ETHNICITY AND SOUTH OF THE BORDER WORKERS:
THE SEGMENTATED LABOR FORCE IN THE US
Marco A. Gandasegui, hijo

     World wide capitalist development has transformed the globe
and the peoples that inhabit the Earth. In our present paper we
are interested in exploring the effects of capitalist development
on migration patterns. Specifically we want to show how
capitalist development has played a major role in shaping South
of the Border migrations from the Latin American region to the
United States. We also believe we can present, in this same
paper, a case towards proving how the national bias within
capitalist development patterns has created grounds for the
growth of a compartment-like workforce market based on ethnicity.
     The historical antecedent of the segmented labor market in
the US is directly related to Slave labor and the present
situation of Black labor. There are strong indications that a new
compartment in the US labor market si taking shape. This paper
will adress this question in what relates to the South of the
Border workers in the US and their transformation into what the
US Census Bureau calls the "Hispanic" population.
     The United States has always been a land where migrants from
all latitudes flock to. Migrants have been absorbed by US culture
and its stereotypes. The national specificities of these massive
migrations have not disappeared. The blend has been rich in tones
and has given the US a heterogenous complexion even within its
very limited sense of capitalist pragmatism. Each wave of
migrants tends to integrate from bottom up. 
     This characteristic is important in the sense it permits us
to follow the cultural process of integration along with the
development of capitalism in the US (as well as on a world
scale). The different ethnic groups that live in the US are able
to identify their national background and seem quite proud to do
so. We can mention a few of these ethnic groups: the Anglos, the
Scotts, the Dutch, the Irish, the Scandinavians, the Italians,
the Poles, the Jews, the Greeks, the Lebaneese. We could keep on
mentioning other ethnic groups, especially the more recent
arrivals from the Far East, Southern Asia, and Latin America.
Maybe more interesting would be to ask ourselves why certain
ethnic groups do not profile their past and underline their
contributions to US cultural development: Germans and Spaniards.
(We are not aware of any German Festival organisations or
Spaniard Parades honoring the Fatherland).
     National identity is also split in the "Old" countries. Some
Irish believe they are Celts others do not, some Italians are
Normands or Roman, others are not. The Spaniards consider
themselves of Visigod origen, or Arab, or Basque or even Iberian.
To some extent these cultural borders have been overcome and
modern capitalist development has created a new blend of national
identity. Workers and propietors believe themselves to be the
sole heirs of a nation they have built through (or despite)
generations of violent civil strife (class wars and civil wars)
as well as international confrontations.
     Where capitalism is weak the modern borders of nations are
not as strong. Proof of this situation is the breakdown of the
20th Century projects of original nations: the USSR and
Yugoslavia (the Sothern Slav State). But this tendency is also
present in Italy where North and South clash, in Spain where the
different regions fight for their autonomy, in Belgium, and in
Ireland where Catholics and Protestants struggle over their
identity as a Nation.
     In the US national identity is related directly to the
ability of the migrants to integrate into what is generally
considered the mainstream. Their are no laws, decrees or rules
concerning the existence of a mainstreem. However it is a reality
that is always present through an institutional network of
complex organisations. From the 18th Century Church, through the
19th Century Lodge, to the 20th Century Clubs (Country, Rotary,
Kiwani, etc.). These have combined with the newly arrived (to the
Establishment) Working Class Unions and Cooperatives to create a
feeling of belonging and legitimacy that is stregnthened through
State (political) institutions and consolidated by the mass
media.
     The State represents the broad front of institutions that
constitute the established mainstreem. There are two groups in
the US that have not been integrated by the Estabilshed
mainstreem. One is the large and heterogenous Black population
that was transported to the American continent from Africa as
slaves to labor in cotton, sugar and other agricultural endeavors
as well as mining initiatives. The other is the large Native
American population with which the State (the United States) has
been at war since the English Crown`s conquest of North America`s
eastern coast.
     After Emancipation (1864) and the end of the Indian Wars (c.
1880), these two groups should have started their way to
integration into the Established mainstreem. The road was
hampered by a string of obstacules that has made integration
impossible. On one end, Blacks and Indians were denied their
Civil rights for several generations. In every sense of the word
they were considered foreign (or legaly alien) in their own land.
At the other end, this political reality placed Black and Indian
labor in a different category. Separate rules and regulations
were created for Black and Indian labor. Longer working hours,
less pay, no union organisation and a special regime of
separation, a compartment-like regime. 
     Capitalist development of the post II World War era broke
many of the barriers to Black and Indian labor`s integration to
the Established mainstreem. Industrial growth gave rise to new
cities and the transformation of others. Capital demanded workers
from all quarters and large amounts of this commodity were to be
found in the Southern States of the old Confederacy. However a
significant proportion of this potential work force was Black.
Prejudices were set aside in the 1950s and White and Black
workers were recruited to fill the factory jobs being opened in
the North. The integration process was set in motion. New rules
were created, new laws were enacted, old racist fences were
pulled down, and Blacks seemed to be entering the Established
mainstreem in the 1960s.

     After the II World War the US experienced one of the longest
periods of uninterrupted capitalist development. This era of
expansion was world-wide, affecting the existing capitalist
economies of Western Europe and Japan, and penetrating and
transforming less developed capitalist economies. It also created
the so-called Soviet Bloc that experimented with a State
orientated alternative to capitalist development. This period has
been identified with nation-state building, with national
identity problems and with strong nationalist movements. The US
was at the fore-front of the process.
     In order to enhance its position on the world scenario and
to secure its position vis-a-vis the growing markets around the
globe the US reinforced its national identity and challenged all
oncomers to confront its expansionism. The new national ideology
of expansionism was introduced to rally the country around the
Established mainstreem in its quest for more capitalist
accumulation. A National Security Doctrine was placed on the
agenda and no one could ignore it once they learned of the
dangers of Nuclear War and attrition.

The Labor Process
     Apparently post Second World War capitalist development was
a consequence of what ironically could be called the continuation
of the war. But instead of a war with battlefields and red hot
machine guns firing at the enemy, the new scenario was an
ideological confrontation, cold calculators would sit at their
arm-chairs counting Nuclear War Heads, UN Assembly votes, and
grain sales. The War Machine did not rest. The US` capitalist
development continued to depend on a war economy, albeit a Cold
War economy. However, labor intense production assembly lines
were replaced gradually by computer controled robotic complexes. 
     The factory and the Assembly line that had given rise to the
powerful Labor Union and its national confederations was
challenged in the mid 1960s by the new labor process that had no
need for intense labor, nor for its particular form of labor
organisation. The battle between labor and capital that had
apparently been harnassed by the New Deal of the 1930s and the
Great Society of the 1960s, was unleashed once again by new
market forces. 
     In the 1970s the New Deal became old and the Great Society
was condemned as ancient history. Capital found new areas for
investment and the industrial centers of production were
abandoned. An enormous shift in emphasis enabled capital to
outmaneouver labor. Industrial workers were able to negotiate
good salaries and even keep colective barganing as a lever.
However the number of industrial jobs was decreasing at a faster
pace. Even though negotiations permited workers to conserve their
share, the piece of the pie that was being negotiated got smaller
and smaller as time went by. 
     By the late 1980s workers at the industrial plants were
negotiating for survival. Their time had come. Not surpringly the
hardest hit on the new arena were Black workers. The
objectivities of the labor process of course do not distinguish
between white and black. However in a specific historical and
cultural context colors do make a difference.
     In a recent study, Palomares and Mertens (1991) state that
"development and the application of new technologies are
generating changes in the techno-economic paradigm of both
industrial and developing countries. This does not imply
immediate or total changes. They are dynamic processes that are
qualitatively different from those that dominated during several
decades." (p.143)
     The main characteristic of the previous "management culture,
that looked very much like a burocracy, was to make sure all
stages of production kept their assgned functions... The key
element in the productivity strategy was operative efficiency and
not the process itself." (p145) The new labor process is called
by some the "computer integrated manufacturing" (Ebel: 1990)
system. "The development of computer guided machinary introduced
the concept of program automatisation into the workshop. Due to
these innovations, the US National Research Council foresaw some
ten years ago a 5 to 20 percent labor-cost reduction, a 40 to 70
percent production increase per worker, and a 200 to 300 percent
increase in machine operation time. 
     Palomares and Mertens study the effects of the new "basic
philosophy" on a Mexican firm - Lucas Diesel - where they
discover that the original number of 30 quality inspectors was
streamlined to only four. Planning and quality tasks were
integrated to the operation phase of production. "Confidence
control on the part of management are based on self-control
techniques. Other control techniques are developed through team
work, where work groups take on the responsability of quality
control." (p153) The new philosophy also incorporates the family
through courses and social activities. 
     The effects of the new philosophy on organised labor are
staggering. "The skilled worker loses his place in the
ocupational structure and thus the labor movement`s main column
is weakened. In Holland, between 1977 and 1985 highly skilled
workers participation grew 6 percent, and non-skilled 4 percent.
However, the middle strata shrank 14 percent." According to the
authors "this reflects a polarization, where the graduation
between skilled and non-skilled labor tends to disappear". The
process has its effects on labor organisation. The blue collar
worker is decreasing and his replacement is more adjustable to
the new philosophy. 
     There is also a general decrease of employment in the
manufacturing sector of the economy. The changes taking place are
uneven. Job employument in the US rose 14 percent between 1980
and 1988. However, jobs with workers commanding "flexible"
contracts rose 28 percent. These flexible contracts average a
salary 35 percent below workers with regular contracts. Only 30
percent of workers with flexible contracts have full social
security benefits.

South of the Border Workers
     Migrations have historicaly been associated with social
factors that relate to the survival of communities and its
peoples. The massive Western migrations towards Europe between
500 B.C. and 500 A.D. were organised in such a way as to solve
key problems of survival of the many peoples that since then
share the modern Nation States of the West. A thousand years
later in 1500 a new leap westward was initiated when the
Europeans crossed the dangerous Atlantic Ocean and conquered a
whole Hemisphere. 
     While the relation between community and land explians the
drive westward in the first wave, the force behind the second
wave is more complex. The main factor behind the leap across the
Atlantic is associated to the relation between social labor and
capital. In the first case the communities growth and excess
labor production forced its expansion. In the latter, excess
produce accumulated and concentrated in the form of capital
financed expansionist enterprises in search for goods, raw
materials, and new endeavours. Did these migrations have anything
in common? Of course, they dealt with the human condition, the
need to survive, to overcome. The forces behind these movements
however were quite different. 
     In recent years a new wave of migrants has brought its
attention to polititians and social scientists. Its a migration
that has its origins in the South and is moving North. It is part
of every day reality both in America and in Europe. The process
has a very different procedure. The accumulation and
concentration of capital in one pole has created a magnetic
attraction vis-a-vis social labor. 
     The southern migration north, however, must not allow us to
ignore the general context of these social movements. Although
migration from Europe to the US has decreased significantly, a
very strong westward migration pattern of European descendants in
the Eastern seaboard has characterized the last several decades.
At present, for example, the states of California, Texas and
Florida occupy 25 percent of the seats at Congress in Washington.
This extraordinary growth is the result of both South of the
Border migrations and Northeastern population displacements. Both
movements, from different directions and with different social
goals, are the result of one particular process.
     In recent years, with the exception of petroleum, the demand
for all other raw materials have decreased. On the other hand a
strong demand for synthetic materials has appeared as well as for
all sorts of labor. Mines, fields, and other areas that used to
employ tens of thousands of workers are today empty or doing well
with a small fraction of their original workforce. Even the
relation between capital and semi-proletarian labor that once
proved to accomodate so well surplus production has sharply
declined. In other words, even the small marginal village has
been doomed to ruin.  
     In what Wilson (1993) calls the "world-system" approach to
migration, Portes and Bach (1985) maintain that the "penetration
of outlying regions by capitalism has produced imbalances in the
internal social and economic structures... (thus) lead in time to
migratory pressures." The process of capitalist development in
itself, in outlaying or core regions, produces all kinds of
"imbalances" in the social fabric.
     Portes and Bach also criticize the "push-pull" theories of
migration saying that the "pull from advanced economies is based
not primarily on invidiuos comparisons of advantages with the
outside world, but on the solutions migration represents to
otherwise insoluble problems internal to the sending countries." 
The proposal is correct, however it can be applied as well to
workers who have "insoluble problems" in other regions of the
same country, i.e. Northeast, South or Mid-West.
     Wilson underlines 6 important reasons why South of the
Border migrations are welcome in the US. (pp102-103) All six
reasons are related to one specific factor: They are foreign
workers with no legal rights or whose legal rights are curtailed
by notions of nationality. 
"1. Foreign workers, even if documented are more vulnerable to
exploitation by employers because of their lack of political
rights. Their lower wages contribute to a higher rate of profit.
"2. They can be used to undercut the organizational efforts or
the domestic force, thus holding down the general wage level.
"3. They can serve as scapegoats in times of economic crisis,
deflecting hostility away from the dominant capitalist classes
and diverting attention from their roles in perpetuating these
crises.
"4. By filling low-paid, unstable jobs in the compestitive
capitalist sector they allow these enterprsises to remain
compsetitive.
"5. Imported when needed and repatriated in periods of high
unemployment, they can be used as an anticyclical mechanism for
periodic expansions and contractions in the capitalist economy.
"6. They constitute cheap labor in that the costs of their
reproduction and maintenance in times of unemployment are borne
by the sending community."
     Wilson continues the analysis by pointing out the advantages
this agreement has for capital accumulation. "When workers are
paid only a direct wage for hours worked, as are rotating
migrants, for example, the maintenance and reproduction takes
place outside the capitalist sphere of production..." In a sense,
"value is transferred from the domestic mode of production in
proportion to the goods and care invested in the worker by his
kin until he can become a wage laborer..." 
     Does this mean the underdevolped economies of the periphery
are supporting the capitalist accumulation process in the more
advanced economies? It certainly seems to. However, are these
relations between so-called modes of production substantial to
capitalist development and accumulation. Do these relations
affect the Census Bureau`s official count of 20 to 25 million
"Hispanics" in the US. Does it affect, for that matter, the 20
million Blacks that labor today in the US?
     These claims of social labor surplus transfers to the US
economy are important but in the context of certain capitalist
endeavours that are in important tansition periods, i.e. cash-
crop industries of California, service activities in fast growing
urban areas, etc. But they cannot account for the social labor of
the bulk of the South of the Border migrants and less for Black
social labor.
     Our question is how can this particular form of exploitation
continue to be a factor even after a generation of workers have
acquired legal status or US nationality by birth? Why are 20
million so-called "Hispanics" being trained to continue working
under special social conditions? How is the State and the
mainstreem creating an ideology that enhances this new social
labor contract with the "Hispanics"? What are its similarities to
the arrangment that exists with Black social labor in the US? Are
there any similarities with Western European countries social
labor policies  vis-a-vis their own "Southern" workers? Can the
State of Israel and South Africa, with its many social and
political problems, learn from these policies that are being put
in place in the labor maket place of the US?

The Hispanic Collective
     Before exploring some of the answers to these questions,
lets take a look at the "Hispanic" reality in the US. The Census
of 1990 introduced a new category called "Hispanic" in order to
concentrate and group together all peoples that have one or
several cultural characteristics in common. The central
characteristic is the Spanish language. Other characteristics are
geographic origin, and family background. When the Census results
were made public over 20 million persons had said they fitted the
taylor-made suit for Hispanics. The category included Black
French speaking Haitians, West-Indian English speaking
Panamanians, European stock Portuguese speaking Brazileans,
Amayra speaking Bolivian Indians, English speaking Chicanos,
Caribbean Spanish speaking Cubans, Dominicans and Puertoricans,
as well as Panamanians, Venezuelans, and Columbians. And new
Spanish and Maya speaking Central Americans. And a host of
peoples from Mexico`s rich and diverse cultures.
     There are 13.5 million so-called "Mexican Americans" in the
US. This group represents over 66 percent of the Census` Hispanic
population. Under this broad label we can find "Chicanos" whose
forefathers settled in the Southwest sometime before the Pilgrims
arrived at Plymouth Rock. Then you have the long wave of Mexican
immigrants who can be traced back to early 20th Century up until
the present. Then you have one of the longest border communities
in the world. Finally you have the temporary migrants who commute
between Soth and North on a periodical timetable. They have very
little if anything of "Hispanic" but they have been given that
name probably because their native toungue was once Spanish
(Hispanic). Actually the Indian from Chiapas, the New Mexican
Chicano, and the hustler from Chihuahua have very little cultural
background in common (not even the Spanish language).
     There are 2.7 million Puertoricans in the US. Over 10
percent of the "Hispanic" population. While the Mexican Americans
cover the Southwest and Illinois, the Puertoricans concentrate in
the Eastern seabord, especially in New York City. Another 1
million "Hispanics" are Cuban who concentrate in Southern
Florida. The US Census says that there are another 5 million
Hispanics who are categorized as "others". According to the
Census the majority of the "others" are Central American. About
20 percent of the total Hispanic population in the US.
     The Central Americans and "others" are the fastest growing
group in the US. In the decade between 1980 and 1990 it grew 67
percent. It jumped from 3 million to 5 million persons. The
Mexican Americans grew 50 percent, from 9 million to 13.5
million. The Puertoricans and Cubans grew 30 percent. These
growth rates are much faster than mainstreem America.
     However, the 8.2 percent unemployment rate among "Hispanics"
in 1990 was much higher than the 5.3 percent unemployment rate in
the mainstreem. Average annual income was $21900 for "Hispanics",
while it reached $29500 in the mainstreem. What is even worse,
23.4 percent of "Hispanic" families were considered to be under
the poverty line, while only 9.2 percent of the mainstreem
families were considered in poverty. 
     The Census` Hispanic population has also been processed to
assure a certain functional segmentation. There are three
categories that can fill the needs of any fast analysis. First, a
division by nationality: Cubans, Mexicans, Chileans, etc. Second,
a division according to concentrations of the Hispanic
population: West, Florida, New York, etc. Third, a division based
on political issues: Cuban Revolution, Bilingual Education,
Abortion, etc. 
     Albeit the heterogenity of the rapidly growing Hispanic
population there are some who remind us that there is a feeling
of community among the newcommers and the old-timers. Isaac Cohen
(p110) states that the "heterogenity question should not be
exagerated." There are three requirements, according to Cohen,
for a "collective identity" to exist. He believes all three are
present in the Hispanic population even taking into account the
national and geographic differences. "First of all, a collective
identity exists when a feeling of self-identity is present.
Second, a feeling of belonging to a distinct culture should be
present as well. A third must is that the others must be
objectively identified. Finally, all three elements must be
present together, simultaneously." 
     The US through State efforts is apparently very concerned in
creating a feeling of "Collective Identity" among the Hispanic
population. A very clear sign in this direction is the use of the
Census to promote the notion of a Hispanic collective within the
social fabric of the US. Another indicator is the promotion of
the Spanish language in school systems across the US where there
are large target groups. The concept being used in official
documents called "minority" adresses the needs of a special group
whose rights must be protected and promoted.
     The new Colective, with a growing minority status, has a
language in common and supposedly it shares a cultural background
developed through a similar history of Spanish Conquest and
colonisation of the countries south of the US  border (i.e. Latin
America). The language factor is indeed a very strong element.
However, in the US there are social groups that share a common
language and do not consider themselves sharing a "collective
identity", i.e, Black and Whites. At the same time, the British
believe they share a language with its former colonies that are
today populated by European peoples (the US, Australia, Canada,
New Zealand, and even South Africa). They do not consider the
peoples of India, Jamaica, Kenya or Tahiti (to mention only a
few) who communicate in English, but who are not governed by
European peoples, as part of the British "collective identity".
     The history of Spanish colonisation (16th and 17th
Centuries) and even the heroic period of the Liberation Wars
(19th Century) are not shared equally by the peoples of todays
Latin America. The Indian heritage sees the Spanish conquest in a
negative light. The Black population can only relate to the
historic period in shame and anger. The mestizo population sees
the Liberation Wars as a frustrated chain of events where there
interests were finally betrayed. The Hispanic identity appears
only when the new migrant in the US starts complying with a
series of burocratic steps in order to sort out his/her legal
situation.
     The Hispanic identity appears when the question is posed in
the US Census Bureau`s swearch for data. It reappears when the
children are offered special minority-orientated school courses
in  bilingual courses. The identity is reenforced when the
migrant has difficulties in finding a job, a house, or an
opportunity and is reminded of his alien origin. 

Thge Segmented Labor Market
     What was an issue of familiy ties or solidarity with friends
from the same community "back home", becomes a political affair.
The "Hispanics" can join together and share their woes. However,
the question is how can they overcome the ramparts that block
their entry into the mainstreem of stable jobs, good houses and
better oportunities. The first step that would have to be taken
is to assure migrant workers rapid access to the local language,
i.e. English. The language barrier is the most important
impediment to progress in the competition for employment. 
     The problem is not only a question of the migrant`s
opportunity to strive for a job. When this situation is inherited
by the migrants children and their children as well, there is a
political issue being posed. When the Census officialy classifies
people according to a very general characteristic - South of the
Border, language - it is making a political statement. When the
offspring of these migrants are especially trained in order to
continue with these deficiency-like carachteristics (poor command
of the language and lack of knowledge of mainstreem ideology) the
State is putting forth a political objective. Its purpose is to
create a special category of people who will respond to a
compartment-like conduct.
     How can Chicanos who have been in the US since the
proclamation of Statehood by the Southwestern states before the
Civil War be considered newcommers along with Chileans or
Nicaraguans. South of the Border workers in Los Angeles are
learning Aztec ritual dances, unknown in Mexico, promoted by
mainstreem local polititians. In New York City Puertorican
children are learning Spanish in special first-language courses
with mainstreem (English speaking and ideologicaly adapted) Anglo
teachers. In Chicago Mexican and Puertorican adolescents share
the streets of the Metropolis without hopes of leaving the
Ghetto.
     The Colective Identity, being promoted among peoples that
live in poverty, share the unemployment lines, and work in the
most undesireable jobs, bases its assumption on the belief that
this situation is permanent and will not change for many
generations. With proper guidance from State institutions
(Census, School, mass media, etc.) the Hispanic Collective is
carving for itself a permanent place in the cellars of the
American social fabric. The faster this situation is accepted and
is interiorized by the South of the Border workers the faster the
Hispanic Collective is consolidated. 
     A new ideology will arise - or has already - where all South
of the Border workers share "Hispanic" or "Latin" roots. The
basic attributes of the new ideology are language and geography.
However, the underlining knots of the new ideology relate more to
the work place and labor relations. The new "Hispanic" or "Latin"
worker is underpaid, overworked, and is specialized in manual or
non-technical jobs. 
     The broad opportunities offered by the national market and a
national ideology are off-limits to the South of the Border
worker and his "Hispanic" children. His mobility in the sphere of
the national market has an extremely low roof where he can only
aspire to low paying jobs. On an equal basis, his participation
in national questions is also stiffled by a lack of integration
into mainstreem ideology. The "Hispanic worker" has his own
"compartment" where he can enjoy all the special rights conferred
upon him: special Census status, special bilingual Schools, etc.
In the workforce the new "Hispanic" has his own segmentated piece
of the labor market. He can compete for the lowest paying jobs,
with the worst social benefits, and with no upper mobility
opportunities.
     When looking at recent not very succesfull Black National
Market and Black National Ideology experiments in the US it is
improblable that the newly created Hispanic Collective will
travel in that direction. The so-called Black National Market
promoted the idea of a US National Black Bourgeosie with a
captive Black Working Class. It also concieved a Black National
Ideology with its own history, heroes and projects for the
future. Black Power revolutionaries and Black Muslim
fundamentalism brought those plans to a shrieking stop. The
problem with these initiatives is that they are soley based on
ideological models taken from the experiences of capitalist
development in advanced countries. They do not, however, relate
to concrete existing social relations in the context of the so-
called Black community or the so-called Hispanic collective.
     A segmentated work force is being created in the US with its
geographic specificities. The large Hispanic population defined
by the Census Bureau is 20 million persons strong. It is
strategically distributed on the East Coast, in Florida, the Mid-
West and the Southwest. It is the fastest growing social category
on record in the US Census. What is important to take note of is
that it is being fed by international migrations as well as by a
rapid natural growth rate.
     At the same time the Hispanic population is moving into low
paying service jobs and traditional industrial employments, the
rest of the Mainstreem population is moving from obsolete
employments to high-tech areas of production. The process is not
smooth and is full of political as well as cultural obstacles.
The border line between Mainstreem and "marginal" segementated
labor markets is based on schooling, ideology, and the Hispanic
label that creates the new ethnic group. The Hispanics are also
seperated from the Black labor market by ideology, its Hispanic
label, and ethnicity.
     Hispanic ethnicity is a social creation of the US labor
market and the existing demand for large quantities of unskilled
workers. The South of the Border workers flock to the US with
their many cultural traits and ethnic features in search for room
in the open market place. Once they cross the border they are put
in one same category and become Hispanics for job searching
purposes. The Hispanics, the new social category formally
babtized by the Census to cover all South of the Border workers
and their offspring, are being molded to cover the demands of a
specific segemnt of the complex and changing labor market.
     Capitalist development is unequal due to its competitive
characteristics. While some areas draw more capital investment
and demand a sophisticated labor work force, other sectors can
lag behind and demand a more traditional work force. These
differences are true to capitalist development but may not be
mirrored in the social reality of the labor movement. During the
post Second World War period of rapid economic growth the US
labor movement was compacted and many of the material objectives
sought by the Union leaders were obtained. The US labor movement
progressed and on its coat-tails the segment of Black workers was
benefited
     At the same time, however, a differentiated work force
appeared in order to satisfy the demand for underpaid labor in
the East`s service sector and in the growing West`s cash-crop
industry. This new work force was not incorporated in the
powerful labor movement spearheaded by the AFL-CIO. The growing
workforce that was rapidly growing outside of the labor movement
was composed mainly by South of the Border migrants, i.e. Mexican
and Puertorican laborers. 
     While the demand for South of the Border workers was
relatively small the labor question could be ignored by the
mainstream. The more radical labor agitators could be controlled
and the South of the Border Workers could continue in their
plight without creating any political problems. The situation
changed dramatically when the demand for South of the Border
workers grew and became important in the context of determining a
global profit-extraction strategy. The rising labor demands of
the new workers became a political issue that could no longer be
ignored. There were only two alternatives open to the
strategists.
     On the one hand, integrate the workers into the mainstream
labor movement. The costs of this alternative are immediately
obvious. Profits would be severely affected. What was less
obvious pertains to the reaction of the Black segmentated work
force. On the other, the alternative was to create a new
segmentated work force with its own label, its own ideology, and
its own ethnicity. Once the latter option was accepted the
Hispanic social category received its official birth certificate
in the US.
     The US Census Bureau came to the rescue with all the needed
formalities and official registration. The so-called Latin
heritage (that has not been defined and is actually the product
of a completely different set of political circumstances) was
brought in to serve as a surogate ideology. The new ethnic
identity was created on the basis of a common language and
geography. 
     The notion of a Latin America was created by the French
expansionists in the late 19th Century in its struggle to
penetrate the old Spanish empire`s markets in the Western
Hemisphere. The Latin concept was important because the French
felt that their heritage was closer to the old Spanish American
colonies than the Anglo culture with whom they were competing.
The French failed but Argentina picked up from where the French
left off in the early 20th Century in another failed quest to
conquer the Hemisphere`s markets. Finally, after the Second World
War, in the context of the organisation of the United Nations,
Argentina and other South American countries were able to baptize
the region as Latin America in the struggle to assure its
political autonomy. 
     Latin America is a political project that unites the non
Anglo speaking countries of the Western Hemisphere in its quest
for economic development and political independence. The term
Latin has no ethnic or National content for the region. It is a
political term used to identify a political goal pertaining to a
specific social class. The fact that the project has been
embraced by other social classes and today represents the ideals
of workers, businessmen, intelectuals, polititians and others
does not entail ethnic regionalism.
     When used in the context of the US capitalist development,
the concept of Latin or Hispanic takes on an original meaning far
from its root. Its utility is now being tested in the US by the
shaping of a new segmentated labor force that can respond to
present unequeal capitalist development demands.

The Compartment-Like Labor Market
     This paper has tried to show how the need for a new
arrangement within the US labor market has led to the
establishment of a population policy that leads to the creation
of the Hispanic collective. The Hispanic population gives rise to
the Hispanic worker who is requested to take his place in the
newly created labor compartment. The paper does not ignore the
specificities and roots of the many National identities with
which the South of the Border workers arrive to the US. The
official US policy is to group all these workers into a single
category where they can be identified for labor purposes. Their
education, their training, their language abilities, and many
other traits all lead to the creation of a compartment-like
segmented labor regime in the US.
     The most important questions concerning South of the Border
workers have to be posed in the context of the present struggle
for affirmation as workers in a capitalist society.  The answers
to these questions cannot be found in small Mexican towns, in
Indian villages in the Andes, in the outskirts of San Juan, or in
Havana's slums.  The answers will come from an analysis of
present capitalist development in the United States and worker's
struggles for better wages and jobs.
     Who these workers are before they cross the border is one
question, who they are after working in the United States is
another, and the relation between the two questions is still
another.  Answers to all three are in the context of capitalist
development and crisis.    Panama, 10 March 1994.