In Mexico Every Day Is The Day Of The Dead

The Mexican internal war flows along in its self-created river of blood.  So far this year more than ten thousand have been killed in the fighting between criminal cartels as well as between the government and the gangsters.  Since the war was officially declared by President Calderon, nearly thirty thousand people were converted from living, breathing, hoping, and fearing human beings into sanitation problems.  That's right, nearly thirty thousand dead since December 2006.

It's a sucker bet that the body count will exceed 30,000 by the day the fourth anniversary comes along.  Over seven thousand a year, nearly twenty new corpses a day.  Almost one an hour, each and every hour for four years.  Compared to that, the combined American fatality toll in Afghanistan and Iraq amounts to a mere bagatelle.

For all the death and fear precious little has been accomplished.  The flow of drugs has not decreased.  Nor has the price to the end user increased.  And, the purity of the final product has not degraded.  As an effort to block the movement of illegal drugs across the Mexican-US border, the Calderon campaign has been a total failure.

At the same time the assorted cartels have expanded their operations from the smuggling of drugs to other profit nodes.  The cartels smuggle people.  They hijack cargoes of assorted merchandise and smuggle them into the American market.  As sidelines the gangs kidnap for ransom, run protection rackets, and burgle everything not nailed down.  For fun the gangsters rape, beat, and murder.  It's a good life, being a member of a gang--unless the opposition or your own bosses take you out.

During all the down and dirty criminal merriment, the gangs have brought corruption to a new level.  For years, generations, the predilection of Mexican cops for bribes has been the stuff of both popular humor and personal tragedy.  The question was not, "is this cop corrupt?" but "how much will it cost?"  The Calderon government has tried to stamp out or at least limit the corruption of local police, but faced with the "silver or lead" tradition, the efforts have failed.

When the cops either could not be bought or, once bought, did not stay bought, the gangs have had a simple solution.  Cops, local or state or federal have died in wholesale lots.  On the local level it has not been uncommon the past year for the survivors to turn in their badges with unseemly but prudent haste.

The judicial system is no less corrupt--when it isn't simply being inefficient.  The system cannot handle the relatively small number of gangsters who are arrested.  The lack of public confidence in the judiciary and police is reflected in the estimate that only a minority of serious crimes are ever reported.  Not that making a report matters.  Very, very few suspected criminals are ever arrested and even fewer come to trial.  Of that unfortunate minor fraction, even fewer are convicted, and still fewer ever see the inside of a slammer.

The motto for a Mexican gangster should be, "What? Me Worry?"  That is a realistic attitude.

The gangs have not been indifferent to the attraction of buying politicians.  While killing the politico has a long history in Mexico, the notion of purchase in wholesale quantities is of relatively recent origin.  But, if there is one thing the gangs have in inexhaustible amounts, it is money.  Flush with cash, the gangs have found buying politicians to be a good investment.  After all, the best way to stop the Calderon Campaign is through politics. Need one know more?

To be successful, it is best if corruption takes place in the shadows.  A politician or a judge or even a local cop is an ineffective agent of gang interests if it is known that he has been bought and paid for.  Thus, keeping journalists quiet has become a high priority for the gangs.  Since pistoleros don't care who they cap, the killing of journalists is as easy to accomplish as the killing of rival gang members.

As a result of the stop-the-news effort, journalists in Mexico are at a greater risk of becoming corpses than are members of the Mexican army.  One of the most, perhaps the most, dangerous places to practice the craft of journalism today is Mexico.  Not surprisingly, the papers are loath to practice investigative journalism or even make a big deal out of the daily tripping over bodies which is commonplace in places like Juarez.

The systemic deformation of the institutions of justice, politics, and the press have combined with the daily mayhem to undercut the integrity of the social and political compact which unites citizen and government.  The situation of a deteriorating social/political compact has been worsened by both the historical indifference of the Mexican elite to the lives of the hoi polloi and the numbing effects of poverty and hopelessness.

Mexico is not a failed state.  Not yet.  It may never become a genuine failed state.  The capacity of the Mexican peasant and his urban counterpart to endure the unendurable is legendary--and real.  Yet every day that the bodies fall, the corruption flows, and the misery grinds on is a day which erodes even the seemingly endless capacity of the Mexican to persevere.  Trust in the government like hope for a better tomorrow has become a gravely endangered species.

Should the Mexican hoi polloi come to the realization that more of the same is totally unacceptable, the results will be massive, shocking, and lethal in the extreme.  If Mexico fails as a state, the consequent internal war(s) will equal or surpass those of the long, long warfare of the early Twentieth Century.  As was the case a century and less ago, the violence will cross the border to the detriment of places like El Paso or Tucson, which were small, quite off the beaten path places back then but are major cities today.

This potential implies strongly that US policies regarding immigration and illegal drugs must be considered in the context of will they help or hinder the reestablishment of stability in Mexico.  As the coming of collapse cannot be predicted with precision, it would be prudent for the US decision makers and We the People to consider the package of policies directly impacting on Mexico with the greatest of expedition.  Time is not on the side of stability.

It is spectacularly unfortunate that both subjects--illegal drugs and immigration change--are almost as emotionally stimulating as, say, abortion and homosexual marriage,  Strong emotions do not make for careful calculations of how best to serve the collective national interest.  However, both national interest and the American responsibility for the current state of near failure in Mexico demand that emotions be shunted aside and a serious debate on how best to assist in rectifying the sorry state of affairs south of the border be undertaken with dispatch.

Unless the US government and We the People can get serious about solving our share of the current predominantly Mexican problem, not only will it be conceivable that all the Mexicans currently in the US illegally will be able to apply for political refugee status, but that there will be a lot more coming, waves of people fleeing the violence of collapse.

The Mexican Question is one which is truly bi-partisan.  So, get on with it you denizens inside the beltway.  It is a tough job at the least, but you were elected to take on the big ones.

The Border--And The Borderland

An interlocutor sent the Geek a link to a semi-perceptive account of the historical and economic factors providing the foundation to the current controversy over the Arizona law regarding illegal immigration. The history cannot be changed no matter how many super-patriots in Mexico may wish to see the verdict of the Mexican War reversed. The same may not be said of the economic considerations which have loomed so large in creating the current unpleasant reality of a southern border which exists primarily as a legal fiction.

The linked article has its greatest value in bringing the matter of borderlands into a sharper focus. This very critical aspect of the "immigration debate" has not been given the consideration it deserves even in the American states which constitute the "borderland."

There are four borderlands states: Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. The situation in these borderland states is qualitatively different from that existing in other states with respect to Hispanic, primarily Mexican, origin residents.

While there are large pockets of Hispanic descent people including citizens, legal immigrants, and illegals in many other states, these constitute pockets surrounded by the domestic majority. As such they are analogous to the relation between previous immigrant communities and the preexisting majority population. Immigrants may introduce social, political, and economic change but do so in a way which can be accepted and integrated into the previous matrices.

In the borderland states the immigrants, both legal and otherwise, are directly and often intimately connected with their ancestral land. As such the migrants find no compelling need to assimilate with the majority society, polity, and culture. And, here is the more important consideration, because the immigrants can be viewed as having primary allegiances to their ancestral country, they can be perceived quite easily as agents of unwanted change, even agents of a foreign power.

This dark but very real subtext is a new dynamic in the American borderland. When the Geek was young, there were neither suspicion nor fear of the Hispanics who came, lived, and, often but not always, left. Those of us who lived in the borderland, in what was once dubbed, "Rio Grandia" were pleased and proud of our unique cultural and linguistic context. This was not limited to New Mexico but, as the Geek found time after time, extended both east into the southern wilds of Texas and westward into today's battlegrounds of Arizona's Cochise and Pinal counties.

Forty years ago, even thirty, the movement back and forth across the border was continual, slow motion, and, by and large unnoticed or at least uncommented upon. Even the border patrol wallahs of the Geek's acquaintance were not of the view that they were manning a frontline in a war zone.

Over the intervening years there have been some critical shifts in the national context which have not only destroyed the halcyon days of "Rio Grandia," but have set the stage for an increased fear of covert invasion by Mexico. Typically, pundits and politicos point at drug trafficking and the vast increase in the number of economically motivated illegal aliens as the most important, indeed, the only factors behind the upsurge in anxiety over immigration. Or, the more socially liberal trot out the presumed racism and xenophobia of the American hoi polloi.

The factor which has been overlooked all too often but is critical in the development of the new nativist subtext is simply that the federal government has not viewed the ever more porous nature of our southern border as a matter of importance. Twenty years ago as the drug trafficking routes shifted from their traditional corridors to the Mexican alternative, the federal government seemed not to have noticed. Then, during the Nineties as the flow of illegals reached flood stage, once again the federal government appeared indifferent.

The stance of the federal government can be explained to be sure, but any and all explanations have and will fall short in the ears of those living in the borderland. The reality on the ground throughout the borderland, particularly close to the border, was an ever growing number of smugglers and illegal aliens.

There were demands that the federal government take action to limit the flow of people across the line in the sand. The demands of a decade and more ago were much the same as today: Secure the border now and reform immigration later. The demands were unheard, or, if heard, not heeded.

Even if the Denizens Inside the Beltway were unaware of the role played by the Mexican government and its associated elite in the growth of illegal immigration, there were many living in the borderland who knew perfectly well that the Mexican government and its rico supporters were not only doing nothing to reduce the immigrant flow, they were actively encouraging its growth. Borderlanders were quite aware that the Mexican government needed the border as its social and political safety valve. They also knew because many read Mexican media that there existed a pervasive belief in Mexico that the results of the Mexican War could be reversed by sufficient immigration.

These considerations were not and are not the creations of fevered imaginations feeding on conspiracy theories of history. The Mexican government with the full support of its domestic elite has encouraged illegal immigration as doing such relieves the government and elite from developing Mexican resources to provide Mexican jobs. It has relieved both government and elite from taking necessary but painful measures to address a century or longer legacy of neglecting the needs of Mexicans and of having exploited for personal gain or political advantage the long suffering Mexicans.

At the same time the hyper-patriotic strain of revisionist history has and continues to loudly proclaim that los gringos stole most of Mexico's patrimony. There is a powerful myth, a defining myth in Mexico, which focuses all that has gone wrong in that country's long, bloody, and often disastrous history on the US. A companion to that myth, a twin connected shoulder and hip, is the belief in Mexico Redeemed.

Irredentism is a powerful force. It is alive and well in Mexico. It propels much if not all of the current torrent of vitriol poured on Arizona and the US. It also motivates the support of illegal immigration. It is why the Mexicans reserve the word "illegal" for those who enter Mexico without papers but use the neutral term "migration" or "migratory affairs" to refer to Mexicans who cross the line to the US.

Unless and until the federal government takes the border with not only a convincing degree of seriousness of purpose but an obvious effectiveness, the borderlands will grow ever darker with suspicion and fear. In this case, as in so much of politics, perception is king. The perception through most of the borderland is one of being invaded by Armies of the Night. It does not matter if that perception is absolutely true or not, it governs the attitudes and eventually the behavior of residents of the borderlands.

There may not be a real war here in the borderland, but it sure can feel like one. And, that, Worthies of Washington, is where the rubber hits the road.

Mexicans Out Whine Muslims

For years the Mexican political and media establishments have caviled mightily over the immigration policies of the US. There has not been a single "migrant" (to use the preferred and totally inaccurate Mexican formulation) law which has met the approval of the easily bruised hyper-nationalistic egos of the politicians and pundits of Mexico.

Since Arizona passed its now infamous law which did little more than make an already extant federal crime--being present in the US absent legal authorization--a state offense as well, Mexicans of all ranks have closed ranks in a wall of wailing and whining which surpasses even the waves of tears shed by Muslims over what they perceive as insults to their religion (including quotes from the Koran and other sacred writings.) To read the Mexican press, to listen to the words of Mexican politicians one would be forgiven the impression that the Fascist Racists of Arizona with the approval of many, many equally bigoted and dark-hearted Americans generally had launched a campaign of extermination against any and all people of swarthy complexion, accented English, or a last name other than Smith or Jones.

The vitriol poured in metric ton quantities by the President of Mexico during his state visit to the US, which included the signal honor of addressing a joint session of Congress, would have done the thundering denunciations of Hitler by Winston Churchill proud--if only they had been true and accurate. With the American president standing by complete with approving smile, Sr Calderon accused the citizens of Arizona (and by implication all other Americans who approved the new law) of being racist, xenophobic, and generally blotches on the face of humanity.

It is passingly strange that the Mexicans who are so free with their exaggerated or totally fabricated charges about the American hatred of Mexicans and other Latinos do so without once mentioning the portions of the Mexican Constitution which deal with "migrant" issues. A brief glance at these articles shows an attitude far more contemptuous of "migrants" than any contained in any American law, state or federal. Articles 11, 27, 32, and 33 limit the rights of "migrants" to a degree unthinkable anywhere in the US, including Arizona. And, mark this well, these are not mere laws but part and parcel of the Mexican Constitution.

Nor are other countries filled with critics of the Arizona law immune. Guatemala has constitutional restrictions which surpass any legal disabilities placed on legal "migrants" in the US. So does Costa Rica, generally considered a liberal beacon in Central America. Even El Salvador, in which place American treasure was expended in wholesale lots during its long counterinsurgency, does not take as kindly to "migrants" as does the US.

It is a hallmark of the basic human propensity for hypocrisy that politicians and pundits can heap abuse on the democratic process and its result in Arizona while being remarkably indifferent to what is going on in their own countries. Even this pinnacle is surpassed by the insufferably arrogant demands by Calderon and other Latino statesmen that the US effectively give up all semblance of control over its own borders and admit all comers while insisting on their own sovereign right to deny admittance to those coming from abroad.

Worse than any and all these self-serving words and efforts by Mexican elites and their ilk elsewhere south of the Rio Grande are the totally ridiculous postures adopted by American "progressives" including the President and Attorney General of the US. Several features are quite evident in the repeated diatribes by politicians and journalists of the American "progressive" shade.

Many have not even read the Arizona enactment as was finally admitted under questioning by, among others, Eric Holder. Then there are those who may have read the law but willfully sought to misinterpret it. Finally there are the legions who deplore the reality that the US is a federal republic with intentionally divided sovereignty so that states have a duty to act when threatened, if the federal government is unable or, more likely, unwilling to act.

The Arizonans saw a threat in their midst. They saw a lack of effective federal action. So they acted, quickly and directly. Far from being a group of Fascist vigilantes, the people and legislature of Arizona have acted in prudent self-interest.

We should be willing to see and admit this fundamental truth. Even a small handful of Mexican commentators have done so.

Unfortunately, as Muslims have shown, it is far easier and more emotionally satisfying to whine, moan, bitch, and carp. And, playing the victim game also absolves one from having to be truthful, honest, or courageous.

Viva! El Presidente Calderon! But Not Some Others

President Felipe Calderon in addressing Congress once again demonstrated an unfortunate propensity for blaming the US for Mexican problems. Facing a deteriorating security situation back home with politicians increasingly occupying center stage in the cross hairs of rifle sights, the Mexican leader took his time in the congressional spotlight to urge or, perhaps more properly, demand that the legislative worthies reimpose limits on American rights of gun ownership.

Even though there is an absence of compelling let alone convincing evidence that many of the weapons captured from criminal gunslingers originated in the US, Sr Calderon averred that the US is as responsible for the guns in Mexican shootouts as it is for the drug demand which prompts them. There is no doubt about the latter. There is much doubt about the former.

Even if every firearm more modern than a Brown Bess were to be confiscated in the US, the Mexican pistoleros would be inconvenienced in no meaningful way. Given the number of captured weapons which originated in the Mideast, Northwest Asia, South America, and Asia, there seems to be no more difficulty obtaining heavy firepower in Mexico than in, say, Somalia or Yemen.

Presumably Sr Calderon was playing for the folks back in Buncomb County when he made his demand. If not, it shows that he is as badly served by his internal security chiefs as he was by his translator at yesterday's welcoming ceremony.

Sr Calderon may also be playing to the home folks with his whining reprise of we-gotta-get-migration-reform-now. The same may be true concerning his never ending invocations of Arizona as the fountainhead of all things anti-Hispanic.

Certainly Sr Calderon is aware that his country has laws defining citizenship, legal alien status, and the crime of being illegally present upon Mexican soil. He must know that Mexican police at all levels of jurisdiction regularly arrest and deport illegal aliens with the exception of those individuals who "regularize" their presence in Mexico by the payment of a "fee" to the arresting officer and/or his superiors. Sr Calderon may even be aware of the number of illegal aliens in Mexico who are robbed, beaten, raped, or killed by Mexicans. Even Mexican media report these incidents, if bloody enough.

Sr Calderon would be the first to defend Mexico's rights to define legal alien status, to control entry by foreigners into Mexico, and to secure Mexico's borders. It is unlikely in the extreme that Sr Calderon shares President Obama's post-modernist, we-are-all-passengers-on-spaceship-Earth mentality as represented by the American president's observation that "we are not defined by borders."

Sr Calderon is a firmly committed Mexican nationalist. This is precisely what he--or any other president--ought to be. He is in favor of "migratory reform" because it is in Mexico's national interest to use the US as a safety valve for its mobs of unemployed as well as a source of hard currency via remittances. He is in favor of restricting Americans access to certain categories of firearms because this is in his party's political interest even if flatly irrelevant to the stability of the country.

Indeed, his resolute offloading of ultimate responsibility for as many of Mexico's internal social, political, and economic problems onto the broad shoulders of Uncle Sam shows his wide, deep commitment to Mexican national interest--both real and mythic. To accept that responsibility for most of the many inequalities, injustices, which blemish Mexico would be to violate the strong central tenets of Mexico's defining mythology which holds that proximity to the US is at the root of all domestic evils.

Overall, one must congratulate Sr Calderon for acting as a good nationalist. Give him the credit he deserves for pursuing Mexican national interest as such is defined by the Mexican politically articulate elite. That is his job and he is doing it well.

Then there are some of Sr Calderon's fellow travelers. Particularly those who are card carrying members of the Open American Borders party.

The Open American Borders party is eclectic in its membership. In it are to be found assorted "migratory rights" folks and the non-governmental organizations which serve to amplify their voices, various and sundry "progressives," and last, but far from least important, numerous political and media personalities in Latin America.

A recurrent, unifying theme ties the diverse elements of the Open American Borders party. The theme has a major and a dependent component.

The major component is migratory freedom is a well-established human right enshrined in international conventions. The contingent component is that of equating the free movement of capital with a presumed freedom of worker movement.

The major premise is a carefully crafted misstatement. The several treaties and international agreements hazily mentioned all refer to prohibitions on a state's prevention of exit. These agreements are directed against Berlin Walls and similar efforts intended to hold a population captive. None are directed against a sovereign right to determine eligibility for admission or citizenship. In short, it is an international no-no to limit a person's right to leave but it is not a similar no-no to refuse a person admittance.

The minor premise is also a perversion of reality. States can and do limit the free movement of capital. Routinely states have limited how much cash a person can take out of a country, or bring into it. Laws which impinge on the movement of funds between countries dot the legal landscape. Indeed, such laws are at the heart of effective operations against transnational terrorism. They are part and parcel of the host of trading-with-the-enemy laws which have existed during every modern armed conflict as well as many of the unarmed sort.

Countries either inhibit or promote international capital flow on the basis of perceived national interest. If it is in a country's national interest to do so, capital flow will be encouraged by all available means. If the self-defined national interest requires inhibiting the movement of money, such will be the case.

Even the most capitalistic of countries, even the most vocal exponents of open, free trade will and have when national interest requires operate to restrict, even end the ability of money to cross the border. This sweeping statement applies to the US as much as to any other free trade oriented economy.

National interest should be the sole basis for a country's policies on immigration. If the self-defined national interest is best served by enhancing the in-migration of foreign workers of a given or even all categories of worker, then the borders should be opened accordingly. If the converse applies, the borders should--must--be closed.

National interest may include the admission of aliens for humanitarian reasons. Or because a person or group faces persecution at home. These non-economic considerations are a legitimate component of national interest as they reflect the values and ethical imperatives of the nation.

Importantly, there is no human right to enter any given country. The US is under no ethical or legal imperative to open its borders for any reason other than as a consequence of national interest. For this reason (as well as many others) no country has the right to demand that we admit their citizens. Likewise they have no standing to criticize efforts by the US or any of its several states to arrest and deport foreigners present without legal status.

The concept of criminal trespass exists not only as regards privately owned property but for nation-states as well. In a federal system of joint exercise of sovereignty the several states have as much right and duty as the central government to prevent or punish those who are criminal trespassers. This is what Arizona has done, effectively to place into a state context the already existing federal law.

Mexico and the several Mexican states already do the same. Sr Calderon knows this even if the majority of the Open American Borders party do not. It may be possible to forgive the Open American Borders party members for their ignorance and its consequences. It is not possible to do the same for Sr Calderon.

Sr Calderon needs to get a grip on the realities of life. He needs to go home and concentrate on forcing the Mexican elite to live up to their collective responsibility to act in a way calculated to so improve the lives of Mexicans generally that the need to enter the US without the benefit of law as well as the drive to join the criminals in their war for money are, if not obviated, at least lessened.

Hot News! We Yankees Are All Fascists

Ecuador is--or was--a nice little country with fascinating people and some of the most magnificent scenery on the planet. Quito, the capital, was a fine place to visit or even work, once one adjusted to the altitude, a process greatly facilitated by chewing the leaves of a locally available plant.

At the first sign of a headache--an almost inevitable consequence of a lowlander's addiction to the thick air of lesser altitudes--a local fellow of unmistakable indigenous ancestry advised the Geek, chew the coca leaf. The Geek did as told. The man's helpfulness impressed the Geek. Even more the Geek marveled at the adaptability of both physique and culture exhibited for millennia by Los Indios. Not only had they survived, they had triumphed over the rigors of the Andes. While the original inhabitants had not been so victorious over the onslaught of the Spanish and other Europeans, their strength and determination as well as the resilience of the culture hinted strongly that they would not be kept down and marginal forever.

It was with memories of Ecuador's remarkable indigenous population that the Geek was initially open and welcoming to the advent of Ewo Morales, the first elected member of Los Indios to become the country's president. Even the initial linkage between Morales and that most reactionary of South American political leaders, Hugo Chavez, occasioned no more than slight doubts as to Ecuador's future under the new regime. People as obviously survival oriented as the Indian Ecuadorians could not be so suddenly afflicted with a drive to collective suicide as to actually swallow the pap of the Bolivarian Socialists.

President Morales has made Hugo Chavez' crusade against the US his own cause in recent months. His "Peoples" conflab on global warming demonstrated this in many and varied attacks on the US, US imperialism, US capitalism, and assorted other purported sins of North American origin. Assorted Leftists from around the world applauded each and every attack as if it had never been made before. And, as if true.

Morales is far from alone in his antipathy for the US. This unfortunate reality is apparent in an opinion piece in La Hora today. Written by one Roberto Santillian Peralbo, the diatribe is as full of invective as it is deficient in historical accuracy. One can only assume that Sr Peralbo is writing for an audience even more ignorant of some of the basics of both North American and global history than is he.

Take a dekko at it,

The ideologues of the empire dreamed that the Anglo Saxons who colonized North America were the “superior race,” to whom God had bestowed the “manifest destiny” so they would govern the “inferior races.” They killed the Indians in a cruel genocide, took away half of Mexico’s territory by force, Arizona included, which just now has passed a criminal law that criminalizes (sic) undocumented migrants. The empire intervened militarily in all the countries south of the Rio Grande.

They created a “model of democracy” and in its name they have committed crimes against humanity by wars and by imposing dictatorships. In the Virginia Declaration, those calling for independence held that all men are born free and equal, except the black slaves, the Indians and women, the Hispanics and the Asians. The United States was formed by immigrants, and became an economic, military and political power thanks to their labor and the theft of brains. When World War II ended, unleashed by Hitler, another one who believed that the Aryan race was superior, it stole or kidnapped tens of German scientists and it became an atomic power.

The United States abhors migrants, and the xenophobia has converted them into criminals. No one is accountable for the deaths of tens of undocumented persons in its jails and hundreds of murdered ones in the deserts of Arizona or Texas. The Arizona Law is pitiless and cruel regarding the “illegals.” It empowers police to detain any person merely due to their appearance. The color of the skin converts persons into criminals. Gigantic absurdity, worthy of the ideological descendants of Nazi-fascism defeated 65 years ago.

How long are the peoples of the world going to tolerate the inhumane imperial decisions?

It would take all too many words to comment in detail on all the wholesale abuses of history contained in this short essay. The horror in Sr Peralbo's ranting is not that it commits "historicide" in the first degree or even that it mischaracterizes to the point of defamation not only the recently enacted Arizona law regarding illegal aliens as defacto and dejure criminal trespassers but each and every law in each and every country (including Ecuador) which defines citizenship, legal alien residence, and the illegal presence of a foreign immigrant.

Sr Peralbo shows an all-too-common fault in all who claim to know history, who declare the untrammeled right to sell their personal (mis)understanding of history to any ill-informed enough to buy the product. That fault, a fatal one, has been found repeatedly in the writings and speech of those who neglect the fundamental responsibility of all who deal in history.

The responsibility was expressed pithily more than a century ago by a German historian, "to tell history as it actually was." Fulfilling this responsibility is not easy. It demands a degree of detachment from the whims and passions of the present moment. It demands the intellectual and moral courage to "tell it as it actually was" and not as one wishes it had been or fears it might have been. It demands risking public opprobrium--and worse--for one cannot be an honest purveyor of honest history and also be socially and politically correct.

It is hard to believe that the post-modernist belief that every person's version of history is as valid as every other person's has penetrated to Quito. It is a falsehood more typically found in New York, Boston, or Washington, D.C. Apparently, Sr Peralbo either has drunk deeply at the elitist wells of academia or he seeks to curry favor with the regime of Ewo Morales.

If it is the latter eventuality, which is the more likely, then it shows that the Ecuadorian version of Bolivarian "Socialism for the Twenty-first Century" has gone the same dark road trod before by dictatorships both current and past, both well remembered for their infamy or deservedly forgotten in their failure. Dictatorships given to the extreme perversion of history exhibited in Sr Peraldo's essay do so because of deep rooted fear.

The fear is simply that they will not remain in power. Regimes which come to power by promising complete equity, total justice, absolute equality, never succeed. History shows that beyond even unreasonable doubt. The inevitable failure to deliver on the grand promises made ultimately spells downfall. The most common resort of the dictatorship--and make no mistake about it, command economies and the squashing of internal "counterrevolutionaries" must become dictatorships--is an appeal to national pride, nationalism in its rawest form coupled with the blaming of all difficulties on an external, necessarily evil, source.

For Sr Peraldo as for Presidents Morales and Chavez, the evil enemy must be the United States. Whether directly or as the portmanteau for capitalism and imperialism, the US must be cast in the role of the Great Evildoer. In pursuit of this any perversion of history is justified. Any lie is made the truth.

The pity and the tragedy in this exercise in fear driven mendacity is that it hurts only the people of the nation. Only the Ecuadorians will finally suffer from the lies and blandishments of Sr Morales--or Sr Peraldo. It matters not to the American people or their state that Sr Peraldo portrays us as fascists, racists, as xenophobic imperialists bent on exploiting and subjugating people everywhere.

We know that these slurs are as far from truth as it is possible to get. Ecuadorians don't enjoy this advantage. They can and will be taken in by the prevarications of Sr Peraldo and other regime apologists. They do not know the truth.

And, it still remains that only as one knows the truth can one be free.

Which Is Worse--Harassment Or Getting Killed?

Reading the Mexican press gives one the impression that the State of Arizona has not simply declared war on Mexico but intends to wage genocide on Hispanics generally. Even making due allowance for the hyperbola so common in the exercise of the favorite Mexican occupation of Bash-the-Yanqui, the rhetorical overkill is exceptional. (Reuters brings a very mild English language example of the outburst of outrage, here.)

Articles in Spanish intended for domestic consumption are far more extreme as are the frothings of politicos at all levels from village mayors to El Presidente. There is no doubt but many of these worthies, both journalistic and political, have convinced themselves--or at least desire to give the impression of having been convinced--that Arizona has declared a free-fire zone on any and all people who might have a tan skin and/or speak with an accent.

The Mexican rants have been seconded strongly by assorted politicians and public figures--including the ever camera-ready Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Additionally all segments of the blogosphere to the right of Attilathehun.us (The Geek hopes no such site exists) are serving up the view that the Arizona law regarding illegal immigrants will be followed instantly by posses of Tea Party types equipped with fully automatic weapons gunning down any and all who cannot prove beyond the shadow of a 'birther" doubt their right to breath good old 'Merican air. (Note: there are too many examples available to merit links.)

It is time to get a grip, bucko.

Actually, there are two realities upon which a firm grip must be taken. The first, and most obvious, is the motives behind the Arizona enactment which is, in the Geek's estimate, perhaps, but only perhaps, a tad over the edge. The second, the more important is the base hypocrisy hiding under the clouds of Mexican outrage.

Arizona, like the Geek's home state of New Mexico, is heavily Hispanic. It is quite possible that the state to our west exceeds the Land of Enchantment as an entrepot for illegal immigrants from throughout Central and South America. It is equally probable that Arizona has seen more spillover violence from the drug war currently in progress in Mexico than has New Mexico.

Certainly, more directly drug related murder has occurred during the past two years in the great cities of Arizona than in New Mexico. These homicides have been well planned, well executed, and have exhibited sophisticated tactics and weapons. Most, if not all, remain unsolved.

Given this concatenation it is not surprising that many residents (seventy percent in one recent poll) are afraid enough to support even the relatively drastic action represented by the Arizona law. It would appear that even Hispanic descent citizens in Arizona are more worried about the illegal immigrants and drug violence than they are of the police and the potential for such admittedly real hazards as profiling and harassment.

Being hassled by the cops is no fun. The Geek knows that well from numerous unpleasant such experiences at the hands of federal border agents and assorted local cops alike due to his (very) long hair, tan complexion, and Indian features. His own anti-authoritarian personality has done nothing to make these encounters any less unenjoyable (hopefully for the minion of the state as well).

Nonetheless, it is utterly certain that there are many things far worse than being rousted by a man with a badge and an attitude. These range from losing employment in favor of a less costly and far more amenable to exploitation illegal immigrant to being caught in the crossfire between businessmen seeking to settle trade disputes with rock and roll capable weapons.

Given the inability of the federal government to craft a solution to the problem of illegal immigration which can achieve an acceptable measure of consensual support among We the People it is inevitable that some state would make the first move. State governments no less than the one located in Washington, D.C. have the responsibility of securing the domestic order. When a problem such as that presented by illegal immigrants perturbs the tranquility and good order of a state's population, it must act or lose political legitimacy.

Arguably, the Arizona law has headed off more informal and far more intimidating, not to say violent, means employed by vigilance committees of one sort or another. That alternative is not all that remote given the fear created by homicides committed by illegal aliens--typified in an exaggerated and fortunately rare form in the recent killing of an Arizona rancher near the border by a man whose footprints went straight back to the border.

(In this context it might be recalled that Autoarms marketed its version of the famed Tommygun to ranchers along the Rio Grande with ads featuring the lone cowman confronting a group of armed Mexicans. The Thompson .45 submachinegun gave the lone ranger all the advantage needed to keep his humble house and herd safe from depredation. The ad campaign back in the Twenties kept the struggling company alive and the "tommy chopper" available for others including Al Capone and his violin case toting boys.)

Being no more of a constitutional scholar than is the current president, the Geek will not hazard a detailed assessment as to the probability that the Arizona law will survive court challenge. But, it probably will not given that even the federal courts are political bodies and sway wildly to the controlling gusts of political winds whipped up by the hoi oligoi.

It can only be hoped that the controversy stirred by the Arizona legislature and governor will kick Congress hard enough to produce the necessary federal immigration reform legislation. Accomplishing this task will not be easy given the polarizing effects of the reform efforts in the past. Squaring the circle of providing the "path to citizenship" while assuring border security as well as giving no hint of rewarding past violations of immigration law. (Hint: The time may be upon us to end the birthright citizenship which automatically accrues to any who take a first breath on some part of American soil. This might go a long way to gaining support for "amnesty.")

And now, the big enchilada--the grotesque hypocrisy of Mexican media and politicians alike. There is a basic problem with their crocodile tears over the fascist Arizonians. That problem is quite simply the vile things which happen to Central Americans during their passage through Mexico en route to the Land of the Big PX.

Folks from Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and other desperately impoverished and increasingly drug violence ridden Central American states are victimized by both criminals and officials on their long and very dangerous trek north. These illegal birds of passage are robbed, beaten, raped, kidnapped for ransom, and murdered in truly wholesale lots.

It has been reported that Amnesty International using data from the National Human Rights Commission believes that no fewer than ten thousand migrants were kidnapped in Mexico during a single six month period last year. Not only have criminal gangs including those normally associated with drug trafficking such as Los Zetas been perpetrators of the kidnappings, the robberies, the beatings, the rapes, and the murders, so also have members of assorted Mexican law enforcement agencies.

To the illegal traveler on the rails and roads of southern and central Mexico there is no way to tell the cops from the crooks other than the fact the first has the badge and the second the better weapons. Then, in northern Mexico, on the final approach march to the border, the cops and crooks are joined by the coyotes, the occupational traffickers in human beings whose expropriations and inhumanity make the behavior of the cops and crooks pale into virtual insignificance.

Those are the realities on the Great Road North.

Do Mexicans vituperate against these sins in their midst? Do Mexican media and political figures denounce those who rape, beat, rob, kidnap, and kill men and women from the countries to their south?

Of course not. Don't be silly. There is no profit in it. No votes. No better circulation or ratings. Anyway, who wants to sully the pure nation of Mexico, the nationalism of the Mexicans? That would only give comfort to the Yankees.

Then what about the Yankees? Does President Obama find the beatings, robberies, kidnappings, rapes, murders of Central Americans by Mexicans to be as despicable, as abhorent as he finds the Arizona law? Who knows, the record is silent.

What about the reverends Sharpton and Jackson? Silence again. Perhaps these two men of God are of the view that violence directed by brown against brown is just fine. Only harassment by the white guy with a badge of a brown person merits condemnation from pulpit or street demonstration.

And, where are the cries of alarm, the tocsin of opposition from the Left, from the Huffington Post, Alternet, the Daily Kos? Silence once more. Perhaps the beating, raping, robbing, kidnapping, and killing of the unarmed, impoverished by the armed impoverished is OK providing both parties are of the same color and language. As long as victim and victimizer are identical in color, language, and (presumably) socio-economic class no harm worthy of mention is done.

Only actions by the powerful, by Whites in a legislature, or wearing a badge or simply supporting the acts merit opposition, earn opprobrium, deserve the epithets. Thus the word, "hypocrisy" is spelled in both Spanish and English.

Get a grip, people. There is a real problem with illegal immigration. The Arizona law shows that unmistakably. Hurling words from behind the barricades of sanctimonious rectitude--and hypocrisy--will do nothing to advance a solution. Unless and until these people on both sides of the border can develop a solution which will be acceptable to the majority of We the People, the greatest service they can provide those of us born here, those of us who are here legally, and those of us who are illegal immigrants is to sit down and shut up.

"Friends" Tell "Friends" Tough Truths

Secretary of State Clinton was at her hectoring best the other day when she addressed the AIPAC conflab. During her exercise in telling the AIPAC heavyweights (and the government of Israel) just where it was at, she offered as justification the assertion that the best friend is one who tells the blunt, plain, unvarnished truth.

In the case of Israel the truth according to Ms Clinton is that Israel was in the deadest of dead wrong zones to continue the construction of Jewish housing developments in Jerusalem. While she did not mention it, there was a historical context to the continued construction.

Quite simply put, the US has tacitly approved of both construction in Jerusalem and its status as an undivided city within Israeli territory. When the government of Israel moved quickly in the wake of the Six Day War to declare Jerusalem to be both (a) undivided and (b) the capital of Israel, the US made no protest. While we did not move our embassy to Jerusalem, there was no other sign of even the mildest disapproval for the Israeli action.

Nor did the US utter the slightest dissent when each and every Israeli administration after 1967 moved to create "facts on the ground" in and around Jerusalem. The Israelis made no secret of their actions and we entered no demurrers.

Ms Clinton and her boss, Mr Obama, have reversed historical course. Regrettably, neither worthy has seen fit to acknowledge this reality let alone justify it. Both have proceeded to pressure Israel while giving the other side, the Palestinians, a free pass on any obligations to the "peace process." This self-evident "tilt" must be excusable in their minds because Israel is a "friend" and the Palestinians are not.

The Secretary of State's remarkable inability to either acknowledge the historical trajectory of US policy regarding Israeli construction in Jerusalem or explain the reasoning behind the sudden reversal is matched by her geographically based definition of the word, "friends." Consider her recent flying visit to Central America and her even more recent day trip to Mexico.

The subjects of both the Central American and Mexican jaunts were twofold: drug smuggling and illegal immigration. The first got most of the press play. The second, however, was by far the more important both to the US and our regional interlocutors. (It should also be mentioned that both drug running and illegal immigration are joined shoulder and hip, Siamese twins sprung from the same seed.)

Leaving aside the standard issue Hillary Clinton brand of schoolmarmish hectoring which dominated both sets of meetings, the major issues discussed were (a) the amount of money the US would be spending in Mexico and elsewhere and (b) to what end(s) would the money be expended. Some, even most of the greenbacks would be spent on traditional military and police needs, the importance of which were attested to by the presence and words of Secretary of Defense Gates and JCS Chairman Mullen. That was all rather typical yadda-yadda.

The surprise came with the second category of expenditure, the category which was particularly embraced and extolled by Ms Clinton. She termed this category to be "community development" which, from the description she provided, seems to be a lite form of nation-building. Apparently Ms Clinton and presumably her superior, Mr Obama, have convinced themselves that an approach which has proven to be an expensive failure in South Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan will work in a miniaturised form in Mexico and elsewhere in the region.

Of course, the "new" emphasis on "community development" underwritten by the gringos was applauded warmly by the Mexican government. Likewise other regional governments.

Reading the tales of largess soon to flow and the expressions of gratitude already pouring from those who are scheduled to be on the receiving end should have filled one with the warmth of friendship offered and accepted. But, this was not the case. For the offer and eager acceptance of money for denatured nation-building is not an act of genuine friendship.

Rather, the dangling of gigabucks was like the "friend" who gives the car keys to an obviously drunk associate.

The US as well as the countries of the region would have benefited far more from a gesture of friendship akin to that offered by Secretary Clinton to AIPAC and the government of Israel. We all would have been far better off if Ms Clinton had told a few blunt truths which need to be heard and heeded on both sides of the Big River.

Honesty and policy alike would have been properly served if the American secretary had told her listeners that the primary responsibility for both illegal immigration and the explosive growth of drug smuggling (and related violence) resided with the governing elites of Mexico and the other countries of the region. Illegal immigration and, to a lesser extent, drug smuggling are a necessary, expectable, and totally understandable response of a desperately impoverished people to their condition and the oppression which surrounds it.

The hoi oligoi of the region and Mexico in particular have assured poverty and repression are endemic. These ruling elites have pursued a set of social, economic, and political policies which have benefited those on top at the expense of those below.

Normally, the result of decades, generations of self-serving rule would have resulted in offensive insurgency, revolution if you prefer the less technical term. Offensive insurgencies have resulted in countries at a relative remove from the Rio Grande: in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala.

While lesser, more distant countries have fought and bled in wholesale amounts as a result of the combination of poverty and repression, Mexico, the "Mr Big" of the region, has been immune for nearly a century. This immunity has not come about as a result of benevolent or proper use of the vast natural resources available in Mexico. Nor has it been the consequence of the government, the elite, effectively employing the energy, talent, and skills of the large Mexican population.

Mexico has been immunized by geography. The US is conveniently next door. As the proprietors of the Land of the Big PX, the Yanquis provide the necessary safety valve for the most ambitious, most capable, most highly motivated segments of its population.

Emigrants, both legal and otherwise, not only remove themselves from the Mexican economy, they send literally billions of dollars in remittances every year. The combination goes a long way to assuring Mexicans do not demand a less unjust economic reality down south as well as lowering direct governmental expenses on domestic affairs.

Drug smugglers provide lucrative employment to many. The black economy in Mexico and elsewhere in the region is both vast and growing. The ripple effects of the black economy spread throughout the larger economy with results beneficial not only to the hoi polloi but the hoi oligoi as well.

The graft, corruption, and related rot are quantitatively greater but not qualitatively different from the pus filled cavities which have long riddled the police, judiciary, and government in Mexico and elsewhere in the region. It simply means more money flows through more channels again to the benefit of the hoi oligoi far more than the lesser sort of folk.

As a collateral benefit the great Mexican war on drugs provides a mechanism for further repression of any potentially uppity peasant. (Of course our government knows all about this given our significant experience at limiting civil and personal rights in order to wage the "war on drugs" more effectively.)

This entire herd of elephants was in the rooms where Secretary Clinton spoke. But, as we are not a "friend" of Mexico or the other nations of Central America, as we are a "friend" of Israel, she did not see fit to remind her listeners of their direct, material, even central responsibility for having created the problems of illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

She did not, for example, point out that the Mexican state has the resources necessary to propel the Mexican people to a high level of prosperity and, thus, social and political cohesiveness. She did not note that proper development of the offshore oil fields as well as necessary upgrading of the old fields would provide the necessary wherewithal to bootstrap the Mexican economy, state, and people into the developed world of the Twenty-first century.

Neither did she mention that Mexican agriculture and industry continued to languish in the main somewhere in the backwaters of previous ages. Nor did she urge her listeners to put aside the false god of nationalism in favor of promoting full development of the greatly underused human resources of either Mexico or the region generally.

In short, Ms Clinton was no "friend" of the Mexicans. She promised unneeded and counterproductive charity, "community development" funded by the US rather than the badly needed full usage of the internal resources both natural and human of the region, a process which could be facilitated by international investment.

A genuine "friend" would have demanded that the local elites live up to their responsibilities. A genuine "friend" would have required that the local elites quit looking to the US government, the US economy, the American people to carry the freight, to bear the responsibility for local, willful failures.

This would have been, in Al Gore's term, "an inconvenient truth." It would have been the truth even so. By falling in with the Mexican version of the politics of victimization she did nothing but assure the victimization of the Mexican and Central American people by their own governing elites would continue--as would the smuggling of drugs, the illegal immigration, and the violence which accompanies both.

At least Ms Clinton was consistent in one way. Her words to Israel were not those of a "friend." Neither were her highly selective words to the Central Americans. With "friends" like Ms Clinton, and, by necessary implication, President Obama, who needs enemies?

Coming Soon! (Im)migration Reform, The Sequel

One time Arizona governor and now Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has opined that the time has finally come for wholesale reform of American immigration (or as the governments south of the Big River term it, "migration") reform. She modestly allowed as she had been involved in the (im)migration game since 1993 so, she is perfectly positioned to know when times had changed and when the time was ripe for change.

The Secretary is also well aware of the pressure coming from governments from Mexico on south for the US to make the gate open widely. Assorted Central American governments have already communicated this desire in a robust and open way to the Obama administration and members of Congress. Now these have been joined by Ecuador, one of the three countries of the "Bolivarian Revolution." Apparently being a participant in "Socialism for the 21st Century" in no way prevents the government of Ewo Morales from demanding the US alter its (im)migration policies to the advantage of those seeking entrance into the Land of the Big PX.

As an issue in Mexico the (im)migration reform drive continues as a high profile way to gain political credit while not doing a darned thing to improve the lot of the average, long-suffering Mexican in the land of his birth and home. The same is true in Guatemala where trends in crime, murder, narco-trafficking, and general economic conditions decline without an effective governmental response following the path pioneered by Mexico.

At the same time the assorted Central American governments who want the US to open its doors wide to all comers are complaining mightily about the "smuggling" of Chinese, Africans, and others into their countries. Of course, these illegals are only in transit to the same Land of the Humongous PX as their own nationals, but that is a small detail. In short, all of our problems, the governments and assorted advocates allege, is the fault of the US, specifically its "inhumane" (im)migration policies.

Secretary Napolitano and worthies in Congress including Illinois Congressman, Luis Gutierrez (D), and New York Senator, Chuck Schumer (D), are stepping up to remedy the situation. The remedy will be a path to citizenship which will be "tough," including paying a fine, paying taxes, passing a criminal background check, and (horrors! say it ain't so!) learning English.

This proposal will be coupled with the usual whistles and bells of enhanced border control measures and (vaguely defined, and vaguely possible) increased sanctions on employers who knowingly hire illegals. Ms Napolitano downplayed the add-ons by saying that the porous border had been leakproofed by the addition of twenty thousand border guards and that high tech miracle, the not-yet-finished Great Fence of the Southwest.

In an amazing flight of rhetorical double think, the Secretary also sought to calm fears (if there were any in her left-leaning audience) by invoking the effect of the current Great Recession on the employment of illegals and thus the number of these aliens currently residing in the US. Her contention makes sense only if the Obama administration intends that unemployment will continue in double digits as far into the future as anyone cares to peer. Otherwise, her attempt to assuage the anxieties of others (including organized labor) regarding the impact of (im)migration reform on the job market is as wrong as a mountain lion chirping.

The Obama administration is, according to its point person on (im)migration reform, J.N. herself, committed to reform during 2010. It will support any initiative arising in Congress to this effect, but will not, apparently, seize the lead itself. Recognizing that (im)migration reform is not a popular topic for action within the majority of We the People, the courageous Obama and his equally heroic people will do what they did during the contention over health care overhaul--hide behind the Wall of Congress.

Letting the Congress Wallahs take the heat may be a popular course for the White House, but is not likely to appeal to all those who must seek re-election in 2010. Given what happened to the bipartisan reform bill two years ago, it is not probable that many will be eager to take on the problem of twelve million illegals and those who will come after them.

The (im)migration reform issue has always been one which has been characterized by strong emotions, expressions of the deep-rooted American identity crisis, and strong fears as to the nature of that identity both now and into the future. It is a matter tinged with racial and nativist colors. It has always been an issue in which epithets and curses have flown fast and far as the record of public discussion of (im)migration reform efforts not only two years ago but recurrently over the past century and more shows clearly.

Matters of national and cultural identity have never been without a very heavy emotional component because identity both personal and national is one of emotions not reason. As a purely artificial nation, the US has always been particularly susceptible to emotionalism in this area. This tendency is stronger now because of the prevalence within the American elite of a devotion to the totems of multi-culturalism, diversity, and cultural relativism which are not shared by the majority of the hoi polloi.

Since the emergence of the new media gives a voice to the hoi polloi, their views can no longer be ignored or silenced by the simple expedient of giving over the media solely to the approved voices. Now it is necessary to out-shout, out-insult, over power the disagreeable voices by sheer volume and repetition.

That course, the path of marginalizing and demonizing the opposition was blazed during the controversy over (im)migration reform two years ago. The person who was not in favor of opening citizenship to all comers was characterized as a racist, a xenophobe, a narrow minded bigot who was red of neck and possessed of an itchy trigger finger. The person who was not a full bore supporter of easy citizenship was painted in the darkest hues of hatred, fear, and reaction.

It is not that the opponents of (im)migration reform are free of the sins of tergiversatious, self-serving mis-characterization of those supporting reform but rather that the supporters were far more free of any inhibitions of civility. If the same trajectory is followed with the next round, the adherents of "E-Z In" will use the same approach--only more so.

The fight over reform will be nasty, brutal, and, unfortunately, not short. The deepest emotions are engaged. The most pervasive fears are fully present. Both sides will show themselves clinging to one semi-mythical past or its opposite even as they argue that it is the future with which they are concerned.

Let's hear it one more time for the old Chinese toast (and curse,) "May you live in interesting times."

Sure enough, bucko, we are doing just that.

The "Quito Declaration" Has Implications For US

An important conference happed earlier this week in Quito, Ecuador (the home turf of Rafael Correa, a stalwart of the "Bolivarian" movement headed by Hugo Chavez.) It was not covered by the MSM. It should have been. It was important.

The event was the Ninth Annual South American Conference on Migration. At the end of the proceedings, the delegates approved the Quito Declaration.

In principle, the Declaration provides for a single integrated citizenship for all those living in the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR.) The stated intent is that the provisions of the Declaration will extend to all of Latin America.

A Bolivian delegate stated that the Declaration was essential "to face the nations of the north." The US is one of those nations. Perhaps the most important if one is a Latin American seeking a better future.

Certainly, this is the view of Central American governments from Mexico on south. The demands that the US liberalize its immigration policies--not requests, not suggestions, not diplomatic hints: demands--have been coming from that direction for a long time now. From the perspective of these governments, the US is the safety valve on the local pressure cookers.

As violent crime flourishes beyond all past experience throughout Central America, driven in large part by the expansion of the Mexican narco-trafficking cartels into new geographic areas and new forms of criminal enterprise, the need for a safety valve has been seen as growing by the day. Delegations of Central American legislators have joined with their countries' diplomats in seeking fast action on the immigration reform effort by either or both Congress and President Obama.

The Quito Declaration will be an important part of the immigration reform effort as the unnamed Bolivian delegate made plain. The view from down South is simply that open borders are a good idea--for the US. It is a clear fact that Mexico and other Central and South American countries deal with illegal aliens far more expeditiously (and harshly) than does the US. Even the Quito Declaration is unlikely to change this in practice no matter how lofty the sentiments expressed in the document might read.

Governments sitting on pressure cookers look to their own protection first, foremost, and always. Inevitably, the result will be actions which protect to the maximum extent possible the local status quo, economically, socially, and, most importantly, politically. This is why the notion of open borders as the ultimate goal of immigration reform in the US is so attractive. And, why they will not exist in the near future anywhere in Central and South America, the Quito Declaration to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Quito Declaration will be brought to the Third Global Forum On Migration in Athens. It has already been endorsed by the International Organization For Migration's Deputy Director General, Laura Thompson. The International Organization For Migration (IOM) has been around since 1951 and has been the leading international outfit promoting freedom of migration.

The IOM has done a lot of good for migrants over the years. It does, however, have one important drawback. The IOM has never met an immigration control or limitation statute which it likes.

A fundamental, arguably, the fundamental requirement of national sovereignty is control of borders. This brings with it the right and authority to control who crosses the borders and for what reason and with what degree of legality. Unless a state can control both its borders and the nature of citizenship, it has no meaningful degree of sovereignty.

In a real but usually overlooked sense, the conquest of the native Americans by the interloping Europeans was a record of what happens when a nation has no concept of statehood--statehood with definable and enforced borders. Regardless of any other achievement, the inhabitants of what is now the United States had no concept of land belonging to one particular nation. No concept of borders. No concept that borders defined the sweep of authority, the sweep of right belonging to a people.

The Native Americans lacked the experience based moxie to demand that the passengers of the Mayflower show their visas, take out citizenship papers and become landed immigrants. The Europeans already knew that borders mattered. They knew the relation between sovereignty and borders. That was why they fought so many wars--seeking to redraw the map, redefine the borders.

The notion of open borders or even that of easy routes to citizenship for those who have violated borders is antithetical to the sovereign existence of a state. It condemns the nation-state to retreat to the status of nation alone, or, to put it bluntly, a tribe.

The same speciously attractive notion overturns the long standing political compact between a citizenry and a government, which holds that government is responsible for protecting the lives, property, and, by extension in recent decades, the future economic and social security of the citizen. By easing paths to citizenship for those who have entered the US illegally, or by failure to adequately protect the borders against illegal incursion, the Federal government fails in one of its primary duties.

To the governments of Central or South America with the pressure cooker boiling beneath them, the duty of the US government to its citizens is of no import whatsoever. Their primary duties are to themselves and, perhaps secondarily, their citizens. Thus the Quito Declaration is far more likely to be honored in the breech in the land(s) of its birth than to be a weapon ultimately directed against the United States.

It is of little or no importance to the governments of Latin America or the idealists of globalization including the IOM that the US or Western Europe for that matter cannot absorb all those who might wish to find an allegedly better future here. The days of seemingly unlimited employment in the ever-expanding economies of the North--including the US--are over. Dead.

Killed by the combination of global population growth, exportation of jobs overseas, technological transformation, and, most recently, the lingering effects of the Great Recession. Even employers in the American service and construction sectors will have to acknowledge this new reality and seek employees from sources other than illegal immigrants.

This means the governments sitting on the assorted pressure cookers of Latin America will have to look to themselves--and foreign investment--to address the underlying problems which produce the heat under the pot. They will have to address the inherent inequalities of economy, society, and polity rather than hope to force the US into adopting an open border policy under whatsoever guise.

The new realities of life also dictate that the "progressives" of the American chattering, academic, and political elite will have to abandon their notions regarding the need for open borders--or anything approximating that idea. If nothing else, these worthies would be well advised to consider the recent arrest of an illegal immigrant from Jordan who was beavering away in the effort to blow up a sixty story building in Dallas.

Borders are real. They exist for real purposes. They define a nation and the state that nation created to advance and defend its collective interests. They are not mere lines on a map or in the sand of the Southwest. Borders are us, We the People. They are the perimeter by which We the People, our hopes and fears, loves and hates are defined.

That is why they must be defended--even against the Quito Declaration.

Once A Mexican, Always A Mexican

Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Relations, Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, while at a working session of a government entity called the Office of Mexicans Abroad insisted that the basis for a new relation with the United States must rest on something she termed, "global migratory reform." In an effort to define what was meant by this, the Secretary invoked an ideological dictum closely resembling that put forth by the Nazi Party's office charged with relations between the Fatherland and Germans living elsewhere in the world.

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.

How's Your Spanish?

If your grip on Spanish of the Central American-Mexican variety isn't good, you had best get to work on it. There is still time to master the tongue. But (you knew this was coming, right?) from the perspective of Mexico City, not too many days or maybe minutes. Those lads seem to be in a heck of hurry or muy pronto, if you prefer.

Consider a couple of recent articles from the Mexico City press. The first is from Excelsior and was published a couple of days ago. According to the report the full assembly of the Chamber of Deputies has passed what they term a "Point of Accord" in which the sense of the Chamber is conveyed to the Foreign Minister.

To put the thrust of the Point of Accord bluntly but not unfairly, the Chamber wants the ForMin to work with dispatch toward the less-than-modest goal of convincing the US to "regularise" the status and "end human rights violations of migrants now living and working in the US." Unpacking this demand makes it read as a Mexican version of President Reagan's famed call at the Berlin Wall, "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Among those speaking in favor of the Point of Accord was Edmundo Ramirez Martinez, chairman of the Population, Borders and Migratory Affairs Committee. This politico is perturbed by the US attempts to control its own borders. Or at least that which is presumed to divide the US from Mexico.

He pulled out the rhetorical stops and put the tongue's pedal to the metal with a luscious rhetorical fusilade.

"We regard with concern some of the statements of Secretary Janet Napolitano, in which she sets forth that the militarization of the border would be to bring the end of organized crime on the border, because in these statements she continues to associate the issue of migration with that of security. The Mexicans who work there are not terrorists and for that reason we have stated this to North American congressmen with great concern"

A fine counterpoint to the Mexican position was reported the same day by El Universal. The leaders of several Central American countries were having a high level palaver in Managua. The president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was reported to have said, “to emigrate is a human right and not a crime and we’re going to ask him that the issue of migrants be removed from the security agenda and that it be moved to the development agenda.” By context it is evident that the "him" referred to was Vice-President Biden. Why the veep and not the Prexy, the Geek knoweth not.

If you put the two reports together you get a good view of the policy direction not only in Mexico but in the republics of Central American generally. The policy might be characterised as "Cross the line and you're home free, compadre."

The governments down south have some strange ideas about the nature and character of borders as well as a nation's right to control those borders. One cannot help but note the robustness of Mexico's efforts to prohibit, or at least limit, "undocumented" movement across its southern border. The same pattern can be noticed with each and every of the CentAm countries.

The Geek can well understand the internal forces at work in Mexico and the others. Honduras, for example, is a very poor country with an official exchange rate GDP for 2008 of 13.78 billion dollars which is significantly less than the same year's "GDP" of the Mexican drug rings which is conservatively estimated at twenty billion bucks. With a per capita income of less than four kilobucks, it is easy to see why the Honduran president would love to see wide open American borders.

Honduras' per capita income is less than Guatemala's $5,400 or El Salvador's $6,400 and far behind the $11,900 of Costa Rica. While the newspaper was silent on the matter, the Geek has to wonder whether President Daniel Ortega who presides over an economy so pathetic that the per capita GDP is even lower than that of Honduras seconds the opinion that the US must open its borders to all comers from down south.

The US has no obligation to become the hemispheric sump for all those millions who are economic refugees. That is a given. While any number of employers have been and continue to be eager for very low paid undocumented workers, this is no reason for the US to drop impediments to free flow "migration" (to use the term preferred by the Mexican and CentAm governmental elites.)

The basic concept of the nation-state depends upon two conditions being met: Defined borders is one. Control of movement across the borders is the other.

The nation-state is a political reality which has existed as a bulwark against the unrestricted movement of peoples. While many High Minded sorts in academia and other (usually) harmless enclaves have long decried the existence of the nation-state as the fount of all wars and related icky-poo aspects of the human experience, the nation-state is not dead. It isn't even on life support.

The representatives of the nation-states which signed and ratified the various international conventions which define the movement of people as a "human right" had as their stated intent the removal of all barriers to the exit of people from a country. The President of Honduras should have been aware of this. Honduras is a signatory to the relevant agreements.

Nowhere is there any reference to "free" or "unrestricted" entrance to any nation-state. The US along with Mexico or Honduras has an absolute right under international law and convention to place restrictions of whatsoever nature on the right of entrance. Indeed, any and every state has an affirmative duty to restrict entrance when that is in the best interests of the indigenous population.

Admission of foreigners to a nation-state is an act of national self-interest or, on occasion, an act of international mercy. If the political elites of Mexico or other CentAm states want to see more of their "surplus" citizens admitted into the US, it is necessary to demonstrate how this is in the American national interest or how it is a fit matter for mercy.

This implies that Mexico and others must engage in the usual game of diplomatic horse trading. There must be a quid for the pro quo of admitting or regularising the status of their citizens.

This means simply that it is up to Mexico and Honduras and the others to make an offer that we can't refuse. Give the US government and We the People a reason to let more and more inhabitants of the Lands Down South to come here, perhaps to stay.

The Geek has a suggestion to make to Mexico. Open your oil fields to American investment and development. Not only will that help Mexico's economy it will benefit the US. Benefits deserve a bit of reciprocity. Say, something like an easier course to regularization and a reduction of ICE raids in the workplace.

The Geek knows the suggestion won't fly with the ever-so-tetchy nationalists of Mexico. But, without something along the lines of the exchange of money for people, there will be no ready solution that is minimally acceptable on both sides of the Great Fence of the South.