Cynical observation
Dec. 22nd, 2005 09:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jmc_bksYesterday, I read an article in the Washington Post Express (page 9) about the opposition to the proposed extension of a wall along the Mexican-American border as a mechanism for immigration control. Understandably, Mexicans are extremely unhappy with the plan. The article quoted two people as saying that Mexico will not "permit" the wall and should "make them stop it." A longer article is in today's Post here.
My initial gut reaction to the comments is that America is a sovereign nation, and that the government can erect any structure it so desires on federal land, assuming that there is no enrvironmental, fiscal or logistical bar to said building. By what authority will the Mexican government prevent this?
As a practical matter, I understand the diplomatic and political pressure that Mexico can and will bring to bear in order to prevent the extension. But on a theoretical level, the statements bothered me. It’s like me criticizing Mexican immigration and economic policy: I can complain and the federal government may use economic and diplomatic incentives to influence Mexican legislation and economic measures, but ultimately Mexico is a sovereign nation and will pursue whatever internal policies are most expedient and beneficial to itself.
While I agree with the article that the Mexican displeasure over the proposal cannot be underestimated, I think Mexico is underestimating the average American's displeasure and current discontent. Displeasure at the lack of safety that four years of spending and security measures have not improved; displeasure at the seeming illegal-immigration-at-will that occurs over the America-Mexico border; displeasure because the economy has not been doing well; general displeasure and discontent with the performance of the current administration in many, many arenas. The weak border is an easy focus point; building a wall is a visible security measure that will make Americans feel better and safer. Politicians cannot fix the economy without fixing American fiscal policies, which they seem unwilling and unable to do, so they will give us something else to distract our attention and make us feel better.
Obviously, I'm feeling pretty cynical about security and other government stuff right now. And I wonder, are the men quoted in the article practical for thinking that they can stop the wall? Naïve for thinking it will be easily done and for discounting the American electorate? I don't know. I guess I'll just have to see what happens when the proposal hits the Senate.
My initial gut reaction to the comments is that America is a sovereign nation, and that the government can erect any structure it so desires on federal land, assuming that there is no enrvironmental, fiscal or logistical bar to said building. By what authority will the Mexican government prevent this?
As a practical matter, I understand the diplomatic and political pressure that Mexico can and will bring to bear in order to prevent the extension. But on a theoretical level, the statements bothered me. It’s like me criticizing Mexican immigration and economic policy: I can complain and the federal government may use economic and diplomatic incentives to influence Mexican legislation and economic measures, but ultimately Mexico is a sovereign nation and will pursue whatever internal policies are most expedient and beneficial to itself.
While I agree with the article that the Mexican displeasure over the proposal cannot be underestimated, I think Mexico is underestimating the average American's displeasure and current discontent. Displeasure at the lack of safety that four years of spending and security measures have not improved; displeasure at the seeming illegal-immigration-at-will that occurs over the America-Mexico border; displeasure because the economy has not been doing well; general displeasure and discontent with the performance of the current administration in many, many arenas. The weak border is an easy focus point; building a wall is a visible security measure that will make Americans feel better and safer. Politicians cannot fix the economy without fixing American fiscal policies, which they seem unwilling and unable to do, so they will give us something else to distract our attention and make us feel better.
Obviously, I'm feeling pretty cynical about security and other government stuff right now. And I wonder, are the men quoted in the article practical for thinking that they can stop the wall? Naïve for thinking it will be easily done and for discounting the American electorate? I don't know. I guess I'll just have to see what happens when the proposal hits the Senate.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Cynical observation
Date: 2005-12-22 05:31 pm (UTC)Re: Cynical observation
Date: 2005-12-22 06:15 pm (UTC)I imagine that beyond internal pressure from the Latino-American voting block, Mexico could more easily influence America economically. Get every Mexican who works across the border or who crosses to spend money to write or call the Senator or Congressperson in the region they work in or visit. Hold up entry at the boarder for Americans and American businesses. Raise taxes or increase regulation on American MNCs doing business in Mexico, who will in turn complain to Congress, who will eventually cave.
The statements in the articles that Mexico should or must force the USA to do something brought out my arrogant, ugly American streak. Then, after I thought about it, I just felt cynical about the whole cycle. The wall is in the news right now, but I don't think it'll be built. It would be too detrimental to US-Mexican relations and both economies. So there will be lobbying and PR campaigns and junkets to Mexico and the US Southwest by congressional people. After a great deal of time and money have been spent, the issue will die.