Guest Column
Understanding the wall
- Understanding the wall
- By Dan Lund
- Special to The Herald Mexico-El Universal
- October 9, 2006
For many, there is little question that the border wall is a matter to be condemned. All political parties in Mexico can unite on this proposition.
But when all is said and done, the wall stands as the substitute for a migratory agreement between the United States and Mexico, and as a substitute for any immigration reform in the United States. Railing against the wall may not deepen our understanding of each other, but it could serve as a point of departure to understand why the situation is so bleak, and to be thinking about what might be done meanwhile.
The wall is a monument to the post 9/11 mood of free-floating security anxiety in the U.S. In the meantime, Mexico is alone at the negotiating table. Neither Republicans nor Democrats fear a backlash from the Latino voter. And, the immigration rights movement has yet to show sustained capacity to mobilize, but more important does not have an articulated agenda of substantive reforms.
Mexico is alone at the table for negotiating a migratory accord in the ASPAN/NAFTA. After the early expectations of a Bush/Fox meeting of the minds, there never has been a sit-down to look for an “accord” with representatives of the two countries. Neither the NAFTA nor the newly incarnated North American Alliance for Security and Prosperity (ASPAN) provided space.
LOBBYING EFFORTS
Mexico talked about wanting an agreement, but the main initiative of the Foreign Relations Secretariat appears to have been hiring a PR firm to do fairly traditional lobbying inside the United States, with a focus on the U.S. Congress. An accord is a matter for diplomacy, not public relations; PR is used to influence legislation.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are convinced that immigration reform is a priority issue for the slowly growing Latino vote.
Some Republicans appear quite willing to appeal to the darker angels in U.S. culture when talking of the threat of foreigners, especially Mexicans. Worse, Republicans are not alone.
But, it is not a matter of Republicans and Democrats being “bad” on an issue. Neither party is convinced that the immigration reform issue (in its positive, integral version) is a voting priority for the Latino vote. In fact, nearly all the political issue and preference polls conducted over the past two decades in the United States, tend to show that Latino voters have a series of priorities in finding their vote preference that include something called immigration reform way down the list.
Further, the Latino vote is smaller than its promise. It is growing, but in real terms it is still less than half the vote turnout of African-Americans, in spite of the census data showing Latinos as far and away the largest minority grouping. In time, the Latino vote may well become coherent and powerful, but that time is not yet. So, the political parties can afford to tease and posture, but not produce.
The immigration reform movement in the United States does not have a proposal beyond mobilizing to demand rights.
At a critical point in its development, the U.S. labor movement produced a series of concrete legislative proposals that more or less matched its social goals for working people. At another historical moment, the civil rights movement there produced a series of concrete legislative proposals that crystallized its aspirations.
For the immigrant rights movement to say no to the wall and repression is correct and noble. However, the debate this year has been over guest worker programs developed by a couple of Senators (requiring millions of immigrants to return to their home country and get in line for a guest worker permit) or a naturalization project put together by others (requiring millions to just return home or risk going deeper into the clandestine).
It is probably not the time for the immigrant rights movement to say yes or no to what is offered, but rather to be part of a process of proposing. In any event, the immigrant rights movement is like the Latino vote — still a work in progress.
Mexico cannot afford to be a work in progress. Opposing the wall is necessary and correct, but is not a strategy at this point. It is simply making oneself clear, a bit after the fact. Perhaps the best idea is to do things that in fact help change the situation while a more favorable political climate is developing. My sense is that two critical areas of Mexican policy would help render the new situation.
Deal with the border, as the enormous security and economic problem that it is. Defending Mexico and the Mexicans of the border area is not a matter of criticizing those who criticize Mexico. It is a matter of developing a coherent border policy that integrates the use of public force with clear economic goals for the region. The northern border is Mexico’s big front door and porch; most everyone likes their front door and porch to speak well of them.
- Don’t wait to develop projects for testing whether good jobs will have a “braking” effect on emigration. State policy, with private participation, can be used in the direct creation of good jobs for the particular skills of emigrants by way of infrastructure building — roadways and reforestation are only the beginning of the list. If these jobs don’t slow or change the dynamic of emigration, Mexico will need to look carefully at the deeper culture of the regions. If they do, Mexico can consider how to expand and sustain such work.
- _________________________________________________
- Dan Lund is the President of MUND Américas, a market and public policy research firm in Mexico
- http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=35289&tabla=articulos
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed by HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com) without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)