Views

By George Friedman

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.

Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence at the beginning or end of the report, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR:

This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR

By Hal Mansfield

It is not generally recognized that the failure to tax adequately and fairly can destroy governments.

Arizona is a prime example of this fact. Over the past several years, the Arizona legislature has slashed taxes, especially for the wealthy, following a practice known as supply side economics; that is, the rewarding of the wealthy to supposedly stimulate their tax savings back into the economy.

In doing so, Arizona's financial well-being and its necessary governmental services, institutions and infrastructures have suffered.

For example, Arizona government buildings have been sold, and then leased back by the state. School budgets have been cut to the point where Arizona is near the bottom of the nation with regard to per pupil education funding.

Why are these examples of the worst sort of destruction through unrealistic low taxation? The sale and lease-back scenario will cost the state and its citizens far more in actual cash outlays in the long run. The insiders who bought the property will benefit most. And, the sales did not solve the budget crisis.

The savaging of school budgets is poor economics and a disaster for the quality of education offered students at all levels. By spending less for education now, greater costs will be necessary over the years.

Examples: poor education increases the costs for law enforcement, courts and prisons and swells welfare rolls; inadequate education funding makes it less likely that businesses that require a well-educated work force will locate in the state.

The legislatures have been able to confuse the public into thinking that reducing taxes represents responsible government and is in the best interest of the average taxpayer.

Legislators, taxpayers and voters become irresponsible by neglecting obligations to education and to safety by deferring the repair and replacement of infrastructure. Taxes are a necessary requirement of government and paying taxes should be thought of as an honor, a privilege and a responsibility .

The legislators know that they are being unfair to the public when they say that lower taxes always means better, responsible governance, especially since the wealthy are benefiting the most from the present tax laws.

It is time for responsible, adequate taxation.

Fortunately, we live in a country that provides for change without violent revolution. A ballot box revolution is what is needed. Vote those "out" who have brought Arizona to the brink of irrevocable disaster. Vote those "in" who promise intelligent economics and honest, fair and adequate taxation, not a sellout to greedy private interests.

Sadly, even the best of legislatures will have to raise taxes in modest increments because of the fragile economy and because of the extent of the damage done to the state by previous, irresponsible legislative tax codes.

The one exception to this is the tax rates for the richest 20 percent of Arizonans; that rate should be raised immediately and substantially to the benefit of the other 80 percent.

Also, the Arizona Estate Tax Law should be re-instituted at a reasonable level. Phasing it out, as the Congress and many state legislatures did several years ago, was a grave error.

Hal Mansfield is a Green Valley resident. He can be contacted by e-mail at hal.mansfield3@gmail.com  His Web site is halmansfield.com The views expressed above are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

Truman Woodall's letter "Misguided" in the Green Valley News and The Sahuarita Sun on 19 May 2010 gave me cause to ponder if there might indeed be some worthwhile advantage from the development of the Rosemont mine.

I have found it more informative to examine Rosemont Copper's investor's prospectus and financial statements than to rely on their widely published rose-tinted propaganda.

My deliberations seem to suggest the whole enterprise offers little locally and less still to America in general.

Read more

Hey everyone out there!

We, in Arizona , know you're boycotting us -- but you really should come out here and see our formerly "Beautiful" Sonoran Desert .   Instead of boycotting, help us clean this up.

It used to be just gorgeous right now!  We know you'd love it and maybe you can share what you saw with the rest of the country so they can love it too!

This is on an 'illegal super - highway' from Mexico to the USA ( Tucson ) used by human and drug smugglers.

This area is located in a wash, approximately 1.5 miles long, just south of Tucson , Arizona . If a flood came, all this would be washed to the river and then onto the sea!

Read more

At a town hall meeting on March 17, 2010 at the community center in Rio Rico, County Manager Greg Lucero, along with engineers from CPE and staff from the offices of Congresspersons Grijalva and Giffords, updated residents on the progress to an improved access route at Palo Parado Road.

Amid gloomy projections for funding of the proposed design, one resident questioned why other options, such as concrete ford crossings, were not being considered. The following is a dialog which began with a response from a recipient of a Public Affairs email announcing the opening of Palo Parado Road after the recent paving of the approaches to the railroad crossing.

From Victor:

The biggest mistake ever made by the Santa Cruz County Government is the hiring of The CPE Consultants, of Tucson,  for $168,000 to study the locations and then another $ 890,000 to design a 900 foot long bridge at Palo Parado.

For this amount of money you folks could already have a concrete based, all weather crossing at the same spot.  This type  crossing would be closed perhaps ten days a year, during the peak flow of the Santa Cruz River.  These "Concrete Ford Crossings" are in common use throughout Arizona and through much larger rivers. These inexpensive  crossing options are being revived because of the high costs of bridges.

Read more

For many years we have filled our jails with people whose only crime has been hurting themselves by taking drugs. At the same time we have spent many billions on futile attempts to close our giant borders. Meanwhile, our cities are awash in violent crime involving drug dealers, and drug users become criminals in order to buy drugs.

Those who advocate the continuation of our failed "drug policy" and those who advocate legalization of drugs now banned are, as is so often the case, taking polar positions, both of which are doomed. Illegal drugs and even prescription drugs are popular because they give some people what they want and, after a time, often what they need.
The laws restricting drug sales and use cause illegal drugs to be expensive. The tremendous profit from drug sales is the only force, which keeps the illegal drug trade flourishing. Take away the profit, and the resultant criminal trade of smuggling, murder and corruption will vanish.

Read more

Is it just me, or are there others of you out there who are completely exasperated by the silly posturing and inflammatory statements of politicians and pundits, both public and private, and those idiotic people who believe in them?

The media is constantly focused on whether Obama can fix the economy and create jobs while managing efficient government services and fighting two wars he did not start.

Constitution alert: The President cannot write a single law, or hire a single person on his own; it's Congresses' job to legislate and appropriate money. Obama merely executes the laws available to him with the money Congress gives him. He is just one man who waded into the swamp on our behalf for a salary which most CEOs would laugh at.

Obama did not wreck the economy. Business and the Wall Street money changers did that. Congress helped by deregulating because "people want government out of their lives." (Criminals also want government out of their lives. Sometimes criminals and businesses are the same people.)

Why are not the pundits demanding that we gather the Wall Street fat cats and the CEOs of all major industries in sports stadiums all around the country and keep them there until they come up with a viable plan to revive the economy and put people to work? They are the ones who hire the folks who make and sell and move stuff. They finance the products and services.

Our taxes saved the banks, and now they won't lend to anybody.

Perhaps there wouldn't be enough profit in it. The only way you can afford your own personal jet and billion dollar mansion is if you receive far more value than you give. That the ruinously poor management by an auto executive is compensated thousands of times more than the skilled labor of the workers who build the cars is an example of what's really wrong in this country.

It's our American dream come false.

Read more

On March 10, 2010 at 10:00 AM, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) will hold a hearing regarding Liberty Water's (formerly Rio Rico Utilities, Inc.) request for a 111.36% rate increase for all water customers within the utility.

If the ACC approves this 111.36% increase in water rates, customers of Liberty Water will see their bills more than double. These customers need to make their opinions known to the Commissioners.

In allowing Liberty Water to double customers' rates, the ACC would contribute to the continued downward spiral of property values and incomes within Rio Rico. Many in the community cannot afford a rate increase of such magnitude during such bleak economic times.

Recently, faced with the same scenario, the residents of Tubac appeared before the ACC and negotiated an acceptable rate increase plan with their water provider. Public comment to the Arizona Corporation Commission, opens the opportunity to negotiate and arrive at amicable solutions. The Commission and Liberty Water must consider customer concerns before reaching a final decision. Holding all future hearings in the Rio Rico area will provide representation of all affected parties

There are two ways to provide public comments to the Commission.

First, appear at the meeting scheduled for March 10^th at 10:00AM in Tucson at the ACC office, Hearing Room 222, 400 West Congress St. Public comments will be taken at the beginning of the first day of the hearing.

Second, provide written comments prior to March 10^th to the Commissioners.

When you write your letter, reference Docket No. WS-02676A-09-0257, then mail it to Arizona Corporation Commission, Consumer Services Section, 1200 West Washington, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

To email your comments to the ACC, go to http://www.azcc.gov/divisions/utilities/forms/public_comment.pdf for a form and instructions.

Documentation regarding Liberty Water's request is available in their office at 1060-9 Yavapai Dr. in Rio Rico, or visit the Commission's website at www.azcc.gov and click on the "e-Docket' function at the bottom of the Home page.

Karen Rogers

Rio Rico

---

The Palo Parado (Exit 25) is a vital crossing in Santa Cruz County At present it moves approximately 1,400 vehicles a day to and from the east and west side of Interstate 19.
This crossing is vulnerable to be permanently closed by Union Pacific at the Railroad tracks if the armed signals and lights cannot be installed. It is important to note that Union Pacific has deemed this crossing as one of Arizona's most dangerous, not because of poor visibility but by the sheer numbers of vehicles that cross daily. The odds of a train-vehicle accident are high.

Work scheduled to begin in January to pave and line a permanent road from Pendleton Drive (east side of tracks) to 200 feet beyond the tracks has a short fall of about $18,000 in funds. The urgency to succeed in this road crossing improvement will secure the crossing staying open. ADOT can then release the 130 funds so the signal arms and lights can be installed at this railroad crossing.

It is no secret that our county, as all counties, and the state have no spare funds.
I am asking everyone, residents, businesses, organizations and concerned citizens from Green Valley and throughout Santa Cruz County to make a financial contribution to the Santa Cruz County Palo Parado Road Fund (SCCPPRF).

Ultimately the bridge will be built, but only if the crossing remains open!

Your contribution to the SCCPPRF will have an immediate impact on securing the use of this railroad crossing forever and the safety of everyone who uses it now and in the future.

This project has a total cost of about $110,000. Through the contributions of material, labor, a loan, city of Nogales resources, county sources and community donations we are within $18,000 of the needed amount. Please make a check out to the SCCPPRF. Any contribution you make moves this endeavor toward completion.

The checks may be mailed to the Santa Cruz County Complex, 2150 N. Congress Dr., Nogales AZ 85621. ATTN: Jennifer St. John. Fund #107

Randy Glennie
Rio Rico

editor's note: progress of the fund-raising campaign can be tracked at http://www.co.santa-cruz.az.us/public_works/paloparado/Palo-Parado-Funding-Update.pdf

Any traffic accident is unfortunate and the loss of a car can have serious consequences for most of us, so I certainly can sympathize with Olivia Olivas' situation described in "Crash Toll is Growing," Sunday, Dec. 13.

However, the quote by her mother which closed the editorial disturbed me.

I think we would all prefer for immigrants to enter the US "the right way."

Unfortunately, until we have serious, comprehensive immigration reform there is no "right way" that works for those seeking family reunification or those who are desperately seeking a way to provide for their families, now, as the process often takes years.

I'm sure they, too, would prefer to enter this country with the proper papers rather than risk the dangers of the desert and the uncertainties of living in fear of the authorities.

We can all work for a "right way" that works by insisting our elected officials address comprehensive immigration reform soon.

Sandra Rooney, Green Valley