has illegal immigration from Mexico to the USA prevented

[ProdigalJunkMail]

a revolution or at least an uprising in Mexico? During lunch a colleague suggested that if the 12+million illegal immigrants to the USA who are working and sending money back to Mexico had been prevented from coming to the USA that there would have possibly been a revolution in Mexico due to the horrid wealth inequality and lack of work/income in portions of the country. i found that to be an interesting posit...

posted without popcorn...

sP

[EFerrari]

1. In order to believe this, one has to overlook the US government contribution.

The last federal Mexican election was likely stolen with a lot of support from the Bush administration. The people were out on the street for months.

ETA: Just because the American press doesn't report it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[AlabamaLibrul]

2. It's an interesting question, indeed.

There is a group of Zapatist revolutionaries in Chipas, one of the most gilded states in Mexico. It's largely confined to small skirmishes here and there and it's my understanding they have very little real power.

I think we can all agree the main reason for Mexicans coming across the border is economic, and it is quite possible that if crossing the border were to suddenly become a non-starter to the poor Mexican man or woman, say, some sort of crazy disincentive (a disgusting comment I saw once on Reuters suggesting cops "shoot on sight and call someone to clean up the mess" if someone can't produce their green card comes to mind) were enforced, then it is very much possible there would be a major uprising in Mexico.

I wouldn't be optimistic as to how that uprising would go, considering Mexico has basically been a wholly-owned subsidiary of America and its corporations for some time now.

[EFerrari]

4. The main reason people are coming up here now

is that NAFTA killed the ag sector in southern Mexico. Before that, it was mostly seasonal workers that have been making that round for hundreds of years.

[DBoon]

6. We send them cheap corn

impoverish their peasants who have raised corn for centuries

The peasants then cross the border illegally to find work

We get a cheap, pliable workforce

[EFerrari]

9. And a scapegoat. nt

[blondeatlast]

25. Exactly. nt

[Igel]

26. NAFTA was mid '90s.

The first amnesty was mid '80s.

Let's see, we need a reason to account for the problem from 1970 to when NAFTA was signed. Then, suddenly, we assume that this problem completely ceased to exist because we can attribute immigration to immediate NAFTA-related changes in Mexico. We have no reason to believe that the earlier reason stopped working. It's even bad form to consider pre-NAFTA conditions. But we need to blame not Mexico-internal difficulties (that would be blaming the victim) but some Mexico-external actor.

No wonder so many people hate the ol' Dutch monk from Ockeghem and his device for removing philosophical hair growth.

The problem was demographic and institutional. So it continues to be. NAFTA exacerbated the pre-existing problems, it didn't replace them.

[EFerrari]

27. Well, no. There was a wave in the early 80s that derived

from manipulation of Mexico's debt by guess who. That's one reason Reagan gave the amnesty, as a sop to the Mexican oligarchy.

But even so, there is no comparison to the displacement of farmers and the collapse of agriculture that NAFTA achieved.

[Lance_Boyle]

3. Cool. Maybe we should arm the illegals before deporting them. n/t

[Oregone]

5. And would this revolution lead to a better or worse place for those people to live in?

:)

[Lance_Boyle]

7. Neither. It would kill most of them.

But again, not the US's problem.

[EFerrari]

11. Right. Try deporting 12 million people without a "problem"

to all the communities that relied on those workers and those consumers to make ends meet.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. well, hopefully a better one... n/t

[leveymg]

8. A liberal CIA special: promotes salad-eating and counter-revolution.

A two-fer, probably dreamed up in the lunch room at Langley during the Kennedy Administration: someone picks and prepares the vegetables cheap, and then they get to sent home the remittances that stave off revolution.


Devilishly clever. Pass the Russian dressing.

[Xithras]

10. That's a very old theory, originating in the 80's

And it's largely believed that there's some truth in it. Mexico is a very unequal society, and unhappy Mexicans have a simple choice. They can rebel, or they can cross the border to the U.S. in search of a better life. Crossing the border is less likely to kill you.

The U.S., for decades, didn't want a revolution in Mexico for three reasons. 1) We were afraid that "communists" might take over. 2) The potential refugee situation. 3) PEMEX (which sent more oil to the U.S. last year than Saudi Arabia did).

[EFerrari]

12. The US not only doesn't want a revolution, they won't allow a reformer.

[Greyhound]

13. It's an interesting thought, one that I and others have articulated here before.

The people that Mexico needs to spark the changes it needs are the very same people that will hazard a ride/walk over here, risking life and limb, for a chance at better.

If the option of coming here were not available to them, would they become the change they want?

[EFerrari]

15. People who entertain this idea seem to overlook

the power of the US government to put down rebellions in Mexcio just as it puts down rebellions here.

People who have never been here are still subject to the oppressive US influence on their elections. The last time, Bush send down speech writers, guns, money and who knows what else. The people were out protesting for months. It didn't matter. The US with the oligarchy had decided who won that election.

[Greyhound]

21. Do you deny that social change is always sparked by individual acts?

The point is that the individuals most likely to spark that change are here.

There is a reason that the drug cartels are able to wage and win a war with the government, they have the $, and more importantly, the access to weapons. Large portions of a population do not tacitly or openly support these kind of thugs without some very compelling reasons. Or maybe you don't believe that the cartels are getting plenty of volunteers and that they are hiring mercs to wage their war?

[EFerrari]

22. There is zero evidence that the people most likely to spark social change are here.

The people "most likely" were out on the street after the election and also during the teachers strike in Oaxaca when the Mexican government was killing people with impunity and our dollars.

And one reason the cartels are able to gain ground is because our government will not allow anyone in power who is not in our pocket.

It's not enough for the people to stay home. There are plenty of activists at "home". We need to get out.

[Greyhound]

30. You've misinterpreted what I wrote.

If there are 12M here, say 1 in 4 initiated that trip, that's 3M fewer there to do whatever will be done. That's just the odds, we can quibble over the numbers and motivation but none of that alters the fact that the people that came here are risk takers, you can't dispute that.

[EFerrari]

32. We usually agree on stuff, Greyhound, but to my mind

this is a "blame the victim" narrative. The US colludes with the oligarchy to defraud the Mexican people, some of them become economic refugees up here and then, for a bonus, they are blamed.

There is no lack of activists in Mexico. In fact, there is a new Zapatista movement and they get into the news every so often -- I think there's a short doc playing on Link recently.

The other thing is, up here we never hear about that. We only hear about how these "illegals" are disease ridden and are taking our jobs while they use our services and bring down our wages. It's not like we have any kind of a balanced information stream.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. On a serious answer, there

already is a revolt in the south, apart of the Civil War that is the war on drugs.

So your friend is not that off. That said, while the US is serving as a safety valve for Mexico, I suspect the Net is serving the same purpose in the US, as our rates are not that far from those in Mexico.

Oh and NAFTA is part of that very serious problem, and the current President of Mexico is a "cousin" of George Bush, and just as bad... possibly actually, worst.

[Artie Bucco]

18. I have heard the arguement

that the EZLN is a false flag group that was actually created by right wingers. My uncle has stated that they are not revolutionaries at all but rather are only meant to create the veneer that they are revolutionaries in order to give the impression that they are a real danger to toppling the government. With this false danger the the government of Mexico can ask for more foreign aid from the US.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. And they are wrong

Commandante Marcos is an old Marxist from the 1968 student movement, and still a hard core marxist.

The same goes for many of those at the top of the revolt.

That said, this is a continuation actually of the Caste War of Yucatan, oh back in the 19th century. The reasons for this are not that different than those, and it is all about land.

That said, Mexico has not requested aid because of the Zapatistas. Hell, that was done because of the war on drugs, which is much hotter, much more destabilizing (the Zapatistas and the Government sat down over five years ago, and essentially agreed to a more or less independent area). And when the Mexican Government asked help due to the Cartels, that was internally all but popular. After all, Mexico and the US have a tad of a distrust of each other due to the 1848 war. Well, at least Mexico does.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

17. thanks for all the input/responses

i am intrigued by this as i am certain that it is something that has been posed before (as someone upthread mentioned) and it would be in the best interest of the US gubmint to have a 'stable' environment to our immediate south (look out, the REDS are coming). oh, and a semi-friendly neighbor as well so that we can take advantage of the resources they DO have (oil) while conveniently scapegoating some of our own internal problems on those pesky 'illegals.'

thanks again all...i appreciate the thought out responses...

sP

[EFerrari]

19. One last thing.

The idea that the Mexican people simply leave their country for better is a mistaken one.

Mexican nationalism is rooted in Native American values and not like, say, American nationalism or Canadian nationalism. Mexican nationalism is different, of a piece with a love and respect of the dirt and rocks and mountains and lakes -- the beloved face of the place you sprung from. I'm not a scholar of nationalism but Mexican nationalism is less reactive (in the sense of defining itself against enemies) than any other I've ever encountered. It is rooted in a commitment to the land and to the people that really doesn't have a cognate in Western culture.

So the idea that Mexican people just pick up and leave for greener pastures is largely an Anglo American confection that bears no relation to Mexican experience.

[Lasher]

23. So Mexicans are better people because they love dirt and rocks?

Then of course by extrapolation that would apply to people from other latin american nations like El Salvidor. Except maybe Cubans, who Mexico sent back home so they couldn't continue to crowd out mostly Mexicans sneaking into the US.

Have you ever once stopped to wonder if there could some problem in latin america for which we should hold latin americans themselves accountable? It just might be that every single thing there should not be blamed on the hated Anglo American whities.

This started out being a thread about potential Mexican political implications, if that country could not continue to relieve economic problems by exporting workers to the US. I thought it was a good topic and hoped you would participate meaningfully. But all you did was try to change the subject. I must say I am disappointed.

[EFerrari]

24. That's like saying, let's pretend Mexico is Mexico just not next to the United States.

You can try it but the discussion won't bear any relation to the actual Mexico.

Pointing out that the premise is shaky is not changing the subject, Lasher.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

31. I disagree with you there...to an extent

there are large numbers of Mexican immigrants in the region where I live...and I would wager that not ONE of them came here for the 'dirt and the rocks.' they are here to WORK and that is it. they have no tie to GA...not personally or historically. they came here to work...and work they do!

sP

[EFerrari]

33. Well, then we don't disagree.

Because the stories I hear from these people are not migration stories of people looking for a new country. They are mostly the stories of workers who are trying to work their way back home. :hi:

[Hydra]

28. I've always thought it served more than one purpose

1. Slave Labor- Capitalists love that/can't live without it
2. Release valve for people who would have to uprise or die. Instead, they have to risk coming here
3. Birthrate- Populations inside America are generally on a downward trend, except among the various religions. Massive influx + high birth rate = more competition for work

I feel badly for the illegal migrants. They wouldn't be here if they had a good option at home, but once they get here they might get a little ahead, or they may get massively taken advantage of, or both in turns before someone shoots them or forces them to go home(not much better)

As Carlin said, "You have no choices. You have owners. They own you."

[applegrove]

29. The last data I have on the UN inequality index puts the USA right beside Mexico.