Immigration policies of American labor unions

Labor unions in the United States, since their early beginnings, have held various viewpoints on immigration. There were differences among the labor unions and occasionally opposition to contemporary majority opinions and public policies.

YouTube Encyclopedic

1/5
Views:
2 810 199
449
457
521
28 768

Transcription

Episode 25: Immigrant Cities Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. History and today we’re going to continue our extensive look at American capitalism. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, I’m sorry are you saying that I grow up to be a tool of the bourgeoisie… Oh not just a tool of the bourgeoise, Me from the Past, but a card-carrying member of it. I mean, you have employees whose labor you can exploit because you own the means of production, which in your case includes a chalkboard, a video camera, a desk, and a xenophobic globe. Meanwhile Stan, Danica, Raoul, and Meredith toil in crushing poverty--STAN, DID YOU WRITE THIS PART? THESE ARE ALL LIES. CUE THE INTRO. intro So, last week we saw how commercial farming transformed the American west and gave us mythical cowboys and unfortunately not-so-mythical Indian reservations. Today we leave the sticks and head for the cities--as so many Americans and immigrants have done throughout this nation’s history. I mean we may like to imagine that the history of America is all “Go west young man,” but in fact from Mark Twain to pretty much every hipster in Brooklyn, it’s the opposite. So, population was growing everywhere in America after 1850. Following a major economic downturn in the 1890s, farm prices made a comeback, and that drew more and more people out west to take part in what would eventually be called agriculture’s golden age. Although to be fair agriculture’s real golden age was in like 3000 BCE when Mesopotamians were like, “Dude, if we planted these in rows, we could have MORE OF IT THAN WE CAN EAT.” So it was really more of a second golden age. But anyway, more than a million land claims were filed under the Homestead Act in the 1890s. And between 1900 and 1910 the populations of Texas and Oklahoma together increased by almost 2 million people. And another 800,000 moved into Kansas, the Dakotas, and Nebraska. That’s right. People moved to Nebraska. Sorry, I just hadn’t yet offended Nebraskans. I’m looking to get through the list before the end of the year. But one of the central reasons that so many people moved out west was that the demand for agricultural products was increasing due to … the growth of cities. In 1880, 20% of the American population lived in cities and there were 12 cities with a population over 100,000 people. This rose to 18 cities in 1900 with the percentage of urban dwellers rising to 38%. And by 1920, 68% of Americans lived in cities and 26 cities had a population over 100,000. So in the 40 years around the turn of the 20th century, America became the world’s largest industrial power and went from being predominantly rural to largely urban. This is, to use a technical historian term, a really big deal. Because it didn’t just make cities possible, but also their products. It’s no coincidence that while all this was happening, we were getting cool stuff like electric lights and moving picture cameras. Neither of which were invented by Thomas Edison. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but suddenly there are a lot more photographs in Crash Course U.S. History b-roll. So the city leading the way in this urban growth was New York, especially after Manhattan was consolidated with Brooklyn (and the Bronx, Queens and Staten Island) in 1898. At the turn of the century, the population of the 23 square miles of Manhattan Island was over 2 million and the combined 5 boroughs had a population over 4 million. But, while New York gets most of the attention in this time period, and all time periods since, it wasn’t alone in experiencing massive growth. Like, my old hometown of Chicago, after basically burning to the ground in 1871, became the second largest city in America by the 1890s. Also, they reversed the flow of the freaking Chicago River. Probably the second most impressive feat in Chicago at the time. The first being that the Cubs won two World Series. Even though I’m sorely tempted to chalk up the growth of these metropolises to a combination of better nutrition and a rise in skoodilypooping, I’m going to have to bow to stupid historical accuracy and tell you that much of the growth had to do with the phenomenon that this period is most known for: immigration. Of course, by the end of the 19th century, immigration was not a new phenomenon in the United States. After the first wave of colonization by English people, and Spanish people, and other Europeans, there was a new wave of Scandinavians, French people, and especially the Irish. Most of you probably know about the potato famine of the 1840s that led a million Irish men and women to flee. If you don’t know about it, it was awful. And the second largest wave of immigrants was made up of German speakers, including a number of liberals who left after the abortive revolutions of 1848. Alright, let’s go to the ThoughtBubble. The Irish had primarily been farmers in the motherland, but in America, they tended to stay in cities, like New York and Boston. Most of the men began their working lives as low-wage unskilled laborers, but over time they came to have much more varied job opportunities. Irish immigrant women worked too, some in factories or as domestic servants in the homes of the growing upper class. Many women actually preferred the freedom that factory labor provided and one Irish factory woman compared her life to that of a servant by saying: “Our day is ten hours long, but when it’s done, it’s done, and we can do what we like with the evenings. That’s what I’ve heard from every nice girl that’s tried service. You’re never sure that your soul is your own except when you’re out of the house.” [1] Most German speakers had been farmers in their home countries and would remain farmers in the U.S., but a number of skilled artisans also came. They tended to stay in cities and make a go of entrepreneurship. Bismarck himself saw emigration from Germany as a good thing saying, “The better it goes for us, the higher the volume of emigration.”[2] And that’s why we named a city in North Dakota after him. Although enough German immigrants came to New York that the lower east side of Manhattan came to be known for a time as Kleindeutschland (little Germany), many moved to the growing cities of the Midwest like Cincinnati and St. Louis. Some of the most famous German immigrants became brewers, and America is much richer for the arrival of men like Frederick Pabst, Joseph Schlitz, and Adolphus Busch. And by richer, I mean more drunker. Hey. Thanks for not ending on a downer, Thought Bubble. I mean, unless you count alcoholism. So but by the 1890s, over half of the 3.5 million immigrants who came to our shores came from southern and eastern Europe, in particular Italy and the Russian and Austro Hungarian empires. They were more likely than previous immigrants to be Jewish or Catholic, and while almost all of them were looking for work, many were also escaping political or religious persecution. And by the 1890s they also had to face new “scientific” theories, which I’m putting in air quotes to be clear because there was nothing scientific about them, which consigned them to different “races” whose low level of civilization was fit only for certain kinds of work and predisposed them to criminality. The Immigration Restriction League was founded in Boston in 1894 and lobbied for national legislation that would limit the numbers of immigrants, and one such law even passed Congress in 1897 only to be vetoed by President Grover Cleveland. Good work, Grover! You know, his first name was Stephen, but he called himself Grover. I would have made a different choice. But before you get too excited about Grover Cleveland, Congress and the President were able to agree on one group of immigrants to discriminate against: the Chinese. Chinese immigrants, overwhelmingly male, had been coming to the United States, mostly to the West, since the 1850s to work in mines and on the railroads. They were viewed with suspicion because they looked different, spoke a different language, and they had “strange” habits, like regular bathing. By the time the Chinese Exclusion Act went into effect in 1882 there were 105,000 people of Chinese descent living in the United States, mainly in cities on the West Coast. San Francisco refused to educate Asians until the state Supreme Court ordered them to do so and even then the city responded by setting up segregated schools. The immigrants fought back through the courts. In 1886, in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins the United States Supreme court ordered San Francisco to grant Chinese-operated laundries licenses to operate. Then in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court ruled that American born children of Chinese immigrants were entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment, which should have been a duh but wasn’t. We’ve been hard on the Supreme Court here at Crash Course, but those were two good decisions. You go, Supreme Court! But despite these victories Asian immigrants continued to face discrimination in the form of vigilante-led riots like the one in Rock Springs, Wyoming that killed 26 people, and congressionally approved restrictions, many of which the Supreme Court did uphold, so meh. Also it’s important to remember that this large-scale immigration--and the fear of it--was part of a global phenomenon. At its peak between 1901 and the outbreak of World War 1 in 1914, 13 million immigrants came to the United States. In the entire period touched off by the industrialization from 1840 until 1914, a total of 40 million people came to the U.S. But at least 20 million people emigrated to other parts of the Western Hemisphere, including Brazil, the Caribbean, Canada (yes, Canada) and Argentina. As much as we have Italian immigrants to thank for things like pizza (and we do thank you), Argentina can be just as grateful for the immigrant ancestors of Leo Messi. Also the Pope, although he has never once won La Liga. And there was also extensive immigration from India to other parts of the British Empire like South Africa; Chinese immigration to South America and the Caribbean; I mean, the list goes on and on. In short, America is not as special as it fancies itself. Oh it’s time for the Mystery Document? The rules are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I get it wrong and then I get shocked with the shock pen. Sorry I don’t mean to sound defeatist, but I don’t have a good feeling about this. Alright. “The figure that challenged attention to the group was the tall, straight, father, with his earnest face and fine forehead, nervous hands eloquent in gesture, and a voice full of feeling. This foreigner, who brought his children to school as if it were an act of consecration, who regarded the teacher of the primer class with reverence, who spoke of visions, like a man inspired, in a common classroom...I think Miss Nixon guessed what my father’s best English could not convey. I think she divined that by the simple act of delivering our school certificates to her he took possession of America.”[3] Uhh, I don’t know. At first I thought it might be someone who worked with immigrants, like Jane Addams, but then at the end suddenly it’s her own father. Jane Addams’s father was not an immigrant. Mary Antin? Does she even have a Wikipedia page?! She does? Did you write it, Stan? Stan wrote her Wikipedia page. AH. So, this document, while it was written by someone who should not have a Wikipedia page, points out that most immigrants to America were coming for the most obvious reason: opportunity. Industrialization, both in manufacturing and agriculture, meant that there were jobs in America. There was so much work, in fact, that companies used labor recruiters who went to Europe to advertise opportunities. Plus, the passage was relatively cheap, provided you were only going to make it once in your life, and it was fast, taking only 8 to 12 days on the new steam powered ships. The Lower East Side of Manhattan became the magnet for waves of immigrants, first Germans then Eastern European Jews and Italians, who tended to re-create towns and neighborhoods within blocks and sometimes single buildings. Tenements, these 4, 5 and 6 story buildings that were designed to be apartments, sprang up in the second half of the 19th century and the earliest ones were so unsanitary and crowded that the city passed laws requiring a minimum of light and ventilation. And often these tenement apartments doubled as workspaces because many immigrant women and children took in piecework, especially in the garment industry. Despite laws mandating the occasional window and outlawing the presence of cows on public streets, conditions in these cities were pretty bad. Things got better with the construction of elevated railroads and later subways that helped relieve traffic congestion but they created a new problem: pickpockets. “Pickpockets take advantage of the confusion to ply their vocation… The foul, close, heated air is poisonous. A healthy person cannot ride a dozen blocks without a headache.” So that’s changed! This new transportation technology also enabled a greater degree of residential segregation in cities. Manhattan’s downtown area had at one time housed the very rich as well as the very poor but improved transportation meant that people no longer had to live and work in the same place. The wealthiest, like Cornelius Vanderbilt and J.P. Morgan, constructed lavish palaces for themselves and uptown townhouses were common.[4][5] But until then, one of the most notable feature of gilded age cities like New York was that the rich and the poor lived in such close proximity to each other. And this meant that with America’s growing urbanization, the growing distance between rich and poor was visible to both rich and poor. And much as we see in today’s megacity, this inability to look away from poverty and economic inequality became a source of concern. Now one way to alleviate concern is to create suburbs so you don’t have to look at poor people, but another response to urban problems was politics, which in cities like New York, became something of a contact sport. Another response was the so-called progressive reform movement. And in all these responses and in the issues that prompted them – urbanization, mechanization, capitalism, the distribution of resources throughout the social order -- we can see modern industrial America taking shape. And that is the America we live in today. Thank you for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. The script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The show is written by my history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Halse Rojas, and myself. Our associate producer is Danica Johnson. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week, there’s a new caption for the libertage. If you’d like to suggest one, you can do so in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. Immigrant Cities - ________________ [1] Quoted in H.W. Brands, American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism 1865-1900. p. 265. [2] Ibid p. 267 [3] Quoted in Brands, American Colossus, p. 324 [4] Ibid p. 315 [5] quoted in Brands, American Colossus p. 320

First half of 20th century

In the first half of the 20th century, the majority of labor unions within the American Federation of Labor (AFL) were strongly anti-immigration, looking to curtail immigration, causing the AFL itself to adopt restrictive policies and resolutions. The predominant viewpoint in the AFL in the early 20th century saw the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 as a model piece of legislation for restricting Asian immigration and favored its expansion to include Japanese and Korean immigrants.^[1] The AFL also favored the passage of a literacy test as a requirement for an immigrant's entry to the United States to reduce the number of unskilled and presumably-uneducated immigrants admitted into the country.^[1] After unemployment rose after the conclusion of World War I, the AFL made a renewed push for "a total suspension of immigration for a period of five years or longer." Although the legislation was less severe, the AFL supported the Immigration Act of 1924.^[2] While there were several notable exceptions, most labor unions within the AFL were allied with the position of the organization as a whole.

In the early part of the 20th century, restrictive policies towards immigration aligned the AFL with culturally-conservative, nativist groups, such as the American Defense Society. They were functionally one-sided coalitions since the groups by and large ideologically opposed labor unions and workers' rights to collective bargaining.^[3]

AFL arguments opposing immigration

The AFL, in the first half of the 20th century, pursued arguments to promote restricting immigration that were racist, economic, and political. Racist arguments often posited that immigrants were degrading the quality of life in the United States and unable to adapt to American society.^[4] Many of their arguments mirrored those of the eugenics movement of the time that certain races were genetically inferior to others and so were incapable of assimilating into the societies of the "higher" races.^[5] Generally, various unions within the AFL deemed three immigrant ‘races’ inferior: Southern and Eastern European, Asian, and Latino (often specifically Mexican). However, as Latino immigrants did not make up a significant portion of the population at the time, the AFL focused most vocally on limiting the immigration of the former two groups.

Economic arguments aimed at restrictive immigration policies posited that an increase in the supply of labor tilted the balance toward employers, who could use cheaper immigrant labor as strikebreakers. That would limit the effectiveness of labor unions to bargain, thereby reducing the wages and working conditions of American workers. Also, firms would prefer hiring less expensive foreign workers over American workers, leading to greater unemployment for the latter.^[6] Proponents of that argument also opposed organizing immigrants into American labor unions, as doing so would raise their wages, encouraging even more immigration into the country.

With the rise of communism in Europe after the Russian Revolution (1917), and a growing anxiety of similar attempts occurring in the United States, the AFL sought to gain legitimacy by purging itself of any ties to communism. The actions and statements of the far-left Industrial Workers of the World, a labor federation, led to an association between labor and communism, which the AFL fervently sought to avoid. Since immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe were viewed especially suspiciously as potential communist "agitators," more political arguments were presented by the AFL to oppose immigration from those areas the organization of such immigrant workers.^[7]

Contingencies of AFL position

One central dichotomy that largely dictated the position of labor unions towards immigration during the early 20th century was whether their focus was largely inward or outward. Unions with an outward focus, dedicated to organizing workers, tended to be pro-immigrant, as immigrants constituted the main populations that they were attempting to organize.^[8] Unions that attempted to raise wages and working conditions for already-unionized workers, instead of organizing new workers, tended to see immigrant labor as competition with native workers and so wanted restrictive measures. As the vast majority of the unions within the AFL fell in the latter camp in the first half of the 20th century, the AFL, as a whole, unsurprisingly adopted the latter position.

That created a cycle geared towards greater restriction, as it appeared hypocritical if unions within the AFL organized immigrant workers while the organization, as a whole, was promoting policies aimed at restricting immigration. Therefore, the AFL, led by its president, Samuel Gompers, opposed individual unions organizing immigrant labor.^[9]

Individual AFL unions that defied central directives and organized immigrant labor were much more likely to oppose restrictive immigration policies, forming a minority within the AFL. One example of such a union was the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU), primarily of female immigrant workers from Eastern and Southern Europe, which argued that reducing immigration was the wrong tactic to reduce unemployment and to raise bargaining power.^[10]

CIO position on immigration

Unlike the AFL, the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) did not promote policies to restrict the flow of immigration into the United States. Its members were industrial unions, a more inclusive organizing philosophy to organize both skilled and unskilled workers by industry, regardless of "race, color, creed, or nationality."^[11] The AFL, on the other hand, had mostly skilled craft workers, with unions divided by their craft.

The CIO was more supportive towards immigration and more receptive towards welcoming immigrants into their ranks,^[12] but the AFL pursued steps to curtail immigration.

Second half of 20th century

During the second half of the 20th century, the predominant view among organized labor changed dramatically, favoring both liberal, inclusive immigration policies and the aggressive organization of immigrant workers. At the end of the 20th century, approximately 2 percent of the world's people resided in a country other than the one in which they were born. Migrant movement across countries has become evident.^[13]

Increase in illegal immigration

The passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 created a quota of 120,000 visas per year granted to Western Hemisphere immigrants and restricted Western Hemisphere immigration for the first time.^{[citation needed]} That led to long backlogs of people trying to emigrate from Western Hemisphere countries into the United States. Many residents of those countries decided to instead attempt to enter the United States illegally or to enter legally using temporary work visas and then to remain illegally after their expiration. As illegal immigrants began to be a growing amount of the American labor force, labor unions and federations were forced to differentiate their immigration policies on legal and illegal immigrants.

United Farm Workers under Cesar Chavez

The United Farm Workers under Cesar Chavez was committed to restricting immigration. Chavez and Dolores Huerta, the cofounder and president of the UFW, fought the Bracero Program, which existed from 1942 to 1964. They opposed the program because they believe that it undermined American workers and exploited the migrant workers. Since the program ensured a constant supply of cheap immigrant labor for growers, immigrants could not protest any infringement of their rights, lest they be fired and replaced. Their efforts contributed to Congress ending the Bracero Program in 1964.

In 1973, the UFW was one of the first labor unions to oppose proposed employer sanctions to prohibit hiring illegal immigrants.

However, on a few occasions, concerns that illegal immigrant labor would undermine UFW strike campaigns led to a number of controversial events, which the UFW describes as against strikebreaking but have also been interpreted as being anti-immigrant. In 1969, Chavez and other members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valleys to the border of Mexico to protest the growers' use of illegal immigrants as strikebreakers. Joining him on the march were Reverend Ralph Abernathy and US Senator Walter Mondale.^{[citation needed]} In its early years, the UFW and Chavez went so far as to report illegal immigrants who served as strikebreaking replacement workers and those who refused to unionize to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]

In 1973, the United Farm Workers set up a "wet line" along the United States-Mexico border to prevent Mexican immigrants from entering the United States illegally and potentially undermining the UFW's unionization efforts.^[19] During one such event in which Chavez was not present, some UFW members, under the guidance of Chavez's cousin Manuel, physically attacked strikebreakers after peaceful attempts to persuade them not to cross the border had failed.^[20]^[21]^[22]

In 1979, Chavez used a forum of a U.S. Senate committee hearing to denounce the federal immigration service, which he said the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service purportedly refused to arrest illegal Mexican immigrants who Chavez claims are being used to break the union's strike.^[23]

AFL–CIO opposition to illegal immigration

The merger of the AFL and the CIO in 1955 caused the AFL contingent to liberalize its position towards legal immigration, and it no longer advocated restrictive immigration policies for legal immigrants.^[24] Various unions within the AFL–CIO differed on their views towards illegal migration, however.

As a whole, during the 1970s the AFL–CIO's policies towards illegal immigrants mirrored the economic arguments made towards legal immigrants during the first half of the century. The AFL–CIO believed that illegal immigrants were willing to work for less money under worse conditions than legal workers and so would drag down the wages of native workers and increase unemployment. They, therefore, pushed for policies aimed at reducing the flow of illegal immigration such as increased enforcement and employer sanctions.^[25]

Changed attitudes of the AFL–CIO

However, by the early 1980s, the AFL–CIO, under Lane Kirkland, began to consider the United States unable to reduce the flow of illegal immigration effectively and that laws to restrict immigration are inherently ineffective. It argued that one central reason is that the disparities between the quality of life in the United States and the countries of origin of most illegal immigrants are so great that many people will attempt to enter the United States regardless of the potential risks.^[26]

Two of the most vocal opponents of restrictionist immigration policy towards illegal immigrants were the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE).^[27] SEIU, representing principally building trades, state and healthcare workers, grew from 650,000 members in 1980 to over 2 million members in 2009,^[28] in large part by organizing immigrant labor, many of whom were working illegally. Justice for Janitors, perhaps the union’s most seminal and successful campaign, highlights the union's organization of immigrant labor.^[29] UNITE was born of a merger between the ILGWU and the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union (ACTWU), both of which have strong histories of opposition to restrictive immigration policies.^[30]

The AFL–CIO increasingly believed illegal immigrants to be much harder to organize than legal immigrants, as fear of deportation and lack of legal recourse make them much easier to exploit by employers to prevent the unionization of their workforce. Therefore, believing restricting the flow of illegal immigrants to be impossible, the AFL–CIO began to support policies favoring the legalization of illegal immigrants. One such policy was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted amnesty to an estimated 3 million illegal aliens.^[31]

The AFL–CIO also began to consider restrictions on legal immigration to be ineffective in the early 1980s and that restricting legal immigration does not actually reduce the number of immigrants entering the country but simply creates greater illegal immigration. It, therefore, has supported reforming immigration policy to allow for the entry of more legal immigrants and providing amnesty to illegal immigrants.^[32]

21st century

In 2005, several unions within the AFL–CIO, such as UNITE and SEIU, disaffiliated from the AFL-CIO and formed the Change to Win Federation, a competing labor federation^[33] that now includes seven constituent member unions.^[34]

One principal disagreement the unions had with the AFL–CIO that helped spur their disaffiliation was their belief that the AFL-CIO was not investing enough resources into organizing new workers.^[35] While not directly related to immigration issues, the split is reminiscent of earlier disagreements concerning immigration policy in which the AFL unions that had prioritized organization were more likely to support immigration.

In 2007, the Change to Win Coalition and the AFL–CIO on immigration reform proposals, and no legislative changed happened that year. However, on April 14, 2009, both federations released a statement saying that they had agreed on a single reform proposal in response to President Barack Obama's statement that he would press for immigration reform by the end of the year. Their proposal, however, did not include a guest worker program, but the business community has suggested that such a program needs to be a central component of any reform package. Nevertheless, labor's unity on this issue is expected to give Obama additional leverage on the issue.^[36]

Notes

^ ^a ^b [Briggs Jr., Vernon M. (2001). Immigration and American Unionism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. p. 73]
^ [LeMay, Michael C. (2006). Guarding the Gates: immigration and national security. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishling Group. Pages 119-120.]
^ Haus, Leah (2002) Unions, Immigration, and internationalization: New challenges and changing coalitions in the United States and France. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Page 47.
^ [Jacobson, Robin and Geron, Kim (2008) Unions and the Politics of Immigration, Socialism and Democracy,22:3,105—122, Page 110]
^ [Black, Edwin (2003, November 24). The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from History News Network - George Mason University Web site: http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
^ [Sinyai, Clayton. Unions and Immigrants. "Commonweal," 8/11/2006, Vol. 133 Issue 14, p9-10.]
^ [Murray, Robert K. (2009) "Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria," 1919-1920 Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 106-107]
^ [Haus, Leah (2002) Unions, Immigration, and internationalization: New challenges and changing coalitions in the United States and France. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Pages 57.]
^ [Haus, Leah (2002) Unions, Immigration, and internationalization: New challenges and changing coalitions in the United States and France. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 52.]
^ [Haus, Leah (2002) Unions, Immigration, and internationalization: New challenges and changing coalitions in the United States and France. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Pages 51-52]
^ [Haus, Leah (2002) Unions, Immigration, and internationalization: New challenges and changing coalitions in the United States and France. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Page 70.]
^ [Tichenor, Daniel J. (2002) Dividing lines: the politics of immigration control in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Page 40.]
^ Zach Bethune. "Immigration and the US Wage Distribution: A Literature Review". CiteSeerX 10.1.1.386.1687. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ Gutiérrez, David Gregory (1995). Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigrants and the Politics of Ethnicity. San Diego: University of California Press. pp. 97–98. ISBN 9780520916869. UFW report undocumented.
^ Irvine, Reed; Kincaid, Cliff. "Why Journalists Support Illegal Immigration". Accuracy in the Media. Retrieved June 18, 2014.
^ Wells, Miriam J. (1996). Strawberry Fields: Politics, Class, and Work in California Agriculture. New York: Cornell University Press. pp. 89–90. ISBN 9780801482793. ufw undocumented.
^ Baird, Peter; McCaughan, Ed (1979). Beyond the Border: Mexico & the U.S. Today. North American Congress on Latin America. p. 169. ISBN 9780916024376.
^ Farmworker Collective Bargaining, 1979: Hearings Before the Committee on Labor Human Resources Hearings held in Salinas, Calif., April 26, 27, and Washington, D.C., May 24, 1979
^ "PBS Airs Chávez Documentary", University of California at Davis – Rural Migration News.
^ Etulain, Richard W. (2002). Cesar Chavez: A Brief Biography with Documents. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 18. ISBN 9780312294274. cesar chavez undocumented.
^ Arellano, Gustavo. "The year in Mexican-bashing". OC Weekly. Archived from the original on June 9, 2014. Retrieved June 18, 2014.
^ Navarrette, Jr., Ruben (March 30, 2005). "The Arizona Minutemen and César Chávez". San Diego Union Tribune.
^ Lou Cannon (1979-04-27). "Chavez Employs Senate Hearing To Urge National Lettuce Boycott". The Washington Post. Washington, D.C. ISSN 0190-8286. OCLC 1330888409.
^ Tichenor, Daniel J. (2002) Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Pages 40–41
^ Jacobson, Robin and Geron, Kim (2008) Unions and the Politics of Immigration, Socialism and Democracy, 22:3, 105–122, p. 112
^ Haus, Leah (2002) Unions, Immigration, and internationalization: New Challenges and Changing Coalitions in the United States and France. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 96.
^ Watts, Julie R. (2002). Immigration Policy and the Challenge of Globalization. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Page 154.
^ A closer look inside labor's fastest-growing union... Retrieved April 9, 2009, from Service Employees International Union Web site: http://www.seiu.org/a/ourunion/a-closer-look-inside-labors-fastest-growing-union.php Archived 2009-02-06 at the Wayback Machine
^ Caplan, Jeremy (2006, June 18). "Trying to make a decent living." Time, [1]
^ [International Ladies Garment Workers Union (1900-1995). Retrieved April 9, 2009, from Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site Web site: http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/ilgwu.htm]
^ Briggs Jr., Vernon M. (2001). Immigration and American Unionism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. p. 150
^ Watts, Julie R. (2002). Immigration Policy and the Challenge of Globalization. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. p. 155–156
^ [Moberg, David (2005, July 26). Divorce, labor style. Salon, from http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/07/26/labor_split/]
^ Retrieved April 9, 2009, from Change to Win Federation - About Us Web site: "About Us: Change to Win". Archived from the original on July 9, 2010. Retrieved July 10, 2010.
^ Dine , Philip M. (2008). State of the Unions. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
^ Preston, Julia; Greenhouse, Steven (April 13, 2009). "Immigration Accord by Labor Boosts Obama Effort". New York Times. Retrieved September 20, 2012.

This page was last edited on 21 March 2024, at 17:37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia