Dear Mr. MacGowan:
I’m an American living in Spain currently, where I’ve been for the last 5 years. I’d like to start my comment by pointing out that I voted for Bush , even in 2004, and have every intention of voting Republican in 2008. Nor am I any great fan of illegal immigration, in particular because a nation that can’t defend its borders is lacking an important part of what it means to be sovereign. Nevertheless, I’d like to make a couple of points in response to your article.
1) President Calderon is one of the few national leaders in Latin American who can be said to be “on our side”. He, like most Mexicans, probably doesn’t like a lot of concrete U.S. policies, and is weary of constant U.S. arrogance towards his nation, but nevertheless he knows that when it comes to a choice between leftist populism and economic growth based on a competitive economic base, the latter is the only choice that will feed his people. Thus, his government remains broadly aligned with the U.S. Do you realize this? Or are you choosing to kick him in the teeth as though he were a Rafael Correa or Cristina Kirchner?
2) You note that Calderon has recently sent a large army contingent up to the border near Ciudad Juarez. Why are those army units needed? Thirty years ago, drugs in Mexico were nearly unknown, other than some marijuana smuggling. Nowadays, many border towns are overrun with “narcotraficantes”. Why are they there? They’re there because there’s a phenomenally profitable market of American drug buyers and consumers, who will pay nearly any price to get their illegal substances. All of the arms and the bribe money that the Narcos have, comes from the U.S.: we are paying them to make war on normal Mexican citizens and law officers, so that we can get our drugs. We buy their drugs, and pay them the money that makes them able to be better armed than their counterparts in the Mexican police. Did you know that? How are the Mexicans responsible for the fact that Americans are paying their criminals to be able to run roughshod over the law and citizenry in Mexico?
3) You note correctly that illegal immigrants can obtain many free services once they are able to cross the border into the U.S., in particular because it is currently legally (and morally) difficult to deny services to these individuals in need when they present themselves in schools, hospitals or other governmental institutions. However, did you know that the fundamental reason for the enormous influx of Mexicans into the U.S. over the past decade and a half has been precisely because of the devastating effects of NAFTA on the Mexican economy? One can make the case (and I think it is a strong case) that in the long run Mexico will be better off without the protectionism that characterized its economy prior to the signing of NAFTA. Nevertheless, Mexican businesses (especially small businesses and farmers) suffered tremendous numbers of bankruptcies in the years following NAFTA, and as a result their employees have had to leave their towns and cities to find someplace where work is actually available. President Calderón is, in fact, doing a good job in making sure that Mexico faces us to its need to modernize its industry and build a stronger economic base, so that Mexican workers can actually find work in Mexico. Did you know that? Did you stop to think that it makes little sense to blame Mexicans for looking for work in the U.S., when it was the U.S. sponsored NAFTA that caused them to lost their jobs in the first place? NAFTA was and is a good idea, but if wanted NAFTA so bad, it is our moral obligation to suck it up and take the consequences like men, not like spoiled brats that don’t like to live in a world ruled by relationships of cause and effect.
4) The fact that our friend Sr. Curiel committed a crime and was then able to thumb his nose at the U.S. authorities by showing his diplomatic passport is a shameful thing, in no small part for its pettiness. Did you know, however, that diplomatic institutions are commonly staffed by career civil servants, and thus President Calderón may not have direct control over who gets hired and who occupies what position? It may be reasonable to ask President Calderón to apply some administrative sanction to Mr. Curiel, and certainly to require that Mr. Curiel never be allowed to go on another diplomatic mission to the U.S. But how reasonable is it to accuse President Calderón of responsibility for what a low-level diplomat does, when we can’t even prevent the CIA from conspiring against President Bush, through such underhanded tactics as permitting (encouraging?) the publication of anti-Bush books by current agents, and other such low blows? Why should we blame President Calderón for what Mr. Curiel does, when Sandy Berger can get away with stealing classified documents from the National Archives? It may not be pretty that Mr. Curiel should act as he has, but I think Sandy Berger is a bigger danger to our country, and President Calderón isn’t responsible.
I could go on, but I think the point has been made. The United States has some serious problems to deal with today, and illegal immigration is certainly high on the list. But most of those problems are of our own making. We can ask our allies to help us in dealing with their part of these problems, as in fact we do with the anti-drug efforts that we undertake in cooperation with Mexico and Colombia. But it does not serve our larger interests to spit on our allies, especially when they have to take on great sacrifices in order to maintain a moderately sane policy towards us, in an environment where it is much easier to go with the leftist tide that has currently run so high in Latin America.
Since you’ve gotten the opportunity to write in Pajamas Media, you have a relatively high-profile pulpit from which to broadcast your message. Wouldn’t it be nice if you chose to address the issues that face us and our allies in a way that didn’t reek of arrogance, immaturity, ignorance of political reality, and cheap insults?
Yes, that would be nice.
Thanks,
Erik Norvelle
