New Era of Indentured Servitude in the USA

KDean75206 at SPAMaol.com KDean75206 at SPAMaol.com
Tue Nov 16 23:50:39 MST 1999



A New Bracero Program for the 21st Century

By Walter Ewing, Senior Research Fellow
Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA)

The Washington Report on the Hemisphere
Vol. 19, No.19, November 14, 1999

Under the guise of a generous amnesty program for undocumented
immigrants, U.S. agribusiness and its political allies on Capitol Hill have
fashioned an updated version of the infamous bracero program under which
millions of Mexican farm workers provided low-wage labor in U.S. fields for
more
than two decades after World War II. This push to resurrect a system that one
Labor Department official described as "legalized slavery" is led by
supporters of the restrictive immigration reform law of 1996. It also
comes at a time when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is
increasingly being used by many employers to block unionization efforts
among their workers.

New Era of Indentured Servitude

The Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1999 (S.
1814), introduced on October 27 by Senators Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore.) and
Bob
Graham (D-Fla.), provides legal status to about a half million currently
undocumented farmworkers, with the condition that they must labor in the
fields for five years before they can obtain their residency papers. To
be
eligible for this unique form of relief, they need only prove that they
have
worked in agriculture for 150 days during the past year. Senator Smith
was
joined in sponsoring the bill by other proponents of the 1996
immigration
measure such as Jesse Helms (R-NC). Although the 1996 law championed an
immigration approach which has been used to imprison asylum seekers
fleeing
persecution, its backers apparently have now developed a scenario for a
ready supply of "illegal" immigrants as a source of cheap labor for
large-scale U.S agricultural corporations.

Not surprisingly, the Republican bill is supported by the California
Farm
Bureau Federation, the National Council of Agricultural Employers and
the
Republican governors of Arizona and New Mexico. But others less
concerned
with corporate agriculture's profit margins, such as the Farm Worker
Justice
Fund, Southwest Voter Registration Project and United Farm Workers,
denounce
it as little more than a thinly glossed form of "indentured servitude,"
akin
to its more explicit predecessor.

Under the original bracero program of 1942-1964, farm hands were
funneled
from impoverished rural communities in Mexico to this country’s fields,
where they toiled for extremely low wages until their contracts (which
were
in English) expired and they were forced back across the border. Given
the
absolute power of employers under this system, workers were virtually
without rights, and served at the discretion of their overseers.
However, as
the number of undocumented Mexican immigrants to the U.S. grew over
time,
there was a large enough pool of ultra-cheap labor available to
agricultural
employers to render the bracero program redundant.

Since its demise, a smaller scale "H-2A guestworker" program has
operated in
its place, under which growers who certify that they cannot find U.S.
workers to pick their crops and weed their fields are permitted to look
southward. Despite double-digit unemployment in many agricultural areas
of
the U.S., the federal government approves almost all H-2A applications.
But
even the rather lean terms of this program are currently under attack.
For
instance, employers and their congressional representatives find H-2A’s
requirement that foreign workers actually be provided with housing quite
troublesome. They would rather merely supply housing "vouchers," leaving
workers to fend for themselves in areas notorious for their severe
shortages
of affordable housing.

The reformulated bracero legislation just introduced in the Senate is
ostensibly a response to such "complicated" H-2A regulations and would
creatively solve this problem by returning to a previous era in which
Mexican agricultural workers were afforded minimal guarantees. In
addition,
agribusiness interests claim that the post-1996 crackdown on
undocumented
immigrants is rendering their current labor force too legally risky to
handle. Evidently, employers have suddenly become terrified of the small
fines that are occasionally levied against unscrupulous agricultural
operations that knowingly employ "illegals." A more likely explanation,
though, lies in the intersection between immigration policy and efforts
by
employers to maintain a low-cost and malleable workforce free of such
burdens as collective bargaining.

INS as union buster

Immigration reformers charge that the past two years have witnessed an
expansion in the use of INS agents as facilitators for anti-union
campaigns
by employers. There are accounts of farm managers calling in the INS to
pick
up undocumented worker leaders in the middle of union organizing drives.
Critics claim that the latest variation on this theme is Operation
Vanguard,
an experiment in the control of immigrants in particular (and labor in
general) being conducted in meatpacking plants in Nebraska and parts of
Iowa. The INS cross-checks information on proof of immigration status
provided by workers to their employers against the Social Security
database.
A list of workers with "discrepancies" in their personal data is
compiled
and then they receive letters from their employer inviting them in for
an
"interview." The small number of the undocumented among workers who
actually
show up often are detained and deported, while far more
workers—undocumented
or otherwise—not only skip the interview but flee their jobs out of
fear.
The INS plans to expand this program to other locales in the Midwest and
Texas. Advocates of such tactics, perhaps disingenuously, claim that
they
are only seeking to eliminate the easy availability of jobs as a
"magnet"
for illegal immigration.

The so-called "amnesty" provision of neo-bracero legislation must be
seen in
the larger context of efforts by agribusiness to lessen the bargaining
power
of labor in industries such as meatpacking and agriculture, which rely
heavily on immigrants, particularly Mexican immigrants. "Guestworker"
programs and INS raids serve to remind workers that they can be easily
replaced if their demands for basic rights become too irksome.
Similarly,
"amnesty" is held out as a carrot to the most exploited subgroup of the
immigrant labor force—the undocumented—under the condition that they
remain
almost as indentured labor by staying in their low-paying jobs for five
years and enduring a quasi-legal status that can be terminated at any
moment.

These practices, according to immigration monitors, are also indicative
of
the dehumanization of immigrants that critics say is inherent in the
1996
law. Under its terms, a mother of U.S.-born children can be deported on
the
basis of a 30-year-old shoplifting conviction that resulted in no jail
time.
A refugee fleeing torture can literally be turned back at the gate if he
or
she fails to explain why they left home without the proper documents to
prove identity and the merits of their case. In 1996, the Senate sent a
message to the American public that U.S. immigration policy is naturally
hostile to all categories of immigrants. This message was modified in
1999,
when the public was told that as long as they do what they are told,
migrants can work here under the most bitter of conditions.


This article is also available at COHA’s website, http://www.coha.org



__________________________________________________________________

National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR)
310-8th St., Ste. 307
Oakland, CA 94607
510.465.1984
510.465.1885 (fax)
Visit us at www.nnirr.org


______________________________________________









More information about the Marxism mailing list