Summary: This week (March 27-31, 2006) the U.S. senate will debate several immigration reform bills.  At the end of the week, Mexico’s president Fox and U.S. president Bush will meet in Cancun to discuss, among other topics, Mexican emigration.  In this bulletin we review the context in which the legislative debate in the U.S. is taking place.  The migration of Mexicans and Central Americans to the United States has unleashed within the past year a growing atmosphere of hysteria, racism and xenophobia.  Many news reports coming out of the U.S. on the topic strike an almost surrealist note.  Notwithstanding the increasing estrangement many Latinos feel in the U.S. given prevailing anti-migrant sentiment, there are pockets of humanity and understanding created by hundreds of civil society groups who work to increase solidarity with migrants.  Further, recent massive street protests show that the Latino population is increasingly ill disposed to allow discriminatory and racist laws to sideline their future and that of their brothers and sisters from Latin America.

Unresolved contradictions

            An almost Kafkaesque migratory situation arises from unresolved contradictions.  On one hand, governments in Mexico and Central America have implemented neoliberal policies since the mid-80s that have destroyed millions of jobs in the countryside and the city, dismantled the industrial sector, and made the poor poorer, the rich richer.  For the few people lucky enough to land a job in the formal sector, the purchasing power of salaries has spiraled downward for the past 20 years.  These are, in short, some of the labor “push” factors in Mexico and Central America.

            On the U.S. side of the border, millions of baby boomers are rapidly reaching retirement age and as they withdraw from the work force the labor pool will grow smaller.  If the jobs they leave behind are “good” ones, young Americans fill them.  But there are plenty of jobs that Americans no longer want, the so-called dead-end jobs that offer scarce opportunities for advancement in salary, responsibility or prestige.  Or they are eschewed because they are dangerous, dirty, domestic or dull.  Yet these jobs need filling, lest areas of the economy cease to function (hotels, restaurants, hospitals, schools, agriculture, construction, gardening / landscaping, slaughterhouses, mean and fish packing plants, domestic jobs and many others).  Entrepreneurs and economists know that migrants are vital to keep the economy running and competitive.  These are some of the “pull” factors that attract labor towards the US.

            There is U.S. demand and Latin American supply.  The logic behind migration is irrefutable.  Millions of people have responded congruently to push and pull factors by leaving behind homes and families, with untold social and cultural costs.

The right wins hearts and minds in the migratory debate

            In a more rational world, less tolerant of white supremacy groups, (1) the abundant labor supply would travel freely to satisfy demand.   Unfortunately, voices on the far right in the U.S. seek to preserve a vaguely-defined “national culture”, (2) a matter that transcends the legality of a foreigner’s documents, since the fringe wants to stop all immigration.  Avowing concern over national security, the right has undertaken a campaign to convince public opinion that the U.S. has been invaded by foreigners which, unfortunately for migrants, has had success-- there is growing hostility, suspicion and even paranoia towards migrants, especially from Latin America.  One of the most visible and vociferous effects of this environment is the rise of racist vigilante groups on the Mexican border, which at least one migrant-defense group, Border Action Network, has accused of the “brutal murder” of migrants.

            Perhaps the greatest impact of the hostile environment is the growing tendency to criminalize undocumented migration.  They are several bills presently pending in the U.S. congress that would, for example, make it a crime to offer any type of aid, even food and water, to undocumented migrants (this is the HR4437 bill, or Sensenbrenner initiative, probably the most repressive of all the pending measures). (3)  Legal aid to undocumented migrants would be prohibited.  Even being in the U.S. without valid documents would become a felony.  If approved, the law would make criminals of the 11-12 million undocumented people presently residing in the US.  The same bill would authorize and fund the building of 700 miles of wall at several location along the border with Mexico.  Employers who hire “illegals” would be penalized and a nationwide internet system of accreditation would be created, in order to confirm the validity of identity documents offered by would-be employees.

            In several states local authorities mount raids on well-identified parking lots or corners where Mexican and Central American day laborers gather in the hope of being hired for a day.  In some states undocumented migrants are denied a driver’s license, increasing their insecurity and instability in enormous urban setting where the only practical way of getting to work is in a private car.

            Another visceral anti-migrant measure is the bill approved by Georgia’s lower house to charge undocumented migrants a 5% tax on the amount of remittances sent to their home countries.  If remittance senders can prove they are in the U.S. legally, they will be exempt from the tax.  Drafters of the legislation are working under an assumption that countless studies have invalidated, e.g., “illegals” take advantage of social services (hospitals, schools) and generate expenses for local taxpayers in excess of what they contribute in mandatory payroll deductions at work.  Thus this compensatory tax would collected from those who supposedly abuse social services.  The bill has not yet been approved since it needs the Georgia  senate’s approval.  But the discriminatory measure has already stoked opposition since not only is it based on a fallacy, but it would turn bank, telegraph and shop clerks who process remittances into virtual immigration agents who will have to ponder the validity of IDs.

            A more rational discourse regarding migration is lacking in the mainstream press.  For example, the reasons behind the enormous increase in out migration from Mexico and Central America (300% in 10 years).  If academics and politicians were to addressed the reasons for virtually no job creation in Mexico’s formal sector, more lasting solutions might be found.  But these concerns go unnoticed in the midst of incongruous news items:

1. US citizens are detained and put on trial for having saved migrants from an almost certain death in the Arizona desert, where temperatures can reach 120 F. (50 C) during the summer months.
2. Authorities of the Tohono O’odham, a traditionally hospitable Indian nation whose reservation borders on Mexico, have refused to permit water stations to be placed on their lands along routes frequently used by migrants.  “It’s doing more harm to them [to have water on the paths].  They’ve come a long ways and expect water, and there probably isn’t any”. (4)
3. After a scandal in the U.S., the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations chose to suspend distribution of a booklet, “Guide for the Mexican Migrant”, written to help save migrant lives during the trek to and through the U.S. and remind migrants of their universal rights. (5)
4. In the 2002-2005 fiscal year, 473 Mexicans and Central Americans died along the border, and the Mexican government remains mute (see http://www.ciepac.org/bulletins/ingles/ing498.htm
5. Some blacks in the United States have joined the racist Minutemen vigilante group, or approve of their “migrant hunting” activities or support anti-migrant measures since, according to them, “illegal” migrants, especially Mexicans, “steal jobs from blacks”. (6)
6. Authorities of Pima County, Arizona, approved in 2005 a US$25,000 grant to activist groups for the installation of water stations along routes most traversed by migrants in the desert.  It turns out that it’s cheaper for the County to make the grant and in essence save lives, than it is for the County to pick up bodies in the desert, store them in a morgue and then cremate or repatriate remains to Mexico. (7)
7. A designer of upscale tennis shoes gives her sneakers away to migrants who are about to cross the border along inhospitable terrain since, she claims, the shoes are the migrants’ best hope to survive the trek.  Shoelace ends have small flashlights and compasses, a removable insole doubles as a rough map of the border region, and an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe is printed on the back of the shoes. (8)

Pockets of solidarity and humanity

            Detailing the first item highlights two important aspects on the U.S. side of the border.  First,             the absurd environment in the U.S. in which saving lives can be punished by 15-year jail sentences and half-million-dollar fines.  Second, a detail lost, or often underreported, amidst headlines of vigilante “migrant-hunters” determined to stop the “invasion of America” (sic), has to do with hundreds of civil-society organizations that are just as resolute in saving lives and promoting migrant rights.  The right to life, the right to work, the right to migrate in search of a life with dignity denied them in their country of origin.  The right to not die scorched to death in the desert sun or hunted down by racist vigilante groups.

            Last July 2005, Shanti Sellz and Daniel Strauss, 23-year-old volunteers for the No More Deaths coalition (www.nomoredeaths.org), found three Mexican migrants in the Arizona desert.  The Mexicans had lagged behind the group they were traveling with, after having developed enormous blisters and sores on their feet and showing initial symptoms of sunstroke and dehydration.  They had vomited blood and were suffering from extreme thirst and hunger.  They had lost their way and the blisters prevented walking in search of aid.  They were facing a situation common to migrants on the desert and that often leads to death from heatstroke and dehydration.  Death from heatstroke is terrifying.  The victim literally goes mad as the rise in body temperature leads to a short-circuit in the brain.

            Shanti and Daniel were taking part in routine desert patrols that No More Deaths carries out in a effort to help migrants who have lost their way or cannot continue their journey.  Given the desert’s size and desolation, theirs was a chance encounter.  Sizing up their situation, Shanti and Daniel, following established procedures, called a nurse on-duty with No More Deaths who confirmed that the migrants’ conditions required immediate medical attention.  With their consent, Shanti and Daniel evacuated the Mexicans to be treated.

            Minutes later, the Border Patrol pulled over the vehicle in which Shanti, Daniel and the three migrants were traveling.  The five were arrested and two migrants were summarily deported without routine first aid being administered.  The third was held for two months, pressed to give a videotaped declaration, later entered into evidence in a felony accusation against Shanti and Daniel.  Accused of transporting “illegal aliens” and conspiracy to transport illegal aliens, they could be sentenced to 15 years in prison and fined US$500,000.  After reviewing the case, Amnesty International declared that Shanti and Daniel acted exclusively to save human lives, helping to defend the most basic of human rights, the right to life.  If found guilty, Amnesty International says they would become “prisoners of conscience”.

            Defense lawyers have stated that it is not illegal to lend humanitarian aid to anyone and have asked the presiding judge to throw out the charge.  The judge has denied the request, but the trial date has been postponed repeatedly and, most recently, postponed indefinitely.

            The postponement could be a victory for activist groups in Arizona who rallied to disseminate the nature of the case and protest patently absurd charges.  Yet the delay could also indicate a momentary reluctance of federal officials to proceed with a case that would generate enormous publicity at a time when congress is deciding what slant to give the migratory issue.  If the law approved is more slanted to repression, the attorney general might choose to restart procedures and make Shanti and Daniel’s trial a warning to other promigrant, Samaritan and human rights groups.

Shanti and Daniel were volunteers with No More Deaths, a coalition of groups who struggle for human rights and dignified, humane treatment for migrants in a particularly conservative environment in the state of Arizona.  Around 20 organization have joined No More Deaths to undertake humanitarian actions (water and food distribution, emergency medical attention), in addition to outreach, educational and lobbying activities.  Most of the member groups base their participation on their faith and universal human rights.

            One of the pillars of No More Deaths is Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson which was also a beacon of hope for thousands of Central American political refugees in the 80s.  The presiding pastor of Southside in those years, John Fife, founded the sanctuary movement which grew to have a national presence.  The movement sheltered Central Americans fleeing the US-underwritten genocidal terror in Guatemala and El Salvador.

            Fife and 10 leaders of the sanctuary movement were tried in 1985 after the FBI and the Immigration and Naturalization Service infiltrated meetings held in participating churches.  They received probation sentences of up to five years, but then the churches, including Southside, turned around and sued the government.  They won the case when it was ruled that the government had broken the law by infiltrating and spying on the movement. (9)

Sanctuary members of the 80s who remain active say that the motive behind their commitment to migrants is unchanged, e.g., saving lives put in danger by flawed U.S. government policies.  In the 80s it was ideological cold-war policies; more recently, failed economic policies.  But the environment in the U.S. is today less tolerant of migrants and economic reasons are less clear cut to the general public than the political policies of yesteryear.

Alternatives

            The law to be hammered out in committee and approved by the U.S. congress within the next few weeks will reflect both the balance of power within the legislature and general public opinion regarding immigration.  In spite of the anti-migrant fever stoked by the far right, many analysts foresee greater access within “guest workers” programs for a still undetermined number of migrants to satisfy thousands of companies’ demand for labor.  The law will likely be a concession to the corporate sector but the tradeoff will be heightened repressive measures on the border to appease the far right.  In any event the final law will be a series of temporary measures that will not address the structural reasons behind the substantial increase in emigration from Mexico and Central America in the past 10-15 years.  (See Ciepac’s previous bulletin on migration for a brief discussion of some of those structural reasons: http://www.ciepac.org/bulletins/ingles/ing498.htm).

            There are alternatives, but unpalatable ones for U.S. politicians.  On the one hand, within the prevailing neoliberal model, the only coherent measure would be to match supply with demand, e.g., free up labor, the same way NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) freed up the movement of other factors (goods, services, capital).  In other words, throw open the doors of the border to as much Mexican labor that can be absorbed by the U.S. economy, an option which would be anathema to many sectors in the U.S.

            Another alternative falls outside the logic of neoliberalism but is consistent with the same capitalist logic that allowed today’s “rich” countries to industrialize.  This would involve granting Mexico the “policy space” to close its borders to certain factors (goods, services, capital, especially from the US) so that, through planning of “national development”, certain strategic areas of its economy could be protected for variable lengths of time.  For reasons that cannot be discussed here, this would mean in essence asking the U.S. to open its borders to whatever Mexico could export, but with little reciprocity, in other words, without Mexico having to accept U.S. exports.  This too is unthinkable for many sectors in the U.S., especially the corporate sector.

            Another alternative, following the European Union’s model of integration, would be to transfer enormous sums of money from the U.S. to Mexico, billions of dollars per year in grants, to allow Mexico to overcome its historic lag in education, infrastructure, technology, etc.  This would mean reproducing the successful model of integrating relatively poor countries into the Union.  The EU’s thinking is that in a “common market”, countries lagging behind are a burden to the collective whole, and so their economy, and human capital, must be shorn up through capital transfers.

            Still, were the U.S. to duplicate the measure with Mexico, it would establish a undesirable precedent for the powers to be, e.g., the U.S. would have to do the same to “integrate” other countries in the region into its economic area of influence (through, for example, Bush’s pet project, the FTAA or Free Trade Area of the Americas).

            Within the system and in keeping with its own logic, the alternatives are inadmissible for U.S. elites.  But there is no reason why civil society must try to resolve these contradictions and should rather continue to construct viable and humane alternatives outside the prevailing system.

In any event, and quite suddenly, Latinos in the U.S. have reacted to the growing anti-migrant and anti-Latino climate.  In less than a week, two million people, mostly of Latin American origin, have demonstrated in the streets of various U.S. cities.  In Chicago, 200,000 on March 10.  In Phoenix, at least 20,000 and in Milwaukee 10,000 on March 24.  On March 26 in Los Angeles, 500,000 people marched in what may have been the largest demonstration in the city’s history.  A demonstrator in Phoenix, Demirel Montiel, who marched with his wife and three children said, "I took today off of work... I'm here for all the illegal people. Everybody's tired, tired that people think we're criminals. If you drive, you're a criminal. If you work, you're a criminal. If you're Mexican, you're a criminal." (10). Activist David Kennedy of No More Deaths in Phoenix said, “A movement has begun, and this time it is being organized almost exclusively by Latino/a organizations, and more importantly, it is a movement of the working-class.  It is a movement for immigrant and workers rights that calls attention to the fact that the economy, built upon the backs of immigrants' labor, would essentially come to a screeching halt without them.” (11) 

Notes:

(1) An NGO that tracks vigilante groups along the border with Mexico, the Southern Poverty Law Center says that there are more than 750 “hate groups” within the U.S., including neonazis, racist skinheads, the Ku Klux Klan, and others.  Cited in “Vigilantes and civilian border patrols: background notes on the topic”, American Friends Service Committee / Witness, no date, page 3.

(2) Most descriptions of U.S. cultural identity tend to be excluding, i.e., they leave out the foreign group that most recently settled in the U.S.  The language used is mostly racist and demeaning.  For example, the New York Times commented that Bush’s “most conservative supporters…have warned that in their opinion the nation’s cultural identity could be washed away by a flood of low-income Spanish-speaking workers” (Bumiller, Elisabeth, “Bush is facing a difficult path on immigration”, NYT, March 24, 2006).  A public opinion poll, undertaken by the Pew Research Center, revealed that 40% of the general U.S. population agreed with the following sentence, “The growing number of newcomers from other countries threatens traditional American customs and values”, yet 68% of those defined as “socially conservatives” agreed.  In spite of being a minority within the U.S. population, the “socially conservatives” have an influence on national politics far beyond their numbers.  Source:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5249846.

(3) Ross, John, “US draws first blood in border war 2006” Blindman’s Buff, No. 106, Jan 28-Feb. 3, 2006, published by the Weekly News Update on the Americas.  Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles Roger Mahony stated, “As written, the proposed law is so broad that it would criminalize even minor acts of mercy like offering a meal or administering first aid”, op-ed letter to the New York Times, March 22, 2006.

(4) Marizco, Michael, “Reservation water bottles slashed”, The Arizona Daily Star, September 22, 2003, page B1.

(5)Galván Ochoa, Enrique, “Jalón de orejas de la gobernadora de Arizona al gobierno mexicano”, La Jornada, February 3, 2005,

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2005/02/03/006o1pol.php

(6) Hutchinson, Earl Ofari, “Blacks and the border”, AlterNet, January 26, 2006, www.alternet.org/story/31388/

(7) Duffy, Gary, “County Oks $2.5K for water stations in desert”, Tucson Citizen, September 7, 2005, www.tucsoncitizen.com.

(8)“These shoes were made for migrants to U.S.”, Associated Press, November 17, 2005, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10081719/

(9) Taken from Gage, Julienne, “Saints at the Border”, Tucson Weekly, March 21, 2002, http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tw/2002-03-21/curr.html

(10) Wingett, Yvonne and Susan Carroll, “20,000 in Phoenix rally for migrants”, The Arizona Republic, March 25, 2006,

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0325twomarches.html

(11) Personal communication, March 28, 2006.

Note: If you wish to be placed on a list to receive this English version of the Bulletin, or the Spanish, or both, please direct a request to: ciepac@laneta.apc.org and indicate whether you wish to receive the bulletin in plain text or as a Word 7 for Windows 95 attachment.

Note: If you use this information, cite the source and our email address. We are grateful to the persons and institutions who have given us their comments on these Bulletins. CIEPAC, A.C. is a non-government and non-profit organization, and your support is necessary for us to be able to continue offering you this news and analysis service. If you would like to contribute, in any amount, we would infinitely appreciate your remittance to the bank account in the name of:

CIEPAC, A.C.
Bank: Banamex
Account number: 7049672 Sucursal 386
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México.
You will also need to use an ABA number:
BNMXMXMM

Thank you! CIEPAC

Telephone:
in México: 01 967 674 5168
from outside Mexico:: +52 967 674 5168