Bracero Program
EXCERPT:
Bracero Program
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to:navigation, search
"Bracero" redirects here. For the sportscaster, see Rafael Bracero.
The first Braceros arrive in Los Angeles by train in 1942. Photograph by Dorothea LangeThe Bracero Program (from the Spanish word brazo, meaning "arm") was a series of laws and diplomatic agreements, initiated by an August 1942 exchange of diplomatic notes between the United States and Mexico, for the importation of temporary contract laborers from Mexico to the United States. After the expiration of the initial agreement in 1947, the program was continued in agriculture under a variety of laws and administrative agreements until its formal end in 1964.
[edit] History
"Mexican workers await legal employment in the United States", Mexicali, 1954In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, over 500,000 Mexican Americans were deported or pressured to leave, during the Mexican Repatriation. There were thus fewer Mexican Americans available when labor demand returned with World War II.
The Bracero Program was initially prompted by a demand for manual labor during World War II, and begun with the U.S. government bringing in a few hundred experienced Mexican agricultural laborers to harvest sugar beets in the Stockton, California area. The program soon spread to cover most of the United States and provided workers for the agriculture labor market (with the notable exception was Texas, who initially opted out of the program in preference of an "open border" policy, and were denied braceros by the Mexican government until 1947 due to perceived mistreatment of Mexican laborers[1]). As an important corollary, the railroad bracero program was independently negotiated to supply U.S. railroads initially with unskilled workers for track maintenance but eventually to cover other unskilled and skilled labor. By 1945, the quota for the agricultural program was more than 75,000 braceros working in the U.S. railroad system and 50,000 braceros working in U.S. agriculture at any one time.
The railroad program ended with the conclusion of World War II, in 1945.
At the behest of U.S. growers, who claimed ongoing labor shortages, the program was extended under a number of acts of congress until 1948. Between 1948 and 1951, the importation of Mexican agricultural laborers continued under negotiated administrative agreements between growers and the Mexican Government. On July 13, 1951, President Truman signed Public Law 78, a two-year program which embodied formalized protections for Mexican laborers. The program was renewed every two years until 1963, when, under heavy criticism, it was extended for a single year with the understanding it would not be renewed. After the formal end of the agricultural program lasted until 1964, there were agreements covering a much smaller number of contracts until 1967, after which no more braceros were granted.[2]
Calif. has same laws as AZ
EXCERPT:
PENAL CODE
SECTION 833-851.90
833. A peace officer may search for dangerous weapons any person
whom he has legal cause to arrest, whenever he has reasonable cause
to believe that the person possesses a dangerous weapon. If the
officer finds a dangerous weapon, he may take and keep it until the
completion of the questioning, when he shall either return it or
arrest the person. The arrest may be for the illegal possession of
the weapon.
833.2. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage law
enforcement and county child welfare agencies to develop protocols in
collaboration with other local entities, which may include local
educational, judicial, correctional, and community-based
organizations, when appropriate, regarding how to best cooperate in
their response to the arrest of a caretaker parent or guardian of a
minor child, to ensure the child's safety and well-being.
(b) The Legislature encourages the Department of Justice to apply
to the federal government for a statewide training grant on behalf of
California law enforcement agencies, with the purpose of enabling
local jurisdictions to provide training for their law enforcement
officers to assist them in developing protocols and adequately
addressing issues related to child safety when a caretaker parent or
guardian is arrested.
833.5. (a) In addition to any other detention permitted by law, if
a peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that a person has a
firearm or other deadly weapon with him or her in violation of any
provision of law relating to firearms or deadly weapons the peace
officer may detain that person to determine whether a crime relating
to firearms or deadly weapons has been committed.
For purposes of this section "reasonable cause to detain" requires
that the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include
specific and articulable facts causing him or her to suspect that
some offense relating to firearms or deadly weapons has taken place
or is occurring or is about to occur and that the person he or she
intends to detain is involved in that offense. The circumstances must
be such as would cause any reasonable peace officer in like
position, drawing when appropriate on his or her training and
experience, to suspect the same offense and the same involvement by
the person in question.
(b) Incident to any detention permitted pursuant to subdivision
(a), a peace officer may conduct a limited search of the person for
firearms or weapons if the peace officer reasonably concludes that
the person detained may be armed and presently dangerous to the peace
officer or others. Any firearm or weapon seized pursuant to a valid
detention or search pursuant to this section shall be admissible in
evidence in any proceeding for any purpose permitted by law.
(c) This section shall not be construed to otherwise limit the
authority of a peace officer to detain any person or to make an
arrest based on reasonable cause.
(d) This section shall not be construed to permit a peace officer
to conduct a detention or search of any person at the person's
residence or place of business absent a search warrant or other
reasonable cause to detain or search.
(e) If a firearm or weapon is seized pursuant to this section and
the person from whom it was seized owned the firearm or weapon and is
convicted of a violation of any offense relating to the possession
of such firearm or weapon, the court shall order the firearm or
weapon to be deemed a nuisance and disposed of in the manner provided
by Section 12028.
834. An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in
the manner authorized by law. An arrest may be made by a peace
officer or by a private person.
834a. If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable
care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace
officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or
any weapon to resist such arrest.
834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully
cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is
suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected
of being present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the
following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen
of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent
resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time
or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not
be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and
place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien
who is present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal
justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or
leave the United States.
(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal
status and provide any additional information that may be requested
by any other public entity.
(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city,
county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with
jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent
or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly
prohibited.
834c. (a) (1) In accordance with federal law and the provisions of
this section, every peace officer, upon arrest and booking or
detention for more than two hours of a known or suspected foreign
national, shall advise the foreign national that he or she has a
right to communicate with an official from the consulate of his or
her country, except as provided in subdivision (d). If the foreign
national chooses to exercise that right, the peace officer shall
notify the pertinent official in his or her agency or department of
the arrest or detention and that the foreign national wants his or
her consulate notified.
(2) The law enforcement official who receives the notification
request pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be guided by his or her
agency's procedures in conjunction with the Department of State
Guidelines Regarding Foreign Nationals Arrested or Detained in the
United States, and make the appropriate notifications to the consular
officers at the consulate of the arrestee.
(3) The law enforcement official in charge of the custodial
facility where an arrestee subject to this subdivision is located
shall ensure that the arrestee is allowed to communicate with,
correspond with, and be visited by, a consular officer of his or her
country.
(b) The 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Treaty was
signed by 140 nations, including the United States, which ratified
the agreement in 1969. This treaty guarantees that individuals
arrested or detained in a foreign country must be told by police
"without delay" that they have a right to speak to an official from
their country's consulate and if an individual chooses to exercise
that right a law enforcement official is required to notify the
consulate.
(c) California law enforcement agencies shall ensure that policy
or procedure and training manuals incorporate language based upon
provisions of the treaty that set forth requirements for handling the
arrest and booking or detention for more than two hours of a foreign
national pursuant to this section prior to December 31, 2000.
(d) Countries requiring mandatory notification under Article 36 of
the Vienna Convention shall be notified as set forth in this section
without regard to an arrested or detained foreign national's request
to the contrary. Those countries, as identified by the United States
Department of State on July 1, 1999, are as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Exploring the United Farm Worker's History
California Immigration Laws harsher than Arizona
California's Illegal-Immigration Enforcement Law Is Tougher Than Arizona'sBy Dennis Romero, Thursday, May. 20 2010 @ 3:28PMComments (15) Categories: Immigration, community, crime, economy, politics
Share880diggsdigg
The conservative Washington Times newspaper recently pointed out that California law actually mirror's Arizona's controversial new immigration legislation that encourages police to verify the immigration status of suspects they believe are in the country illegally.
The paper quotes California Penal Code section 834b, which states that Golden State law enforcement officers should "fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws."
Proponents of Arizona's law have argued that it simply mirrors federal immigration legislation that's been on the books for 70 years. (Strangely, Arizona's law is supported by some of the same conservatives who decry "big government" yet who don't mind adding this extra layer of bureaucracy when it comes to immigration).
The Times is right on this one. More of the California language:
With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
This sounds a lot like Arizona's law. In fact, in feels stronger than Arizona's law, which doesn't require cops to check illegal status, but rather encourages a "reasonable attempt" (as we noted previously): " ... A reasonable attempt shall be made [by law enforcement], when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."
Los Angeles police, however, are forbidden from carrying out this state directive under the department's own policy. Special Order 40, its backers argue, is in place so that residents who are here illegally don't fear calling police or cooperating in investigations. There are so many immigrants in L.A., the policy's backers have argued, that having them fear police, as they often did in their home countries, would make the LAPD's job that much more difficult when it comes to solving crimes.
It's true that Arizona's law mirrors federal legislation and, now, it appears to reflect California's own official policy on immigration enforcement. But that's besides the point. What backers of the Arizona law might not realize is that opposition is more concerned with the sentiment of the legislation, not its actual effect: If federal law already covers this turf, why bother? Police were free to do exactly what the desert state's SB 1070 outlines.
Opponents of the law, many Latino, feel that this unnecessary move was made precisely to fan the flames of anti-immigrant sentiment, particularly within the Republican party's right wing. It's something they've seen time again: When the economy goes south, it's the illegal immigrant's fault (even as they too go south because work here has dried up). Forget the fact that we all benefit from his labor, from the food on our tables to the shine of the chrome on our cars to the cut of our lawns. Forget the fact that nearly one-third of all illegals aren't from Mexico. We need a villain right now, and he's brown.
The point is that laws like Arizona's hurt the feelings of Latinos who for generations have been trying to prove their American-ness only to be told time and again that the way they look could make them suspect.
Tags:
Arizona boycott, Arizona immigration law, California immigration law, California law, immigration, LAPD, Latinos, Special Order 40
No comments:
Post a Comment