U.S. Reaction
Attitudes toward the Bracero Program in the United States were mixed, with agricultural interests supporting the program while labor unions and civil rights organizations criticized its impact on domestic workers.
A Program That Refused to Die: Timeline of Extensions
Competing Interests: Farmers vs. Labor
Agricultural Employers: Strong Support
Agricultural employers, particularly large growers in California, Texas, and the Southwest, strongly supported the program. These employers consistently lobbied Congress for program expansions and extensions, arguing that domestic workers were unwilling or unable to meet seasonal agricultural labor demands.1
Congressional hearings from 1951-1952 regarding Public Law 78 (which extended the program) reveal the growers' influence. Representatives from the American Farm Bureau Federation, Western Growers Association, and Imperial Valley Farmers Association testified about labor shortages and the indispensability of Mexican workers. Their arguments proved persuasive, as Congress repeatedly extended the program despite opposition from labor organizations.2
If the bracero program ended tomorrow, the agricultural economy of the Southwest would collapse. American workers have demonstrated time and again that they will not perform the stoop labor required to harvest our crops.
Glenn Pickrel, President of the California Farm Bureau Federation, Congressional testimony, April 1963
Labor Organizations: Consistent Opposition
Labor unions, particularly the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and United Farm Workers, consistently opposed the program. They argued that braceros depressed wages and working conditions for domestic agricultural workers, and that labor shortages were artificially created by substandard wages.3
| Year | Domestic Farm Workers | Braceros | Average Farm Wages |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1942 | 2,850,000 | 4,203 | $0.30/hour |
| 1951 | 2,144,000 | 192,000 | $0.65/hour |
| 1956 | 1,856,000 | 445,197 | $0.70/hour |
| 1960 | 1,598,000 | 315,846 | $0.83/hour |
In 1959, the AFL-CIO adopted a formal resolution calling for the program's termination, citing its "adverse effect on the economic and social conditions of American agricultural workers."3
Xenophobic Discourse in American Media
Xenophobic and nativist reactions significantly shaped public discourse about the Bracero Program. Newspaper editorials frequently used derogatory language when discussing Mexican workers, whether braceros or undocumented migrants.4
"The wetback traffic constitutes a mounting threat to the health, economic and social standards which Americans cherish. Decisive action is required to halt this invasion from Mexico."
— Los Angeles Times Editorial, March 15, 1953
"These migrant hordes bring with them disease, crime, and alien custom, depressing wages while taxing our schools and hospitals. The bracero program has only encouraged this invasion."
— San Diego Union, August 23, 1954
"Like a great tidal wave, the wetbacks keep coming. For every bracero legally admitted, three wetbacks slip across our unguarded border, threatening our way of life."
— Arizona Republic, June 12, 1953
"The Mexican influx has turned parts of California into virtual foreign colonies where English is rarely spoken and American standards of living are unknown."
— Sacramento Bee, April 5, 1954
These xenophobic attitudes influenced enforcement practices and contributed to the atmosphere that produced Operation Wetback in 1954. The media reinforced negative stereotypes by frequently conflating legal braceros with undocumented workers and portraying Mexican migration as a threat to American society.4
Operation Wetback: The Militarized Response
Operation Wetback represented the most aggressive U.S. reaction to the unintended consequences of the Bracero Program. Launched in June 1954 by Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner Joseph Swing, this mass deportation campaign targeted undocumented Mexican migrants. INS internal documents show that the operation was explicitly designed to address what officials called the "wetback problem" that had grown alongside the Bracero Program.5
The operation employed military-style tactics, with the U.S. Border Patrol coordinating with local police agencies, utilizing aircraft, boats, and ground vehicles in a show of force. Mobile task forces swept through Mexican-American communities in agricultural areas, conducting household raids, farm checks, and roadblocks. The campaign began in the Southwest but quickly expanded to northern cities.5
The media amplified the operation's success through exaggerated reporting. Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr. organized an extensive publicity campaign with press conferences, newspaper interviews, and newsreel footage showing mass arrests and deportations. This coverage reinforced the portrayal of Mexican migration as an "invasion" that required military-style response.6
Key Components of Operation Wetback
- Special Mobile Force: 750 Border Patrol officers organized into mobile task forces
- Transportation Operations: Special trains and ships deported migrants deep into Mexico's interior rather than just across the border
- Mass Repatriation Vessels: The ships Emancipation and Mercurio transported 25,000+ deportees from Port Isabel, Texas to Veracruz
- Aircraft Surveillance: 22 planes used for aerial reconnaissance of border areas
- Bilateral Coordination: Mexican government cooperation to receive and transport deportees
- Media Campaign: Extensive publicity to deter unauthorized crossings
The operation had a devastating humanitarian impact. Many U.S. citizens of Mexican descent were erroneously deported without due process. Deportees transported on vessels to Veracruz reported overcrowded conditions, insufficient food, and inadequate medical care. Several deaths occurred during these transports due to heatstroke and dehydration.7
The bracero agreement has created a monster that now threatens our communities. The legal program simply encourages more illegal entry, and we must take decisive action to regain control of our borders.
Rep. Francis Walter (D-PA), Congressional Record, May 1954
"Blood on Your Salad": Civil Rights Opposition
Civil rights organizations eventually played a crucial role in ending the program. By the early 1960s, the National Advisory Committee on Farm Labor (a coalition including the NAACP, National Council of Churches, and National Consumers League) documented the program's adverse effects on domestic workers, particularly African Americans in the South and Mexican Americans in the Southwest.8
The "Blood on Your Salad" campaign, launched in 1962 by the United Farm Workers and supported by religious and civil rights organizations, used stark imagery and language to connect consumers with the exploitation of agricultural workers. Campaign materials featured photographs of bracero housing conditions and injured workers alongside fresh produce, asking consumers: "Do you know whose blood helped grow your salad?"9
This consumer-focused approach brought bracero labor conditions to urban audiences who had little direct connection to agricultural work. Church groups organized "consumer boycotts" of products from growers known to mistreat braceros, while student activists distributed leaflets at supermarkets in major cities.10
The campaign gained significant momentum through its alliance with the broader civil rights movement. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. publicly endorsed the effort in 1963, stating: "The struggle of the braceros and the struggle of the Negro are really one struggle for human dignity." This endorsement significantly amplified the campaign's visibility and connected it to the larger moral questions of the civil rights era.11
Edward R. Murrow's influential CBS documentary "Harvest of Shame," broadcast on Thanksgiving 1960, though not specifically about braceros, reinforced the campaign's message by exposing the harsh conditions faced by all agricultural workers. The documentary reached millions of Americans and created a climate of public opinion increasingly receptive to farm labor reform.12
This advocacy, combined with changing economic conditions, shifting political priorities under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and increasing mechanization of agriculture, ultimately contributed to the program's termination in 1964.13