September 23, 2003
Memo From Mexico, By
Allan Wall
Mexico Has No Intention Of Decreasing Emigration
Could
mass Mexican immigration to the United States be
only a transitional phenomenon until Mexico gets its
economy in order?
A hypothetical
question, of course, since Mexico is a
long way from getting its economic house in order.
But this is the
answer: don’t count on a decrease in emigration from
Mexico any time. The Mexican government has no intention
of decreasing it. In fact, it’s working hard to
increase emigration.
According to a
document issued in November of 2001 by
CONAPO, the Mexican National Population Council,
even with a decrease in the birth rate and an improved
Mexican economy, emigration to the U.S. will not
diminish for at
least the next 30 years! CONAPO called this
emigration “inevitable.” Of course what CONAPO
really means by "inevitable" is that it doesn't
want it stopped.
The Mexican central
bank recently reported that income from
remittances from Mexican migrants in the U.S. now
tops that of every other sector other than petroleum.
Migration, in other words, earns more for Mexico than
tourism, more than manufacturing, more than mining, more
than agriculture, more than direct foreign investment in
Mexico.
In just the first 6
months of 2003, recorded earnings from remittances
totaled $6.3 billion (Petroleum – over $8 billion,
direct foreign investment – $5.2 billion, Tourism – $4.9
billion). [Mexican
Central Bank: Money Sent Home By Migrants Tops Foreign
Investment, Tourism by Mark Stevenson, Associated
Press, August 29th, 2003]
Mexico has great
economic potential. It’s a
tourist bonanza with some of the world’s finest
beaches, colonial architecture, pre-Hispanic
archaeology, and more. Mexico has mineral wealth – for
example, it’s the world’s number one in silver reserves - a
large industrial sector, a highly-educated upper class
and a small but growing high-tech industry. Mexican
agriculture is blessed with a wide variety of ecosystems
and long growing seasons.
Yet, except for
petroleum, not one of these sources of wealth production
can surpass the value of remittances from migrants in
the U.S.!
This is a stunning
indictment. How could a modern nation-state allow itself
to get into such a predicament?
This incredible
failure should be a first-class embarrassment for
Mexico’s ruling class. Instead, it's being utilized for
political gain. The power of migrant remittances in the
economy is yet another built-in disincentive to reform
Mexico’s economy.
Where does
remittance money go? It goes to buy groceries, consumer
goods and into home improvement. In some cases it
encourages its recipients
not to take up productive work in Mexico. Very
little of remittance funds are channeled into savings or
productive investment in Mexico. Once again, no
incentive for emigration reduction.
Indeed, Mexico is
losing its attraction for foreign investment due in part
to its government’s ongoing failure to enact reform in
the fiscal and energy sectors
[México
pierde su atractiva,
Romina Róman, Universal, September 11th, 2003]. Why
should it, with
that emigration safety valve?
You can't blame
Vicente Fox for the economic and political errors of
the 71 years before he took office. On the other
hand, his election provided a
window of opportunity which his administration has
failed to exploit.
Fox defenders blame the Mexican Congress, which does
deserve its share of the blame. However, there are
elements in the PRI – the former ruling party – open to
energy reform. Why can't Fox build a coalition with this
faction - as Ronald Reagan did with southern Democrats
in the 1980's? The Fox administration has simply
not shown the necessary political skills for such
coalition-building.
Instead, Fox's
obsession with emigration has diverted time and
political capital which could have been spent more
constructively in substantial reforms.
Mexican Foreign
Minister
Luis Ernesto Derbez, who recently declared that
Mexico would
give the U.S. nothing in exchange for a migratory
accord, laid out the goals of Mexican foreign policy in
a recent Reforma article. Generally, these goals
are what you would expect given the globalist principles
outlined in
Vicente Fox’s Madrid speech. But of special interest
to the U.S. National Question is one item that Foreign
Minister Derbez describes thusly:
“Through our
network of 45 consulates, we reinforce attention to
the needs of our fellow Mexicans in the United States
regardless of their
legal or migratory status…We seek with our northern
neighbor the negotiation of a total migratory package
which includes (a) the regularization of undocumented
[a.k.a.
illegal] Mexicans resident in that country, (b)
border security, (c)an increase in the number of visas
for temporary workers and (d) regional economic
development.
“Besides seeking a
total migratory package defined above, with the goal of
improving living conditions of our fellow Mexicans, we
have issued in the past year 1, 130,000
matriculas consulares.
[They are] accepted
in 280 banking institutions and in 32 states of that
country [the U.S.] The [U.S.] Department
of the Treasury announced yesterday that it permits the
use of the
matricula by commercial banking. This will doubtless
increase its acceptance, to the benefit of all Mexicans.
“In April we
established the
Institute of Mexicans Abroad, whose Consultative
Council is composed of 100 consultants, elected directly
by the Mexican Communities, which institutionalizes the
relationship between Mexico and the communities abroad.”
[Estrategias de la Nueva Política Exterior de México,
Luis
Ernesto Derbez,
Reforma,
September 19th, 2003]
Notice that, as
usual, the Mexican foreign ministry is closely
monitoring the
matricula consular situation, pushing for a
migratory accord, and utilizing Mexican consulates
as operational bases for the
continuing colonization of the United States.
Americans need to
understand that Mexico’s leaders, who head its
white minority government, have no intention
whatsoever of reducing emigration. Why should they?
Emigration keeps them in power. It removes a portion of
Mexico’s poor, reducing demographic pressure on the
government. And, as recent Mexican administrations have
learned, it gives Mexico an opportunity to exert
influence over U.S. immigration policy, which
enables the cycle to continue.
In Mexico’s
fractious political world, “defending the immigrants”
is one issue which draws support across the political
spectrum. All political parties and centers of influence
support the continued promotion of emigration and the
concomitant subversion of American law and sovereignty.
Cutting off
emigration would do Mexico a
gigantic favor. It would finally force the
ruling elite to break the addiction to its
emigration safety valve.
Still, we can’t
expect the Mexican government to
defend U.S. sovereignty. That’s the job of
American leaders.
If our leaders
won’t defend our sovereignty, shouldn’t we replace them
with leaders who do?
American citizen Allan Wall lives and works legally in
Mexico, where he holds an FM-2 residency and work
permit, but serves six weeks a year with the Texas Army
National Guard, in a unit composed almost entirely of
Americans of Mexican ancestry. His VDARE.COM articles
are archived
here; his
FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived
here; his
website is
here. Readers
can contact Allan Wall at
allan39@prodigy.net.mx.
