I haven't posted in quite a while, having taken to trying to get what I consider important information out in the media via message boards, letters to the editors, that sort of thing. To no avail, unsurprisingly, so back to talking to myself in Upper Blogaria.
There's been an uproar over immigration, specifically illegal (a/k/a undocumented, guest workers, your pick). Now, there are thousands upon thousands of people from all over the world without papers, expired visas, working and living in the U.S. Eastern Europeans, Asians, Afrikaners, Africans--literally from virtually every country in the world. Yet the debate is focused on Mexicans, partly because Mexico is right next door. Yet, however difficult their journey here may be, it is no more difficult than a Haitian arriving on our shores in a raft, or Chinese packed into a container in a tanker--both of whom, by the way, the U.S. sends right back without hesitation, in spite of the fact that both could legitimately ask politcal asylum.
So, leaving aside proximity, I am suspicious of our government's motives, which have nothing to do with humanitarianism. If you want to understand U.S. policy, elucidate the motives, then follow the money. True or False?
Here we go:
When Clinton signed NAFTA into law, it was purportedly to help bring the Third World into the age of modernity through trade. In particular, Mexico. Yet in Mexico poor are poorer than ever. But Mexico's elite--that class that cavorts in the Yucatan during the season with the rest of the world--is richer than ever. In other words, there is no trickle down of money for poor Mexico, whose children pick through the smoking rags of the garbage heaps, unless they are fortunate enough to pick up work in the resorts.
In addition, there is the problem of internal racism in Mexico, despite the efforts of the Hispanic Immigration lobby to disguise this fact. It's not coincidental that her economic refugees who come to the U.S. for a better life are usually dark, usually of more Indian descent more than Spanish, those colonizers from whom the ahem, Brahmins of the Mexican elite descend. So the criticism leveled at the Mexican government is well placed, in spite of the rhetoric of the Hispanic lobby to the contrary in organizing the protests.
But even this is not really point. My point is U.S. motives, why the U.S. has been unable (unwilling) to take hold of this issue. And that motive is: Oil.
Did you know that the U.S. imports more oil from Mexico than from the Saudis? Than from the Iraqis? Than from Nigeria? Yet this point has been conspicuously absent from the media, both Left and Right, because they more concerned with stoking the emotionalism on all sides than with hard facts. Not to mention inflating their ratings.
We are in Iraq for oil, to stablise the supply. We have left the border open, and it will remain open, to protect our oil supply from Mexico. It's as simple as that. In fact, it would not surprise me to learn in coming years that was a deal between our two governments: You give us oil, and we'll turn a blind eye to the border.
Consider also that Venezuela, another importer to the U.S., has taken a communist turn and is even now nationalising their oil fields, either by buying back (Exxon) or throwing out (France and Italy, which just happened today).
Consider also that just as Chavez's anti-American rhetoric is heating up, Vladimir Putin has sidled up to him to whisper sweet nothings in his ear about establishing a Latin American bourse. Putin has kindly offered to help. Yes. I wonder how Chavez will convince the other Latin countries to join with him?
So there is a larger issue involved in the Mexican immigration/borders debate: 1. We rely on their oil and 2. Mexico may be needed as a bulwark between the U.S. and Venezuela, et al. should there be a re-emergence (as I believe there will be) of the Cold War.
By the way, the link is to the Department of Energy's 15 top importers to the U.S.: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html