A day laborer tells us his story

and my thoughts on that

What is your name?

Alonso Gutierrez

How old are you?

I have 23 years.

Where are you from?

From Sonora Nogales. On the hills in the colonies at the border. I used to live there for three months with my sister before she ran away from home to Mexico City.

What was life like living in the colonies of Nogales?

I sold merchandise from the south side of Mexico like candle holders, shirts and other little things. I made about 250 dollars a week at the sales shops but I didn’t like the way my sister acted so I asked her to leave. I used to make lots of money in Nogales. I had my own apartment with CD player, DVD, T.V. plus furniture.

Are you in contact with your sister?

No I am not in contact with my sister. She may have a phone number but I don’t know her number.

Where did you live before you lived in Nogales?

I’m from southern Mexico and went to school in Obregon city till 10th grade. I left school 8 years ago but I was a trouble maker because I used to fight people a lot especially if girls were watching. I used to teach English in Nogales for a little time. I have 5 brothers and 5 sisters still in Mexico. They go to school. I wanted to get educated and work so I came to America.

Do you send money back home to you family?

Yes, I send money back home to my family when I can.

Did you participate in the immigrant awareness day on May 1st?

No because I don’t think it is right. I don’t think that it will do anything. I don’t agree with the immigrant awareness day.

What do you think would be the best thing to do about this?

I don’t want American citizenship for the 11 or 12 million people here, amnesty shouldn’t be given to everybody. I think that after 5 years in the U.S., you have a right to claim if you can prove it. If u have 5 years and can prove it that should give credibility to the immigrants. I think a guest worker program that would give amnesty to some that have been here from more than 5 years and work permits to those who want it.

When did you come to America?

I tried to come to the U.S. seven times but I got caught.

How many people did you cross with the last time that you crossed?

Ten people, eleven including me.

Had the people that you crossed with also tried to cross numerous times before?

The people that I crossed with were 1st timers.

Were you caught by the border patrol and just expatriated back to Nogales, Mexico?

Yeah.

What was it like crossing seven times and getting caught by the Border Patrol? How did they treat you?

It was hard. They were friendly. In Arizona it is ok because they give you water and then take you back but in Texas it is different. They aren’t nice there. This is what I heard.

What are the people like that hire laborers like you?

The guys that hire us are sometimes mean and they don’t always give food or money for the work. Sometimes you don’t get paid, sometimes we don’t get a ride back from 120th avenue and you have to hitch hike. Black people and Mexicans don’t always pay.

10 or 12 dollars an hour is good. When I came to America the first time in 2003, I worked for a moving company but right now they don’t need the work. The name of the company was called strong arm moving.

Alonso Gutierrez learned English in Nogales, after three years of going back and forth for 3 months at a time to his other town, where his family lived for 6 month stints. He is in contact with his family and he sends them money when he can. He has been in Arizona for one year. He lives in an apartment around 36th street and Thomas. He wants to go to school here in Arizona get his GED and go back to Mexico, specifically Hermosillo, to teach English. If he finishes his ged and goes back to Mexico he can go to hermosillo and teach English for about $1000. a month.

He plays basketball 3 or 4 days a week just for fun. His favorite TV show is anything that has to do with professional wrestling. He likes action movies and scary movies. Currently, he is thinking about working in a bar or a restaurant translating and working for the Spanish speaking workers.

Analysis

             Day labor induced schizophrenia

A new look at the day labor center scapegoat, misguided efforts to discourage illegal immigration, and the ensuing issues of societal support and sabotage.

           Many emerging political issues in the United States center on Mexican and Latin-American cultures. The problem of illegal immigration and related controversies is fascinating and deserves a high degree of sensitivity. It has become a staggeringly divisive agenda item dominating election seasons, especially in the south western United States. In Arizona, for example, one of the most conflict-ridden concerns focuses on undocumented workers and the institution of day labor centers, particularly because these facilities are sometimes supplied with public funds. It is my position that support from public funds should not be withheld from day labor institutions even when they accommodate undocumented workers or illegal immigrants because such facilities serve as a practical solution to community problems, encourage the legitimization of working conditions, and advance the cause of human rights.

           Fundamentally attached to discussion on the merits of day labor facilities is an understanding that because day laborer communities are facing inequality, so are American communities. In this light, the general approach commonly suggested as a most efficient means for addressing day laborers is an advocacy method, which implicitly takes root in pursuit of improving the quality of life for both American and immigrant communities. Additionally, the theme of advocacy reappeared in the form of support for employers attempting to lower labor costs by relying on day laborers as a constant source of employment.

           The day labor market in America dates back to Irish laborers in New York at the beginning of the century. State sponsored programs and policies like the Bracero program instituted in 1942 and terminated in 1964 help explain the preponderance of Mexicans in this industry. The California Law Review, Vol. 74, 1715 affirms that immigration decisions are a result of highly coercive, political, social, and economic forces. Consistent with this, the most visible form of day labor today is dominated by Latino immigrants. It exists under a fairly unregulated framework.

           Popular media often presents the image of undocumented workers as a snowballing mass of an uneducated and unskilled squatting class, seeking welfare or other public assistance programs. This characterless image of the illegal immigrant plainly lacks merit because low income immigrants “are intensely participating in the labor market”, and “this strong labor market commitment of illegal immigrants suggests that their purpose in entering the US is not to seek welfare or other public benefits, but instead, to work and make money.” (Batiz, 2000, p. 4) Moreover, the underemployment and low pay faced in Mexico is proof that especially undocumented immigrants are willing to take jobs with pay and working conditions that very few American workers would take.

           More descript complaints of workers associated with the laborer pickup points include loitering on street corners, committing crimes, scaring customers away from local businesses, jamming traffic and urinating in public as they attempt to find employment. The community problems resulting from casual labor serve as the prototypical device for nearly all debate on the issue of day laborers.

           Despite the fact that these people are often illegals, day laborers often risk injury and exploitation. Batiz maintains that “the lack of documents, and the fear of detection by the INS, puts the workers in a radically subordinate situation relative to their employers”, often resulting in “exploitation and subhuman working conditions” (2000, p. 4). One deeply heartbreaking illustration of the human rights violations committed against vulnerable day laborers comes from Sandra Gardner’s account of one such worker in Freeport Long Island. After breaking up cement all day and persevering through painful blisters on his hands, this day laborer was assured by his employer that he would be paid the next day. The worker appeared the next day eager to receive his rightful pay only to find that he had been stood up by the previous day’s employer and that this was the practice of that employer – to hire day laborers and promise to pay them but not do so (2003, p. 1).

           “The alternative to an organized center is to wait on the street corner, take whatever work you are offered, and not know if you’ll get paid.” (Gardner, 2003, p. 1) The main advantage of day labor facilities is that the system legitimizes underground labor by protecting both the worker’s and the employer’s interests. Some day labor facilities have begun holding language and computer classes every morning Calderon remarks that this ethos is rooted in the advancement of intercultural understanding as well as the ideal of democracy translated as social responsibility. (2003)           

           A 2001 Labor Department census poll estimated that close to 260,000 people loitered on street corners looking for daily work. More recent census polls have put forward estimates of as many as one million illegal immigrants nationwide, the majority of whom lack permanent employment and rely on jobs that change from one day to the next. It is because of this type of massively impressive number that a gentler attitude should be taken toward this population.      Current literature concerning day labor facilities addresses three dominant themes: community problems, human rights, and advocacy. Acknowledgement of these themes will help identify and resolve community problems as well as the relevant human rights issues yet it seems that the current political climate in Arizona seems to lay emphasis on only the negative issues of undocumented work and day laborers. Regardless of personal views on immigration, legal or not, it is crucial that the public be made aware of legislative treatment for affected populations and act in response with one voice.

           Those who oppose publicly funded day labor institutions embody the type of resistant and intolerant mind-set responsible for anti-immigrant legislation. Individuals not in support of advocacy strategies suggest that day labor centers are helping those who entered this country without following the U.S. system for immigration policy and that such institutions provide services to illegal immigrants that may take work away from Americans and give it to undocumented workers. These oppositional arguments discount the fact that the purpose of centers like these is to help restore dignity to American neighborhoods, to make an underground labor trade legitimate, and to foster social change by enhancing political empowerment.

           Often, critics believe that any structure for assistance of the illegal immigrant population, such as implementation of day labor facilities, will contribute to protections for and the persistence of immigrants coming to the U.S. They see the great diversity present among immigrants as threatening to their ‘American culture’ and, automatically, are compelled to oppose associated mechanisms to employ them. However, this is a misguided approach to take care of only a symptom (undocumented work) of a greater problem (illegal immigration).

           Unfortunately, the critics concerns appear in legislation and other actions taken towards illegal immigrants here in Arizona, despite the fact that those whom complain about day laborers stealing jobs and lowering wages are also predisposed and often willing to capitalize on them for work simply because of their prevalence in society. If such an essential laboring class is viewed and treated with egregious disfavor in our community, how is enormous societal dependence on this population reconciled?

          This prejudicial view is irresponsible and promotes ignorance and inequality by exacerbating an exploitative shadow economy by turning its back upon the present population of undocumented workers while continuing to profit from their toils. Batiz suggests that “increased efforts to find and penalize undocumented workers already residing in the US (or their employers) are unlikely to reduce the illegal immigrant population in a significant way and will further cause them to withdraw from mainstream labor markets, deteriorating their human condition, as they find themselves at the mercy of unscrupulous employers”. (2000, p. 4)

 
Migration & Culture Robert Preston 2006