Mexico on the scene:

[rmnunez]

Bishop its hard to address the comment on 40% of Mexicans living in poverty, is it meant the are living beneath the "poverty line" and if so, whose, theirs or the gringans'?

There is lots of poverty, it is estimated there are over 100 thousand 'street-kids' in Mexico City alone. There is no unemployment compensation, no welfare, scarce social services, so when Mexicans run out of luck they are on their own. The economy is notoriously informal, meaning there are no taxes or records, incorporation or formal business organization is a rarity. Often goods shipped are waylaid in sometimes collusive arrangements with corrupt police. In this setting I'd figure its hard to say how the Mexicans really are doing.

I can testify to the proliferation of new construction and a recent abundance of credit availability with all sorts of incentives to encourage consumption. I did see data indicating the unemployment was at about 3.5%. All sorts of colleges and universities are springing up with an emphasis on business and computing programs so it would seem there is demand and growth.

[Scribbler1]

I'm curious as to why this "Slim" fatcat opposes free trade. He says Mexico has nothing to show for it, but HE apparently does. And how is it you can amass over 5 BILLION in wealth in a country with so much poverty? Or perhaps the answer is staring me right in the face, eh?

[rmnunez]

Slim's holdings are diverse, but his main business is telecommunications. When the phone company was privatized he bought it and was able to move the company into enhanced profitability by developing its cell phone business. He also is majority shareholder in several other Latin American phone companies. He own Sanborns (Mexico's biggest retail chain) and just bought Mexico's J.C. Penney stores.

I don't know why Slim particularly opposes free trade, but can confirm the consensus among leading industrialists in Mexico has it NAFTA has not lived up to their expectations. The government is trying to correct this with FTAs with other countries (Japan most recently) but the general idea seems to try and tinker with NAFTA to improve the access of Mexican products in the gringo market.

[Zeebadee]

Yippee, let's all pretend that Mexico has some relevance in the world economy today. Let's let some beaner-wanna-be provocateur get us involved in the earthshaking issue of Mexico and how it impacts the world economy. It's much easier to show a higher standard of living when you ship out all your lower caste people to work for U.S. agri-business firms in jobs that are subsidized by us taxpayers because those businesses don't pay wages that anybody can live on. Let's all celebrate the fact that our "undocumented" visitors will do the jobs that Americans won't. Of course, that's only part of the real story. What's really meant is that they will do the jobs that Americans won't do for $5 an hour. The Mexican economic plan is simple, close the border to the south, demand an open border to the north, use Pemex revenues to corrupt any real social change, and keep the flow of dollars coming south from the untouchables they encourage to go north. Mexico is nothing more than a leech stuck on the ass of the U.S. Until they get rid of the rampant corruption in their political processes, and start addressing the reasons that thousands of their citizens find it more opportune to leave the country than to remain in it, they will always be nothing more than a two-bit third world banana republic, a parasitic appendage of the U.S.

[rmnunez]

Emigration plays an important role in the increasing integration of the Mexican and US economies. The equivalent of a 10th of the Mexican-born population lives and, for the most part, works in the US, and gross flows of temporary migrants across the US/Mexico border amount to several hundred thousand annually, well above the legal quota limits. Mexican emigrants to the US are overwhelmingly lowskilled young adults looking for work and (usually) intending one day to return to Mexico. Traditionally, such migrants were seasonal agricultural workers, mostly males, coming disproportionately from a limited number of rural areas, and working in States just across the border. Although this pattern remains important, migrants increasingly eventually settle in the US, more of them are women, they more often work in low-paid service jobs in the US, they come increasingly from urban areas, and large numbers of them now work in the north of the US. High-skilled emigrants remain comparatively rare. Migration confers economic benefits on both Mexico and the US, though the social costs in terms of disruption of family and social life are borne mainly by Mexicans.

The US economy benefits from the presence of a sizeable and prime-age labour force willing to work for low wages. Although Mexican migrants work in low-paid jobs, often informally, their US wages are typically 6 times higher than what they’d be making in Mexico, and migrants typically remit a quarter of their earnings to their families, as well as accumulating savings during their stay in the US. Thanks to enhanced competition and better technology, the cost of remitting funds to Mexico has fallen in recent years, and the financial authorities of both countries should encourage this trend by requiring the publication of comparable information on service costs. The remittances themselves are mostly used immediately to finance consumption. Many recipient households are thereby lifted out of acute poverty, with its associated ill-health and social exclusion, and children can more easily attend school. The high proportion of low-skilled emigrants from specific regions and sectors partly reflects low levels of economic development there. The project to develop local financial networks under the aegis of BANSEFI (national savings-banks) should raise financial intermediation in rural and low-income populations and at the same time spread the benefits of remittances more widely across the community and over time.

Mexican migration policy was traditionally one of benign neglect, emigration being seen as a safety valve to offset the chronic inability of the Mexican economy to create jobs fast enough for the expanding working-age population, and as an important source of dollar income (its about a third of the GNP). During the 1990s, the Mexican authorities started to take a more active stance, trying in particular to reach an agreement on several aspects of migration with the US. After the 911 attack, negotiations were interrupted. Instead, border security has been tightened further, making illegal migration even more risky and costly. But the economic incentives remain huge and once across the border and into a job, migrant workers can live comparatively openly in many areas. Current stringency of border security may also encourage Mexican immigrants to remain in the US for longer spells than they would otherwise have chosen. Efforts to reach a migration agreement should be pursued in the interests of both countries. It would strengthen the position of Mexican workers in the US, thus possibly increasing remittances and reducing the deadweight costs of illegal border crossings.

[Chris]

Just what the hell is a "gringo" anyway? is it just Americans? or can you refer to someone from Hungary as a "gringo"? -Then what about Spain? What if someone was from Spain, would they be considered "Gringo"?

Just wondering

[JohnLockeRocks]

Sorry Mr. Nunez, but I can't say I agree with the idea that Mexico is a roaring land of opportunity. In studying Mexico, one has to be cognisant of the fact that there are really two countries to look at: the country of the wealthy, and the land of the poor. It is immediately apparent to me that you are--even if you consider yourself "middle-class"--a member of the wealthy. Mexico City is a growing city, no doubt. Thousands of poor Mexicans from Guanajuato and Oaxaca pour into the city and the eastern slums of Netza. It's growing all right, but only because the rural poor consider Ciudad Mexico the only place they can go when they've no hope at home. I don't think you see the poor there, friend. I don't think you know much about the people willing to put their lives in the hands of the coyotes. But I do.

This happened in Victoria, about 125 miles from where I'm from:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...ossing/1910771
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...k-bodies_x.htm

Nineteen died in the back of a trailer because they wanted to come here, to Houston. Nineteen! The only hope they had was the snake-oil promise of a coyote who promised to deliver them safely to the United States, and instead listened to them cry, and beg, and die in the back or a truck.

I don't believe your Mexico is anything like theirs. The idea that an emormous amount of Mexico's GDP is in the form of remittances from the US should be a sign to you that most of your countrymen share little in the blessings of your so-called "New Mexico".

[rmnunez]

Rocks, I don't ignore the problem of poverty in Mexico, in fact I suggested it was a problem, and I realize Mexico City is a bit of a distortion, though its true Ciudad Neza is a fine place to see poverty up close. Mexicans have a lower standard of living and their poor are poorer , but there has been change and Mexico's economy is growing and spreading prosperity. The OECD now ranks Mexico 10th in output, ahead of many EU countries. Crummy as the public health services are, they cover more people and a higher proportion of the population than anything similar in Latin America (minus Cuba). Its hard to describe favourable features when the comparison is made with colossal US, but lots of Latin Americans (and others) migrate and establish themselves in Mexico and I'd suspect this might be because they found things better. Mexico is bigger, more populous and wealthier than most third world countries, they hosted the olympics in '68, own satellites and export high technology.

[JohnLockeRocks]

Mr. Nunez--

You've got a point. To be fair, Mexico truly is better off than most third world countries. I used to live near "the Valley", the part of South Texas near the Rio Grande. When I'd go into Mexico the first thing I noticed was that northern Mexico looked a great deal like Brownsville and Harlingen: not exactly wealthy, but not sliding off into a Third-World abyss either.

But when you mention the good of Mexico--when you speak of the great advances the country has made--it seems as though the vast majority of the population doesn't share in the potential the country has. When Vicente Fox was elected President, there was an entire section of the newspaper dedicated to how things looked as though they just might turn around there... but with the election coming up in the not-too-distant future the PRI seems to be gaining power again.

If, somehow, the rest of your countrymen could wake up to the possibility that the corrupt old leftist PRI could really be booted out of Mexican politics, then I think Mexico will really have a chance of climbing out of poverty. If they don't, then the blessings of prosperity will continue to be only for the minority of Mexico.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: |Chris| Just what the hell is a "gringo" anyway? is it just Americans? or can you refer to someone from Hungary as a "gringo"? -Then what about Spain? What if someone was from Spain, would they be considered "Gringo"? Just wondering

I beleive that "Gringo" is a term that is the short form of " go home green eyes", and it is generally an expression used against interference from the North, meaning the U.S..


I'm not really sure if Canadians, or Europeans are considered Gringos by Mexicans.

[rmnunez]

when you speak of the great advances the country has made--it seems as though the vast majority of the population doesn't share in the potential the country has. When Vicente Fox was elected President, there was an entire section of the newspaper dedicated to how things looked as though they just might turn around there...

Its true everyone has not shared equally in the improvements, but its also true many more than just a few Chilangos have. Its true Fox's "Cambio" was more promising than it has delivered, but its also true the PAN faces greater hurdles than anticipated.

The PRI is resurging, but it has been cut down to size so there is hope that if they do recover the presidency they can be better checked. Their victory is uncertain and I harbour the hope the PAN can do the trick again, though they need an emergent leader that fires things up a bit more than Creel does. Mexico City's mayor, the Tabascan Lopez Obrador is a populist cut from a 'Chavist' mold who lacks any capacity to control the corruption in his innermost circle and I trust this will frustrate his ambitions.

Booting the PRI out of Mexican politics is impractical because they control the bureaucracy (which is very cumbersome) and because they represent a genuine outlet to counterweigh both the conservativism of the PAN and the excessive populism of the PRD. The PRI is closely tied to most trade unions and have made a success of their governorships in several states (despite some apparent electoral fraud).

I think the mere fact they got ousted has taught the upper echelons in the PRI they need to rein-in some excesses. I expect, as they unravel the corruption scandal the Tabascan mayor refers to as "el compló", harsh sentences will be meted out to adequately admonish the ruling elites.

Progress needs to reach the streets too and Mexicans will need to become acustomed to learning friends and neighbors get 'booked' for offering bribes, just as they are finding themselves embarrasingly facing charges for acquiring pirated software, stealing electricity and water or hoarding curbside parking.

Mexico is transitioning to a first-world economy where the citizenry is increasingly aware its their taxes that pay for authority rather than the generous gesture of political entities. They will learn to demand accountability too.

[rmnunez]

Protecting a valuable Mexican resource:

The Mexican government is giving out a colorful new comic book with advice for migrants, but immigration-control advocates worry that some of the tips may encourage illegal border crossers. The 32-page book, The Guide for the Mexican Migrant, was published in December by Mexico's Foreign Ministry. Using simple language, the book offers safety information for border crossers, a primer on their legal rights and advice on living unobtrusively in the US. Dramatic drawings show undocumented immigrants wading into a river, running from the US Border Patrol and crouching near a hole in a border fence. On other pages, they hike through a desert with rock formations reminiscent of Arizona and are caught by a stern-faced Border Patrol agent. "This guide is intended to give you some practical advice that could be of use if you have made the difficult decision to seek new work opportunities outside your country," the book says. But immigration-control groups questioned some of the guide's advice. "This is more than just a wink and a nod," said Rick Oltman, Western field director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. "This is so transparent, this is the Mexican government trying to protect its most valuable export, which is illegal migrants." "A lot of it is disclaimers, but then there's this part about if you're going to cross the desert, do it when the sun isn't so hot," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies. "It's a mixed message." Said John Vincent, editor of a newsletter published by Virginia-based Americans for Immigration Control: "It really looks like the Mexican government is encouraging illegal immigration. It shows the contempt that the Mexican government has for our laws." http://www.azcentral.com/php-bin/cli...01Comic01.html

[JohnLockeRocks]

Quote by: rmnunez Said John Vincent, editor of a newsletter published by Virginia-based Americans for Immigration Control: "It really looks like the Mexican government is encouraging illegal immigration. It shows the contempt that the Mexican government has for our laws."

I'm not a fan of illegal immigration. While I do have sympathy for the undocumentados, it doesn't seem as though the Mexican government is trying to do much to stop them on their end. If they were so keen on curbing the tide of immigrants, would the government be handing out a guide on how to cross safely? Really, now...

Don't misunderstand me: I don't want any harm to come to people who just want to come over and make a living. But it's still a crime to come in through the back door. My father immigrated legitimately back in 1977--surely the Mexican government can persuade their citizens to do so also...

[rmnunez]

The government in Mexico is in an ambiguous situation, on the one hand they must recognize the 'paisanos' heading north represent a third of the GNP and provide the main sustenance for about a third of their countrymen either through their remittances or through the economic activity these generate in Mexico. On the other hand an average of 500 Mexicans die each year, drowning in the river, dehidrated in the desert, dashing across a freeway and even shot by the Border Patrol. These, understandably, are a major concern.

Officially the government cooperates with the US in protecting the border, they are actively engaged in drug interdiction but really just look the other way when it comes to undocumented immigration. Part of the problem is that the government has been incapable of fostering conditions capable of occupying all those people in Mexico, but the US is at fault here too.

The first flaw in the US approach relates to the difficulty in acquiring a visa to go there. The queues, the onerous procedures and the delays make visa acquisition a formidable task. They have quotas and only a small fraction of those who apply receive a visa. Undocumented Mexicans who have established themselves and are successfully working in the US for years have to leave everything, forsake their success in the US and return to Mexico to apply in order to legalize their situation. If their application was favourably received and successfully processed, it would be at least 3 years before the applicant could return, but since they crossed illegally the outcome necessarily would be rejection. Mexicans earn on average 6 times more for the same job, and though the cost of living is higher, there is more opportunity, so the attraction of 'the North' is powerful.

These facts suggest the solution must involve more than just either government making a better effort at the border. The US would need to crack-down on the immigrants' employers, punish them more severely, arguably its a matter of national security. Given the magnitude of the problem it seems sensible to adjust quotas, expedite visa applications and come up with some exceptional status for these people who now can only be tourists or immigrants, but who obviously are neither. The've got a program for 72 hour visitors within a short distance from the border, how about a 9 month temporary residence? This would enable those undocumented to get somehow registered, enable local governments to more accurately estimate their infrastructural needs and perhaps sustain a credible gringo argument for some sort of Mexican governmental contribution to the states hosting immigrants.

[rmnunez]

Jorge Castañeda (former Mexican Secretary of State and candidate for president) in Newsweek, Special double edition, Dec.27/Jan.3, 2005, p.27:

Of course, Mexico should be taken seriously. We not only have 100 million people, but more important, we have one of the 10 largest economies in the world. The country’s annual exports now exceed $200 billion, and last October Mexico became America’s largest supplier of foreign oil, surpassing Canada and Saudi Arabia. So the international community cannot be indifferent to Mexico’s political dynamics. …enlightened economic and foreign policies (and by enlightened I mean policies that are open and internationalist and not reactionary and parroquial) have a positive effect of the daily lives of all citizens. The US must start delivering on its promises to President Fox. That means supporting Mexican economic growth by eschewing protectionist trade policies and creating a public-private investment fund for Mexican infrastructure. President Bush must also push for an immigration agreement with Mexico, establish constructive and effective security arrangements between the two countries and enhance Mexico’s role in international affairs.

The first paragraph goes to counter arguments Mexico is some sort of destitute third world country. The reference to US “protectionist trade policies” likely means how they are handling the trucking problem. The “public-private investment fund” could provide a vehicle for US investment in Mexico’s electric and oil sectors (something the US wants and México is very reluctant to allow). Enhancing Mexico’s role in international affairs right now means endorsing its candidate to the OAS (instead of the Central American puppet the US is promoting).

[rmnunez]

Think about this: Sovereigns must, under International Law, maintain and reiterate their claim to any territory occupied and usurped by another or forsake any rights to said territory;

Mexico does claim the territory seized in a void contract with infamous gringan captive Santa Ana purportedly ceding vast tracts of Mexican territory;

The Mexican government has failed to properly maintain and adequately reiterate its claim to the territory usurped and occupied by the gringoes, under International Law;

If Mexicans who regularly cross the border without benefit of passports or customs are seen as expressing continuous control and are deigned "representative" of the government of Mexico's views (imigration as political expression)

-then couldn´t the migrant Mexican´s genuinely representative government claim they've continuously and reiteratedly failed to recognize the existence of a border separating them from the coercively conveyed property through the customary conduct of that government's citizens?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Think about this: Sovereigns must, under International Law, maintain and reiterate their claim to any territory occupied and usurped by another or forsake any rights to said territory; Mexico does claim the territory seized in a void contract with infamous gringan captive Santa Ana purportedly ceding vast tracts of Mexican territory; The Mexican government has failed to properly maintain and adequately reiterate its claim to the territory usurped and occupied by the gringoes, under International Law; If Mexicans who regularly cross the border without benefit of passports or customs are seen as expressing continuous control and are deigned "representative" of the government of Mexico's views (imigration as political expression) -then couldn´t the migrant Mexican´s genuinely representative government claim they've continuously and reiteratedly failed to recognize the existence of a border separating them from the coercively conveyed property through the customary conduct of that government's citizens?

You seem to be particularly enamored of the term "gringo" so I will respond using the term "beaner". Of course, no offense is intended.

The beaner government has consistently encouraged the citizens that it deems "undesirable" to emigrate to the north. In doing so, it identifies and defines methods to avoid the legal restrictions (minor though they may be) imposed by the U.S. By identifying and offering ways to avoid these restrictions instead of declaring them as invalid, the beaner government has tacitly accepted them as sovereign regulations. If the beaner government had instead counseled it's north-bound detritus to directly challenge the legitimacy of U.S. immigration laws, they might have some legal standing.

[rmnunez]

I disagree with the contention the Mexican government has ever encouraged its "undesirable" citizens to migrate consistently or not, there is no ethnic cleansing and certainly no evidence of an effort to get rid of poor economic or social performers. In the manual refered to before detailing how to cross safely, the aim is to save lives -not teach how to skirt restrictions. Though the Mexican government would be better advised to openly advocate disregard for US legal impediments to migration if they sought to advance any claims over the usurped territory, they really don't seek to advance those claims. The Mexican government is only recently genuinely representative, it didn't reflect the views of Mexicans in the past very well, so its failure to maintain and reiterate claims for the seized territory wouldn't conclusively show relinquishment if we could find a pattern of conduct among Mexican immigrants regarding the border (I think we can).

Since precolumbian times, long before the US even existed, Mexicans (before there was a Mexico either) crossed into what is now the US without any regard for the current border. I doubt this customary practice is premised on the average Mexican's belief some part of the US was wrongly seized from Mexico (though the idea does have some currency). Migrants from Mexico cross without passports mainly because they can't afford the paperwork, don't understand or simply don't know about passport requirements. However, the conduct is indistinct from what would be in evidence from someone who though well-aware of the border has chosen to disregard it.

[Zeebadee]

You may disagree with that idea, but you can't deny that it's a win-win situation for the Mexican government. Not only do they offload their poorest people onto the U.S., thus relieving themselves of the social costs of these unemployed, but the ones that do make it across the border and find work usually send money back home. Indeed, it may even be part of Mexico's strategy to keep what little border hazards there are in place so that only the poorest of the poor will attempt the crossing. If it were too easy, even the middle class might also cross.

Migrants from Mexico cross illegally, not because "they can't afford the paperwork, don't understand or simply don't know about passport requirements", they do it because they wouldn't be allowed in otherwise.

[rmnunez]

The fact that properly documented migrants wouldn¡t be allowed to cross anyway suggests the problem isn't so much with their lack of papers, rather than with where they come from. Perceptions on such discriminatory practices will affect how Hispanics in the US regard the ruling establishment there. Those people are going to be the largest group in the US within a couple of elections.