Thursday, July 1, 2010

Operation Wetback


Now here's something that's pretty darned interesting:

You folks know Snopes, right? It's one of the main "fact check" sites on the internet.

Whenever I receive some email that sounds too nutty to be true, I check it out using Snopes and/or FactCheck.

Anyway... I was just doing a bit of light research on Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback" and funny enough... Snopes - one of the initial "hits" that popped up - notes the follow on their "Operation Wetback" page:

Claim: "Operation Wetback" deported 13 million Mexican nationals from the U.S. during the 1950's.

Status: Undetermined/Research In Progress.

Interesting, huh...??? I mean... this isn't exactly a new topic... a new question. I learned about "Operation Wetback" decades ago, back during college.

Certainly the "immigration debate" has been going on hot and heavy for years now...

Why the lack of confirmation or denial from Snopes....?

Hmm... let's see what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:

(Here we go!)

Operation Wetback was a 1954 operation by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove about one million illegal immigrants from the southwestern United States, focusing on Mexican nationals.

The operation was modeled after a program that came to be termed the Mexican Repatriation, which put pressure on citizens of Mexico to return home during the Great Depression, due to the economic crisis in the United States.

The effort began in California and Arizona, and coordinated 1075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies, to mount an aggressive crackdown. ... By the end of July, over 50,000 immigrants were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal immigrants are claimed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their accord.

To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory, prior to releasing them.

Tens of thousands more were deported by two chartered ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (800 kilometers) to the south. Some were taken as far as 1,000 miles.

Now of course the Wikipedia article - and indeed most portrayals of Operation Wetback - note the "abuses" which took place during enforcement.

(I mean, think about it... other than FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans during WW-2 and pre-civil-war slavery or post-civil-war Jim Crow, what could possibly be more "politically incorrect" than Eisenhower's mass deportations...???)

Taking it as a given that any government program of this scope would give rise to mistakes and abuses, the question remains... was Operation Wetback effective...???

A few years back, July 6, 2006 to be exact, the Christian Science Monitor ran a story by John Dillin titled, "How Eisenhower Solved Illegal Border Crossings from Mexico."

(Quoting...)

Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents – less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

[T]he late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower's first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office. America "was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale," Mr. Brownell said. "When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico every year without restraint."

Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.

According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were "approximately half" the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.

Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike's official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.

General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said "Amen" to Senator Fulbright's proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."

Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower.

Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement "had friends among the ranchers," and agents "did not dare" arrest their illegal workers.

Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: "When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now."

During the 1950s, however, this "Good Old Boy" system changed under Eisenhower - if only for about 10 years.

In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.

Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him - and the Border Patrol - from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.

[O]n June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. ... By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.

General Swing's fast-moving campaign soon secured America's borders - an accomplishment no other president has since equaled.

Illegal migration had dropped 95% by the late 1950s.

Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.

"Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!" Edwards says.

Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, "they'd be on top of this in a minute."

William Chambers, another '50s veteran, agrees. "They could do a pretty good job" sealing the border.

Edwards says: "When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce."

Well, folks... there ya go.

I agree with the officials Dillin interviewed back in 2006. Contrary to the naysayers, it seems clear to me that what was once accomplished successfully - with none of the technology we possess today, 56 years later - could be re-achieved today. (At the very least we'd be moving in the right direct... we'd be moving forwards, not backwards!)

It seems to me that if President Obama had an interest in enforcing the Rule of Law and protecting our borders, our territory, and our citizens... well... he could do so.

Folks... they're lying to you when they tell you we can't deport illegal aliens. We've done it in the past - we could do so now... if only we had the will!

Yes, we can debate whether we should control our border, whether we should deport illegals. I understand and acknowledge this.

But folks... what can't be seriously or sincerely debated is our capacity to do so should a future Congress and future President decide to reverse current policies which leave us vulnerable not just to terrorism and crime, but to the economic losses caused by downward pressure on native American wages - particularly the wages (not to mention the very job opportunities!) of our most vulnerable citizens attempting to secure their own share of the American Dream.

12 comments:

midcon said...

Bill,

Wouldn't you agree that our government is merely being responsive to political pressures by agribusiness, ranchers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all of whom have no interest in changing the status quo? It's not just a "relaxation of ethical standards," it is the direct violation of the law by the illegals and those who employ them. Illegal immigrants are like firearms. Illegal immigrants don't take jobs away from Americans, business is giving those jobs away. Until there is consensus in this country on what to do about the problem, cosmetic measures will be the only result. You and I enjoy the fruits of illegal immigrant labor. Until both us start putting our money where our mouth is, there will be no change. As I always say, Wal Mart does not destroy Main Streets. It's the people who shop at Wal Mart that are the culprits.

Give me a list of products that are primarily produced with illegal immigrant labor and let's all agree that we will not longer buy those products. Want to change the status quo - that's what it will take - a boycott. Until then, business is incentivized to produce products cheaply in order to gain a price advantage in the market place.

Dave (Midcon)

William R. Barker said...

Hey Midcon - long time no hear!

(Are you still hang'n at that loser Frum's site...???)

Anyway... to answer your questions:

1) Yes. I totally agree that agribusiness, certain ranchers and farmers (by not all by any means; I'm guessing a small minority, actually), and certain other "business interests" are out to exploit illegal immigrant labor.

(But in sheer numbers I'd say these "business interests" as represented by individuals are dwarfed by the urban and suburban upper middle class professionals who exploit not farm workers, but rather household "help" and "property workers.")

In other words, the "fault" here is greed and human nature rather than strictly along ideological lines.

Would you agree with that?

Next:

Does "relaxation of ethical standards" serve as the one and only descriptive of what's going on? No. Of course not. But I'd say the phrase identifies a major piece of the puzzle as related to my greed and selfishness.

As to your analogy "illegals are like firearms..."

(*GRIN*)

Cute. But no...

(*CHUCKLE*)

Illegals DO take jobs away from Americans. (And even if you won't concede this, you must concede that illegal labor depresses wages - right...???)

Yes, Midcon, you and I "benefit" from illegal labor, but that's one (of many!) "benefits" (courtesy of government action and inaction) that I would like to do without.

(*WINK*)

As to "consensus," well, you know me... I'm about what's right - the consensus can coalesce around that.

(And btw, there is a rough consensus; a substantial majority of Americans want our immigration laws enforced. Certainly you won't contest that I hope.)

Dave... seriously... I'm all about "putting my money where my mouth is," but until restaurants and bars put up signs saying "legal labor only" vs. "illegals in the kitchen" (*CHUCKLE*) what am I supposed to do?

For what it's worth, my landscapers are Americans - each and every one.

For what it's worth, I've never had a "maid" or a "nanny" - and even if I were one of those folks who hire "domestic help" I sure as hell wouldn't hire an illegal alien.

As to Walmart... while you definitely have a point, I'd go one step up the ladder of responsibility. It's the U.S. government via its misguided "free trade" (vs. FAIR trade... vs. trade policies crafted to build up rather than tear down American manufacturing) policies (championed by both Republican and Democratic oligarchs and their pilot fish) which I object to.

(But, yes... absent government action I'd still cheer Walmart till I was horse if only they'd deliberately shift to a "American products for American citizens" purchasing/sales policy.)

Finally... still on "Buy American"... I address this topic each Christmas Season and I do my best to live my ideals.

BILL

Anonymous said...

FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans, the pre- & post-Civil
War's Negro slavery, BUT, THE MOST
INCORRECT OF ALL EVEN ABOVE THAT OF "OPERATION WETBACK" AND UNMENTIONED IN THIS ARTICLE, WERE THE FORCED MARCHES OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS - THE FIRST AMERICANS - IN THE DIFFERENT "TRAILS OF TEARS" WHERE MANY DIED MARCHING TO CONFINEMENT SITES AS ORDERED BY THE WHITE MAN'S "LAND-GRABBING" FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND
ITS "EMINENT DOMAIN!"

William R. Barker said...

Anon,

The "Trail of Tears" is a bit... er... removed from the specific topic at hand, but...

(*SHRUG*)

Whatever!

(*GRIN*)

For what it's worth, I certainly don't look upon the legacy of U.S. Government/Settlers interaction with America's native population as something to take pride in.

That said... different times... different societal mores...

I'm not say that this makes it right; I'm simply noting the reality.

Thanks for posting.

BILL

Anonymous said...

I also have found snopes to be lacking...They are a small mom and pop operation and just pass on info. I have been using truthorfiction and find them to be right on.

William R. Barker said...

Thanks, Anon (of April 23, 2011 6:54 PM).

I'll check out TruthorFiction.

I assume you stumbled upon my blog while researching Operation Wetback; in any case, no matter how you came to the blog, I hope you check back - specifically, check out my newsbites - as time permits.

Happy Easter! (Or Passover if you're Jewish!)

BILL BARKER

Anonymous said...

Snopes isn't wikipedia, it's a site that verifies whether information contained in fwd; fwd; fwd e-mails has any basis in reality (hint: it usually doesn't).

The problem is that hoaxers got wise to the service that sites like these provide, and after first trying to discredit them (and failing) they started to 'improve' their e-mails by including true information, but twisting it to fit their ideology.

The most comical part is the way that these hoaxers boldly post 'verified by snopes' often including links that actually contradict the claims - because that's exactly how stupid they think people are (and there never seems to be a shortage of people willing to prove them right).

In this case they are attempting to push the myth that rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants will magically result in jobs for Americans - ignoring the fact that almost no American would do most of these jobs (certainly not for the ridiculously low wages).

William R. Barker said...

Nope. Snopes isn't wikipedia.

Both however provide a valuable free service... yet both should be used (relied upon) cautiously.

Heck... that's a constant theme of mine - verify, verify, verify!

In any case... I'd certainly supporting rounding up and deporting many... perhaps even most... illegal aliens.

No "magic" involved.

Not a "cure-all."

But it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

I do love the fact that after three years this particular post still keeps getting new hits; thanks for chiming in, Anon!

BILL

Anonymous said...

The problem isn't that joblessness is stemming from illegal aliens taking away jobs (much less jobs that pay a livable wage and possess any sort of benefits), it's that such jobs are being offshored to other countries.

If there is a problem with Mexicans doing manufacturing jobs that Americans used to do, it isn't because Mexicans crossed the border illegally - it's because companies shipped their factories to Mexico where they can pay people less and environmental and labor standards are less stringent. It's the fault of the companies, not the people.

But people who get wrapped up in xenophobia tend to ignore that, since they are more interested in rationalizing their racism than any actual concern about the well being of American workers.

(leading to a great political irony as it regards immigration - Democrats tend to be stricter about border enforcement, but play it down for fear of looking anti-immigrant, Republicans play up the rhetoric for the [thinly veiled bigotry] of a part the base, while looking the other way as many big donors can save lots of money by hiring illegally).

William R. Barker said...

Wow... this is certainly the post that keeps on giving!

Anon. Did I defend "off-shoring?"

"Xenophobia...???" "Racism...???"

Again... while I'm happy you happened upon my blog and this post, and while I'm quite happy to "approve" your response being posted... I'm not quite sure where your disagreement with what I wrote comes in.

As to your claim that democrats tend to be stricter on border enforcement than Republicans...

(*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)

Where exactly do you get that from...?

Anyway... thanks for posting! Hope you stick with the blog!

BILL

Anonymous said...

Anon blames the companies for shipping the jobs offshore for lower wages. How does that stack up against our government imposing the highest corporate tax in the world? Let's not forget that the CEO's of those companies have a fiscal responsibility to the shareholders which requires them to lower costs and keep share prices high. Plus with all the unnecessary restrictions that our government imposes on these businesses many are left with little choice but to "get outta Dodge".

Boobie The Rocket Dog said...

Snopes is run by leftist Obamaphiles. We all know that.
The only way to get a straight answer there is to ask a completely non-political question and, in the Snopes editors' view, there is no such thing.