March 4, 1970
Page 5954
S. 3545 – INTRODUCTION OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ACT, 1970
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, to require an immigrant alien to establish and maintain a permanent, bona fide residence as a condition for entering and remaining in the United States, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the RECORD following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, all immigrants to the United States must generally have valid immigrant visas upon any entry or reentry to the United States. Exempted from this general rule are immigrants who are returning to an unrelinquished lawful permanent residence in the United States after a temporary absence abroad not exceeding 1 year. Such persons are issued a Form I-151, generally referred to as a "green card" and by regulation of the Attorney General are permitted to use this "green card" in lieu of an immigration visa or reentry permit. The Attorney General has and clearly should continue to have authority to promulgate such regulations.
This bill is directed at an outgrowth and abuse of the above regulations concerning the "greencarder" who is classified as an alien immigrant but who does not, in fact, maintain a bona fide permanent residence in the United States. This type of "greencarder" continues to reside in a foreign country and commutes daily or frequently to work in the United States. The Immigration and Nationality Act normally requires such aliens to obtain an immigrant visa or reentry permit for each entry into this country. However, since these commuters or "greencarders" were primarily aliens working in U.S. border towns and living in contiguous foreign territory, an "amiable fiction" was created whereby employment was equated with permanent residence.
Despite the fiction that the commuter is an immigrant, it is clear that what really has been established is a work permit system. This "amiable fiction" in its early years applied only to daily commuters in border towns. More recently, however, it has been extended far beyond border towns to seasonal workers who stay in the United States for longer periods of time. However applied, it is still a fiction, a product of bureaucratic accommodation.
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
A count made by the Immigration Service on October 31, 1969, indicates over 49,000 "greencarders" crossed the Mexican border on that day alone. It is important, moreover, to note that in the past few years there has been a large increase in the number of seasonal workers who enter this country to follow the crops for several weeks or months, and then return to their homes in Mexico. The number of seasonal workers has never been definitely established. Estimates run from 100,000 to 400,000. We do know, however, that the numbers are high and that the presence of these workers has an adverse economic and social effect on American labor.
EXTENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS
The extent of the economic and social problems resulting from the commuter system has been documented in a report prepared by the U.S. Department of Labor for the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration. I ask unanimous consent that pages 113-130 of this report be reprinted in the RECORD following my remarks. They are well worth reading. The report correlates the employment of commuter aliens with low wages and chronic unemployment among domestic workers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Characteristic of this data is a study made in Laredo, Tex. At the time of the survey, unemployment was 11.3 percent of the total domestic labor force. Two large garment manufacturing firms were found to employ 88 commuters as sewing machine operators at the very time the Texas Employment Service listed 156 U.S. sewing machine operators as unemployed. A comparison of wages paid by firms employing only U.S. workers was found to be 38 percent higher than the wages paid by firms employing commuters in identical occupations.
Another Labor Department report submitted to former Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz by a high-level departmental fact-finding group which visited Delano, Calif., in May of 1968, spells out additional odious economic, social, and administrative problems stemming from the commuter system. This report found, among other things, that commuters were in fact being used as strikebreakers to the detriment of American workers. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this report be printed in the RECORD following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 3.)
Mr. MUSKIE. The 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act place a limitation of 120,000 on total annual immigration to the United States from all nations in the Western Hemisphere. Given this limited quota, it seems unfair that a single one of these 120,000 positions be used by any person who does not intend to come to permanently and physically live, work in, and become a part of American society.
The legislation I am introducing today recognizes that the commuter problem will be eliminated only by specific congressional action. In a recent article appearing in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law – volume 1, No. 2, spring 1969 – Mr. Charles Cordon, General Counsel for the US. Immigration and Naturalization Service, states:
It is unlikely that there will be any significant changes in the administrative approach to the commuter problem. As I have noted, proposals to end or modify the program have been rejected by the administrators on the ground that they have been enforcing the will of Congress.
Consequently, it may be expected that unless changes are enacted by Congress the alien commuter program will continue to operate as it has for the past 40 years. Thus, if changes are to be made, they apparently will have to be accomplished by new legislation.
I believe there is much merit to the argument that border communities are integrated economic units. Our border towns need the services of Canadian and Mexican workers. Many businessmen depend upon residents of Canada and Mexico for much of their sales. Conversely, Canadian and Mexican border towns rely heavily on the incomes of commuters. Nonetheless, I believe that Canadian and Mexican residents working in the United States should not be exploited and that their presence should not depress our own labor standards. The legislation I am introducing reflects these realities. It does not propose to bar alien commuters from working in the United States.
Specifically, my bill:
First. Would redefine the term "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" under the Immigration and Nationality Act. I intend by this redefinition and other amendments to make it clear that all immigrants after initial admission must permanently and physically reside in the United States. In short, it is my express intent to abolish the commuter system.
Second. Would establish a nonresident work permit system. By recognizing the interdependence of border communities this new form of border crossing authorization is designed for use by nonresident aliens who wish permanent employment in U.S. border towns. Accordingly, its use will be limited to authorized work locations not more than 20 miles from the U.S. border. This provision, I believe, will preserve freedom of movement and a healthy interconnection between the economies of our border towns. At the same time we abolish one of the abuses of the commuter system – the impact of the farther-ranging "green card" commuter – which has no relationship to the interconnection of our border economy and which has been disruptive and harmful to nonresident American workers.
Work permits would be issued only after the Secretary of Labor certified that American workers are not available and, if none are available, that the wages and working conditions of Americans similarly employed would not be adversely affected. I have included a provision for periodic review of such certifications. My intention is to give the Secretary of Labor wide discretion in determining under what conditions work permits should be granted or withdrawn. Specifically, I have in mind situations where work-permit holders are used as strike breakers. In such cases the Secretary of Labor would revoke the work permit. In brief, I would grant to the Secretary of Labor authority to promulgate such rules and regulations as he feels are needed to implement these amendments.
Third. The bill would establish a 2-year grace period during which time the present commuter system would be phased out. I recognize that a practice of 40 years standing cannot be abolished overnight without hardship on those who have heretofore attained commuter status. In order to deal fairly and humanely with the many thousands of commuters who have relied on present practice, my bill would provide for a reasonable grace period during which all present commuters must either, first, move to the United States, thus becoming bona fide residents, or second, transfer to a nonresident work permit status. Should neither step be taken within that 2-year grace period, their commuter status would be terminated. No new commuters would be admitted after the effective date of this act. During the 2-year grace period all existing commuters will be subject to the same rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor vis-a-vis work permit holders.
Fourth. There is evidence that a large number of commuters under the provisions of this bill would make a bona fide move to the United States. I fully recognize that such moves are difficult and in many cases would presuppose the moving of entire families.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service, for immigration purposes, would extend to an entire family the same priority date as their U.S. "green card" principal. This would move the families of green card holders high up on the immigration waiting list and considerably lengthen the waiting period of immigrants presently on the list who wish to enter the United States from the Western Hemisphere. To reduce or minimize this period of additional waiting, my bill would authorize a total of 12,000 numbers to be added to the Western Hemisphere numerical limit for the use of new permanent residents during the 2-year period following the enactment of this act.
Fifth. This legislation would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by eliminating the present exemption applicable to employers from the so-called "harboring" provisions of section 274 (a) (4). The effect of this proposed amendment would make it a criminal offense for employers willfully or knowingly to induce the entry of any alien not lawfully entitled to enter or reside in the United States. It is my intention that section 274(a) (4), as amended by my proposal, will also apply to employers who knowingly employ, among others, nonresident "work permit" holders who are no longer entitled to stay in the United States, or who are working beyond 20 miles of the border, as well as aliens who are in the United States on a so-called "72-hour" visitors card – Form I-186.
Sixth. This bill would establish a new civil action provision, which may be invoked in a Federal court by any person, or his representative, who has been aggrieved by any other person as a result of violations of these amendments. For example, if an employer, 75 miles from the border, knowingly hired an alien who was in the United States on a "72-hour" visitors card or hired an alien "work permit" holder, any person aggrieved by the hiring of such an alien would by this legislation have the right to seek redress in the nearest Federal court.
Seventh. As mentioned above, there is evidence that many commuters and their families would move to the United States. Recognizing that such a mass movement would have an impact on border town school systems, my bill would authorize on a one-time basis only, $25 million for the school systems affected by provisions of this act, as determined by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Eighth. In addition, all possible manpower and employment assistance should be given. Specifically, I have in mind that the Secretary of Labor, either directly or through the appropriate State public employment service, should provide manpower training and employment assistance to all commuter families where the need exists. Because it is unlikely that such families will know that training and employment assistance is available, I would urge that the Secretary of Labor, working with information provided by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, seek out such commuters and inform them and their families of training and employment opportunities. To assure that such assistance is provided my bill would authorize an additional $25 million in Manpower Act – MDTA – funds.
By finding commuter families, developing their abilities through training, and matching them with jobs, we can significantly ease the impact of the move to the United States.
Mr. President, I urge early and favorable consideration of this bill. I am fully aware how complex are the human, economic, and legal problems to which this bill would apply. I can assure you, however, that much thought and expert consultation has been devoted to devising a bill that would bring a greater measure of social justice to the inhabitants of the Southwest, and especially those along both sides of the Mexican-American border.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the bill and other material will be printed in the RECORD, as requested by the Senator from Maine.
The bill (S. 3545) to require an immigrant alien to maintain a permanent residence as a condition for entering and remaining in the United States, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. MUSKIE (for himself and other Senators), was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 3545
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1970".
IMMIGRANTS
SEC. 2.(a)Section 102(a) (20)of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (20)) is amended to read as follows
"(20) The term ‘lawfully admitted for permanent residence' means the status of an immigrant who
"(A) has been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States in accordance with the immigration laws;
"(B) at the time of making an application for an immigrant visa, intends to reside permanently in the United States; and
"(C) following his admission into the United States as a permanent resident, thereafter permanently and physically resides in the United States; such status not having changed."
(b)Section212 (a)of such Act is amended
(1) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (31) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon; and
(2) by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph
"(32) Any alien who seeks to procure, has sought to procure, or has procured an immigrant visa without any intent to reside permanently in the United States."
(c)Section 221 (a) (1) of such Act is amended by inserting after "section 222" the following: "(including the statement and oath required by subsection (a) (2) of such section) ".
(d)Section 222 (a) of such Act is amended
(1) by inserting after the subsection designation "(a)" the following: "(1)";
(2) by striking out the following: "whether or not he intends to remain in the United States permanently;" and
(3) by inserting at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
"(2) Each immigrant shall sign a separate statement, under oath, at the end of such application that he intends to reside permanently in the United States. The statement of such intent shall be considered a material fact of the application."
(e)Section 241 (a) of such Act is amended–
(1) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (18) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and "or"; and
(2) by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
"(19) was admitted as an immigrant and failed to maintain the immigrant status in which he was admitted or to which it was adjusted pursuant to section 245, or to comply with the conditions of such status."
(f) The introductory matter preceding paragraph (1) of section 244(a) of such Act is amended by inserting after "suspension of deportation" the following: "(which application shall include a statement signed by the alien, under oath, that he intends to reside permanently in the United States) ".
(g) Section 245 (a) (1) of such Act is amended by inserting after "such adjustment the following: "(which application shall include a statement signed by the alien, under oath, that he intends to reside permanently in the United States) ".
SEC. 3. Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended–
(1) by striking out of subsection (a) (4) the colon and the following: "Provided, however, That for the purposes of this section, employment (including the usual and normal practices incident to employment) shall not be deemed to constitute harboring"; and
(2) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
"(c) (1) A person, or his representative, who is aggrieved by another person who commits an act in violation of clause (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subsection (a) of this section, may commence a civil action, without regard to the amount in controversy, in the judicial district in which the defendant resides, has his principal place of business, or in which the defendant may be found.
"(2) If the court finds that the defendant has committed any act in violation of any such clause, it shall order the defendant to cease such violation immediately, and grant such other relief as the court considers appropriate. Failure to obey an order may be punished by the court as contempt of the court."
NONRESIDENT WORK PERMITS
SEC. 4. (a) Section 101 (a) (15) (H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
“or (iv) who is going to commute regularly to the United States to perform skilled or unskilled services or labor at a point not more than twenty miles away from a border between the United States and the foreign country of residence of such alien; ".
(b) Section 214(e) of such Act is amended–
(1) by inserting after the designation "section 101(a) (15) (H)" the following: "(i), (ii), or (iii) "; and
(2) by inserting after the first sentence the following new sentence: "The question of importing an alien as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a) (15) (H) (iv) in any specific case or specific cases shall be determined by the Attorney General, upon petition of the person who intends to employ such alien, and only after the Secretary of Labor has certified to the Attorney General that (1) there are not sufficient workers in the United States who are able, willing, qualified, and available at the time and at the place to which the alien is destined to perform such skilled or unskilled services or labor, and (2) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of the workers in the United States similarly employed."
(c) (1) Chapter 7 of title II of such Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
"TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS
"SEC. 265A. The status of an alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant under section101 (a) (15) (H) (iv)shall terminate when the employment with the employer petitioning for the admission of such alien ends. The employer filing the petition for such alien, shall, within five days after the alien ceases working for such employer, notify the Attorney General in writing that the employment has terminated and the date of such termination. The employer shall also furnish such additional information as the Attorney General may require."
(2) The table of contents of such Act is amended by inserting between items 265 and 286 the following new item:
"SEC. 265A. Termination of employment status."
(d) Section 266 of such Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new Subsection:
"(e) Any employer who fails to give the written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265A, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $200 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both."
(e) (1) Chapter 9 of title II of such Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new Section:
"REVIEW OF NONIMMIGRANT LABOR CERTIFICATIONS
"SEC. 293. Not less than once every six months, the Secretary of Labor shall review the certification he has made under the second sentence of section 214(c) on behalf of an alien admitted as a nonimmigrant under section 101 (a) (15) (H) (iv). If upon review the requirements of such sentence are no longer met, the Secretary of Labor shall revoke such certification and shall so notify the Attorney General immediately, and the alien shall be subject to deportation. The Secretary of Labor shall have authority to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out his duties under such sentence and this section."
(2) The table of contents of such Act is amended by inserting after item 292 the following new item:
"SEC. 293. Review of nonimmigrant labor certifications."
(f) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence prior to the date of enactment of this Act (as such term was defined in Section 101(a) (20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act prior to such date) may be reclassified, if otherwise eligible, as a nonimmigrant alien under section 101(a) (15) (H) of such Act, as amended by this section.
WESTERN HEMISPHERE NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS
SEC. 5. During the two-year period following the date of enactment of this Act, beginning on the first day of the first month following such date, a total of 12,000 aliens may be classified as special immigrants, as defined by section 101 (a) (27) (A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which total shall be exclusive of special immigrants who are immediate relatives of United States citizens as described by section 201(b) of such Act and shall be in addition to the total authorized by section 21 (e) of the Act of October 3, 1965.
ASSISTANCE TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS
SEC. 6. In order to minimize the impact upon school districts resulting from the provisions of this Act, there is authorized to be appropriated to the Commissioner of Education an amount not to exceed $25,000,000, to be administered by the Commissioner for operating expenses of school districts determined by the Commissioner to have an increased enrollment as a result of the provisions of this Act. The Commissioner shall distribute the funds authorized by this section, in such manner and under such conditions as he may determine, on an equitable basis after considering the impact of the additional numbers of children enrolled in the schools of each. local educational agency as a result of this Act and the amount appropriated pursuant to this Act. Such amount shall remain available until expended.
MANPOWER TRAINING
SEC. 7. There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Labor an amount not to exceed $25,000,000, to be expended for manpower development and training programs authorized by the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962, title I of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, or any other manpower development and training program administered by or through the Department of Labor, for aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence prior to the date of enactment of this Act, and their families. The Secretary shall distribute the funds authorized by this section, in such manner and under such conditions as he may determine, on an equitable basis after considering the numbers of such aliens and their families locating in any State.
APPLICABILITY
SEC. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the amendments made by Section 2 of this Act shall apply only to an alien who has not been granted an immigrant visa prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) The amendments made by section 2 of this Act shall apply, commencing 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, to any immigrant who was granted an immigrant visa prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
EXHIBIT 2
THE "COMMUTER" PROBLEM AND LOW WAGES AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN AMERICAN CITIES ON THE MEXICAN BORDER
(Prepared for the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration by The Bureau of Employment Security, Office of Farm Labor Service, U.S. Department of Labor, April 1967)
For many years the American Government has permitted alien immigrants to the United States to reside in Mexico and Canada and commute to jobs in the United States without losing their immigrant status. In effect, employment is equated with residence. This practice has been bitterly opposed by residents of U.S. towns on the Mexican border. They feel the Mexican immigrants are not really immigrants to the United States – they only enjoy the material benefits of working for U.S. wages and working conditions while living in Mexico where living standards and costs are much less. With lower living costs than U.S. residents, alien commuters are able, it is argued, to accept less pay than reasonable for U.S. residents to accept. Thus wage rates are undercut and American workers suffer.
It is not just that the commuters settle for lower wages and a lower living standard. They also avoid much of the costs of public services in the United States, some of which they enjoy: public highways, medical and police protection services, shopping facilities, and sometimes even schools. This further reduces the real income of U.S. residents.
Opposition to the alien commuter was succinctly expressed in a February 3, 1961, resolution of the Texas AFL-CIO Executive Board that is typical of feeling on the border.
"The citizens along the U.S.-Mexican border ... are the victims of the unfair competition for jobs of border crossers who commute daily ... from the low cost-of-living areas south of the border. These people are willing to work at a wage which is insufficient to provide a decent standard of living for the American citizen living in the United States.
"The ‘commuters,' moreover, have at times been used as strikebreakers in an effort to destroy unions of American citizens ...
"There can be no hope that thousands of American citizens living in the Rio Grande Valley or El Paso or other border cities ever will be able to earn a living wage so long as commuting by border crossers is permitted ... "
This paper examines readily available data that may shed some light on the extent to which U.S. residents living on the Mexican border are affected by commuters. No effort is made to discuss the legal aspects of the American Government's policy permitting commuting which has also been challenged by U.S. groups opposed to the practice. Perhaps the best discussion of this may be found in the House Judiciary Committee's 1963 publication, "Study of Population and Immigration Problems and Commuters," an unpublished paper prepared by John W. Bowser, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Inspections, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Extent of commuting. Unfortunately commuters are not routinely identified in the operating reports of the Immigration Service. That agency has made several special identification checks of border crossers to try and pinpoint the volume of commuting; the results of these checks are probably the best measure of commuting. The U.S. State Department and the Mexican governmental agency, Programs National Fronterizo have also made estimates of commuting that yielded data roughly comparable to the I&NS Survey results.
In part, some of the difficulty with understanding the commuter problem lies in the difference between the popular conception of what is a commuter and the technical, legal definition.
The general public probably would regard anyone living in Mexico and working in the United States as a commuter. Furthermore, all aliens working in the United States would also be regarded as part of the commuter problem, even though they do not commute.
In the legal sense, only aliens living in Mexico are commuters. United States citizens living in Mexico are not; aliens living and working in the United States are not. The situation is further compounded by the fact that most of the alien commuters have family or friends living in the United States and may themselves reside occasionally in the United States. Very frequently aliens will give U.S. addresses to their employers and may reside some of the time in the United States and some of the time in Mexico.
One other problem exists. American policy basically is designed to facilitate travel between Mexico and the United States. Many thousands of Mexican citizens are permitted to enter this country for business or pleasure with entry documents that do not permit them to work.
Undoubtedly some of these visitors do work, despite the best efforts of U.S. authorities. Such illegal, wetback workers would be regarded in the popular mind as commuters but would not appear in any official or semiofficial estimate of the volume of alien commuters. Indeed, officials of the Immigration Service would probably deny that there are many illegal commuters. But residents of border communities do not agree.
The wide difference between the popular view of the commuter problem and the legal view has been discussed to emphasize that the official statistics really only describe a limited part of a general problem. In an economic sense the public view is right. The existence of a large number of unskilled workers making themselves available for U.S. jobs serves to depress wage rates; it makes no difference whether the worker is an alien or a United States citizen living in Mexico; whether he is an alien residing in the United States; whether he enters and works legally or illegally. The impact is the same: wage rates are lowered.
The latest I&NS special survey identified about 44,000 alien commuters January 17, 1966. Almost 95 percent worked in eight border areas – El Paso, Laredo, Brownsville and Eagle Pass, Tex.; Nogales and San Luis, Ariz.; and Calexico and San Ysidro, Calif. Illustrating the fact that the alien commuters do not fully describe the economic impact of commuting, another 18,000 United States citizens lived in Mexico and worked in the United States – almost 30 percent of the total commuters. Table 1 lists various estimates of the volume of commuting made by different agencies and at different time periods; table 2 presents a comparison of alien and U.S. citizens commuting at the time of the latest I&NS survey.
Evidence of depressed U.S. wage scales. Comprehensive information about wage rates is not available for most border areas. Most of the border towns are very small and not included in the statistical series that contain wage rate information. The discussion that follows is based primarily upon very scattered and fragmentary information. Notwithstanding their limitations, the data do show clearly that wage rates are low in the border areas.
The presence of the alien commuters, however, is not the sole cause of low wage rates. Many factors determine wage levels – a surplus or shortage of workers; the kinds of jobs involved (higher-skilled jobs demand higher wages) ; the kinds of industry (usually durable goods manufacturing pays higher wages); the extent to which viable trade unions exist. In general, the factors which produce high wage rates are not found as frequently in border areas as they are in interior areas. But the factors which produce low wages are commonly present in the border towns and quite often are interrelated with the alien commuter problem.
Most of the border areas have relatively large labor surpluses, partly because of the commuters, but also because of large numbers of low-skilled U.S. citizens and resident aliens residing in the United States. Thus, not all of the low wage problem is due to the commuters.
Comparisons of area wage levels in the same state do not always reveal that wages in the border areas are always the lowest in the state. Interior areas in a border state also have large labor surpluses that cause wages in these areas to be as low, or lower, than wages in the border areas. The northeastern corner of Arizona, far removed from the border, where the poverty-stricken Navajo Indians live, is a case in point.
Some border areas have concentrations of heavy industry, or establishments where the wage structure is determined by collective bargaining agreements or other factors not primarily concerned with conditions in the border towns. In such instances, the wages in the border towns may be higher than in interior areas where no such establishments exist. But wages on the border are seldom, if ever, higher than in the interior for the same kind of work at the same kind of firm.
TEXAS
Farm wage data are available from the monthly reports of the Texas Employment Commission. Monthly estimates of average hourly earnings in manufacturing, durable and nondurable goods industries are published by the Texas Employment Commission. Median earnings data are available from the 1960 census of population for one Texas border city, El Paso, and five other major Texas cities: Fort Worth, Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Two special surveys were made in El Paso and Laredo in 1961 by the Department of Labor specifically designed to explore some aspects of the commuter problem. These surveys contain information about wages in the occupations in which most commuters are employed.
A. Farm wages. – Farm wage rates in Texas are lowest in border areas. Average hourly farm wages for seasonal farm work in the three agricultural reporting areas on the border were $0.76 in November 1966 – 31 percent less than the $1.10 average in the remainder of the state. The lowest wage rates are in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, $0.75; slightly higher in the next area, Rio Grande Plains, $0.77; and highest of all the border areas, $0.83 in the Trans Pecos area.
The highest farm wages in Texas are in the areas farthest removed from the border – $1.20 and $1.24 in the Northern Panhandle and the High Rolling Plains. The following map of Texas shows the geographic pattern of average wage rates for seasonal farmwork.
Large numbers of alien and U.S. citizen commuters are employed in agriculture in the border areas. The January 17, 1966, I&NS survey identified 1,584 citizen commuters and 1,282 alien commuters in the Valley; 531 citizen and 810 alien commuters in the Rio Grande Plains; and 973 citizen and 1,078 alien commuters in the Trans Pecos areas. Commuters to agricultural jobs formed a very large proportion of the commuters in the Valley and the Rio Grande Plains areas.
In the former area, 51 percent of the U.S. citizen commuters and 37 percent of the alien commuters worked in farm jobs. The corresponding percentage in the Rio Grande Plains were 21 and 17 percent. In the Trans Pecos area, where most of the commuters went to nonfarm jobs in El Paso, only 11 percent of the citizens and 9 percent of the alien commuters worked in agriculture.
Commuters constituted a significant proportion of the seasonal farm work force in the border areas. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley about 15 percent of the seasonal farmworkers were commuters, with alien commuters making up about 7 percent of the seasonal farmworkers. In the Rio Grande Plains, about 9 percent of all seasonal workers were commuters, and 5 percent were alien commuters. In the Trans Pecos area almost all seasonal farmworkers were commuters. However, in this area farm work is a very minor activity – only about 1,500 seasonal workers were employed in January 1966, compared to 19,700 seasonal workers in the Valley and 15,600 in the Rio Grande Plains.
Wage rates were higher in the Trans Pecos area than in the other two border areas because of two factors: the area is isolated without a large resident farm population; the bulk of jobs in the area are found in the El Paso metropolitan area where nonfarm wage levels tend to be higher than levels in rural areas. In contrast, the Valley and Rio Grande Plains areas have no large metropolitan areas. They have a large rural population, largely composed of Mexican-Americans, both citizens and resident aliens. The level of economic activity in the latter areas is much lower than in El Paso. The low-wage levels in the Valley and the Rio Grande Plains areas are probably primarily due to the large surplus of poor, unskilled, poorly educated, rural people (most of whom are Mexican-American) residing in the areas. But augmenting this labor surplus by adding commuters from Mexico, persons who are even poorer, more unskilled, and less educated, serves to depress an already intolerable situation.
B. 1960 census of population median earnings data. – Median earnings data reveal earnings of El Paso workers are significantly lower than in most other major Texas metropolitan areas. Of the 11 major occupational sex groupings, median earnings were lowest in El Paso for four groupings (male clerical workers, female clerical, sales, and private household workers) ; and second lowest for three other groupings (male sales, clerical workers, and operatives and kindred workers). The highest El Paso ranked among the six areas was in the male service worker classification where it ranked third.
One other aspect of the census of population data must be mentioned. Since the data are obtained from a household enumeration, residents of Mexico are not included in the census statistics because their households were not enumerated. Thus, for El Paso, the census statistics overstate the incomes of persons that work in that city because they omit the earnings of commuters who work for the most part in the city's lowest paid jobs.
Table 3 contains pertinent median earnings data obtained in the 1960 census of population.
C. Manufacturing average hourly earnings. – Wages in El Paso manufacturing are extremely low. El Paso ranked lowest of the eight major Texas areas (El Paso, Austin, San Antonio, Beaumont, Corpus Christi, Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston) for which the Texas Employment Commission published average hourly earnings in manufacturing.
Austin and San Antonio had lower earnings for durable goods, but El Paso had by far the lowest average for nondurable goods.
El Paso did not rank on the bottom for durable goods because it is the location of a large copper refinery and a large copper smelter. Wages in these establishments are high because the workers have effective trade unions. The refinery and smelter are branches of large corporations and collective bargaining between management and labor is on a regional basis, thus causing the unique situation of El Paso with its commuter problem to be of little importance in the determination of wages of El Paso copper workers.
Nondurable goods employment in El Paso is heavily concentrated in garment manufacturing – almost 75 percent of all nondurable goods workers are in this industry. The wage rates in garment manufacturing are little more than the minimum required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Large numbers of alien commuters (mainly women) are employed in this industry. The existence of this industry is a recent phenomenon and many local residents believe garment firms moved to El Paso to take advantage of the large supply of labor and the low-wage scale;
both conditions are due, in part, to the commuter situation.
Table 4 contains average hourly earnings data in manufacturing in El Paso and other Texas cities.
D. Special commuter survey – Laredo. – A special study of alien commuter problems – jobs held by commuters, wages received, and availability of domestic workers for these jobs – was made by the U.S. Department of Labor in the summer of 1961.
The study showed that commuters were employed in most occupations and industries, but concentrated most heavily in garment manufacturing, hotels, restaurants, and retail trade and service establishments. A sample of firms employing 3,000 workers was contacted. These firms employed 438 Mexican aliens identifiable as commuters. In addition, the survey team suspected that other alien employees of these firms were commuters, although they had given U.S. addresses to their employers.
When the survey was conducted, unemployment was very heavy in Laredo – 11.3 percent. Large numbers of U.S. workers had the same occupational skills as the alien commuters and were unemployed at the time of the survey. For example, the two garment manufacturing firms in the sample employed 88 alien commuters as sewing machine operators. The Texas Employment Commission office files contained applications from 156 unemployed U.S. workers with this occupation.
The survey revealed a very common pattern of firms employing alien commuters paying lower wages than did firms employing U.S. workers. From the data collected in the survey, it was possible to make comparisons of the wage rates paid for 19 occupations by firms engaged in similar activities. The firms employing only domestic workers paid higher rates for 15 of the occupations; in one occupation the rates paid were the same; and for three occupations the firms employing alien commuters paid higher rates. There were also instances where the same firms paid its alien commuters less than it paid U.S. workers for the same work. The average of the wage rates for these 19 occupations paid by the firms employing only U.S. workers was 38 percent higher than the average rates paid by the firms employing alien commuters. Table 5 lists the occupational wage data obtained in survey.
E. Special commuter survey – El Paso. The El Paso special study was similar in concept and scope to the Laredo survey discussed above. The survey was made in the summer of 1961. Seventy-five firms were surveyed. At least 1,000 alien commuters were employed by these firms. However, it is believed many more were employed: some firms did not provide information about the residence of their workers. In other cases, workers identified as alien residents of the United States were probably, in fact, residents of Mexico and had provided false addresses. One garment manufacturing firm, for example, claimed none of its employees were commuters; but it ran a bus to the border to pick up workers.
For the most part, the alien commuters were employed in the less skilled and more menial occupations – busboy, dishwasher, laborer, salesclerk, maid, house cleaner, sewing machine operator. Alien commuters, however, were also employed in skilled jobs. Many worked in organized firms and were members of trade unions.
The data collected in the El Paso survey cannot be summarized as were the Laredo data (table 5). In some industries studied, all of the sample firms employed commuter aliens. In other industries, the sample firms refused to provide wage information or attempt to determine if any of their employees were alien commuters. The wage structure in other firms was determined by collective bargaining agreements negotiated on a national or regional basis and thus unaffected by commuters.
Where information was supplied, it was apparent that wage rates paid alien commuters were usually low. In about one-half of the occupations studied, the wage rates paid commuters were lower than what unemployed job applicants registered for work with the Texas Employment Commission said they would accept. These occupations were: sales men and women, cooks, laundry workers, painters, carpenters, and general manufacturing workers. In other classifications, salesclerks, kitchen helpers, packinghouse workers, laborers, and truck drivers, the commuter aliens were paid rates commensurate with the expectations of unemployed domestic workers.
Following is a summary of the survey results:
Eleven construction firms. – Six firms employed only U.S. residents; five employed alien commuters. Two-thirds of the firms employing only U.S. residents paid the union scale. Only 20 percent of the firms employing commuters paid the union scale. The lowest rates were paid by the nonunion firms that employed commuters.
Four retail dry goods stores. – Three firms employed alien commuters. They paid lower wage rates than the firm that employed only U.S. residents.
Four wholesale and warehouse firms. – Three firms employed alien commuters. The firm employing only U.S. residents paid the highest wage rates.
All sample firms in the following industries employed alien commuters: Garment manufacturing (11 firms); restaurants (five firms); meat packing (three firms); and laundries (four firms). Of interest is the fact that in the one laundry where wage rate data were supplied for both alien commuters and U.S. residents, the commuters were paid less than $0.50 per hour while the U.S. residents were paid about $0.80 per hour.
Insufficient wage and employment data were obtained to make any comparison for seven transportation and storage firms; two cotton processors; and three hotels and motels.
In several industries, refineries (four firms) ; miscellaneous manufacturing (seven firms) ; and miscellaneous firms (five establishments), there was no difference in the rates paid by firms employing alien commuters and those employing U.S. workers. One refinery, two miscellaneous manufacturing, and two of the other miscellaneous firms employed commuters.
Six other retail trade firms were included in the sample, but meaningful comparisons could not be made because the nature of their operations and the occupations of the workers they employed were too dissimilar.
F. Unemployment in Texas border cities. – The Texas Employment Commission prepares and publishes unemployment estimates for 22 Texas cities. In 1966 these data revealed that unemployment in border towns was substantially greater than in interior cities. Laredo had the highest rate – 9.6 percent. The average rate for the four border areas (Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito; El Paso; Laredo; and McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg) was 6.6 percent, almost 95 percent greater than the 3.4 percent rate in the 18 interior areas.
High unemployment rates are indicative of labor surpluses, surpluses that in turn cause lower wage rates as employers find it unnecessary to bid up wages to attract workers. The fact that unemployment is heavy and wage rates are low in the border towns is not coincidental. Workers residing in Mexico contribute to the labor surplus by filling jobs that United States residents would otherwise have – and frequently take them at wage rates unacceptable to United States residents.
Table 6 lists 1966 local unemployment rates for Texas; table 7 compares the volume of alien commuters in January 1966 with estimated unemployment in each of the Texas border towns for the same time period.
ARIZONA
Alien commuters do not constitute as much of a problem in Arizona as they do in Texas. Only two border towns have any significant volume of alien commuter workers – San Luis, 4,200 and Nogales, 1,600. About 400 alien commuters cross the border at Douglas and another 100 at Naco. Employment and wage data for local Arizona communities are very limited, making it difficult to evaluate the economic impact of commuters. Farm wage data are available from the reports of the Arizona State Employment Service and that Agency has also published some occupational wage data for nonfarm jobs in its annual publication, "Arizona Basic Economic Data." Since Arizona has no sizable border cities, no earnings data are available from the 1960 census.
A. Farm wage data. – Data concerning wages for seasonal farm work in Arizona do not reveal any adverse impact exerted by alien commuters, despite a heavy volume of commuting into Yuma County where over half the farm workers employed are commuters who cross at San Luis. In the three major farming areas in Arizona, Maricopa, Pinal, and Yuma Counties, wages were highest in Yuma County, the only county where alien commuting occurs. The average hourly wage for seasonal farmwork in Yuma County, November 1966, was $1.31 per hour versus $1.29 in Pinal County and $1.26 in Maricopa County.
The reason for this anomalous situation, compared to wage patterns in other border areas, stems from unique conditions in the Yuma area. The farm work force in Yuma County for many years was dominated by Mexican aliens – Mexican contract workers admitted under Public Law 78 and/or illegal wetback workers prior to the wetback cleanup in the early 1950's. There was practically no resident domestic work force doing seasonal farm work in Yuma County. The prevailing wage rate in Yuma was whatever the Department of Labor required be paid to the Mexican contract workers.
When Public Law 78 ended in 1964, this situation changed. No longer was the labor force for seasonal farm work furnished by the Government. Growers had to compete with each other for available workers by bidding up wages. For the most part, the workers they were trying to attract were Mexican immigrants, some of whom lived in Yuma County; others lived in Mexico; and still others moved into Yuma from other areas in Arizona and California. In other areas of Arizona, the labor force was not so heavily composed of contract workers and the impact of Public Law 78's termination was not as severe; more local residents were available to replace the contract workers. Thus in Yuma there was more active competition in the wage area; this competition was successful in attracting workers, but many of the new workers were Mexican immigrants who chose to live in San Luis, Mexico, rather than in the United States.
Between May 1963 and January 1966, alien commuting increased almost fourfold, from about 1,100 to about 4,000. (Data are not available concerning the proportion of the 1963 commuters that worked in farm jobs. In 1966, about 85 percent did farm work.) Between 1963 and 1966, wage rates for seasonal farmwork in Yuma County increased 35 percent, compared to a 25 percent increase in Maricopa County, and a 10 percent increase in Pinal County where contract workers were largely eliminated prior to 1963.
B. Nonfarm occupational wage data. – The Arizona State Employment Service has published wage rate ranges, by county, for about a dozen occupations. Separate data are published for two Cochise County towns, Douglas and Bisbee. Although the two towns are only about 20 miles apart, there is a significant difference in the pattern of alien commuter employment. Douglas is directly on the border and about 400 aliens commute to jobs in the United States from Agua Prieta, Mexico; about 75 percent of them work in Douglas, the remainder in farm jobs in the Elfrida area, north of the city. There is very limited public transportation between Bisbee and Douglas, and very few alien commuters, or even Douglas residents for that matter, work in Bisbee. While Bisbee itself is only 10 miles from the border, the closest Mexican border town, Naco, is very small. Only about 100 alien commuters cross from Naco to work in the Bisbee area. Thus, alien commuters would have a much greater impact upon Douglas than upon Bisbee, despite the closeness of the towns.
The Employment Service data reveal lower wage rates existing in Douglas than in Bisbee, indicating that the commuter situation may have adversely affected rates in Douglas. As shown in table 8, seven occupations are listed which can be compared. Comparing the low point of the wage ranges shown for each occupation, four of the occupations in Douglas have lower rates while the other three are the same. Comparing the high point of the wage ranges, five of the occupations are lower in Douglas, one higher and one the Same.
Of the three Arizona counties where any appreciable volume of alien commuting occurs, commuting to nonfarm jobs is greatest in Santa Cruz County (Nogales is the major town in this county). The 1i,600 alien commuters make up about one-third of the county's work force; over 90 percent work mainly in nonfarm jobs. In contrast, the alien commuters working in Cochise County (Bisbee and Douglas) constitute only about 3 percent of the work force. In Yuma County (San Luis is the border entry point) alien commuters make up 19 percent of the work force, but are heavily concentrated in agriculture. Over half of the farm workers employed in the county are alien commuters, while only about 5 percent of the nonfarm workers are alien commuters. Thus, any impact of alien commuters upon the nonfarm wage structure in Arizona would be primarily concentrated in Santa Cruz County.
Occupational wage data published in "Arizona Basic Economic Data" clearly show that wage rates in Santa Cruz County tend to be lower than in other areas. Of the nine occupations for which data are available for 12 areas in the State, wage rates in Santa Cruz County are lowest (or tied for lowest) for five occupations – clerk typist, carpenter, auto service attendant, truck driver, and welder; second lowest for stenographer and cook; third lowest for nurse; and fourth lowest for salesperson. Table 9 lists the occupation wage data published in "Arizona Economic Data."
Mr. Ben Zweig, currently Executive Director of the Santa Cruz County and city of Nogales Economic Opportunity Community Action Committee, and formerly the American Consul at Nogales (1943-51) and Nuveo Laredo (1957-63), commented upon the commuter situation in an interesting fashion before the President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. Mr. Zweig said, "There is no doubt the daily influx of more than a thousand workers into this small community depresses wages." He went on to state commuters live in Mexico for two reasons: “because living is cheaper, but also because they are unable to obtain immigrant visas for the immediate members of their families." According to Mr. Zweig, the reason visas cannot be obtained is the commuters earn such low wages they cannot prove their families would not become public charges. If Mr. Zweig's comments are correct, we have a situation that would be ludicrous if it were not so pitiful: Mexican aliens are admitted as immigrants. They satisfy the public charge requirements of immigration policy by accepting work in low paid jobs. But the jobs are so low paid they are not viewed as meeting the public charge requirements for the workers' families.
The 1960 census also contains data relating to the low earnings in Santa Cruz County supporting the previous discussion that indicated wages in this area are among the lowest in the State. According to the census, median earnings in 1959 of Santa Cruz County male residents were $3,666 – lower than any county except Apache. (Earnings in this county are depressed because of the large Indian population.) For female residents, Santa Cruz County ranked 11th among the 14 Arizona counties.
CALIFORNIA
Large numbers of alien commuters work in California, crossing at two major points of entry, Calexico and San Ysidro. Calexico is in the rich farming area of the Imperial Valley. About 85 percent of the 7,500 to 8,000 alien commuters work in agriculture. San Ysidro is within the San Diego metropolitan area and about 40 percent of alien commuters work in agriculture with the remainder working in a wide variety of nonfarm jobs. Data concerning the occupational characteristics of the alien commuters working in nonfarm jobs in San Diego are not available, but there is no reason to suspect that such workers would be much different than those crossing into El Paso. There they worked for the most part in the lowest skilled, most menial jobs.
Data concerning wages, employment, and unemployment in border areas and the alien commuter problem in California indicate that in this state, as in Texas and Arizona, economic conditions are much worse on the border.
A. Farm wages. – According to data collected by the California Department of Employment, farm wages in California are lowest in the border areas. The average wage for seasonal farm work in November 1966 was $1.42 per hour in the two border counties, Imperial and San Diego. Wage rates for similar work in the remainder of the state were 6 percent higher.
Most of the seasonal farm work in the border areas is done by alien commuters. The number of alien commuters that cross at Calexico is equal to about 90 percent of seasonal farm employment in Imperial County. Some of the alien commuters actually commute out of Imperial County to jobs in the Coachelle Valley, over 60 miles north of the border. In all, however, alien commuters probably make up about 85 percent of the seasonal work force in Imperial County. The same situation prevails in San Diego County. The number of alien commuters crossing at San Ysidro is equal to almost all of the workers employed in seasonal farm jobs in the county. Since some aliens also commute out of the San Diego County, the proportion that aliens constitute of the seasonal work force is less than 100 percent – probably about 85 or 90 percent.
There is also a significant volume of commuting by U.S. citizens residing in Mexico. About 1,600 such workers cross at Calexico to do farm work and another 800 enter the United States at San Ysidro. It is clear that for practical purposes nearly all of the seasonal farm workers employed in San Diego and the Imperial Valley live in Mexico.
Considering this fact, it is perhaps surprising that farm wage rates are not even lower. They are not because of the same factor present in the Yuma, Ariz., situation – the termination of Public Law 78. When this program was in existence, most of the seasonal farm work was done by contract Mexican workers. As the program ended, farmers had to compete for whatever domestic workers were available. For the most part, these were Mexican aliens who had previously been admitted as immigrants. They accepted the farm jobs formerly held by alien contract workers at the higher wage rates employers were offering. When the alien contract workers dominated the farm labor force, particularly in Imperial County, farm worker housing was geared to the contract worker. Barracks-type housing for single male workers was the standard. Family housing for farm workers was available only on a very limited basis. Thus when alien contract workers were replaced by U.S. citizens or alien immigrants, almost the only available family housing was in Mexico.
On the border in California, as in Arizona, the end of the bracero program increased alien commuting. But at the same time it also caused sharp wage rate increases, thus militating against – perhaps disguising – is a more apt description the adverse impact of the commuter situation. Total alien commuting jumped over 50 percent 2 between 1963 and 1966, but seasonal farm wages still increased 35 percent, one-fourth greater than the increase in wages for the same kind of work in the rest of the state.
B. 1960 census of population median earnings data. – The published statistics of the 1960 census contain data for eight major metropolitan areas, one of which was San Diego. However, the area is so large that the smaller number of alien commuters would not be expected to have very much impact. The total volume of alien commuters amounted to less than 3 percent of the total labor force; those working in nonfarm jobs to only about 1.5 percent of nonfarm employment. Furthermore, the structure of industry in San Diego includes several relatively well paid industries. The Federal Government has a large naval installation in the area and several aircraft manufacturing firms are also present.
Nonetheless, there is evidence to indicate that economic conditions in San Diego are poorer than in other major California cities. San Diego ranked only fifth highest among the eight major cities in median earnings of male workers, and fourth highest for female workers. Earnings were lower in San Diego than in the largest urban areas, but higher than earnings in the interior valley cities where farming is an important activity. Of particular significance are the data for the occupations in which most alien commuters probably work. The earnings of farm laborers, $1,621, were the lowest of all eight areas. Comparing Los Angeles and San Diego, the earnings of San Diego residents were 8 percent lower for male sales workers; 18 percent lower for male farm workers; 5 percent lower for female clerical workers; 8 percent lower for female sales workers; 18 percent lower for female private household workers; and 14 percent lower for female service workers. As was previously mentioned, the census data, which are collected from households in the United States, do not fully measure the impact of commuters because they reside in Mexico. If commuters were included in the census enumeration, the census median earnings would be lower than was reported. This is demonstrated by social security program data. These data show, for 1965, that average earnings in San Diego County were seven percent lower than in Los Angeles County. However, the census data showed median earnings of all male workers to be only .2 percent lower in San Diego County. The median earnings of women workers were about 8 percent lower. Table 10 lists earnings data from the 1960 census of population.
C. Unemployment in California border area. – The California Department of Employment has prepared estimates of unemployment for both San Diego County and the Imperial Valley. The unemployment rate in 1966 in San Diego was 5.2 percent, somewhat higher than the Los Angeles-Long Beach rate of 4.5 percent and San Francisco-Oakland rate of 4.4 percent. In the Imperial Valley, where alien commuters form a much greater proportion of the work force, the unemployment rate was 10 percent, double the average rate for the entire state.
There is reason to suspect alien immigrant commuting increased more than 50 percent. In 1963 alien contract workers employed in the Imperial Valley were permitted to live in Mexico and commute to their jobs.
Some of these workers may have bee counted as commuters in the 1963 I&N survey.
SUMMARY
The "commuter" problem and low wages and unemployment in American cities on the Mexican border
About 44,000 alien commuters live in Mexico and work in U.S. cities.
Another 18,000 U.S. citizens commute to their U.S. jobs from residence in Mexico.
90 percent of the commuters are in eight border areas: Brownsville, Laredo, Eagle Pass, and El Paso, Tex.; Nogales and San Luis, Ariz.; Calexico and San Ysidro, Calif.
Unemployment in Texas border cities is almost 95 percent greater than in Texas interior cities.
Alien commuters work most often in the lowest skilled, most menial, and lowest paid jobs: seasonal farmwork, maids, kitchen helpers, salesclerks, sewing machine operators.
Wages for seasonal farm work in Texas border areas are over 30 percent less than in the rest of the State.
Firms that employ alien commuters tend to pay lower wages than firms that employ only U.S. residents.
Firms that employ alien commuters frequently pay them less than what they pay U.S. residents for the same work.
Wage rates paid to commuters are often less than what unemployed U.S. residents say they are willing to accept.
Greatest number of alien commuters in Arizona cross the border at San Luis for farm work in the Yuma area. Farm wages, however, in this area are high because the great number of alien commuters is a relatively new phenomenon resulting from efforts to attract a new labor supply after Public Law 78 terminated.
Wage rates for nonfarm work in Arizona border areas are very low in comparison to rates in other areas. Workers in Santa Cruz County, where most nonfarm alien commuters work, have the lowest earnings in the State, except for Apache County where poverty on the Navajo Indian Reservation depresses earnings.
California farm wage rates are lowest in the border areas. The bulk of the farm work force in these areas is composed of alien commuters.
Alien commuters loom the largest in the Imperial Valley where they constitute about 30 percent of the total work force, and about 85 percent of the farm work force. Unemployment in this area was 10 percent of the labor force in 1966, twice the average rate for the entire State.
In San Diego, another area where large numbers of alien commuters work, wage rates were lower, and unemployment higher, than in Los Angeles.
EXHIBIT 3
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington,
June 19, 1968.
Hon. RAMSEY CLARK,
Attorney General,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR RAMSEY: I am enclosing a report with recommendations from the Labor Department staff on the Delano situation. I have seen a draft of the Immigration and Naturalization Service report, and I realize there are some differences in interpretation of the troubled relations between the INS and the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee in California. Our staff believes that the hostility and mistrust are so deep that there must have been some cause, whether it be poor judgment, lack of communication, or whatever. They also believe some ameliorative steps have been taken. However, the basic problem still lies in the whole concept of immigrants who reside in another country. The aggravation of this low-skilled and low-wage work force on the workers of the Southwest grows daily. Much of the energy and anger of the growing Mexican-American militancy in the Southwest is aimed at the workers who live in Mexico, but who claim the economic benefits of being a U.S. citizen. The Mexican-American social groups and the unions such as the UFWOC cannot rest until this problem has been resolved.
Therefore, I urge that the Federal Government move to control the impact of the commuters. A new and simpler strike regulation which excludes all commuters from struck firms should be promulgated immediately. A system of identifying commuters should be devised, and to that end, I will provide Labor Department staff to help absorb the workload. Ultimately, all commuters should be excluded unless they can prove they are not adversely affecting U.S. workers.
I urge your careful consideration of this matter. Stan Ruttenberg and I would like to discuss this with you personally at the earliest opportunity.
Sincerely,
WILLARD WIRTZ,
Secretary of Labor.
ALIEN COMMUTER PROBLEMS
(Report of Labor Department members of joint Labor-Justice fact-finding group)
Because of pronounced irreconcilable differences in their reactions to meetings and discussions with union officials during the Delano visit, the Task Force members have agreed to submit separate reports. This report, then, is submitted by the Labor Department representatives of the joint Justice-Labor Task Force.
On Monday, May 6, the members of a joint fact-finding group of the Justice Department and Labor Department met in Bakersfield, California. Present were:
Mario Noto, Associate Commissioner, INS.
Charles Gordon, General Counsel, INS.
Donald Coppock, Deputy Associate Commissioner, in Charge of Border Patrol, INS.
Michael Fargione, Deputy Regional Director, Southwest Region, INS.
Leonard W. Gilman, Associate Deputy Regional Director, Southwest Region, in Charge of Travel Control, INS.
Frank Borda, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Manpower, DOL.
Ken Robertson, Regional Manpower Administrator, San Francisco, DOL.
Lawrence W. Rogers, Assistant to the Administrator, BES, DOL.
Roberto Ornales, Mexican American Desk Director, Manpower Administration, DOL.
Mr. Noto outlined the mandate given to the task force by the Attorney General as follows: Review the entire situation concerning the use of commuter green card workers by employers in the Delano area. The examination was to assure that the proper policy emphasis on enforcement of the regulation was made clear to all Immigration and Naturalization Service personnel. The procedures for administering the regulation were to be examined to see what improvements could be made. Finally, meetings would be held with the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee to create a proper liaison with that organization.
The task force discussed the various problems they might encounter in Delano in carrying out the Attorney General's directive. The prominent problem seemed to be the attitude which the union and its members have toward the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which specifically is alleged discrimination by the Service against the union and its members in favor of the employers in this particular area.
Subsequent to the foregoing discussions, the Labor Department representatives urged that the task force convene at Delano, California, since the problems to be reviewed centered around that city. The INS members agreed, although there were some misgivings that undue public attention might result.
Mr. Cesar Chaves, Director.
Mr. James Drake, Member. Mr. Jerry Cohen, Counsel.
Mr. Leroy Chapfield, Administrative Officer.
Mr. Marshall Ganz, Executive Board Member.
Mr. Larry Itliong, Assistant Director.
Mr. William Kircher, Director of Organization, AFL-CIO.
Mr. Kircher had been present at the meeting with the Attorney General when it was agreed to form the fact-finding committee. He presented the problem of the union. It soon became evident that the basic complaint of the union was that Immigration Service personnel were not enforcing the regulation restricting the use of commuter workers at strikebound firms. There were numerous meetings during this one day at which the union representatives fully aired their grievances. The union representatives repeatedly stated they were not asking for special treatment; they were only asking that the regulation be vigorously enforced. In essence, the union's allegations were:
1. The attitude of the Border Patrol is "provincial," anti-union, and anti-Mexican. This attitude was linked to the treatment which the union felt it had received at the hands of INS supervisory field staff. The union reported several instances of brusque and uncooperative encounters with District Directors in San Francisco and Los Angeles and the officers in charge of the Bakersfield office. The union felt that the INS supervisors did not want to cooperate with the union in the enforcement of the regulation, and that this attitude was transmitted to the Border Patrolmen.
2. That the Border patrol favors the "growers" in the enforcement of their responsibilities. Border Patrolmen do not adequately interrogate green card workers to ascertain if they are subject to the regulation. Field checks are far too brief. Border Patrolmen are too willing to accept inadequate answers as evidence that particular individuals are not subject to the regulation.
3. That the union has additional information regarding aliens illegally in the U.S., but will not furnish it to the Service unless it could be satisfied that the Service will take action on it.
4. That violators of 8 CFR 211.1 (b) are not apprehended by the INS and prevented from working in the struck fields. The only exception was 10 cases which the Union maintains were acted on by INS only after a civil suit was filed by the Union against the 10 employees and their employer.
The Union developed one general question which it presented to the INS to elicit answers on the policy and procedures for enforcing 8 CFR 211.1(b). The INS officials offered, instead, a list of 14 questions and answers, prepared by the Service for internal use at all operating levels (Attachment "A"). However, the Union would not examine it nor accept it. There was discussion of various problem situations, and ultimately the INS agreed to provide the Union with a statement about how the regulation works.
In response to Union allegations that the Service had not taken action on violations reported by the Union, the Service offered to furnish to the Union representatives the results of the investigations which have been conducted and actions taken thereon. The Supervisory Patrol Inspectors of the Bakersfield Station were called in and they were subjected to examination by the Union representatives and by members of the task force.
During the examination it was apparent that the Union's allegations had merit, at least in the lack of evidence available to show that the INS had acted on complaints. The demeanor of the officers and the Union representatives made it apparent that considerable hostility and antagonism exists. From the incompleteness of information available concerning the officers' prior investigatory work it appeared that the investigations were either very superficial or the records were totally inadequate to support the conclusions made by the officers.
The Bakersfield officers explained the modus operandi used by the Border Patrol in locating and processing illegal aliens. As evidence of its good faith, the Service agreed that with respect to 38 cases in which the Union had expressed an interest and which had been referred by the Border Patrol for further investigation to determine whether there had been any violations of 8 CFR 211.1(b), the Service would furnish them on the following day with detailed information concerning actions taken and results achieved. This was done on the following day and no further question was raised by the Union with respect to these cases.
In response to the allegations made by the Union representatives that the Border Patrol of the Service was not searching for illegal aliens, INS furnished the group with a statistical account of the result of Border Patrol efforts made between February 8, 1968 and April 30, 1968. This was not acceptable to the Union officials since the results showed few persons found on struck farms who were covered by the regulation. Rather, the Union felt this supported their contention that the INS was not doing an adequate job of seeking out violators and properly interrogating suspected violators.
In support of allegations made by the Union that the Service attitude was anti-Union, Union representatives cited alleged instances of remarks made and attitudes shown by Service officers which were interpreted by them to reflect such attitudes. A typical example cited by the Union is reflected in a statement made by a person who alleges to relate an incident between Service District Director at San Francisco and one Jose Lune (Attachment "C"). It is observed at this point that at a conference held with INS officials on May 8, 1968 at San Pedro, California, the Service District Director at San Francisco denied the Union's interpretation of the incident in question, and in support thereof produced a letter which expressed appreciation by Union representatives for what is now characterized as an antagonistic attitude (Attachment "D"). However, it should be noted that the letter essentially is a polite thank you note returning $10 advanced by the District Director.
On May 7, 1968 additional meetings were held. During the morning the members of the task force actually observed and participated in Border Patrol field operations in locating and examining aliens employed on struck farms. While the members of the task force were favorably impressed by the inquiries conducted by Patrol officers during these investigations, the nature and conduct of the investigations indicated that prior investigations, and some of the current procedures, were inadequate to give meaningful protection to U.S. workers as contemplated by the regulations.
1. The questioning of suspect aliens was a time-consuming process. The brief time spent in some prior investigations observed by Union representatives, a charge not denied by the Bakersfield officers, would indicate the prior investigations were rather superficial, if the current investigations are a representative standard.
2. Of the small group questioned a significant number of suspect aliens were found. In fact, one alien who by his own statement was clearly in violation of the regulation, was found.
3. There was no effort made by the Border Patrolmen to immediately remove suspect aliens. The Border Patrol procedures call for only identifying the suspect aliens and their referring the case to other INS personnel for further, more detailed investigation. This permits the suspect alien to leave the employer or the area, only to return clandestinely, if he so chooses, at another time when he is not under scrutiny by INS officials. Unless there is an immediate investigation and removal of suspect aliens the enforcement of the regulation will continue to be a problem.
During the meetings on May 7 the same matters which had been discussed previously were reiterated. The Service representatives agreed to make any necessary changes in the procedures of the Border Patrol. The Union representative demanded that in demonstration of good faith, the group should reduce to writing the matters on which changes in procedures had been agreed to.
During this discussion the Justice Department representatives declined to incorporate a commitment made the preceding day that the Service would establish a system to identify all commuters by using some sort of special identification marks on the I--151. The Justice Department representatives felt the expense of such an operation precluded its adoption at this time but that they would consider it further. Unfortunately, the failure to keep what the Union and Labor Department representatives felt was an unequivocal commitment exacerbated relations between the INS and Union representatives.
Additional tension was created when the Justice Department representatives declined to personally investigate some of the aliens cited by the Union as being in violation of the regulation. Earlier the union representatives had made an issue about turning such information over to INS because they felt thorough investigations would not be made. The Union information had been treated with some disdain by INS officials in the past who characterized investigations of their data as "wild goose chases." After being assured that their information would be carefully investigated, they changed their position about not furnishing it to INS as a good faith demonstration on their part. They were completely taken aback by the failure of the task force to make personal investigations. INS did bring officers into Delano immediately to investigate the cases, which helped ease the situation. Both the Justice and Labor Department representatives were invited by the Union to observe the network established by the Union in Delano and surrounding communities to identify suspect aliens. The Labor Department representatives joined the union representatives on such a tour the night of May 7. No investigations were made and none of the commuters were either visited or interrogated.
Notwithstanding the heightened tension at the end of the meetings, the Memorandum of Conversation finally agreed upon (Attachment "E") was accepted by the Union as an act of good faith on the part of INS.
As the meeting came to an end, it was most evident that while there remained an undertone of hostility and suspicion toward INS by the Union representatives, the climate was markedly improved over what it had been. It is believed that the Union has accepted the good faith of the Service as a result of the discussions held.
On May 8 the Immigration members of the Task Force proceeded to San Pedro, California, where a meeting of supervisory officers involved in this operation was convened.
The Labor Department representatives continued meeting with the Union representatives May 8. The Union's picketing operation was observed, its headquarters office was visited. Strike problems and Government policy were discussed at great length. On May 9 the Labor Department representatives met with members of its regional staff in San Francisco. The Delano discussions and commitments were discussed. Plans were discussed for the investigation of several farms to determine if they were still involved in the labor dispute. The extreme sensitivity of the Delano situation was emphasized and the regional staff was cautioned concerning the necessity of maintaining a fair, impartial and unbiased posture toward both sides in the dispute.
FINDINGS OF LABOR DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVES
1. That the issue at Delano really goes far beyond the narrow problem of the enforcement of 8 CFR 211.1 (b) or even that of a dispute between a trade union and several employers. Underlying the situation at Delano is the striving of a minority group, Mexican-Americans, that has suffered odious economic, political and administrative discrimination for many years. The aspirations of this group are now centered in the Delano Struggle, primarily because the Union leader, Mr. Cesar Chavez, has succeeded in projecting himself as not only a trade union leader, but as a charismatic leader of a people fighting for redress of long accumulated grievances. It is highly significant that the Union is referred to as "la causa," that the folk hero of the members is Emilio Zapato, that its patron is the Virgin of Guadalupe. All are symbolic of the struggles of an oppressed people. Unless the Delano issue is recognized for what it is, an integral part of the present civil rights struggle in America, measures to solve the particular issues investigated by the Task Force are likely to be ineffectual.
2. That there is considerable distrust and resentment by the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, and probably shared by the Mexican-American community, of Government agencies and employees arising both as a survival of past feelings and as a result of current attitudes and practices.
3. That Mexican alien immigrants with homes in Mexico have been, and are now, employed on farms involved in the labor dispute despite the promulgation of 8 CFR 2111(b). This arises because of insufficient enforcement techniques, but, more importantly, because the regulations do not provide meaningful protection to U.S. workers. In essence, U.S. workers are looking to the regulation to provide more of a safeguard of U.S. wages and working conditions than it can give. Enforcement measures are considered very inadequate and the Government attitude toward the workers' plight viewed as a deceitful sham simply because the regulation is not preventing commuters from working as strike breakers.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF LABOR DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVES
1. That the commitments made by the task force be honored. Specifically this means implementing the Memorandum of Conversation (Attachment "E") and furnishing the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee with a response to its questions to the task force.
2. That INS undertake a systematic program of identifying all commuters, seasonal or daily, to facilitate the identification of aliens possibly subject to 8 CFR 211.1(b). To assist in this the Labor Department will make staff help available to INS. Once this identification is completed, only holders of this card could cross the border. The ordinary green card holder would be required to have a re-entry permit.
3. That the enforcement techniques of INS be changed. Aliens suspected of being in violation of 8 CFR 211.1(b) should be removed from the farms in question as soon as grounds for such a suspicion are found. The INS investigatory staff stationed in Delano should be increased; this includes both Border Patrol and INS staff. Union allegations concerning aliens employed in violation of 8 CFR 211.1(b) should be investigated promptly and complete written reports of the investigations made promptly to the Union. That INS station in Delano an employee of Mexican-American ancestry, in whom the Union has confidence, to work with the Union, as a liaison officer.
4. That the Government agencies involved immediately conduct extensive employee training to eradicate any attitudes of bias or prejudice against Mexican-American farm workers; that if such attitudes cannot be changed, the employees involved be transferred to jobs involving no work responsibilities with Mexican-Americans.
5. That 8 CFR 211.1(b) be amended to preclude the employment with a strikebound firm of any alien immigrant who maintains a residence outside of the United States. This would eliminate the vexing enforcement problem existing under the present regulation of determining the date of an alien's employment at such a firm and the date and purpose of his entry into the United States.
That a regulation be promulgated that would condition any alien's commuter status upon a periodic determination by the Secretary of Labor that his employment in the United States does not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers.
The recommendations of the Labor Department Task Force members admittedly go beyond the Delano strike. But, as stated earlier, the issue itself involves more than the Delano strike. At issue is the relation of the Government, and specifically this administration, toward a minority group that in an era of social revolution is asking redress for accumulated grievances. The action of the Government in the Delano strike, the commuter regulation barring employment of commuter strikebreakers, and its enforcement (or lack of enforcement) is alienating the Mexican-American community from the administration. This will worsen until there is an effective resolution of the whole commuter problem. Unless far-reaching administrative action is taken, and taken soon, there is a real and immediate danger that a solution will be sought in the streets with grave national and international repercussions.
Frank Borda. Kenneth Robertson. Lawrence W. Rogers. Roberto Ornales.
ATTACHMENT A
1. Q. An alien previously admitted as an immigrant who maintains a home and family in Mexico commutes daily to and from work in the United States. In May he moves farther north and discontinues returning home each night. After several weeks of varied employment, he secures work at a place where the Secretary of Labor has already determined a labor dispute exists. After a short term of employment, he returns to Mexico to visit his family. Two weeks later he applies far readmission to continue his employment at the place where the dispute exists. Is his Form I-151 valid for reentry?
A. No. His primary purpose is to be employed at the place where the dispute exists and his employment there commenced after the determination of a labor dispute was made.
2. Q. An alien previously admitted as an immigrant who has no residence in the United States and does maintain a residence in Mexico is working close to the border and returning home every week or two to visit his family. The Secretary of Labor determines a labor dispute exists at the alien's place of continuous employment. The determination is made subsequent to commencement of the alien's employment. The alien visits his family for a few days and applies for readmission. Is his Form I-151 valid for reentry?
A. Yes. The alien's employment was continuous since prior to the Secretary of Labor's determination.
3. Q. An alien previously admitted as an immigrant is employed at a place prior to the time the Secretary of Labor determines a dispute exists. Due to seasonal work, the alien is temporarily "laid off." He returns to his home in Mexico and accepts employment there. A few weeks later he applies for readmission to continue his work with his former employer. Is his I-151 valid for reentry?
A. No. We consider the continuity of his employment broken.
4. Q. A legal resident alien who maintains his home and family in the United States accepts employment at a place where the Secretary of Labor has determined a labor dispute exists. He makes a visit outside the United States. Is his Form I-151 valid for reentry?
A. Yes – since his primary purpose in seeking reentry is to resume residence.
5. Q. An alien previously admitted as an immigrant but now domiciled in Mexico attempts reentry for the purpose of seeking work. He has made no arrangement for employment and has no particular place in mind. There are several places in the area where labor disputes have been determined and announced by the Secretary of Labor. The applicant is warned that seeking work where a labor dispute exists will invalidate his Form I-151 for admission. He is subsequently found employed at a place where a determined and announced dispute exists. Is he deportable? Is he excludable at next entry?
A. On the basis of the facts presented the alien would be deportable under section 241 (a) (1) in that he was excludable at time of entry as his Form I-151 was invalid as a document in lieu of a visa or permit to reenter. Absent a waiver or new immigrant visa he would be excludable at his next attempted entry.
6. Q. An alien who was initially admitted as an immigrant in 1956 works each year in northern California for the same employer from March to September, then follows the harvests until December. He spends December, January, and February in Mexico. His wife and children, who were also admitted as immigrants, accompany him. He has no fixed place of residence in the United States and usually he lives in housing furnished by the employer. Daring the period the alien was in Mexico (December through February) the Secretary of Labor determined and announced a labor dispute at the alien's regular place of employment. In March the alien applies for admission destined to the place where the dispute exists. Is his Form I-151 valid?
A. We now have several factors to consider. Was his employment continuous since before the dispute determination? Apparently not as he usually leaves that employer and follows the harvests in the United States from October through December. Is he seeking admission primarily to accept employment at the place where the dispute exists? Because of his habits there is indication the primary purpose is to resume residence. This would have to be decided by the facts in the case.
7. Q. An alien previously admitted as an immigrant and now domiciled in Mexico last entered the United States after the effective date of the amended regulation (July 10, 1967) at which time he was destined to an employer where no dispute existed. He later accepted employment at a place where a dispute had been determined. Is he deportable?
A. If an alien entered the United States after the announcement of the labor dispute and went to work, even though intervening employment, he is presumed to be in violation of the regulation. Facts should be developed.
8. Q. Is the Form I-151 of the alien described in the last question valid if he goes to Mexico and seeks reentry?
A. No. His employment commenced at the place where the dispute exists subsequent to the determination.
9. Q. An alien and his entire family have been admitted for permanent residence. They work as migrant agricultural workers and follow the harvest nine or ten months each year. In December they establish residence in a border city in Mexico and the principal alien commutes daily to work near the border. His children commute daily to school. He accepts employment at a place where a labor dispute has been determined. Is his Form I-151 valid for entry?
A. No. His primary purpose in seeking admission is to work at the place where the dispute exists.
10. Q. An alien previously admitted as an immigrant commutes daily from Mexico. He is employed in agricultural work but has no definite employer. He is picked up each morning by a labor contractor and does not know exactly where he will be employed. He is paid daily by the contractor. He enters the United States using his Form I-151 in lieu of a visa and is found that afternoon employed by the labor contractor on a farm where a labor dispute has been determined. Is he deportable?
A. Yes. We believe employment by a labor contractor at a place where a dispute exists to be equivalent to employment by the owner or operator. This rule should also be applied concerning continuity of employment if the employment continues at the same place. However, continuous employment by a labor contractor who places an alien at a place after a dispute is determined shall not exempt the alien from provisions of the regulation.
11. Q. An alien formerly admitted as an immigrant and who maintains no domicile in the United States last entered the United States in 1966 and worked for a labor contractor starting in May 1967. The contractor, who paid the alien's salary, continuously employed the alien on a specific farm. A labor dispute was determined on that farm in July 1967. The alien, although continuing in the same actual employment, was in August 1967, placed on the payroll of the farm where the dispute existed. In September he went to Mexico to visit his family and applied for readmission in October to continue his employment. Is his Form I-151 valid for reentry?
A. Yes. The regulation bars employment at a specified place whether the alien receives his pay from a labor contractor or from the owner or operator. This point is also covered in question and answer no. 10. Therefore if an alien has worked continuously at a place where a labor dispute exists since a date prior to the Secretary of Labor's announcement, the fact that he was subsequently changed from a labor contractor's payroll to the owner's or operator's payroll would not be material.
12. Q. Given the same set of circumstances except the alien continued employment with the labor contractor rather than transferring to the payroll of the disputed place. Is his Form I-151 valid for reentry?
A. Yes. We would consider his employment continuous and it was accepted prior to the effective date of the regulation and the determination.
13. Q. An: alien previously admitted as an immigrant who maintains no residence in the United States entered the United States seeking employment. He accepted employment at a place where, a few days later, the Secretary of Labor determined and announced a labor dispute. What action is needed?
A. Even if employment commenced prior to the determination he will be considered in violation if we are satisfied the employment was actually entered into in anticipation of the labor dispute.
14. Q. The Secretary of Labor, on January 2, determined and announced a labor dispute at employer A. An alien previously admitted as an immigrant who maintains his residence in Mexico enters the United States on January 5 destined to employer B, where no dispute exists, and accepts employment there. On January 6 he leaves employer B and accepts employment with employer A. What action, if any, is indicated?
A. He is considered in violation of the regulation in that his actions indicate an intent to circumvent the regulation.
ATTACHMENT C
STATEMENT OF JOANNE EDELSON, HOLLISTER, CALIF.
Mr. Luna then mentioned the incident where Immigration officials went to see Cesar and inspect his green card, calling this very insulting. Mr. Fullilove explained that the officials "did not go to see Cesar", but that Cesar was parked in a car alongside the field where they were checking. They asked to see his green card as part of their routine check of all Mexicans. He says Cesar refused to show it or even simply state he was Cesar Chavez – a behavior Fullilove labeled as "very uncooperative". He explained that Immigration sometimes has a hard time distinguishing between Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, and that they constantly had to be on the look-out for wetbacks.
Then we started to talk about the quotation Willard Wirtz and Ramsey Clark made last summer to the effect that no green carders shall work behind a picket line. Of Mr. Wirtz he said, "Mr. Wirtz is not in my department – he is in the Department of Labor, and Immigration is the Department of Justice" Of Mr. Clark he said, "Ramsey Clark is in Washington – must not know that there are two classes of people with green-cards: resident aliens and commuters. We cannot enforce that law as he stated in the press". He then made the comment (paraphrased). "Don't listen to the journalists, don't listen to the politicians – Mr. Willard Wirtz and Mr. Ramsey Clark are politicians. They are not the ones to be sued if they should apply the law against the resident aliens. I am the one who will be sued". He said they shouldn't have made their statements because they can't be carried out on the local level.
Then he went into a long thing about all the problems Immigration has with wetbacks, and people who slip into Florida illegally from the West Indies.
We asked how many men were assigned to the job of making sure commuters weren't scabbing.
He was very evasive on this, saying only that he would send in as many men as needed to do the job. He then said, "if your Union has positive proof that "commuters", not resident aliens are in Giumarra's fields, and you can furnish a list of names and addresses, then call the border patrol. If they don't act immediately, then you call me and I PERSONALLY will make sure they are thrown out" (He said this about three times).
ATTACHMENT E MEMORANDUM
(A memorandum of conversation between a task force composed of representatives of the Departments of Justice and Labor, and representatives of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFT-CIO, at Delano, Calif., on May 7, 1968)
1. The Immigration Service will investigate every alien found at certified struck plant.
2. Service will suggest that violators of strikebreaker regulation leave the struck employment. If they fail to do so, proceedings will be brought against violators who refuse.
3. Union will furnish to Service any information as to violations and Service will inform Union as to results of such investigations.
4. Service will make every effort to eliminate any provincial attitudes and Union will cooperate with Service in performing its enforcement responsibility.
5. Service will furnish a further statement to Union to clarify scope of strikebreaker regulation.
6. For Greencard holders covered by strikebreaker regulation, the latest date of entry is the one to be considered.