Now as President Bush prepares to leave office and the ‘Three Amigos’ have said their last goodbyes, Mexican columnists have begun to weigh in on the success of their final NAFTA Summit.
While NAFTA has become increasingly unpopular in the United States, the same can be said in Mexico - but for far different reasons.
There, the dissatisfaction stems from the feebleness of NAFTA’s mechanisms for enforcing its decisions on the three federal governments, and the perceived lack of respect given Mexico in relation to its two other North American Read the rest of this entry »
Much has been written in the foreign press about the real purpose of Pope Benedict XVI’s unprecedented election-year visit to the United States. Some charge that he came to bolster the only pro-life candidate, John McCain. Others have surmised that the Pope came to make common cause with President Bush to oppose the perceived threat of an expanding Islam.
“As for Catholics in the United States, almost a third of the population has been brought up in that faith, but today only 24 percent of Americans call themselves Catholic, less than a half of those who identify themselves as Protestant/Evangelical - almost 52 percent. The study clearly shows that the strongest adherents of the Catholic Church are amongst recent immigrants. Forty-six percent of U.S. nationals born outside the country are Catholic, while 24 percent of them Protestant.”
“The situation changes when we consider the religious affiliation of those born in the United States: fifty-five percent are Protestant and 21 percent are Catholic. In other words, a significant percentage of those who were Catholic in their infancy, have over the years decided to change their affiliation, switching primarily to Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.”
In other words, the longer immigrants remain in the U.S., the greater the likelihood that they’ll switch to another denomination or religion.
“To the Pope’s misfortune, the dynamics of change are influenced by factors beyond his control.”
By Carlos Martínez García
Translated By Halszka Czarnocka
April 23, 2008
Mexico - La Jornada - Original Article (Spanish)
The results of the trip are more media than real. Benedict the XVI’s visit to the United States ratified a pastoral line that doesn’t confront problems at their root but treats them superficially and postpones their resolution, to the detriment of the millions of Catholics whose disillusionment with the leadership of the Catholic Church continues to deepen.
A good number of commentators and analysts expressed surprise and even praised the papal decision to meet with some victims of clerical pedophilia in the United States. They forget that due to the peculiarity of United States society, both in terms of its religious composition and the vigilance with which it monitors leaders of any kind, Pope Benedict XVI was practically obliged to show some sign that these outrageous abuses will not happen again.
We know of the magnitude of the sexual abuses perpetrated by Catholic priests in that country thanks to the mobilization of those who were assaulted and the solidarity of people who assisted them in disseminating news about the size of the problem and suing the pedophiles in court. It was an organization of citizens and its insistence on documenting and making public the sexual attacks of clergy in that country, which made it possible to make the issue a public one of such national significance.
The various centers of ecclesiastic authority, both in the U.S. and Rome, did everything possible to conceal the scandals. When they failed in the attempt, they imposed damage control measures and tried unsuccessfully to minimize the problem.
It was an entire network of complicity within the U.S. Catholic Church that permitted thousands of cases of sexual abuse, not the isolated behavior of this or that cleric. In this regard there is convincing data:
“A study ordered by the North American Episcopal Conference in 2004 … concluded that the number of children victimized by about 5 000 priests over the past three decades was over 11,000. Since many cases have been resolved according to the culture and civil law of the United States, the relevant statistics include $2 billion that has been paid in out in this regard, which has contributed to bankruptcy of more than a few diocese” (from The Pope and Clerical Pedophilia in Mexico [El Papa y la pederastia clerical en México] by Miguel Ángel Granados Chapa, Proceso).
The Pope pronounced words and promised actions favorable to Latin American immigrants, the majority of whom entered the United States without a visa. The productive apparatus in the United States has benefited on a great scale from these so-called illegals by paying them low wages and providing them with almost no social benefits. For the most part, these people come to that nation as Catholics and are the main factor in the growth of Catholicism there. This reality has another less well-known side, which is creating concern at the Holy See in Rome.
Why is it that Popes don’t usually visit the United States during presidential election years? Lucas Mendez writes for the BBC Brazil, “As neutral as the papal robe is, his messages can and will be used by the candidates … every time Benedict XVI opens his mouth, Democrats and Republicans will interpret and “spin it,” according to their own political ‘gospels’” Read the rest of this entry »
The impact that Martin Luther King had in the United States is well-known to us. The effect he had on the rest of the world less-so.
Referring to the 1958 Montgomery Bus Boycott boycott, Enrique Dussel writes for Mexico’s La Jornada, “It was a routine ‘event’ that would launch Martin Luther [King] into history. Such ‘events’ are always of humble origin, but resonate strongly with the public. As with the ‘water war’ or the ‘gas war’ that ended up toppling two Bolivian governments, what began small ended up having a huge impact. … Dr. King became involved in the boycott and led demonstrations … and was was transformed into a leader of Afro-American multitudes who had already begun mobilizing.
In describing his growth into a global leader, Dussel writes, “Martin Luther began to discover other forms of oppression. So his discourses began to include all of the poor of the United States, from the urban working poor, Hispanic farm laborers and the marginalized, to the jobless. And after 1964, he began using his leadership to oppose the Vietnam War. In that year he received the Nobel Peace Prize. … But there is more. His discoveries led him to accuse his own country of being the cause of misery to other peoples. In 1967 he led the ‘Poor People’s March,’ which lifted the issues of racial and economic injustice to the national and global level. He reached out beyond the poor of the U.S. to those of Africa, where the slaves originated, and to Asia and Latin America.”
Dussel concludes, “It seems as though he had overstepped the limits of allowable criticism. … And so on April 4, 1968 (the same year as the May unrest in Paris and Berkeley, and the October Massacre in Tlatelolco), the life of Martin Luther King was cut short.”
By Enrique Dussel*
Translated By Halszka Czarnocka
April 4, 2008
Mexico - La Jornada - Original Article (Spanish)
Forty years ago on April 4th, Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis! It’s an anniversary that provides food for thought.
Martin Luther, an Afro-American from a Baptist community, was born in the midst of economic depression in 1929. As his father was a pastor and having obtained a doctorate in Boston [Boston University, in systematic theology], he took charge of a community of believers in Atlanta, Georgia [actually, it was in Montgomery, Alabama; the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church]. The struggle for the civil rights was picking up, but it was a routine “event” that would launch Martin Luther into history.
Such “events” are always of humble origin, but resonate strongly with the public. As with the “water war” or the “gas war” in Bolivia, what began small ended up toppling two Bolivian governments. One shouldn’t dismiss “events” that could develop into storms - an issue exposed by Alain Badiou in his “Being and Event,” and which Walter Benjamin referred to as “now-time” in regard to the arrival of the messiah.
In this case, the “event” was the simple fact that an Afro-American woman, tired after finishing work, refused to give up her bus seat to a White person who wanted to take it, as the established custom and the discriminatory laws of the south dictated. The woman preferred to have the bus stopped. The police were summoned and a full-blown confrontation ensued. But the best part is that the other Afro-Americans on the bus not only got off, but they declared a boycott of the bus company. The controversy spread. The local pastor, Dr. Martin Luther King, became involved in the boycott and led demonstrations. Meanwhile, every Afro-American in Atlanta began to walk to work, sometimes over long distances and for days or even weeks.
The bus company sued the movement because it went into bankruptcy. King was accused in a court of law and found guilty of causing economic damage the company by holding the boycott and had to suffer incarceration. All this had the effect of raising the social pressure, and the young, 26-year-old pastor was transformed into a leader of Afro-American multitudes who had already begun mobilizing across the country for the fight against racial discrimination.
In 1956, a law was decreed to end racial segregation in the United States (which is not the same as making it a reality), and slowly but surely, Afro-Americans began accruing political clout. Martin Luther’s leadership continues to inspire, not only in his native state, but across the country. Reflecting on Mahatma Gandhi’s doctrine of “non-violence” (which was inspired by the ancient Jain school of Indian thought), he began a true strategic struggle against racism in the United States, a phenomenon as old as slavery, which was established in the 17th century. Martin Luther was arrested again several times. While “non-violence” isn’t a universal principle, it’s a strategy that works in a country that respects the rule of law (for the powerful, of course, not for the poor).
It was August 28, 1968 when he delivered his most famous speech before 200 000 people in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington.
Gradually, the Atlanta preacher [Alabama, actually] began to realize that that Afro-American people had been discriminated against since the dawn of modernity; since the onset of European slavery that involved over 15 million Africans. It was a terrible kind of oppression, and yet it was an oppression that went unnoticed by French Revolutionary and Enlightenment thinking. Then Martin Luther began to discover other forms of oppression. So his discourses began to include all of the poor of the United States, from the urban working poor, Hispanic farm laborers and the marginalized, to the jobless. And after 1964, he began using his leadership to oppose the Vietnam War. In that year he received the Nobel Peace Prize.
One of the most disturbing questions that Barack Obama’s candidacy raises is this: What if he were murdered? If Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination and was gunned down before November, what effect would this have on the presidential race? In this uncomfortable op-ed from Mexico’s Excelsior newspaper, Francisco Martín Moreno outlines what he sees as the danger to the United States and the rest of the world if this were to occur. He writes in part, ‘A violent dispatching of Obama would leave the road to the White House paved for McCain, with Mexico and the rest of the world having to deal with four more years of Republican nightmare … If Obama wins, he can lose his life … Shouldn’t Hillary, just in case, accept the vice presidential ticket?’
By Francisco Martín Moreno
Translated By Halszka Czarnocka
February 22, 2008
Mexico - Excelsior - Original Article (Spanish)
I must confess that when Barack Hussein Obama publicly expressed his desire to enter the race to become the next occupant of the White House, I didn’t believe he had the slightest chance of achieving that goal, primarily because he was an illustrious unknown besides being a man of color in a country characterized by racial discrimination.
Having analyzed his career and learned that he had been elected senator from the state of Illinois with 70 percent of the vote, and that in Congress he promoted conventional arms control, a law to prevent electoral fraud, another to reduce global warming and still another to prevent nuclear terrorism, I noted in this brilliant legislator the profile of a bold politician who dared to embrace complex issues in a country surprisingly militarized, conservative and religious. Obama is in favor of concluding the Iraq War. He sees through the lies and abuses. He courageously denounces them. This means danger…
The reason I fear for Obama is that despite his being an extraordinary Democratic leader and a notable promoter of change in the United States - a nation that apparently no longer wishes to greet the dawn with news of another bombing attack on a new country at the behest of George Bush - in spite of all this, and even if he manages to win his party’s nomination, goes on to beat McCain in November and becomes the next president of the United States, he could be brutally assassinated, as happened in their time to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X . There’s no reason to kill a McCain - not for his skin color, nor for his political career, nor for his personal name, and it’s impossible to associate him with the Muslims that arouse sop much prejudice in post-Sept. 11 America …
Martin Luther King was without doubt a major political leader in the United States, even more so he was awarded the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize as a result of his efforts to secure basic political rights for people of color in his country. His example spread across the world. Martin Luther King’s goals - which embarrassingly took until the second half of the twentieth century to achieve - were so people of color would no longer be socially segregated, so marriages between Blacks and Whites would be permitted and people of color would no longer be segregated from Whites in shops, restaurants, hospitals, buses and trains. And for these reasons, Black children would no longer be obliged to attend separate schools, and finally, denying Blacks the right to vote in the southern states due to illiteracy would no longer be tolerated. He altered this pathetic realty. He created a new world. He made his dream real …
Martin Luther King’s life was cut short in April 1968, making it clear that in the United States, certain segments of the population would never agree to accept equality between Blacks and Whites, to say nothing of the possibility that a Black man could ascend to the White House …
Additional proof that some sectors in the United States reject the Black penetration of society at large was the assassination of Malcolm X in 1965, also a man of color, a Muslim minister and a tireless fighter for African-American unity.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated coverage of the U.S. elections from around the world.
“This financial-corporate elite is my base. They are few in number, but have all the money in the world. This is why I remain unconcerned that tonight my approval rating stands at only 34 percent. … From this rostrum I can assure that I harbor no grudges against that evil mob of ingrates that disapproves of my administration.”
By Alejandro Nadal
Translated By Paula van de Werken
January 30, 2008
Mexico - La Jornada - Original Article (Spanish)
George W. Bush has delivered his eighth and final Presidential report to Congress. It was surprising to see the number of interruptions for applause during the speech. And it seemed that Bush was a decent orator, capable of stringing together ideas and completing a sentence. Without a doubt, technology can perform miracles: The teleprompter gave that impression. But, unfortunately, they still don’t provide subtitles in Spanish. So in order to fill gap, we offer this uncensored translation of his report.
Honorable Congress of the Union: This is my last report as President of this great nation. I deeply regret that I must deliver it when things are not well. The American economy remains the world’s largest, but growth has slowed. We are moving toward a recession that will have negative consequences Read the rest of this entry »
According to this article from Italy’s La Stampa, not only has Jihad moved out of the Middle East; it has moved closer to the U.S.’ back door.
Here’s the thrust of the story.
Although the first alarm from the Pentagon arose in 2004, the year 2007 signaled an escalation of Muslim penetration in Latin America that for the most part centers on the privileged relations between Caracas and Tehran. The danger comes from the converging of interests among drug-dealers and Islamic terrorists which, mirroring a model of the existing alliance between similar operatives in Afghanistan, would be capable of giving life to a network capable of sustaining itself and committing devastating attacks against the shared American enemy.
The specifics are beyond disconcerting:
The Caracas airport has become a free port-of-passage for Islamic extremists thanks to the fact that the Read the rest of this entry »
Mexico - Excelsior - Original Article (Spanish)
For those who wonder about the impact on America’s image of the candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, one need only read foreign press overage of the U.S. election. According to this op-ed article from Mexico’s Excelsior newspaper, ‘Today, two members of those ‘minorities’ aspire to lead the most powerful country, whose enormous influence is the fruit of a meticulously constructed capacity: A tolerance toward the other, the different, and the victims of that which has been called ‘inequality.’
The electoral competition in the United States shows the consequences of setting certain ideas in motion. How can we not exclude, discriminate or despise the other, the different, they who aren’t and don’t want to be like us? These are the minorities which put together, really are a majority. Those of different origins; women, young people and those of so-called senior-citizen age. Today, two members of those “minorities” aspire to lead the most powerful country, whose enormous influence is the fruit of a meticulously constructed capacity: A tolerance toward the other, the different, and the victims of that which has been called “inequality.”
The story is simple and requires few words. For humanity and in particular the USA, where there has been at least two hundred years of humiliation within an ocean of privilege, human beings have had to fight the phantoms of self-fulfilling prophecy. That is to say, prejudice. That condensation of popular “wisdom” which is expressed in so many sayings, and which are repeated every day and often. That “sentimental education” which says that it’s the suit that makes the man, that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, and that women are just abject loose-canons, and so on.
This requires the breaking of old habits, engaging with entrenched sentiments and promoting reverse discrimination. In other words, affirmative action. How difficult it is. How important it is. How just. To rediscover everything contained in a word: Woman. Black. Native. Handicapped. Erase it. No, better yet, transform their meanings. Introduce affirmative inflections. Disrupt the scholars of language. Redefine the accuracy of syntax to avoid the suffering caused by odious inequality.
The Empire and the global economy (ie: the peace the development of all) in the hands of Obama and Hillary … This is what the women who met at Seneca Falls, New York, over a hundred years ago dreamed of . Their dream was the result of a conference in London to abolish slavery and promote the rights of Black people in the Western world [the International Anti-Slavery Convention of 1840]. It was at this same conference, in London, capital of the civilized world, that those same rights were denied to women. Who could have predicted what we are witnessing today? They dreamt the impossible and we are succeeding.
Too little (seven years) too late, say the Mexicans, for whom Bush’s Mid-east trip is a little of the deja vu:
This trip made by Bush to the Middle East, for which the President could not find time before, resembles a similar trip made by Vice-president Dick Cheney in 2002 when Washington was seeking support for the invasion of Iraq, while the Arabs were only interested in talking about their conflict with Israel. The same seems to be true now: Bush seems to have left in search of allies for attacking Iran, but the Persian Gulf states do not seem to be interested.
The question is - since the Administration must have expected this reaction - is Bush counting on the fact that his interlocutors in the Arab halls of power do not share the opinions of any of their Arab peoples, expressed in the press all over the region, or does he simply know something that none of us know.
(Of course, there is the possibility that he doesn’t know something that all of us know… Mmm…. )
The Mexicans are watching all this voting malarkey that is going on north of their border. They seem sure of just two things: that American voters are turning their backs on the political establishment and all the mess it has made over the last few years … (as in the form of McCain and Obama) … but that whomever those Americans choose, they’re doomed anyway… because all of the candidates are compromised by the Imperial model to which they are all committed…
Mmmm… Perhaps the next Mexican border dash could include one of their own, not so sullied, to help us out?
January 4th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
What is common between Kelesau Naan of Malaysia, Sister Dorothy Stang of America, Kinkri Devi of India, Chico Mendes of Brazil, and Aldo Zamora of Mexico? The real heroes who laid down their lives to protect the forests from loggers and miners. Except for Kinkri Devi, who died of natural causes recently, others were allegedly murdered by those who thought that they were providing obstacles in the rape of the forests.
Although armchair environmentalists/NGOs play a crucial role in highlighting conservation/Global Warming/other issues and raising them at the national and international fora, the sacrifices made by grassroots heroes usually goes unsung. The Times of London has done a fine job in bringing into focus the contribution of some such people…
“Kelesau Naan (of Malaysia) never went to school. He signed his name with a thumb print and spent his entire life living in the jungles of Borneo. But among his tribe, the Penan, he was a visionary and an inspiration.
“Now he is dead, possibly murdered, allegedly by agents of the loggers whose lucrative business he was putting in jeopardy. His broken skeleton was found last month – two months after he was reported missing – and yesterday 100 relatives and neighbours lodged a police report demanding an investigation. Micheal Ipa, his nephew, said: ‘We believe he has been killed by people involved in logging’.
“For years, he had organised his people in a desperate defence of their home and heritage: the pristine rain-forest in the deep interior of the Malaysian state of Sarawak.
“Similar accusations were made in 2000, when Bruno Manser, a Swiss shepherd who became a prominent campaigner on behalf of the Penan, disappeared without trace while travelling alone through the forest. His remains were never recovered and he was declared dead by a Swiss court two years ago.”
Among others who died for the cause:
— Sister Dorothy Stang, a 73-year-old American nun, was shot dead in Brazil in 2005 while fighting to protect the Terra do Meio region from loggers. Within days, the area was declared a protected site
— Chico Mendes, a rubber tapper and environmental activist, became a posthumous icon in Brazil after he was murdered in 1988 by ranchers opposed to his campaign to protect the Amazon from deforestation
— Aldo Zamora was collecting data on illegal logging for Greenpeace in Great Water forest, Mexico, when a logging gang ambushed his car and killed him in May 2007
— Kinkri Devi went on hunger strike against a court’s refusal to hear her case against a mining project in Himachal Pradesh in India. She won her case and an award for her efforts. She died this week (To read her Obituary in The Times of London please click here…)
(Sources: Amnesty International; Times archives)
Photo above, courtesy The Times: Tied logs are hauled through the forests by bulldozers.
November 23rd, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
If you live in San Diego County, it’s well known that during the holidays some of the county’s (and region’s) illegal immigrant population returns to Mexico for the holidays, then returns back into the United States after the holidays are over.
Immigrants and authorities say they expect fewer illegal border crossings over the holiday season, which would be consistent with trends recorded by U.S. Border Patrol statistics in recent years.
But immigrants and their advocates say the dangers of crossings amid increased border enforcement — made mortally clear by the death of a Vista woman in last month’s Harris fire — have more Mexican nationals choosing to stay on this side of the border this winter.
The recent [Southern California and especially San Diego County] wildfires offered deadly evidence of the risks that the immigrants take in their attempts to cross the border illegally. Twenty people were admitted to the burn center at the UCSD Medical Center with wildfire-related injuries after the fires broke out Oct. 21. These patients included 11 suspected illegal immigrants, two of whom later died.
But it’s NOT just the fire that’s slowing the usual holiday trend:
Fire was just one of the dangers worrying several men waiting at a day-labor site in Escondido on Tuesday morning.
“Until we get legal documents, we’re not leaving,” said Jose Alfonso, an 18-year-old native of Michoacan, Mexico, who lives in Escondido. “Coming over the mountains is too dangerous.”
Several other men standing at a day-labor site in Escondido on Tuesday morning echoed the young man’s concerns, saying they feared crime in Mexico, abuses by Mexican authorities and increased border security upon return.
The catalyst for some of the balking is the death of Maria Guadalupe Beltran who died Nov. 6 due to injuries from the fire. In a typical year, illegal immigrant crossings…and recrossings…coincide with both the winter holidays and the winter agricultural season.
Avert your eyes. This is going to be ugly, a drunk falling off the wagon.
Over a year ago, I raised the question, “Is Lou Dobbs running for something?” Today we have the answer:
“Lou Dobbs for President?” John Fund writes in the Wall Street Journal. “Don’t’ laugh…Friends of Mr. Dobbs say he is seriously considering a race…”
In a moment of blinding clarity a while back, I swore off writing about Dobbs. Dobbs-bashing was becoming addictive, and friends were threatening an intervention.
But today’s news has me bellying up to the bar again for straight shots. So here’s Dobbs in your eye.
November 8th, 2007 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
An interesting book claims that in the next few decades one of the strongest forces shaping American culture—perhaps the strongest force—will be Mexican. More here…
Gays, pro-choicers and the liberal elite can relax. The Republicans have found their domestic target for ‘08 and, from all indications in New Hampshire, it is now illegal immigrants who are threatening the very fabric of American society.
“It’s becoming a litmus test of how conservative you are,” according to a professor of political science quoted by the McClatchy newspapers. “Absolutely an important issue,” confirms the director of the University of New Hampshire’s Granite State Poll.
Following the Karl Rove playbook, GOP contenders are reaching a consensus on this election’s objects of fear and loathing for their Base. Rudy Giuliani, Mr. 9/11, has the franchise on external threats–terrorists and, coming up strong on the outside rail, Iran.
But fear-mongering the domestic dangers is up for grabs. Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson want to withhold federal money from cities and states that don’t report illegal aliens, toughen border security and speed up the process of deporting them. Duncan Hunter wants to double the fence to keep them out, and Tom Tancredo may soon up the ante with a proposal to nuke them.
Even Mike Huckabee has swerved from his Golden Rule approach to take swipes at the target. “We need to make it clear,” he told the Values Voters, “that we will say no to amnesty, and no to sanctuary cities, and no to the idea that there can be some complete ignoring of the fact that our laws have been broken.”
Only John McCain, who made the mistake of straight talk on the issue, is not benefiting from the wave of Lou Dobbsian outrage over the threat from people who mow America’s lawns and wash dishes in restaurants.
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of such strangers?
Is CNN’s Lou Dobbs an, “insolent man who uses xenophobic, protectionist, anti-immigrant messages against Latin American countries to affirm his vulgar patriotism?” According to this op-ed article from Colombia’s El Tiempo, “CNN should confine Dobbs to a program called The Hour of Chauvinism, because this would help all of us distinguish between reason and its absence.”
“My aim is to present the facts so that you can decide what seems more idiotic, Spitzer’s proposal or the diatribe of Lou Dobbs? I have no doubts.”
By Sergio Muñoz Bata
Translated By Virginia Gillenwater
October 30, 2007
Colombia - El Tiempo - Original Article (Spanish)
More or less a month ago, the governor of the State of New York, Eliot Spitzer, announced that for reasons of public safety, he would permit the one million undocumented workers living there to apply for a driver license.
Furious about Spitzer’s announcement, CNN news announcer Lou Dobbs - whose anti-immigrant phobia seems to have no bounds - began a ferocious daily campaign against the governor’s proposal. The confrontation turned personal when forgetting himself, Dobbs called Spitzer an “idiot,†and invited him to a debate.
The governor’s office issued a terse statement declining the invitation, writing that Dobbs “has demonstrated quite clearly that he isn’t interested in serious debate.†A more than reasonable response given the bellicose nature of the TV broadcaster.
The issue, however, is not the insolence of a man who uses xenophobic, protectionist, anti-immigrant messages against Latin American countries to affirm his vulgar patriotism. The issue is the strength of Spitzer’s argument that denying a driver’s license to undocumented immigrants is an affront to public safety.
Your first consideration is that in New York State, there are over a million people that can’t obtain a driver’s license because they’re in the U.S. illegally. And yet they drive from their homes to work and back every day. What’s more, the federal government hasn’t the capacity to deport them nor will they leave voluntarily. If anything, the numbers illegal immigrants will continue to rise due to the increasing demand for their services.
I support building border fences and/or walls to secure our southern border with one big yet beautiful change:
We build restaurants, malls, and entertainment venues into the fence and/or wall at strategic points!
Just think about it. We can get paid, secure the borders, and share our wonderful American-ness with would-be illegals. Once our lovely neighbors down south get a dose of cheap goods and entertainment (no red light districts) at the border, they won’t have any reason to come here. They’ll be too busy luggin’ around cheap, globally made goods and have club hangovers. Better yet, lets just go about 15 miles inside our border states (from the Mexican border) and make that area a seperate cheap goods and entertainment state called Americanaland. Americanaland will provide so much stuff and show at ridiculously low prices that it’ll turn those border jumpers with meager Mexican wages into hardcore consumers and club elite. Take that anti-free marketers! And the best thing about it? We’re creating jobs for real Americans. That’ll put a smile on Lou Dobbs face.
See, we’re just not creative enough these days. What has happened to us America? Can’t solve a little border issue with what we do best: putting on shows and selling stuff?
August 9th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
It’s a sign of political uncertainty. A sign that an angry debate is being heard. It’s a sign of the times:
This year a smaller percentage of Mexican immigrants in the United States sent money back to their homeland than in 2006, according to a report released yesterday by the Inter-American Development Bank. The bank said the reduction had left at least two million people in Mexico without the same financial help they had once received.
Bank officials, pointing to a survey of Mexican immigrants in the report, said the decline reflected a rising sense of insecurity and uncertainty about whether they would stay in the United States. Anticipating a possible move back to Mexico, these immigrants appear to be saving more.
So the fiery debate in the United States over immigration, and the prospect that there will be tougher border enforcement not necessarily coupled with a program to adjust the legal status of those who are here, has put many Mexican immigrants in a holding pattern. MORE:
“They have decided because of the uncertainty of the future that they need to step back and save a bit,†said Donald F. Terry, general manager of the Multilateral Investment Fund at the bank.
Mr. Terry said the slowdown would affect about 500,000 Mexican homes. “For those families in Mexico, there is going to be economic and social dislocation,†he said.
Over all, the percentage of Mexicans who regularly sent money home fell to 64 percent in the first half of this year, compared with 71 percent for all of last year, according to the report. The sharpest decline in such transactions — known as remittances — came among Mexicans living in states where they have settled in large numbers only recently, like Georgia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. In those states, the percentage of Mexicans sending money home fell to 56 percent from January to June, from 80 percent in 2006.
In the survey, only 49 percent of the Mexicans living in states with relatively recent immigration said they expected to be living in the United States five years from now. Sergio Bendixen, a Miami pollster who conducted the survey, said the percentage of Mexicans considering a return to their country was the highest in the more than two decades he has interviewed Hispanic immigrants.
The immigrants in the survey included American citizens and legal and illegal residents. They identified discrimination as the biggest problem they faced, with 83 percent saying that discrimination against Latin American immigrants in general was growing in the United States.
“Mexican immigrants don’t feel welcome in the U.S. anymore,†Mr. Bendixen said. “They feel they are not wanted here, and their contributions are not appreciated.â€
Until this year, money sent home by Mexicans working in the United States had shown spectacular annual growth since 2000, the first year it was systematically recorded by Mexico’s central bank. Last year, these funds totaled $23 billion, making them the country’s second-largest source of foreign income after oil.
There will be consequences, of course, depending on how this plays out. But even without a resolution (if Congress does nothing and the debate rages throughout election year) there could be ripples due to this situation.
What will be the impact in Mexico? What consequences will that have? Will legalized relatives of those who are here illegally cast votes influenced by the perceived new climate? What will be the impact on the industries these immigrants serve and on jobs in the U.S.? There will be a slew of things to watch aside from the political battle in Congress and within the GOP itself.
In my annual new years predictions, I said that the most significant, and surprising, development of 2007 would be the collapse of both Mexico’s economy and its very existence as a viable Nation-State. While there hasn’t been a spectacular, single event confirming my prediction, there has been a steady erosion on all fronts—with five months left in the year, I’m not yet willing to push back my prediction of Mexico’s “collapse†to 2008. The decline of the Mexican Nation-State is a bellwether for the massively complex network of geopolitical influences sometimes termed above ground factors. It provides some insight into how symptoms of oil scarcity already being felt in poorer parts of the world will increasingly spill over into our own back yard…
Jeff Vail’s post is detailed and goes into some troubling developments in oil infrastructure, the increase in violence and Mexico’s overall economy.
Read it all.
