Mexican Immigration – Then and Now

The history of U.S. policy toward Mexican migration is a cyclical story of the U.S. government actively recruiting and institutionalizing the flow of labor to serve its economic needs, followed by nativist backlash and restrictive legislative actions when those labor needs lessened or when economic/social strain increased.

The Welcoming Hand (1910s – 1964)

The U.S. government took several direct and indirect actions that facilitated and, at times, strongly encouraged the presence of Mexican nationals, driven almost entirely by the demand for cheap labor in the Southwest.

1. The Early Exemptions (1910s – 1920s)

During World War I and the subsequent restrictionist era, U.S. policy explicitly exempted Mexican nationals from laws that severely curtailed immigration from nearly all other regions.

• 1917 Immigration Act: This act created the literacy test for immigrants and a head tax. However, the U.S. government frequently provided exemptions for Mexican agricultural laborers during World War I and in the years following, signaling an official desire to maintain the labor supply.
• 1924 National Origins Act (Quota Acts): These restrictive acts established quotas for immigrants based on nationality to favor Northern and Western Europeans. Crucially, the Western Hemisphere (including Mexico) was entirely exempt from these quotas. This created an open door for Mexican immigrants, as U.S. agriculture, mining, and railroad industries had become dependent on their labor.

2. The Bracero Program (1942–1964)

This program, formalized through bilateral agreements between the U.S. and Mexican governments, was the ultimate expression of the U.S. actively recruiting Mexican labor.

• Official Recruitment: Over 4.5 million contracts were issued to Mexican men (braceros) to work temporarily in U.S. agriculture and railroads. The U.S. government was the official guarantor of the contract, actively managing the process of importation and distribution of workers to U.S. growers.
• The Inherent Contradiction: The Bracero Program showed the U.S. wanted labor but not people. The contracts promised protections (wages, housing) that were often ignored, leading to widespread exploitation. However, the program effectively institutionalized a massive migration pattern and exposed millions of Mexican workers to the U.S. labor market, creating networks that would endure long after the program ended.

The Gag Reflex (1950s – Present)

The “gag reflex” occurred in policy when the U.S. economy contracted or when social pressures mounted against the permanent presence and settlement of the Mexican population. This reaction often came simultaneously with the welcome for labor.

1. Mass Expulsion during Economic Downturns

U.S. policy has a long history of sudden, aggressive deportations of ethnic Mexicans (including U.S. citizens of Mexican descent) when economic times were tough.

• The Great Depression (1929–1930s): Over a million Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans were “repatriated” (expelled) to Mexico to open jobs for U.S. citizens.
• “Operation Wetback” (1954, Republican Administration): This highly controversial, large-scale federal enforcement action resulted in the forced removal of over a million unauthorized Mexican immigrants (and many legal residents/citizens) in a single year, even while the Bracero Program was still in full swing. This illustrated the U.S. desire to control the flow, allowing only officially sanctioned, temporary workers.

2. The Democratic Backlash: The 1965 Immigration Act

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act), passed during a Democratic-controlled Congress and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, fundamentally shifted the migration landscape and is the single most important cause of unauthorized migration from the region.

• The Policy Change: In an effort to end the racist national-origins quotas from 1924, this act inadvertently imposed the first-ever numerical cap on the entire Western Hemisphere (120,000 visas) just as the Bracero Program was ending.
• The Consequence: The legal valve for Mexican labor was simultaneously removed (Bracero Program) and capped (1965 Act). U.S. demand for labor remained high, particularly in the Southwest, leading to an explosion of unauthorized immigration as the necessary labor could no longer enter legally.

3. Modern Restriction and Nativism

The rise in unauthorized immigration created by the 1965 Act fueled a sustained backlash that crossed party lines.

• The 1980s and 1990s: The Republican-led efforts to secure the border and restrict benefits solidified the public’s gag reflex against immigrants, leading to:
  • Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986: Granted amnesty to millions but implemented employer sanctions, making it illegal to hire undocumented workers.
  • Proposition 187 (CA, 1994): A major Republican-backed state initiative that sought to deny public services (non-emergency health care, public education) to undocumented immigrants. Although largely struck down by courts, it reflected the peak of anti-immigrant sentiment among many American citizens.

The U.S. placed an arbitrary, insufficient cap on legal immigration (1965), it inadvertently converted a circular migration pattern into a permanent, unauthorized one, which then triggered a widespread, punitive nativist reaction that persists today.

The Inconsistency Gap: Policy vs. Economic Reality

The U.S. government’s historical approach to Mexican migration demonstrates a fundamental policy contradiction: it institutionalized the need for cheap labor while simultaneously criminalizing the people who provided it. Programs like the Bracero Program (1942–1964) actively recruited millions of temporary workers, establishing deep migration pathways and a reliance on that labor in U.S. agriculture. Yet, when the legal “spigot” was suddenly turned off by the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (which capped Western Hemisphere immigration for the first time) and the Bracero Program’s expiration, the economic demand for that labor remained unchanged. This created a profound policy vacuum: the U.S. employer still extended a welcoming hand for labor, but the U.S. government implemented a restrictive, “gag reflex” policy on the legal means of entry.

Generating “Workarounds” in Immigration

This vast inconsistency forced economic actors—both employers and laborers—to seek desperate workarounds to sustain the labor flow. Since the legal avenues were closed, the only viable alternative was unauthorized migration. This was not a random occurrence, but a predictable, rational economic response to mismatched policy. The immigration system effectively said, “We need your labor, but we won’t give you a legal path.” Millions of Mexican nationals and U.S. employers responded by ignoring the increasingly restrictive laws, creating the very “security” problem (unauthorized border crossings) that subsequent laws were designed to combat. The policy was designed to secure the border, but the economic reality guaranteed its failure by pushing people into illegal methods.

Parallels to Cybersecurity and American Companies

Yes, the historical immigration patterns reveal a core principle that holds true in cybersecurity and American companies today: Inconsistent policy generates risky workarounds. If a company institutes a rigid security protocol—such as blocking access to necessary cloud storage, encrypting every single internal email, or requiring a 20-character password changed weekly—without providing a viable, easy-to-use alternative, employees will inevitably find a way around it to get their jobs done. They will use unsecured personal accounts, share passwords, or use insecure devices. The employees are simply following their economic reality over the company’s inconsistent policy.

Yes, the above came mostly from generative AI, but at the end of the day I see parallels to cyber security and American companies. Just as inconsistent policies generated desperate workarounds in immigration, overly rigid or impractical security protocols push employees to circumvent the rules, creating the very vulnerabilities the policy was meant to prevent. The human need to fulfill a core function will always find a path of least resistance, whether that is crossing a border for a needed job or using a personal Dropbox account to share a critical file.