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.

Immigration Reform--Once More With Feeling

To err on the side of accuracy, it's immigration reform, once more with too much feeling, too much passion. The torrent of emotion is understandable in that no subject has been more contentious in American history over the past century than that of the relationship between our collective national identity and immigration.

We the People have experienced periodic waves of identity crisis ever since the early Nineteenth Century. With only a little effort that starting date can be pushed back to the time of the War of Independence or at least its immediate aftermath. The divisive subject then was that of national language: English or German. Both were spoken by a large percentage of the American public and it was believed that our American identity required reinforcement by the establishment of an official language.

While the issue finally faded, it left behind an unanswered question.

The question?

Simple, basic, and not yet fully answered. How can a new nation-state founded on an abstract set of ideas only ambiguously set forth in the Constitution--rather than a long shared history, culture, and geographic sense of place--fully develop a national sense of self?

The United States then and now is unique among the nation-states of the world by its having been founded in an instant of time on the flimsy basis of mere ideas rather than having evolved organically within a single people bound together by language, culture, shared space, and a common history. Exacerbating the uniqueness and its concomitant problems has been our status as a "nation of immigrants."

The predictable consequences of these features of uniqueness have been the bouts of national identity crisis and their companion, suspicion and hostility directed against the most recent arrivals. From the Order of the Star Spangled Banner nearly two hundred years ago to the assorted border vigilance groups today, our history has been marked by apprehension and loathing directed against those immigrant groups presumed to present a threat to a coherent, consensual understanding of national identity.

We the People have a fine historical record of assuming that Catholics, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jews, Asians, and Hispanics would never "assimilate," embrace shared values, adopt community norms, speak English, and generally be-like-the-rest-of-us. From this We the People concluded repeatedly that immigration, particularly unchecked immigration, would rip our collective identity to shreds. With equal regularity We the People and those who (purportedly) represent us acted upon the assumptions and conclusion in order to control immigration so that national identity would not be put in peril.

The mythology of the threat presented by immigration overpowered other considerations regarding the roles played by immigrants in our collective life. At the same time the astigmatic focus on the immigrant-as-threat prevented effective consideration of the nature of our national identity and the relation between it and those who were newly come to our borders and shores.

Rather than deal with the basics of who-are-we?, debates over immigration reform have always been based upon matters of employment, social costs, community cohesiveness, and, quite openly before World War II, race. Proponents of restrictive immigration laws have focused on the need to assure jobs for the native-born, or the social disruption caused by clumps of non-English speaking peoples with habits, cultural expressions, and political values of foreign provenance. Those favoring liberalization have celebrated cultural, linguistic, and social diversity and have lauded the contributions made by immigrants to the collective wealth of our country.

Both sides have invoked justice, mercy, compassion, religious values, and moral considerations in the passionate pursuit of their cause. For more than a century the same arguments--even the same insults--have been deployed with only minor changes in wording. During the same period both major political parties have sought electoral advantage by either supporting or opposing restriction (or liberalization, as the position of the parties has reversed as dictated by the partisan reading of the contemporary zeitgeist.)

During all the many major fights over immigration the issue has not only possessed a foreign policy dimension, foreign governments have involved themselves both directly and indirectly in the domestic political battle. Over the generations the governments of China, Japan, Italy, and, more recently, Mexico and assorted Central and South American countries have invested diplomatic capital in the issue.

Nothing is different today as Senators Schumer and Graham outlined their bipartisan proposal for immigration reform to the approval of President Obama and legions prepare to demonstrate in Washington to demand immediate action. The proponents of reform including a form of earned amnesty for the eleven million or so illegal immigrants currently resident in the US have hauled out all the usual arguments adding only the long out of style issue of "race." Opponents are already loading the big guns with old ammunition of jobs-for-Americans and fear of social disruption.

In the not-so-distant background loiter the high-minded idealists of unlimited migration as a basic human right and the not-so-high-minded governments and elites of Latin American countries seeking to assure that the US remains the always available safety valve for their unemployed populations. Also standing in the near shadows are those of We the People who harbor a deep fear of change for whom the immigrant is the fiend, the "other" who embodies all the many causes of their fears.

If, as it generally is, the past is but prologue, the upcoming fight over immigration will be nasty, filled with vituperative attacks, appeals to both high morality and base self-interest. It will end in a result which is guaranteed to be completely unsatisfactory to the hard core on each side.

Most importantly, the fight will prove inconclusive as have been all similar immigration reform contests in the past. The reason for this conclusion is simply that any discussion of immigration which does not focus on the nature of the American identity and its recurrent crises misses the centrality of the matter.

Defining national identity is every bit as important as defining and maintaining territorial borders. Perhaps more so. Borders mark our periphery. National identity constitutes our very center, our heart and soul as a nation.

We had all best get a grip on that.

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.

Coming Soon! Americans Are Xenophobic Racists

Way on the back of the agenda stove, a pot is bubbling. It's hard to see at the moment given the roiling steam from the various kettles on the front of the stove: health care "reform," climate change "reform," the AfPak "review.

But, if one peers quite hard through the hot miasma it is just possible to see the small pot called immigration "reform." It's there. And, it will boil over sometime early next year.

The Mexican government is pushing for it. So also are large segments of the Mexican public opinion molding elite. Immigration (or as the Mexican government calls it "migration") reform is a must do for the Mexico City jefes grandes.

We Norteamericanos must make no mistake about the importance of opening our borders--or, failing that, to "regularize" the status of the estimated seven million or so Mexican nationals currently residing illegally within our borders. There are a couple of compelling reasons for this push by Mexicans both in and out of government.

The first reason is simply that the US is the safety valve protecting the status quo from the well merited wrath of the majority of the Mexican population. Without the US acting as a great vacuum sucking off the economically deprived, politically marginalized, socially repressed citizens, the status quo would be threatened to an extent far surpassing even the worst excesses of the narcotraffickers and other criminal organizations.

The second reason is tied to the first. The remittances sent home by Mexicans both legally and otherwise living and working in the US is a critical component of the Mexican economy. The cut back in remittances experienced since the onset of the Great Recession has cost the Mexican economy literally billions of pesos--or dollars, if you prefer. At the same time the decrease in remittances has forced the Mexican governments both Federal and State to increase their social program expenditures. This increase cannot be afforded without pain to either the government, or worse, the elite.

Mexican opinion molders have and continue to take the position that the American population is by and large composed of a foul mix of xenophobes and flat-out racists. This view is also held by Americans of the chattering class who are of Mexican descent. It is interesting to note that Mexicans themselves are far from free of the same alleged "sins" when queried about the presence of non-nationals in Mexico.

To put the situation bluntly, Mexicans are no less given to resent the presence of non-nationals, particularly those who are present illegally as much or even more than do Americans. The reasons are much the same: the nature of national identity, national pride, national loyalty.

Recent polls of Mexican opinion by both the Zogby and Pew organizations have found that roughly a third of all Mexicans would prefer to go to the US if given the opportunity. The reasons given focus on crime, governmental corruption, and, first among almost equals, the Mexican economy, or, to err on the side of accuracy, the lack of good jobs.

The Mexican respondents to the Zogby pollsters underscored that any form of amnesty would increase the number of illegal immigrants. This base line belief is underscored by the findings of the Public Policy Institute of California which determined that some forty-two percent of all Mexicans now having Green Cards were initially illegal immigrants.

The net effect of all the opinion polls is that any form of amnesty would constitute a green light for illegal immigration. There is no two ways about that. This reality in and of itself is not alarming.

"OK, Geek, if that isn't something to worry about, what is? Language? Or, how about religion?"

Well, bucko, neither is the big enchilada. At least not today. Both were critical in the past. You have to remember that the only reason the US did not take all--or even most--of Mexico following the Mexican-American war was the fear of Catholicism. Regarding language, any number of studies over the decades have shown that Mexican immigrants follow the general immigrant model of learning English--and assuring their children have English as their first language.

The largest potential problem comes in the form of primary loyalty. The most disturbing feature in the Zogby survey came in questions three and four.

The second of these questions focused on loyalty. When asked if Mexican-Americans (a category which was understood to include both Americans of Mexican descent and those immigrating to the US) owed primary loyalty to the US or to Mexico, 68.8 percent replied "Mexico." Only 19.7 percent thought it should accrue to the United States.

The first question asked if the Mexican government should represent the interests of Mexican-Americans (again including those born in the US of Mexican ancestry), 68.8 per cent said, "Yes." A minority of 21.6 percent replied in the negative. (9.6 percent weren't sure.)

These two beliefs are troubling. To think that a foreign government should act as advocate for the citizens of another country is disturbing to say the least. It is most assuredly not a behavior which would be tolerated by even the most easy-going administration. Then there is the matter of loyalty. One is not a benighted jingoist if one holds the view that a citizen's primary loyalty or allegiance is to the country of citizenship.

If the Mexicans or their government were to act on either or both of these beliefs it would result in a major self-inflicted wound. There is no doubt that Mexicans in Mexico would--and do--reject the proposition that other Latin American governments should act to advance or protect the interests of citizens of Mexico who are of external descent. Nor would the very nationalistic and proud Mexicans accept the proposition that a Mexican citizen whose ancestors hailed from elsewhere now held primary loyalty for the once-upon-a-time homeland.

The Geek's roots run deep, very deep in the soil of the Southwest. His Apache ancestors welcomed (construed broadly) Spanish, Mexican, and Anglo "immigrants." He has had a ringside seat for the battle between two broad segments within the population of Americans of Mexican descent.

On the one hand were those who saw themselves as Americans. They self-identified on census and similar forms as "White." Many eschewed even the "Spanish surnamed" category as they perceived no essential difference between themselves and other Americans, the "Anglos." These folks did not claim minority status. Nor did they embrace the politics of victimization. Even today they resist the tribalization of American society.

On the other hand were those primarily but not exclusively people born in the US to parents of American citizenship. These individuals vigorously embraced the concept of La Raza. They saw themselves as being "victims" of the numerically dominant population--and the hard pushing Blacks of the civil rights generation. To many it was--and is--a battle between tribes for power, even for supremacy. They see themselves as engaged in a fight to the finish between themselves and both the Anglos and Blacks. It is "our" tribe against "theirs."

When the pot on the far back burner of the agenda stove boils again, We the People will have to make a choice. No, not the simple choice between immigration "reform" and none.

We the People have to make a far more difficult set of decisions. We have to define just who we are and what we are all about. The people of the US have a long history of what might be properly termed "crises of national identity." In the past these recurrent identity crises have been ended abruptly by either defining people out of our nation (see the Chinese exclusion acts, or the "Gentlemen's Agreement on Japanese immigration or the assorted national quota acts of the past three quarters of a century) or by proclaiming the specious existence of the mythic "melting pot."

With the American population at or over three hundred million and the structural changes of the US economy, the time is past for either mindless exclusion or comforting myths. It is to be hoped that this time unlike the previous efforts to address the reality of burgeoning illegal immigration, We the People will hold a serious discussion of our nature, our characteristics, and, our capacity to absorb more people from backgrounds and cultural imperatives different from those prevailing here.

Simple answers such as those which will be offered by the multicultualists or the nativists will do us and our collective future no good. Espousing open borders and declaring the death of nationalism is both unrealistic and counterproductive. So is slamming the borders shut. Establishing a hermetic sealing keeping the bastards out is equally unrealistic and counterproductive. Only a genuine and far reaching debate over our collective nature, values, and defining characteristics will be both forward-looking and useful.

So, if history is the guide as it usually is, we won't do it.

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.

One More Search For An Easy Out

There is little doubt that the results of last weekend's North American summit was a disappointment for advocates of immigration "reform" in the US. Bowing to the winds of political realism, President Obama admitted that there would be no effort in the direction of establishing a "pathway to citizenship" this year, campaign promises to the contrary notwithstanding.

While it may be a refreshing novelty to see the ambitious and energetic Nice Young Man From Chicago acknowledge that his Agenda of Transformation might have been a tad overreaching in its breadth, this is no way has changed the view of governments from Mexico City on to the south. In the Central American region, there are few (if any) matters of greater importance than the Great Gringo of the North opening its borders.

It might be argued that there are other, far more pressing issues than what the CentAm politicos and opinion molders call "migration," such as rampant crime, increasing poverty, and severe fraying of the social compact. However, a review of the region's media quickly shows the facility with which each and every one of these is linked to the unwillingness of the US to open its borders to all comers.

Mexican governmental officials in common with their colleagues in most Central American countries agree that the economic and social problems currently faced are monumental. But, almost without exception, the next sentence pushes responsibility onto the US for its "failure" to "reform" its "migration" laws and policies.

There is no arguing against the contention that immigration both legal and illegal has been and is critical to the social and economic stability of Mexico and other countries in the region. Not only does the aggregate of remittances from "migrants" provide highly significant revenues, the border serves as a social and political safety valve of great value to regime stability.

With the decrease in the number of "migrants" as well as the total value of repatriated remittances, the money available in the lands south of the border has decreased. At the same time the direct and indirect costs of higher unemployment and its attendant factors have increased. From public assistance to the internal drug war, the expenses have gone fast boost right on through the stratosphere.

By focusing on the Great Gringo Conspiracy To Fence US Out, the Mexican government and its elite supporters have sought to avoid responsibility for the well-being of all Mexicans. While the same may be said of other regional countries, Mexico is the local seven hundred pound gorilla as well as being the number one source of both "migrants" and complaints about American policies on "migrants."

So, it deserves the pride of place.

Mexico has large economic problems. No one would dispute this. It is also a country of vast resources, an energetic and able population, and tolerably well developed essentials such as education and public health. Again, few, if any would dispute this.

The answer to Mexico's economic difficulties does not reside in outsourcing Mexican workers to the Land of the Gringos. It rests with the development of Mexico's indigenous resources, both material and human. This, of course, costs money. A lot of money.

Mexico has a lot of exploitable minerals. It also has a whole lot of oil. Additionally, the country has very large and unexploited agricultural potential. It deserves mentioning that the minerals and oil as well as much of the agriculture was initially developed (some would say mercilessly exploited) by foreign, particularly American, money and interests.

That reality constitutes one of the two dinosaurs at the dinner table that the highly nationalistic Mexicans do not want to admit. (The other is the Mexican responsibility for the Mexican-American War in the mid-1840's. More of that in a few minutes.)

Porfirio Diaz was an autocrat. A dictator who overstayed his welcome by quite a few years. A century and more ago, after having left seminary to join the war against the US, Diaz went into politics. He became president. A sort of an early form of president-for-life. As such he oriented himself to the economic development of Mexico. In the process he sold most of the country to foreigners, particularly Americans.

During his thirty-one years in office, foreigners, specifically the gringos, came to own the vast majority of the aggregate wealth of Mexico. Concentrating at first in agriculture including ranching, the outsiders shifted to the extraction industries, including the first development of Mexico's oilfields and then transportation and industry. While the foreigners, led by Americans, did exploit Mexican labor, they did not do so to an extent significantly greater than did the Mexican elite.

Along with abusing labor, the outsiders did create the infrastructure which supported Mexico--or at least those dining at the head of the table--for generations following the overthrow of Diaz and the decades of internal war which ensued. The impoverishment of Mexicans would have been orders of magnitude worse in the wake of the bloody and highly destructive internal wars had it not been for the fruits of the (nationalized post-Diaz) industrial, extraction, and agricultural infrastructure created by the Americans and others.

Even in the diminished form, these existed after stability was restored in the late 1920s. The artifacts of the gringo "robber barons" provided a sound basis for the continued development of Mexico during the years of the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. Not all Mexicans benefited from the structures left behind by the expropriated foreign investments. Not by a long way.

The government, dominated by PRI for more than three quarters of a century, benefited. So did those members of the elite which supported the continuation of the one party state. The mutual back scratching of PRI and the elite assured that prosperity would be ever more mal-distributed, and that proper investment in infrastructure and human resources would be neglected.

The consequences of this inequitable distribution of wealth and lack of investment in both infrastructure and human resource development were delayed through the 1950s, '60s, and '70s by the availability of Gringoland. Under assorted "guest worker" programs as well as illegal immigration, surplus workers were siphoned off to the north and the wages, at least in part, went south.

This approach was assisted by the growth of the co-production facilities established in ever growing numbers along the border. Mexicans got good jobs at rates of pay greater than deeper in the interior of the country and American (as well as other foreign owned) companies got a decreased cost of production. NAFTA was supposed to build upon and greatly expand this avenue of economic development.

This road paved with good intentions ran into the cross-traffic of globalization. One important result of the opening of China under President Clinton was the introduction of lower cost competition to Mexico. Not even the transportation costs offset the advantages of producing goods in China or elsewhere in Asia with the result that NAFTA never has reached its full potential for Mexican development.

A major answer to the economic problems which have become increasingly acute in Mexico over the past decade is found in the oilfields, particularly the offshore fields. The proper development of these will require money far beyond the capacity of the Mexican state-owned oil company to generate. It also demands expertise which is lacked by Pemex. To put it bluntly, the proper development of the nascent oil resources under the Gulf of Mexico as well as the repair and upgrading of the old fields requires outside investment and expertise.

Privately, few, if any, Mexicans would disagree that the best, fastest, overall economic development would result from opening the new fields as well as the old to co-production schemes involving US companies. Publicly, the embracing of this position would be political suicide.

Nationalism!

Mexico is so exuberantly, so joyously nationalistic, one would be forgiven in thinking it had been independent for only a handful of years rather than the two centuries which is the case. In its adamant, almost irredentist nationalism, Mexico more closely resembles a polity in the freshness of infancy than one which has attained a respectable maturity.

In its genuine infancy, Mexico made a few critical mistakes. First, it invited Americans to settle in the province of Tejas. Second, the Mexican commander sent to squash the rebellious Texicans was better at politics than at fighting a real, shooting war. Third, the revanchist minded Mexicans sought (successfully) a war with the US.

The Mexicans had a good war plan for fighting the gringos. They were so proud of it that it was even published in the newspapers of the day. They were also proud of their army, which Mexicans assured one another would speedily defeat the Americans and reclaim Texas and the honor lost at San Jacinto. The French and British governments both concurred with the Mexicans in this belief.

All were wrong.

The US actually let the Mexicans off easily with the peace treaty, given the military and political realities. Uncle Sam kept Texas, took California (which the Polk administration wanted very much as Polk saw the US as a Pacific Ocean power) and the land lines of communication between Texas and California, which meant what is now New Mexico and Arizona. The "large Mexico" faction prevailed in Congress for two reasons: no slave-friendly terrain was included outside of Texas and the US population was going through a peak of anti-Catholic sentiment.

Far from having been the victim of Yankee aggression as Mexicans have liked to think for the past century and a half, the war was sought, provoked, and entered into with glee by the Mexican government and elite. The truth hurts nationalistic egos, but there it is.

Not that many years later it was the US which reclaimed Mexico for the Mexicans when Napoleon III tried to establish a French "protectorate" over the country. Preoccupied by the War Between the States there was nothing the US could do at first. But, when the US reminded Paris that Sherman's Army of the West was now unemployed following the Confederate surrender, the overreaching French withdrew the Foreign Legion supporting Emperor Maximilian and that was that.

Of course, this American action receives little if any credit in Mexico. In the same vein the Mexicans give no public credit to the Yankees who laid the foundations of much of the nation's prosperity. Of such is nationalism comprised.

Now, rather than get a grip on the realities of life and invite foreign firms to assist directly in the development of the oilfields and other extractive industries so as to provide both jobs now and tax revenue necessary for development generally, the Mexicans look for the usual villain--the US. Rather than let go of the badly frayed comfort blanket of hyper-nationalism and actually do something constructive about the fundamental economic and social problems, the Mexican government and elite would much, much rather heave epithets and accusations at Washington.

It is far easier and much cheaper to demand "migration" reform in the presumed needs of Mexican social and economic stability than it is to drop the myth of a history which never was and spend money which the ricos would much prefer to spend on their own perceived needs and desires. It is simpler, if ultimately self-defeating, to whine about American unwillingness to accept every Mexican who makes it across the border than to take real, effective action to solve the problems at home.

Mexico is two hundred years of age. Almost as old as the US. It is long past time that the Mexican government act its age. Quit whining, stop your bitching about the border. Get on with the job of providing a decent present and future for your citizens. Even if it means having to accept foreign investment and investors for the first time in generations.

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.

So How About All That Mideast Oil?

There is a widespread belief that the US imports beaucoup oil from the Mideast with the result that we must make nice to the various feudal despotates of wonderful, zany world of oil, sand and Islamism. So, as they say in the sports world, let's go to the videotape.

Well, to err on the side of accuracy, let's go to the figures for last October (the most recent that the Geek has found) and examine just where our foreign origin oil originated. The numbers come from the Energy Information Office of the Department of Energy.

The number one source of imported oil was that dangerously unstable and often hostile country Canada which provided 2.066 million barrels per day. Canada far outstripped the number two offshore source, Saudi Arabia. The Saudis provided 1.435 million barrels per day. At this figure the Kingdom barely edged out Mexico which held the number three position with 1.256 million barrels per day.

Next in line was Venezuela. The neo-Castroite regime of Hugo Chavez provided 1.027 million barrels per day. Fifth place was held by strife torn Nigeria with 0.935 million barrels per day.

If the top fifteen exporters of crude oil to the US that month are considered, the total amount provided was 9.098 million barrels per day. Of this the four largest Arab sources (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria and Iraq) furnished 2.693 million barrels per day or roughly 22.2 per cent of all American imports.

(To put these numbers in perspective it should be recalled that the US is the third largest producer of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia and Russia. The most recent figure on US production the Geek's less than nimble computer fingers could find showed a domestic production of some 8.3 million barrels per day.)

The clear implication is simple. Should oil from the Arab states suddenly end such as it did during the prototypical oil embargo of 1973, the impact on the US would be significant but not crippling. A second implication is equally clear. The US can and should move to take mitigating actions, particularly as regards Mexico.

Mexico could furnish a greater amount of oil to the US in the near-term if its present producing fields and associated infrastructure could be improved. The mid-term prospects for Mexican oil would be greatly enhanced if the new off-shore fields could be brought online expeditiously.

The problem for both the near- and mid-term development of present and projected fields is money. More specifically, the lack of money by the Mexican national oil company and the government that owns it.

The source of this dilemma is historical. After Mexico nationalised its oil fields in a frenzy of justifiable nationalism three-quarters of a century ago, the laws of the country prohibit foreign ownership which is to say foreign investment in the Mexican oil patch. There is no doubt that the Mexicans were right in their desire to kick the foreigners (primarily Americans) out of their natural resource base given the record of crass exploitation and concomitant corruption.

But, that was then and this is now. The need and rationale for nationalistic zeal are gone. Gone but far from forgotten.

Enter diplomacy.

While the US casts about for viable, repeat, viable ways to reduce its overall use of fossil fuels, particularly oil without crashing either our styles of living or economy to pre-Twentieth Century levels, we have a genuine national and strategic interest in reducing, preferably ending, our importation of oil from the Mideast. The reasons for this conclusion are (or should be) self-evident.

Mexico has a need. From the perspective of the government and ruling elites the need is compelling and will grow more so in coming months and years. The Mexican need is simple. To paraphrase a recent statement by a committee from the Mexican Senate: Mexico must insist that the Obama administration and the American Congress reform laws so as to permit "fair and open migration."

Translation: Mexico wants the US to be the land of opportunity and remittance so that the surplus Mexican working age population can move North of the Border and send money home. This means some species of "immigration reform" which will provide real, substantial and material benefits directly to unemployed, ambitious Mexicans and indirectly to the stability of the ruling elite.

Given that immigration reform of this nature is at least as unpopular with a large number of Americans as opening the oil patch of Mexico is to the nationalist minded folks to the south, the outlines of a deal are apparent.

Mexico changes its laws so as to allow foreign investment (at least from its NAFTA partners) in the upgrading and development of its oil resources. The US engages in an exercise in immigration reform which meets at least the minimum Mexican concerns and apparent needs. The degree of openness in investment would be mirrored by the degree of openness in the US-Mexican border.

It's an old diplomatic practice. Goes by the technical term "you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours."

The Mexican government and elite might also be gently reminded of two important realities. The first is that Mexican nationalism can be protected by limiting the percentage of foreign ownership. The second reality concerns the internal Mexican economy. Improving and expanding the petroleum industry will mean more, higher paying technical jobs in Mexico and for Mexicans.

For the Mexicans it is a win-win proposition. All the government and elite have to do is put a bridle on nationalistic fervor.

For the US it is a win-sort of win deal. Cutting loose from Arab oil liberates foreign policy, puts more options in play, reduces the incentive for the continued deployment of American military forces in the Mideast and Persian Gulf. It also provides the potential for a "profit deal" (as Steve Martin once put it) investing in the new and improved Mexican oil patches. At the same time it introduces more foreign (both with and without documents) workers into the US at a time of economic distress with the potential for social and political turmoil that implies.

It is however, a time of (to quote President Obama) of "shared sacrifice." And, as history shows time after time, sacrifices are never equally shared as between a society's elite and its hoi polloi.

Sacrifice is necessary if the US is to achieve even the necessary minimal level of energy independence--that of eliminating Arab and, if necessary, other Muslim dominated states from our roster of oil suppliers. Energy autarchy, if that is what is actually meant by the buzz phase of "energy independence" will be a long time coming. Energy autarchy will require not only time, it will demand much money and some basic technological breakthroughs.

Lost in the Gore-ite and similar deep green rhetoric over the need to end human caused climate change (if such actually is at work) with its focus on still semi-exotic technologies of renewable energy and conservation is the need for measures which will meet US national and strategic interests in the foreseeable future. The US must vigorously pursue actions from those such as the diplomatic quid pro quo with Mexico to purely domestic matters such as mandating the use of irradiated foods (to reduce refrigeration requirements) and on-demand hot water heaters in lieu of the current practice of keeping jilly-poo gallons of water hot 24/7.

Finally, We the People and those who purportedly represent us at the Federal level must decide just what the hell we mean when we bandy "energy independence" around. The term has been with us for the best part of forty years now and we still don't have a consensus on what it means. Without that, any measure which we take is more likely than not to run afoul the Law of Unintended Consequences.

While we scratch our collective heads over that basic matter of definition, let's at least get a grip on the need to remove the assorted sand-and-oil despotates from our list of suppliers and look to our neighbors both north and south for agreements which meet best our collective interests. Anything less will simply be a matter of self-destructive political and ideological posturing.