Net number of illegal immigrants since 2007: -1,700,000

[Stravo]

These numbers also suggest that the usual US centric view that immigrants come here because America is inherently "better" than where they came from is extremely exagerated. It's seems to be about the economy stupid. People come here because they can make a better living and not because they smell that freedom when they come off the plane.

[Lord of the Abyss]

We already have about 580~ miles of border fences/walls, though not continuous; so we only need to buy 1,389 miles.

I've seen the cost given as $3 million a mile for the kind of multi-layered defenses we'd ideally want. That comes out to $4.2 billion.

Lets say we build this wall over say, five years. This comes down to $840 million a year.

Considering we spend about $1 billion a year on AmericCorps/SeniorCorps Community Service; yes, this is a feasible cost.

You are ignoring the hit to the economy and the hit to tax revenues that will occur on top of those numbers, even if you are right about them. So double that at least. It's nothing but self abuse anyway.

And then guard the length of it, because otherwise it will be tunneled under, climbed over or just knocked down - from both sides.

So? It doesn't have to be 99.999% failproof; just sufficiently discouraging enough to make crossing the border illegally become a significant obstacle; rather than a quick jaunt across.

Please. They already risk death on a regular basis, it's no "quick jaunt". People die trying to cross. These are desperate people, you'll need to use the kinds of defenses that can stop desperate people. And for that matter keep American companies from digging under it or blowing holes in it themselves.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't care about the laws as they are on the books. The laws as they are on the books can positively get fucked. I don't want to pay for so stupid (and ambitious) a project, the laws be-fucking-damned.

Personally, if it were in conjunction with genuine liberalism toward labor issues and immigration liberalization (though we know it will not), and finally forsaking our exploitative and capricious interference with the Mexican society and economy, I would support this. Afterall, it is simply protecting workers' rights. But we still live in the absurd lie of "free trade without free labor", one of the most vicious lies produced by corporate propaganda. All the expositors of their supposed ideology at the core, Adam Smith on down, - even rabid property-fetishizing "libertarians" - recognize that if labor is not free there is no free trade.

[Guardsman Bass]

Personally, if it were in conjunction with genuine liberalism toward labor issues and immigration liberalization (though we know it will not), and finally forsaking our exploitative and capricious interference with the Mexican society and economy, I would support this.

Nobody forced Mexico to agree to NAFTA, IP. Had they refused, they would probably be poorer than they are now, but certain areas of their economy (agriculture, in particular) would not be as disrupted (and we would have been left with the US-Canada Free Trade Agreement). As for "exploitive" and "capricious", the US bailed out the Mexican government and economy in 1994-95. This, after a long period in which we left them alone (FDR's "Good Neighbor" policy and beyond).

[Illuminatus Primus]

Personally, if it were in conjunction with genuine liberalism toward labor issues and immigration liberalization (though we know it will not), and finally forsaking our exploitative and capricious interference with the Mexican society and economy, I would support this.

Nobody forced Mexico to agree to NAFTA, IP.

Does anyone think in the political economy of Mexico-U.S. relations the Mexican public has a dominant or even equal share in influence? I'm sorry, but I'm not a foriegn policy liberal, and I think pluralist models of political systems are naive. I'll be upfront, when it comes to international relations and political economy I'm essentially a Leninist. I think that U.S. business interests are the driving force behind the U.S. political preferences and international interests: the corporate interest is the national interest. U.S. economic and political power greatly overshadows Mexican economic and political power, and the Mexican formal democratic institutions are even more dysfunctional and alien to the public than their U.S. counterparts. In short, I think the form and substance of U.S.-Mexican international economic and political relationships reflect the dominance of U.S. business over the entire matter, and reflect its interests and that of its subsidiaries and local allies in the Mexican elite to the detriment of the public interest there and even here.

Hence why border policy remains a schizophrenic combination of liberalized flow of undocumented exploitable cheap labor while denying formal free labor opportunities to our neighbors. The question ultimately is "what is Mexico?" If one believes Mexico is firstly the gangster-business elite in D.F. and its self-interestedly formulated policies with U.S. business interests here, then you are correct. However, if one believes that Mexico is the people of Mexico, then clearly this cannot be the case. How deep is one's commitment to popular sovereignty and other basic platforms of mainstream liberalism? It was of course, not merely NAFTA that precipitated the Zapatista revolt and other disorders, but the fact that the 70-year tenure of the PRI was (yet again) re-ratified in an election especially embarrassing by even Mexican precedents (one may note that the PRI's grip on the Presidency was finally broken, by a former high executive of Coca-Cola in Mexico: meet the new boss, same as the old boss). The U.S., of course, failed to be deterred by the fraudulent elections and abuses of indigenous people and minorities in pursuing its principled economic relationships with the banana republic PRI administration, despite claiming that they are doing so or ought to do to other nations in the same circumstances in the same time span, such as Nicaragua in the years prior, Iraq in years following, and Iran then and now, Venezuela recently, and Cuba for the last fifty-some-odd years. Rather, the pattern resembles closely not rhetoric but Iraq in the years prior to NAFTA, Panama until Noriega became useless, Honduras, El Salvador, Indonesia under Suharto, and so on - one could precede to the point of nausea.

Had they refused, they would probably be poorer than they are now, but certain areas of their economy (agriculture, in particular) would not be as disrupted (and we would have been left with the US-Canada Free Trade Agreement). As for "exploitive" and "capricious", the US bailed out the Mexican government and economy in 1994-95. This, after a long period in which we left them alone (FDR's "Good Neighbor" policy and beyond).

How charitable. Chase Manhattan bank in 1994 circulated a memo which said, and I quote: "...the government will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and of security policy. [emphasis mine]" Curious a stakeholder in the financial solvency and bailout of pro-U.S. elite-dominated Mexican economic institutions finds time and cajones to opine or recommend domestic security policy on behalf of a sovereign state. I can only imagine how the U.S., officials, commentators, and public would feel about the People's Bank of China, the Bank of Japan, or other large economic institutions or organizations of institutional investors, etc. opining that the U.S. should crush domestic political opposition while in a position to affect our economic recovery. The simple fact is that international economic institutions and investors form a virtual Senate which can veto any meaningful democratic public-oriented decision making vis-a-vis the economy. I don't think anyone should be surprised by the economic shenanigans of the last couple years for these reasons: corporate elite is bringing the Third World home, with the same fraudulent loan and investment schemes followed by calls for public sector reductions and private sector bailouts. Its all the same really. And it all benefits the same institutional groups.

[Guardsman Bass]

Personally, if it were in conjunction with genuine liberalism toward labor issues and immigration liberalization (though we know it will not), and finally forsaking our exploitative and capricious interference with the Mexican society and economy, I would support this.

Nobody forced Mexico to agree to NAFTA, IP.

Does anyone think in the political economy of Mexico-U.S. relations the Mexican public has a dominant or even equal share in influence? I'm sorry, but I'm not a foriegn policy liberal, and I think pluralist models of political systems are naive. I'll be upfront, when it comes to international relations and political economy I'm essentially a Leninist. I think that U.S. business interests are the driving force behind the U.S. political preferences and international interests: the corporate interest is the national interest. U.S. economic and political power greatly overshadows Mexican economic and political power, and the Mexican formal democratic institutions are even more dysfunctional and alien to the public than their U.S. counterparts. In short, I think the form and substance of U.S.-Mexican international economic and political relationships reflect the dominance of U.S. business over the entire matter, and reflect its interests and that of its subsidiaries and local allies in the Mexican elite to the detriment of the public interest there and even here.

Nobody says they're equal in influence, IP, but there's a long difference between "influencing a country" (which was the case with NAFTA - the US was saying to Mexico, "Hey, you guys should join with us and Canada in a regional trade zone, because it will create jobs in Mexico and the US and boost your economic growth") and exploiting a country. "Exploitation" implies some type of force, as if the US extorted or forced Mexico into the economic situation it has gotten itself into in the past three decades, which is hard to believe when you consider that they've elected three consecutive, legitimate Presidents, all of whom have pushed for more liberalized trade and a market economy, and given the PAN a near-majority in the Mexican congress for years.

And you vastly over-estimate the influence of corporations in shaping US policy towards Mexico. They were generally in favor of NAFTA, and the US supported it as well, but that was part of a greater US policy in favor of more liberalized trade. There were plenty of times when the US wasn't really pushing Mexico towards a more liberalized economy and trade, like in Mexico's ISI period from the 1930s to the 1980s, and periods when they outright ignored the business community with regards to Mexico (like when Mexico nationalized the oil industry in the 1930s - the oil companies were demanding that the US try to lever Mexico to force it to give back their property or pay some steep compensation, and the US government ignored them).

Hence why border policy remains a schizophrenic combination of liberalized flow of undocumented exploitable cheap labor while denying formal free labor opportunities to our neighbors. The question ultimately is "what is Mexico?" If one believes Mexico is firstly the gangster-business elite in D.F. and its self-interestedly formulated policies with U.S. business interests here, then you are correct. However, if one believes that Mexico is the people of Mexico, then clearly this cannot be the case. How deep is one's commitment to popular sovereignty and other basic platforms of mainstream liberalism?

I'm quite aware of the Mexican people, hence why in my above comment I only referenced to the efforts by Zedillo, Fox, and Calderon (and not Carlos Salinas, whose election was unquestionably fraudulent). These were policies that the PAN and pro-trade PRI have been taking for the better part of two decades, and in the case of the former, it has won them two Presidential elections and a near-majority in the Mexican Congress for a decade.

It was of course, not merely NAFTA that precipitated the Zapatista revolt and other disorders, but the fact that the 70-year tenure of the PRI was (yet again) re-ratified in an election especially embarrassing by even Mexican precedents (one may note that the PRI's grip on the Presidency was finally broken, by a former high executive of Coca-Cola in Mexico: meet the new boss, same as the old boss).

Not exactly - while Fox was a former Coca-Cola Executive, he was also an outsider to the PRI political structure that had dominated Mexico for decades. That can't be under-stated, by the way; for decades, the Mexican Presidents had basically picked their successors from within the party structure.

The U.S., of course, failed to be deterred by the fraudulent elections and abuses of indigenous people and minorities in pursuing its principled economic relationships with the banana republic PRI administration, despite claiming that they are doing so or ought to do to other nations in the same circumstances in the same time span,

I find it amusing that you're now condemning the US for recognizing the PRI government (the government that had dominated Mexico in various forms since Lazaro Cardenas in the 1930s), meaning that you're condemning the US for . . . respecting Mexican national sovereignty. Or would you have preferred that the US meddled in Mexico to produce what we saw as a more "democratic" outcome? I wouldn't, and I was plenty happy to let the Mexicans find their way to a more democratic regime on their own.

I assume that last bit about how the US was "pursuing its economic relationships with the banana republic PRI administration" while "claiming etc, etc" was an attempt to call me a hypocrite. You might have a point, except that

A)I never claimed that the US was really engaging in democratic promotion in either Mexico or the rest of Latin America, or doing anything other than pursuing its interest, and

B) that doesn't change my point about how the US largely has refrained from meddling in Mexico from FDR's "Good Neighbor" policy in the 1930s and onward (and certainly refrained compared to our other activities in other Latin American countries). Like I mentioned earlier, the US did nothing about Mexico nationalizing the oil industry there in spite of lobbying by the US oil industry over it. Nor did they try to rein in Mexico when they were doing the whole "Non-Aligned Country" thing in the 1960s and '70s, supporting Cuba and the like.

Had they refused, they would probably be poorer than they are now, but certain areas of their economy (agriculture, in particular) would not be as disrupted (and we would have been left with the US-Canada Free Trade Agreement). As for "exploitive" and "capricious", the US bailed out the Mexican government and economy in 1994-95. This, after a long period in which we left them alone (FDR's "Good Neighbor" policy and beyond).

How charitable. Chase Manhattan bank in 1994 circulated a memo which said, and I quote: "...the government will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and of security policy. [emphasis mine]" Curious a stakeholder in the financial solvency and bailout of pro-U.S. elite-dominated Mexican economic institutions finds time and cajones to opine or recommend domestic security policy on behalf of a sovereign state.

What's so "curious" about it? If, as I suspect, Chase Manhatten was investing in Mexican government bonds, it's only natural that they would write a report concerning security risks that might affect the value of their bonds. It's not necessarily a Diabolical Imperialist Scheme to subvert Mexico's government.

I can only imagine how the U.S., officials, commentators, and public would feel about the People's Bank of China, the Bank of Japan, or other large economic institutions or organizations of institutional investors, etc. opining that the U.S. should crush domestic political opposition while in a position to affect our economic recovery.

I suspect many of these institutions do and have written reports concerning US domestic political issues that might affect the value of their investments. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill on this.

The simple fact is that international economic institutions and investors form a virtual Senate which can veto any meaningful democratic public-oriented decision making vis-a-vis the economy.

I don't think anyone should be surprised by the economic shenanigans of the last couple years for these reasons: corporate elite is bringing the Third World home, with the same fraudulent loan and investment schemes followed by calls for public sector reductions and private sector bailouts. Its all the same really. And it all benefits the same institutional groups.

Well, you're broadening into a greater point about the influence international investors and economic institutions can or should have, while I'm staying focused on Mexico. One minor point, though - considering how crucial FDI is for most economies nowadays, why shouldn't the views of these major players be taken seriously into account when policymakers make decisions?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Does anyone think in the political economy of Mexico-U.S. relations the Mexican public has a dominant or even equal share in influence? I'm sorry, but I'm not a foriegn policy liberal, and I think pluralist models of political systems are naive. I'll be upfront, when it comes to international relations and political economy I'm essentially a Leninist. I think that U.S. business interests are the driving force behind the U.S. political preferences and international interests: the corporate interest is the national interest. U.S. economic and political power greatly overshadows Mexican economic and political power, and the Mexican formal democratic institutions are even more dysfunctional and alien to the public than their U.S. counterparts. In short, I think the form and substance of U.S.-Mexican international economic and political relationships reflect the dominance of U.S. business over the entire matter, and reflect its interests and that of its subsidiaries and local allies in the Mexican elite to the detriment of the public interest there and even here.

Nobody says they're equal in influence, IP, but there's a long difference between "influencing a country" (which was the case with NAFTA - the US was saying to Mexico, "Hey, you guys should join with us and Canada in a regional trade zone, because it will create jobs in Mexico and the US and boost your economic growth") and exploiting a country. "Exploitation" implies some type of force, as if the US extorted or forced Mexico into the economic situation it has gotten itself into in the past three decades, which is hard to believe when you consider that they've elected three consecutive, legitimate Presidents, all of whom have pushed for more liberalized trade and a market economy, and given the PAN a near-majority in the Mexican congress for years.

The standards I'm using are the exact same as routinely found in conventional liberal discourse toward official enemies. Trade with the Federal Republic of Yugoslava/Serbia and Montenegro or the Republic of Nicaragua or the Republic of Iraq or the Islamic Republic of Iran or Sudan or Cuba or ad nauseum would be lending support which is tacitly direct, to the maintenance of a fraudulent or illiberal government. The U.S. chose, in lieu of the fact that the Salinas regime was installed amid significant electoral fraud to regard NAFTA not only as a legitimate trade policy but one which was a core platform of economic relations.

And you vastly over-estimate the influence of corporations in shaping US policy towards Mexico. They were generally in favor of NAFTA, and the US supported it as well, but that was part of a greater US policy in favor of more liberalized trade.

The fact that opening up Mexico, fair elections and popular sovereignty be damned, is and was part of a general business-backed policy of economic liberalization and extreme hostility to economic nationalism or leftism (especially within the "tight" sphere of influence of the Americas, which the U.S. has regarded more or less as its Eastern Bloc for the last hundred years or more) hardly challenges my case. Rather the similarities and congruences in policy I think are what make the case for a capitalist imperialist model of foriegn policy, and make my case.

There were plenty of times when the US wasn't really pushing Mexico towards a more liberalized economy and trade, like in Mexico's ISI period from the 1930s to the 1980s, and periods when they outright ignored the business community with regards to Mexico (like when Mexico nationalized the oil industry in the 1930s - the oil companies were demanding that the US try to lever Mexico to force it to give back their property or pay some steep compensation, and the US government ignored them).

Even to a socialist like me, capitalism and imperialism are not categorical monoliths. No one - even the rabid anticommunist right - says that because Stalin and his successors allowed a middle-road of capitalist neutrality for say, Finland and Austria that there was no case for Soviet imperialism. Nevertheless, I think the fundamental framework, incentive structure, and balance of powers and interests is determined by business in capitalist societies.

I'm quite aware of the Mexican people, hence why in my above comment I only referenced to the efforts by Zedillo, Fox, and Calderon (and not Carlos Salinas, whose election was unquestionably fraudulent). These were policies that the PAN and pro-trade PRI have been taking for the better part of two decades, and in the case of the former, it has won them two Presidential elections and a near-majority in the Mexican Congress for a decade.

Salinas was responsible for negotiating NAFTA, and Zedillo came to power after the controversial assassination of Salinas' successor Colosio. Fox was, as I noted, the head of PAN but also the former high executive of the local subsidiary of a U.S. corporation, and electoral fraud is still rife within the new PAN status quo. Calderon's election over Obrador was marked with controversy and allegations of fraud.

Not exactly - while Fox was a former Coca-Cola Executive, he was also an outsider to the PRI political structure that had dominated Mexico for decades. That can't be under-stated, by the way; for decades, the Mexican Presidents had basically picked their successors from within the party structure.

Certainly Fox's rise to power represents at least some opening up of an extremely corrupt and closed-loop of power within traditional political institutions. However, given the events of the last decade, one asks whether it has really been enough to respond to the interests and needs of the Mexican public; I would submit it has not, and Mexico's political institutions remain mostly flawed and dysfunctional from the perspective that they exist in order to carry out genuinely democratic functions.

I find it amusing that you're now condemning the US for recognizing the PRI government (the government that had dominated Mexico in various forms since Lazaro Cardenas in the 1930s), meaning that you're condemning the US for . . . respecting Mexican national sovereignty. Or would you have preferred that the US meddled in Mexico to produce what we saw as a more "democratic" outcome? I wouldn't, and I was plenty happy to let the Mexicans find their way to a more democratic regime on their own.

No, I'm pointing out a U.S. that respected any of its alleged principles would apply the same standards to allies and clients as to official enemies. And therefore, at the very least, acknowledge that NAFTA lacked any force from popular sovereignty due to the patently and obviously undemocratic and popular character of the government which claimed the authority to negotiate it. Its very straightforward. It means applying consistent and straightforward standards, as opposed to the standard of whatever happens to me in immediate U.S. elite interests (the existing standard).

I assume that last bit about how the US was "pursuing its economic relationships with the banana republic PRI administration" while "claiming etc, etc" was an attempt to call me a hypocrite. You might have a point, except that

A)I never claimed that the US was really engaging in democratic promotion in either Mexico or the rest of Latin America, or doing anything other than pursuing its interest, and

Do you believe in popular sovereignty or not? If you do, than "Mexico" certainly did not negotiate NAFTA with us, but rather a gang of crooks, and therefore your original argument lacks force. Its quite simple.

B) that doesn't change my point about how the US largely has refrained from meddling in Mexico from FDR's "Good Neighbor" policy in the 1930s and onward (and certainly refrained compared to our other activities in other Latin American countries). Like I mentioned earlier, the US did nothing about Mexico nationalizing the oil industry there in spite of lobbying by the US oil industry over it. Nor did they try to rein in Mexico when they were doing the whole "Non-Aligned Country" thing in the 1960s and '70s, supporting Cuba and the like.

None of this has to do with whether U.S. economic policy recently has been driven according to the interests of U.S. business above and regardless of the legitimate capacity of the Mexican government to negotiate such policies. Its a red herring WRT NAFTA and general U.S. political hypocrisy on Mexican issues.

How charitable. Chase Manhattan bank in 1994 circulated a memo which said, and I quote: "...the government will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and of security policy. [emphasis mine]" Curious a stakeholder in the financial solvency and bailout of pro-U.S. elite-dominated Mexican economic institutions finds time and cajones to opine or recommend domestic security policy on behalf of a sovereign state.

What's so "curious" about it? If, as I suspect, Chase Manhatten was investing in Mexican government bonds, it's only natural that they would write a report concerning security risks that might affect the value of their bonds. It's not necessarily a Diabolical Imperialist Scheme to subvert Mexico's government.

Of course the practical consequence of this is that state and popular sovereignty in the traditional liberal internationalist paradigm is severely degraded in any meaningful way, and in ways that most people in the First World in general and the U.S. in particular would find insufferable and intolerable if it were on the receiving end.

I suspect many of these institutions do and have written reports concerning US domestic political issues that might affect the value of their investments. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill on this.

I think you're very naive if you cannot imagine the reaction of the hyper-nationalist, pro-business right to this situation in reverse while it currently is extolling its virtues when Mexico is on the recieving end.

Well, you're broadening into a greater point about the influence international investors and economic institutions can or should have, while I'm staying focused on Mexico. One minor point, though - considering how crucial FDI is for most economies nowadays, why shouldn't the views of these major players be taken seriously into account when policymakers make decisions?

As I am a libertarian socialist, the answer should be obvious. The abstract and extreme defense of property rights above and beyond the meaningful support for human rights, democracy, and self-determination is intolerable to human dignity and basic morality. I believe the system as it exists is intolerable to the rights of people to have a say-so in the circumstances in which they live their life and how the resources of their homeland are utilized. I believe that capitalism is intrinsically antithetical to democracy.

[Guardsman Bass]

The standards I'm using are the exact same as routinely found in conventional liberal discourse toward official enemies. Trade with the Federal Republic of Yugoslava/Serbia and Montenegro or the Republic of Nicaragua or the Republic of Iraq or the Islamic Republic of Iran or Sudan or Cuba or ad nauseum would be lending support which is tacitly direct, to the maintenance of a fraudulent or illiberal government. The U.S. chose, in lieu of the fact that the Salinas regime was installed amid significant electoral fraud to regard NAFTA not only as a legitimate trade policy but one which was a core platform of economic relations.

The US negotiated with a regime that was widely regarded, under the international state system in which all nation-states exist (including those that aren't democratic), as representing the government of Mexico. Like I said, it's not our place to determine whether or not a government is "legitimate" in some abstract, "does it represent the people?" type of way.

The fact that opening up Mexico, fair elections and popular sovereignty be damned, is and was part of a general business-backed policy of economic liberalization and extreme hostility to economic nationalism or leftism (especially within the "tight" sphere of influence of the Americas, which the U.S. has regarded more or less as its Eastern Bloc for the last hundred years or more) hardly challenges my case. Rather the similarities and congruences in policy I think are what make the case for a capitalist imperialist model of foriegn policy, and make my case.

You're right about the former (the US has and does promote economic liberalization as part of its trade and foreign policy), but not about the bolded part when it comes to Mexico. As I've pointed out several times, the US more or less Mexico do whatever the fuck it wanted economically or nationalistically during and after the 1930s, including serious nationalization of foreign properties (most of whom were owned by US companies, since the US had been the primary source of business investment in Mexico in the late 19th century/early 20th century), a corporatist/socialist economic policy along iSI lines, heavy socialization of the agricultural sector (where the US had been a major investor in the period mentioned above) into the ejido system, as well as a whole bunch of gestures that were a poke in the eye to the US, like Mexico's support for the Castro Regime in the 1960s and 1970s.

So no, it wasn't part of a trend of "extreme hostility to economic nationalism and leftism".

Even to a socialist like me, capitalism and imperialism are not categorical monoliths. No one - even the rabid anticommunist right - says that because Stalin and his successors allowed a middle-road of capitalist neutrality for say, Finland and Austria that there was no case for Soviet imperialism. Nevertheless, I think the fundamental framework, incentive structure, and balance of powers and interests is determined by business in capitalist societies.

I'm not talking about the general framework, though - only the case example of Mexico. Is this an admission that you're conceding my point on this matter?

Salinas was responsible for negotiating NAFTA, and Zedillo came to power after the controversial assassination of Salinas' successor Colosio. Fox was, as I noted, the head of PAN but also the former high executive of the local subsidiary of a U.S. corporation, and electoral fraud is still rife within the new PAN status quo. Calderon's election over Obrador was marked with controversy and allegations of fraud.

Zedillo may have been unexpected (since Colosio was the designated heir to Salinas), but his election is generally regarded as being one of the cleanest (if not the cleanest) up to that point.

Salinas may have been responsible for negotiating NAFTA, but as I mentioned, there have been three Presidents elected since then (Calderon rather closer than the prior two) that have upheld the trend towards greater liberalization. Even the 2006 election was close enough to draw allegations of fraud, which means the policies all three have supported - greater openness, greater economic liberalization and pro-business policies, and the like - at least have widespread support in Mexico, if not an overwhelming majority.

In other words, if the greater populace of Mexico truly despised the policies of the PAN and their spiritual comrades in Zedillo and the like, they could have simply voted against them, en masse, enough so that Fox was defeated and Calderon would have never stood a chance. So that the PAN wouldn't keep ending up as the largest party in the Mexican Congress.

Certainly Fox's rise to power represents at least some opening up of an extremely corrupt and closed-loop of power within traditional political institutions. However, given the events of the last decade, one asks whether it has really been enough to respond to the interests and needs of the Mexican public; I would submit it has not, and Mexico's political institutions remain mostly flawed and dysfunctional from the perspective that they exist in order to carry out genuinely democratic functions.

Fox (and his successor) were/are trying to deal with a 70-year legacy of corruption and single-party entrenched power at all levels of government. That's not easy, particularly not with some of the facets of the Mexican political system (aside from the corruption) - namely, the "no re-election" rules at the federal level (which keeps them from getting any experienced legislators), the history of heavy centralization of power in the President and his patronage machine via the PRI, among others. I think they've done very well over a decade's time, considering their limitations.

No, I'm pointing out a U.S. that respected any of its alleged principles would apply the same standards to allies and clients as to official enemies.

This is a red herring, since I never claimed that the US was respecting any of its alleged propaganda principles about "democracy", "popular sovereignty", etc. I merely pointed out that the US pattern of foreign affairs concerning Mexico has not been "exploitive" and "capricious", at least not since the early 1930s. They did advocate for economic liberalization, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, but this was during a period when the Mexican government was highly receptive to this advice after the stagnation of its primary economic model in the 1970s (along with the debt crisis of 1982). And, as I mentioned, "advocacy" is not the same as "exploitation", even if the two countries don't have equal influence over the other.

And therefore, at the very least, acknowledge that NAFTA lacked any force from popular sovereignty due to the patently and obviously undemocratic and popular character of the government which claimed the authority to negotiate it. Its very straightforward. It means applying consistent and straightforward standards, as opposed to the standard of whatever happens to me in immediate U.S. elite interests (the existing standard).

As I mentioned, it's not the US's place to determine whether any nation is sufficiently "democratic" or has a mandate adequately deriving from "popular sovereignty" to enjoy the privileges and responsibilities of national sovereignty inherent in the international state system. We deal (or should deal) with the government that controls the territory in question, and is widely recognized and received as the legitimate government (meaning that nobody was rejecting Mexico's ambassadors or calling for sanctions and expulsion from the UN after the 1988 elections). It certainly does not affect the legality of negotiated treaties and agreements, of which the US has many with authoritarian governments.

Is that consistent with our pro-democratic propaganda? No, but I never claimed it was. My main point, throughout this whole argument, was against your point that the US was being "exploitive" and "capricious" in its relationship with Mexico at this time. Do you concede my point?

As for NAFTA, as I have pointed out, there has been plenty of opportunity since the corrupt elections of 1988 for Mexicans to push for either major changes in NAFTA or even to try and withdraw, via pressure on their representatives. These representatives have largely been elected in elections that are much, much fairer than prior elections under the PRI hegemony. Yet the Mexican government has continued to sustain NAFTA during this period of nearly 17 years.

Do you believe in popular sovereignty or not? If you do, than "Mexico" certainly did not negotiate NAFTA with us, but rather a gang of crooks, and therefore your original argument lacks force. Its quite simple.

"Popular sovereignty" is a nice concept. Ideally, every country should practice it - but it is not the foundation of how we determine whether or not states are considered "legitimate" in the international arena, or whether or not treaties/agreements are "valid" with that state. It is the choice and duty of the people within a country to ensure that their government is representative of their concerns.

general U.S. political hypocrisy on Mexican issues.

It is entirely relevant to your original comment about the "exploitive" and "capricious" nature of the US activity vis a vis Mexico. As for "hypocrisy", perhaps you can claim that - but in the case of Mexico, it was the US ignoring its propaganda about promoting democracy and capitalism in favor of Mexican national sovereignty (by "sovereignty", I mean the right to do as they would in their own internal affairs).

Of course the practical consequence of this is that state and popular sovereignty in the traditional liberal internationalist paradigm is severely degraded in any meaningful way, and in ways that most people in the First World in general and the U.S. in particular would find insufferable and intolerable if it were on the receiving end.

How exactly is "state and popular sovereignty" degraded by Chase Manhatten writing a memo on things that might affect the internal security of Mexico, and thus the value of their investments? If I write a research paper arguing that Russia needs to completely suppress the Chechnyan resistance (or what's left of it) in order to secure adequate internal security, am I "severely degrading" state sovereignty?

There's nothing degrading to sovereignty about merely commenting on a situation, and you have no proof that Chase Manhatten went on to actively lobby or advocate that the Mexican government engage in further suppress of the Chiapas rebels.

I think you're very naive if you cannot imagine the reaction of the hyper-nationalist, pro-business right to this situation in reverse while it currently is extolling its virtues when Mexico is on the recieving end.

I don't particularly give a shit if some of them get butthurt over other countries and corporations writing reports on the US's economy, security, and the like. As I mentioned, I suspect the leadership in the "pro-business" wing of the Right knows that other countries are likely doing the same thing (writing policy memos about what might affect them in terms of US policy), and doesn't really care.

As I am a libertarian socialist, the answer should be obvious. The abstract and extreme defense of property rights above and beyond the meaningful support for human rights, democracy, and self-determination is intolerable to human dignity and basic morality.

Taking into account the views and concerns of a major and crucially important sector of your economy is not "an abstract and extreme defense of property rights". That doesn't mean that you should embrace their concerns at the expense of everything else, or follow what they want in terms of policy to a T, but their concerns should be part of the calculus of decision-making that any leader (not just the US) uses in policymaking.

I'm curious as to what a "libertarian socialist" actually is. Do you mean in this sense?

I believe the system as it exists is intolerable to the rights of people to have a say-so in the circumstances in which they live their life and how the resources of their homeland are utilized.

I agree with that, to some degree. I do not, however, see the solution in many of the policies a libertarian socialist as linked to above would see them.

I believe that capitalism is intrinsically antithetical to democracy.

I don't define my economic and political system views in absolutes or "intrinsic" qualities. There are many things about capitalism that aren't particularly democratic, such as the power it grants to the owners of capital and key assets in shaping economic (and often political) outcomes. However, there are many benefits to using a capitalist system, and in many cases, I think those benefits outweigh the loss of democracy, just as many laws that limit theoretical freedom of action provide benefits (such as the security in which to exercise a certain degree of liberty without the serious threat of its loss or diminishment) that outweigh the costs. Or the way that having a representative republic with rule of law as opposed to a direct democracy offers benefits that outweigh the cost to democratic action.

[irishmick79]

These numbers also suggest that the usual US centric view that immigrants come here because America is inherently "better" than where they came from is extremely exagerated. It's seems to be about the economy stupid. People come here because they can make a better living and not because they smell that freedom when they come off the plane.

And it's useful to point out that the Bush administration authorized some fairly large scale ICE worksite enforcement raids over the time period covered by this report. I recall one raid on a computer parts manufacturer in Mississippi that netted 600+ immigration arrests. Couple that with the souring economy, it's easy to see why the job market for illegals has soured.

And a wall won't slow down the flow of illegal immigration all that much. You'll just alter the dynamics on the border a bit, force the incoming illegals to be more organized when they cross, but they will still circumvent a wall. Consequently the groups in northern mexico that have the resources to tunnel under the border, organize crossing points for illegals and have drop houses set up, will have their hand strengthened significantly.

[KrauserKrauser]

But each of those options would be a forced increase in both complexity and density of participants. We would be more likely to get returns in investigations when a concentration of effort is required to cross the borderr and not simply a swim through a river and a walk over a hill. Making it more difficult for them to cross will make it more expensive to cross and increase the effectiveness of any effort to shutdown illegal immigration as the number of players would likely decrease due to increased resources required to make an illegal crossing.

[Darth Wong]

I don't understand why conservatives are so up in arms about immigration. Shouldn't they allow the market to decide? In any case, why did this discussion turn into the usual cookie-cutter discussion of "how to stop the tidal wave of illegal immigrants" when it started as a news story about how the numbers of illegal immigrants were declining on their own?

[irishmick79]

I don't understand why conservatives are so up in arms about immigration. Shouldn't they allow the market to decide? In any case, why did this discussion turn into the usual cookie-cutter discussion of "how to stop the tidal wave of illegal immigrants" when it started as a news story about how the numbers of illegal immigrants were declining on their own?

It came up because even with the news that the market is essentially driving down illegal immigration on its own, people (in this case, namely Shep) still trot out the idea that a wall is still a solid solution to the border problems. Since the validity of that idea as a solution is highly questionable (not to mention controversial) at best, it tends to draw a lot of fire whenever it pops up in a discussion about immigration. And it tends to shift the focus of the immigration discussion towards stopping the flow of illegal immigration as you pointed out, which is probably firmer ground politically for the conservatives than discussing how ass-backwards the legalization process is.

[Instant Sunrise]

I honestly don't see why people don't just come to the US legally, I mean it can't be that hard to do so, can it?

[The Yosemite Bear]

well we have quotas set up based on race and education, oh and how friendly we've been with your nation's government for the last 100 years. thus people fleeing hell holes in Africa, Middle East, South or Central America can't get in legally.

[SirNitram]

The flow-chart sums it up nicely. There's simply no way for most of these people to come here legally. This is overlooked because chattering about 'illegal immigrants' 'taking over' and a 'tidal wave' is a useful red flag to wave in front of the conservative voters, who might otherwise notice they're being taken for a goddamn ride.

[Thanas]

These numbers also suggest that the usual US centric view that immigrants come here because America is inherently "better" than where they came from is extremely exagerated. It's seems to be about the economy stupid. People come here because they can make a better living and not because they smell that freedom when they come off the plane.

Even back then past 1848, the number of people who went to America hardly did so because they believed in the "great America". It was always about the economy. The only notable exception are a few thousand idealists after the failure of the 1832 and 1848 revolutions.

I really wish more Americans would visit institutions like the Auswandererhaus to learn more about how and why immigration happened.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yeah those nice influxes of Irish from the Great Fammine, and the revolts against Briton, The Chinese and Japanese who came for economics and to get away from civil wars.....


Also interesting about the posibility that the Arizonia law will probably be used to supress American Indian voters.