Traditionally, the U.S. government has been on the side of business, and there is a history of government policy that has enabled business to use this easily exploitable and cheap source of labor. There is also a long history of public negative reaction and official government rhetoric against "illegal" immigrants in the U.S. from all areas of the world, not just from México. These reactions have ranged from the fear of the undocumented taking jobs away from native-born Americans to threats of an alien invasion and terrorism.

In this paper I will argue that laws and public policy have been designed in a way to help employers have access to undocumented labor. This happens even though official rhetoric and public opinion are largely negative against undocumented workers. I will use the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) as an example of legislation that was supposedly designed to limit "illegal" immigration and yet in reality had the opposite effect.

Since a large proportion of the undocumented workforce in the U.S. is from México, I believe that it is important to first understand some of the reasons why Mexicans come as laborers. There are many theories about what drives international labor migration. I will begin by giving a brief definition of two theories of labor migration. One is Neoclassical Economic Theory. The other is World Systems Theory that tries to demystify present day globalization by putting its analysis on the level of a total world system rather than on an individual's decision to migrate. I will then give a short history of the introduction of "Green Revolution" technologies in México as one example that ultimately caused labor migration into the United States.

Neoclassical economic theory argues that the decision to migrate is made by individuals who decide that they can earn more money by migrating. There are factors that will push them out of their homelands and factors that will pull them into other areas, therefore, this theory is also referred to as push-pull theory. Labor will try to move from countries with low wages to countries with high wages.

Neoclassical Economic Theory predicts that capital will move in the opposite direction of migrant movements. For example, migrant workers earn money in the host country and they will send their earnings back home to their country of origin. Migration will eventually lead to the formation of migrant networks. Once the networks have matured, migration as an income producing strategy will become part of a particular area's tradition. However, the decision to migrate will still be at the level of the individual (Massey, et al. 1994:701). Neoclassical Economic Theory argues that people move because they are looking for higher wages. This will result in equilibrium as an attempt to close the gap between wealthy countries and poor countries (Massey, et al. 1994:711). This theory does not look at the structure of a total system and tends to be not historical.

In World Systems Theory, a major focus of attention is on the relationship between the core and the periphery. It is this relationship that is essential to the operation and development of the capitalist world economy. Therefore, a key concept in World Systems Theory is interdependence (Hopkins 1982:20).

The unit of analysis is a world system defined in economic processes. The world system is categorized by different levels or zones called the core and periphery. Core and periphery can also refer to core and peripheral states. The terms, core and periphery, originated in the late 1940s and early 1950s in the United Nations Economic Commission on Latin America (Wallerstein 1982:91). They are identified by their different functions. These functions are within the world economic division of labor. Their class structures, political organization, and the means of labor control, also define them. Productive processes are separated from the control and ownership of production. Over time, a pattern of "uneven development" occurs (Hopkins, Wallerstein, et al. 1982:72, 77-78). Since at least the 1300s, the market economy began to expand throughout the world. Today, core areas are highly industrialized Western nations including present day Japan. The periphery generally refers to the Third World.

According to David Harvey, a geographer, the separation of production from capital management began after World War II, but speeded up in 1973. This was because in 1973 there was a recession, i.e. an economic deterioration (Harvey 1989:145-150). In this accelerated process of globalization, peasant and other rural populations lost their land and their ability to survive in their traditional way as farmers. This was because the mechanization of agriculture, government policy changes, and economic restructuring in the Third World caused the destruction of local peasant economies. As a result, the accelerated process of globalization created a population that became displaced and was forced to migrate. This migration was both internal and international (Massey, et al. 1994:722).

The introduction of the Green Revolution technologies in México is one phenomenon that caused Mexican labor migration into the United States. Beginning in the early 1940s, the Green Revolution technologies were introduced in México by the U.S. based Rockefeller Foundation. This technology consisted of a new hybrid corn, and the introduction of herbicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers. A big change was the use of farm machinery and monocropping. Monocropping is the planting and harvesting of only one crop, in this case new hybrid corn.

The Green Revolution technologies were a tremendous change for the Mexican peasantry. This was because for years they had been planting and harvesting their own food to feed themselves without any outside competition. Traditional peasant agriculture was based on the milpa. The milpa was the small plot of land that was planted with a mixture of vegetables. Traditional milpas usually consisted of various indigenous varieties of corn, squash, beans, tomatoes, and chiles. This type of agriculture was excellent for small "micro-environments" (Wilson 2000:194). The people could produce their own food without investing in technologies. This was because they had knowledge of their land, their crops, and their needs.

Several things happened in rural México as a result of the new technologies. First of all, the introduction of new agricultural technologies caused the peasantry to be broken into larger and smaller landholders. A major negative result was that as some small farmers were able to gain more and more land, there was an increase in landless peasants. The creation of a larger class of poor peasants also caused population pressures. This speeded up the proletarianization of poor male heads of households. They were forced to work for wages (Wilson 2000:193).

The newly created proletarian population split into two parts. Poorer peasants were forced to migrate to Mexican cities to look for work. Other peasants who were better established economically were able to stay in the rural communities and work seasonally for wealthier landowners. These peasants also worked as artisans, masons, construction workers, and vendors both in the local areas and outside their communities (Wilson 2000:194).

The introduction of green technologies ultimately pushed poor peasants off their land and into the cities. Since there was little work for the peasants in Mexican cities, many first migrated as laborers to the United States as part of the bracero program. The reason that there was little or no work in the cities for the peasants was because there was a tremendous influx from the rural countryside, and the cities could not take care of the increased population.

The bracero program was a guestworker program that was started by the United States during World War II. It was designed to fill labor requirements while native-born U.S. men were fighting in the war. Both the United States and Mexican governments signed the guestworker agreement. The program continued for a total of 22 years beginning in 1942 and ending in 1964 (Martin 1997:98-99).

The agricultural economist, Philip Martin, predicts that over the next 20 years up to four million more Mexican rural households will be forced out of their rural areas. He says that this population will migrate out of necessity to Mexican cities and then into the United States. These rural Mexicans will migrate out of necessity, according to Martin, as a direct result of the green revolution that began after World War II in México. Martin identifies several reasons for this labor migration. All the reasons that he identifies are related to the Mexican agricultural reforms that were put in place after World War II, and especially for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the early 1990s.

Martin says that many of the new agricultural reforms in México were directly related to NAFTA which went into effect on January 1, 1994. In preparation for NAFTA, the Mexican government changed the Mexican constitution as it related to the ejido lands. The ejidos were lands that were broken up from the large haciendas after the Mexican social revolution of 1910 to 1919. The haciendas were part of a feudal system of landholdings where a very few number of people owned and controlled all the land. After the revolution, the land was equally distributed to rural peasant populations to be worked communally. This land could not be rented or sold, but could be inherited by family members over the generations. Ejidos were used to grow food crops for local distribution and consumption.

Beginning three years before NAFTA, in 1991, the President of México, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, changed the Mexican constitution. What was changed in the constitution was the agrarian law that related to the ejidos. Specifically, "agrarian law effective February 27, 1992; ejido land can be rented or sold; foreigners may own land; no more expropriation of excess land" (Martin 1997:81, Table 3.1). Expropriation of excess land meant that ejido land could be transferred automatically to family members or others by ejido members. When the Mexican Constitution was changed this practice was no longer legal. These changes were critical because now there was no more protection for the rural peasantry. But what was even more critical was that now foreigners could own Mexican land that was used for food consumption. This change allowed big capital interests to invest heavily in the rural sectors in México. The local population was unable to compete with commercial agriculture so they were forced to sell their ejidos. This was because the ejido members could not obtain loans for seeds, fertilizers, and for machinery. This process was part of the green revolution that began in the 1940s.

Nativism has been an important prejudice in America at least since the 19th century. This prejudice favored native-born Americans over foreigners. Beginning in the middle 1800s nativism was usually associated with the public demand for restrictions against immigrants. Nativism can be traced back at least historically to a public movement in the 1830s against Catholic immigrants from Europe. Some of the worst disorder and violence was against the Irish and Germans "during the period from 1830 to 1860" (Cornelius 1982:5). This desire for immigrant restriction occurred even though there were economic contributions by all immigrant workers. Nativist fears were also responsible for laws against specific groups of immigrant laborers. For example, the Chinese Labor Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited the Chinese from immigrating.

Anti-immigrant nativism has been a combination of several things. Racism, religious, cultural, and political differences, and the fear by organized labor that immigrants were a threat to their native interests were all factors in nativist feelings. Periods of anti-immigrant sentiments usually worsen during times of workers’ vulnerability, such as during economic crises and the fear of threats to U.S. security. Over the past 20 years immigrants have been blamed for all sorts of social problems even "environmental deterioration, and urban uprisings" (Calavita 1994:62-63). According to Mike Davis, there is a "nativist hysteria" especially toward the undocumented. For example, they have been blamed for everything in the U.S. from the World Trade Center bombing to the West Nile Virus (Davis 2000:109).

According to Moehring, an economic policy analyst, there are generally three sources of fear concerning the undocumented workers: the fear that they take away jobs from others; the fear that they are hurting the economy; and the fear that there is something morally wrong and dangerous with illegality. This last fear comes mostly from people who are concerned that the U.S. border is not really closed and therefore Americans are in danger. Also, this group is xenophobic and afraid of a growing population of people of color from the Third World (Moehring 1988:290).

What is interesting about today's nativism is that even though there is "relatively low unemployment," there is still a fear of immigrants by workers, especially the undocumented. The new nativism is occurring because globalism is transforming the U.S. economy. The new nativism comes from many studies that try to prove that the undocumented are taking money away from U.S. taxpayers (Calavita 1994:63). Local politicians and taxpayers' associations sponsor these studies, and use the issue of undocumented workers to gain political power (Calavita 1994:63). Cornelius believes that the U.S. society is in a period when nativism is growing and "increasingly respectable." This is because the politicians can use restrictionist ideas hidden in the atmosphere of the "basic values as a society," and as a protection of the middle class living standards (Cornelius 1982:6).

In defense of the undocumented workers there are many studies that support them. For example, generally, they provide benefits to U.S. citizens. Consumers receive benefits in lower prices and services because the undocumented work so cheaply. Also, the undocumented workers pay more in taxes than they use in public services. They also do jobs that do not need to be performed in the U.S. A good example of an industry that does not have to be located in the U.S. is the garment industry, especially in New York City and in Los Angeles. If there were not cheap undocumented labor to work in garment factories, the owners would move outside the country.

The maqiladora zone in México along the U.S.-Mexican border is an area where many industries have moved. Maqiladoras are the production plants on the Mexican side of the border that are mostly assembly factories for electronics and garments. Another argument in support of undocumented laborers is that they prevent automation that also keeps prices low (Moehring 1988:290).

There has also been a long history of immigration policy and laws designed to stop or limit immigration, especially "illegal" immigration. However, these policies have often been written and/or enforced in such a way that in reality they help undocumented workers enter the United States. They also permit employers to use undocumented labor.

In a study of organizational power, the anthropologist, Josiah Heyman, uses the immigration laws affecting the U.S.-Mexican border to show the contradictions in immigration policy. Heyman believes that the purpose of a bureaucracy is actually to control human beings by the state. He wants to locate the power that is "above the bureaucracies." Some examples of this type of power are with the ruling class and other high interested persons in the state. This means that agency decisions are affected by politics. It is important to look at what bureaucracies actually do rather than what the official policies say. Bureaucracies often make decisions based on their self-protection and also on the "protection of labor-market position" on the side of employers (Heyman 1995:261, 264). These are the contradictions that Heyman wants to explore.

An excellent example of contradictory policy occurs at the border with the stopping of undocumented immigrants by the border patrol. When undocumented immigrants are stopped at the U.S.-Mexican border they are given different options. Currently, according to Heyman, there are three "tacit" immigration policies. These are policies involving labor immigrants, usually Mexicans, policies involving asylum seekers, and policies involving narcotics enforcement.

When Mexicans and other labor migrants are caught at the border they are given two choices. These are to leave voluntarily or to request an administrative trial and possibly be formally deported. According to Heyman's research, aliens are actually encouraged to leave the country voluntarily. By being allowed to leave voluntarily, two things happen. First, the INS is saved the time and costs of a trial by letting the person return to México, and secondly, the person has future chances of entering the U.S. without being caught. People that voluntarily leave do so anonymously and are not held for any amount of time. Those that are formally deported run a much greater risk if they return to the U.S., because if they are caught they can be jailed and receive a greater penalty. Also, people that want a deportation hearing have to wait for the hearing, sometimes for weeks. Those that voluntarily leave can turn right around and try to enter again. The probability of entering without detection is greater with voluntary departures.

There is a contradiction in border policy. The contradiction is that border policy actually allows the entrance of undocumented labor through voluntary departure. The policy is written to try to control some of the undocumented entries, but not to stop them completely (Heyman 1995:266).

Kitty Calavita, a researcher in the area of law and society, calls these types of policies and laws, symbolic. In other words, these laws do not achieve what they supposedly are meant to achieve (Calavita 1990:1042). Calavita uses the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) as an example of a symbolic law.

IRCA was signed by former President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986. IRCA was designed to do several things. First, IRCA allowed an amnesty for undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S. Undocumented people had to provide proof that they had been living in the United States continuously since 1982 to qualify for the amnesty. By giving amnesty, the U.S. government was admitting that undocumented laborers deserved to stay in the country and to work. The bill provided 4 billion dollars to cities and states for legalization (Moehring 1988:291). A total of 2.5 million undocumented immigrants were legalized, and several million other people either did not qualify or missed the deadline. That meant that several million people were welcomed and several million people became criminalized. The several million that did not qualify or missed the deadline, however, were not deported (Davis 2000:109).

Probably the most significant part of IRCA was the employer sanctions provision. This was the part of the IRCA that was the most symbolic. The legislators that wrote the law were brilliant. They had to do two things. They had to balance the law so that the public would be satisfied that undocumented immigration flow would stop. The legislators also had to write the law so that the private sector could continue to use undocumented labor. By studying IRCA we can demystify the purpose of this law.

The public was satisfied with the law because of government rhetoric that said that employers would be prosecuted if they hired undocumented workers. This was the official rhetoric. However, when we read the employer sanction part of the law we discover that the law was actually written to protect the employers from government sanctions. The employer sanction part of the law said that employers had to check the documents of their employees. But, employers did not have to prove that the documents were legitimate. According to Calavita, employers could continue to hire undocumented workers and still be in "compliance" of the law ¾ "compliance … is built into employer sanctions and … actively operates to shield employers from prosecution" (Calavita 1990:1042).

This meant that the employers were in compliance of the law by simply asking employees for documents permitting them to work. Because the employers did not have to check if the documents were legal or not, they could still hire undocumented labor and not be breaking the law. By not breaking the law they were free from prosecution. The symbolic part of the law was that the official rhetoric said that the law would prosecute employers for hiring undocumented workers. This was not true.

The change in the structure of the economy because of globalization also protected employers. This was because with globalization larger businesses and corporations began to increasingly use contracted services. Therefore, employers that used contractors to hire employees did not have direct contact with their employees, only with the contracting agency. An example is with the garment industry. With this strategy employers were not directly responsible for checking their employees' work documents. These jobs were contracted out to companies that served capital. This was because of the split in the places of production from the places of the management of capital.

In this paper, my goal has been to show the long history of abuses against both documented and undocumented workers in the United States. I have also attempted to present at least one theory and one actual example for the flow of Mexican workers to the United States ¾ world systems theory and the introduction of green revolution technologies into México.