One and a half million Mexicans migrated to America between 1900 and 1930. Rise of industrialized farming led to increased demand for a massive need for seasonal and migratory labor. With the passage Asian exclusion acts, American farmers needed a new source of cheap labor that could supplement their loss of Asian labor. Mexicans were already migrating to America during this time to escape the political instability occurring during the Mexican Revolution. Growers had been looking toward Mexicans as a new labor supply. While advocates for continued Mexican immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries succeeded in garnering support for Mexican labor through both the positive manipulation of negative Mexican stereotypes and economic
…show more content…
The Dingley Tariff raised taxes across the United States (Kim, pp. 45). The passage of the tariff had a significant implication because smaller family farms were unable to compete economically with large farming corporations after the addition of the tax. Without sources of competition, large corporations were able to freely expand their companies. Furthermore, the development of refrigerated cars and improved irrigation helped aid the transition to an industrialized intensive agricultural society (Kim, pp. 45). The development of technologically advanced irrigation improved crop yields. Refrigerated cars allowed for transport of large amounts of goods to farther distances, encouraging mass production of crops for shipment to different destinations. Only large industrialized farming companies had the potential to mass produce crops for shipment, which helped them outcompete their small farm …show more content…
First, although opponents acknowledged the low costs of Mexican labor, they believed increased supply of Mexican labor would hurt urban laborers and small family farmers. Because Mexicans were willing to work at extremely low wages, white laborers in urban environments and the transportation sector would be unable to compete (Reisler, pp. 247). Proponents of Mexican labor easily shot this argument down. They reasoned that unlike European immigrants, Mexican laborers only took jobs that were undesirable to white Americans (Reisler, pp. 249). Mexican labor would also continue the perpetuation of a plantation agricultural system in the Southwest (Reisler, pp. 246-247). This argument is relatively weak for several reasons. The plantation agricultural plantation system had existed for decades with just different labor sources throughout the years. Small farms had failed to compete once large industrialized farming had begun. Social problems, for opponents of Mexican labor, outweighed the economic benefits. However, because many Mexicans chose to go home after growing season ended in the earlier 20th century, their societal impact would be kept at a minimum. Finding flexible workers to fulfill seasonal needs for labor was a main priority for growers (Kim, pp. 46). In fact, Mexicans were equated to “homing pigeons” because they would often return home
The Dingley Tariff raised taxes across the United States (Kim, pp. 45). The passage of the tariff had a significant implication because smaller family farms were unable to compete economically with large farming corporations after the addition of the tax. Without sources of competition, large corporations were able to freely expand their companies. Furthermore, the development of refrigerated cars and improved irrigation helped aid the transition to an industrialized intensive agricultural society (Kim, pp. 45). The development of technologically advanced irrigation improved crop yields. Refrigerated cars allowed for transport of large amounts of goods to farther distances, encouraging mass production of crops for shipment to different destinations. Only large industrialized farming companies had the potential to mass produce crops for shipment, which helped them outcompete their small farm …show more content…
First, although opponents acknowledged the low costs of Mexican labor, they believed increased supply of Mexican labor would hurt urban laborers and small family farmers. Because Mexicans were willing to work at extremely low wages, white laborers in urban environments and the transportation sector would be unable to compete (Reisler, pp. 247). Proponents of Mexican labor easily shot this argument down. They reasoned that unlike European immigrants, Mexican laborers only took jobs that were undesirable to white Americans (Reisler, pp. 249). Mexican labor would also continue the perpetuation of a plantation agricultural system in the Southwest (Reisler, pp. 246-247). This argument is relatively weak for several reasons. The plantation agricultural plantation system had existed for decades with just different labor sources throughout the years. Small farms had failed to compete once large industrialized farming had begun. Social problems, for opponents of Mexican labor, outweighed the economic benefits. However, because many Mexicans chose to go home after growing season ended in the earlier 20th century, their societal impact would be kept at a minimum. Finding flexible workers to fulfill seasonal needs for labor was a main priority for growers (Kim, pp. 46). In fact, Mexicans were equated to “homing pigeons” because they would often return home