Category   Population                            Millions        Percent                        Method

   Such facilities would have a highly controlled “internal frontier”, with mail and parcels undergoing inspection inside the facilities. This proposal was originally made by PROFMEX as part of its Ford Foundation grant to study the cross-border management of the El Paso-Ciudad Juárez Greater Metropolitan Area. (Ver, por ejemplo, Samuel Schmidt y David Lorey, Recomendación de Cursos de Acción para la Administración de El Paso/Ciudad Juárez (El Paso: Centro de Estudios Inter Americanos y Fronterizos, Universidad de Texas-El Paso, El Paso Community Foundation, 1994).

   In 2001 Ken Ellingwood highlighted the slow Mexico-U.S. mail service in his article “U.S. Mail Delivers—for Tijuana Residents: Correspondece: Saying the Postal System in Mexico is Slow and Inefficient, Many Rent Boxes Across the Border,”  Los Angeles Times, December 10, 2001. Ellingwood notes that mail box rentals in San Ysidro alone total 26,000—almost all rented by Mexican citizens who cross the border daily to check their mail and use U.S. postal facilities.

   Clearly the common post office would be easier to operate only for letters, but customs officials could arrange to monitor the transfer of packages as well, thus avoiding the need for thousands of vehicles to cross the border after long waits and much waste of gasoline by idling engines.

III

U.S.-MEXICO LEGAL ISSUES

   There is a need for coordination of Mexican-U.S. Agencies to avoid the need for legal action against the U.S. and Mexican Governments. Two pending legal cases are illustrative with regard to Mexican citizens who seek,  through U.S. lawyers and the U.S. Court System, the return of their “forced saving funds” deducted from Bracero salaries paid to them during the period from 1942 to 1964.

      In the first legal case, the document speaks for itself:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA                                                                      Case No.: 1 :OlCV00942(TFH)

                                                                                                               Judge: Thomas F. Hogan

ISIDRO JIMENEZ DE LA TORRE, et al., 
Plaintiffs,       

vs.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, [Government of Mexico], et al.,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM AND POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
[on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all persons, and the heirs of all persons, who, pursuant to the Agreements, worked in the United States in the agricultural and railroad industries between 1942 and 1964, and had portions of their wages withheld pursuant to the savings fund provisions of the Agreements].

Plaintiffs respectfully submit this memorandum and points and authorities in support of their Motion . . . against The United States, John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States, Elaine Chao as Secretary of Labor of the United States, Paul O'Neill as Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, Colin Powell as Secretary of State of the United States, Kevin D. Rooney as acting Commissioner of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, Donald H. Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense of the United States, Ann M. Veneman as Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, [and against]

The Republic of Mexico, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [of the] United Mexican States, [as well as against]

Wells Fargo Bank, Banco de Mexico, S.A., Banco de Credito Rural, S.A. y Patronato del Ahorro Nacional, S.A. (collectively referred to as "Defendants").

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

   This action arises from a series of Executive Agreements ("Agreements") entered into between the United States and Mexico between 1942 and 1964. Pursuant to the Agreements, over 300,000 Mexican nationals entered into contracts with the Defendants that enabled them to come into the United States and work for American employers in both the agricultural and railroad industries. These Agreements were  . . . adopted by the Federal Defendants located in the District of Columbia. The Agreements contained numerous provisions designed to protect the rights of the Mexican laborers.

   One such provision was the savings fund provision, which was included in all of the Agreements between 1942 and 1948, and which required ten percent of the wages earned by the Mexican nationals to be temporarily withheld by the Defendants. [Bold letters added here.] These sums were to be returned to the Mexican nationals upon the termination of their employment in the United States, and their subsequent return to Mexico. All of the Agreements, aside from the Agreement of February 20, 1948, required that all withholdings pursuant to the savings fund provisions would be directly transferred from the farmer‑employers to the Federal Defendants.
           
[The Agreement of February 20, 1948 differed in that it required the farmer ­employers to issue checks directly to the braceros upon completion of their contracts, thus paying to them directly their savings funds that had been withheld.]
 
   It was the responsibility of the Federal Defendants, located in the District of Columbia, to transfer these sums to either Defendant Wells Fargo Bank or the Foreign Bank Defendants. Similarly, the Agreements consistently required the Foreign Defendant Mexican Government, through its Consuls located in the District of Columbia, to take all possible measures of protection in the interest of the Mexican workers.

   Despite these numerous protective measures, the Mexican nationals who worked pursuant to the Agreements have not received the sums withheld from their wages. As alleged in the Amended Complaint, dated June 4, 2001 ("Complaint") . . . Defendants have breached their contractual, fiduciary and trust duties arising out of these Agreements in that they have failed to return the sums withheld from the Mexican nationals pursuant to the savings fund provisions. Accordingly, this action seeks an accounting in order to ascertain from the Federal and Foreign Defendants the location(s) of such sums and the amount owed to each Mexican national. . . .
   

   Pursuant to the Agreement of August 4, 1942, the United States was responsible for the safekeeping of the Savings Fund of the agricultural braceros  and for the transfer of those sums to the Mexican Agricultural Credit Bank, also known as the Banco de Credito Agricola, S.A. In addition, the Agreement of August 4, 1942 also provided that the Mexican government through the Banco de Credito Agricola would assume responsibility of the security of the monies withheld pursuant to the Savings Fund provision.  .  .  .

   The Agreement of August 4, 1942 was amended in April 26, 1943  . . . [to provide] that the United States would be responsible for the safekeeping of the Savings Fund of the agricultural braceros  and for the transfer of those sums to the Wells Fargo Bank and Union Trust Company for deposit into an account maintained by the Bank of Mexico, S.A. Pursuant to the 1943 Agreement, the Bank of Mexico, S.A. was directed to transfer the withholdings to the Mexican Agricultural Credit Bank, also known as the Banco de Credito Agricola, S.A.,  . . . the Mexican government through the Banco de Credito Agricola would assume[ing] responsibility of the security of the monies withheld pursuant to the Savings Fund provision.  . . .

   The Savings Fund provision  of the Agreement of April 26, 1943 remained in effect until February 20, 1948, when a new agreement . . .between the United States and Mexico . .  .  altered the process in which the Savings Fund money was to be transferred by providing that employers were to withhold ten percent of the agricultural braceros' wages and provide each bracero with a signed acknowledgment of the amount withheld. Upon termination of the employment contract, the employer was to provide each bracero with a certified or cashier's bank check bearing the stamp of the Defendant United States Immigration  and Naturalization Service, for the amounts withheld. Pursuant to the Agreement of February 20, 1948, the Mexican government, through its Consuls, was to take all possible measures of protection in the interest of the Mexican workers participating in the bracero program. Additionally, the [same] Agreement, provided that the United States government, through the United States Employment Service of the United States Department of Labor, was to render aid to the Mexican braceros in obtaining full compliance with the terms of the agreement between the United States and Mexico. . . .

   A subsequent agreement between the United States and Mexico entered into on August 1, 1949, . . . called for an end to the Savings Fund deductions for Mexican agricultural workers. However, on information and belief, Mexican laborers who worked in the agricultural industry in the United States between 1949 and 1964 continued to have a portion of their wages withheld by their employers despite the Agreement of August 1, 1949. . . .

   Deductions for the Savings Fund were also taken from the wages of Mexican nationals working in non‑agricultural industries, such as the railroad industry. The first agreement between the United States and Mexico dealing exclusively with the non‑agricultural braceros was entered into on April 29, 1943.  . . .  This Agreement contained the same protections for the non‑agricultural worker as the Agreement of August 4, 1942 provided tor the agricultural worker. . . .

   Under the auspices of the Agreements, hundreds of thousands of Mexican nationals labored in the agricultural and railroad industries in the United States between 1942 and 1964.

   These workers had millions of dollars withheld from their wages pursuant to the Savings Fund provisions of the Agreements.

   The bracero program was based upon a course of conduct that can be fairly characterized as peonage and indentured servitude. [Bold letters added here]

   Class members were typically provided with inadequate, subsistence housing or alternatively, were denied any form of housing. Class members were typically required to endure unsanitary conditions, including but not limited to, the absence of showers and bathroom facilities. Additionally, Class members were frequently provided with inadequate nutrition and when provided with meals, were often given food that had spoiled. . . .

   Plaintiffs, a former bracero and an heir of a former bracero, and the Class members have not received monies withheld from their wages pursuant to the Agreements. Further, Plaintiffs and the Class members have not received an accounting stating how much money was withheld and the whereabouts of said sums

   U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan accepted the above motion to file the case as a class action as requested, and service was made on September 4, 2001. Plaintiffs attorneys Patricia D. Ryan, Landon Gerald Dowdey, and Milberg, Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP are now taking testimony in Mexico from braceros and their families.

   In the second case, on  April 5, 2001, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, filed a class action case in U.S. Federal Court on behalf of former Mexican workers contracted to work in United States from 1942 to 1949. Lieff Cabraser seeks

to recover wages withheld for placement in savings funds that were not returned to the workers. . . .(called "Braceros," a Spanish reference to those who work with brazos or "arms"), [who] were hired beginning in 1942 to assist the United States in response to the depleted national workforce caused by World War II. . . .

   Under a bilateral agreement between the United States and the Government of Mexico, forced savings accounts were created for the Braceros. Into each account, a portion of the Braceros' wages were deposited. The purpose of these accounts was to ensure that the Braceros would return home to Mexico upon termination of their contracts. <www.lieffcabraser.com/braceros.htm>.

   Beyond these legal steps being taken in the USA, the Mexican Congress has launched an investigation into the funds. Therefore, a think tank should be established, to unite the efforts of the Mexican and U.S. sides in order to resolve the issue.
Según La Opinión de Los Angeles (19 de abril de 2001):

   La Cámara de Diputados nombró por unanimidad una comisión especial que se encargará de buscar decenas de millones de dólares correspondientes a miles de mexicanos que laboraron en Estados Unidos entre 1942 y 1964, bajo el llamado Programa Bracero y que inexplicablemente desaparecieron por entre los resquicios de las cuentas del gobierno.

   La instancia legislativa deberá llevar a cabo una investigación sobre el misterioso destino de los recursos del denominado Fondo de Ahorro Campesino, creado por el gobierno de México mediante la retención del 10% de los salarios recibidos por los braceros que durante aquel lapso trabajaron en territorio estadounidense.

   El dinero debía haber sido devuelto a los interesados cuando regresaran a sus comunidades al vencimiento de su contratación en campos agrícolas y tendidos ferroviarios de Estados Unidos. . . .

   Los bancos de México involucrados en la recolección de este fondo han dicho no tener la multimillonaria suma de dólares y sostienen que tampoco saben nada del destino que este jugoso monto tomó.

   Con la aprobación del punto de acuerdo por parte de las distintas fracciones parlamentarias, la denominada Comisión Especial para Seguimiento a los Fondos Aportados por los Trabajadores Braceros estará en condición legal de extender y profundizar sus indagaciones tanto como sea necesario. . . . [incluyendo llamar] a comparecer a todos los funcionarios que estuvieron involucrados en el manejo directo e indirecto de estos valiosos flujos monetarios, en un proceso que comprenderá los últimos 30 años. . . . 

    [Serán] interrogados principalmente los burócratas de mediano y alto nivel que se desempeñan en las distintas entidades del Poder Ejecutivo, desde luego de las Secretarías de Relaciones Exteriores, Hacienda y la Procuraduría General de la República.

IV

U.S.-MEXICO CULTURAL ISSUES

   Finally, there is a need to understand concerns of Central American in Los Angeles that they are being subsumed into L.A.'s Mexican Community.

   Thus, we find the following cogent article in La Gente de Aztlán, Fall 2003.

“Chicana By Definition, Not Identification: A Critique of the Push for Central Americans to Identify as Chicana/o”, by Karen Salazar(5):

   Chicana/o: any socially and politically conscious person committed to the uplifting of marginalized communities.

   The term is now changing and is no longer rooted in Mexican nationalism, but rather a political ideology. But for many of us non-Mexicans, it just doesn’t fit

   By definition, yo soy Chicana, yet I don’t identify as one. I am often told by some of my Chicana/o hermana/os that I should embrace the term because I fit the definition. I’m encouraged to learn about the Chicano Movement, go back to nuestras raices, and embrace our past. Yet this is not my history.

   Traditionally, those who have identified as Chicana/o have been of Mexican descent. When we talk about Chicana/o history we are talking about the history of people of Mexican descent here in the U.S. My family did not immigrate to the U.S. from El Salvador until the 1980s, we did not take part in the Chicano Movement, and our past includes bloody “civil” wars that ravaged our countries.

   So for me, and for many other Centroamericana/os, taking on the term also includes taking on its history, something many of us are not willing to do. We feel that because it neglects our history, it would require us to let go of it.

   Many argue that the term is not about where we come from, but rather our experiences in the U.S. Mexicans and Central Americans, do share many of the same experiences in this country, yet the are framed in a different context. As Jose, a Salvi friends, puts it, “There exists a privilege for people of Mexican descent, and the world Chicana/o does nothing to address it. The privilege that I talk about is not systematic, meaning that Mexicans are somehow given benefits or have some kind of advantage to succeed in society.

   The privilege that I speak about is one of language, representation, and culture.” People of Mexican descent have the privilege of people knowing who they are without having to tell them – we as non-Mexicans have to explicitly tell people where we come from or we’re just assumed to be Mexican. When we tell people where we are from, we still encounter the inevitable “what part of Mexico is that in?” or “But you do still speak Mexican, right?” or my favorite, “so you’re really not Mexican? But you look so Mexican!”

   Jenny, a fellow Guanaka who does not identify as Chicana despite fitting the definition, was born and raised in the U.S. but still maintains very strong cultural ties to El Salvador. She say that for her, the term Chicana does not speak to her experience as a Salvadoran womyn growing up in the U.S. She worries that if we adopt the term Chicana/o, our very survival as a culture will be at stake. She say that, “Many Mexicans fear the white man pushing them to become white but our fear has been that we are fist being pushed into becoming Mexican and from there white.”

   The homogenization of Latina/o communities in the U.S. is a concern for many of us. Many say that become we go through the same struggle we need to be able to unite and fight the struggler together. They worry that identifying as individual groups may cause disunity. While I agree that coalition struggle is the only way to overcome oppression, I do not agree that individual identities should be sacrificed for the collective; particularly when some groups are asked to adopt anothers identity. It is important to make the distinction between struggle and identity – sharing a struggle is not the same as sharing and identity. Unity does not have to equal homogeneity!

   Oftentimes, those non-Mexicans who identify as Chicana/o are tokenized in order to justify the imposition of the term upon others. I have had many conversations with people on this subject and have been told, “But Andy calls himself a Chicano and he’s not Mexican, so why can’t you?” Andy, a self-identified Chicano/Guanako, says that he’s also experienced the other side of this tokenization by some Chicana/os constantly pointing out him everything Salvadorian they know. He says he’s frusted by Chicana/os telling him about everytime they eat pupusas or meet other Salvadorian.

   The problem is that when the Chicano Movement fist began, there were not many non-Mexicans involved and thus identity was not discussed. Now that our numbers have exploded, due to push-pull Central American immigration factors, we have realized that we do have a voice and need that space to be heard in order to avoid being engulfed in this “wave of Chicanismo.”

   U.S. Mexicans adopted the term Chicana/o as a form of resistence – they wanted to be able to define their own identity. Part of that entailed embracing a term to form their identities around. Now many of us are resisting – we are resisting to the “Chicanoization” of our identities and struggling to define ourselves. No matter how we come to identify ourselves or what word we decide to use, it need to come from us and it needs to speak to our own histories and experiences.

CONCLUSION

   Taking into account all of the above issues that involve many governmental agencies (but fall outside the the purview of any one agency), it is clear that there is need to establish a base to provide a coordinated analysis and response to complex matters facing the Mexicans who live in such places as Gran Los Angeles-Tijuana as well as Mexicans who have lived in the USA but returned to Mexico.

   Let us suggest here, then, that INAMI takes this opportunity of developing new legislation about its role to expand its sphere of action, thus enabling it not only

1.  to negotiate directly with its counterpart agency in the USA;

but also

2. to serve as the coordinator for binational issues facing Mexicans who live under the laws of both the Mexico and the USA;

3. to establish an independent INAMI "Think Tank" that can offer the necessary analysis to suggest response to new problems that continually are being identified in U.S.- Mexican relations.

   Clearly there is need to prevent the accumulation of long-term problems such as the Fondo Bracerco and to find a more efficient system than that of involving the court systems of both countries in protracted and costly litigation. Further, there is a need to reduce pressure on border crossing for "simple" matters such as using the U.S. Postal Service.

   Hopefully, INAMI can fill the vacuum now facing both countries wherein no single agency attempts to coordinate issues not only crossing many ministires but across a border that is increasingly an arbitrary line daminaging society and economy in two interlinked countries--the USA and Mexico.

CONCLUSIÓN

   Tomando en cuenta todos los problemas arriba expuestos que involucran a muchas agencias gubernamentales (pero que están fuera del control de una sola agencia gubernamental), es evidente que hay necesidad de crear una base para llevar a cabo un análisis coordinado y una respuesta eficaz a los asuntos complejos que enfrentan los mexicanos que viven en lugares como la Gran Los Angeles-Tijuana, y mexicanos que después de vivir  en los Estados Unidos regresan a México.  

   Sugerimos aquí, entonces, que INAMI aproveche esta oportunidad para crear nueva legislación que pueda expandir su esfera de acción, para permitirle no sólo:

1.  negociar directamente con su contrapare en los Estados Unidos, sino también:

2. servir de coordinador de soluciones a problemas binacionales a que se enfrentan los mexicanos que viven regidos tanto por las leyes de México como de los Estados Unidos;
                 
3. establecer un"Think Tank" de  INAMI independiente, que pueda realizar el análisis necesario para poder sugerir la respuesta a nuevos problemas que se identifican continuamente en las relaciones Estados Unidos-México 

   Es evidente que existe la necesidad de evitar la acumulación de problemas a plazo largo, tales como los del Fondo de Ahorros de Braceros y encontrar un sistema más eficiente que el que tiene que ver con sistemas judiciales de los dos países en litigaciones prolongadas y costosas. Además, hay necesidad de reducir la presión que ejerce el cruce de la frontera a personas que la cruzan constantemente para  asuntos "sencillos" tales como el uso del Servicio de Correos.

   Esperemos que INAMI pueda llenar el vacío que experimentan los dos países por la falta de una sola agencia que intente coordinar la solución de problemas que no sólo atañen a muchas secretarías gubernamentales, sino que se extienden a través de una frontera que se convierte cada día más en una línea arbitraria que causa daños y perjuicios a la sociedad y la economía de dos países que están eternamente entrelazados: México y los Estados Unidos.

   It is important as well for INAMI to take into account the fact that Mexico has come to represent implicitly the interests Central and South Americans who makes up the region. They look to the Mexican Consulate General’s Office in Los Angeles to provide a place of cultural meeting as well as a place where strength in the total Latino population protects individuals and communities.

_________________________________

(1) James W. Wilkie, “On Studying Cities and Regions: Real and Virtual,” Afterword, in James W. Wilkie y Clint E. Smith, eds., Integrating Cities and Regions: North America Faces Globalization (Guadalajara y Los Angeles: University of Guadalajara, CILACE, UCLA Program on México, 1998), pp. 545-566, also available in México and the World, Volume 2, Number 4 (1997),http://www.profmex.org/mexicoandtheworld/volume2/4summer97/afterword.html

(2) This article  draws upon my article  originally  presented  in Spanish  at the the 2001 Forum in Los Angeles  held by Mexico's National Institute  of Migration,  UCLA Faculty  Center, July 13, 2001 (For the Spanish-language proceedings, see Mexico  and the World,  Volume 6, Number 2.)

(3) Pp. 534-538 cited in source to Table 1, below. See http://www.profmex.org/mexicoandtheworld/volume6/2spring01/expansion_delpapel.html

(4) Includes the following counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. Excludes Mexicans and Latinos in San Diego County, which may number up to 1 million. Data are taken from Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation--see:  <http://www.laedc.org/stat_popul.html>.

(5) Karen Salazar, “Chicana By Definition, Not Identification: A Critique of the Push for Central Americans to identify as Chicana/o” in La Gente de Aztlán (published at UCLA in Fall, 2003).