Avila 1
Pablo C. Avila
Dr. Elizabeth Clark
ENG101.2651
19 November, 2007
Immigration And Struggle:
Two Important Issues From the Past to the Present
When thinking about immigration in the United States, we are bringing the topic into a
field of debate. Perhaps it was possible to believe a century ago that America could shut out the
rest of the world. Today the rest of the world is here (Wucker 89). However, how was the
immigration issue being handled? Many people, especially activists, believe immigration, as a
social conflict, has happened due to mistaken strategies from governments of the United States
throughout the last century. A clear example is the farmworkers’ struggle from the 1930s and on,
fighting for better working conditions and higher wages, and the political issues from American
governments toward Latin American countries in the last decades which has caused and
motivated an unstable social situation and the migration of many people to this country to look
for better employment opportunities due to a crisis in their countries. Nowadays, they are still
fighting for the same cause.
The Struggle of Farmworkers
When eating vegetables while having lunch or fresh fruit while having dessert, it is not
very common to think about how those crops were grown. This job has been the principal
responsibility for farmworkers throughout the time. They pick up the crops, collect fruits and
grow vegetables. All this process empowers the trade of food that allows us to have fresh food
and vegetables at the table every day. This group of farmworkers was primarily integrated by
Avila 2
people from different countries—especially Latin American countries—but also by native-born
people, called Mexican American Chicanos1 from southern cities in the United States like
California and Texas. They are divided into two main groups Migrant and Seasonal workers.
Migrant workers are the group of farmworkers who look for work from place to place; they
move from one region to another one. Migrants are generally based in the southern border areas
of the United States. They winter in the Imperial Valley of California, the lower Rio Grande
Valley in Texas, and central and southern Florida (Barger, W.K. 20). Seasonal workers,
differently, work in one place only. They are focus in a continuous care such as citrus and grapes,
in contrast to migrant workers, seasonal workers have, at some way, a secure job for at least ten
months within a year. Nevertheless, not immigrants at all began this job. Native Americans were
the first to work the land. As the growers’ business expanded, they needed large numbers of
cheap workers. They lobbied for and manipulated immigration laws to import immigrant
workers—Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, and Mexicans—whom they hired for miserably low
wages (Cantarow 97). Since that time, farmworkers have faced difficult times because they
didn’t have money due to low wages and jobs under poor working conditions in both migrant
and seasonal workers. During the 1930s, President Herbert Hoover2 took office, a millionaire and
considered by many people as the best option, his administration seemed not to be ready to face
one of the worst crisis in the American History. In 1929, the Great depression began. Between
1930 and 1933, the number of unemployment in the United States rose from four million to more
than thirteen million (Cantarow 102). This situation, of course, didn’t benefit farmworkers at all.
Until the United Farmworkers union helped to better conditions of life and labor for these
workers, they were desperately poor; their pay during the growing season was often not enough
to live on through the winter (Cantarow 98). Some decades after that period, during the 1960s,
Avila 3
almost at the end of the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the beginning of
the President Kennedy’s administration,3 farmworkers faced their complicated situation with the
raise of some leaders that began the organization to fight for their rights and look for
improvements within the fields. This union joined both groups to fight primarily for better
working conditions and higher wages.
One of the poorest occupations in the United States is that of the landless, migrant farm
worker. During the twentieth century, most seasonal workers labored on the enormous farms and
ranches in California (Ness, Immanuel 822). It is important to consider that California was part
of the Mexican territory up until the war between the United States and Mexico changed their
relationships forever. Going back in time, under the administration of President James K. Polk
from 1845 to 1849, he thought that territories like California and New Mexico in the south, and
under the administration of the Mexican government until then, should be gained by the
American administration. At first, he attempted to buy those lands but his offer was turned down
and, after a border battle in the new state of Texas that caused the war between the two nations,
those territories became part of the United States. Many years later, with California and some
other southern cities under the control of the American administration, the United States seemed
to have fairly diversified the production among farmworkers. However, California was an
exception. Shortly after statehood was achieved in 1850, the California government, in hopes of
encouraging economic development, sold much of the territory’s unclaimed public lands (Ness,
Immanuel 822). Since then, this caused a tremendous lack of security among farmworkers.
During this crucial situation with the farmworkers, Cesar Chavez became in one of a few leaders
who dared to bring and make a change about the farmworkers. He was born near Yuma, Arizona
in 1927 and became a farmworker to help his family after having reached eighth grade at school.
Avila 4
His leadership began when he worked near Mexicans and Mexican Americans in the Community
Service Organization (CSO) In 1962, he left the CSO to join the grape pickers due to their
critical situation to later found the Union Farm Workers in 1964. His leadership was crucial
when organizing farmworkers to claim for better rights; principally, higher wages and better
working conditions as Jessie Lopez de La Cruz, another important leader,4 describes in an
interview by Anamaria De La Cruz; “Cesar Chavez, a great leader, gave his life for us, and he
will always be in our hearts and in our memory. His whole family too” (De La Cruz) This
opinion from Jessie De La Cruz shows Chavez’s importance in the union of farmworkers, the
change he caused and how he motivated others to get involved in the union to fight the injustices
they were all facing. In the meantime, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz’s experience in the fields had
motivated her to support the organization as well, but it wasn’t until Cesar Chavez went to visit
her and her husband Arnold at their house when she decided to join the group and become in the
first woman in the leadership of the farmworkers organization, as she points out in her interview.
Well, Arnold, my husband, had been attending meetings in Fresno. But the first time I got
involved was when Cesar Chavez came to our house in Parlier to talk about forming a
union for farmworkers. I was in the kitchen, making coffee for our guests. I remember
one of them was Cresencio Mendoza, who was the general organizer in Fresno.
I stayed in the kitchen door, listening to what they were saying, and then Cesar said,
“Arnold, your wife should be here, she’s a farmworker and she has to know about the
union.” So I sat down and got involved with the union. (De La Cruz)
In this excerpt, Jessie Lopez describes the way she got involved, but most importantly she lets us
know the way Cesar Chavez used to motivate other people to join the union; he used to visit
people at their houses to encourage them to fight for their rights because he had a big
Avila 5
commitment of change among the situation farmworkers were going through. Once Jessie Lopez
De La Cruz decided to join the union, farmworkers didn’t see the change immediately, but they
did later. Jessie Lopez became in the first woman being an organizer, her background in the
fields indentified her as a great and real leader because she knew exactly what they all
experienced. She was born in 1919, from a family who had migrated to the United States many
years ago. She married to Arnold De La Cruz, who also participated in the Union Farmworker, in
California in 1938. One important point and experience we may recall about Jessie Lopez De La
Cruz is when she became an English teacher. Teaching English to farmworkers through a
government program helped her to get involved in the union and get more in touch with people.
Moreover, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz was a great leader, married woman, and a mother as well.
Her experience was marked by the poverty her used to live in, but one of the things that marked
her life was the culture she used to live in, in terms of womanhood. Mexican American women
of Jessie De La Cruz’s generation grew up as her grandmother had. From childhood, they
learned that women were not free to come and go as men were, and that women had three jobs—
housework, childbearing and rearing, and fieldwork (Cantarow 108). The fact of being oppressed
by the society because she was simply a woman, Jessie Lopez felt herself tied to her house doing
household stuff, washing dishes or getting dinner ready by the time her husband got home. This
issue was a tremendous challenge for Jessie Lopez, but what it is important to comment is that it
didn’t defeat her because she fought for the cause she thought was right overcoming the situation
and marking a difference among the farmworkers joining and supporting the union as a leader,
even thought she knew her place, as every other woman, was at home.
We boycotted mainly supermarkets. We picketed. I remember picketing a Safeway store
in Fresno. We were boycotting grapes, and asking everyone not to shop there because they were
Avila 6
selling grapes (De La Cruz). In this excerpt from the interview, Jessie Lopez recalls what it can
be considered the best tool to fight back the critical situation farmworkers were living, boycotts.
As she describes, they all used to go out in the streets to let people know what they were going
through in their jobs and ask them not to buy the grapes at the supermarket. In this way, many of
the customers who used to have fresh vegetables and fruits in lunch realized, some of them for
the first time, that farmworkers ironically didn’t have anything to eat because they didn’t have
enough money to have, at least, a decent way of living. Some of these poor conditions are
mirrored in Jessie Lopez’s experience in Ellen Cantarow’s book Moving the Mountain. Women
Working for Social Change.
I had a little girl who died in ’43. She was so tiny…only five months. The cause was the
way we were living, under the tree, with only chicken wire to separate us from the cows
and horses. There were thousands of flies. I didn’t have a refrigerator, no place to
refrigerate the milk. She got sick. I couldn’t stop the diarrhea. They told she had a brain
infection. And so I had to leave her, and my little girl died. We were so poor and I felt so
helpless—there was nothing I could do. (118)
Jessie Lopez’s situation was of many other farmworkers, they didn’t have money to buy food for
children, to feed the others, they didn’t even have a house where to live. All these conditions
were critical and marked farmworkers’ lives. It is evident that the poor conditions were not only
at work, but also at home. Nevertheless, farmworkers got some results from the boycotts they
used to do to claim for their rights. Some of these were achieved while the Farm Labor
Organizing Committee—FLOC—held the struggle. On an immediate level, FLOC workers now
enjoy considerably improved conditions. Since the 1978 strike, their wages rates have almost
doubled (Barger, W. K. 175). Some other results were the personal growth in people who got
Avila 7
involved in the organization, they all motivated one another to speak out. Besides, there was a
sense of more security and stability in terms of work among the farmworkers. One example is
the case where a grower demanded that everyone load their own cucumbers, instead of hiring a
loading crew. When the workers filed a complaint, the grower raised pay rates to cover the
additional work. “Before,” one worker says, “we wouldn’t have been able to say anything at all”
(178). Moreover, some changes in terms of housing were implemented; some camps had new
housing and sanitary facilities, and the new stability of a job for farmworkers because they assure
a job for at least one year. However, these implements didn’t fit in farmworkers’ needs at all.
Throughout the twentieth century, members the rural proletariat—regardless of national—tried
to improve their material circumstances through individual and group actions (Ness, Immanuel
823). What it is clear at the end is that this critical situation, represented in the farmworkers’
struggle, came after the war between the United States and Mexico that, as the facts in history
state, had consequences and the only affected were farmworkers even though they were not all
from Mexico, but from some other countries like China, Japan, Filipino, and some others from
Middle Eastern countries. These strategies that, represented by the way farmworkers used to
work, the American government followed in the post-war were not beneficial especially for this
sector of laborers that had to use methods like strikes and boycotts to get what they deserved.
Another important organization to mention is the Farm Labor Organizing Committee,
FLOC. This organization has been important within the struggle of farmworkers. The most
important change, from FLOC’s point of view, is that midwestern farmworkers now have a more
equal role in the agricultural system. They have a direct voice in determining those conditions
that affect their lives and well-being (Barger, W. K. 175). The FLOC organized and supported
important events to call people’s attention and motivate people to speak out, one of those events
Avila 8
was the strike done in 1978, after that, the FLOC worker for eight years to achieve basic rights
for farmworkers. As W. K. Barger describes it in chapter six from the book The Farm Labor
Movement in the Midwest: Social Change and Adaptation Among Migrant Farm Workers, there
are four main changes that midwestern farmworkers had; improved working conditions,
organization into a larger social structure, new feelings of security, and personal growth. The
first change mentioned refers to some improvements that midwestern farmworkers saw, for
instance, in housing and sanitary terms. In contrast to previous years when farmworkers worked
for low wages that were mirrored in their living conditions, as on Jessie Lopez’s experience, they
now have some changes that will raise their living conditions from extremely poor to acceptable
with more commodities. The second main change mentioned is in terms of organization into a
larger social structure, which means that farmworkers were able to fit into a broader society
because little by little they were motivating more people to get involved and realized that they
could make a change; besides, their strength as a group increased and now they were a more
compact group. As a result of the FLOC movement, midwestern farmworkers are now more
organized as a social group. Before FLOC, their social networks were limited primarily to
individual families and crews (Barger, W. K. 177). A new feeling of security was another major
change among farmworkers. They all felt they could make a change by organizing and
promoting their claims and now all workers could assure a job for a period of ten months. Finally,
personal growth was another important issue and change, people felt more self-confident which
was, obviously, beneficial for the organization, additionally, they encouraged other people to join
them in the cause. These four changes were accomplished through a hard struggle farmworkers
had especially throughout the last fifty years due to different issues that caused their poor living
conditions and lower wages. Even thought they saw some changes, they are still struggling.
Avila 9
The Struggle of Immigrants Nowadays
Immigration, as we mentioned before, has been an important issue throughout the
American History. Some mistaken strategies from American governments were evident while the
struggle of farmworkers and will continue to be so as we analyze immigrants’ actual situation
and they way they are struggling for better treatment in terms of human rights. In order to better
understand the migration—group of people who go from one country or region to another one—
from other countries to the United States we have to divide it into two groups, the First Great
Migration and the Second Great Migration. The First Migration to the United States was at the
beginning of the twentieth century, large numbers of people from Europe, primarily, came to the
United States because of the repression of critical social issues in their countries. One of many
examples is the Russian Revolution—from 1917 to 1918—that forced many people to migrate to
other countries because of the uncertainty there was in theirs. The First World War shocked
many with its brutality and unprecedented loss of life (National Geographic). Because of this war,
many people came to the United States to begin the new generation. During the last twenty years,
and while many new-arrivals from the First Great Migration became in almost citizens with
American grandchildren, the Second Great Migration began to move. This time, a high
percentage of people had their native lands in Latin American countries while Europe and other
continents had lower rates of immigrants. The cause, socio-economic reasons that forced this
group to leave their lands, the lack of jobs, and sometimes running away from dictatorships
making these two Great Migrations different one from the other. One major difference between
the first Great Migration and the second is the higher fertility rates of immigrants compared with
natives, whose fertility rates declined throughout the twentieth century (Wagner, Cynthia G. 8).
Having these facts under our analysis, it is evident that immigration to the United States, for
Avila 10
many reasons, has been a huge issue within the American History. Nowadays, however, many
immigrants, especially from the Second Great Migration, form a major part of the workforce as
well as the population in the United States. Almost 12 percent of the U.S. population today is
made up of the foreign-born, over 33.5 million people. Over half come from Latin America, a
quarter from Asia, and most of the rest from Europe, with other from the rest of the world (Dan
La Botz). As years go by, immigrants are increasing in rates and many native-born believe they
are not having good impact in the society. Anxiety is rising among many natives who fear that
new-arrivals will take away jobs, strain welfare and other public services, and—perhaps most
vexing—fail to become “real” Americans by not learning English (Wagner, Cynthia G. 8).
Native’s anxiety is increasing when looking at the number of immigrants who come to the
United States every year because they think immigrants are overcrowding the country and
stealing jobs from native-born. The United States, with a population of 300 million people in
October 2006, accepts over one million legal immigrants every year, with the nations of Mexico,
China, India Philippines and Cuba providing 37 percent. However, in addition, an estimated
500,000 immigrants also enter the United States illegally each year, most coming from Latin
America (Dan La Botz). It is evident that immigration rates are increasing even more, and many
people are coming even illegally through the Mexican border with the US. Why do people come,
especially from Latin America, risking their lives through the Mexican border with the US? The
answer can be easily understood as economic and employment reasons. Most Latin American
countries are going through difficult situations in terms of those two important issues, even
though some of them have shown a small increase at some point in the last decades. Besides, the
United States has supported, through international policies, many dictatorships within Latin
American countries like Chile, Honduras, Paraguay, Brazil, and Colombia causing a crisis in
Avila 11
their societies and forcing people from middle and lower class to migrate to another country to
look for better opportunities of life. The United States’ huge influence over Latin America has
been an important reason to cause this situation in those countries and immigration has become
in an effect; many people come to the United States because it is a developed country with a high
and stable economy. Nevertheless, immigration cannot be easily put away from the American
history, not even since the beginning of this country. To be sure, there were those who had
misgivings about the immigrants. George Washington wrote to John Adams in 1974, “My
opinion with respect to immigration is that except for useful mechanics and some particular
descriptions of men or professions, there is no need for encouragement.” Thomas Jefferson was
even more emphatic in expressing the wish that there might be “an ocean of fire between this
country and Europe, so that it would be impossible for any more immigrants to come hitcher”
(Fjeldstad, Mary C. 118). Throughout the American history, the United States has performed
many strategies, in terms of immigration, that haven’t been useful and brought consequences to
this country many years later. A good example that we have previously presented is the war
between the United States and Mexico. Due to the President Polk’s desire of conquering
Mexican lands, and after a battle in the new state of Texas, a war that could have been avoided
began. This war, that represents the typical dispute between two neighbor-countries fighting for
territory issues, shows the beginning of immigration, at first from Mexican citizens, because
many people had to come here to keep on working in their lands and most of them were
farmworkers. Moreover, it demonstrates the beginning of a number of issues that didn’t benefit
immigrants at any way. The first Mexican in the United States were not immigrants—they were
a conquered people. The United States brought 100,000 Mexicans into the United States by force
with the absorption of half of that nation’s territory at the end of the U.S.- Mexico War in 1847
Avila 12
(Dan La Botz). Since that moment, Mexican immigrants began to depend on the United States’
needs. Later, during the Great Depression, many of these immigrants were forced to go back to
their country because of the unemployment crisis that the United States was going through. Then,
in the bracero era (1942-64), the U.S. wartime economy needed labor and some 4.2 million
Mexican guest workers were brought to labor in the United States, accompanied by a parallel
illegal immigration that also numbered into the millions (Dan La Botz). This program of guest
workers brought a big controversy within the society because, under that status, any immigrant
had the right to work legally in the country until his or her contract expires. Under the law, guest
workers were supposed to receive free housing, medical care, transportation, and the prevailing
wage. Some workers did not receive those minimum standards and others were abused; all were
subject to deportation if their employers complained (Dan La Botz). All this happened when the
governments of Mexico and the United States agreed, during the period from 1942 to 1964, to
bring Mexican guest workers to cover the labor shortages caused by the Second World War and
the Korean War and under the law apply this program, that due to the facts, the United States
didn’t respect at all. These issues, in the immigration field, had apparently begun many years
before when in 1882, the congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act that block future
immigrants to the United States from that country and, automatically, disqualified the Chinese
residents already from naturalization and voting. While the administration of the President
Chester A. Arthur, this Act prevented those possible immigrants from coming to this country due
a conflict between the Chinese and the Irish communities in California that caused a street
fighting in San Francisco. Because of this performance about immigration, the United States
could have avoided the massive wave of migration to this country in these days by having
Avila 13
applied different decisions and policies that could have established a better environment for
immigrants since the beginning of the American history.
Nowadays, legal, as well as illegal, immigration rates are tremendously increasing
birthing a battle of opinions between documented and undocumented immigrants who claim for
equal rights. Throughout the last decades, many myths have faced facts about undocumented
immigrants. The National Council of la Raza presents us some of them.
Myth: Undocumented immigrants do not
Fact: Immigrants come to the U.S. for a
want to be legal residents.
variety of reasons — to reunite with family or
to find better employment opportunities — and
would prefer to do so through legal channels.
However, the U.S. immigration system is
extremely limited, and undocumented
immigrants in the U.S. cannot simply apply for
a visa and obtain legal status.
Myth: Undocumented immigrants are lazy.
Fact: Ninety-six percent of undocumented
men living in the U.S. are employed, which
exceeds the labor force participation rate of
legal immigrants and U.S. citizens by 15
percentage points. Many work two or more
jobs. It is clear that employment is a major
driving force behind undocumented migration;
many industries, such as restaurants, hotels,
Avila 14
and agriculture, report that they rely on these
hardworking migrants.
Myth: Undocumented immigrants take jobs
Fact: Immigrant labor is needed to fill jobs in
from Americans.
the U.S. that an older, more educated American
workforce is not willing to fill, especially at the
low wages and poor working conditions many
unscrupulous employers offer. Currently, there
are approximately nine million undocumented
workers in the U.S. filling important gaps in
the labor market. There is substantial evidence
that their presence in the labor force creates
jobs and strengthens local economies.
Myth: Undocumented immigrants do not
Fact: Undocumented immigrants pay taxes in
pay taxes.
a number of ways, including income and sales
tax. The majority of undocumented immigrants
pay income taxes using Individual Taxpayer
Identification Numbers (ITINs) or false Social
Security numbers. All immigrants, regardless
of status, will pay on average $80,000 per
capita more in taxes than they use in
government services over their lifetime. The
Social Security system reaps the biggest
windfall from taxes paid by immigrants; the
Avila 15
Social Security Administration reports that it
holds approximately $420 billion from the
earnings of immigrants who are not in a
position to claim benefits.
Myth: Undocumented immigrants drain the
Fact: Undocumented immigrants are ineligible
welfare system.
for the vast majority of state and federal
benefits and are only eligible for those that are
considered important to public health and
safety. In fact, many legal immigrants are also
ineligible for most federal benefits. As a result,
health care spending for immigrants is
approximately half that of citizens.
Myth: The best way to stop undocumented
Fact: Between 1986 and 2002 the number of
migration is by increasing enforcement.
border enforcement agents has tripled, the
number of hours they spent patrolling the
border grew by a factor of approximately eight,
and the Border Patrol’s budget has increased
tenfold. At the same time, the number of
undocumented immigrants in the U.S. has
continued to increase. Support is growing for a
more comprehensive approach to immigration
control which combines smart enforcement
with measures to create a legal path for those
Avila 16
who come to the U.S. to work, and those who
are already in the workforce.
Undocumented workers come to the United States through networks of family members
and friends in a process called chain migration. Many of the most recent immigrants from
Mexico and Guatemala are young men and women (some come alone at 14 years old) from rural,
indigenous areas with low levels of education, perhaps third to sixth grade from Guatemala and
sixth to eighth grade from Mexico (Dan La Botz). Education is one of the weakest points in
Central America. The last edition of the Collegiate Atlas of the World from the National
Geographic Society reports on its Health and Literacy Section that most countries of South
America appear in a range from 86 to 95% which differs from the range 96 to 100% of the
United States, Canada, and Europe. Next to the education issue, we can find the economy,
another important point when analyzing the reasons of immigration. In the section about
Economy in the same Atlas from the National Geographic Society, we can find, a 2005 estimate,
that most Latin American countries have a lower middle Gross National Income per capita in
U.S. dollars ($826 – $3,255). Some other like Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay in South America
and Costa Rica and Mexico in Central America have upper middle GNI per capita in U.S. dollars
($3,256 - $10,665). Finally, Nicaragua and Haiti, both in Central America, highlight in the chart
for their low GNI per capita in U.S. dollars (less than $826). The United States, however, in
hopes of helping Latin American economy promoted the North American Free Trade
Agreement—NAFTA—that, for many people, didn’t have a good impact among the countries
that signed it. The dismantling of the old nationalist economy, NAFTA, and an economic
depression in 1994-96, had a devastating impact on the Mexican economy. Small business and
Avila 17
farms failed and farmers and workers headed north to the United States in search of jobs (Dan La
Botz). Even thought the statistics from the United States Department of Agriculture show a
tremendous improvement in the economies of the three countries, it doesn’t seem to record the
consequences that its bad impact had on Mexican citizens that forced them to come to the United
States because they had no other option in their country. Mexican workers couldn’t compete with
the American market because there was an evident inequality in terms of technology, for
example, many tools to develop and produce the goods were different in each country, that
caused that the amount of production in each market was different one from the other creating an
inequality that didn’t benefit the country that produced the less amount of goods. Another
important issue is the subsidize—economical help from the local government to the
agriculture—which is a huge advantage of the United States because that administration does
have money to support those programs, something that Latin American governments do not have,
making a huge difference and inequality in terms of the free trade and competition of markets.
Due to these facts, Mexico couldn’t compete with a higher level of market as the one of the
United States and Canada forcing Mexicans citizens were forced to give up their jobs and leave
their lands to look for new and better possibilities, most of the times, overseas. Some similar
experiences occur with other countries in Latin America, where the market seems not to be ready
to compete with the one of the United States, a recent example is the Free Trade Agreement
between the United States and Peru, for many people, this will cause an unequal competition
between the two markets, the Peruvian market is not ready to produce as much as the United
States does with the same high technology to trade goods in the same amount so that both
countries get the benefits, if we compare a single apple that comes from the south of Peru and
put it next to an apple that comes from California, the differences are evident in terms of
Avila 18
presentation and that is the effects of the subsidizes that the government offers to improve the
production and presentation of the good to trade. Both governments assure the creation of new
jobs for both countries, but the Peruvian market will be defeated by the amount of production
and distribution of the American products in lower prices and better quality and there won’t be
any way to overcome that. This situation will cause unemployment and crisis among the society
that, as the same way as the Mexican workers, will have to leave their lands to look for better
options in a new country that, most of the times, is the United States. These policies applied by
the US government toward Latin American countries, especially, are causing unemployment and
crisis within the society leading to the migration of people to other places and countries.
While President Lyndon B. Johnson dreamed about America as a Great Society in the
1960s, today his dream seems to have lost sense among the confrontations of documented and
undocumented immigrants, the increase of rates about immigration, deportation of some
undocumented immigrants, and the complaints of some others about the unfairly treatment by
federal officers or about violent and unexpected raids in works and separated families due to
deportations of undocumented parents with children who are American citizens. We can find
many reasons that mirrors the struggle many immigrants are having right now. Due to an
inevitable social conflict, many movements to fight for the immigrants’ rights have been formed
and now are claiming for a change in laws to better treat them when facing it. The Immigration
Reform that looks to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants that contribute to this
country—as stated in the factsheet of myths and facts about the immigrants from the National
Council of la Raza—and look forward to becoming an American citizen has become in a dream
that some want to light and some others want to shut off. An example of the struggle many
immigrants, especially undocumented, are going through is Elvira Arellano. A Mexican citizen
Avila 19
who came to the United States crossing the border from Mexico, and began to work with forfeit
documents and was later warmed to be deported. With a child—an eight-year-old named Saul—
who is an American citizen, the only option she had to avoid deportation was to stay in a
Methodist church in Chicago, state where she used to work as a cleaning woman in August 2006.
Almost a year later, she went to California to make some appearances as an activist in the
immigrant movement and was arrested by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement—ICE
Agents—outside a church in California when she was with her son. Later, she was deported to
her country, Mexico. Many people raised their voices about Elvira Arellano’s case, at the same
time, many people question the treatment the ICE Agents give immigrants under custody. Since
2004, at least 62 immigrants have dies in ICE custody. Three have died since July. One of them,
Victoria Arellano, a transgender woman and AIDS patient, died at a hospital in San Pedro after
not receiving her medication. The Washington Post reported: “As she vomited blood, fellow
inmates cared for her in vain” (Hernandez, Daniel). Immigrants face different kinds of situations,
as the meatpackers from the national’s largest meat processor, Tyson Foods Inc. where workers
are not allowed to unionize to claim for better options at work. Companies like Tyson,
Smithfield Foods and Conagra have profited from paying low wages, pushing production lines
faster and hiring workers who are much more willing to endure the hazardous conditions of a
meat-processing plant, industry experts say (Barboza, David). This example from the Tyson
Food Inc. can be seen in thousands of jobs in many cities all over the fifty one States. Some
labor researchers have found that employers would rather hire illegal immigrants, because they
will accept lower wages in cash, and have little power to redress abuses (Muwakkil, Salim).
These are some cases that mirror the struggle many immigrants are facing, and demonstrates that
the immigration issue is not something that began a couple of years ago. The immigration issue
Avila 20
began more than a hundred years ago, and the United States has performed programs—as the
guest worker—that haven’t been beneficial at any way for the immigrants who look for better
possibilities that they cannot find in their countries. Most of those countries have been connected
to the American economy and policies that have decreased their progress and have caused a
negative perspective for their citizens leading to a massive migration that at first was legal, but
now, due to the critical situations, has gone beyond the limits of the legality risking their lives
crossing the border from Mexico which has become in a bridge for immigrants from Guatemala,
Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, and Mexico itself.
Millions of immigrants took to the streets between March and May of 2006 in Los
Angeles, New York, Chicago and dozens of other U.S. cities in the largest social and political
demonstrations in American history (Dan La Botz). Today, immigrants are getting together to
claim for a better treatment at work, higher wages in some cases, end violent raids, and some
other things that have motivated them to go out to the streets. During the last decade the AFLCIO and Change-to-Win unions, particularly the Service Employees International Union (SIEU),
UNITE-HERE, and the Laborers (LAIUNA) have put much of their energy into the organization
of low-wage immigrant workers, documented or undocumented (Dan La Botz). Immigrant
unions are still organizing to get better conditions at work and become part of this country. Many
of them differ with other’s ideas but they are all immigrants at the end. Separated families like
the Arellano’s family, or injustices at work as the workers from Tyson Food Inc. are things they
want to stop. Today’s Immigrant’s struggle represents the farmworkers’ struggle in the past, not
with Cesar Chavez or Jessie Lopez De La Cruz to lead them, but other leaders who want to speak
out and emulate the commitment those leaders in the 60s had to fight back the injustices and
Avila 21
bring the equality, unity in a society where the difference between one another does not simply
exist.
Conclusion
1. When thinking about the farmworkers and recalling all the difficult experiences they
faced and lived mirrored in Cesar Chavez and Jessie Lopez’s recounts, we think about people
who worked hard and fought for their rights. Some of them foreign-born and some other nativeborn, there was no difference. In a situation when farmworkers didn’t have a contract, sometimes
they were hired for a certain period of time and when they ended their agreement with the
patrones, they had to start looking for something else to make more money and feed the family.
Wages were not good enough to buy food and living conditions were extremely poor. However,
leaders as Cesar Chavez and Jessie Lopez helped to bring the change and later—through the
FLOC—farmworkers began to experience better conditions, and most importantly, they realized
they could make a change by organizing and motivating people to join the cause. As a beginning
of immigration, migrant farmworkers began the first great struggle in this recount that states the
facts—as the way they occurred—that demonstrate there were strategies that didn’t benefit
immigrants from different countries in Latin America, and sometimes were abusive, causing a
massive migration to the United States throughout the last century and the struggle of workers
who decided to speak out facing these injustices.
2. Immigration—as stated before—has been an important issue throughout the American
history. And due to mistaken strategies from American government toward Latin American
countries especially, it has created unemployment and has caused a decrease in the economic
system that has forced people to migrate to other countries to look for better options. Many
people are shaping the history of this country and will continue to do it. So, the government
Avila 22
should pass a law to create equality among immigrants respecting the Human Rights of every
person—as described in the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights—and respecting the law
as well.
3. These two movements in struggle are examples of the consequences caused by the
same issue, immigration. Many people since the last century began come to the United States for
many reasons making this society a multicultural group of people where we all share the same
values and don’t want a difference between one and the other. Immigrants are making this land
theirs in a very special way. Some have decided to stay here forever while some other have
children and grandchildren already, leaving a new generation that will shape the future society.
When farmworkers struggled in the past, and when immigrants do now, they all see their
children growing up while they become in a motivation to speak out so that they don’t
experience what their parents have done already. When thinking about equality, only. When
thinking about agreement, when thinking about organization, and finally we achieved them, then
we will start to make President Lyndon B. Johnson’s dream come true. America, a Great Society.
Avila 23
Notes
Chicano: Term used for an American citizen of Mexican origin. Illustrate Oxford Dictionary.
DK Publishing, First American Edition, 1998: 147.
2
An important President who faced the greatest crisis ever lived in the American history. When
the great depression began, he gave banks federal loan to help them, but he refused to help
people who had lost their jobs because of the crisis. For further reading, read Presidents. United
States: DK Publishing Inc. Second Ed. 2003
3
After President John F. Kennedy was shot, President Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn as new
President of The United States. President Lyndon B. Johnson was characterized by his dream of
America as a Great Society, during his administration, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 seemed to be the path to his dream. However, his administration saw
too many protests against the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War that he finally, discouraged,
decided not to seek reelection.
4
Jessie Lopez De La Cruz experienced her leadership teaching English to farmworkers. Many of
them were not English-speakers which was an inconvenience when dealing with employers. She
used to deal with representatives of the communities representing the farmworkers and gained
the respect of many of them as an organizer.
Avila 24
Migratory Mexican field worker’s home
on the edge of a frozen pea field. Imperial
Valley, California.
Cesar Chavez (1927-1993)
A woman holds a poster: “Solidarity with
immigrants, not deportations.”
Anti-war march, 27 October 2007. New
York.
Author’s Personal Archives.
“Stop criminalizing immigrants!
Legalization, no repression!”
Anti-war march, 27 October 2007. New
York.
Author’s Personal Archives.
Avila 25
Works Cited
Barger, W. K. The Farm Labor Movement in the Midwest: Social Change and Adaptation
Among Migrant Farm Workers. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994.
Cantarow, Ellen, Susan Gushee O’Malley, Sharon Hartman Strom, Moving The Mountain.
Women Working for Social Change. The Feminist Press, 1980.
Collegiate Atlas of The World. United States: National Geographic Book Division, 2006
De La Cruz, Anamaria. “Interview With Jessie De La Cruz.” 29 & 30 November 2003.
Farmworker Movement Web Site. 1 November 2007.
<http://www.farmworkermovement.org>. Path: Essays by the Author; 1960’s.
“Fact Sheet: Common Myths About Undocumented Immigrants.” National Council of La Raza
Web Site. <http://www.nclr.org/content/publications/download/38093>. 28 October 2007.
Fjeldstad, Mary C. The Thoughtful Reader. United States: Thompson, Fourth Edition 2006.
Hernandez, Daniel. “The Rosa Parks of the Immigration Movement.” 21 August, 2007. AlterNet.
29 October, 2007. < http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/hernandez/60393>
Jackson Jacky, ed. Presidents. United States: DK Publishing Inc. Second Ed. 2003
La Botz, Dan. “A UFW Supporter 1966.” The Farmworker Movement. 1 November, 2007.
< http://www.farmworkermovement.org/essays/essays/Dan%20LaBotz%20Final.pdf>
---. “The Immigrant Rights Movement: Between Political Realism And Social Idealism.” New
Politics Vol XI No 3. 26 October 2007. William Paterson University.
< http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue43/LaBotz43.htm>
Lange, Dorothea. Migratory Mexican field worker’s home on the edge of a frozen pea field.
Imperial Valley, California. March 1937. Library of Congress: American Memory.
Washington D.C.
Avila 26
Lenin, Vladimir. “The Russian Revolution.” Concise History of The World: An Illustrated Time
Line. Ed. Neil Kagan. United States: National Geographic Society, 2006. 317.
Muwakkil, Salim. “A Shared Vision.” 19 June, 2006 issue. The Nation 24 Oct. 2007.
<http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060619&s=muwakkil>
Wagner, Cynthia G. “Demography. Another Great Migration.” The Futurist March-April 2000:
8-9.
Wucker, Michele. Lockout. Why America Keeps Getting Immigration Wrong When Our
Prosperity Depends On Getting it Right. PublicAffairs New York, 2006 .