Avila 1
Pablo C. Avila
Dr. J. Elizabeth Clark and Dr. Lorraine Cohen
ENG101.2651 and SSS102.2654
10 December, 2007
Immigration And Struggle:
Two Important Issues From the Past And the Present
When thinking about immigration in the United States, we are bringing the topic into a
field of debate because of the situation many immigrants faced in the past and even today. In
Lockout, Michele Wucker argues, “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” (89). However, how is
the immigration issue being handled? Many people, especially activists in the immigration
movement today, believe that the conflict over immigration has been caused by the failure in
policies applied by American administrations throughout the last century. Among the immigrant
groups that were negatively affected by government policies in the past, were MexicanAmerican farmworkers and others who worked in the fields of big agriculture, representing one
major example during the 1960s. Another example are the political issues created by American
administrations towards Latin American countries. In the last fifty years these policies have
caused an unstable social situation, and the migration of many people to this country. Once here,
they are struggling to fight for better treatment when facing the law looking for an Immigration
Reform that has birthed many immigrant movements that seek their rights as foreigners.
Avila 2
The Struggle of Farmworkers
Farmworkers’ job is an important role to play in society. They pick crops, collect fruits
and grow vegetables. In Moving the Mountain, Ellen Cantarow describes, “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” (97). This decision was made because
growers needed cheap labor, targeting immigrants who came to the U.S. looking for better job
opportunities, but who ended up being exploited working hard and getting paid less. This group
of farmworkers was formed by people from different countries—especially Latin American
countries—but also by native-born people, Chicanos1, from southern cities in the United States
like California and Texas. Chicanos had their backgrounds in Mexico, old immigrants. All
farmworkers are divided into two main groups; migrant or seasonal workers. In The Farm Labor
Movement in the Midwest, W.K. Barger reports, “Migrant workers are 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” (20).
Differently, seasonal workers, work in one place only. They are always focus in a continuous
care of one place, in contrast to migrant workers, seasonal workers have, in some way, a secure
job for at least ten months a year (21).
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, migrant and seasonal farmworkers have
faced difficult times because they didn’t have money, due to low wages and jobs with poor
working conditions. Some of these poor and difficult conditions are mirrored in the experiences
Jessie Lopez, a leader in the Union Farm Worker, faced when child during the 1920s. In Moving
Avila 3
the Mountain, Ellen Cantarow reports, “De La Cruz did not begin political work until the age of
forty-two. But from childhood on, she was aware of the exploitative relations between big
growers and the workers who toiled in their fields” (98). In this excerpt, De La Cruz explains her
realization as a child about the difficulty of the situation and the struggle farmworkers had in
those years. De La Cruz experienced poverty in an extreme way and recalls it when she didn’t
have anything to eat while the break at the school as she says:
In ’33, we came up north to follow the crops because my brothers couldn’t find any work
in Los Angeles during the depression. I remember going hungry to school. I didn’t have a
sweater. I had nothing. I’d come to school and they’d want to know, “What did you have
for breakfast?” They gave us paper, to write down what we had! I invented things! We
had eggs and milk, I’d say, and the same things the other kids would write, I’d write.
(106)
Meanwhile, during the 1930s, President Herbert Hoover2, a millionaire, took office, but
his administration seemed unable to face one of the worst crises in American History. In 1929,
the Great Depression began. Between 1930 and 1933, the number of unemployed in the United
States rose from four million to more than thirteen million (Cantarow 102). This critical increase
on unemployment rates, of course, didn’t benefit farmworkers at all because many people lost
their jobs and a few of them kept them even in a lower paid. Farmworkers had faced extremely
poor conditions already and the Great Depression affected them even worse forcing some to
move away and look for other possibilities and others compete with other desperate farmworkers
(102). 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 (98).
Avila 4
Nevertheless, during the 1960s, almost at the end of the administration of President
Dwight D. Eisenhower and the beginning of the President Kennedy’s administration3,
farmworkers faced their poor working conditions and living situation with the raise of some
leaders—like Cesar Chavez and Jessie Lopez De La Cruz—who began the organization to fight
for their rights and look for improvements in the fields. This union joined both groups, migrant
and seasonal farmworkers, to fight primarily for better working conditions and higher wages.
Farmworkers had tried to organize in the past, but until Cesar Chavez founded the National
Farmworkers’ Association in 1962, they hadn’t been able to form a lasting union (Cantarow 123).
Their failure were caused by the violent strategies growers used to suppress strikes. Another
important reason was the language. English was not the first language for many farmworkers
because most of them were from other countries, immigrants. But the raise of these leaders as De
La Cruz and Chavez, their language was not a barrier anymore (123).
In Encyclopedia of American Social Movements, Immanuel Ness explains, “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” (822). Ness’s words represent the real situation of farmworkers; their job was one of
the poorest because their wages were extremely low. California, the place where most
farmworkers worked, was not a foreign land for Mexican immigrants especially because before
1846 it was part of the Mexican territory up until the war between the United States and Mexico
changed their relationships forever. In 1846, the U.S. President James K. Polk 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 (Jackson 20).
At first, he attempted to buy those lands, but his offer was turned down and, after a border battle
Avila 5
in the new state of Texas that caused the war between the two nations, those territories became
finally part of the United States (20). Once the war was over, with California under the control of
the American administration, agriculture in the United States was done by independent family
farmers who consumed what they cultivated (Ness 822). 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 (822).
Since then, the selling of lands caused a tremendous lack of security among farmworkers. This
war represents the historical reasons that motivated Mexicans to go back to their land and fight
for what they thought was still theirs. This situation caused a later migration that left future
native-born generations, Chicanos, whom later started to organize and fight for their rights
birthing what we know as movements.
Cesar Chavez and Jessie Lopez De La Cruz were two important leaders in the
farmworkers’ struggle. Their leadership was based on their first-hand. They both worked in the
fields and knew what the working and living conditions among farmworkers were. As Ellen
Cantarow describes, “Cesar Chavez was poor like the people the union organized. He was
brown-skinned like them. Like them, he had very little formal education. Jessie De La Cruz and
other organizers came from the same background” (124).
It wasn’t until the 1960s when, while farmworkers faced poor working and living
conditions, Cesar Chavez became one of the few leaders who dared to make change for the
farmworkers. He experienced the struggle and perfectly knew their needs. He was born near
Yuma, Arizona in 1927 and became a farmworker to help his family after reaching eighth grade
in school. His leadership began when, in 1952, he met Fred Ross and became involved with the
Community Service Organization, CSO (831). There he worked near Mexicans and Mexican
Avila 6
Americans. In 1962, he left the CSO to join the grape pickers due to their critical situation. Later,
he founded the Union Farm Workers in 1964. Using strikes, fasts, picketing, and marches,
Chavez was able to obtain contracts from a number of major growers (831). His leadership was
crucial when organizing farmworkers to fight for better working conditions. Jessie Lopez De La
Cruz, another important leader4, remarks in an interview with 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 recount 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.
Jessie Lopez De La Cruz’s experience in the fields 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 that she decided to join the group and become the first woman in the leadership of
the farmworkers organization. She says:
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, De La Cruz describes the way she got involved, but most importantly she
lets us know the ways Cesar Chavez motivated other people to join the union; he visited people
in their homes to encourage them to fight for their rights, because he had a big commitment to
Avila 7
changing the situation farmworkers were facing. De La Cruz became the first woman organizer;
her background in the fields indentified her as a great and real leader because she knew exactly
what farmworkers needed. She was born in 1919, to 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 (Cantarow 96). De La Cruz later 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 (129). Moreover, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz was a
great leader, a married woman, and a mother as well. Her experience was marked by the poverty
she 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. In Moving The Mountain, Ellen Cantarow explains, “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” (108). Being oppressed by
the society because of her womanhood, De La Cruz felt herself tied to one place only, with no
freedom at all, as she describes in Cantarow’s book; “When I was a girl, boys were allowed to go
out and have friends and visit there in the camp, and even go to town. But the girls—the mother
was always watching them.” (109) De La Cruz feels the huge difference the society does
between girls and boys, their different conditions and how those conditions affect their lives.
This issue was a tremendous challenge for De La Cruz, but what it is important is that it didn’t
defeat her because she fought for the cause she thought was right, overcoming the situation and
making a difference among the farmworkers, joining and supporting the union as a leader.
An important strategy farmworkers used in their struggle was boycotts. As De La Cruz
explains in an interview with Anamaria De La Cruz, “We boycotted mainly supermarkets. We
Avila 8
picketed. I remember picketing a Safeway store in Fresno. We were boycotting grapes, and
asking everyone not to shop there because they were selling grapes” (De La Cruz). De La Cruz
recalls how farmworkers used to go out in the streets to let people know what they were going
through in their jobs and to ask them not to buy grapes at the supermarket. In this way, many of
the customers who used to have fresh vegetables and fruits at 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 a decent way of living. They didn’t have a contract at first, which didn’t
allow them to assure a job for a certain period of time; their low wages were not enough to feed
their families. De La Cruz’s experience was a repeated experience among farmworkers, as she
explains in Cantarow’s book:
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)
De La Cruz’s experience mirrors the misery in which farmworkers lived; poverty was so
extreme that could even caused a child’s death. 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.
As boycotts and other strategies were applied, farmworkers began to get some results in
their struggle. Some of these were achieved while the Farm Labor Organizing Committee—
FLOC—continued the struggle. In The Farm Labor Movement in The Midwest, W.K. Barger
explains, “On an immediate level, FLOC workers now enjoy considerably improved conditions.
Avila 9
Since the 1978 strike, their wages rates have almost doubled” (175). Other results, during the
1970s among midwestern farmworkers, were the personal growth in people who got 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 farmworkers’ needs at all. What is clear at the end is
that this critical situation that caused farmworkers’ struggle, came after the war between the
United States and Mexico that, as the facts in history state, was an effect with the great migration
of people to the United States. Once here, a particular group, farmworkers, were affected 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 the American government
applied 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.
FLOC was important within the struggle of farmworkers. As Barger details in his book,
“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” (175). FLOC organized and supported
important events to call people’s attention to these conditions and motivate them to speak out;
one of those events was the 1978 strike. There are four main changes that midwestern
Avila 10
farmworkers had: improved working conditions, organization into a larger social structure, new
feelings of security, and personal growth (175).
The first change refers to some improvements that midwestern farmworkers saw, for
instance, in terms of housing and sanitary issues. In contrast to previous years when farmworkers
worked for low wages and poor living conditions, as De La Cruz explained, they started to
experience some changes that would improve their living conditions from extremely poor to
acceptable. Also, they are getting informed about their legal and civil rights, something that
before, they were not familiar with. Now, farmworkers know the advantages of a contract and
realize the good impact it is having on their own working conditions; that was something they
didn’t have in the past. All these changes were results of the constant struggle that the UFW with
Cesar Chavez as the head and later FLOC gained for farmworkers during the 1970s and 1980s.
The second main change mentioned is the organization of the 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; their
strength as a group increased and 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 177). This
second change for farmworkers meant a huge impact in society because they interact with other
people with the same goals. In the FLOC conventions they shared strategies and see thousands of
thousands of people joining their cause (177).
A new feeling of security was another major change among farmworkers. They all felt
they could make change by organizing and promoting their claims (178). This was an important
change in farmworkers’ attitudes. Then, they felt more self-confident at work to speak out when
Avila 11
things were not going well. As Jose Hinojosa says, “the bosses can’t treat us any way they want.
We now have the grievance” (178). They felt more confident not only to complain about things,
but also to talk to growers and get better working and living conditions. FLOC workers then
received full disclosure of conditions of employment, including the time period, place, pay rates,
and work activities (179).
A final change in farmworkers is personal growth. People felt more self-confident which
was, obviously, beneficial for the organization (179). Additionally, they encouraged other people
to join them in the cause. This change, linked to the third one, is very important because
farmworkers educated themselves about their situation and organized; whole families got
involved in FLOC due to this personal growth because workers invited them to the meetings and
conventions. Not only people, in the strikes, realized about the change, but also, families because
they saw their relatives organizing and calling people’s attention to get the results they wanted.
Most farmworkers felt more secure to speak out and look for a new future (179).
These four main changes were crucial in farmworkers’ struggle because they gained them
as a movement, by organizing workers in order to talk to growers and ask for better working
conditions that would result in better living conditions because if they had higher wages they
could afford the possibilities to buy food and feed their children and overcome the misery
situation they were all living in, as mirrored in De La Cruz’s experience. Overcoming those
situations of poverty a primary task for farmworkers and that is why they all organized to get
these results that didn’t come immediately. Cesar Chavez started the struggle continued by
FLOC and throughout the 70s and 80s farmworkers started to see the results to their efforts.
Avila 12
The Struggle of Immigrants
Immigration, as we mentioned before, has been an important issue throughout American
History. As the way farmworkers didn’t have good working conditions in the past, besides their
low wages, that resulted in terrible living conditions, immigrants today are having the same
problems. Because of a critical social and economic situation in Latin American countries many
Latino immigrants are coming to the United States looking for better opportunities and help their
families who stay in their countries, the same idea that invaded farmworkers’ struggle. Today,
documented and undocumented immigrants are in the middle of a battle looking for a solution
that maintains the immigrant movements, and the struggle performed by farmworkers before,
alive. This movement has its roots in the past, those policies that negatively affected immigrants
then are still affecting them today.
The immigrants’ movement has its deepest roots back in time when the war between the
United States and Mexico took place in 1846. Due to the President Polk’s desire to conquer
Mexican lands, and after a battle in the new state of Texas, a war that could have been avoided
began. This war, representative of the typical dispute between two neighbor-countries fighting
for territory, 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.
As Ellen Cantarow explains in her book, “A great migration began. Thousands of men and
women, their Indio heritage showing in the color of their skin, in the slight upward tilt of their
dark eyes, came north across the Mexican border to the United States” (101). Not only people
came for their own decision, but also, 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.-
Avila 13
Mexico War in 1847 (Dan La Botz). Since that moment, Mexican immigrants began to depend
on the United States’ needs.
Another root of the immigrants’ movement and, at the same time, one of the most
discriminatory actions in history performed by the American administration was the Chinese
Exclusion Act passed in 1882. This Act prevented Chinese immigrants from coming to the
United States and prohibited Chinese residents here from voting (Jackson 31). This action was
taken against the Chinese immigrants who came to the United States to work and look for
prosperity in their lives. In Introduction to Sociology, Anthony Giddens details, “Most [Chinese
immigrants] were men, who came with the idea of saving money to send back to their families in
China, anticipating that they would also later return there. Bitter conflicts broke out between
white workers and the Chinese when employment opportunities diminished” (343). The conflict
between Irish and Chinese immigrants marked the history with a discriminatory action that was
taken against the Chinese that, when the Exclusion Act was passed, marked a tremendous failure
in immigration policies applied by the United States.
Later on, in the early twentieth century, the migration of many people continued. The
migration—a group of people who go from one country or region to another one—from other
countries to the United States we have to divide the immigrants into two groups, the First Great
Migration and the Second Great Migration (Wagner 8). 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 (8).
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 (Lenin 317). Because of this war,
Avila 14
many people came to the United States to start a new life. During the last twenty years, and while
many new-arrivals from the First Great Migration became almost citizens with native-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 (Wagner 8). 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 from one another. 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 (8).
Throughout the twentieth century, the policies applied by the American administration
still negatively affected immigrants. The guest worker, for example, was a controversial program
involving immigrants. In New Politics, Dan La Botz explains, “During the World War I the
United States permitted 77,000 Mexicans to come to work in the United States, about half of
whom stayed on without permission after their contracts had ended. During the period from 1942
to 1964, to cover the labor shortages caused the Second World War and the Korean War, the
United States and Mexico cooperated to bring some 4.6 million Mexicans to work in the United
States. Under the law, guest workers were supposed to receive free housing, medical care,
transportation, and the prevailing wage.” (Dan La Botz). These benefits that guest workers were
supposed to receive were never given, and some of them were abused and subject to deportation
demonstrating a huge failure in immigration policies applied in the United States.
Today, 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 (Dan La Botz). Over
Avila 15
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 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 (Dan La Botz). 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: economic and employment reasons. Most Latin American countries are
poor and do not have stable systems of employment. This is the effect of many dictatorships
from the 1970s and on. In a lecture on 23 October 2007, in a Social Movements class, Dr.
Lorraine Cohen stated, “the United States has supported, through international policies, many
dictatorships within Latin American countries like Chile, Honduras, Paraguay, Brazil, and
Colombia.” This fact caused a huge crisis in their societies and forced people from middle and
lower classes to migrate to another country to look for better opportunities. The United States’
huge influence over Latin America has caused this situation; many people come to the United
Avila 16
States because it is a developed country with a high and stable economy. In The Thoughtful
Reader, Henry Tischler reports, “To be sure, there were those who had misgivings about the
immigrants. George Washington wrote to John Adams in 1794, “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” (118). Throughout
American history, the United States has performed many immigration policies that have
negatively affected immigrants, as the case of immigrant farmworkers and immigrants today.
Today, legal and illegal immigration rates are increasing tremendously birthing a battle of
opinions between documented and undocumented immigrants who ask for equal rights. The
National Council of la Raza is one of a large number of organizations throughout the United
States that seeks to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans and defends the position of
many undocumented immigrants within the United States who are considered lazy by myth, for
example, but instead contribute to this country as any other documented citizen. They present us
a number of facts that run counter to myths about undocumented immigrants from which we can
point out three important issues:
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
Avila 17
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,
and agriculture, report that they rely on these
hardworking migrants.
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
Avila 18
windfall from taxes paid by immigrants; the
Social Security Administration reports that it
holds approximately $420 billion from the
earnings of immigrants who are not in a
position to claim benefits.
(National Council of La Raza).
These three issues presented by the National Council of La Raza represent the social
conflict that immigration is causing. Undocumented immigrants are asking for Immigration
Reform that may solve the critical situation they are facing right now; however, the government
has not passed any laws that could benefit this group of people.
In New Politics, Dan La Botz explains, “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” (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 South American countries appear in a range from 86 to 95% (51) which differs
from the range 96 to 100% (51) 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 Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay, Brazil, and
Avila 19
Suriname in South America; and Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Jamaica, Cuba, and
Dominican Republic, in Central America have a lower middle Gross National Income per capita
in U.S. dollars ($826 – $3,255) (52). Some others 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) (52). 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, nevertheless, 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. Dan La Botz explains better this issue when he
says, “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 farms failed
and farmers and workers headed north to the United States in search of jobs” (La Botz). Even
though the statistics from the United States Department of Agriculture report, “Mexico’s
agricultural exports to the United States have more than tripled since 1993 reaching a record
$ 8.3 billion in 2005” (“Benefits of NAFTA”), it doesn’t seem to report the consequences that its
negative impact had on Mexican citizens, forcing 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. In America Latina:
Nuevos Lazos Comerciales, David Lewis states, “One of the major inequalities in terms of
competition between Latin American countries and the U.S. market is the subsidizes of the
American government on agriculture.” This inequality in trade will create a huge conflict and
people will lose their jobs because they will experience a decrease in their economy, causing
Avila 20
unemployment and the migration of people to other countries to look for the opportunities they
cannot find in theirs.
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 of immigration, the deportation of some
undocumented immigrants, and the complaints of some others about the unfair 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,
then, many reasons for the struggle many immigrants are having right now. Many organizations
are fighting for immigrants’ rights and are working for a change in laws to better treat them.
Immigration Reform 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 looks for the right to citizenship, the American dream, a
dream that some want to light and some others want to shut off.
Immigrants are speaking out, and taking the example from the farmworkers when they
organized to make the strikes and boycotts. Immigrants are going on marches. In May, 2006, a
large mass of immigrants went on a march. Dan La Botz describes the event when he says,
“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” (La Botz). It is true, they are all asking to stop deportations,
to stop violent raids in factories, or unfair treatment by federal agents. One major effect of these
actions is the separations of families. Parents are deported and children have no one else to stay
with, they suffer the physical absence of their parents and most of the times do not understand
Avila 21
the situation because of their short-age. In most cases, those parents have arrived to the United
States crossing the border in Mexico where they faced tremendous risks. Dan La Botz presents
us an experience with an undocumented immigrant. He details:
Samuel, who dares not to use his last name, spoke to a Methodist church group in
Cincinnati recently. Unable to find a job in Guatemala, he crossed the border illegally and
alone as a boy of sixteen and came to look for work in the United States. He didn’t
mention, to the Methodist the corrupt and violent Mexican police, the chicanery of the
coyotes, the robberies, beatings or sexual abuse that many immigrants experience, or the
dangers of the walk on the desert. Always modest and understated he simply paused for a
moment, raised his eyebrows and smiled and said, “It was dangerous.”
This experience of Samuel pictures the millions of experiences many immigrants faced
every single day, even right now. Samuel represents the millions of immigrants who marched on
May in 2006 to fight for their rights because the only thing immigrants are doing is to look for an
opportunity to work. These extreme conditions are similar to the ones of the farmworkers when
they didn’t have money to buy food and feed their children and sometimes had to face their death
because they didn’t have money to support them, not even to buy the basic food. Facing these
situation farmworkers and immigrants look for different ways to organize and speak out, make
other people to realize about their situation and let them know they have to do something about it,
birthing movements, a way to protest and fight for their rights.
Another major example of the struggle many immigrants, especially undocumented ones,
are going through is Elvira Arellano. A Mexican citizen who came to the United States crossing
the border from Mexico. She began to work with forged documents and was later warned to be
deported. With a child—an eight-year-old named Saul—who is an American citizen, the only
Avila 22
option she had to avoid deportation was to stay in a Methodist church in Chicago, a state where
she used to work as a cleaning woman in August 2006 (Hernandez). 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 (Hernandez). Later, she was deported to her country,
Mexico. Many people raised their voices about Arellano’s case, at the same time, many people
question the treatment the ICE Agents give immigrants under custody. In The Rosa Parks of The
Immigration movement, Daniel Hernandez details, “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).
Arellano’s experience, when deported, meant a huge event in the immigrant rights
movement. Her example represents the ones of the separated families, because her son Saul
wasn’t deported and stayed here. Her situation caused opinions with different views. In the
Editorial: Elvira Arellano And The Law, the Chicago Tribune reports, “Arellano is hardly
anonymous now. In fact, she has become something of a local symbol for those who most
ardently believe U.S. immigration law is patently unfair. That doesn’t mean her example is
helpful to their cause. It is not.” Nevertheless, in the article: The Rosa Parks of The Immigration
Movement, Daniel Hernandez shows a different view on Arellano’s case, “And I think
comparing Elvira Arellano to Rosa Parks is actually a sign of honor and respect, and an homage
to her name and what Ms. Parks stood for: justice, compassion, and equal protection under the
law. Ms. Parks was also denounced in her time—by people like you.” These two opinions
Avila 23
demonstrate the controversy of the topic, and at the same time, the huge impact Arellano’s case
had in the immigrant society. Her case, and other millions of immigrants’ cases are now under
the view of leader that lead the movement to fight for their rights. The ones who marched on
May in 2006 in many U.S. cities are emulating those strikes and boycotts that Cesar Chavez
along with De La Cruz used to organize to get the results they wanted and deserved. Those
results, the reform, better treatment when facing the law, and stop raids are primary concerns in
the immigrants’ movement.
One more example of what immigrants face is the meatpackers’ situation at the national’s
largest meat processor, Tyson Foods Inc. where workers are not allowed to unionize for better
options at work (Barboza). In his article: Meatpackers’ Profits Hinge On Pool of Immigrant
Labor, he, David Barboza declares, “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). This example from the Tyson Food Inc. can be seen in thousands of jobs
in many cities all over the fifty one States where immigrants are abused because they don’t have
documents, or because they don’t speak English. In A Shared Vision, Salim Muwakkil 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). These are some cases that mirror the struggle many immigrants are facing. The
immigration issue began more than a hundred years ago, and the United States has created
programs—as the guest worker—that haven’t been beneficial at any way for 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
Avila 24
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.
There are many reasons for immigrants to fight for their rights. All those injustices on the
meatpackers’ experiences, those deaths registered under the ICE agents custody, and the negative
effect of policies applied by the American administration that, as the facts have demonstrated,
are not from now, but from a long time ago are mean a huge motivation for leaders to emulate
Cesar Chavez and De La Cruz’s example that knew how to organize a group of people and got
the results they wanted. These efforts made by immigrants have birthed a number of
organizations and movements that seek to speak out.
In New Politics, Dan La Botz points out, “During the last decade the AFL-CIO and
Change-to-Win unions, particularly the Service Employees International Union (SIEU), UNITEHERE, and the Laborers (LAIUNA) have put much of their energy into the organization of lowwage immigrant workers, documented or undocumented” (La Botz). Immigrant unions are still
organizing to get better conditions at work and become part of this country. 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 bring the equality, unity in a society where the difference between one another does not
simply exist.
Avila 25
Conclusions
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 American
history. And due to the failure of policies applied by American administrations towards 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 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
Avila 26
respecting the law as well. In a lecture on 26 November 2007, in a Social Movements class, Dr.
Lorraine Cohen stated, “the government is supposed to pass and make policies that are good for
the people.” With this view, the American administration of George W. Bush, has the
responsibility to improve the situation and control the immigration issue before it turns to a
bigger social conflict.
3. These two movements in struggle are examples of the consequences caused by the
same issue, immigration. Many people, since the last century began to 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 differences between one another. Immigrants are making this land
theirs in a very special way. Some have decided to stay here forever, while others 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 that future generation doesn’t
experience what their parents have done already. If there is equality, only. If there is organization,
and finally if we achieved them, then we will start to make President Lyndon B. Johnson’s dream
come true. America, a Great Society.
Avila 27
Notes
Chicano: Term used for an American citizen of Mexican origin. Illustrated Oxford Dictionary.
New York: DK Publishing, 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. New
York: DK Publishing Inc. Second Ed, 2003
3
After President John F. Kennedy was shot, President Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as the
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 paths to his dream. However, because his
administration saw too many protests against the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, he
finally, discouraged, decided not to seek reelection.
4
Jessie Lopez De La Cruz showed 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 local growers of the communities representing the farmworkers. Thus, she
gained the respect of many of them as an organizer.
Avila 28
Appendix: Photographs
Migratory Mexican field worker’s home
on the edge of a frozen pea field. Imperial
Valley, California.
Cesar Chavez Day 2002. 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 29
Works Cited
“America Latina: Nuevos Lazos Comerciales.” Fortune: Special Edition. CNN. Atlanta. 1 Dec.
2007
Latin America: New Commercial Relationships. This show presented an analyzed context of the
Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Peru. This issue was another example of
the inequality competition between the markets in the U.S. and Latin American’s markets. This
show, hosted by Alberto Padilla, gives detailed and reliable information in many economic
issues. I used this source because CNN always a reliable source.
Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, and Richard Appelbaum. Introduction to Sociology. New
York – London: 2007.
The text from Giddens’s was rich in deep analysis about Global Migration. One of the major
reasons I considered important is the extensive statistical information it contains, which helped
me to better understand why people migrate and how they did it. The sociological thinking was a
vital tool to understand and interiorize the controversial issue of immigration.
Barboza, David. “Meatpackers’ Profits Hinge On Pool of Immigrant Labor.” 21 December 2007.
The New York Times. <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07EFD/
/8113EF932A15751C1A9679C8B63>
David Barboza, a reporter from the New York Times, shows an important view of the situation
of the meatpackers that represent the situation that many immigrants are experiencing today. The
articles from this source, the New York Times, are always well-argued, reliable, and trustworthy.
Barger, W. K. The Farm Labor Movement in the Midwest: Social Change and Adaptation
Among Migrant Farm Workers. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994.
Avila 30
This source, by W. K. Barger, shows me a strong and detailed view about farmworkers. Using
reliable facts to support his ideas, the author gives an overview of the situation farmworkers
faced and how their struggle began to see some results. I used this source because it also presents
me with positive changes farmworkers experienced and the way those changes motivated them
to keep on going with their struggle.
“Benefits of NAFTA Power Point Presentation.” fas.usda.gov. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
June 2006. <http://www.fas.usda.gov> Path: Home; Issues and Policies; Trade Policy;
Trade Agreements; Free Trade Agreements & North American Free Trade Agreement.
This Power Point Presentation about the North American Free Trade Agreement—NAFTA—
gives me an analysis made by the U.S. government in terms of this issue. I used this source
because it totally contradicts the trustworthy information given by Dan La Botz. It shows two
different perspectives on the same issue; this contrast brought a better analysis of one cause of
the massive migration ideas developed on this paper.
Cantarow, Ellen, Susan Gushee O’Malley, and Sharon Hartman Strom, Moving The Mountain.
Women Working for Social Change. New York: The Feminist Press, 1980.
Ellen Cantarow gives a strong overview of the farmworkers struggle. She has a PhD. in
comparative literature from Harvard University, which makes her capable of analyzing the
experiences faced by Jessie Lopez De La Cruz, an important leader for the farmworkers.
Moreover, it gives me an inner perspective on how farmworkers lived.
“Cesar Chavez Day 2002.” La Prensa San Diego. 29 March 2002. <http://www.laprensasandiego.org/archieve/march29-02/chavez1.htm>
Avila 31
I had chosen another picture of Cesar Chavez, however, I looked for a different one and this
seemed to be the right one. I chose this picture because I can see the quiet and peaceful face of
Chavez. His face in this picture reflects the commitment he had with his fellows farmworkers.
Collegiate Atlas of The World. United States: National Geographic Book Division, 2006
This reference book from the National Geographic Society brings a recent, reliable, and detailed
statistical view of the world in terms of economy and literacy rates. I chose this book because it
has a 2005 estimate that permits me to know the actual situation of Latin American countries as
an average.
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.
In this interview with Jessie Lopez De La Cruz, I discovered inner feelings about her personal
life in relation to the farmworkers’ movement. She recalls important events in her life that were
crucial, and, she lets the reader know the tremendous commitment she had when fighting for the
farmworkers’ rights.
“Elvira Arellano And The Law.” The Chicago Tribune Editorial. 17 August 2007.
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi0608170087aug17,1,2309585.story?coll/
/=chi-photo-front&ctrack=3&cset=true>
In contrast to Hernandez’s article, this editorial shows a different view on Arellano’s case. It
analyzes her as “lawbreaker,” only. This view gave me a different way to analyze her situation
and experience in relation to the movement today. Coming from a reliable source, this article is
well-argued.
Avila 32
“Fact Sheet: Common Myths About Undocumented Immigrants.” National Council of La Raza
Web Site. 28 October 2007. <http://www.nclr.org/content/publications/download/38093>.
The National Council of La Raza offered me an excellent view, with a splendid and
understandable format, of the facts and myths about undocumented immigrants. Supported by
reliable and truthful sources, I realized many things I didn’t know. I thought it was important to
include a few points from the sheet for the reader to clearly comprehend the real situation many
immigrants, especially undocumented ones, are facing now.
Hernandez, Daniel. “The Rosa Parks of the Immigration Movement.” 21 August, 2007. AlterNet.
29 October, 2007. <http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/hernandez/60393>
Daniel Hernandez is a staff writer at the LA Weekly, and regularly writes about immigration. His
article provided me with a clear connection between two movements; the Civil Rights movement
in the past represented by Rosa Parks and the Immigrant Rights movement today represented by
Elvira Arellano. Comparing these figures helped me to understand and clarify the idea of
connecting both movements, in this case, the Farmworkers in the past with the Immigrant Rights
movement in the present.
Jackson Jacky, ed. Presidents. New York: DK Publishing Inc., 2003
This reference encyclopedia of U.S. Presidents gives a detailed overview of each one of them,
giving me good and reference points to understand their administrations, important decisions,
and important events during their presidencies.
La Botz, Dan. “A UFW Supporter 1966.” The Farmworker Movement. 1 November, 2007.
<http://www.farmworkermovement.org/essays/essays/Dan%20LaBotz%20Final.pdf>
Avila 33
Dan La Botz is an important figure in the Immigrant Rights Movements. I chose this
conversation because he describes his beginnings as an activist, but most importantly, because he
shares how he got his family involved in the movement as well.
---. “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>
I consider this source one of my major sources for this paper. In this long text, I discovered vital
information, as well as statistical evidence about immigration throughout American history. Well
stated, supported, and developed, Dan La Botz tells me how immigration has been an important
issue in American history.
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. <http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/aug22.html>
This picture from the Library of Congress shows the exact way in which we can imagine a
farmworker in the 1930s. In my opinion, it wasn’t enough to talk about farmworkers, but to show
a picture of their reality and the way they dressed due to their economical situation helps the
reader to better understand what their position in society was.
Lorraine, Cohen. “Immigrant Rights Movement.” Course notes. Social Movements. Department
of Social Sciences. LaGuardia Community College. 23 October 2007.
Dr. Lorraine Cohen has a strong view of the movements in the past during the American history.
Her arguments to develop and support her ideas are extremely reliable and stated in trustworthy
sources as well. When discussing the immigration issue in class, she developed many important
Avila 34
and new ideas for me; those ideas were crucial for me to better understand some of the reasons
for this controversial issue in order to develop this paper.
---. “Women’s Movement.” Course notes. Social Movements. Department of Social Sciences.
LaGuardia Community College. 26 November 2007.
Muwakkil, Salim. “A Shared Vision.” 19 June, 2006 issue. The Nation 24 Oct. 2007.
<http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060619&s=muwakkil>
Salim Muwakkil is a recognized writer about African-American issues, and in this case,
Immigration. He is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, a well-known paper in the US. His
article not only presents background information, but also, gives me a strong point of view in
terms of deep analysis on this important issue, a major reason to be considered a reliable and
valuable source for this paper.
Ness, Immanuel. Encyclopedia of American Social Movements. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharp,
2004.
This encyclopedia provided me with a lot of information of social movements. Analyzing their
impact and why they fought for. This source gave me a detailed view of the farmworkers’
movement. I considered it important because it brings the importance of these movements in
history, explaining the reasons and results gained.
“The Russian Revolution.” Concise History of The World: An Illustrated Time Line. Ed. Neil
Kagan. United States: National Geographic Society, 2006. 317.
I chose this essay because it pictures the terrible way in which the Russian Revolution happened
and how people were affected by. I considered among other factors, this Revolution as a reason
for people to migrate and look for better opportunities and sometimes refugees in another
countries.
Avila 35
Tischler, Henry. “The United States: Land Of Immigrants.” The Thoughtful Reader. Fjeldstad,
Mary C. ed. United States: Thompson, Fourth Edition 2006.
The articles found in Professor Fjeldstad’s book were really interesting, but more importantly,
trustworthy. When I read the article by Henry Tischler, I found important statistics and historical
facts about immigration that I considered important to include on this paper.
Wagner, Cynthia G. “Demography. Another Great Migration.” The Futurist March-April 2000:
8-9.
This web site is a reliable source because it presents reliable facts and statistics to support the
points presented in the article. Cynthia G. Wagner—author—analyzes in depth the points argued
by George J. Borjas in his last book, Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American
Economy from Harvard University. The statistics presented are valuable for the better
understanding of the first and second Great Migrations.
Wucker, Michele. Lockout. Why America Keeps Getting Immigration Wrong When Our
Prosperity Depends On Getting it Right. New York: PublicAffairs, 2006.
Michele Wucker develops important ideas about immigration within the United States in her
book. When I read the table of contents, it really called my attention and when reading her point
of view, I understood important points about immigration in terms of policies applied by the U.S.
government. She has lectures about this issue and has developed important points about it as well.