Monday, December 26, 2005

 

Migration politics, finger pointing and backbiting

 

By Carlos Luken

 

Once again the president has painted himself into a corner, into the difficult position of making a vital choice between his only alternatives that are opposites. On the one hand his option may have a negative impact on the unity of his own party, and render great national economic and social repercussions. It could also tilt the course of the next presidential election towards the opposition. On the other hand, he may escalate already prevailing divisions and feelings of hysteria, while severing ties with his longtime foreign ally in a critically important neighboring country.

 

Its certainly not a good position for any leader to be in, but in this awkward case both George W. Bush of the United States, and Vicente Fox of Mexico, are in the same spot, facing an identical problem under identical pressures. And the issue is again immigration, with situations created by both countries’ folly and consequences for which each is responsible.

 

Immigration has been a problem for decades. Yet half a century ago both countries found a workable solution, during WWII, with the bracero program that promoted immigration and provided a needed workforce for U.S. factories and farms. Through simple and viable regulations, it controlled temporary working visas and had provisions for returning laborers to their homeland. But as veterans came home from the war and reentered the workforce, the bracero program was myopically deserted by administrations that failed to see beyond their noses.

 

Since then, United States and Mexican attempts to control the heat on what has become a pressure cooker have failed and exploded into a binational conflict.

 

For years the United States pragmatically solved periodic labor market demands. It simply chose to look the other way as business and farm communities promoted illegal immigration, at times contracting directly in Mexican rural areas. And when the labor needs ended, immigration controls were stiffened and the valve was again closed.

 

A scheme that was simple and workable, but also dimwitted and shortsighted.

 

While the “policy” solved short-term problems, it created long-term chaos. Immigrants who were illegally “allowed” in those years were unregistered, so there were no controls over their numbers or status in the U.S. Many remained and sought to make their temporary jobs longer lasting, with numerous employers welcoming them so permanent residency was also encouraged.

 

Concurrently, as Mexico’s population grew and cyclical financial crises erupted (too often) resources needed for infrastructure development were unavailable. Unemployment soared, so the lax and handy U.S. border arrangement was seen as a bona fide allowance for an unofficial open door immigration policy, one that served as a safety valve due to declining employment figures in Mexico.

 

Moreover, the government stalled in deterring migrants from leaving rural and poor communities to seek what was seen as their share of the American dream.

 

With the introduction of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and its impact on regional economies, the United States found itself outsourcing production to other countries, as well as exporting jobs. In the beginning Mexico flourished, as unemployment dropped and exports rose. But with the advance of globalization Mexico saw that it had not improved its infrastructure or competitive position.

 

Too, as the U.S. market shrank growing unemployment hit the middle classes, and it was forced to import cheap products and cheaper labor.

 

In the aftermath of 9/11 the need to secure the U.S. borders was understandably given priority, and while the U.S. economic and unemployment crises evolved again the shift from lax migration regulations to severe deterrents was implemented. Latin American immigrants were made scapegoats for the employment crisis – granted they were partially responsible, along with U.S. employers and officials, but this time the immigrants were also and unjustly linked to the Middle Eastern terrorist menace.

 

As discordant groups in the United States grew in number and exposure, and pressured the mainstream media and politicians to take notice, stringent legislative initiatives were introduced and passed by Congress. Media coverage given to anti-immigrant accusations, and the accompanying political rhetoric, strongly differed with the atmosphere of respect the Mexican government assumed for its migrants, which brought about an atmosphere of confrontation and prompted caustic statements by Mexican officials.

 

Both Mexico and the United States face serious diplomatic circumstances that have been neglected for decades, problems that have recently erupted into regrettable yet unavoidable confrontations. Unfortunately, while politicians are either arguing or taking extreme measures to soften political repercussions, many people on both sides of the border suffer as they hope for real, responsible and lasting solutions.

 

——————————

Carlos Luken, a MexiData.info columnist, is a Mexico-based businessman and consultant.  He can be reached via e-mail at ilcmex@yahoo.com.