Whenever some shit-kicking American politician tries to sound tough on immigration, one of the things you're likely to hear is that 1950s Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower was tough on immigration and pulled no punches when it came to deporting migrants.
Now, Donald Trump, possibly on the edge of going to prison, is once again shooting from the hip on the populist issue of immigration restriction. Right on cue, he has invoked Eisenhower's name, saying that if he is elected he will arbitrarily deport millions of "undocumented migrants", just like Eisenhower did:
Trump is wrong on Eisenhower. The US kicked out the Mexicans in Operation Wetback because the Mexican government told them to. pic.twitter.com/Iy49tFSNIh
— Colin Liddell (@cbliddell) June 11, 2023
What he is referring to here is "Operation Wetback," Eisenhower's supposed deportation of over a million Mexican migrants in 1954.
This has long been a trope on the Conservative, nationalist, and Neo-Nazi right(s). However, what is seldom pointed out, is that Eisenhower was not acting from a racialist, nationalist, ethno-nationalist, or even a civic nationalist impulse -- or even out of concern for the negative effect of mass immigration on American wages. He was simply doing it because the Mexicans were pushing him to kick the Mexicans out of America.
Yes, it was literally Mexico that was "building the wall" and making the USA pay for it in 1954!
This has long been a trope on the Conservative, nationalist, and Neo-Nazi right(s). However, what is seldom pointed out, is that Eisenhower was not acting from a racialist, nationalist, ethno-nationalist, or even a civic nationalist impulse -- or even out of concern for the negative effect of mass immigration on American wages. He was simply doing it because the Mexicans were pushing him to kick the Mexicans out of America.
Yes, it was literally Mexico that was "building the wall" and making the USA pay for it in 1954!
What Mexico wanted was extraterritorial
control of its labour force in the USA
Here is Wikipedia on the topic:
During World War II, the Mexican and American governments developed an agreement known as the Bracero program, which allowed Mexican laborers to work in the United States under short-term contracts in exchange for stricter border security and the return of illegal Mexican immigrants to Mexico. Instead of providing military support to the U.S. and its military allies, Mexico would provide laborers to the U.S. with the understanding that border security and illegal labor restrictions would be tightened by the United States. The United States agreed, based upon a strong need for cheap labor to support its agricultural businesses, while Mexico hoped to utilize the laborers returned from the United States to boost its efforts to industrialize, grow its economy, and eliminate labor shortages.
First of all, understand that the term "illegal Mexican immigrants" did not mean "illegal Mexican migrants to America" but instead "illegal Mexican migrants from Mexico." There was no such thing as an "illegal Mexican migrant to America" until 1965.
Under the 1924 Immigration Act, immigration from anywhere in the Western Hemisphere to America was allowed. Emigration from Mexico, however, was a different story. This was allowed or not allowed only with the permission of the Mexican government.
The 1924 Immigration Act is another favourite trope of White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis seeking to make the case that the USA was an "ethnostate" before the Jews supposedly ruined everything with the 1965 Immigration Act.
In fact, like most things in US politics, the 1924 Immigration Act was cobbled together to inconsistently represent the contradictory interests of various local state elites and electorates. The main driving factors behind the Act were:
Under the 1924 Immigration Act, immigration from anywhere in the Western Hemisphere to America was allowed. Emigration from Mexico, however, was a different story. This was allowed or not allowed only with the permission of the Mexican government.
The 1924 Immigration Act is another favourite trope of White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis seeking to make the case that the USA was an "ethnostate" before the Jews supposedly ruined everything with the 1965 Immigration Act.
In fact, like most things in US politics, the 1924 Immigration Act was cobbled together to inconsistently represent the contradictory interests of various local state elites and electorates. The main driving factors behind the Act were:
- The animosity felt by Californians towards East Asians
- The general animosity towards anarchists (most of whom were of Italian or East European Jewish backgrounds). This followed a spate of terrorist incidents.
- The farming interests in the Southern states that wanted cheap Mexican migrant labour.
Meanwhile, the bête noire of the nationalist Right, the 1965 Immigration Act, supposedly foisted on America by a "Jewish-controlled" political class, actually introduced restrictions on Hispanic migration for the first time.
Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:
The 1965 act also imposed the first cap on total immigration from the Americas, marking the first time numerical limitations were placed on immigration from Latin American countries, including Mexico.
Yes, it is literally amazing how "arse-over-tit" the Dissident Right has got its history of immigration!
The fact is that the major drag factor on America's hunger for cheap Hispanic labour was always the Mexican government, which realised early on that Mexico's massive pool of cheap labour was a fantastic way to attract inward investment. Allowing that labour to stray over the border was simply not in their interest, unless it could be regulated to their benefit.
When WWII came along, America was afflicted by severe labour shortages as millions left to join the military. This effectively gave Mexico the whip hand when Washington came knocking on its door and started the talks that set up the Bracero Program labour scheme.
What Mexico wanted was extraterritorial control of its labour force in the USA, while also benefiting from the capital that it generated, much of which would be sent home to Mexico. The Bracero Program was designed to do exactly this. Mexicans were licenced to work in the US, and thus able to be recalled, whilst sending back a lot of their earnings while they worked in the USA. This economic boost greatly contributed to Mexico enjoying a rising population with sharply rising living standards in the 1940s and 50s. Mexico greatly profited off WWII.
The thing that the Mexican government was most worried about, understandably, was illegal migrants from Mexico. Remember, these were only "illegal" in America when the US government chose to enforce its international agreement with the Mexican government.
Back to Wikipedia:
After [the Bracero Program] agreement was reached, the Mexican government continued pressuring the United States to strengthen its border security or face the suspension of the legal stream of Mexican laborers entering the United States. In October 1948, Immigration officials opened the Texas- Mexico border which allowed several thousand undocumented workers to cross the border. From here most workers were escorted by Border Patrol agents straight to the cotton fields. This event started the informal practice of using undocumented Mexican labor while the blacklist was in place. This incident was problematic due to the direct way the US government was involved in the managing and movement of these undocumented workers.
Yes that's right: the US government was basically pimping illegal labour, creating a diplomatic problem with its neighbour.
The Mexican response was to consider tighter border security, while insisting that America get its act together and fulfil its international agreements.
Alberto Maldonado Garcia, a phD candidate at Berkeley has studied the period in some detail:
As you can see, the Mexicans were making sincere if only partially successful efforts to police their border, while America was doing next to nothing on its side. This led to growing pressure from the Mexican side on the US government to finally clamp down and stop the "theft" of Mexican labour.
Indeed, the Texas Governor at the time, Allan Shivers, was apparently involved in reneging on America's international agreements:
In an attempt to get a handle on the situation, President Manuel Ávila Camacho ordered Lázaro Cárdenas (who served as National Defense Secretary for the duration of World War II) in February 1945 to determine how many military units would be needed to help migratory officials effectively supervise the border. Ávila Camacho’s order came two weeks after General Eulogio Ortiz, the commanding officer of the 7th Military Zone, which included northeastern Mexico, reported in a letter to the state governors that an estimated 200 undocumented braceros were entering the U.S. every day in his jurisdiction. General Ortiz then suggested that his fellow Zone Commanders cooperate with the state governors and local-level agrarian authorities to develop a strategy to curb undocumented entries into the United States.
But the military aid ordered by Ávila Camacho and desired by Ortiz appears to have never materialized. On December 18, 1945, the CTM – Confederación de Trabajadores de México, the national-level industrial labor union affiliated with the ruling PRI – affiliate in Mexicali reported that military patrols between that city and San Luis, Sonora might be necessary in order to stem the flow of migrant labor entering the United States. Two days later, Eugenio Elorduy, the president of the Baja California chapter of the National Chamber of Industry, recommended that four buses of army troops be assigned to the border. And in April 1946, General Ortiz repeated his plea for cooperation in a letter that was nearly identical to the one he had written in January 1945.
As you can see, the Mexicans were making sincere if only partially successful efforts to police their border, while America was doing next to nothing on its side. This led to growing pressure from the Mexican side on the US government to finally clamp down and stop the "theft" of Mexican labour.
John William Weber details this in his dissertation, "The Shadow of the Revolution: South Texas, the Mexican Revolution, and the Evolution of Modern American Labor Relations":
"The response to these complaints about the operation of the program and the continued reliance of many growers on undocumented labor came in mid 1954 when the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] moved to entrench the bracero program further by making it the only game in town. The lack of Border Patrol activity in South Texas remained a poorly guarded secret in the early 1950s. In 1952 the Mexican government filed an official complaint with the Department of State after learning that the Border Patrol had been removed from large swaths of South Texas."
Indeed, the Texas Governor at the time, Allan Shivers, was apparently involved in reneging on America's international agreements:
"Rumors circulated that the head of the Patrol ordered his officers to stay away from the South Texas farm of Governor Allan Shivers, a well-known and unapologetic employer of undocumented Mexican labor."
Cross-border labour enthusiast Allan Shivers
So, as you can see, Eisenhower's so-called decision to deport over a million braceros was actually a Mexican decision and one that was implemented in a long-overdue fashion due to constant American heel-dragging.
Eisenhower's concerns were probably to maintain good relations with his Southern neighbour at a time of rising international tensions with the Soviet Union, while also furthering the federal integration and centralisation of the United States over the often divergent interests of its states and state elites.
For Trump to imply that he could do something similar is simply ludicrous. For deportations to happen, the total cooperation of the recipient country is needed. Eisenhower had even more than that. After all, it was Mexico that drove the 1954 deportations.
____________________
No comments:
Post a Comment
All Comments MUST include a name (either real or sock). Also don't give us an easy excuse to ignore your brilliant comment by using "shitposty" language.