Fredo Arias-King, writing for Center of Immigration Studies (CIS) for one year served as aide to presidential candidate Vicente Fox Quesada of Mexico. After Fox's victory he declined government jobs but agreed to represent the PAN (Partido Acción Nacional) at both Republican and Democratic national conventions in Philadelphia and Los Angeles speaking extensively to U.S. public figures including 80 members of Congress about bilateral relationships. Harvard trained businessman and Sovietologist and funding editor of Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization published in Washington. His three articles on CIS.org: 1) I Understand Your People, 2) Immigration and Usurpation: Elites, Power, and the People's Will, from which this post is drawn, and, 3) Politics by Other Means: The "Why" of Immigration to the United States.
TL:DR Democracy requires informed and involved electorate. In America this has developed too far for the comfort of office holders. In seeking to entrench their own power American leaders of both parties prefer a less informed and less involved electorate, in short, they seek to change the electorate more malleable and more accepting to a Patron-Client relationship.
The Founding Fathers crafted things so that the "knaves" will be forced to abide by the will of the people, but they warned that their "natural progress" is to find ways to remain in power and increase that power at the people’s expense as happens most elsewhere—since the ballot box, the media, and other constitutional tools largely suffice. Indeed, the American political system works remarkably well. However, there are a handful of topics where the elites do not act in the interests of those they govern. Of these, the most notorious is the contentious issue of immigration.
American politicians are overwhelmingly pro-immigration, for a variety of reasons, and they do not always admit this to their constituents. Of those 50 legislators, 45 were unambiguously pro-immigration, even asking us at times to "send more." This was true of both Democrats and Republicans.The paradox is that immigration is the only issue (perhaps besides trade policy) that represents a notorious discrepancy between elite and popular opinion in the United States.But this contradicts the established conventional wisdom of a representative democracy such as the United States.If mass immigration from Latin America has debatable benefits for the United States as a whole, if a majority of the American people is against it, and if immigrants cannot vote until they become naturalized (which can take years after their arrival), why would nine-tenths of the legislators we spoke with be so keen on increasing immigration?
Democrats wanted increased immigration because Latin American immigrants tend to vote Democrat once naturalized (we did not meet a single Democrat that was openly against mass immigration); and Republicans like immigration because their sponsors (businesses and churches) do.Madison, Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and others devised a system and embedded the Constitution with mechanisms to thwart the "natural" tendency of the political class to usurp power—to become a permanent elite lording over pauperized subjects.
"If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America …" Jefferson speculated whether Latin American societies could be governed thus.
Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government… they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers.
Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). They believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American [and become grateful and dependent on them] Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.
Curiously? I would say vitally.
Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms.
While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a "high five" when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them "rednecks," and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself.
Bill Richardson …kindly stopped to speak to our delegation at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. He commented favorably to us: "What do Hispanics want? Fully funded government programs!" The Economist mentioned about his state:
New Mexico is a poor place, with one of the highest proportion of people living on food stamps … Its political tradition also long had a Latin American feel, based around a padrón system of clients and bosses. The bosses ran grocery stores, gave you credit, helped you if you needed a job. And all you had to do was vote for the Democrats … New Mexican politics is still about jobs, contracts and personal loyalty, not ideology. And Mr. Richardson personifies this.
Some legislators had also mentioned to us (oftentimes laughing) how they had "defanged" or "gutted" anti-immigration bills and measures, by neglecting to fund this program or tabling that provision, or deleting the other measure, etc. "Yes, we passed that law, but it can’t work because we also…" was a usual comment to assuage the Mexican delegations.
Arias-King continues with examples of legislators using their power in subverting their electorate by imposing without debate fait accompli. One such in Pennsylvania the state legislators passed in the middle of the night (sound familiar?) before recess in July 2005, a bill giving themselves a pay raise. The spontaneous popular mobilization was such (pig effigies calling the legislators "Harrisburg Hogs") the legislators recanted and repealed their pay raise weeks later.
The key there was instant mobilization.
A group of Argentine statesmen wanted to populate their country with immigrants from Europe believing them more politically mature. One of those statesmen's slogan was "To govern is to populate" U.S. politicians do the opposite, their constituents are already politically mature and proven responsible and civic-minded. They want to replace a nation that works well with another that is dependent.
Arias-King describes Mexicans as kind and hardworking and hospitable and harbor little ambition to impose models or ideologies on others, however they are incapable of producing anything but corrupt and tyrannical rulers, accepting them as the norm unaffected by graft and abuse. Mexico and Latin American generally suffer from moral relativism accepting "natural progress" of political class rather than challenging it. Mexican officials speak of corrosive effects of Mexican culture on institutions needed to make democracy work and most of the population accepts and expects corruption from the political class. Sociological studies conducted throughout the region found Latin Americans are susceptible to clientelismo, a partaking in patron-client relations, and Mexico is high even by regional standards.
Now, Arias-King delves deeper. In Latin environment there are fewer costs to behaving "like a knave," and that explains the failure of most Spanish-speaking countries in the Hemisphere: Pauperized populations with rich and entrenched knaves. Montesquieu's separation-of -powers model breaks down in Latin America since elites do not take their responsibilities seriously and easily reach extra-legal "understandings" with their colleagues across the branches of government.
Such as Barack Hussein Obama's extra-legal action of waving his magical royal scepter and granting amnesty to five million (low estimation there) illegal immigrant by virtue of our own "born here then citizen here" law. Eh, so too your squatting illegal parents. Corruption here, corruption there, corruption everywhere through and through, it's the natural way. What are you, going to tear families apart?
Arias-King uses Monica Lewinski as example of the pathologies are already evident. When President Clinton's strongest backers were distancing themselves from Clinton and calling on him to "tell the truth" the Hispanic Caucus in the U.S. Congress lent its support to the president. Representative Esteban Torres stated "We're going to stand by him to the end … no matter what." This unconditional support to their patron demonstrated why the Montesquieu-Madisonian model had difficulty functioning among Latin Americans. This is what professional politicians of both parties expect from their Hispanic constituents and allies.
We're halfway through Arias-King's essay.
Still with us?
Mexican President Luis Echeverría began a cycle of political violence and economic crisis from which the country has yet to recover. He pursued a policy of moving hundreds of thousands impoverished southern state people to the more prosperous and dynamic northern states where they remain today mostly in shantytowns. His goal was to neutralize those states' more active civic culture that threatened his power. At the time the northern states were the source of opposition to his dictatorial ambitions. The dependent migrants and their offspring would provide a ready source of votes for the ruling party to the more civic-oriented middle classes and "crack" their will to challenge his corporatist regime. Migration from undeveloped areas was used by Echeverría as "politics by other means." He almost succeeded in canceling the constitution to remain indefinitely as president.
Unlike Echeverría, these 45 U.S. legislators that Arias-King spoke with (especially the Republican ones) may simply be following a string of what can be called "rational short-termisms," that seem beneficial to them in the present but ultimately leads to bad ends. He compares the attitude with a sugary diet.
The situation is such that individual rationalisms that consider both benefit and costs, then the benefits are not to those who assume the costs. Because of collective action problems, those benefiting from mass immigration are better organized, even if they are the minority and even if they are aware that "someone else" pays for their largesse. The groups only see the assets and not the liabilities. By nature legislators will prefer short-termisms since the payoffs are immediate and directly attributed to a political figure while the costs are pushed into the future. We should explore the concept of "political failure," the Achilles heel of American and other models of representative democracy. The result of mass Latin American immigration will not likely present a stark choice of democracy versus non-democracy for the United States, rather, the quality of democracy will be affected.
Legislators are probably correct that by acquiescing to mass immigration they will eventually crack the immigration-control advocates. They do not need to win or even debate if they can change the terms of the game so decisively. But this is only the legal and civilized resistance, from those who write in the papers or peacefully volunteer at the border. There is also un-civil direct action because they realize their elites behavior has adverse consequences for the country, all largely futile. In the United States, once immigration-control advocates realize they cannot reach their goals through legal means it could breed a form of resistance that has not yet occurred.
Oh, yes it has. This piece is written July 2006.
Arias-King writes more of direct action as seen in Latin America. Immigration advocates should not be surprised if Latin American immigrants and their offspring continue their tradition of direct action and ignore laws and institutions as recent protests indicate
And as their continuing illegal presence indicate.
But they should also not be surprised when natural born American citizens take up the same acción directa. A test for U.S. political class will be how they respond to Americans utilizing direct action since they tolerate and encourage it for Latin American Immigrants and their offspring. So far the reaction has been predictable in accusing peaceful volunteers of being vigilantes and labeling critics racist while backing down in the face of mass protests by the legal immigrants.
There were reports of U.S. government handing over to Mexican government the names of the Minutemen critics and border-control volunteers.
Un-ironically, the challengers using extra-legal means to counter the extra-constitutional and fait accompli pro-immigration methods of the elites wold be abiding more to the spirit and to the letter of the U.S. Constitution than the targeted political class. The Federalist Papers are shot through with this philosophy.
What other events could reverse circumstances in favor of moderate and civic-minded immigration-reform advocates? Arias-King sees four.
1) If politicians begin to realize the consequences for them are not what they expected. As their short-term benefits crash via elections, or mass mobilization of critics against their political careers. This realization is unlikely to come anytime soon.
As we see with Eric Cantor's replacement Kevin McCarthy. Wax on, wax off, rather, whacks off, whacks on.
2) A critical mass of Latin American descent take the lead in opposing partisan and irredentist leaders that are mobilizing illegal immigrants and Latino citizens since it is they and provocateurs and not average populations who start ethnic conflicts as with Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland. But this is unlikely due to collective action problem.
3) Close the gap between elite and popular opinion on immigration issue to pass certain political reforms that ease lawmakers concerns for their political and financial safety.
Conversely, I say, threaten them harder.
4) A political entrepreneur to successfully use popular discontent with mass immigration to reach power.
As we see occur.
Arias-King uses Denmark for example.
Next Arias-King describes bilateral codependence.
Some American and Mexican pundits argue the outcome of the amnesty debate will affect the way Mexicans view the United States and their own democracy.
I say, "So what."
They argue a backlash will occur if America does not acquiesce. But that assumes Mexico acts rationally and that American overtures are understood and appreciated. But this is nonsense. What happens instead is a situation of codependence develops defined by the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology as the silent or even cheerful tolerance of unreasonable behavior from others, even a pathology of trying to fix things for other people and rescue them which in turn encourages behavior from the rescued. Sacrifices and concessions produce a sense of entitlement and unending string of additional unreasonable demands. Such as the IMF with Moscow, the more money lent the fewer reforms implemented with much of the money going to finance war in Chechnya and to its political class.
Yipee, Suckers!
Arias-King does not recall during his eighteen months aiding Fox's foreign relations many discussions about what Mexico can do to make tough decisions to reform Mexico, rather, more discussions about how can they get more concessions from the United States. Fox continues governing as his predecessors did even appointing Echeverría loyalist as head of federal police agency who was involved in a deadly extortion attempt against a museum owner. According to leading world rankings on corruption, quality of government, development and competitiveness, Mexico actually worsened during Fox's presidency.
A firm but polite defense of American interests by Washington woudl force the Mexican elites to act, and after brief period of acrimonious recriminations, benefit Mexico. He cites European Union's tough accession laws as example.
Codependence is most evident in the personal relations of the political classes of Mexico and the United States. He notices an affinity toward the corrupt party they were attempting to overthrow in Mexico. Several American congressmen had visited Mexico and enjoyed lavish treatment, mentioning how some of the things they enjoyed in Mexico would not be possible at home.
Ha! So they say.
Even though Mexican political class is notoriously corrupt they can count on stronger support in Washington than is possible for several more worthy world leaders genuinely attempting to reform their countries.
The history of the Bush family is symptomatic.
While snubbing pro-American reformers in newly liberated Eastern Europe, George H.W. Bush went out of his way to accommodate Mexico's leader Carlos Salinas. At the time Vice President and presidential candidate, Bush endorsed Salinas after the latter's fraudulent election in 1988. A favor returned by Salinas when he met only with Bush and snubbed Bill Clinton.
Bush crafted NAFTA and then assisted Salinas in joining OECD even though Mexico was not qualified and even attempted to promote Salinas to WTO before Salinas' star collapsed amid a storm of corruption and political murders. All this while ignoring Lech Walesa. Other deserving reformers besides Walesa also complained of being ignored by Bush Sr. even countries more important to U.S. security and prosperity than Mexico. Arias-King gives as example Russian government acting Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar.
Bush Jr. followed his father's footsteps in tacitly but unambiguously endorsing Salinas' ruling party against Vicente Fox.
Get this: perhaps believing the official party candidate, former secret police chief Francisco Labastida would engage in quid pro quo as president. Labastida could not receive the honor in person since he had been IDed by as possible target of the Drug Enforcement Administration because of his record as governor. So he sent his wife.
No, no, seriously get this:
Jeb Bush knew for many years, and also received lavish treatment from Salinas' brother Raúl, before Raúl was arrested on corruption and murder charges and spent the next decade in a Mexican high-security prison.
There's more: Bush Sr.'s business relation with Jorge Díaz Serrano, then director of the Mexican oil monopoly pemex, before he was also arrested in a power struggle and accused of embezzling over $50 million.
Long-time politicos of the Hank Rhon family, who were suspected of laundering drug money and who continue to win elections in Mexico, were also reported to have contributed money to the gubernatorial campaigns of George W. Bush
Similar stories with lesser politicians do not make headlines, several lawmakers Arias-King met also held a special, "giddy" mystique of Mexico as a place where moneyed leaders coexist with tame and grateful citizens. American political class has a special affinity for their colleagues south of the border. The appeal of their lavishness and impunity strikes a positive chord in American politicians who resent being held accountable by their citizens, who cannot become wealthy from politics …
What? You're blowing it, Dude.
… and who may be removed from power "unfairly" and without warning.
Arias-King concludes, Samuel Huntington (influential American conservative political scientist) speculated that the American creed, its values and beliefs cannot be used to openly oppose mass immigration. But that may change. So far, the debate has centered on the immigrants themselves as being worthy or unworthy.
I do not believe this is true. Por contrario, so much of this above is well discussed. It reads as review more than news.
Huntington did not take into account the possibility that the debate could yet be framed in terms of potential usurpation from the political class using immigration as a tool.
No comments:
Post a Comment