In both cases, Germany in the 1930's and Mexico today, the core belief is, "we are all one nation and identity knows no borders." She went on to note that from the standpoint of the Mexican government no Mexican who lives beyond the current borders of Mexico ceases to be a Mexican simply as a result of that geographic nicety. (Or, perhaps such minor matters as acquiring citizenship in the new location.)
In the 1930s the US government became concerned over the potential for subversion sponsored or facilitated by the Nazi Party's overseas outreach efforts based on the arguably spurious idea of "once a German, always a German." FDR himself authorised the FBI to undertake covert intelligence efforts against German groups which might be conduits or tools of German foreign policy in the years immediately preceding the outbreak of World War II.
The Nazi sympathizing groups never constituted more than a small percentage of the totality of the German or German descended population of the US. That was, of course, reassuring to the administration and the larger American public, particularly given the ongoing anti-immigrant sentiment in the US.
The invocation of the Once-Means-Forever doctrine by Secretary Cantellano is bothersome not because it drags in its wake grounds for fearing Mexican subversion or Mexican espionage but rather because it implies an increasing aggressiveness on the part of Mexico to assure that the US will be the safety valve. The Secretary is demanding that the slogan, "Go North, young Mexican" will resound with success in the months and years to come.
Not to put too fine a point on the matter, Secretary Cantellanto, if not exactly declaring war on the American right to control its southern border, is at least issuing one more call for that border to be reduced to the status of fiction. Considering the frequency and vehemence with which other, lower ranking members of the Mexican governing elite have made the same demand, the Secretary is not straying from the policy reservation but rather raising the political prestige stakes in play.
In her call for a resurrection of the Folkwanderung which marked the end stage of the Roman Empire, the Secretary is once more demonstrating the poverty, not to say bankruptcy, of ideas for how to address Mexico's endemic poverty, maldistribution of wealth, deficiency of infrastructure, weakness of private sector investment and the fundamentally reactionary bent of Mexican hyper-nationalism. Corruption, pervasive inefficiency, irrationally prickly nationalism, the wealth gap and, quite simply, too many people are not new. All have been a blight on the Mexican social, economic and political landscape for generations.
In the finest tradition of never-do-today-what-can-be-put-off-until-tomorrow, the Mexican elite has never made any serious attempt to address these problems, which have moved slowly and inexorably for decades pushing the Mexican ship of state closer and closer to the rocks. In a country, a culture, where even "revolutionaries," socialists and reformers are intensely conservative and slower to act than a tortoise at high noon, this is no surprise. It is, however, a tragedy.
The Mexicans of the hoi polloi deserve much better than the treatment they receive and have received for generations from the elite of the country. Their ability and willingness to suffer, to accept exploitation and even lick the (Mexican) boot which kicks them is the stuff of legend. So also is their capacity for violence, cruelty and red killing rage on those occasions when the stops are pulled on long repressed hurt and hatred.
The rage is there powered by frustration, loss of faith in the future (or even the here and now) and the increased recognition that the hoi polloi will never be "rescued" from its misery by creative and effective moves on the part of the elite, the State, the political parties, or the Church. The lethal Mexican internal "war on drugs," like the violence waged between cartels and the surging crime generally are the symptoms of the rage within.
The mutilated remains of a tortured soldier or cop or even journalist is not so much a symbol of the lethal combination of guns and much money in play as they are a hint of hatred and a warning to each and every member of the elite--you can be next. Even if that is not the intent, it is the way in which the elite is interpreting it.
Change is needed in Mexico. Deep, pervasive, structural changes in the relation between elite and hoi polloi which are reflected quickly and effectively in economic, social and political affairs. These changes are long overdue. Everyone knows that, even if only deep in the heart of hearts.
The elite knows it. The bitter reality is that the knowledge will not be acted upon. To err on the side of accuracy, the knowledge can not be acted upon. The exceptionally conservative, not to say reactionary, nature of Mexican society and polity (where else is there a political party with a name quite so internally contradictory as "The Institutional Revolutionary Party"?) assures an almost infinite resistance to change.
King Status Quo reigns without rival in Mexico. This rulership demands that the government move heaven and earth to displace responsibility for the current sick state of the system on some villain outside itself. While there is much truth to the oft repeated assertion that the US is responsible for the high body count of the past few years because the drugs are coming North and (some but only some) weapons head in the opposite direction, the elite's barrage of blame fired at Uncle Sam is both overwrought and overblown.
Far more important for the Mexican elite's desperate campaign to keep King Status Quo on his throne than the (comparative) bagatelle of the drug trade is the necessity of maintaining an open border to the North. People have to flow North. Money has to flow South.
The Mexicans who brave the harsh passage north are highly motivated, desperate folks who would be insurgents without the possibility of finding a better future as "overseas" Mexicans who loyally send money to the family they leave behind. The men and women who make a break for the North are the men and women who would morph into wolves munching on the innards of the elite.
The dilemma for the US is not simple. It is not an easy circle to square. The Mexicans who cross the border are quite often, even typically, the best of the immigrant model which has so benefited the US in so many ways for so many, many years. In the main these "wetbacks" are hardworking, law abiding people who, if they decide to stay here, are a plus for the country.
Many, perhaps most, of the undocumented people coming North will eventually head back South. In the past this pattern has played itself out with nationalities as diverse as Norwegian and Italian. A rhythm of ebb and flow. Come to the US, work hard, send some money home, save the rest, and, eventually head back to the old country. There were men who repeated the cycle several times before finally coming to rest in either the new or the old land.
In the past the US had no particular nor pressing need to control or even monitor the coming and going of immigrants. They came and either stayed or left. The US government and We the People were by and large indifferent to the outcome. At the time American employers exploited the immigrants. As time went by We the People came grudgingly to recognise that the country as a whole had benefited from these birds of settlement and passage alike.
Whether Secretary Cantellano and others of the elite want to admit it or not, times have changed. The Good Old Days of uncontrolled borders are gone forever. The sovereignty of a nation has become increasingly determined by its ability to control the borders of the state, by its capacity to decide who can--and cannot--enter its jurisdiction.
Economic considerations are part of the mix. Employers (big shock here) want limited limitations on immigration so as to put downward pressures on wages. Employees and unions (huge shock here) want maximal restrictions on migration.
There are factors far transcending the concerns of "economic man." The most trenchant of these is implied by Secretary Canellano's comment. This most high powered factor has also been basic in all disputes over immigration in this country for the past century and more.
"Who are we?" That is the question. The question of American identity. We Americans have always suffered from bouts of identity crisis. This should come as no surprise. We are and always have been a nation of nations. We share little as core identifying features beyond a handful of common beliefs and shared mythology. Not even an "official" language binds us together. Only the most insubstantial fabric of values, beliefs and mythic words serves as a basis for the tapestry of national identity.
The problem of national identity comes into sharpest focus in the US along the fault line which separates our elite from our hoi polloi. It has become quite fashionable in recent years among the chattering class component of our domestic elite to disparage nationalism or even the notion of a basic "American" national and cultural identity as being hopelessly outdated and dangerously reactionary.
That Joe the Plumber and others like him or those such as Sarah Palin who both speak for and resonate with the Joes of the country vehemently disagree with this stance du jour. To these people, the numerical majority of We the People, there is a unique American identity which must be inculcated within and accepted by those who come to our country for employment (even temporary) or residence (perhaps permanent.)
The elite see no problem inherent in a policy of immigration reform which would comport well with the Mexican notion of open borders. The hoi polloi want a very restrictive policy arguing that an influx of immigrants including any form of "amnesty" for illegals already in the country would put severe stress upon the social fabric of the US and introduce social and cultural changes which would carry the potential of disruption.
The border of the US and Mexico has become the symbolic battleground for a greater conflict. This second, deeper conflict exists in both countries. In both it is identical. In both it extends far beyond the question of borders and migration.
It is the conflict between elite and hoi polloi. The struggle between those who by virtue of education, occupation, social status see themselves as being fully equipped to govern, to rule, to dictate--and everyone else.
And, class warfare under whatsoever guise is the longest, hardest war of all. A war without borders and often without the potential of truce, let alone an ending.
No comments:
Post a Comment