A puzzle for the US?

[Pure]

Updated: 11:33 AM EST

Mexico to Give Migrants Maps of Arizona

By MARK STEVENSON, AP

MEXICO CITY (Jan. 25) - A Mexican government commission said Tuesday it will distribute at least 70,000 maps showing highways, rescue beacons and water tanks in the Arizona desert to curb the death toll among illegal border crossers.

The National Human Rights Commission, a government-funded agency with independent powers, denied the maps - similar to a comic-style guide booklet Mexico distributed last year - would encourage illegal immigration.

Officials said the maps would help guide those in trouble find rescue beacons and areas with cell phone reception. The maps will also show the distance a person can walk in the desert in a single day.

"We are not trying in any way to encourage or promote migration," said Mauricio Farah, one of the commission's national inspectors. "The only thing we are trying to do is warn them of the risks they face and where to get water, so they don't die."

Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the U.S. Homeland Security Department, questioned whether the maps would keep those crossing the border safer.
"It is not helpful for anyone, no matter how well intended they might be, to produce road maps that lead aliens into the desolate and dangerous areas along the border, and potentially invite criminal activity, human exploitation and personal risk," he said.

And some advocates of greater immigration control were irritated by the map announcement.
"What's next? Are they going to buy them bus tickets to Chicago?" said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based think tank. "It's clearly a bad thing for Mexico to be encouraging illegal immigration."



The comic booklet for migrants was distributed by the government in early 2005 and warned of the perils of crossing illegally into the United States, while offering tips to stay safe.
The booklet, of which about 1.5 million were printed, enraged some advocates of stricter immigration policies in the United States who argue that it encouraged illegal migration.
Farah said his commission was simply trying to prevent deaths and estimated that around 500 Mexicans died trying to cross the border in 2005. Many die in the desert, where summer temperatures soar above 100 degrees, and many drown while attempting to cross the Rio Grande river.

The commission plans to hang the poster-size maps in March in places where migrants will see them, such as migrant-aid groups, the commission's offices and in Mexican border towns.

They were designed by the Tucson, Ariz.-based rights group Humane Borders, which operates some of the desert water stations. The group previously distributed about 100 posters in the Mexican border town of Sasabe. The Rev. Robin Hoover, president of Humane Borders, said maps are needed in southern Mexico so migrants can weigh the risks before leaving home.

Some of the posters have warnings, such as "Don't go. There isn't enough water," but officials conceded many migrants were unlikely to heed the advice.

Knocke said the United States had increased personnel and surveillance along the border to discourage illegal crossings and immigrant smugglers.
"Our message should be clear: we are securing our borders and we're dramatically increasing the likelihood of apprehensions," he said.

Farah said migration "is a human right" and that "the United States should be grateful" the commission is doing something to curb the death toll, because "hundreds of thousands of Mexicans help maintain their economy."

Mexicans working in the United States are a huge source of revenue for Mexico, sending home more than $16 billion in remittances in 2004, Mexico's second largest source of foreign currency after oil exports according to the country's central bank.

Associated Press writer Lara Jakes Jordan in Washington contributed to this report.

01/24/06 18:24 EST

 

[elsol]

Okay... who laughed?

Or is just a latin thing?

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Norajane]

It should help our border patrol, anyway, since they can get a hold of this map and know exactly where the migrants are heading.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

is this akin to giving out condoms in abstinence-based education programs?

 

[Guest]

Can't laugh.
Can't vote above (too complicated an overall issue).
Won't check back to read our rightest nutters' posts (already know the points they'll make).

Perdita

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Arizona is a hot, dry, dangerous place. Especially out from the cities. It seems strange, that a sovergin nation would preint up material to help its people commit a crime, which enetering the US illegally is.

Rather than the condoms in an abstinance class, it seems more like passing out a how to on robbing banks, with the ultimate goal of keeping prospective robbers from screwing it up and killing innocnet patrons.

Illeagals have already decided to break the law and anytime you enter a country illegally, you know you are running risks. It seems to me the Mexican governemnt has opted out of trying to stop it and has decided to try andmake it less dangerous.

I'm not sure if you simply have to applaud them for admiting defeat or castigate them for encouraging their citizens to run the gauntlet. I do, however, suspect it will provoke a backlash that may well lead to more dying.

 

[CharleyH]

Updated: 11:33 AM EST

Mexico to Give Migrants Maps of Arizona

By MARK STEVENSON, AP

MEXICO CITY (Jan. 25) - A Mexican government commission said Tuesday it will distribute at least 70,000 maps showing highways, rescue beacons and water tanks in the Arizona desert to curb the death toll among illegal border crossers.

01/24/06 18:24 EST

Considering my current political milieu in North America, I certainly would not mind a similar map from the banks of NewFoundLand to the shores of Europe, preferrably the beaches of Cannes.

 

[amicus]

Pure always has a motive, but not always a clear one.

This issue was on cable news today, apparently a religious organization in Arizona printed up the material and received permission from the Mexican government to distribute it in Mexico.

The expressed rationale of the group was to save lives as water is scarce and the desert is hot during the day and freezing at night.

"...Mexicans working in the United States are a huge source of revenue for Mexico, sending home more than $16 billion in remittances in 2004, Mexico's second largest source of foreign currency after oil exports according to the country's central bank...."

I confess I have not yet gotten a firm handle on all the current and ongoing political debate concerning Mexican immigrants.

The problem, if it is indeed a problem, is multi-facetted.

Some basic facts we know: Legal immigration into the United States is under a quota system, both for quantity and quality of immigrants and from point or origin.

Although I have not done a recent search, the waiting period, is long for people from any country wishing to immigrate to the United States, but there seem to be indications that certain professions, Medical people, are given preferential treatment and perhaps expedited.

I think it is not an exagerration to state that millions of people are lined up waiting to come to the United States.

Agencies of government set the quota limits for a variety of reasons.

I think that is fairly accurate in general.

In specific, Mexican immigrants, from the quoted portion above, "Mexico's second largest source of foreign capital..." has to be an incentive to the Mexican government to allow the people to work in the U.S.

It has been said, many times, that American workers will not do the work the Mexicans do at the wages offered.

What Americans consider low wages, are viewed as high pay by Mexicans, they can live on the wage, support a family and even send money back to Mexico.

It seems apparent that agricultural business and other low tech industries and services can use the lower paid Mexican labor to stay competitive in the market place.

I am sure all are aware of the downside of crime, social services, schools, housing, medical care, et cetera, required by Mexican immigrants as they continue to live and work in America.

Rather than deal individually with the practical and economic aspects of this problem, which would be a morass of disagreement and is, almost across the board, I would prefer to look to the root problem and see if that view provides an avenue of understanding.

America was once known as a 'safe harbor' for the 'tired and huddled masses' of the world seeking a better life.

I think there should be an 'Ellis Island' at a central location somewhere near the Mexican border, where all who would come are welcomed and assisted in finding work and living space.

I think they should be welcomed as potential US citizens and given legal protection of our laws.

There. Problem solved.


amicus...

 

[Pure]

SelenaKittyn said,

is this akin to giving out condoms in abstinence-based education programs?

i'm not sure if you meant it, but it's a wonderful analogy, given the failure rate of abstinence based programs (unless there are other components of social and educational support). it suggests that behind the idealistic talk, realities have to be addressed.

one argument here (made by the far left, the churches, and by amicus--very odd bedfellows!) is that they (illegal migrants from Latin America) are going to come anyway (across the Arizona/Mexico border), so why not try to ensure they make it alive and in better shape.

OTOH, this approach seems to be a 'slippery slope' to the position of 'let's just ignore the US/Mexican border--allow migration at will.'

 

[R. Richard]

The US/Mexican border problem is a major one and it is not solvable.

Mexican do not particularly want to come to the US. They do so mainly out of desperation. There are many areas of Mexico where there are no jobs for young men. The young men come to the US because it is the only way they can earn enough for themselves and their families to survive. Many of the Mexicans cross the border illegally. [Also, many of the illegal border crossers are not Mexican but central Americans.] Without the wages sent home by the Mexican workers, there would be a revolution in Mexico. [This is a conclusion. I have lived on the US/Mexico border and I have talked with involved people.]

The US can't run its agriculture in current fashion without Mexican workers. If there were no Mexican workers, wages would rise dramatically and so would food prices. Some time back the welfare department of a city claimed that they could furnish agricultural workers. On the appointed morning three large busses rolled up to what was to be a hiring point. One drunk staggered off the bus and he was too drunk to work.

Another problem is the drug dealers. In Northern Mexico, the drug dealers ARE the government in many places. There are reports of skirmishes between the US Border Patrol and Mexican Army units. There have supposedly been instances of large quantities of dope seized, often in marked Mexican Army vehicles. The situation is so politically charged that it is damn near impossible to get confirmation of the reports.

The only way to solve the problem is to get Mexico to fix their economic problems so that young Mexican men do not have to come to the US to earn a living. This is not going to happen without a revolution or an invasion.

JMNTHO.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I usually end up pondering the problem that R. Richard notes. Why is it that Mexican citizens are in a state of such utter desperation that they are willing to leave their homes and families and risk the possibility of an agonizing death just to get out of their country? And why has this problem continued for so long?

I'd like to see more of our efforts devoted to helping to solve that problem. Until then, it feels kind of like shooting people for trespassing as they climb in from a burning building. Sure, there are going to be problems for me as they come in, but I'm not facing anything nearly as bad as they are. I need to keep myself from being crushed in the stampede, and if possible to divert some of the flow to other places or other effort - but someone also needs to put out the damned fire.

Shanglan

 

[Guest]

Because I've seen some of the above names throughout the day I decided to read more of this thread. (Also feel safe from ire as I still have Amicus on ignore, and the other -us person .)

Has anyone who has posted here read a substantive history of Mexico? Or several such tomes? Otherwise, I don't see how a truly worthwhile discussion of this issue can occur. I'm not saying discussion should not take place 'as is', but I am distressed, for instance, at some of the cold rationality presented above. It is simply difficult for me to read on a personal level, yet I want to speak out in some little way.

Think on this: If it were India or just about any African nation, that bordered the U.S., don't you think the same situation would exist? Of course that imagined country would also have a paralleled history with its oppressors and super-power neighbor.

Or this: when you think of the 'war' on drugs, don't you also think of the myriad factors that make it a tragically monumental joke?

Well, I can't "post" a brief history of Mexico, or Mexican politics, or Mexican-U.S. relations, but I did want to ask people to broaden their thinking a bit beyond the confines of the issue first posted.

Perdita

 

[R. Richard]

Actually, Perdita, I do know something of Mexican history.

Let me try to summarize what I personally feel is an underlying problem.

When the French tried to install Maximillian as Emperor of Mexico, some 6,00 French troops, considered among the best in the world at that time, fought some 4,000 Mexican irregulars at the Battle Of Puebla. The Mexicans still celebrate their victory in that battle as "El Cinco de Mayo." Conclusion: The Mexicans can be brave and savage fighters when they fight for their land.

In the Mexican American war, the better armed, better led, better paid American Army easily defeated the poorly armed, poorly led, poorly paid Mexican Army. Perhaps the surprising thing about the defeat of the Mexican Army was the ability of American cavalry to defeat the Mexican cavalry. On the other hand, the vaqueros, riding for the ranchos where they and their wives and children lived were tigers! The Mexicans were superior horsemen and very good at tactics. They were too few to meet the American Army units in pitched battle, but the fought guerilla style and were a very big problem to the American forces.

Why then did not the Mexican Army use the vaqueros as cavalry???
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They did. The vaqueros were poorly led, poorly paid and didn't like being called 'boy' by the fat asses from Mexico City. They did what they were told but their hearts were not in it and they would desert to fight for their home ranchos. I have previously stated how they did fighting for their home ranchos.

The same type of problems still exist today. The Mexicans are industrious people. They work long, hard hours for their American employers when they come to Los Estadoes Unidos. They get paid low wages, but still much better wages than they could earn in Mexico. The vaqueros, as such are mostly gone. The fat asses are still in Mexico City.

JMHO.

 

[Pure]

thoughts

the 'poll' does call for a reaction on a specific issue, an action of the mexican gov.

yet that issue immediately raises issues of US public policy e.g., toward undocumented migrants and toward 'temporary workers' and legal migrants, and toward Latin America generally.

all public policy issues benefit from understanding history, whether Mexican-related, Iraq related, Vietnam related, whatever.

futher, history suggests clues as to why some 'problem' (in the eyes of some) remains an issue-- e.g., the 'drug problem.'

in the case of here, as R Richard and other have point out, there is a demand in the US for cheap labor. labor off the books means no minimum wage. also no contributions to health plans. so the health and social welfare costs are born by the citizens generally (though all who spend money incur some taxes).

Since that sub minimum is several times what's available in Mexico--where a job is available--you're going to have a draw, despite the lack of protection and benefits. The whole thing runs the way amicus likes things to run, with business decisions determining everything--there is, if you like, a 'free market' for undocumented persons' labor.

While I theoretically agree with RR that improving things in Mexico would help the problem, I see no reason to expect that; clearly the Mexican gov. has a safety valve in the people leaving, and the people at home receiving foreign funds (remittances), etc. Since all the Latin American countries are dominated by the US, they have no way to eliminate the vast gaps of rich and poor. So some of the poor leave.

The only feasible way to improve would have to involve the upgrading of the labor, and putting it in the open. That makes it subject to minimum wages. As Maryland did recently with Walmart, a percentage contribution of the employer to health care would have to be established.

Actually Bush's plan for (alien work) 'cards' has a germ of rationality to it, but he has no way to make it comprehensive; so the 'illegal' contingent would continue to arrive.

The US is now on a 'high' as regards business favorable policies, so it would appear doubful that cooperation and monies could be extracted from them. They will offload to taxpayers, who'll get up in arms, but be unable to do anything (for every politician in AZ, TX, as well as in the Congress is going to listen to the very companies at issue.)

One can only hope for the pendulum to swing back. Businesses supported the New Deal, and the big ones support unemployment insurance and minimum wage. IOW, businesses at some point will see long range interests in bettering the lot of these 'least' among workers.
--It does happen from time to time. It is not charity, it's to prevent social unrest and insure a supply of eager, healthy workers. Hence the introduction of the 12 hr workday, etc. There cannot be any change with the most venal and short sighted ones in the saddle with GWB. (Indeed, Halliburton, a Cheney favorite, is trying to increase profits by supplying unsafe water to US troops in Iraq.).

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Because I've seen some of the above names throughout the day I decided to read more of this thread. (Also feel safe from ire as I still have Amicus on ignore, and the other -us person .)

Has anyone who has posted here read a substantive history of Mexico? Or several such tomes? Otherwise, I don't see how a truly worthwhile discussion of this issue can occur. I'm not saying discussion should not take place 'as is', but I am distressed, for instance, at some of the cold rationality presented above. It is simply difficult for me to read on a personal level, yet I want to speak out in some little way.

Think on this: If it were India or just about any African nation, that bordered the U.S., don't you think the same situation would exist? Of course that imagined country would also have a paralleled history with its oppressors and super-power neighbor.

Or this: when you think of the 'war' on drugs, don't you also think of the myriad factors that make it a tragically monumental joke?

Well, I can't "post" a brief history of Mexico, or Mexican politics, or Mexican-U.S. relations, but I did want to ask people to broaden their thinking a bit beyond the confines of the issue first posted.

Perdita

While no Scholar, I do know a great deal of mexican history. Admitedly, my Mexican history is usually gleaned from how it relates to something else, U.S History, Native American history, believe it or not, I learned a good deal while doing a paper on the French Foerign Legion, occasionally Mil. history.

I think my perspective is fairly broad. In my first post I deleted several lines where I pondered the GER's policy of trying to keep it's folks in rather than let them emmigrate vs. Mexico's policy wich is at best lazzie faire.

Obviously, the history plays a large part. Obviously, there are myriad other factors.

No disrespect or insensitivity was intended.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Actually, Perdita, I do know something of Mexican history.

Let me try to summarize what I personally feel is an underlying problem.

When the French tried to install Maximillian as Emperor of Mexico, some 6,00 French troops, considered among the best in the world at that time, fought some 4,000 Mexican irregulars at the Battle Of Puebla. The Mexicans still celebrate their victory in that battle as "El Cinco de Mayo." Conclusion: The Mexicans can be brave and savage fighters when they fight for their land.

In the Mexican American war, the better armed, better led, better paid American Army easily defeated the poorly armed, poorly led, poorly paid Mexican Army. Perhaps the surprising thing about the defeat of the Mexican Army was the ability of American cavalry to defeat the Mexican cavalry. On the other hand, the vaqueros, riding for the ranchos where they and their wives and children lived were tigers! The Mexicans were superior horsemen and very good at tactics. They were too few to meet the American Army units in pitched battle, but the fought guerilla style and were a very big problem to the American forces.

Why then did not the Mexican Army use the vaqueros as cavalry???
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They did. The vaqueros were poorly led, poorly paid and didn't like being called 'boy' by the fat asses from Mexico City. They did what they were told but their hearts were not in it and they would desert to fight for their home ranchos. I have previously stated how they did fighting for their home ranchos.

The same type of problems still exist today. The Mexicans are industrious people. They work long, hard hours for their American employers when they come to Los Estadoes Unidos. They get paid low wages, but still much better wages than they could earn in Mexico. The vaqueros, as such are mostly gone. The fat asses are still in Mexico City.

JMHO.

I'll go you one better rr. The mexican war was a land grab. Pure and simple. The US wante dmexican territory, they didn't want to sell, so we took it. Ve sailed into Vera Cruz with a far superior navy. Unlaoded an army that was far superior in every category. We had better rifles. We had Better atrillery. We had a better officer's corps (A lot of names that are household words, Like R.E. Lee, were junior officers in this war). It wasn't significantly different from the schoolyard bully taking a toy he wanted from a smaller, weaker kid.

We beat the hell out of them, almost literally beacuse we could and they had what we wanted. Enforced a fairly humiliating peace treaty on them and sailed home.

I'm a proud to be an American as the next person, but the Mexican American and Spanish American wars are not our finest moments. In their time periods, for the prevailing morality, they were fashionable, but in retrospect, they were pretty shabby dealings.

Mexico's real, underlying problem, is that she was a Spanish Colony. With few exceptions, nations that were drawn as colonial possessions have faired poorly. That's true in Africa, southeast Asia and no less true here in the Americas. The colonial system was never designed to be beneficial to the colonized. They basically gave up their raw materials and work, for the dubious rewards of Religion and, later, "civilization".

Shrugging off a colonial heritage is a tough row to hoe. In the first place, most colonies were ruled from the home country, so their experience with self governemnt is usually limited. For another, colonial strategies quite often involved pitting one tribe or minority against another, fanning distrust and hate among the population. Infrastructure was usually limited to whatever was needed to get their products back to Europe. Training was usually confined to producing the cash crop. Education was minimal. Most former colonial possessions start out with so many handicaps it would take a month to list them.

It can be overcome, and how much you have to overcome has a lot to do with who colonized you. This is a wild generalization, but from my head I would say you have the best bet if your colonizers were British (U.S., Austrailia, India). After that? In descending order Dutch (South Africa), German (Several south pacific islands), French (Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Vietnam, Algeria) , Spanish (Mexico, Peru,), Belium (Congo).

To my mind, historically speaking, nothing has been as instrumental in Mexico's current problems as her legacy of being a Spanish Colony is.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I usually end up pondering the problem that R. Richard notes. Why is it that Mexican citizens are in a state of such utter desperation that they are willing to leave their homes and families and risk the possibility of an agonizing death just to get out of their country? And why has this problem continued for so long?

I'd like to see more of our efforts devoted to helping to solve that problem. Until then, it feels kind of like shooting people for trespassing as they climb in from a burning building. Sure, there are going to be problems for me as they come in, but I'm not facing anything nearly as bad as they are. I need to keep myself from being crushed in the stampede, and if possible to divert some of the flow to other places or other effort - but someone also needs to put out the damned fire.

Shanglan

Except you can't put it out Shang. Not unless you want to go the GWB regime change route. that fire has been burning for hundreds of years. the whole structure is compromised. The only people who have a chance of putting it out are the people still stuck inside. Not because they are better equipped, but because they have the only real interest, for them it's put it out or be burned.

A country, as rich as mexico is in history, natural beauty and resources should never have money sent from another country anywhere near the top of it's GNP. tourism alone should have their economy booming. the problem is, that money is lining the pockets of a corrupt few officals and the foerign intersts they prostitute themselves too and until it starts working for the nation, it's going to stay that way. And the only people who can change the governemnt legitimately, are the people living there.

It's a catch-22 for outside governments. Go in to help and you look like an imperialst violating their soverginty. Staying out makes you look indifffernt. You can't win for looseing.

 

[Pure]

Interesting juxtaposition: [correction]**

Perd [Correction 1-27: It was Colly who said this, NOT Perd. Sorry]


: from my head I would say you have the best bet if your colonizers were British (U.S., Austrailia, India). After that? In descending order Dutch (South Africa), German (Several south pacific islands), French (Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Vietnam, Algeria) , Spanish (Mexico, Peru,), Belgium (Congo).

Shang: Why is it that Mexican citizens are in a state of such utter desperation that they are willing to leave their homes and families and risk the possibility of an agonizing death just to get out of their country? And why has this problem continued for so long?

===
In Shang's statement could equally well be substituted El Salvador, Honduras, Chile, Colombia, Cuba before 1956.

One has to begin with a wider concept of hegemony and economic domination. NOT just look ask-- are soldiers stationed there, or are 'colonists' living there. In that sense, one can say in general Latin America is under US domination, and in particular that of major US companies which operate there. "Friendly" regimes are maintained, or where the process falters, they are installed: The US did not need to send an army into Chile to install Pinochet--timely advice and support suffice.

Oddly, enough, Mexico has periodically shown some independence or resistance to domination, but it's fair to say that a genuinely unfriendly regime would not be allowed, IMHO. as the old analogy goes, you have a mouse trying to sleep next to an elephant.

But Mexico, regardless of its special position, cannot be 'fixed' by the US, any more than can Honduras. I address this remark to RR and others who think the 'solution' is to improve the situation in Mexico.
Mexico now functions as a convenient labor pool, whose people can be counted on to work, and where their recompense can be decided purely by what ami calls the 'free market' (subminimum wages, etc. in the US, and below- subsistence income in many parts of Mexico).

Although I finally voted 'yes' with reservations, the above analysis also draws me to the position of 'it makes no difference', at least in respect to the numbers of people entering illegally. possibly a valid map, if not also used by the US law enforcement, would save a few lives.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think this is probably just the latest slap in the Mexico-American slapfest that's going on about illegal immigration. We do something they don't like, so they come back and do something we don't like.

They're still terribly incensed and insulted about the proposed Wall the US wants to build on the border. I think this is probably their way of giving us the finger about it. The utility of these maps is beside the point. It's the gesture that counts.

 

[Guest]

I think this is probably just the latest slap in the Mexico-American slapfest that's going on about illegal immigration.

Slapping myself for posting above. I appreciate the thoughtful replies, but must leave this be.

Gracias, Zoot.

Perdita

 

[R. Richard]

Oddly, enough, Mexico has periodically shown some independence or resistance to domination, but it's fair to say that a genuinely unfriendly regime would not be allowed, IMHO. as the old analogy goes, you have a mouse trying to sleep next to an elephant.

But Mexico, regardless of its special position, cannot be 'fixed' by the US, any more than can Honduras. I address this remark to RR and others who think the 'solution' is to improve the situation in Mexico.
Mexico now functions as a convenient labor pool, whose people can be counted on to work, and where their recompense can be decided purely by what ami calls the 'free market' (subminimum wages, etc. in the US, and below- subsistence income in many parts of Mexico).

Mexico is a land rich in natural resources and human resources as well. The problem that has existed since there was a Mexico [and well before that] is government corruption. The only reliable way to get rich in Mexico is to be a politician. That state of affairs is changing, but very slowly and resistance from the currently entranched politicians is fierce. Predita can fill in some details here.

There are very rich people in Mexico. There are a lot more desperately poor people. Unfortunately, the rich people in Mexico like it that way. The poor people do not like it that way, but are powerless to change things. Several times the situation has built to a near revolution [Perdita?]. I used to live in San Diego. At one point in time the losers in a Mexican political discussion arrived in San Diego with the clothes on their backs and the Federales nipping at their heels. The first generation worked as janitors and maids, the only jobs they could get. Some of them worked up to small buisneess owners later. Their children were small business owners, engineers, teachers, lawyers [you have some failures in any group] and so on. Their grandchildren are big business owners and some of the leading people in San Diego. We can use more people like that in the US. Mexico needs them more.

The Mexicans do not want people who want sweeping political change. They will do damn near anything to prevent same. The change is occurring, if slowly.

The US could solve the problem, but may not, due to politics. The Mexicans will have to solve the problems or they will have a revolution. There was only one political party in Mexico. Now there are three. Hopefully the changes will occur fast enough so that there will not be a real revolution. [Things in the Southern jungles are on the edge of a revolution right now.]

Perdita, por favor?

 

[BlackShanglan]

It's a catch-22 for outside governments. Go in to help and you look like an imperialst violating their soverginty. Staying out makes you look indifffernt. You can't win for looseing.

Oh, agreed. Wasn't saying that there was a straightforward answer - only that that was where the answer would have to be. And, of course, largely because of this:

Shrugging off a colonial heritage is a tough row to hoe. In the first place, most colonies were ruled from the home country, so their experience with self governemnt is usually limited. For another, colonial strategies quite often involved pitting one tribe or minority against another, fanning distrust and hate among the population. Infrastructure was usually limited to whatever was needed to get their products back to Europe. Training was usually confined to producing the cash crop. Education was minimal. Most former colonial possessions start out with so many handicaps it would take a month to list them.

I think that's at the root of a lot of the difficulties in establishing stable, benevolent governments in Africa as well. By the time the colonial powers moved out, everyone in living memory had been ruled under the same system: outright theft and brutality backed up by the state for the benefit of those in charge. It's very difficult to change that. The straightforward answer to moving on from colonial power - "Who should get to control and loot the country now?" - is so obvious, and has so many eager takers, that it takes a truly extraordinary group of people working together to change that question to "How can we return the government of this country to something that benefits its citizens?"

It does happen. I think Ghandi did his best to do that, and certainly set a powerful personal example. I've recently been learning about the early government of Botswana and found their leader's thoughts and actions very inspiring. But it's difficult to find such people. My feelings on the actions of the American "founding fathers" are mixed, as I think they must be, but I will give Washington this: many people wanted to make him king, probably enough that he could have been - especially with an army behind him. He turned it down.

The world need people who can make that decision. Sometimes of all the good a leader can accomplish, the highest good is stepping aside and showing that power can and must change hands peacefully. I wish that our forefathers had done many things differently, but I think it's easy to forget how vital and how revolutionary that central idea was, and how remarkable it was that they were able to enshrine it: that the leadership of the country should and will regularly change hands without insurrection, civil war, and the collapse of all law and order.

 

[Pure]

but 'good leader' and 'peaceable transfer of power' are not quite enough in Latin America. Allende was a good leader who achieved power peaceably, and ...

we currently see Chavez having come to power in Venezuala, and maybe he's a good leader, and he did come to power peaceably, but what is on the horizon?

by extension, what would be the outcome of a 'good leader' coming to power peaceably in Mexico?

 

[R. Richard]

but 'good leader' and 'peaceable transfer of power' are not quite enough in Latin America. Allende was a good leader who achieved power peaceably.

by extension, what would be the outcome of a 'good leader' coming to power peaceably in Mexico?

Allende was indeed elected in a fair election. However, he then began to nationalize foreign holdings in Chile [nationalize = theft]. The result was hyper inflation and almost total economic instability. The final result was a military coup in which Pinochet seized power and Allende committed suicide. How you could call Allende a good leader I do not understand.

Pinochet was an outstanding economic leader for Chile. His free market reforms have placed Chile on a sound economic footing. However, Pinochet had a fairly simple method of dealing with those who disagreed with him, he murdered them. This last is one of the little no-nos of modern society and he wound up in big trouble. As an economic leader, Piochet was a hero. As a political leader, he was a monster.

If a good leader came to power in Mexico, he/she would have an enormous problem. The rich want the country run as it is now and will violently resist any real change. The poor want total change, but really have no power to effect such change.

If Mexico is lucky they will elect a succession of liars as president. The liars will promise the rich not to change anything while they gradually move the country to a fairer basis. In the meantime, the same liar will promise the peons everything, but will deliver SOMETHING, which is a better deal that the peons have been having over at least the last century.

 

[Pure]

Perils of a 'Good Leader'

Here is a key episode relevant to Mexico. In a word, under Cardenas, Mexico nationalized its oil in 1938, and was prepared to compensate. The British were most unhappy, since it was mostly their companies. LUCKY BREAK: Because was 1938 and the US was in peril, Roosevelt decided to act as a 'good neighbor' instead to wield the 'big stick' on behalf of the Brits. He exerted some pressure, but not decisively. He helped to set a compensation figure. Mexico, for that period, succeeded in taking control of its oil industry.

Here are the details of that period from a lecture of J. Gonzales at Trinity U, Texas.



http://www.trinity.edu/jgonzal1/341f96g1.html
Trinity University, San Antonio, TX
Mexican Oil Industry

Prasanth Boyareddigari,
George Newton,
Luis Testas;

[Lecture by?]
Dr. Jorge Gonzalez,
Nov.26 1996,
Econ 341,

[...]
On January 30, 1937, Lazaro Cardenas made a decision which would eventually transform the entire petroleum industry in Mexico. Cardenas created the AGPN, "Administracion General del Petroleo Nacional." The AGPN became a public organism that would guide the Mexican oil industry. In and of itself, the creation of the AGPN was in many ways a takeover. The creation of the AGPN constituted the transformation of Petromex into a publicly driven firm.

The conversion of Petromex into AGPN had serious economic repercussions, especially for foreign owned firms. Many of these foreign firms had government concessions and thus felt somewhat threatened. The long term impact of the creation of the AGPN was not too consequential. The AGPN never could compete with most private firms. "

On September of 1937, Cardenas announced that the AGPN had 3.79% of the total petroleum production in Mexico" (Celis Salgado, 324). Regardless of its small market share, the creation of the AGPN allowed the government increased participation in the petroleum industry.
The government's increased participation in the industry caused several problems.

The mixed interests of both the private sector and the public sector brought about many complexities in the labor structure of the petroleum industry. Many workers had difficulties adapting to new policies. Many workers were forced to work in different areas wherever the government thought work was needed.

Given the existence of the STPRM, workers were able to demand their rights. One of the main problems was the wage structure of petroleum workers. "Oil companies argued that the wages they were paying were as high or higher than those of any other industry in the country, but the laborers answered that they were less than half of what the same companies paid their employees in the United States for the same work" (Townsend, 251).

Likewise, laborers were also demanding protection against diseases. Mexican workers were exposed to high risks and were demanding more attention. The Cardenas administration saw the escalation of labor problems which lead to several strikes. Most of these problems were controlled but they never truly disappeared. These labor issues, along with the differentiation of interests between private firms and public firms, lead the Cardenas administration to contemplate the application of the law of expropriation.


In contemplating the expropriation of the petroleum industry, Cardenas sought to obtain everyone's approval. Cardenas received approval from the members of his cabinet, the Supreme Court and the Congression of the Union. Most importantly, he had the approval of the union workers, farmers, and in general, the people.

At ten o'clock on Friday March 18, 1938, Cardenas publicly announced the government's expropriation of the oil industry (Celis Salgado, 380). Cardenas publicly stated that his government decided to expropriate the oil industry given the escalation of problems which were hindering the development of the industry. Once again, we are able to see how Cardenas always did what he thought was beneficial for the country.

Furthermore, the Cardenas administration was in many ways, forced to take this course of action. In his expropriation speech, Cardenas stated: "The attitude of the oil companies is premeditated and their decision has been too deliberately thought out to permit the government to resort to any means less final, or adopt a stance less severe.... I call upon the whole nation to furnish such moral and physical support as may be needed to face the consequences that may result from a decision which we would neither have wished nor sought had it depended on ourselves alone" (Townsend, 257). Indeed, the consequences of this decision were somewhat severe. Nonetheless, Cardenas had gained the respect of his nation, and it was ready to support their president's decision.


The decision to expropriate, while accepted by the Mexican people, was obviously rejected by all foreign companies. Cardenas knew he would have to reach an agreement with foreign owned companies. Before he could, Mexico faced its first financial struggle as the United States decided to stop all silver purchases from Mexico.

The Cardenas administration expected this kind of resentment; nonetheless, Cardenas continually reminded foreigners that he had acted within the law and in his country's best interest. The biggest question to be settled at the time, was how much indemnity would Mexico have to pay to foreign companies? After months of debating, president Roosevelt stated on April 1, 1938, "that the actual investments minus profits would be the basis for arriving at a fair indemnity" (Townsend, 269).

There are thousands of debates as to how much Mexico would owe. Regardless of the exact sum, the amount was approximately $450 million dollars. At the time when everyone believed Mexico was not going to be able to pay, Cardenas publicly announced that Mexico would in fact pay indemnity.

At this point, one of Mexico's most important historical moments took place, as millions of people backed their president through private contributions. "Catholics and Protestants, rich and poor, government employees and government critics, all responded with contributions.... It was their response to a man who believed in them, and in whom they believed. It was people coming to aid a country they loved" (Townsend, 270).

Despite the many contributions, on March of 1939, Cardenas allowed seventeen foreign expropriated companies to return on several conditions: On the condition they be merged into one big concern with control in Mexican hands, and companies were to promise to withdraw and turn the business over to the nation upon the expiration of a long term contract (Townsend, 300).

Once again, Cardenas did this given his concern for the nation in general; " Cardenas was willing to consider the return of foreign companies because he was anxious to eliminate friction and get on with his program of helping the masses by putting Mexico in a position where she could produce enough to raise her standard of living" (Townsend, 300).

Reference
Townsend, William. Lazaro Cardenas: Mexican Democrat. Waxhaw: International Friendship, 1979.