“Go home to your own country.” “They take all of our jobs!” “They’re illegal. Send them home.” The heated immigration discussion causes much controversy across the United States, especially in areas of increasing immigrant populations. No matter which side one falls in regards to the immigration debate, the fact is that immigrants who come to the United States—both legally and illegally—face many hardships, often producing a disproportional rate of poverty in their communities. The ‘problem’ of immigration is much misunderstood and often oversimplified. The topic of immigration is forefront in my mind after a trip to Cuernavaca, Mexico in March 2009, where not only did we discuss the facts and myths about immigration, but I also met people who had actually ‘illegally’ immigrated to the U.S. and had mixed reactions to the experience. I realized there must be a reason people would leave there homes and country to travel through hellish conditions to come to the United States, and often live well below the poverty line once they get here. Though we deem them ‘illegal,’ these people have names, faces, and stories. I resolved to delve deeper into the issue.
This paper focuses particularly on the lives of Latino immigrants. Latinos represent the largest minority group in the U.S., numbering 47 million or 15.5% of the total U.S. population1 Mexico represents the largest source of immigration to the United States. Of the 32.5 million foreign-born in the March 2002 Current Population Survey, 9.8 million or 30% were from Mexico2. Thus, the focus will be on those who travel through Mexico, and more explicitly on those from Mexico, both those who are documented and those who are not. Once the immigrants arrive in the United States, from their poverty-stricken homes, they often still suffer lives of destitution. As Portes and Zhou point out in their research, there is not much literature on immigration and poverty together because the data shows that immigrant income is not much less than the total U.S. income levels, unless referring to Latin American immigrant income levels.3 The Latino poverty rate of 29.4 percent is more than double the white rate of 11.2 percent (the poverty rate of blacks is 28.4 percent).4 In light of this realization about the lives of Latino immigrants in the U.S., exploring the intersection of immigration and poverty becomes a necessity.
Understanding the situations in Mexico and other Latin American countries, in addition to the United States’ interest and involvement in Latin American countries, sheds light on the seriousness of the situation. It also illuminates the responsibility of the U.S. not to ignore the problem and the responsibility of the American government and citizens to not exacerbate the present suffering with unjust hatred sparked from willful ignorance. As the movie, Dying to Live: A Migrant’s Journey explains, the Hispanic culture is rich and family ties are strong; the migrants are not choosing to leave without reason.4 In prosperous conditions, people leave their hometowns only for vacations—not to travel under hellish conditions and then arrive and be treated inhumanely. Economic and political conditions in Mexico and other Latin American countries make it near impossible to provide for a family and keep them safe. For instance, twice since 1983, Mexico has devalued the Peso, making it more profitable to live in the U.S.5 The Mexican government has historically been known to cater to the elite 10 percent of Mexicans, ignoring the plight of the 70 percent of Mexicans who are marginalized.6 The U.S. has played a large role in catering to big business as well, furthering the gravity of the situation.7 Predictably, there is not a widespread availability of jobs in Mexico, and the jobs that exist are most often low-paying jobs. The decision to come to the United States to work, send money home, and thus make use of the favorable wage rate (in light of the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar in Mexico) is not made lightly. It is a decision made out of necessity. Similar economic and political situations drive other Central American immigrants to come as well.
As speaker Kim Erno points out, the complicated intertwining of the United States and Mexican laborers arises out of the United States’ demand for cheap labor and the Mexican government’s need for a ‘safety net.’8 Throughout the last 150 years, we have treated Mexicans as a disposable labor force. During the Gold Rush in the 1800s, it was difficult to find Anglos who would do the back-breaking labor in the mines and on the railroads.9 Americans welcomed their labor, but nonetheless treated them with discrimination and hostility. Their labor was so necessary that the Mexicans were often held captive by their employers through wage-withholding tactics. Without their final paycheck, they were unable and thus, not free, to leave. Until the Depression, Mexican immigrants were generally welcomed into the States. Even after the Immigration Act of 1917, a worker program was created and Mexicans were still allowed to come to the U.S. for work. During the Depression however, 400,000 Mexican immigrants were “repatriated” to Mexico, without any formal proceedings or hearings. Even many citizens were sent back to Mexico because they were of Mexican descent. In 1942, with the implementation of the Mexican Labor Program (or bracero program), the U.S. started welcoming Mexican immigrants again. In the contract allowing temporary workers to come to the United States for renewable periods of time, the Mexican government made sure there was an anti-discrimination clause in the agreement, but not surprisingly the clause and other protective conditions were not followed.10
By the 1960s the program had been reinstituted twice, but ironically in 1954, “Operation Wetback” was implemented to deport “illegals” back to Mexico. Of the 3.7 million people sent back to Mexico, only 65,000 were removed through formal proceedings, the rest left “voluntarily.”11 Many Americans of Mexican descent were sent back to Mexico. The whole situation was eerily similar to Depression-era “repatriation.” Even after the bracero program ended, importation of Mexican labor continued through the McCarran-Walter Immigration Act of 1952. To guarantee there would be an ample labor force available under this Act, admission standards for Mexican workers were lowered just days before the end of the bracero program. This act also established a fallback bracero program called the H-2 program, which had the power to admit “foreign labor for temporary jobs if able, willing, and qualified domestic workers cannot be found at the time and place where they are needed.”12 The mistreatment of workers under this program was not surprisingly similar to the bracero program.
In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”) legalized undocumented persons who had been here since 1982. This helped fill a job shortage caused by the most recent immigrant expulsion called “Operation Jobs.”13 At the same time the North American Free Trade Agreement was passed, which eliminated tariffs on exports and imports between the North American countries, “Operation Gatekeeper” also came into effect, tightening border patrol on the U.S.-Mexico border to cut down on the number of illegal entries into the states. This highlights the fact that labor is not part of the free trade agreement, but unfortunately for Mexico, that is where their comparative advantage lies.14 This increased the amount of undocumented workers who stayed in the U.S. because it would be too hard to return, and it increased the number of women and children crossing to reunite families. The flow of migration had to shift to a more dangerous environment. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was the most penalizing law yet concerning undocumented migration. The combination of these policies has made the journey across the U.S.-Mexico border into an epic tale of survival and destitution.
This journey into the U.S. is an important part of understanding the intersection of immigration and poverty, as the immigrants leave lives of poverty and hardship in Mexico and elsewhere, travel with only the clothes on their backs through the desert for days to face the unknown on the other side. As we pretend to stop allowing the flow of “illegal” labor, this “game” kills hundreds of people every year. Since the start of “Operation Gatekeeper” in 1994, over 4000 lives have been lost in the desert, while trying to make it into the U.S. In the agricultural sector of the United States industry, 53 percent of workers are undocumented and in California, that number rises to 90 percent. If we stop this flow, than food does not make it to the table in the same in the way we know it today, according to Kim Erno.15 This journey is a long and arduous trek from the migrants’ hometowns, up to a border town whose whole industry is based off of preparing migrants to cross the border. The immigrants join up with a leader or ‘coyote’ who they pay to lead them through the dessert. Dehydration, fatigue, and rattle snakes are just the beginning of the problems they could encounter in the desert. Other barriers include the Border Patrol or vigilante groups of self-righteous American citizens. In one of the most high traffic counties, Imperial County, Arizona, about 15 people die every month.16 Some groups, like Humane Borders, provide water for the travelers, actually with the support of the local government, because it is cheaper for the government to pay for water than death. The way of the immigrant has been compared to the way of the cross: they suffer economic crucifixion through their poverty, social crucifixion by leaving their homes and families, political crucifixion as “illegals,” and actual crucifixion when they are unable to survive the grueling trek.17
Upon arrival in the United States, walking the way of the cross often continues. Discrimination adds to the difficulties of learning a new language, finding a job, and searching for a place to live. The collision of poverty and immigration in America is a complex picture of work, education, children, taxes, welfare, and prejudice. The workplace is often a low-skill, low-wage location, earning barely the minimum wage, if that. For instance, a Mexican woman named Candalaria had been in the U.S. for nine years bouncing between sewing jobs in factories around California. She only got ¾ of a cent for each fly she sewed into a pair of jeans, and if she was able to sew more than the 767 flies an hour that she needed to sew to earn the minimum wage of $5.75, she would owe her employer the excess.18 Immigrants, especially Mexican immigrants are often treated harshly in the workplace because of the two rampant claims that “They take our jobs!” and “They drive down our wages!”19 While there are instances and circumstances when these can be true, these claims are largely false. If it were true, then increases in population size should serve to increase the unemployment rate, but that has never been the case; the number of jobs in the economy is elastic. Furthermore, it is hard to speak of ‘American’ jobs in a global economy that values an unsustainable, “high-profit/cheap product model.” Not only are jobs moved from country to country, but workers are moving too. In this ‘race to the bottom,’ (lowest price) workers and governments contend with each other to offer businesses lower taxes, lower wages, and a more “business-friendly environment” in an attempt to save scarce jobs.20 Immigrants fill in the gaps of these low-wage jobs that wouldn’t exist if the wages rose to a level that would be substantial to raise a family here in the U.S. Often, immigrants can survive on those wages because they are living here only temporarily. They accept conditions they would not accept at home. Wages can be keptlow because of the rising inequality that demands cheap labor with long hours that only poor immigrants with a lack of legalprotection are willing to provide. The fault of low wages lies in the system that necessitates a multitude of cheap products at a lightning-fast rate, and thus demands the conditions that Calandaria works under. Like other false claims about immigrants, this misinformation about immigrants and jobs perpetuates the suffering of the immigrant experience.
Another common myth that contrasts to the actual life of a Hispanic immigrant in the U.S. is the idea that immigrants are a drain on the economy because they use more in public services than they pay in taxes; actually, it is a prevalent idea that immigrants do not pay taxes at all.21 This is blatantly false. When applicable, everyone, including illegal immigrants pay sales taxes, real estate taxes, and gasoline taxes, among others. Additionally, many undocumented workers pay income tax using a false social security number. Of those immigrants in the formal economy, they have the same deductions taken out of their paychecks as does any American citizen in the formal economy. The only difference between the immigrants’ payments and citizens’ payments is that they will never see the benefits of paying social security taxes because they cannot claim the benefits when it is time.22 They also cannot file a tax return under a false security number, though most of them would be eligible for that return based on income.23 Further, they can collect no unemployment benefits.
Many American citizens claim that Latinos immigrate here to claim our welfare benefits but that is largely untrue as well. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, “denies most types of means-tested assistance to noncitizens who arrived after the legislation was signed and limits the eligibility of many noncitizens already living in the US.”24 This welfare reform legislation is the most recent attempt to minimize the costs to American taxpayers by the immigration of ‘public charges.’ George Borjas claims that most of the decline in immigration participation is due to California and that other states compensated more and that the naturalization rate increased instead to undo the harmful effects of immigrants of the legislation. In Michael Fix’s response to Borjas, however, he challenges those assertions and claims that not all states compensated for the benefits that the federal government denied and that Borjas’ analysis of welfare included Medicaid in his lump-sum analysis, skewing the supposed non-decline of immigrant welfare benefits.25
Business and Immigration lawyer Scott Fifer claims that in total, immigrants are paying more in taxes than for services they use here, such as schools.26 Moreover, they are propping the social security administration so much right now that this one of the main reasons there is no new immigration reform. The SSA depends on the money coming in from people who will never draw it back out.
Undocumented workers could also be part of the informal economy, and though not paying taxes, they also are not benefiting from wage and labor laws. Employers can pay less than required by law and thus make cheaper products; no minimum wage or health and safety regulations are part of the equation when one is being paid under the table.27 And not just undocumented workers find jobs in the informal economy, many Americans work in that sector too- whether babysitting, moving furniture, landscaping, et cetera, so illegal immigrants are not the only ones escaping being full taxation on their income.
Another place where immigrants often find their niche in the labor market is through self-employment. Some social scientists claim that owning a small business is just another alternative to the destitution of low-paying jobs or the informal sector, but Portes and Zhou find otherwise in their statistical analysis.28 Controlling for all other variables, self-employment and median (and/or mean) family income are positively correlated and highly significant. It appears that being a small business owner can be a respite from both discrimination and poverty. Even after equalizing the samples on 13 predictors of income, entrepreneurs always have a significant advantage in earnings. This contradicts a possible dismissal of self-employment as irrelevant to the economic mobility of minorities or as a result of human capital differences.29 Owning one’s own business can signal a way for immigrants to survive in the cutthroat economy.
Living in the South may make survival that much harder. The region is home to the fastest growing population of Latinos in the country, and South Carolina is number one for percentage-change in foreign-born population. Examining some of the aforementioned myths and experiences in the context of the South, as well as observing other applicable falsehoods and common situations, will continue to shed light on the complex life of the immigrant. For this analysis, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s report on the life of low-income Latinos (based on more than 500 Latinos in several locations)30 and Wendy Campbell’s dissertation on the lives of 20 undocumented Mexican women immigrants to South Carolina is especially helpful.31
Work is central to the life of the immigrant in the South, as it is anywhere in the United States. Almost all of the 20 women surveyed worked and those that did not work, could not work because they had small children and daycare was not an option. It is expensive and the women do not trust daycare workers. For the women that did work, employment was a major source of pride and strength. Six of the twenty women reported working 12-hour days in dangerous conditions for minimum wage; they stated they were just happy to have employment and be contributing to the family’s well-being.32 Some of these women do receive healthcare benefits from their jobs, and one of them, Ruth, actually receives workman’s compensation for being injured on the job. Six of the women worked under fake names and social security numbers. Their names on their identification cards they need at social service agencies is often completely different from their name at work. They learn to be vague in response to caseworkers. Some of the women avoid that situation entirely as spuriously mentioned, by working as small-time entrepreneurs in fields such as daycare, baking, sewing, or cosmetology. Having never run a business in Mexico, the women nonetheless were quite proficient in entrepreneurship. They were not deterred by possible barriers to success, such as immigration status, but were creative in finding ways to support their families.33 Discrimination is also part of their experience but mostly from other Mexicans or other minorities. One interviewee explained how Mexican women with green cards look down on those without green cards. And for the most part, the women did not complain about discrimination at work, but more at stores or restaurants. One woman named Lily stated, “My family and I sat at Pizza Inn for 30 minutes and no one ever took our order.”34
Those surveyed about work experience by the Southern Poverty Law Center, portrayed a harsher picture of work life, however. Forty-one percent of respondents said they had experienced wage theft since being here.35 Some workers, like Humberto Jimenez are legal guestworkers bound to the employer who sponsors them to come here for low-skill seasonal jobs. Some decide that it is better to risk being undocumented than to be almost an indentured servant under their employer. Every southern state is a “right to work” state making it hard for workers to unionize and demand higher wages and better working conditions. The life of a farmworker can be especially tough in the south.36 State laws in the southeast to protect farmworkers from abuse are weak or nonexistent. In eight southeast states, farmworkers are not covered by workers compensation. Further, many state wage and hour laws do not include agricultural workers in their protection. In Alabama and South Carolina, farmworkers’ children are exempt from compulsory education laws. In the South, Mexican worker deaths are about 1 in 6,200, more than double the national average for Mexican workers. And that general rate does not paint the picture any prettier; Mexican workers are about 80 percent more likely to die on the job than native-born workers.
But this is not to say that all farmworkers are mistreated and that this is the experience of all immigrants. Auman Orchards in West End, North Carolina gives a different picture of what the immigrant life could be like if laws and programs were different. This farm takes special care to hire their labor through an agency registered through the U.S. Department of Labor. The workers are able to come through the H2A bill for the harvest season and return home at the end of the season. The workers live in living quarters highly inspected by the state and are paid a wage set by the U.S. Department of Labor. Their wages are not subject to Social Security taxes or withholding. This is stable work for the mostly male employees that have been returning for 20-25 years. This could be an image of a better way one type of immigrant experience could be. However, it is very difficult to participate in a legal program like this the way the laws currently are set up. Even more difficult is attempting to immigrate legally to the U.S. for longer than a harvest season.
As the Southern Poverty Law Center, Kim Ermo, Scott Fifer, Aviva Chomsky and others point out, it is hard to immigrate legally to the U.S., especially if is from Mexico. Most people who villainize ‘illegal’ immigrants do not realize how difficult it is to immigrate here legally; I have heard many American citizens claim that if they lived in Mexico, they would immigrate to the U.S.- legally. Not only does that completely invalidate the richness of the Mexican culture and the family ties that would not make it an easy decision to leave one’s home, but it makes it sound that if one decides to immigrate legally, it can certainly happen, and quickly. In reality, there are four ways to become a legal permanent resident (LPR) of the United States: a specified family relationship with a citizen or LPR, an employer petition for lawful permanent residency, adjustment from refugee status, or obtaining a diversity visa, a process known as the ‘lottery.’37 These options are largely unavailable to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. For Mexicans, the process of gaining residency status through a family member is backed up to those who applied in 1992.38 Only 10,000 employment-based visas are given to low-income workers.39 Refugee/asylee status is rare for Mexican or Central American residents. The lottery is reserved for countries with a small number of immigrants. Understanding the difficulties of entering the U.S. legally should shed some light on why there are so many ‘illegals’ here. And the Mexican undocumented immigrants are not doing anything different than European immigrants did when they decided to leave their homes for better opportunities in the United States. Immigrants in the past did not follow the ‘rules’ either. They just came. It was not even until 1924 that any sort of quota was put on white European immigrants.40
Another prevalent falsehood that perpetuates the poverty and discrimination is that today’s immigrants are not learning English and that bilingual education just adds to the problem.41 The undocumented women in South Carolina are a good example of how this is not the case. They greatly value their education and see educational centers as “crucial to their development and advancement in the United States.”42 Many of the women interviewed were currently attending classes in English, basic literacy, GED preparation, computer procession, health literacy, and work safety. Lily claims, “Education is key to the future. And I want to set a good example for my children.”43 They also want to be able to help their children with their homework. Waiting lists for English as a Second Language (ESL) can be up to three years long. A study by the Pew Hispanic Foundation found that 92 percent of Hispanics thought it ‘very important’ that the children of immigrants learn English.44
In Greenville, South Carolina, much educational progress is still needed. Forty-four percent of Latinos over 25 have not graduated from high school, compared to 17.5 percent of the total population.45 Latino students are 10.4 percent of the Greenville School District, which has the highest enrollment of Latino children in the state. The graduation rate of the entire district is 69.6 percent, but the Latino rate is only 55.2 percent. This is not surprising considering almost a quarter of the Latino population is living in poverty, compared to 13.1 percent of the general population and about 10 percent of the white population. These disparities are not just going to go away in Greenville. The Latino population has risen 866 percent since 1990 and is project to rise to 1200 percent by 2013. The demand for ESL and adult education is on the rise and Latino-populated section of Greenville called Berea is growing rapidly.
The October 2008 immigration raid of a chicken processing factory in Greenville points to the large presence of immigrants and the difficulties they face here. On October 7, the House of Raeford farms chicken plant was raided by immigration officials, and workers were questioned and detained if thought to be illegal. In addition to separating families by deporting “illegals,” the officials also found many underage workers, including Lucero Gayton, 15.46 Most girls her age would be in bed by the time Lucero started work at 11, beginning her 10-hour shift. She would work diligently using a sharp knife to cut the muscles from freshly killed chickens. Lucero was one of 6 underage workers discovered in the raid. Furthermore, this factory had been cited 130 times since 2000 for workplace safety violations. When former supervisors have questioned decisions or hiring practices, they are told not to ask questions; it is too important to keep the production lines running. The conditions are notably terrible. As one father of an underage worker stated, “When you’re poor, there are choices you have to make that you’d rather not.”47 As shown, the intersection of immigration and poverty is right here in Greenville and the surrounding region. One does not have to look far to discover the reality of the life of an immigrant and the reality beneath the prominent hate-driven lies.
Now that a picture of the complex life of a Latino immigrant to the United States, the land ‘where anything is possible,’ has been drawn, many questions arise. Why do we treat those with brown skin so harshly? Why is it necessary to call them ‘illegal?’ Do we have legitimate reasons for the laws that are in place, or are they just self-righteous, self-serving and based on untruth? Why are some immigrant groups welcomed and others not? What responsibility does our government have to people it has deemed ‘illegal?’ Would there be less poverty without the borders? These questions are all broad and complex, but hopefully this gives a starting point for thoughts and action in the area of immigration policy. If nothing else, I hope it shows that these immigrants are people with names, faces, and families, like you and me. They are finding whatever means necessary to provide for their families. The problem is complex and daunting. But a status quo based on hate and injustice is unacceptable. Something must change.
Borjas, George J. “Welfare Reform and Immigration,” In The New World of Welfare, edited by Rebecca M. Blank and Ron Haskins, 369-390. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.
Bauer, Mary. “Under Siege: Life for Low-Income Latinos in the South.” A report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Alabama, 2009.
Campbell, Wendy Sellers. From Mexico to South Carolina: The journey of undocumented women Ann Arbor: ProQuest. 2004.
Carrasco, Gilbert P. “Latinos in the United States: Invitation and exile,” In Immigrants Out!: The new nativism and the anti-immigrant impulse in the United States, edited by Juan F. Perea, 190-204. New York: NYU press, 1997.
Chomsky, Aviva. "They Take Our Jobs!" and 20 Other Myths about Immigration. Boston: Beacon Press. 2007.
Dying to live: A Migrant's Journey. DVD, directed by Bill Groody. University of Notre Dame: Groody River Films, 2005.
Kolb, Sarah Covington. “Latinos in Greenville, SC, Fact Sheet,” A report by the Alliance for Collaboration with the Hispanic Community, South Carolina, 2008.
Ordoñez, Franco and Ames Alexander “Hard Labor at a Tender Age” Charlotte Observer http://www.charlotteobserver.com/573/story/314001.html, November 9, 2008.
Passel, Jeffrey S. ”Mexican Immigration to the U.S.” Migration Information Source. www.migrationinformation.org , 2004.
Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. “Divergent Destinies: Immigration, Poverty, and Entrepreneurship in the United States,” In Poverty, Inequality, and the Future of Social Policy: Western States and the New World Order, edited by K. McFate, R. Lawson, and W. J. Wilson, 489-520. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1995.
Shipler, David K. The Working Poor. New York: Vintage Books, 2005.
1 Jeffrey S. Passel.”Mexican Immigration to the U.S.” (Migration Information Source, 2004), www.migrationinformation.org (accessed April 26, 2009).
3 Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou. “Divergent Destinies: Immigration, Poverty, and Entrepreneurship in the United States.” Poverty, Inequality and the Future of Social Policy: Western States in the New World Order. Eds. Katherine McFate, Roger Lawson, and William J. Wilson. (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1995), 489.
3 Ibid., 501.
44Dying to Live: A Migrant’s Journey, DVD, directed by Bill Groody (University of Notre Dame: Groody River Films, 2005).
6 Ross Gandy, lecture to CCIDD students (including author), March 10, 2009.
7 More on the United States’ involvement is beyond the scope of this paper, but as stated, understanding our government’s involvement helps understand why this is not just a ‘Mexican’ problem.
8 Kim Erno, lecture to CCIDD students (including author), March 11, 2009.
9 Carrasco, Gilbert. “Latinos in the United States: Invitation and Exile.” Immigrants Out!: The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States. Ed. Juan F. Perea. (New York: New York UP, 1997). p193.
10 Ibid., 195.
13 Ibid. p199.
14 Kim Erno, lecture to CCIDD students (including author), March 11, 2009.
16 Dying to Live. Directed by Bill Groody.
18 David Shipler, The Working Poor: Invisible in America (New York: Vintage, 2004), 78.
19 Aviva Chomsky. “They Take Our Jobs!” and 20 other myths about immigration. (Boston: Beacon Press, 2007), 11.
20 Ibid., 7.
21 Ibid., 36.
22 Ibid., 38.
23 Scott Fifer. Lecture to Dr. Vechhio’s ‘History of Immigration to America’ class. Furman University (author in attendance). April 28, 2009.
24 George Borjas. “Welfare Reform and Immigration.” The New World of Welfare. Eds. Rebecca Blank and Ron Haskins Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.
25 Michael Fix. response to Borjas’ “Welfare Reform and Immigration.”
26 Scott Fifer. Lecture. April 28, 2009.
27 Aviva Chomsky. “They Take Our Jobs!,” 40.
28 Portes and Zhou , “Divergent Destinies,” 507.
29 Ibid., 508.
30 Mary Bauer, “Under Siege.”
31 Wendy Sellers Campbell. From Mexico to South Carolina: The Journey of Undocumented Women. (Ann Arbor: ProQuest, 2004.
32 Ibid., 85.
33 Ibid. p 87.
34 Ibid. p88.
35 Mary Bauer. “Under Siege.”
38 Scott Fifer. Lecture. April 28, 2009.
39 Mary Bauer. “Under Siege.”
40 Aviva Chomsky, “They Take Our Jobs!,” 77.
41 Ibid., 110.
42 Wendy Sellers Campbell. From Mexico to South Carolina., 88.
43 Ibid p89.
44 Aviva Chomsky, “They Take Our Jobs!,”114.
45 Kolb, Sarah Covington, “Latinos in Greenville, SC, Fact Sheet,” A report by the Alliance for Collaboration with the Hispanic Community, South Carolina, 2008.
46 Franco Ordoñez and Ames Alexander “Hard Labor at a Tender Age” Charlotte Observer (November 9, 2008), http://www.charlotteobserver.com/573/story/314001.html.