Mexican Immigration to the United States: the Right Trend for the Wrong Reasons?

The New York Times published on July 6, 2011, an article titled “Better Lives for Mexicans Cut Allure of Going Wrong.” The main argument is that illegal immigration to the United States is going down in the last couple of years in comparison to a growing trend registered in 2000-2005. The reporter states that expanding economic and educational opportunities, rising border crime and shrinking families are important explanatory factors. These factors are as important as “economic slowdowns or immigrant crackdowns in the United States.”

The author quotes Professor D. Massey (Princeton University) saying that “for the first time in 60 years, the net traffic has gone to zero and is probably a little bit negative.” The reporter uses the example of the Orozco family in Arandas, Jalisco, to make his point, and quotes researchers from the University of California San Diego to show the wage and quality of life progress for the Jalisco worker in Mexico.

On July 12 in Zacatecas, the Mexican President, Felipe Calderón, pointed out to this article, along with a similar one in The Economist, as an attestation that this diminishing trend of Mexican emigration towards the United States was led by the uprising generation of job opportunities in Mexico and its economic growth, among other factors.

I certainly agree with the reasons of this diminishing emigration trend, although I would not give the same weight to all the different variables that the reporter mentions in the article. And certainly, I would not base my conclusions in the study of only one Jalisco family in Mexico. That makes no sense at all.

I would say that the main factor that is upholding the diminishing emigration trend is the U.S. economy downturn and the increasing anti immigrant laws in U.S. states. Since 2007 the U.S. is not doing OK in job creation numbers, and that is currently affecting job opportunities for illegal and legal immigrants. Focusing on two thirds of immigrant jobs, the illegal ones for the Mexican case, whenever there is a lack of job opportunities, immigrants try to find jobs in the same city or region, then they move from the original place to another city or region looking for a job, then they consider going back to their places of origin. This centrifugal emigration caused by a weak U.S. economy is generally financed by the savings of the immigrant, the Mexican family´s little capital that could be send to the immigrant, and little temporary jobs as emigration takes place, or a combination of all of the above.

In the meantime, (during the last four years, this is) as difficulties arise trying to find jobs in the U.S., immigrants send back home a clear message: “Stop coming, it is difficult to find jobs here, stay back home for the moment.” This process takes time and the results are clearly lagged, that is why we see a diminishing trend of Mexican emigrants toward the U.S. until 2010-2011. Indeed, this trend is bad news for the recovery of the U.S. economy.

The hallucinating statement that Mexicans are staying home because things are getting better from a microeconomic standpoint is just crazy stuff. Although from a macroeconomic perspective Mexico is a good place to invest, from a microeconomic standpoint the case of the Orozco family is just a nice, interesting, and even cute case study, non representative of the Mexican reality. If the reporter goes to other selected locations in Mexico, he would find other happy stories; but in doing serious research he would realize that Mexicans stay home because they have little or no choice.

Some days ago, the National Institute of Statistics and Geography released data that confirm that between 2006 and 2010 the average family income in Mexico has gone down in 13.7%. This means that the poorer becomes the poorest, the former poorest go starving, and that an important share of rich guys in this country is taking their money abroad. The justice system is a total mess, corruption is rampant all over the place, democracy is in great danger, and more than 40,000 death have become the historical legacy of El Presidente Calderón.

All this also means that as soon as the economic downturn in the U.S. is reversed, chances are very high that Mexican immigration towards the U.S. will go back to their 2000-2005 levels, although it is important to pay attention to the relationship between capital and labor in marginal terms. In certain Mexican regions, mostly because of former high levels of emigration and because of war dynamics, the shortage of labor points out to higher levels of income to fulfill the demand for labor, although the narco-lords are indeed offering competitive wages in these regions for relatively non skilled jobs. In any instance, the New York Times should be more careful in disseminating this type of poorly-backed information.

The Poet vs. El Presidente

El Presidente Calderón asserted some days ago that Mexicans should say “It’s enough!” to the criminals, and not to the government and the military.

El Presidente is losing it.

It seems that in the Mexico of El Presidente, the good are always good and the bad are always bad. The good guys always win the final battle to the bad guys, mostly because the bad guys always lose and the good guys always win. Happy end is always around the corner.

Mexico and Walt Disney productions, same thing.

El Presidente’s reaction came after thousands of Mexicans in twenty cities came out and marched to say “enough is enough” to criminals and politicians. Something really never seen in the post-revolutionary Mexico, at least after the protests of 1968.
The protests were led by a poet, Mr. Sicilia, whose son was brutally murdered by the organized crime in the small state of Morelos. It seems that most local and state authorities are deeply involved in protecting organized crime’s drug-trafficking activities in Morelos. Morelos is an example of what is going on (wrong) in the rest of the country.

And that is the problem. First, El Presidente is assuming that the authorities and the military are not part of the problem, but only part of the solution, indeed, “the solution.” But reality indicates the opposite. Thirty billions of dollars per year are used by Narco Gangs for three purposes mainly: Uno. Buying high tech arms, mostly to U.S. dealers and government (Rapid and Furious was cynically called, I think…). Dos. Keep on with the trafficking business, mostly buying drugs in South America and selling them to a growing and aggressively demanding U.S. market. Tres. Buying government and politicians’ protection along the way, buying (or killing) whoever stands in their way: local, state, federal authorities, politicians, governors, mayors, police chiefs, the military, even whole-country governments (Central America). The killing of local and state authorities generally take place when two rival gangs are fighting for the control of a city, town or highway. Federal and some military actions are said to be coordinated to protect the interests of certain powerful narco lords (El Chapo’s?). It seems that dollars buy everybody, sooner or later. The line between the good guys and the bad guys only exists in El Presidente’s mind.

Second. El Presidente’s claim is a desperate and direct break down of the social contract between the government and the society within the State. In a collapsing State, the government disassociates from one of the most fundamental and minimal tasks that the society expects government to perform: national security. Currently, Mexican government (at every single level) and the military are incapable to perform the minimum requirements to hold the assumption that Mexicans live in a functioning, secure State. Mexican national security is in the hands of American security agencies, drug consumption in the U.S. is not going down, drug consumption in Mexico is going up, drug trafficking is becoming more violent and more and more profitable, drug-related corruption is growing in both sides of the border, the war in Mexican territory is at its best (36,000 deaths in four years), government officials make stupid/surreal declarations 24/7 in both sides of the border, and federal authorities have been reduced to the official speakers of the Body Counting Company.

National Human Rights organizations have responded strongly to the crazy call of El Presidente: It is the responsibility of the Mexican government to guarantee security to Mexican society. Indeed, Mexican society has the right to protest, to demand for palpable results, and to demand a once and for all stop of the killings. On the one hand, the Mexican poet is naïve: he was surprised for the close to null reaction of state and federal authorities after the protests; and he uses to make statements in which the fight between the evil and Catholic God plays a main role. On the other hand, he is not stupid: he is learning fast, using his young years of Jesuit preparation to mobilize people under terrible, socially unfair circumstances; and he has put the finger where it hurts: organized crime and politicians, same thing in Mexico.

He is also heard by locals and foreigners, and he can involve the Catholic Church in the process of healing, peace negotiating, and leading the reconciliation process as a whole. Mr. Sicilia, although in great pain for the loss of his son, is the best and only man with real capacity to change things in the country. Most women, mainly in the north of the country, who have sadly shared a similar position, have already been murdered, and local/state authorities have done nothing to solve their crimes.

Yes, it is a total mess down here. But let me assert my firm belief that those Americans who are snuffing cocaine tonight, those American authorities who are gladly corrupted by drug money, and those U.S. government officials and agencies who think that the solution to their problems relies in war actions taken by the government of the big sombrero country: the ugly dog of this nonsense drug war will bite their sorry asses. It is just matter of time. Indeed, it is happening already.

If only El Presidente could understand that the U.S. is the only capable to solve U.S. problems, and that Mexicans, we should focus in solving only our own, multiple, urgent, third-world country problems.

Why Ban It When You Can Tax It?

Fact: the war on drugs has priority over immigration issues in current U.S. – Mexico relations. I think that the main issue here is how to address the problem in a successful way, preferably right before the Mexican state collapses. It seems that the administration of President Calderon has a very clear idea of what to do: keep the war going. This is, apply the police rationality of good guys versus bad guys. The Mexican state is assuming that the war cannot be lost because it’s the Mexican state the one that is fighting a war against a non-state entity: several drug cartels. Last week, Mexico had its first Army General killed in this war. Attacking fire with fire seems the best way to go under this perspective.

On the American side, several opinions float around intellectual-liberal circles. First, we have the ones who say that the way to go is exactly the way things have gone throughout the last 25 years: try to attack the supply side of the problem with military assistance and (a lot of) money. The critics of this conservative position assert that taking the same action over and over, while expecting a different outcome each time, is the definition of insanity. Then we have the ones who assert that the real problem is the flow of money: The U.S. government now feeds a huge Money Monster that has created a huge war infrastructure and interests that cannot be rescinded in just one or two years. Moreover, these U.S. expenses are transmitted directly to the price of the drug by the cartels: the price of the drug in the street covers not only the production and transportation costs in clandestine operations through several international borders, but also the cost of an open war. The demand for drugs pays for every single nickel that the U.S. government spends on the war on drugs. It is a never ending story, regardless of how much the U.S. expends in the effort.

Then we have the usual suspects, the culturalists. They say basically two things: drugs are already a strong component of American culture and maybe the time to legalize drugs has arrived (talking about change). The last three American Presidents have admitted in one way or another that they have done drugs or have had addiction problems. “That 70's Show” and other entertaining programs present the funny face of drug use. The culturalists ask: who hasn’t done drugs in the U.S.? (excl. Utah, of course) The current media debate about Mike Phelps smoking marihuana in the internet is not about what this guy can do to help other young addicts to deal with addiction issues, but it focuses more on what sponsors will (or will not) pull out their multimillion contracts with the super athlete. The use of drugs by a sport icon or a politician or the regular Joe or Jane is not an issue anymore. The problem has been assimilated already into the fabrics of the American society.

Under this perspective, the questions are: why ban it when you can tax it? Morally speaking, what is the difference between getting intoxicated with alcohol and getting high with whatever people get high with? What is the rationality of taxing an addictive substance and then spending the same money trying to prohibit the consumption of another addictive substance without addressing the roots of the problem: obsesive-compulsive behavior? In this struggle, it seems that the best strategy is education. You tax the consumption of drugs and with that money you educate people about the problem. (sounds to goood...)

In the meantime, you just try to light a cigar in a restaurant in California and an angry mob will kick the smoke out of your neck. Such mob, even if sometimes is a very ugly mob, it is an educated mob. They know that second-hand smoking kills. Now, is California's education the same than, let's say... Nebraska's or Alaska's? Do we have to deal with 50 different ways of "educational thinking" about the problem before trying to do anything serious at a national level?

If you ask me what do I think about all this… Well, I have no opinion. I certainly prefer to deal with immigration issues.