The Wrong War

[Daveparts]

The Wrong War
By David Glenn Cox



Last week when Governor Bill Richardson gave his endorsement to Barrack Obama he made reference to Obama’s speech addressing the racial divide in America. Richardson was speaking about the immigrant population with the implied message of the Latino immigrant. Richardson was following the party line, but it was all tied up, part and parcel, with America’s racism and the use of racism, both on the left and right, for their own purposes.

Latino history in America is one of the central building blocks of this nation. Florida, California, Arizona, and Texas were all named by the first Hispanic Americans. While Texas was under Mexican rule, its Constitution welcomed immigrants of any cultural background. After Texas won its independence the Anglos changed that. It would be easy to assume that it was a move prompted just by racism, and racism did play a part, however, the first independent rulers of Texas were concerned about assimilation. They had just won a war with Mexico for their independence; if the settlers were primarily Mexican immigrants, might they not have to fight another war?

I once heard it said that Canada’s largest problem was her neighbor to the South. Like a psychotic big brother that offers both undying friendship with eternal heartache, America offered the protection of its nuclear umbrella to Canada while, at the same time, promising that any attack on the United States by the Soviet Union would be fought out over Canadian skies. How comforting that must have been for our Canadian allies as they asked, “You will keep us advised on that, won’t you?”

We, in America, share our cultural background with the Canadians, being another branch of Mother England’s tree. When America sought its own independence from England, one of the major stumbling blocks with the colonials was that they felt they were not being afforded the rights due to any Englishman. A Virginia planter asked of the king to be given land grants in the lands west and outside of his Virginia colony. The king refused, citing border disputes with hostiles. The King feared the colonials might embroil English troops in another French and Indian War. To the Virginia planter, George Washington, the idea suddenly occurred that maybe separation from the king was the correct course after all.

There were world geopolitics being played out on the American continent. England, France, and Spain were all jockeying for dominance in the region. England’s concerns were worldwide while American concerns were local. To the Americans, lines drawn across a map were the arbitrary work of politicians, thousands of miles away. To the English crown, they were demarcation lines in the sand and crossing them could mean war. This is not a new or even a European concept; it is as old as mankind itself, the territory of one people to be defended with life and limb.

So, when the first independent Texans moved to limit Mexican immigration, it was an attempt to draw Texas away from the Spanish sphere of influence and into the American sphere. The Texans saw Spain’s power on the decline and American power on the ascendancy; not unlike the French Arcadians in Canada with the demise of Quebec to English rule, choosing to leave rather than serve the English crown. The Texans feared that if Spain were to try and regain her power on the continent, her first step would be to regain Texas. These arbitrary political lines had a real impact on people’s lives and fortunes. The French, under Napoleon, needed money for continental wars and so cast off the Louisiana territory at a bargain-basement price, leaving only two European players in America.

The lines on the map have meaning. The Normans conquered England in 1066 and the country changed, the laws changed, and even the architecture changed. Was this brought about by Norman racism or Norman sovereignty? Those lines on the map denote sovereignty, who is in charge here, what language will be spoken and what laws will be observed. When the Vikings conquered England they established Danelaw, the laws and practices of the home country that were different from England’s and, over the generations, melded to become part of English Common Law.

Even in today’s America, our laws go back to our heritage. California’s divorce laws are based, in part, on Spanish law while Virginia’s are from the English common law. All the land titles in Baldwin County, Alabama (Mobile), go back to a land grant given to a Spanish sailor. Those arbitrary political lines, drawn hundreds of years ago, still have meaning and force by codifying who owns the legal rights to everything down to the tools in your garage. Who may enter and who may stay, who must leave on command and how far they must go. All ordained and codified, going back through the darkest eons of time.

The earliest remnants of mankind are fortifications built to protect one group from another. The division of societies based on peaceful agriculture or on conquest and spoil, these lines were not drawn by racists but by pragmatists seeking peaceful solutions. Saying, in effect, if you cross this line you will regret what will happen. The Crusaders were met by Turks, not for mere religious reasons but by the question, “By what right do you cross my lands?” The very discovery of America itself was due, in part, to the heavy tolls exacted along the spice routes. The costs were high enough to justify the cost of the exploration; no one ever stopped to ask if it was a racist act to demand such tolls from innocent travelers and merchants. Of course not, it was their land and they could charge whatever they wished.

In our own past century we have had the Iron Curtain; and the Berlin Wall, an arbitrary line on the map that meant death to any East Berliner who dared try to cross into West Berlin. Germans killing other Germans for crossing a line. Koreans killing Koreans for crossing a line; Chinese killing Chinese for crossing a line. You would be no exception, if you cross that line without permission, most anywhere in the world, you might not live to regret it. South Africa had minefields in place on its own borders and maybe they were racists but that is precisely what that line means: if you cross here, what we say, goes.

My wife and I went to see Niagara Falls a few years ago. We flew into Buffalo and rented a car. As we reached the Canadian border a Mountie, right out of a post card, stepped out of his box and asked, “What is the purpose of your visit to Canada?” If he did not like my answer it was fully within his power to turn me around and deny me access to enter. He then asked where I got the new Mustang that I was driving. The nerve, the unmitigated gall, it was no business of his where I got the car but, if I wanted to cross that arbitrary line, I had to give him an answer that would satisfy him. I told my wife, “He only asked me that because I was an American.”

Coming back across the Peace Bridge we waited in a line for over an hour to cross back into our own country. Another line opened and I saw cars pulling out of my line and into the new one. Without thinking, I quickly pulled into the new line but the new line was for those with permits who made frequent crossings. I explained my ignorance to the customs official, that of a Georgia boy who was unfamiliar with crossing international borders without a frequent flier permit, but to no avail. I was given a government form and directed inside the building to explain myself for attempting to cross into the country of my birth in the wrong lane.

Trying to make the best of a bad situation I told my wife, “Well, it's just you and me now, Osama.” Hungry and unamused, she followed me into the building and we waited in a room similar to a bus station waiting room but, instead of a bus, we were waiting for legal permission to enter the country of our birth. This was serious stuff; this was a legal matter and shortly we were called before a customs officer and he was a good guy about it. We showed our drivers licenses and Chucky Cheese cards and he stamped our form and turned us loose and we were free (Free) again. But, during the interim, we were without legal status. We had left Canada and had not been re-admitted into the United States. Was that racism or was it just common law?

That arbitrary line enforces many a law; get caught with a couple of joints in California and it’s a slap on the wrist, get caught with liquor in a dry county in Alabama and you might do time. The law is a serious matter and those inside those arbitrary lines make the laws. If you’re not from there and don’t like them, stay out. Those joints in Pakistan or Indonesia could get you life; that liquor in Afghanistan could get you worse than life. Maybe these laws are arbitrary and harsh by our western standards but we have no more right to complain about them than the spice merchants of centuries ago. If you don’t like the toll cost, stay out or find another way.

This is the way the world operates, always has, always will; the law is the law. Socrates, after his wrongful death sentence, was implored by his friends to flee the country because the sentence was unjust. He answered, "I had no grievance with this law until my own conviction. So, if I were to flee, would you think that the law was unjust or would you think that I am unjust?" Many similarities to Governor Richardson’s comment, for there is no argument concerning the status of legal aliens in this country. Mr. Richardson was being disingenuous; it was nod-and-wink politics, pandering to an ethnic minority. Vote for us! We are your friends and those who disagree are, you guessed it, racists.

But, crossing into a foreign country without permission is a serious matter. We Americans tend to take it for granted, most of us cross state borders all the time and don’t give it a thought and a few of us cross international borders. But, you will never be allowed to be a citizen of China; you will never be allowed to be a citizen of Japan. In Switzerland, they don’t have to sell you a house if they choose not to. You’re a foreigner and you have no legal rights. In Australia you may immigrate as long as you are not over 45-years of age. Why, that’s discrimination! Yes, it is. Want to move to Australia? Deal with it. America has some of the most lenient immigration laws in the world.

The problems that we face in regards to illegal aliens are not even a political or racial issue but an economic issue. While Canada deals with the psychotic brother one way, the psychotic brother deals with his Latin brother to the South another. Since the Mexican American War the United States has treated Mexico as a doormat. We tell them what we want and they comply. Mexico is a rich country, full of natural resources and, yet, most of its people live in poverty. The original banana republic, run by a few in a rich oligarchy and that was just fine with Uncle Sam.

But then Uncle Sam discovered that there was gold in that there poverty, cheap, cheap labor. As American employers left the rust belt for the Sunbelt they escaped unions but, by continuing even further south, they found that they could also escape higher wages and environmental standards. When the Peso collapsed, America’s banks rushed in and offered assistance and used Mexico’s oil reserves as collateral on the loans. The original, designated purpose of the maquiladora's program was to establish jobs in Mexico to eliminate the need for border crossings. Instead, it had the opposite effect. The poor were drawn to the plants by the thousands for jobs only offered in the hundreds, so it is only logical that they would continue North.

But, with one word, and many of you know it already and, if you’ve read this far, you are waiting for it. NAFTA. NAFTA has done double the damage in Mexico that it has done in Michigan or Ohio. While there may be more jobs in Mexico, the wages have not risen and the people are no better off and, in many ways, they’re worse off. Subsistence farmers working their fields for generations must now compete with American agribusiness. Environmental damage has poisoned water supplies and corrupt officials siphon off profits. But, America pays no attention to Mexico’s problems. When a quarter of a million Mexicans shut down Mexico City for two weeks over a stolen Presidential election, what did the American media say?

Oh, piffle, nothing to it! When 150,000 Mexican farmers marched on their capital to protest their conditions, the American media completely ignored it. Would they have ignored it if it had been in Baghdad? When the Zapatistas revolted in southern Mexico, igniting a decade-long civil war, what does the American media say? “By God, I think they’re communists! This is all Castro’s fault.” But, it's not, it is our fault. The American government uses Mexico the same way millions of Americans use Mexican yardmen. To get something as cheap as possible and offering little or nothing in return.

This is the real reason that politicians on both sides of the aisle tap dance around the issue of illegal aliens. The Fortune 500 are all firmly ensconced in Mexico. El Paso is one of the few bright spots in American Real Estate markets and it's not because of the weather. The corporate bullyboys don’t want the talk about what is going on in Mexico to reach American ears, people might ask questions. They might be surprised to find out that the man on the street in Mexico City doesn’t like NAFTA any more than the man on the street in Cincinnati or Ann Arbor.

The American government and American industry have the Mexican country by its economic throat and it’s a dirty little secret that none of the presidential candidates will talk about. That the depopulation of 10% of Mexico’s population was not brought about because America is the greatest country in the world, but for the same reason as Darfur, you can’t stay there and stay alive. The millions of Latin Americans who have crossed the border illegally do so, for the most part, out of desperation. They send their money home and leave their families, not because they want to but because they have to.

So, the politicians and media pundits all muddy the waters by calling them illegal immigrants rather than what they are, which is economic refugees from The North American Free Trade Act. The Republicans exploit the xenophobic among us while the Democrats seek to exploit the huge pool of new, potential voters by calling a refugee an immigrant. But the reason why doesn’t change the fact that they are victims of exploitation. Calling for immigration reform because of the Mexican exodus will not solve the problem, only exacerbate it. Because the problem is designed in America and only manufactured in Mexico.

The President has sent American troops halfway around the world under the guise of supporting Democracy while we have an oligarchy on our own Southern border. The President is not only satisfied, he’s pleased with the situation; it's free trade, we trade products and the world’s poor trade cheap labor in return. This lowers the wages of American workers who now must compete with workers who live in shacks and sleep six to a room. But, our political elites have convinced themselves that this is the global economy and it can’t be helped. Yes, it can be helped and we don’t need politicians from either party to accept that, just as we don’t need to accept that, or them.

If the President had any real interest in setting up a democracy and standing up for America, he would have saved the freight and invaded Mexico, setting up a Marshall-style plan, guaranteeing ethical employment, environmental standards, and living wages for Mexican workers. But, hell, he wouldn’t do that in America, let alone Mexico. The elites like the way that this is all playing out, no more strikes or labor disputes, no pension or health care concerns.

NAFTA was sold to the American people by saying our standards would be exported to the third world but, instead, their standards are imported here. When an American employer closes the factory, they blame you! You aren’t competitive enough! Republican’s are angry because John McCain isn’t xenophobic enough. Barrack Obama and Hilary Clinton both campaign that they are going to fix NAFTA; sure they are. That’s what all those corporate donors are asking them to do, right? To cry crocodile tears for the cameras about the exploited but unwilling to even speak the name of the exploiters.

The giant sucking sound, once promised by Ross Perot, is rapidly becoming a whirling dervish, threatening to take down all in a worldwide conflagration of currency fluctuations. If the American economy tanks, speculators will just move on to greener pastures and leave us to our own devices and then, maybe, this time, instead of fighting with each other, we will fight the right war and destroy the exploiters. The exploiters, to whom law is but a tool to justify their actions and condemn yours. Whose nationality is the denomination of their currency. Whose political principles are whatever platitude will get them elected this week and whose God is their own unbridled greed.