-
3. “A War to Keep Alien Labor out of Colorado”: The “Mexican Menace” and the Historical Origins of Local and State Anti-Immigration Initiatives
- NYU Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
>> 63 3 “A War to Keep Alien Labor out of Colorado” The “Mexican Menace” and the Historical Origins of Local and State Anti-Immigration Initiatives Tom I. Romero II Introduction In the early months of 1935, the governor of Colorado, “Big” Ed Johnson, initiated the first of several measures intended to deter undocumented immigrant labor from Mexico from entering the state. Animated by speculation that an “alien menace” from Mexico not only exacerbated the economic crisis gripping the nation but also directly contributed to the financial meltdown several years earlier, Governor Johnson, himself the son of immigrants, felt the need to act in the face of what he perceived as a federal inability to control the nation’s borders.1 First, Governor Johnson sent letters to the federal government demanding the deportation of “alien labor.” The governor then declared that if the federal authorities refused to enforce its immigration laws, he would deploy the Colorado National Guard to do the job.2 In anticipation of such a call, Governor Johnson approved a plan to establish a “concentration camp” for the Mexican “aliens” at the National Guard’s training facility on the western outskirts of the Denver metropolitan area.3 Under the plan approved by Governor Johnson and opposed only by “a group of local communists,” all aliens on relief were to be placed in the camp in preparation for their eventual deportation.4 As the opening shot in a war to keep alien labor out of Colorado, Governor Johnson encouraged both local and statewide efforts to 64 > 65 insufficient.5 Though Governor Johnson’s policies were contested by federal officials (who had their own shifting immigration agenda), the Mexican consulate, other state governments, Mexican Americans, segments of organized labor, and agricultural business, Colorado’s attempt to stop the “Mexican menace” highlighted the way the question of immigration was intricately connected to deep-rooted and changing patterns of racial bias and inequity. Like similar local and state enforcement against “illegal immigration” both then and now, the state’s policies set into motion a series of events that gave legal cover to the social and economic harassment of Latinos—regardless of their status as American citizens. The legal construction of “illegal” Mexicans in Colorado and other states—whether they were American citizens or legally admitted under federal law—under the guise of a failure of federal authorities to enforce immigration law cast Latinos as permanently foreign , unassimilable, and directly threatening to the racial homogeneity of the state and the nation. Then, as now, a local or state government’s attempt to police and deport the “illegal alien” with the use of its county sheriffs, the state patrol, or its National Guard highlighted the problematic extent to which local and state governments exercised their most disciplinary powers of sovereignty (policing) against Latinos, subject to the most minimal standards of judicial review (immigration law). Because the vast majority of those “Mexicans” rounded up were American citizens as well as because of the unquestioned illegality (at the time) of the state’s policy, Governor Johnson was quietly forced to stop the militarization of immigration enforcement altogether. Nevertheless , Colorado’s Depression-era experiment with immigration control exposed inherent cracks in the edifice of immigration law as it came to be reconstructed in the early decades of the twentieth century. As the federal government instituted rigid control of borders, passports, and restrictions on entry and exit during this time, and as the Supreme Court declared immigration law to be an expression of the sovereign’s right to determine its own membership and right of self-preservation, it should be no surprise that individual state governments would fixate on immigration. Indeed, Colorado’s belligerent and over-the-top response to perceived failures of the federal government to police and control its borders would become a common trope in the emerging struggle between states and federal authorities over immigration issues. By the 66 > 67 With few economic opportunities, these Latino families had little choice but to sign the standard beet labor contract.13 The father would sign the contract on behalf of the family; and the size of the acreage assigned to the family in the contract would be based upon the proportional share to which every member of the family could be expected to work. The company unilaterally established the conditions under which the contract was to be performed. It left all disputes between grower and laborer to the company’s final judgment; it provided no guarantee that...