Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
My Informed Commentary about Donald Trump and Mexico
Listening to Donald Trump verbally assault Mexico disgusts me to the point of illness. There are problems with and in Mexico, but his characterization of it is a grotesque parody of the real situation. His rants are nonsense, and he is a vile man.
My comments are informed because I am a retired Foreign Service Consular officer who spent two tours — four years — at our Embassy in Mexico City. Unlike Trump, I have first-hand knowledge of Mexico, its immigration patterns and economics, and have travelled extensively through the country.
I am in no way in favor of illegal immigration (most consular officers aren’t) and do not turn a blind eye to the problems that mass immigration brings. But I understand why Jeb Bush says that these people are motivated by love. They are in a difficult position in Mexico and want to improve themselves by working in the United States. Leaving to work in another country is difficult. (But that doesn’t mean that we should let them; we have no need for more unskilled laborers, and Scott Walker is spot-on on this point.)
Trump’s accusation that the Mexican government is actively sending criminals to the United States is a filthy lie. There is no evidence to support that. (If they had been, I think that the United States Embassy would have noticed.) It is true that there are posters, especially in border areas, cautioning migrants about the dangers crossing the border (and it is dangerous). But they are not encouraging people to leave, and Mexican politicians know that the strong push to leave is a failing, their failing. Mexico isn’t going to build a wall to keep people in; only Communist countries do that.
This is of course not to deny the huge amount of remittances that Mexicans send from the United States and the importance of it to their economy. But Mexico is not alone; there are few underdeveloped countries in world that don’t get money sent from the United States. This is a much bigger part of the economy in Central America, for example.
The vast number of Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, are hard-working and are coming for economic opportunities. There are bad elements in that population, of course. he fact that it is often unmarried men that go is part of the reason why there is criminal activity in that population. This is not a Mexican-only phenomenon; look at any mining town anywhere, where you have large numbers of young men unconstrained by family responsibilities. Or in some of our own cities, for that matter.) Crime happens in this atmosphere.
Mexican illegals would not come here if there were no jobs. I recall that in the mid-1980s, there were no Mexicans applying for visas to go to visit families in North Carolina, but in the mid-2000s there were, because so many Mexicans went there to work, to do jobs that many Americans didn’t want to do for lower wages. Remove the opportunity to work and illegal immigration will go away.
Remember when that awful Mitt Romney said that we could solve the illegal immigration problem by self-deportation, and remember how he was lambasted for it? Everybody thought he was an idiot? Well … self-deportation is exactly what happened several years ago. Mexicans, unable to find jobs in the United States, started going home. And this is not the first time that this has happened. If you want to stop illegal immigration, the place to build a wall is at the workplace.
We need to understand that the border is porous both ways. Mexican migrant labor has always had the practice of returning home and then going back (the belief that tightening the border is causing more Mexican illegal immigrants to stay has some credence, because it is making that back-and-forth flow more difficult). There are many villages and towns in Mexico that have a tradition of sending workers back to the States, and many come home after a few months, or after a few years, to retire. The nice new house in the village with the new pick-up and the satellite dish? That man worked in El Norte, but came back to his family. That happens a lot. In my second tour, I ran the passport office in the Embassy, and one of our biggest clients were young children of Mexican immigrants to the United States who had sent their children back to Mexico, to the aunt and uncle or grandparents, while the parents worked. It’s a lot better for those kids than American daycare, to be sure. Those cases were often difficult to process because of a lack of documentation owed to the transient nature of these people’s situations, and if they didn’t have convincing evidence of citizenship, we didn’t issue.
The Mexican economy has grown tremendously in the past quarter-century, and much of that is due to NAFTA. Trade has transformed big parts of Mexico, and has increased and strengthened the Mexican middle-class. Donald Trump probably does not realize the tremendous amount of goods that we export to Mexico. I’ve seen this progress — sleepy villages that were poor and dusty thirty years ago are now clean, modern towns full of prosperous workers. Every day, over one billion dollars of goods cross the Mexican-U.S. border. I don’t expect Trump to understand this; he’s in real estate and services — and casinos — and neither he nor his companies have made so much as a widget. If we cut off trade with Mexico, we would lose a huge, huge market. The biggest retailer in Mexico is Wal-Mart (many small Mexican shopkeepers now use Wal-Mart as their supplier, bringing basic goods to their towns and villages). Mexicans do a tremendous amount of shopping when they visit the United States. It’s almost a tradition, now, that when a wife becomes pregnant, they drive up to San Antonio to buy things for the new baby and his nursery.
I am not denying that Mexico has economic problems, or that it is a burdened by serious corruption. I will note, however, that many of the States in Mexico that have done well economically have been run by the insurgent PAN, and not the long-time PRI ruling party.) Because of corruption and the absence of rule of law, drug trafficking has destroyed many parts of the country. I’m also not denying the huge social problems that the mass of poorly-educated illegal immigrants pose in this country, especially in places like California. But this is no reason to build a wall against Mexico, or cut them off. They’re still going to be our Southern border. The answer is more engagement, not less.
And if you’re looking for someone to help solve these problems, it’s certainly not going to be Donald Trump. He’s so full of himself that he has none of the personal skills to successfully deal with anybody from Latin America. We shouldn’t deal with him, either.
Published in General, Immigration
I found it interesting that Rubio said that more illegals are comming from Central America than Mexico. Can Mexico help with that Big Dog?
Thank you. I had the impressions that your expertise brought out as factual statements. Men who love their families try to support them, and I saw that as a real consideration.
Rubio’s offerings regarding other central or south American illegals was noted. Mexico is deemed to be a spotty country for the quality of its police, who seem to expect under the table remuneration by any means possible. One assumes that illegals crossing into Mexico illegally who make it to the US border are abetted in part by Mexican police offers collecting bribes.
Might this be an issue that the Foreign Service might address with the central Mexican government?
Thank you for this post. It is very informative about the nature of illegal immigration from the Mexico perspective. I tend to agree that the place to impact illegal immigration is in the workplace. Everyone talks about deporting the illegals by the truckload, but why do they come? To work. And if it is easy for them to find jobs it’s because there are a high number of employers who find it worth the risk to their business to flout the law.
And while I am sure you are right that the number of actively criminal elements among them is the exception rather than the rule, I do not understand our government’s unwillingness to deport these people as soon as they are brought into custody once their criminal records are known. In addition to being a danger to Americans (not to mention their fellow illegals), they become a burden on our criminal justice system when they are repeatedly arrested and we have to go through the expense of the judicial process on them.
So Mexico is dealing with a large number of illegal American immigrants taking their jobs?
You say the border of porous but we shouldn’t build a wall. How do you control the influx? The immigration system should benefit America. Many immigrants do, some do not. How do you let in the former but not the latter?
Do you think the price of “diversity” and cheap labor is dead Americans in sanctuary cities and unpunished DUIs?
Do you think that illegals should receive welfare, free education and free health care on American taxpayer’s dime?
Do you think that illegals should receive benefits (in-state tuition) that aren’t extended to American citizens?
Do you agree with chain migration?
Do you agree with anchor baby policies?
Why do you talk about trade? Trade isn’t immigration.
Doubtful. I have a good friend who works for the State Department (home and abroad) and as he’s told me too many of people seem to regard Foreign Service to mean representing foreigners to the U.S. instead of the other way around.
Mexico has it’s own illegal problem with Central Americans, which kind of restrains what they say to us. While most of these people are on their way north, some stay, either by choice or by circumstance. Rubio is correct when he cited illegal immigration from Central America is a bigger issue, if you look at it in relative terms. Shutting off remittances would be serious. Some Central Americans benefit from TPS, which keeps getting kicked further back, which keeps them in the country longer. Here in DC the illegal population is mostly Central American.
You don’t see Nicaraguans, however, even though their economy is as bad as anybody else’s. Why? Because they go to Costa Rica. Interesting.
I suppose that some bribes are paid as you go North, but I don’t think that’s a big issue. There’s really not a whole lot of state presence in the border areas, which is something also exploited by narcos. It’s also true that criminal elements are involved in the smuggling, but others manage to get across on their own.
this.
A wall would be ineffective. You can get around/through/under a wall. Or you go around by sea, like what’s going on in Italy. A wall would also not prevent nonimmigrants who come here legally from overstaying.
We see plenty of people who come over and game the system, especially with regard to benefits. It does anger some of us.
Right now our legal immigration policy is based on family migration, which you can call chain migration. There is certainly room to change parts of this, such as eliminating immigration benefits for parents and siblings. Also, we need to abolish the visa lottery immediately. It was a stupid law thirty years ago, and is a stupid law today. We are basically giving visas and valuable opportunities away for nothing — for nothing, mostly to the unskilled. It is the most kumbayah policy imaginable, and serves absolutely no public purpose or policy goal. (Some may remember that Sen. Kennedy pushed this idea, and it was jerry-rigged to favor the Irish, at a time when Irish people were still leaving their country.)
Most countries do not have citizenship-by-birth policies, and I would not object to abolishing ours as well. There is a whole industry of women from the PRC coming to the U.S. to give birth and secure a U.S. passport. They go home, but their options for the future have just expanded. There is a debate as to whether citizenship-by-birth is directed by the equal protection clause of the 13th Amendment; I’ve seen good arguments either way. If it requires a constitutional amendment to change this, so be it.
And you are right — trade isn’t immigration. People are much more important that goods. Merchandise does not have citizenship, but citizens do. That’s why free trade is to be encouraged, but not free immigration.
Are you kidding? You think Mexico doesn’t notice things like THIS..
“La Bestia”
They usher them right to OUR border and push them across they don’t want to with them.
We could stop that if we build a fence deposit illegals from Central America on Mexico’s doorstep.
And personal and property crimes, identity theft, identity fabrication, and entitlement fraud?
Oh come on. People have been building walls forever because they WORK. Ever see the Berlin Wall or the InterGerman Border? The Israeli fences have cut attacks by more then 90%. Fences are force multipliers. You defeat a huge number of casual illegals who can no longer stroll over the border. Now it takes serious effort to defeat it. You slow a torrent to a trickle. With proper sensors and deployment of your Border Patrol you can make that even smaller. And obviously it’s part of a bigger picture. Track visa overstays and when you catch them FOR ANYTHING, deport and don’t give them another visa. Enforce E- Verify and punish employers who ignore it. Remove the “anchor baby” provision for those here illegally. Punish anyone who steals a SS number as a real criminal. Hint. They are.
The problem isn’t means, it’s WILL.
I’m no supporter of Trump, but I like his presence because no one would be talking about immigration–illegal or legal–if he weren’t talking about it. The RNC wouldn’t allow it. That said, last night, when Kelly asked for evidence that the Mexican government was aiding illegal immigration, Trump should have said that all of us have seen TV footage of the Central Americans riding trains through Mexico to get to the US. We’ve seen that footage on Fox News!
Yes, of course no barrier is insurmountable. But it seems to me that this is something of a strawman argument. Is anybody claiming otherwise?
What I never understand about that point is why that used to argue against building any barrier. Put another way, reducing infiltration by 95% would be a dramatic improvement.
Yes, no doubt overstaying is a major part of the problem. But that is a different failure mode with respect to an unenforced border. The overstaying of visas needs different fixes.
Yes, you can infiltrate by sea. But how does that justify leaving our border on Mexico unenforced?
All of that said, please don’t take my points to indicate an overall hostility to your thoughtful post. And I fully agree with your point that Trump is obnoxious.
This is exactly why immigration is so important. People are most important, no matter where they are born. Open immigration benefits practically all people with a larger economy and higher wages (since there are more people to sell to). It especially helps the immigrants, but there are economic benefits all around.
When people talk about immigration, they tend to focus on the negative aspects, but if you take into account the positive aspects and study the magnitude of negative effects, when you add everything up it comes out strongly in favor of immigration.
I’m not for a physical fence so much as human one, of more border patrols. As the US Border Patrol does it’s job, big spaniel said it best,
3 prongs: 1) more border patrols, 2) verify citizenship in the workplace, 3) deport caught illegals and imprisoned criminal illegals as fast as possible.
Our border is several thousand miles, and we don’t have a Stasi or VoPo guarding it. The Israelis have only a relatively short territory to protect. I would agree that fences are useful in urban or high-traffic areas, but (and this is also your good point) if we don’t have a force to patrol it people will get across. I went out with the Border Patrol in San Diego in the mid-1980s and this is exactly what we saw. If we don’t have the will to enforce immigration laws at the workplace, we won’t have the will to enforce them at the border. There’ll never be enough Border Patrol agents. The burn-out rate for agents patrolling the border is very high.
For most illegal aliens, the border is the Finish Line. Once you’re here, you’re here and will not be sent back. That being the case, the illegal alien has every incentive to put up with the bestiality of coyotes, the bribes, the sweatshops, and the virtual slavery encountered enroute. Deport quickly and reliably and it won’t be worth it. It’s easier to do the wrong thing now than stand in line for a green card. Make the green card the easier thing to do.
And…bust the employers. They’re half the issue and they know what they’re doing. It’s not profitable to hire Americans because it’s easier to hire illegal aliens and treat them like serfs. Fine them and fine them big.
Defund sanctuary cities. The law is not a matter of opinion, or of taste. We should not be funding scofflaws and that includes municipalities.
Have you seen the Hong Kong citizen recruitment in Houston airport? All you have to be is…highly qualified. No one deplores the racism of Hong Kong. All you have to be is — qualified.
But an increased labor supply decreases wages, especially for people who are marginal in the workforce to begin with.
I’ve read a lot about this subject, and my conclusion is that the economic benefits vs costs of immigration is a wash at best. It most directly impacts people at the bottom of the economy. And this is without addressing the societal changes that immigration brings.
It does reduce the low end wages, but only by 5-10%. Everyone else gets a bump. This still stinks, but it would make more sense to tax immigrants more (have them pay the government a couple thousand rather than the coyotes?) and give low wage workers a bigger earned income credit.
How about taxing the people who get a bump?
You mean 75+% of the population? I don’t think that would be as popular.
Dear Mike H,
There is no such thing as a costless (ex)change. Rising tides may lift all boats eventually – whether one lives long enough to see it, is another matter. It is little comfort to an unemployed man that he may find work in another state, or industry, when he has insufficiently optimistic prospects to travel, and train, and subsist throughout that period of change.
Thank you for putting some aspects of this question in perspective.
When you wrote “I am in no way in favor of illegal immigration (most consular officers aren’t) “, I wondered why you didn’t say ‘all consular officers.’ Could you guess what percentage is ‘most’? and of the ones that have no problem with illegal immigration, are they in higher positions that enforce policy?
When did I say it was costless? All I claimed is if you account for everything in whole it comes out obviously on one side. If you’re one of the losers, does it suck for you? Absolutely! But it’s likely nothing is more costly to more people in the world than closed borders. A huge number of people are unemployed it terrible conditions with no hope of escape. That is far worse than being unemployed in America because your industry was disrupted.
How do Mexican political values compare?
Do they respect rule of law, property rights, limited government, local priority, etc? We are importing culture, not just manual labor. And multiculturalism makes assimilation much less likely than it was during previous waves of integration.
Hispanic nations have historically favored dictators and communists. It wasn’t that long ago that the Church had no legal rights in Mexico. And now we import that culture at a time when American government is becoming lawless and drifting toward strongman politics. Coincidence? A valid concern?
Indeed, money, and labor is not what’s most important that they bring with them… they also bring ideas; some of which are to do with governments role in society.
“Flaming river of gas” – Jake Johannsen
Get rid of the welfare state. That will solve a big chunk of the problem.