In Ex Mex, Jorge Castañeda, former Mexican Foreign Minister and current Professor of Politics and Latin American Studies at New York University, explains in a most effective way not only the one hundred year history of emigration from Mexico to the United States, but also the Mexican viewpoint on the many controversial issues surrounding the immigration debate today. One of the main issues is also the main thesis of the book: traditional Mexican circular migrants (those entering and leaving the country on a more or less regular basis) have become immigrants. The view that so many Mexicans living abroad is a sign of failed economic policies in Mexico or that the country’s government is to blame does not even begin to get to the roots of the issue. Obviously, there are multiple causes of migration and Castañeda not only addresses these in depth, but also provides plausible solutions for the immigration problem which would require concrete action on the part of both countries.
Mexicans have been crossing the border for more than a century, legally in many cases. Legend has it that emigration began in 1894 when Mexicans from Chihuahua were brought in to break a strike in a railroad car plant, but it probably began earlier with the construction of the railroads at the end of the 19th century. For decades, most Mexican migrants in the U.S. originated in the rural areas of the states of Jalisco, Guanajuato, Michoacán, and Zacatecas. They were mainly agricultural workers and Castañeda provides us with an excellent explanation of Mexico’s tradition of seasonal labor migration and the concept of “circularity.” From 1976 onwards, emigration increased sharply due to the various economic crises in Mexico as well as to economic expansion in the U.S. which brought an increased demand for cheap labor, both exacerbated by NAFTA which made it increasingly difficult – if not impossible – for Mexican farmers to compete with those in the U.S.
By the 1980s, immigration trends had changed. There were migrants from Hidalgo, Morelos, Oaxaca, Guerrero, Puebla, and Chiapas. More and more women also began to leave or to accompany their partners, and the new migrants were slightly more educated than before. They were also more urban and were sending more money home to Mexico. Many of them – some 1.3 million - became legal under the amnesty program of 1986. Today, the PEW Hispanic center estimates illegal Mexican immigration at about 500,000 per year. And the law that must be obeyed and respected? Mexico and the United States have a long-standing and complex history of labor exchange. The way Mexicans see it, the U.S. laws and “rules” keep changing; one day Mexicans are authorized, the next prohibited; the rules allow and even encourage immigration, and everyone knows that migrants deported by the Border Patrol will soon be back. The Juarez newspaper “Norte” reported on February 11, 2008, that 80% of deportees were repeat “offenders” and according to Rodolfo Rubio, a migration expert, all of them said they would try to cross to the U.S. again. However, he also said that 75% of those entering the U.S. are “novatos” – first time entrants – who have no plans to return to Mexico, which corroborates what Castañeda claims with reference to circularity. What has become obvious is that when there is a booming economy, immigration is a good thing; when there is economic contraction, it is a bad thing. Even Alan Greenspan agrees with this: “immigration, if we choose to expand it, could also lessen the decline of labor force growth in the United States.”
Even though the overall total of Mexican migration to the U.S. has been relatively stable for a long time, the share of legal and illegal migration and whether the migrants stay or not has varied greatly. For example, after the Bracero Program ended, numerical limitations were placed on permanent legal immigration from Mexico which resulted in a sharp rise in undocumented migration. According to Castañeda, today “legal immigration and contract labor migration are growing modestly, and while deportations are climbing, apprehensions are falling.” What is more important though is the fact that increased enforcement along the border is in effect ending circulation and therefore the undocumented population is increasing rapidly. And this is Castañeda’s point: seasonal migrants are becoming permanent settlers, i.e. immigrants.
I think that one of the most important points Castañeda makes is that Mexicans perform stoop labor (harvests, gardens, etc.) and that these activities survive because of the low wages the workers receive. If the U.S. farmers were to mechanize or to pay the high salaries Americans would require, they would most likely go out of business as they would not be able to compete with Mexican or other foreign farm products. Therefore, non-tradable goods and services would survive – at high prices - but tradable goods and services would not. One of the ironies Castañeda points out is that if the U.S. wants free trade, capital “must flow to Mexico to take advantage of lower wages…. but if wages are low enough to attract capital, they are also low enough to drive emigration.” Tamar Jacoby, associate of the Manhattan Institute, points out a fact many of us should think about: “The question is whether we want to import more produce from abroad, or more workers from abroad to pick our produce.”
The results of NAFTA were unexpected for both proponents and opponents: it neither deterred, reduced, or eliminated legal or illegal migration, nor did it create or stimulate it. Castañeda believes that all viewpoints and debates on immigration must, first and foremost, take into consideration its history. What changed the basic parameters of emigration were the U.S. immigration reforms that began in 1996 when public benefits were limited and border control went into high gear, forcing the emigrants to try their luck in the desert and other dangerous places. This, in turn, also altered the smuggling trade; organized crime became rampant as huge sums of money were to be made. Due to the Clinton administration’s policies which made crossing the border more difficult, people began to stay in the U.S. instead of going back home, and they began to take their families. They also began to spread out all through the country and as they took jobs in industry, services, etc. they were no longer seasonal which is another reason they stayed; i.e. they were becoming immigrants. The consequences of the Clinton administration’s measures were unforeseen but they did force both the United States and Mexico to approach migration from a different angle. Mexico’s then President Vicente Fox called for major changes, and even though I am certainly no fan of his, many of them made a lot of sense. They included making legal visas and legal status more available, cracking down on criminal smuggling crossings, building a viable border region, and targeting development initiatives to areas with a high out-migration.
Over the years, there have been many plans and attempts to solve immigration problems and issues and Jorge Castañeda, during his time as Foreign Minister, was involved in many of them. From my personal point of view, many of these attempts were well thought out and could have provided excellent results. However, as we see so often when politics is involved, most of them came to nothing. What Castañeda makes very clear though is that any deal must necessarily involve the Mexicans already in the U.S. as well as the flow question - those who will continue to migrate north. There are of course many pros and cons to the guest worker issue. Some of the cons are the ‘danger’ of creating a permanent underclass, the possibility of guest workers remaining in the country, rejection of anything that remotely sounds like amnesty, etc. However, there seem to be many more pros: evidence shows that most of those let in went home because of the ‘guarantee’ of being let back in.
9/11 changed many things and the immigration issue was one of them. People began to think of immigration as a security issue and Bush was no longer willing to negotiate the agreement previously in the pipeline. Even so, a great deal of progress had been made and a series of questions had been defined. One of the most important of these was whether there could be a guest worker program without some form of mass legalization, regularization, or amnesty. Of course, this implies a myriad of other questions to which there are no cut and dried answers. Castañeda believes that in order for there to be any kind of agreement, Mexico must cooperate with the United States and the United States must address both amnesty and guest workers. It is impractical to expect illegal workers to come forward, register, and leave the country with the promise that they can come back after years of waiting. However, most Mexicans would rather not leave their own country and giving them a provisional alternative is a good option.
Politically, the issue is also very controversial. The bitter immigration debate and controversy over responsibilities and solutions continues unabated in both countries. Castañeda claims that in the United States the ideological right does not like immigration, but the business community does. On the left, African American leaders believe that Mexicans compete for jobs with blacks, “driving down wages and working conditions because of their ‘illegal’ nature” although experts from Wharton School say this is not so. Castañeda argues that cheap Mexican labor has actually saved the U.S. “by making it more competitive in the face of the Chinese – and to a lesser extent Indian – onslaught.” The American political system has tolerated illegal immigration so as not to eliminate protectionist barriers “that would undoubtedly obliterate many activities – agricultural, meatpacking, and others – by transferring them abroad.” Of course, politically, especially in this election year, immigration is a hot issue. Latinos make up between 9% and 10% of the electorate, the biggest percentage in history. They may also prove to be of decisive importance in states such as Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, and Nevada.
Many immigrants have become legal, one way or another, after many years of illegality. They have now extended throughout the U.S. and are helping those that have come to join them, legally or illegally. For example, there are more than 700,000 Mexicans in New York, two thirds of whom come from the Mixteca region which is traditionally migratory. Castañeda divides today’s emigration into three groups: the traditional states for all emigrants, i.e. California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois; second tier states which is where the immigrants go some time after arriving in the U.S. such as North Carolina, Georgia, Washington, and Massachusetts; and, for the last decade or so, third tier states such as South Dakota, Delaware, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Indiana. He says that the current dispersion is “almost beyond belief.” The immigrants have begun to create their own businesses; they are, on the whole, hard-working and honest people but the immigration situation in the U.S. is becoming increasingly difficult for those without papers. Because of new laws which sanction employers for hiring undocumented workers, and the recent Texas and New Mexico “No Pass” and “Lockdown” operations (Diario de Juarez, March 10, 2008) which go after undocumented entrants and jail them for up to 180 days in order to dissuade them from trying again, these employers are becoming wary of hiring Mexicans, legal or illegal, and the Mexicans are becoming more and more afraid of being found out and deported.
It has become common to see articles in the Ciudad Juarez newspapers about mass deportations that separate families, and even more so about Mexicans returning to their country voluntarily in order to prevent this from happening. On February 17, 2008, the Diario de Cd. Juarez reported that Mexicans were increasingly the victims of aggressions and race profiling in Arizona. The paper quoted Harry Garewal, President of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, as saying that this aggression was only directed against Mexicans and those that look Mexican; not Peruvians, Asians, or African Americans. In the same article, Alfredo Gutierrez, an activist, stated that the atmosphere has become decidedly hostile and that he and other activists are availing themselves of radio programs to warn Mexican immigrants to remove bumper stickers featuring the Virgin of Guadalupe, not to hang rosaries from the rear view mirrors, to refrain from using large speakers in their vehicles, and to keep a low profile so as to avoid being harassed.
So what solutions does Castañeda offer? First of all, he is a staunch believer in shared responsibility. To him, any meaningful immigration agreement must part from that principle which would demand from Mexico concrete actions and international commitment, something it is not used to. Mexico can no longer afford to pretend that the issue is solely American and it must develop and enforce its migration laws and policies with respect to human rights. Then, Castañeda believes that if enough guest worker permits are provided, Mexico could “deter, dissuade, or discourage” the flow of illegal workers. Shared responsibility would also mean that Mexico would have to actively promote the return of these workers and be involved in the running of the program. This would reestablish circularity which would go a long way towards resolving the problem. Castañeda talks about three main and essential ingredients for an immigration agreement: what it is that Mexico has to do to limit undocumented migration, that Mexico must discourage illegal crossings, and that Mexico must be involved in and be partly responsible for the Temporary Worker Program.
So how can this be done? Castañeda goes into some of the quick fixes and the reasons these would not work, e.g. fencing off the border, deporting all the illegal workers already in the U.S., etc. He then offers four basic solutions which are, in my opinion, well thought out and make a lot of sense for both countries even though they would require them to make sacrifices. First, there must be mass amnesty for undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. This is a deal breaker for many politicians and citizens and the main reason the debate is currently stalled, but it is one of few alternatives that makes sense; as Castañeda has often said: “You try and adapt the law to reality and not reality to the law.” This legalization would have to be simple, fast, and generalized and could not exclude the recently arrived as this would create family divisions, document forgery, and the like.
Second, there must be a temporary worker program for future newcomers and a clear incentive for them to return to Mexico and exit the program. Mexico would also have to commit to preserving these workers’ Mexican citizenship, thereby restoring circularity. There would have to be a path to citizenship for temporary workers who want to stay but this would be discouraged by both countries. The amount of guest or temporary worker permits should be “as close as possible to the total of those who currently migrate without authorization” and workers should be able to move throughout the labor market with these permits. Third, Mexico, and possibly also the U.S., must provide economic resources to areas from which most Mexicans emigrate. On Mexico’s part, there would have to be clear policies for job creation, education, and professional training. Castañeda states that for sufficient economic growth to occur in Mexico there must be dramatic improvements in the establishment of the rule of law, in infrastructure, and in the educational system. It goes without saying that this would require a great deal of money. Fourth, a sensible border security program must be enacted that benefits both countries. Mexico would have to apply the law and not allow anyone out of the country without complying with the proper procedures, stopping unlawful departures at the source – the sending communities. These measures would have to include rewards for staying and penalties for leaving. Mexico would also have to commit to securing its southern border and Central and South Americans would become part of the program and would be “partly deterred from migrating by Mexico, the point of entry.” On the other hand, the U.S. would also have to enforce its laws as well as its labor standards and antidiscrimination clauses. Employers would be responsible for checking the authenticity of documents as well as for compliance with legal stipulations concerning housing, salaries, overtime, etc.
Obviously, there is no such thing as a perfect plan or arrangement. However, as a conclusion, I think it would be very fitting to quote Castañeda (page 60) when he says that Americans should think about what it means that Mexicans are becoming immigrants: “Do they (the Americans) prefer Mexicans to come and stay, or to come and go, or to have the best of both worlds: some settling down and contributing to American life as they gradually become….. Americans, and some commuting between the two countries, but remaining Mexican.”
No comments:
Post a Comment