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
“that awful Mitt Romney”
So you worked on our (U.S. Citizens) behalf during your 2 tours?
All the more reason to control immigration.
If you really love someone, you would not want that person to live in the United States as a second-class citizen.
You would be motivated to fix the immigration policies that have created this problem.
Maybe he does understand. Over the last 30 years while you have seen poor sleepy mexican towns become prosperous. Maybe the Donald has seen what many of us have seen. Over the same time period our once prosperous small US towns that were the backbone of our country have been abandoned as the work that made them prosperous fails or moves out of the country, much of it to mexico. Now all many of these towns have is welfare, drugs and crime.
So you have no walls, fences, doors, gates or locks on your property or rental? They are ineffective so why would you bother with such things?
Would i understand your argument to conclude that immigration is definable as a net benefit? If so, i disagree, such that that is not enough information. There are many infinite qualities of said migrant population to be considered in order to sufficiently attempt to make such a judgement.
I do not say that you say that “it was costless”. Rather I mean to illustrate that the focus on the negative is the proper place for one’s concern. Bracing for a worse scenario is necessary, and proper for many endeavors, and immigration policy is not not one of them.
I further present that Open Borders are not all good as Closed Borders are All Bad. Rather, immigration should be geared to benefit the society; like all policy areas which have a group-wide nexus of interest. Immigration unfettered leaves the discretion of the composition of the group to the outsiders and displaces the rights of the group to determine its membership; which is, by definition, a group-wide interest.
You seem to allude to a theme which I read as being similar to “rising tides lift all boats”. While increased population size does correlate with increased economic prosperity – there is no causal link. Your rush to judgement – that open borders so called can be defined as a net benefit(if that is part of your argument) makes as much sense as reminding ourselves that in the end, we are all dead. As true as it may be, it is useless as a guide to making policy which will be inflicted upon those who will be here after we are gone. The actual migrant and all his qualities is still at issue. Most of whom work Capitalist, and vote Socialist.
Oh please we don’t need the Stasi or the Volks Armee. The Border Patrol is plenty. And last time I looked we DO have a National Guard. And we don’t need to fence every mile. Areas that are less accessible can be sensor and drone patrolled. The fence free’s up other assets to do that. Force Multiplier.
You know the major reason they burn out? Because they are frustrated by playing catch and release, knowing that the bureaucracy is just going through the motions.
Again it’s will not resources. Large majority of the people have the will and want it done. But the elites in both parties block it.
A very, very valid concern. As are the higher levels of violence that come along with all of that. Having been born and raised on the Texas-Mexico border, these are things that I know for a fact. Open borders advocates live in the realm of fantasy. Donald Trump and Ann Coulter are right.
I keep hearing this–from plain folks but also from Ann “Soy Chingon y Yo Me Lo Levante Tarde” Coulter. It just doesn’t comport with any reality I’ve dealt with recently. Not a big fan of reality, but counterfactuals need some basis in it. The thought that the RNC (an organization that Jonah Goldberg rightly says couldn’t cross the street without stepping on its own bad thing and apologizing for it) could forbid anything and make it stick is particularly laughable.
Right, and most negatives are overemphasized and positives ignored because most people know the conclusion they want to arrive at before they even start considering things.
But the worse scenario is demonstrably false. It’s not the worst case scenario that you can imagine that matters, it’s the worse case scenario that has a possibility of occurring in reality. And this should always be viewed next to the best case scenario if we want to be objective.
What if society is wrong about what benefits it, and instead it’s just a bunch of people who all agree that they don’t want foreigners for various reasons that all amount to it making them nervous?
If they are here they are no longer an outgroup.
There is no causal link? That is a fantastic sounding statement that I would be surprised it resembled the truth. It’s not about increasing the population for it’s own sake, it’s about increasing productivity. If you have more people it becomes easier to increase productivity.
I wasn’t defining open borders as a net benefit, it just obviously is. It humors me that you find my position a rush to judgement, as if I wasn’t someone who agreed with everyone year a couple years ago until I was convinced otherwise.
If you think a wall won’t work, then make illegally crossing the border a serious felony. Get caught crossing the border and spend 10 years in a federal penitentiary built right at the border. See if they risk it then.
Let’s not forget that Mexico had an open borders policy when they owned Texas. How’d that work out for them? Let’s not make their mistake.
Is that because of our lovingly crafted safety nets?
Thank you for this. This is my understanding of the border issue as well. This is such an over hyped issue. The nature of the issue makes it ripe for demagoguery, of which I have to say conservative talk show hosts love to play up.
No, it’s because we have things like clean water, abundant inexpensive food, strong property rights, and ample opportunities.
Since I’m reading a book called the state of the american mind I’m particularly interested in this portion of disagreement. I admit, that I’m not privy to the interiors of your mind – nor am I familiar with the twists and turns of your path to this state of opinion. With that said…
I agree that you did not define borders as a net benefit. That is not my claim. Rather, I claim that whether open borders is a net benefit is non-knowable; it is not a calculable conclusion. Open immigration of whom? Open immigration of what kinds of people? Open immigration of murderers and rapists? Open immigration of technology magnates? Open immigration of business tycoons? What people are we talking about?
It’s as insufficiently specific as “calories in, calories out” is for nutrition science. Or, as ineffective as a recent computer programmed to recognize images of cats; which thought a picture of coffee mugs was a picture of cats. Like the inhuman software: I argue that Open Borders, as a policy prescription, works 99% of the time and misses all of the important cases.
Bless you for this. Trump is a nasty demagogue.
A community without the ability to identify and restrict its members is not a community. It’s just a place people happen to live.
If America is just a place like any other, then borders don’t matter. If it is a community of particular values and laws, then it can only be preserved by excluding people who do not share those values and laws.
Many immigrants from south of the Rio Grande become genuine Americans. Many others live here without conforming. Honoring our laws is the most basic kind of conformity.
I’ve known good hearted illegals. I have no right to welcome them into a home I share with millions of other Americans. We have a process for welcoming immigrants. Fix the process. Circumventing it is immoral.
Why is the ability to restrict members a requirement to have a community. America’s community changes constantly, it varies widely from place to place. The best places tend to also have the most immigrants. I don’t know what about restricting people, just for the sake of claiming we have a “community,” is somehow a good thing. Why is someone who wants a community of all comers viewed as something wholly different than the people who just disagree on which groups to restrict? Isn’t it just as valid of an opinion? It’s not approached that way.
What percent of Americans no not now respect what you see as America’s values and laws? My guess is a huge percent. Why not actively try to remove those people? There’s no real moral difference between kicking one person out because of their views or not letting someone in because of their views, but one of those things would be viewed as horrible and the other salutatory.
I know you’re going to say “well, they’re citizens” but how are we supposed to have the community with all of these anti-community citizens mucking it up for the rest of us? Why do they deserve it more than the right (or wrong) people who are outside?
I always find this argument so self-serving and circular. It says if you want to be an American then follow the laws, especially the laws that likely guarantee many can never be an American.
Don’t you have a right to welcome them into your physical home? Don’t you own that property first and foremost? Who’s to tell you who you may have over for dinner? How utterly disgusting is it that strangers that occupy the area around you can tell you whom you may or may not interact with. In almost any other context this would infuriate you.
So there are public roads, so what? Then they can tell you who you’re allowed to have over on a technicality? It’s just such an obvious violation of our liberty and I can’t wait for enough people to finally wake up to it’s utter stupidity.
I’d like to see some quantification of that.
I have just finished reading The Cartel by Don Winslow. you may have been a foreign service pro, the author has been researching this book for years the institutions of the country are corrupt all the way up to the top.
I can’t speak to the general political orientation of consular officers, but since most of us are involved in administering visa rules we are disturbed when people don’t follow them. We see both the positive and negative aspects of immigration.
Individual decisions to issue a visa are up to each consular officer, based on immigration law, which places the burden of proof on the applicant to demonstrate that he or she is a bona fide non-immigrant. The standards for this differ from place to place, based on historical and economic conditions, and past experiences. As things change, standards change. I’ve never had anybody tell me to issue a visa, or not issue, and as a supervisor I allowed my officers to make their own decision, which I would review. As long as they were well-reasoned and well-documented, I was fine with them. On a working level, we never got much specific guidance from Washington on how to adjudicate visas beyond the training that we receive in visa adjudication. Most consular officers would rather issue a visa than refuse one, but when it’s clear that someone is just not qualified based on the standards we have developed, or if an applicants story doesn’t make sense, we have no problem refusing an application.
For instance, cities tend to be places with a lot of varied and interesting things to do (whether you like cities or not). These places tend to have a high immigrant population and thus a lot of “cultural imperialism,” which is one of the absolute best things about America. We take the coolest parts of all the other cultures in the world, make them our own, and dump the rest.
Oh, my. Prof. Rahe is one smart guy. I hate questioning my positions, I’m so poor at it.
If Trump is a nasty demagogue, is that worse than actual elected leaders and other public servants, purposely promoting misleading statistics and suppressing valid counter statistics?
If one questions some immigration policy, the word RACIST often follows. It seems nasty demagoguery is one of they few weapons that can penetrate the MSM.
I wonder if VDH would feel blessed reading this post.
Another position I hold is that Paul A. Rahe is at least as smart as I am and probably much smarter. He also seems to have a much broader perspective and seems less bias than myself. So I should shut up and listen for awhile.
Mike, big cities are where the lie of multiculturalism reigns supreme and where ideals like limited government go to die. If you hadn’t noticed, they vote Democrat. That’s where America is dying.
Ricochet itself has very strong border control.
Ironic to see open borders advocated here. :)
An issue that seems to get swept aside, and I think is really drawing the ire of hard working conservative Americans is ‘lawlessness’.
This president and his minions can pick and choose who should be taken down, but not the IRS, or the Justice Department or the VA or the people they’ve chosen to do their bidding
But the average American has to abide and live with laws that can put them in jail or wipe out their financial well being BUT be someone from south of the border who is completely here illegally and you get a get out of jai free card and the same ‘leader of the free world’ goes on a national speaking tour to tell you what a terrible low life you are for even disagreeing with his policies and the illegal aliens.
So hold the laws of the country as a citizen and be chastised for not agreeing that others aren’t held to the same standard.
Voila’- Donald Trump.
America is fine. The cities are great places to live. If one dies, I can just move, right? Good thing I have the right to immigrate! ;)
I would love if America would let all comers for a nominal fee! I can get behind the Ricochet model of immigration!
Correct, Ford. I live in Texas, on the outskirts of one of the most diverse cities in the world (Houston) – a paradise, Mike seems to think. Here in the district of Ted Cruz, it is increasingly common to encounter people who don’t speak English, who drive without a license or insurance, who are not bound by any regulations, etc.
American companies hire illegals because they don’t require benefits, paperwork, safety standards, or anything our laws demand of legal residents. Read the articles by Victor Davis Hanson to understand how bleeding heart conservatives and anarchic libertarians are fostering a society divided between residents subject to law and residents immune to law.
Cities also tend to have higher crime rates, higher poverty levels, sub par to awful school systems.
Cities are great places to live? Are Baltimore, Newark, Camden, Philadelphia,Detroit, great places to live? NY, Chicago, LA, Boston, San Fran are great places to live if you are wealthy, and don’t have to send your kids to public schools. Otherwise, not so much.