So Much for Sovereignty
By Mark Brennan
Posted On March 21, 2006

In October 2005, the Executive Branch and the Senate of Mexico published a position paper entitled “Mexico and the Migration Phenomenon.” This brief six page document hardly caused a ripple in the United States where the immigration debate, focused primarily on illegal immigration, has raged for several years.

While the events of 9/11 awoke Americans to the fact that the two oceans buffering them from potential foreign enemies were now insufficient to ward off attack, the prevalent take on our contiguous neighbors to the north and south had historically been one of benign neglect. On March 20, 2006, the government of Mexico decided to publicize its thoughts on the debate by publishing a full-page advertisement in The New York Times highlighting the main conclusions of the aforementioned paper. For Americans who still care about national sovereignty and our ability to create our own laws under which we as a constitutional republic will live, this communication comes as an ominous shot across the bow. Despite claims to the contrary hedging most of the article’s suggested remedies, the government of Mexico’s attempt to insinuate itself into a leading role in the debate over Mexican immigration into the United States is an unwelcome usurpation of our democratic form of government.

The 2000 Census revealed that somewhere between 8 and 11 million Mexican illegal aliens then resided in the United States. With the exception of a brief lull in border crossings immediately after 9/11, the illegal inflow has continued unabated and credible estimates now point to an illegal alien population higher than the 11 million cited in the 2000 Census. Completely ignoring the economic and social concerns driving Mexicans to flee their native land, the Mexican government is now suggesting that our two nations have a “shared responsibility” in managing the immigration dilemma.

Common sense tells us otherwise. While the average American will always maintain a soft spot in his heart for the impoverished immigrant looking to come to the United States and improve his lot in life, those same Americans are offended by other nations dictating how we should set our immigration policy. Monday’s advertisement suggests that for a Mexican-sponsored guest worker program to succeed, “Mexico should participate in its design, management, supervision and evaluation.” Needless to say, it would not be in the best interests of the United States, attracting immigrants from nearly every country in the world, to permit a foreign nation to play a leading role in what essentially boils down to the protection of our border and culture.

While the document speaks of the need for “the circular flow of the participants,” current Mexican law suggests something to the contrary. As it now stands, Americans are prohibited from purchasing oceanfront property in Mexico. As a sovereign nation, Mexico is free to make such a choice; however it should not complain when much needed foreign investment goes to more welcoming vacation spots. Nor should Mexico attempt to promote the false idea that any of the measures it is proposing in its immigration treatise would be, as the document calls it, “temporary.” By calling for “a bilateral medical insurance system to cover migrants and their relatives,” we will only complicate our own medical system’s woes, exacerbated by the unfunded Medicare, Medicaid and prescription drug benefit liabilities hovering over our children’s’ heads.

But it does not stop there. The document expressly calls for Mexicans working in the United States to later receive their pension benefits in Mexico. While there is no reasonable argument that such pension benefits paid by private employers should be remitted to anyone who earned them regardless of his legal residence, guarantees by the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation) as well as Social Security payments – other unfunded multi-trillion dollar liabilities of the Federal government – should be restricted to Americans, whether native or naturalized citizens. Without such limits, the United States could quickly become a bottomless wallet funding a global welfare state. Leaving such a legacy via unilateral intergenerational agreement will be a constant drain on our national economic productivity as well as aggravate future budget problems.

The only portion of the document that might help both the United States deal with its historically unprecedented inflow of illegal immigrants while simultaneously helping Mexico create a society and economy in which Mexicans in their peak economically productive years prosper in their home country comes at the end of the ad. Unfortunately, the suggestion that Mexico “enhance the programs of its Labor and Social Development Ministries, to enhance social and working conditions that encourage the return and reincorporation of Mexicans into their home communities in Mexico” reeks of the decades long failure of government interference in the Mexican economy.

Mexico’s elites have historically maintained their economically superior position as Victor Davis Hanson expertly explained in his book Mexifornia. Hanson writes, “Market capitalism, constitutional government, the creation of a middle-class ethic or an independent judiciary will never fully come to Mexico as long as potential critics go north instead of marching for a redress of grievances on the suited bureaucrats in Mexico City.” And the billions of dollars Mexican nationals are repatriating from the United States only build a higher wall preventing substantive reform.

Peaceful relations between the United States and its southern neighbor have been the rule rather than the exception since 1918. While America has normally welcomed immigrants during its 230 year history, it has always been and will always remain, free to set its own immigration policies and laws. No foreign nation should dictate how we should treat its citizens when they openly break American laws. Americans who pride themselves in living in a just and fair country should be especially aggrieved that the Mexican elite would use its own countrymen as unwitting pawns to advance such an anti-sovereign measure.

Mark Brennan lives in New York City and can be reached at mgb88@columbia.edu.

E-mail this article to a friend.