It was through the 1965 Immigrant Act that the floodgates were slightly opened for a larger influx of foreigners inside the American territorial space
President Donald J Trump has embarked on a quintessential presidential trajectory of legitimate legislative Bills along with executive orders of the amplificatory genre. He has also unequivocally vowed to act and legislate against the Obama legacy and the past policy decisions of his Administration.
In the recent trail of events, the immigration rhetoric has become the cynosure of all eyes, especially in relation with the talk about Trump’s controversial intent to close the Mexican border with the United States with an unbreakable wall all across the Mexican and the “Amigo” frontiers.
If one delves into the historical details of the migrant experience and the immigration law of the United States, one can discern a clearly defined distrust of the “other” in the American pantheon. It does not exactly amount to an amplified and often declared, “Jingoistic xenophobia”, but it definitely reflects the stress of the American policymakers to keep tabs on the influx of foreign population inside the American homeland.
The laws barring the Chinese entry into the homeland and the late 19th century legislation to block the entry of the women expatriates of the Chinese origin are some of the earliest examples of the American policy of keeping out the unaccounted for and undocumented aliens with or without intentions to destabilise the homeland polity.
Even during and after the World War I, especially in 1921 and through the Johnson Reid Act, the American intent was to qualify the immigrant entry and include delimitation on the quantum of population which resides from a singular nation. It was through the 1965 Immigrant Act that the floodgates were slightly opened for a larger influx of foreigners inside the American territorial space. In a way, the American policy intent was to utilise the best of both the worlds.
The Mexican nation reflects the old world charm of the Amigo cowboys and the historical beauty and eland of the old world village kiosks and forlorn habitations which complete the trademark image of the Orientalist Mexico with its cultural and historical linkages with the larger South American civilisations.
The Trump election campaign pontificated about the need to breach the American-Mexican border as it is replete with vehicular traffic and human travels which lead to an influx of the drug peddlers and arms dealers across the porous border.
Out of the 11 million odd undocumented aliens in the US, most of the settlers are of the latino origin with Mexico providing a sizeable share. Apart from culturally similar motifs between the US and Mexico, the trade deals and agreements are a bone of contention between the two North American neighbours. With the Trump Administration negating the business agreements such as, the Trans Pacific Partnership in East Asia, the question that can be asked is: Is it the coming of an inward looking and an protectionist America which will move away from the “Entangling alliances” of the past years and decadesIJ
The same trade doctrine seems to be part of the American transactions with Mexico State. Apart from the drug cartels, any era of geo-economic instability in Mexico will have a ripple impact on the American economy which still is chary of the 2008 recession and the mortgage crisis. Is it this interlinked nature of business outings which President Trump wants to stay clear of and can such a revolutionary policy of “ Staying clear from the near” be a practical proposition in an age of neo-regionalism and “new bilaterals” being imagined by the various countries of the largely interdependent and converged international systemIJ
Mexican drug cartels pose a grave threat to the US. The US Drug Enforcement Agency has issued a report titled “Estimation of the National Drug Threat 2016”. The document reads, “Mexican cartels remain the main threat. No other group has currently positioned itself to challenge them in the US. They maintain influence in large portions of Mexican territory that are used for the cultivation, production, importation, and transportation of illicit drugs.”
The report further informs, “The American cities where these organisations chiefly operate are Chicago, Boston, Pittsburg, San Diego, Phoenix, New York, and Merrillville (Indiana). The consumption of illicit substances includes heroin and fentanyl, as well as abuse of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, and methamphetamine use. Scores of people are reported dead, missing, or executed with an augmentation of the use of torture as a means of police investigation, corruption has increased within the army.”
Also, the internal law and order situation has deteriorated in Mexico with the number of murders and homicides clambering up in large numbers. The internal stability of Mexico is tied with the state of drug trade in the mainland of the US.
The CNN and other reports too have contended that the drug threat to the US is as grave as global terror modules operating with impunity both within and outside the borders. Thus, the drug threat is equally old and impactful as compared to the terror threat to the American mainland. In a recent development, the intended wall to be built around the Mexican border has reached the wall of the American bureaucracy. The US Congress has disagreed to fund the heavy expense of constructing the safeguard wall to contain the “Southern-South influx.”
One of the reasons for the breach in the “wall promise” could be the meeting between Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in an aftermath of the American elections. Along with the decision concerning the wall which has reached an obstruction, the Trump Administration is hell bent on deporting millions of settlers of Mexican origin. Who will pay for the Mexican wallIJ The terrain which the wall will have to criss-cross is very myriad in nature and topography along with the length of around 3,100 km.
Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnel has estimated that the cost of the wall would be around $15 billion, while Trump has declared it to be lesser in cost and inexpensive at $10 billion. So much so for the wall, the trade relations too have a story to tell between the US and Mexico. The US Trade representative reports that the general quantum of the trade between the nations is of the order of $583 billion in 2015.
The US Goods and Trade deficit with Mexico was $49.2 billion in 2015 which naturally makes Mexico a wary partner.
The one way nature of the trade relation can be further stressed by the fact that Mexico is the second largest export destination of Washington, but Mexico is also US’ second largest supplier of agricultural goods. As far as NAFTA is concerned, the Trump Administration is far off from reneging on the North American Free Trade Agreement which is a different take in the light of other executive orders by President Trump as no any window intent to negotiate with the Congress for 90 days has been expressed by the White House. Still, Trump follows his belief of being true to only bilateral and one-on-one trade deals. The slant and the nature of the trade gets reflected by a Hollywood classic named as The Mexican, wherein Brad Pitt gets ordered by his boss to smuggle an ancient Gun, the Mexican to the American nation.
(The writer is Faculty, International Relations, IIPA)