Texan Immigration During the 20th Century

Introduction

“You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.” – Davy Crockett, 1825[1]

“I invoked the Invasion Clauses of the U.S. & Texas Constitutions to fully authorized Texas to take unprecedented measures to defend our state against an invasion.” – Governor of Texas Greg Abbott, referring to Latin American immigration into Texas.[2]

From its beginning, Texas was a state defined by immigration. Despite its massive size, Texas only had a population of 50,000 when it was annexed to the United States in 1845. Since then, much of Texas’ population growth has come from immigration, either foreign or domestic. This immigration has been welcomed at times and opposed by nativist elements in the state at others. However, in recent years, the reaction to immigrants has become its most negative, as State officials consider all methods to stop the flow of “illegal aliens” into Texas. Despite this, Texas cannot have its own immigration policy, since immigration is the domain of the federal government.[3] However, Texas can vary the degree to which it obeys federal policy, and thus can make its own policy.[4]

The goal of this paper is to trace this immigration policy in Texas from 1900-2000, highlighting the various reasons for the three most effective[5] immigration changes of the twentieth century: the establishment of the Border Patrol, the Bracero program, and the Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1984.

Overall, immigration policy that affects Texas has trended towards greater restriction on illegal immigration, even as the number of illegal and legal immigrants has rapidly increased throughout the twentieth century.   

The Border Patrol and Early Texas

            Until 1924, the only federal control on immigration was the U.S. Immigration Service, based in El Paso. They patrolled the Mexican border, but also sent their 75 officers as far west as California to help stop illegal Chinese immigration. In addition to the U.S. IS in Texas, the Texas Rangers functioned as de facto border patrols.

Yet this patchwork of organizations largely failed to prevent undocumented immigration, since the U.S. Immigration Service was chronically unfunded and understaffed and could not work with state agencies.[6] Recognizing this, Frank W. Berkshire, the father of the border patrol, wrote a letter in 1918 to the Commissioner-General of Immigration, arguing that immigration and customs laws along the border with Mexico were impossible to uphold.[7] Afterall, what was the purpose of import taxes if undocumented immigrants could simply walk into the United States across the thousand miles of land border that connected Mexico to Texas? Another problem was that the U.S. Immigration Service’s workload was increasing, as it was tasked with upholding the new Immigration Act of 1918, which allowed the government to deport anarchists, communists, and other “undesirable aliens.”[8] This increased workload stressed an already chronically understaffed agency. For example, in the best-staffed portion of the border with Mexico in Texas, Brownsville, twenty men were tasked with preventing border crossing across three cities. The cities covered 120 miles, and were too busy with paperwork and monitoring the cities that none of the officers attempted to prevent illegal crossings between the cities.[9] In Brownsville, the military often stepped in to prevent a complete collapse of security along the border, as there had been bandit raids and approximately 2400 soldiers were stationed to prevent further aggression.[10] The other sections of Texas’ 1,254 mile border with Mexico were even more understaffed, and did not typically have military aid. Moreover, local state agencies did not aid the U.S. Immigration Service, which was explained not by “lack of willingness but rather to the fact that these agencies, numerical relatively small, are uncoordinated, lacking in centralized authority and control,” according to Berkshire.[11] This lack of coordination and success and the reasons for it were relatively uniform throughout the southern border.

To establish a more effective agency, the Federal Government began to consider founding the Border Patrol in 1918. In a Proposal to Establish an Immigration Service on the Land Boundaries, written in that year, Berkshire outlined this new agency. With the goal of preventing the immigration of the “most undesirable classes,” undocumented workers, the proposal suggested an additional one thousand officers along the southern border, several times the current allotment.[12] Unsurprisingly, this program was far too expensive for the United States, especially during World War I, as it was already going deep into debt simply to fight that conflict. The additional 1,000 officers, and outfitting them with horses and equipment, would have cost more than $4 million in 1918 currency, which was about a third what the government spent on education that year.[13] Recognizing this, Berkshire edited his original proposal, cutting down the cost to $700,000. This plan gained approval from the Secretary of Labor in 1918. However, thanks to bureaucratic delay and other issues taking precedent, Congress did not fund it until 1924, when the Border Patrol was officially established.

Unfortunately, the historical literature on the effectiveness of the border patrol at preventing illegal immigration from Mexico is lacking. What we do know is that they hired, many officers from local and state agencies, and worked primarily on preventing bootlegging during prohibition.

After the border patrol was established, the percentage of foreign-born people in Texas remained relatively constant until the Bracero Program.

The Bracero Program

On December 8, 1941, the United States declared war on the Japan- three days later found itself at war with Germany and Italy. America’s manpower reserves were rapidly drained as it mobilized 19,000,000 men and several million more men and women flocked to the newly reinvigorated military industry. As a result of this wartime labor shortage, the United States signed several diplomatic pacts with Mexico allowing the United States to import Mexican farm workers (Bracero in Spanish), for farm work. The 1942 Bracero agreements remained relatively unchanged until 1947, when it was renegotiated and would last until 1962, when mechanization of farming made the Braceros unnecessary.

Initially, Mexico had several reasons for agreeing to the Bracero Program. First, to contribute to the war effort. Despite declaring war on the Axis powers during May 1942, Mexico did not have the industry or finance to equip and transport an army to Europe. However, Mexico did have a large amount of unutilized manpower. Second, payments for the Braceros’ labor were well beyond what most rural Mexicans could expect to earn in Mexico.[14] This money then flowed back into the rural communities of Mexico, helping to raise them out of poverty: between $20 and $120 million per year for the first five years of the Bracero program.[15] Third, it provided a “safety valve” for allegedly unruly aspects of Mexico’s population, who would think about challenging governmental authority because of their impoverished lifestyle.[16] Mexico had the metaphorical high ground in these negotiations, thanks to America’s desperate need for the labor. They won several key victories, such as assurances against mistreatment of their workers. Additionally, the government of the United States would officially hire the workers and then loaning them out to farmers, allowing the government to protect them.[17] Another victory was that Mexico could exclude farmers from the program who used undocumented workers.[18]

It is worth highlighting Texas’ response to the Bracero program during its first 5 years. Initially, Texan farmers refused to participate in the program because they wanted an agreement that provided less protection to the Braceros.[19] During World War I, a precursor to the Bracero program was established that provided little to no protection for Mexican workers and allowed farmers to directly hire them without going through any government agency.[20] Not willing to settle for the new agreement, which guaranteed Braceros’ fair payment, cheap meals, and free housing, Texan farmers opted to continue hiring Mexican workers illegally.[21] One event that demonstrates Texas’ attitude was the El Paso incident of May, 1943. Yeilding to intense pressure from Texan growers,[22] the immigration service authorized 2,040 Mexican workers to enter the United States not under the terms of the Bracero agreement, literally opening the gates and handing out cards which entitled the Mexicans to one year’s work in the United States.[23] This greatly angered Mexico, since it had previously stated (in an attempt to increase its bargaining power) that it would only allow Mexicans to work in the United States if they went through the Bracero program.[24] The crisis was only resolved when the United States committed that it would not import Mexican labor in any way other than through the Bracero agreement.[25] However, the 2,040 Mexican workers who crossed at this moment were allowed to stay.[26]
            After the El Paso incident, Texas farmers began to realize that their one option for Mexican labor was the Bracero program.[27] They began to apply to import workers, but late in 1943, Mexico barred Texas from the program due to the “number of cases of extreme, intolerable racial discrimination.”[28] Mexicans were historically treated poorly in Texas, and interest groups in Mexico thought it was too harming for their national identity and pride if they allowed their citizens to be mistreated.[29]

Immediately after the ban was announced, agriculture interests in Texas, led by the Texas Farm Bureau, hired Judge Cullen Briggs. Briggs met with Mexican officials in Ciudad Juárez and relayed their demands for Texas to be considered for the Bracero program to Texan Governor Coke Stevenson.[30] Unsurprisingly, Mexico’s main concern was the treatment of Mexicans in Texas, and Governor Stevenson began a campaign to reduce the racism that plagued Texas. He went on a “good will” tour of Mexico, promising to address the racism when he returned to Texas, established the Good Neighbor Commission to monitor acts of racism, and promised to “deal severely” with acts of Racism.[31] Thinking he had resolved Mexico’s concerns, Stevenson sent a letter to the Mexican Foreign Minister Manuel Ávila Camacho, asking him for several thousand workers to help with the cotton harvest. Despite Stevenson’s adept work with Mexican authorities, and the Federal Government stepping in to help by holding three-day negotiations with Mexico in Mexico City, public opinion in Mexico was still largely against Texas. The horror stories of discrimination filtered into Mexican newspapers such as, "Texas, Buen Vecino?" ("Texas, Good Neighbor?), where Mexico challenged the legitimacy of Stevenson’s attempts at reducing racism in Texas.[32] Foreign Minister Camacho denied Stenensons request, stating that Mexico could not go against public opinion.[33]

By 1944, after two years of negotiation, most Texas farmers stopped attempting to join the Bracero program. This was due to a variety of factors; Texas could still hire undocumented workers and pay them less- Texas had hired more than half of all undocumented workers in the United States by 1947. Additionally, Texas created a program to better treat Mexican Americans already legally citizens, which increased the effectiveness of those residential workers.[34] Moreover, during 1945, the troops started coming home, dulling the need for imported Mexican labor in Texas.

Yet as time went on, other problems forced Mexico to reconsider Texan membership in the Bracero program. There were two main reasons: first, as mentioned above, Texas had many undocumented workers, amounting to more than half of the U.S.’ total. Mexico could not protect these individuals, and they were treated miserably, leading to embarrassment from Mexico and outrage from certain nationalist elements within the country.[35] Second, Mexico had lost its war-time bargaining power, and was thus forced to yield to more American demands when they met to extend the Bracero program in 1947, the chief among them allowing Texas into the program and allowing farmers to directly hire workers. The final deal, worked out in March 1947, stipulated that undocumented workers in Texas would be deported to Mexico, although they could sign up for the program and go back to the United States. In return, Texas would become part of the regularly functioning Bracero agreements.

Now with a legal way to import Mexican labor, demand in Texas for labor surged. Of the 4.5 million Braceros that were transported to the United States during the agreement, the majority were transported to Texas, followed closely by California.[36] Interestingly, a minority of these workers never returned to Mexico, and despite the best efforts of “Operation Wetback,” as named by the Federal government, which deported 1.1 million Mexicans, many more stayed in Texas illegally.[37]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Oil Boom

Very little changed as far as policy is concerned between 1962 and the late 1970s. The number of immigrants, both undocumented and documented, steadily increased thanks to increased emigration pressures in Latin America, yet no laws were passed in the United States to cause any significant change. Presidential campaigns and local campaigns were generally not decided by immigration, as it took a back seat.

            However, as the United States entered the late 1970s, the problem of undocumented immigrants was becoming dire. In 1980 alone, as many as 500,000 undocumented workers from Mexico and across central America entered the United States. Public opinion was rapidly turning against immigrants from south, with 91% of Americans supporting an “all-out-effort” to stop the tide of undocumented immigrants.[38] In 1978, Congress created the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy to “study and evaluate… existing laws, policies, and procedures” surrounding immigration.[39]

            In 1981, the committee, in a 453-page report, made 67 recommendations to increase the percentage of legal immigration compared to illegal immigration. Importantly, overall immigration would decrease if all the recommendations were enacted, but legal immigration would increase. One metaphor used by a review of the report was opening the front door (legal immigration) to help close the backdoor (illegal immigration).[40]

            The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was created based off of the recommendations of the Select Committee. The IRCA penalized employers who knowingly hired undocumented workers, increased funding to the Border Patrol, and provided amnesty for undocumented workers who had been in the United States since 1980.[41] Under this provision, more than 2,700,000 immigrants were legalized.[42] The goal of the Act was to provide a clean slate for the country, allowing it to restrict illegal immigration. Yet, this goal failed; despite the increased funding for the border patrol, illegal immigration continued to grow, driven by violence in Central and South America. In addition, legal immigration also increased into Texas.

            At the time the IRCA was passed, Texas was experiencing an economic boom thanks to the oil industry and had already been home to a large portion of the U.S.’ illegal immigrant population. These factors, combined with the increasing illegal immigration, caused Texas’ foreign-born population to rapidly expand. Previously, it had hovered around 3% for most of the 20th century, yet it skyrocketed to over 13% by 2000 (Appendix A).

Conclusion

            In 1900, Texas had a foreign-born population of roughly 6% (Appendix A). By 2000, this percentage had grown to 13%, and would continue to increase to roughly 17% in 2021.[43] The foreign-born population decreased after the establishment of the Border Patrol in 1924, and then increased after the implementation of the Bracero program in 1942. However, it only permanently increased after the IRCA in 1986. which has set the stage for immigration issues in Texas during the twenty first century. While other pieces of legislation, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, were created during the 20th century, their effects were not felt until past 2000, so it was not covered in this paper.

            There is still work to be done to fix immigration policy in the United States today. America’s current policy towards refugees and immigration has received criticism from both sides of the political spectrum as immigration has become more of a critical issue in political campaigns. Texas in the past has prospered thanks to the work of migrant workers and established foreign born citizens alike.  If Texas hopes to continue being the primary driver of America’s economic growth, it will have to learn to accept immigrants as it has in the past.

Appendix

(see picture in link)

Source: 1. Pia Orrenius, Dallas Fed § (2018), https://www.dallasfed.org/research/events/2018/~/media/documents/research/events/2018/18vistas-orrenius.pdf.

[1] “‘You May All Go to Hell’ and 9 More Great Texas Quotes,” Texas Standard, March 6, 2019, https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/you-may-all-go-to-hell-and-9-more-great-texas-quotes/.

[2]Abbott, Greg. Twitter Post. November 15, 2022, 10:21 AM. https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1592553350129909762.

[3]  The U.S. Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, … throughout the United States.”

[4] Texas had made its own policy, for example with sanctuary cities. In these cities, in order to prevent family breakup and suffering, the city will delay detaining undocumented immigrants for up to two days beyond what the federal government demands, among other policies to help those immigrants. Greg Abbott outlawed sanctuary cities in May 2017; see also here for Abbott’s reasoning for banning sanctuary cities.

[5] Effective in this case defined as the largest net changes in immigrants in Texas.

[6] “Border Patrol History,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection, accessed August 1, 2023, https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/history.

[7] Frank w Berkshire to Commissioner General of Immigration, “Berkshire Border Report,” Honor First, February 5, 1918, https://www.honorfirst.com/uploads/4/7/0/8/47087249/1918_02_05_berkshire_border_report.pdf, 1.

[8] See also Garry Gerstle American Crucible for more information on the Immigration Act of 1918.

[9] Frank w Berkshire to Commissioner General of Immigration, “Berkshire Border Report,” Honor First, February 5, 1918, https://www.honorfirst.com/uploads/4/7/0/8/47087249/1918_02_05_berkshire_border_report.pdf, 1-2.

[10] Ibid., 2.

[11] Ibid., 2.

[12] Frank W Berkshire, “In Re Proposal to Establish An Immigration Patrol Service On The Land Boundaries,” Honor First, April 29, 1918, https://www.honorfirst.com/uploads/4/7/0/8/47087249/1918_04_29_berkshire_bp_proposal.pdf.;

[13] “Father of the U.S. Border Patrol,” Honor First, accessed August 1, 2023, https://www.honorfirst.com/the-father-of-the-border-patrol.html.

[14] Richard B. Craig, The Bracero Program (University of Texas Press, 1971), 16.

[15] Ibid., 7.

[16] Ibid., 18.

[17] Ibid., 5.

[18] Ibid., 5.

[19] Otey M. Scruggs, “Texas and the Bracero Program, 1942-1947,” Pacific Historical Review 32, no. 3 (1963): 251–64, https://doi.org/10.2307/4492180, 252.

[20] Ibid., 251.

[21] “Bracero Program,” Texas State Historical Association, accessed July 4, 2023, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/bracero-program

[22] Otey M. Scruggs, “Texas and the Bracero Program, 1942-1947,” Pacific Historical Review 32, no. 3 (1963): 251–64, https://doi.org/10.2307/4492180, 4.

[23] Richard B. Craig, The Bracero Program (University of Texas Press, 1971), 69.

[24] Otey M. Scruggs, “The Bracero Program Under the Farm Security Administration 1942–1943,” Labor History 3, no. 2 (1962): 149–68, https://doi.org/10.1080/00236566208583896, 160.

[25] Otey M. Scruggs, “Texas and the Bracero Program, 1942-1947,” Pacific Historical Review 32, no. 3 (1963): 251–64, https://doi.org/10.2307/4492180, 253.

[26] Ibid., 253.

[27] Ibid., 254.

[28] Ibid., 254.

[29] Ibid., 255.

[30] Ibid., 255.

[31] “Good Neighbor Commission,” Texas State Historical Association, accessed June 18, 2023, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/good-neighbor-commission.

[32] Otey M. Scruggs, “Texas and the Bracero Program, 1942-1947,” Pacific Historical Review 32, no. 3 (1963): 251–64, https://doi.org/10.2307/4492180, 260.

[33] Ibid., 259.

[34] Migrating Mexican Americans had a problem with securing education for their children, and other housing concerns. This bill addressed many of those concerns, allowing the Mexican Americans already in the state to work more efficiently.

[35]Otey M. Scruggs, “Texas and the Bracero Program, 1942-1947,” Pacific Historical Review 32, no. 3 (1963): 251–64, https://doi.org/10.2307/4492180, 250; it also harkened back to the Mexican Revolution of 1910, when the revolt was partially sparked by treatment of a Mexican worker in the United States.

[36] Philip Martin, “Mexican Braceros and US Farm Workers,” Wilson Center, accessed July 21, 2023, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/mexican-braceros-and-us-farm-workers.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Philip Martin, “Select Commission Suggests Changes in Immigration Policy,” MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, February 1982, 31–37, https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1982/02/art4full.pdf, 31; Interestingly, many Mexican Americans also supported the restriction on immigration from the South. To them, who came legally and had perhaps been in Texas for decades, all increased immigration from Latin American meant was that more white people would insult and deride them.

[39] Ibid., 2.

[40] Ibid., 1.

[41] “Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA),” Immigration History, February 3, 2020, https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1986-immigration-reform-and-control-act/.

[42] Ibid.

[43] “Immigrant Population - Vera Institute of Justice,” Vera Institute, accessed June 29, 2023, https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/profile-foreign-born-population-austin.pdf, 1.