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.

Sweet Dreams

I had a dream.

I was interviewing a former Zeta Boss in Monterrey, Mexico. Code name: Fernando, about 65 years old, an ordinary Mexican, nothing else, nothing more.

In the dream we had a brief but substantial conversation. He wanted me to write a book about his past. “From the very beginning, until the very end”, he said. He has things that he would like to state before he could make statements no more. Things that he has decided to tell everyone, from the ordinary citizen to the top of the top in the Mexican government and drug mafias.

I was not sure if he was joking or if he really meant business. He decided to tell me some highlights of what the book would talk about.

Originally, our friend was a member of the elite parachute troopers of the Mexican Army who were American-trained in South Korea in the seventies. Later on, in different fragments of his professional life, he received specialized training by the CIA and DEA. He was part of the Operation Condor of the Mexican government in Sinaloa, at the end of the seventies.

I think that my skepticism pushed him to be a little more specific about what he could really tell to the world.

He mentioned that we can work on how the son of the Senator Ibarra de Piedra was thrown into the sea from an airplane right outside Mazatlán. Or the murder in 2006 of the Director of the State Police of Nuevo León, Marcelo Garza y Garza, in which two of his bodyguards were involved, he stated.

He also wanted to talk about all the undercover operations in which he participated back in the seventies and eighties in Central American and Caribbean countries on behalf of the CIA, and how he got a couple of bullets in his heaps in an anti-Zeta operation in Guerrero.

He regrets that the American government has more considerations for him that the Mexican government at his age, although the Americans are not very generous, neither.

All his contacts come from his years in the military. The Zetas are a military organization that think and act as military, but with a better, much better pay (US $1600 per week to experienced sicarios). Indeed, today, December the 8th, the Zetas get their aguinaldo (end-of-the-year monetary compensation, very popular in Mexico), and a flow of dollars will cover Monterrey in the following days, “mostly in the puteros (bordellos).” However, most Zetas will go back home for the holidays, and “come back to work” in the very first days of January 2011.

Currently, there are about 20,000 to 30,000 Zeta-men training in the Lacandona Jungle, in Chiapas. A huge Zeta offensive is programmed for January-February 2011 at a national scale. “You have seen nothing yet”, he said, “Monterrey, among other cities across the country, will be the closest thing to hell that you can imagine.” Indeed, during these days, there are serious fighting between the Zetas and the Mexican Army in the Lacandona, but the federal government has not gone public on this.

The Zetas control the Monterrey police, and the state police in Nuevo León, although this last not all the time. Monterrey is an important plaza for the narco gangs in Mexico. He mentioned full names and neighborhoods or territories of the Metropolitan area that these gangs controlled. The people from the Beltrán Leyva gang have their headquarters in the South, by the Carretera Nacional; others like the Mexican Mafia (Mexicans and Mexican Americans that have lived in the U.S. but came to Monterrey to do business and decided to stay to protect certain interests) live here, the Contras (the Chapo people) live there, the Familia Michoacana is over there, and he would mention places in Apodaca, Guadalupe, San Nicolás, Santiago, Santa Catarina, etc.

In a similar way to the Mexican Army or Navy, the Zetas may have good or bad Generals. Therefore, it is difficult to forecast the behavior of this or that Zeta group. Some Generals may be totally corrupt, others would be quite considered towards their troops, others would mind only their own business and others would try to influence other Generals. Each General controls his own territory with his own rules. Some of them are psychopaths: “this guy already has about 130 empozolados (people whose body is cooked in acid to erase evidence of the murder) somewhere in the Grutas de García (Nuevo León), but he says that it is not enough, that he wants to go for the Mexican record… and that is completely sick.”

Fernando could go on and on, with several anecdotes regarding his encounters with Secretaries and Undersecretaries of the Mexican Ministry of the Interior of several governments, his “Gringo” trainers, his confrontations with the Mexican military after he quit the Mexican Army, his phone calls with a special code to Campo Marte to save (or not) lives; or his phone calls to a Zeta commando “the other day that a group of Monterrey policemen arrived to my house to kick the door.” As soon as the Zetas arrived, they insulted the policemen and told them to go and fuck their mothers on the spot. The policemen apologized to their Jefecitos (Little Bosses), the Zetas, because of what they called “a terrible misunderstanding.”

I asked him that who were the worst in this war. He said “The civil authorities and the politicians at a national, state and local levels; they change sides like changing underwear, there is no way to trust these motherfuckers! That is why justice arrives to their ass sooner or later, they have to understand that they need to show respect and loyalty to their owners… or else.”

Next encounter: January 3rd, 2011. In the meantime, Fernando goes to Texas for the holidays with his family.

When I woke up the following morning, I was concerned and sad. Probably, Mexico has arrived to a situation in which two armies and other drug traffickers have gone beyond the no-return point, and an authoritarian, military regime will become the only short-term solution to a chaotic, collapsing, State. And the average American keeps on buying tons of drugs at an accessible price. Can’t we, Mexicans, create a certification process of drug consumption for the U.S., for example?

Yes we can, but there is not enough huevos to talk to the eye to Uncle Sam. Not in the current administration at least. They just follow American government’s orders from a binational perspective, when the core of the problem is transnational.

Sweet Dreams, indeed.

Open Letter to the president of the Tecnológico de Monterrey

On March 19, 2010, two graduate students of the Tecnológico Monterrey, Campus Monterrey, México, were assassinated in a confusing episode of the Mexican war against drugs. Apparently, army troops were chasing drug traffickers in the streets of Monterrey; the soldiers got into the Campus and Jorge Antonio Mercado Alonso y Javier Francisco Arredondo Verdugo were killed in middle of the night. The President of the Tecnológico first stated that no student had been hurt in the operative, but hours later he confirmed that the two persons that originally were identified by the authorities as “sicarios” (hired assassins) were students (honor students indeed) from the university. The security videos of what happened that night in Campus were confiscated by the Mexican army. Up to this day, the videos have not been released to the public.

The Mexican justice system has not identified the responsible party in the murder of these two students. Following, I share the English version of the letter that I sent to the President of the Tecnológico de Monterrey by registered mail on April 9, 2010. Copies of this letter were also sent by registered mail to the presidents of the following Mexican universities:

Dr. Antonio Dieck Assad, Universidad de Monterrey

Dr. Jesús Ancer Rodríguez, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León

Dr. José Narro Robles, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Dr. Arturo Fernández Pérez, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México

Dr. Javier Garciadiego Dantán, El Colegio de México

Dr. Enrique Cabrero Mendoza, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas

Dr. José Morales Orozco, S. J., Universidad Iberoamericana, Cd. De México

Dr. Tonatiuh Guillén López, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte

______________________________________________________________________

Dear Dr. Rangel Sostmann

President of the Tecnológico de Monterrey

Personally, and this is my opinion as a Mexican citizen, I would like to state that I do not agree, with the fact that the Mexican army goes out to the streets in order to combat the drug traffickers, the “narcos”. General Guillermo Galván Galván, the Secretary of National Defense, recognized some days ago that the fight against narcos is a task that does not belong directly to the army. Indeed, the Mexican army has no legal duty in fighting crime in the streets. I think that the narco menace must be met with intelligence and police operations, not with bayonets in the streets, nor with a systematic abuse of human rights of civilians caught in the middle of the dispute between “good guys” and “bad guys”.

I do not know if legalizing drugs in Mexico would contribute to a solution, but what I do know is that the price of the drugs passing though Mexico is set in the United States; where the largest consumer market is located. I’m also aware that the main source of profit and empowerment for drug dealers comes from the United States, which is where the flow of weapons and dollars originate. The very same weapons and dollars that make the drug trafficking business so profitable in our country. I do agree with President Felipe Calderón, when he states that while drugs remain illegal in the United States, any attempt of drug legalization in our country is useless.

During my fifteen years of academic life in the United States, I have been blessed and lucky enough to be a researcher and/or professor in seven universities. My experience, regarding my contact with the American youth, goes from coast to coast, from Columbia University in New York to the University of California in San Diego, including the University of Chicago and the University of Houston, among others.

Something that calls my attention is that, while college students in Mexico are killed in Campus for the simple fact that they were using the university premises, my American students consider drug consumption as a rite of passage that can go from their early teenage years all the way through the rest of their adulthood. TV shows like Weeds or That ‘70s Show are very popular among American audiences and present drug addiction, I would say, in a very realistic way: as a phenomenon well rooted in American culture, something that is practiced generation after generation and tends not to be seriously questioned by the society as a whole. In the United States, it is easier for those under 21 years of age to get any kind of illegal drugs than getting alcohol or cigarettes in any local store. I have the impression, in general terms, that American parents are highly tolerant about the addictive habits of their sons and daughters. Or maybe they have lost control of the situation.

I am truly convinced that addictions can be successfully addressed with education and awareness about the magnitude of the problem, at an individual, family and social levels in any society. A line of cocaine in New York should be associated not only with the price that is paid to the dealer for the drug, but also, in order to understand the true transnational dimension of the problem, it is necessary to associate it with those individuals that are beheaded and who are found across the Mexican territory, with the assassinations of the Mexican students, with the Mexican army systematically violating human rights of civilians, with the encobijados, the kidnapped, the burned to death, the widows and the orphans, etc.

The problem that I see is that the American government supports and promotes the final solution in Mexican territory (this is, to declare full war against drug trafficking by taking the army out to the streets, something Americans wouldn’t tolerate in their territory) to deal with a problem that belongs also to the American government and society. I am really concerned about the fact that the administration of President Calderón plays the game without any question. Indeed, the question is what can be done about it? What can Mexican universities do about it?

I propose to constitute a Consejo Universitario Transnacional (CUT - Transnational University Council) to create awareness in the United States about this problem that affects both countries. This council would be formed by high-profile members of Mexican and American Universities and their main function would be to launch an advertising and lobbying campaign in the American Congress, and the fifty states of the Union, to create awareness among the main actors about the dimension of the problem at the transnational level: “here and there at the same time”. As long as the flow of dollars from American consumers to drug traffickers in Mexico is not cut, any type of war is lost. That’s right: the narco dollars have the capacity to buy anything they find in their way: men, women, police officers, soldiers, police sheriffs, mayors, customs officers, beauty queens, bankers, bureaucrats, governors and army generals.

I am convinced that is possible to make an advertising campaign in the United States about the problems associated with drugs. For example, the CUT actions from the Mexican side could be financed with a portion of federal money that currently is spent in keeping the Mexican army in the streets. The goal here is, first, to make Americans aware about this transnational problem through actions aimed directly at their educational process, so their society would be ready (and I am confident that they will also be willing) to take the next fundamental step: finding solutions to this common problem.

If Americans decide to legalize drugs: let it be. It would not be the first time that the United States would be fearless about anything; after all, the only time they have amended their constitution (twice) has been for the same subject: addiction issues. And yes, alcohol eventually was legalized. It is important that Americans become aware that it is just a matter of time, for decapitated, or encobijados and encajuelados to become part of their daily life. As of today, in the meantime, the Mexican army should return to their headquarters.

Definitely, instead of listening to official public statements that the Mexican army could be out in the streets somewhere between 5 and 10 years, and that it is more and more probable to establish a state of exception where the first victim would be the abolition of certain individual rights, including freedom of expression (which would be lethal to the country’s universities); I prefer to be part of a coordinated effort, intelligently oriented to educate the average American about the problems associated with drug use and all the legislative actions that can be taken in U.S. territory to deal with the problem in both sides of the border, this is, in a transnational way. This would be an effort that would also take 5 to 10 years, but these actions would be attacking the root of the problem and not undermining our institutions, blinding our youth, and destroying our nation, as is happening now in Mexico.

Dear Dr. Rangel Sostmann, please accept my most sincere condolences for the death of Jorge Antonio Mercado Alonso y Javier Francisco Arredondo Verdugo. I also offer my condolences to the families of these unfortunate and brilliant students. Their deaths should be clarified, justice needs to done and, without any doubt, no more Mexican students the country should be killed by the simply fact of taking a walk through the Campus.

Sincerely,

Gustavo Cano, Ph. D.

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.