Cesar Chavez Would Not Have Supported Amnesty for Illegals
The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) recently issued a statement urging Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
No surprise there. The nation’s largest Latino advocacy organization has long been a vocal proponent of such reform. It is especially fond of a major component — a pathway to earned legal status for illegal immigrants if they make amends for the infraction of entering the country illegally by meeting certain conditions.
What was unusual was the marketing behind the plea. The statement came on March 31, and the organization urged that Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform “in recognition of the birthday of the late civil rights leader Cesar Chavez.”
I’ve studied and written about Chavez and the United Farm Workers (UFW) union the labor leader co-founded for more than 20 years. I also grew up in the same San Joaquin Valley where so much of the UFW drama played out. And honestly, at first, I thought the statement was a parody. As I’ll explain in more detail in a moment, the historical record shows that Chavez was a fierce opponent of illegal immigration, and so it’s unlikely that he’d have looked favorably on a plan to legalize millions of illegal immigrants.
But this was no joke. The NCLR actually wanted Congress to honor Chavez by passing comprehensive immigration reform. Here’s how Janet Murguia, NCLR president and CEO, connected the dots between the legislation and the labor leader. Chavez, she said, “shined a national spotlight on the depressed wages and unbearable working conditions experienced by agricultural laborers in the 1960s” and part of “any solution to the myriad problems faced by farm workers is immigration reform.”
I support comprehensive immigration reform. But it is absurd for anyone to invoke the name of Cesar Chavez to pass immigration reform. As I said, were he alive today, it’s a safe bet that Chavez would be an opponent of any legislation that gave illegal immigrants even a chance at legal status.
These days, Chávez is revered among Mexican-American activists and others as a civil rights figure. Yet that’s not who he was. Chavez was primarily a labor leader, and so one of his main concerns was keeping illegal immigrants from competing with and undercutting union members either by accepting lower wages or crossing picket lines. When he pulled workers out of the field during a strike, the last thing he wanted was a crew of illegal immigrant workers showing up to do those jobs and take away his leverage.
So Chavez decided to do something about it. According to numerous historical accounts, Chavez ordered union members to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service and report illegal immigrants who were working in the fields so that they could be deported. Some UFW officials were also known to picket INS offices to demand a crackdown on illegal immigrants.
It gets worse. In 1973, in a disgraceful chapter, the UFW set up what union officials called a “wet line” to stop Mexican immigrants from entering the United States. Under the supervision of Chávez’s cousin, Manuel, UFW members tried at first to convince immigrants not to cross the border. When that didn’t work, they physically attacked the immigrants. Covering the incident at the time, the Village Voice said that the UFW was engaged in a “campaign of random terror against anyone hapless enough to fall into its net.” A couple of decades later, in their book The Fight in the Fields, Susan Ferris and Ricardo Sandoval recalled the border violence and wrote that the issue of how to handle illegal immigration was “particularly vexing” for Chávez.
UFW supporters might brush aside this ugly history and insist that it’s conceivable that, were he alive today, Chavez might have no trouble with the concept of legalizing undocumented immigrants. After all, the argument goes, once those individuals are legal, they won’t be easily exploited and thus won’t be able to undercut the negotiating power of union members.
But there is more to it than that. Keep in mind that the current discussion about comprehensive immigration reform includes plans to bring in, over the next few years, hundreds of thousands of guest workers to — borrowing a phrase — do jobs that Americans won’t do. That provision costs reformers the support of organized labor, and it’s very likely that would have included the support of Cesar Chavez.
In fact, the one good thing to come of this episode might just be that it serves to remind the immigration reform community not only who their heroes really were in the past but also who their friends are today.
Yes farmers actually opposed Chavez because they wanted cheap labor.
Cesar Chavez logically considered illegal immigrants as unjust competitors to impoverished American citizens. How many times am I forced to repeat myself? The issue has been race carded by the leftist establishment. It would have never gotten to this point if these illegals possessed blue eyes and blond hair! The border would have been secured ages ago.
We are simply not going to push an estimate 12 million people out of the United States. That train left the station long ago. We must first secure our borders—and then proceed to work things out. It’s a messy world and a lot of times perfect solutions are not available.
“Cesar Chavez logically considered illegal immigrants as unjust competitors to impoverished American citizens. How many times am I forced to repeat myself? The issue has been race carded by the leftist establishment. It would have never gotten to this point if these illegals possessed blue eyes and blond hair! The border would have been secured ages ago.”
Sorry Charlie, that is pure BS.
It’s the business sector, the conservative business sector, that want illegal aliens.
And remember, the big advantage of illegal aliens is not just providing cheap labor, but holding down the wages of US citizens, and legal residents.
IOW, the right wing is as much behind it as anyone.
“The issue has been race carded by the leftist establishment. It would have never gotten to this point if these illegals possessed blue eyes and blond hair! The border would have been secured ages ago.”
Oh, I forgot to mention. Remember when Ted Kennedy joined with republicans under Reagan to grant amnesty to illegal aliens?
Well, Kennedy was not doing that just for illegal Mexicans, but more for illegal Irish immigrants. Yep, there are illegal Irish immigrants in this country. So many the Catholic Church in Ireland has a bishop whose responsibilities include the spiritual needs of illegal Irish immigrants in this country. Read some of the Irish newsletters and learn.
Oh, and illegal immigrants from other European countries also.
Part of “securing the border” necessarily means using internal enforcement programs such as eVerify as well. Many illegal aliens are visa overstays. IF we are to have a free flow of visitors in and out of this country there must be some way to “encourage” them to leave. Drying up jobs for both visa overstays and illegal crossers is necessary to accomplish that. And if we can do that, there’s certainly no need to amnesty 12 million plus illegal aliens who would then be eligible to sponsor yet more family members.
As it is, there are already ways for the most “sympathetic” of illegal aliens to legalize–eventually. Relatives or spouses of U.S. citizens have paths to do just that–with time, effort, and money spent, effectively putting them to the “back of the line”.
“It gets worse. In 1973, in a disgraceful chapter, the UFW set up what union officials called a “wet line” to stop Mexican immigrants from entering the United States.”
So US citizen trying to protect our boarders is disgracefull? You are such a retarded shill for illegals. You need to figure out where your loyalty lies, with the county that gave you everything, or those who would break our laws.
I still dont know how or why they let you post your ignorance on this site.
If Cesar were alive (RIP) we could have put him in charge of border control. He would have done a better job and our problem wouldn’t be as bad as it is.
That’s correct. The issue would have never been race carded. The vast majority of Americans would have reasonably concluded that Cesar Chavez was acting in a rational—and humane manner. There is neither a logical nor a moral reason in allowing illegal aliens to violate our immigration laws.
We are also lucky that there are have not been anymore Herrin Massacres
Naverette’s making sense again. There’s a disturbance in the farce.
If there were no demand for workers, or benefits to being here like citizenship for their offspring, they wouldn’t come. We must do inland enforcement as well as enforcement against employers. This is a well written article on how the failure to secure our borders affects the blue collar workers whom Chavez was concerned with.
Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. The US did this same thing in the 40s, the 60s, and the 80s- providing paths to citizenship for illegals already in the country with promises to get tough on border enforcement. We always end up in the same situation- employers trying to get cheaper labor by hiring the next batch of illegals, since those just legalized now expect better wages. And no improved border enforcement and no improved immigration enforcement.
Folks pushing comprehensive immigration reform aren’t insane. They know full well it is not reform at all, simply preserving the status quo, just like the plan in the 40s, 60s, and 80s.
Chavez would have been very much in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. However, Chavez’s REFORM would have been cutting down on illegal immigrants.
The word “reform” does not mean amnesty for illegals nor greater immigration into the US.
“Reform” means “the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.:” or “to change to a better state, form, etc.; improve by alteration, substitution, abolition, etc.”
Perhaps some illegal immigrants don’t want actual citizenship, because that would require the payment of taxes, adherence to wage and labor laws, and being paid in something other than cash (in other words, being on the grid). Perhaps employers want to hire illegal immigrants because it allows them to skirt such laws. To legitimize those workers means their labor costs go up as they must now incur Social Security, Medicare, and possibly medical expenses on those employees.
Start looking at the deleterious effect that well-meaning but misguided labor legislation has on the economy, and you’ll start to see why illegal immigration is nothing more than a government-created problem.
Employers already have access to farmworkers through the H2-A visa program which has no cap on the number of visas issued. If farmers were only concerned about having access to labor, then they have access to an unlimited supply of it with this program. However, the program does require that they pay a decent wage and observe rules. Why do that when you can hire an illegal alien for less and stick the U.S. taxpayer with the bill? Illegal immigration is yet ANOTHER subsidy to the farmer.
Chavez was just another union thug – he just wanted the power for himself in UFW instead of in some other union, and he wanted the benefit money in the UFW coffers instead of in funds that were audited and one could be reasonably sure it would be used for the intended purpose. A thoroughly bad actor – we had dealings with him in the Valley in the ’70s. If I look around, I might still have an “Eat Grapes: The Forbidden Fruit!” bumper sticker.
Im still waiting for Mexican immigration reform, Ruben. Have you been littering the Mexican press with diatribes directed at the xenophobic racist Mexicanos?
I’ve been reading Navarette’s pro amnesty propaganda for years. This is his best piece. It’s actually informative and not propaganda. Even a blind squirrel…
@thevore
Actually I think we’ve just become so jaded that our standards for him have been sufficiently lowered. Things like “It gets worse. In 1973, in a disgraceful chapter … ugly history” is still shameful propagandizing, just not as bad as usual. But he still has the nerve to quote a Village Voice editorial like it’s some kind of reputable source.
For those of us that already knew about Cesar Chavez, this article was yet another naive snoozer.
At last! Something in Pajamasmedia I can pretty much agree with. I remember when Chavez said we do not need one single immigrant, legal or illegal, to work in our fields. We have enough legal residents, and, yes, US citizens to do that.
Stop illegal immigration. Arrest employers who knowingly hire illegals. And a very great many know. Force illegals out of this country. And that includes illegal European immigrants.
That alone will drastically reduce unemployment and help bring our country back to the road to prosperity.
Hey Ruben, why do you hate blue collar America? Why do you openly try to push them out of the middle class?
It’s bad enough that our middle class was hammered by the loss of much of our manufacturing base to overseas corporate/government predatory partnerships, but you and your friends have to import millions of cheap laborers as well?
It used to be that a guy who could build a house could afford to buy one, but those days are gone… his wages gutted by discount imported labor.
It used to be that a guy working as a short order cook could save his money and buy the restaurant, but those days are gone… his wages slashed by expendable imported labor.
It used to be that a young, unskilled widow could get a job as a hotel maid or in their laundry and keep a roof over her and her children’s heads without government handouts, but those days are gone… her wages stunted by disposable imported labor.
Is this hatred a class thing? Do you just hold all without college degrees in disdain… undeserving of decent lives?
Is this a race thing? A need to import others who look like you so strong it over-rides all other considerations?
Is it a cultural pride thing? A desire to see a healthy Latino middle class so overwhelming that you’ll try to create it here, ’cause it sure ain’t gonna happen back there… even if its failure to materialize here will mean the destruction of America?
I really wanna know, Ruben. What drives you to cling to the belief that importing millions of people who can only work menial jobs is good for America? Why do so many refuse to assimilate them so they continue the dysfunction of their home countries, and then pretend to be moral? Why do you and so many others pretend this non-assimilation model is healthy when roughly forty percent of their children and grandchildren drop out of high school? How in the hell is any of this good for America?
Why do you continue the politically correct lies?
This is a pretty good article but it also hints at a larger issue which hasn’t been well discussed. The Democratic party has basically brought in just about every special interest group it could think of with the promise of advancing their agenda by pushing hard against the “moneyed” class. Leaving aside that there’s an moneyed class anymore, the problem is that when the Democrats are in power, they know that there’s no way they can pay off all of those groups so they have to throw some of them under the bus. But that’s not always bad – throw one guy under the bus and maybe the others will toe the line. It’s part of the reason the left is so monolithic in opinion – if they don’t hold to the party line, they could be next.
Even so, there are real policy conflicts between these interest groups. Immigration is an obvious one, but there’s free trade, religious/family issues (most immigrants are more religious than your average lefty), the occasional foreign policy issue, etc. This is why the Democrats had such huge trouble with health care reform – they aren’t a party with a policy, they’re a bunch of interest groups in a coalition government. In these cases you’ll see a dealmaking explosion as they try to hold it all together.
Ruben Navarrette gets his facts wrong when he writes Cesar Chavez fiercely opposed undocumented immigration and claims “it’s a safe bet” if he was alive today, the United Farm Workers founder would oppose legislation letting undocumented workers earn legal status. I was Chavez’s longtime press secretary and personal aide, including much of the period Navarrette cites.
Like any legitimate union, the UFW never tolerated strikebreaking by anyone, regardless of ethnicity or immigration status. Yet in 1973, UFW became the first major union to oppose the employer sanction, banning employers from hiring undocumented workers, years before other labor organizations acted similarly. The UFW consistently organized and represented undocumented workers. Some became union leaders. Ironically, during strikes those pickets most vocally demanding immigration authorities remove undocumented strikebreakers from the fields were themselves undocumented. The UFW appealed to strikebreakers crossing the border in the early 1970s not to break citrus and melon strikes near Yuma, Arizona, but never used threats or violence.
Chavez strongly backed the 1986 immigration reform law, fashioned by UFW co-founder Dolores Huerta, that let a million immigrants gain legal status. It’s hard to know what his stand would be on current immigration proposals before Congress. But Chavez was a realist who always accepted, and organized, the farm labor work force as it existed. It’s a safe bet Chavez today would be proud his union is championing immigration reform, including the bipartisan AgJobs bill allowing undocumented farm workers to earn the right to stay here by continuing to work in agriculture.
Marc Grossman
United Farm Workers spokesman
If illegal aliens want a “right” to work here, then let them use the guest worker programs which are already available to them. As it is, that “cheap” farm labor under AgJobs or any other bill is subsidized by the American taxpayer and would be so even more were there to be an amnesty. Legalized illegal alien farmworkers are uneducated and unskilled and that wouldn’t change with amnesty. Nor are wages likely to rise greatly since a key factor in wages is the NUMBER of workers available to do a job. Instead, they’d be able to access even more welfare programs and social services, as well as bring more relatives. They’d also be more able to compete with low skilled Americans for other, non agricultural jobs, as other illegal aliens already do, displacing Americans from those jobs. And what happens when legalized farm workers move on to those better jobs and farmers then want yet more compliant workers?
By the way, it’s worth noting that the 1986 amnesty contributed to the increase in poverty in American between 1996 and 2006. That increase resulted from the addition of 3 million Hispanics living in poverty (see Robert Samuelson, Washington Post, Sept. 5, 2007). It also resulted in just one country, Mexico, providing 15-20% of our LEGAL immigration for the past two decades due to our emphasis on “family reunification”. As an Arab-American, I consider THAT simply unfair to the millions of would be immigrants living in countries that don’t have a land border with the US and who observe our immigration laws.
By the way, consider that fact that MOST illegal aliens do NOT work in agriculture, but in jobs alongside Americans where they displace American workers and drive down wages. It’s worth noting that the average agricultural worker lives well below the poverty level and that farm wages have actually decreased in real terms. The UFW’s well publicized PR stunt to get Americans to do jobs that farm workers are doing ignores the reality that wages are set by market forces, just as prices of goods are, and that in increasing the supply of labor, illegal immigration effectively pushes wages down. Let the UFW offer a series of higher and higher wages and see at what point Americans will enter the farm workforce. Consider, too, that overproduction of agricultural products is what puts downward pressure on prices since these products are commodities and farmers are price takers. Such overproduction is made possible by a large supply of unskilled labor. With a smaller workforce, higher wages, and lower production, farmers may actually find that they can make a profit with higher prices.