit them.
“Employers like Montalvo Growers Association would deduct fees for rental of gloves as well as social security payments for each worker” (Rosas). “Soon after receiving a check with these deductions, the workers would be laid off from these jobs” (Rosas). These fees surprised the bracero workers and feared that asking questions about them as not to hurt their opportunity to get hired somewhere else. Plus “the Bracero Program facilitated undocumented migration at levels that far surpassed the numbers of ‘legal’ braceros - both through the development of a migration infrastructure and through employers' encouragement of braceros to overstay the limited tenure of their contracts. Preferring the undocumented workers, employers could evade the bond and contracting fees, minimum employment periods, fixed wages and other safeguards required in employing braceros” (De Genova). This was just another way for these growers to make a few more bucks at the expense of the desperate labor force. Some local officials even quarantined the contract laborers in their migrant camps and limited any mobility that might provoke desires to create new families in the United States (De Genova).
The newspaper clipping below from the Los Angeles Times, from 22 September 1951, depicts the average bracero as being happy and privileged to be a part of the program. It begins by describing the Bracero Program worker as heroes who were being rushed to the fields of California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Utah from the reception centers in Imperial Valley. Then the story goes on to say that these workers were usually farm boys from all over Mexico. The article tries to glorify the braceros and makes a good attempt at humanizing them; however, the reality of the situation was that many of the farms using braceros, as explained in the “Exploitations” tab, dehumanized them and treated them more like tools than people. Lastly the article depicts how the Bracero Program was ideally supposed to be operated but unfortunately this was not what with the program. Even though many men were exploited and subjected to inhumane conditions some men that passed through the program likely benefited from it and were able to avoid these bad places.
The greatest injustice of the Bracero Program was el cortito, the short hoe. It “was a hoe that was only twenty-four inches long, forcing the farmworkers who used it to bend and stoop all day long” (Ferris), which led to long term back problems for the people who were forced to use them. This can be seen in the image below. These men typically worked from sun up to sun down bent over majority of the time. It was an unnecessary tool that growers argued “the control the short hoe offered, thinning and weeding would be mishandled, crop losses would mount, and some farmers would go bankrupt” (Ferris); however, farmers in most other stated used much longer hoes that did not require the user to bend over all day. Many physicians stated that “without a doubt, the hoe was responsible for the debilitating back pain experienced by many of their farmworker patients” (Ferris). The Division of Industrial Safety rejected these claims, but the state Supreme Court overturned their ruling, and found that “the tool was a danger to laborers’ health because it could only be used while stooping” (Ferris). A long-handled hoe, the court said, was just as useful.