Arizona, Borderlands and U.S.-Mexican Relations

The immigration issue and Arizona’s controversial new law provokes passions on all sides. But too often the debate doesn’t reflect the complex history and geopolitics that inform the issue.

Today I'm sending you an article from George Friedman, expert on geopolitics & founder of STRATFOR. Dr. Friedman presents his unique perspective on the immigration issue by touching on everything from the geography of the borderlands to Andrew Jackson and the importance of New Orleans. It is a prime example of how putting an issue like immigration in a geopolitical perspective gives you context for understanding how events are related and what the future may hold. Be sure to sign up for STRATFOR's free mailing list for weekly analyses like this one.

Arizona’s new law on illegal immigration went into effect last week, albeit severely limited by a federal court ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court undoubtedly will settle the matter, which may also trigger federal regulations. However that turns out, the entire issue cannot simply be seen as an internal American legal matter. More broadly, it forms part of the relations between the United States and Mexico, two sovereign nation-states whose internal dynamics and interests are leading them into an era of increasing tension. Arizona and the entire immigration issue have to be viewed in this broader context.

Until the Mexican-American War, it was not clear whether the dominant power in North America would have its capital in Washington or Mexico City. Mexico was the older society with a substantially larger military. The United States, having been founded east of the Appalachian Mountains, had been a weak and vulnerable country. At its founding, it lacked strategic depth and adequate north-south transportation routes. The ability of one colony to support another in the event of war was limited. More important, the United States had the most vulnerable of economies: It was heavily dependent on maritime exports and lacked a navy able to protect its sea-lanes against more powerful European powers like England and Spain. The War of 1812 showed the deep weakness of the United States. By contrast, Mexico had greater strategic depth and less dependence on exports.

The Centrality of New Orleans The American solution to this strategic weakness was to expand the United States west of the Appalachians, first into the Northwest Territory ceded to the United States by the United Kingdom and then into the Louisiana Purchase, which Thomas Jefferson ordered bought from France. These two territories gave the United States both strategic depth and a new economic foundation. The regions could support agriculture that produced more than the farmers could consume. Using the Ohio-Missouri-Mississippi river system, products could be shipped south to New Orleans. New Orleans was the farthest point south to which flat-bottomed barges from the north could go, and the farthest inland that oceangoing ships could travel. New Orleans became the single most strategic point in North America. Whoever controlled it controlled the agricultural system developing between the Appalachians and the Rockies. During the War of 1812, the British tried to seize New Orleans, but forces led by Andrew Jackson defeated them in a battle fought after the war itself was completed.

Jackson understood the importance of New Orleans to the United States. He also understood that the main threat to New Orleans came from Mexico. The U.S.-Mexican border then stood on the Sabine River, which divides today’s Texas from Louisiana. It was about 200 miles from that border to New Orleans and, at its narrowest point, a little more than 100 miles from the Sabine to the Mississippi.

Mexico therefore represented a fundamental threat to the United States. In response, Jackson authorized a covert operation under Sam Houston to foment an uprising among American settlers in the Mexican department of Texas with the aim of pushing Mexico farther west. With its larger army, a Mexican thrust to the Mississippi was not impossible — nor something the Mexicans would necessarily avoid, as the rising United States threatened Mexican national security.

Mexico’s strategic problem was the geography south of the Rio Grande (known in Mexico as the Rio Bravo). This territory consisted of desert and mountains. Settling this area with large populations was impossible. Moving through it was difficult. As a result, Texas was very lightly settled with Mexicans, prompting Mexico initially to encourage Americans to settle there. Once a rising was fomented among the Americans, it took time and enormous effort to send a Mexican army into Texas. When it arrived, it was weary from the journey and short of supplies. The insurgents were defeated at the Alamo and Goliad, but as the Mexicans pushed their line east toward the Mississippi, they were defeated at San Jacinto, near present-day Houston.

The creation of an independent Texas served American interests, relieving the threat to New Orleans and weakening Mexico. The final blow was delivered under President James K. Polk during the Mexican-American War, which (after the Gadsden Purchase) resulted in the modern U.S.-Mexican border. That war severely weakened both the Mexican army and Mexico City, which spent roughly the rest of the century stabilizing Mexico’s original political order.

A Temporary Resolution The U.S. defeat of Mexico settled the issue of the relative power of Mexico and the United States but did not permanently resolve the region’s status; that remained a matter of national power and will. The United States had the same problem with much of the Southwest (aside from California) that Mexico had: It was a relatively unattractive place economically, given that so much of it was inhospitable. The region experienced chronic labor shortages, relatively minor at first but accelerating over time. The acquisition of relatively low-cost labor became one of the drivers of the region’s economy, and the nearest available labor pool was Mexico. An accelerating population movement out of Mexico and into the territory the United States seized from Mexico paralleled the region’s accelerating economic growth.

The United States and Mexico both saw this as mutually beneficial. From the American point of view, there was a perpetual shortage of low-cost, low-end labor in the region. From the Mexican point of view, Mexico had a population surplus that the Mexican economy could not readily metabolize. The inclination of the United States to pull labor north was thus matched by the inclination of Mexico to push that labor north.

The Mexican government built its social policy around the idea of exporting surplus labor — and as important, using remittances from immigrants to stabilize the Mexican economy. The U.S. government, however, wanted an outcome that was illegal under U.S. law. At times, the federal government made exceptions to the law. When it lacked the political ability to change the law, the United States put limits on the resources needed to enforce the law. The rest of the country didn’t notice this process while the former Mexican borderlands benefited from it economically. There were costs to the United States in this immigrant movement, in health care, education and other areas, but business interests saw these as minor costs while Washington saw them as costs to be borne by the states.

Three fault lines emerged in United States on the topic. One was between the business classes, which benefited directly from the flow of immigrants and could shift the cost of immigration to other social sectors, and those who did not enjoy those benefits. The second lay between the federal government, which saw the costs as trivial, and the states, which saw them as intensifying over time. And third, there were tensions between Mexican-American citizens and other American citizens over the question of illegal migrants. This inherently divisive, potentially explosive mix intensified as the process continued.

Borderlands and the Geopolitics of Immigration Underlying this political process was a geopolitical one. Immigration in any country is destabilizing. Immigrants have destabilized the United States ever since the Scots-Irish changed American culture, taking political power and frightening prior settlers. The same immigrants were indispensible to economic growth. Social and cultural instability proved a low price to pay for the acquisition of new labor.

That equation ultimately also works in the case of Mexican migrants, but there is a fundamental difference. When the Irish or the Poles or the South Asians came to the United States, they were physically isolated from their homelands. The Irish might have wanted Roman Catholic schools, but in the end, they had no choice but to assimilate into the dominant culture. The retention of cultural hangovers did not retard basic cultural assimilation, given that they were far from home and surrounded by other, very different, groups.

This is the case for Mexican-Americans in Chicago or Alaska, whether citizens, permanent residents or illegal immigrants. In such locales, they form a substantial but ultimately isolated group, surrounded by other, larger groups and generally integrated into the society and economy. Success requires that subsequent generations follow the path of prior immigrants and integrate. This is not the case, however, for Mexicans moving into the borderlands conquered by the United States just as it is not the case in other borderlands around the world. Immigrant populations in this region are not physically separated from their homeland, but rather can be seen as culturally extending their homeland northward — in this case not into alien territory, but into historically Mexican lands.

This is no different from what takes place in borderlands the world over. The political border moves because of war. Members of an alien population suddenly become citizens of a new country. Sometimes, massive waves of immigrants from the group that originally controlled the territory politically move there, undertaking new citizenship or refusing to do so. The cultural status of the borderland shifts between waves of ethnic cleansing and population movement. Politics and economics mix, sometimes peacefully and sometimes explosively.

The Mexican-American War established the political boundary between the two countries. Economic forces on both sides of the border have encouraged both legal and illegal immigration north into the borderland — the area occupied by the United States. The cultural character of the borderland is shifting as the economic and demographic process accelerates. The political border stays where it is while the cultural border moves northward.

The underlying fear of those opposing this process is not economic (although it is frequently expressed that way), but much deeper: It is the fear that the massive population movement will ultimately reverse the military outcome of the 1830s and 1840s, returning the region to Mexico culturally or even politically. Such borderland conflicts rage throughout the world. The fear is that it will rage here.

The problem is that Mexicans are not seen in the traditional context of immigration to the United States. As I have said, some see them as extending their homeland into the United States, rather than as leaving their homeland and coming to the United States. Moreover, by treating illegal immigration as an acceptable mode of immigration, a sense of helplessness is created, a feeling that the prior order of society was being profoundly and illegally changed. And finally, when those who express these concerns are demonized, they become radicalized. The tension between Washington and Arizona — between those who benefit from the migration and those who don’t — and the tension between Mexican-Americans who are legal residents and citizens of the United States and support illegal immigration and non-Mexicans who oppose illegal immigration creates a potentially explosive situation.

Centuries ago, Scots moved to Northern Ireland after the English conquered it. The question of Northern Ireland, a borderland, was never quite settled. Similarly, Albanians moved to now-independent Kosovo, where tensions remain high. The world is filled with borderlands where political and cultural borders don’t coincide and where one group wants to change the political border that another group sees as sacred.

Migration to the United States is a normal process. Migration into the borderlands from Mexico is not. The land was seized from Mexico by force, territory now experiencing a massive national movement — legal and illegal — changing the cultural character of the region. It should come as no surprise that this is destabilizing the region, as instability naturally flows from such forces.

Jewish migration to modern-day Israel represents a worst-case scenario for borderlands. An absence of stable political agreements undergirding this movement characterized this process. One of the characteristics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mutual demonization. In the case of Arizona, demonization between the two sides also runs deep. The portrayal of supporters of Arizona’s new law as racist and the characterization of critics of that law as un-American is neither new nor promising. It is the way things would sound in a situation likely to get out of hand.

Ultimately, this is not about the Arizona question. It is about the relationship between Mexico and the United States on a range of issues, immigration merely being one of them. The problem as I see it is that the immigration issue is being treated as an internal debate among Americans when it is really about reaching an understanding with Mexico. Immigration has been treated as a subnational issue involving individuals. It is in fact a geopolitical issue between two nation-states. Over the past decades, Washington has tried to avoid turning immigration into an international matter, portraying it rather as an American law enforcement issue. In my view, it cannot be contained in that box any longer.

Interesting as an attempt to quiet roiling waters. But he vastly understates the cost to American taxpayers of immigration, legal and illegal, from Mexico. American taxpayers are sick and tired of subsidizing the cheap labor that benefits others, but does them harm. And he vastly understates the resentment that engenders.

In addition, he ignores entirely the fact that, until the Obama administration, this was a country under the Rule of Law. Americans have certain expectations of their government, one of the most prominent being that we expect our government to enforce and uphold our laws, and do so with a even hand. It is beyond infuriating that people who come here illegally are treated differently than anyone else who breaks the law. What this person is urging is that we take the calm "geopolitical" view and pretend the law isn't being broken, and that our country isn't being fundamentally changed.

Whenever I hear mexican chauvinists proclaim that they are just moving back into ‘their territory’, I want to say “since when was the northeastern U.S. a part of mexican territory?”

Go confrontational. "Just for the sake of argument, what the L did you do with the land we let you keep? In 1848 the land looked exactly the same on each side of the border for hundreds of miles. We turned our side into a generator of wealth and prosperity. You turned yours into a corrupt crime-ridden hellhole that forces people to flee at the risk their lives."

Reactions range from deer-in-the-headlights to spluttering rage - but no replies.

Two AZ must-wins to win House in November

***

Congressional races draw dozens of Republicans

http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles/2010/08/08/news/state/doc4c5e48f5baece588429376.txt

CD5:

Democrat Harry Mitchell is seeking a third term in office. Six Republicans are running in the primary for the chance to face him in November, along with two third-party candidates.

The most visible Republican primary race is a repeat of the 2008 primary and pits Susan Bitter Smith against David Schwiekert, who won and then lost in the general election to Mitchell. Schwiekert is a former Maricopa County treasurer while Bitter Smith is a member of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District. Schwiekert had $434,000 on hand at the end of June to Bitter Smith’s $330,000. Following the two top fundraisers is Jim Ward, a partner with a venture capital firm who has $172,000 on hand. Other Republicans in the race include Chris Salvino, Mark Spinks and Gentry Lee.

Mitchell had $1.12 million in the bank for his campaign as of June 30.

CD8:

Four Republicans and one Libertarian are making bids to prevent Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords from earning a third term in Congress.

Former state Sen. Jonathan Paton of Tucson is leading the GOP field. Paton served two terms in the Arizona state House before he was elected to the state Senate in 2008. According to his most recent finance reports, Paton had $286,000 on hand for his campaign.

Jesse Kelly, a project manager with a construction company in Tucson, reported having $160,000 on hand. Brian Miller, an Air Force Reserve pilot from Tucson, had $6,287 on hand.

Republican Jay Quick and Libertarian Steven Stoltz are also running for the seat.

Giffords, meanwhile, has a lot of cash to fend off her challengers; she reported having $2.2 million on hand as of June 30.

Help Texas watch her borders.
Watch live on 14 cameras and report illegal alien invaders.
Night cams in operation

http://www.blueservo.net/index.php?error=nlg

Does it work? Yes.
Recently caught on cam and reported:
String of illegals running through brush with backpacks
Numerous sightings of boats crossing the river
Numerous vehicles late at night in isolated areas
IMMENSELY satisfying

"The problem is that Mexicans are not seen in the traditional context of immigration to the United States. As I have said, some see them as extending their homeland into the United States, rather than as leaving their homeland and coming to the United States. Moreover, by treating illegal immigration as an acceptable mode of immigration, a sense of helplessness is created, a feeling that the prior order of society was being profoundly and illegally changed. And finally, when those who express these concerns are demonized, they become radicalized. The tension between Washington and Arizona — between those who benefit from the migration and those who don’t — and the tension between Mexican-Americans who are legal residents and citizens of the United States and support illegal immigration and non-Mexicans who oppose illegal immigration creates a potentially explosive situation."

This certainly crystallizes it well. So, we see the President of the United States and the Democrats in Congress join with the El Presidente de Mexico against their fellow Americans. These same people are also shoving the costs of their desired policy onto the backs of ordinary, law-abiding, patriotic Americans, who are then demonized by this unholy alliance. The same groups then do everything they can to carry out their policies by de-nuding the law through non-enforcement as policy, by using corrupt judges to write the law they want, because they can't get their policies enacted into law legally through Congress and then, this forces me to ask, when they have destroyed the law and removed peaceful means from the people, how long to they expect to peaceably enjoy the fruits of their destruction? Just asking.

"Ultimately, this is not about the Arizona question. It is about the relationship between Mexico and the United States on a range of issues, immigration merely being one of them. The problem as I see it is that the immigration issue is being treated as an internal debate among Americans when it is really about reaching an understanding with Mexico. Immigration has been treated as a subnational issue involving individuals. It is in fact a geopolitical issue between two nation-states. Over the past decades, Washington has tried to avoid turning immigration into an international matter, portraying it rather as an American law enforcement issue. In my view, it cannot be contained in that box any longer."

Part and parcel of the Democrat Party and the elites committing suicide before our eyes. Do they really expect to be able to RULE 80% of the non-Ruling Class Americans? They destroy the law, but at the same time, they expect Americans to remain law-abiding. How is that supposed to work in the real world.

The newly elected Republicans in November are going to have to move, move fast and move decisively or they will be replaced next. I hope the new Republicans really lay it out to the Washington lounge lizards, that their heads will be on the chopping block next.

I think what he is saying is that the mexican government wants to get back the land they lost in 1814.That and the push for cheap labor and easy votes by democrats and RINOs like Mc Cain make a very volatile siltation

IMHO I believe that in next ten years that the south west and southern US states are going try to walk away from the Union if congress continues to ignore them like they do now.

if Congress keeps ignoring the will of the American people.I think either a civil war or war with mexico over its sending its surplus population north is a very real possibility

Help Texas watch her borders.
Watch live on 14 cameras and report illegal alien invaders.
Night cams in operation

http://www.blueservo.net/index.php?error=nlg

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.