Mexican Flags & Anti-Immigration bill protests

My good buddy, Rob, replied back with some followup questions regarding the anti-immigration bill protests.

He asked:

1. Waving of Mexican flags during the protest. Seems to galvanize Middle America against their cause.

Are we still speaking about the student walkouts or the million of protestors in Los Angeles two weeks ago Saturday? In that monumental peaceful march, what was noteworthy was the abundance of US flags in attendance.

If we are focusing on the students, I did see many Mexican and Latin American flags being proudly displayed in the walkout. The students have a right to wave these flags. It is not against the law. I like, Edward James Olmos, disagree with this type of political tactic; however, if another protestor cares to exercise a different legal political strategy that is their prerogative.

As for galvanizing Middle America (I assume you mean the non-coastal US, not Central America which is truly Middle America) against their cause, I believe it does. However, I just wish I would see this same type of passion with the southern Rebel Flag.

The Rebel Flag is a symbol of the institution of slavery, or of the Jim Crow laws established by the US Congress enforcing racial segregation in the Southern States for almost a century later. According to Civil War historian and southerner Shelby Foote, the flag traditionally represented the south's resistance to northern political dominance generally; it became racially charged during the Civil Rights Movement, when protecting segregation suddenly became the focal point of that resistance.

But if this flag is painted on supped-up TV car that can run illegal moonshine to a Stateline from its buffoonery police in "Dukes of Hazzard", why doesn't this same group galvanize against what this Rebel Flag symbolizes?

In addition, when this flag is used much in the same fashion as the Ku Klux Klan in their demonstrations down the main street, why doesn't this group galvanize against what this Rebel Flag symbolizes?

And finally, when it flown over the State Buildings in Mississippi, 365-days a year; why doesn't this group galvanize against what this Rebel Flag symbolizes?

2. Will a guest worker program really work on controlling illegal immigration? What incentives do Mexican nationals have to return and live in their homeland and help make it a better place to live and raise a family? What is Pres Fox doing to help his country? Or is he looking the other way as US dollars flow back into his economy?

I don't believe that a guest worker program would work in controlling illegal immigration. I say that because the in the 1940s, the US had the braseros program to pick the produce which was a guest worker program. The Bracero Program was, in fact, beneficial to the American agricultural industry, but the struggles of Mexican migrant workers have been greatly downplayed. The Mexican migrant workers went through what the director of the program, Labor Officer Lee G. Williams, described as "legalized Slavery." The Migrant workers labored in horrid conditions, sometimes in excess of 10 hours a day, while grossly unscrupulous bosses profited immensely. The program was finally halted in 1964, not only because of the introduction of mechanized harvesting, but because of reports of human rights abuses. The program, for the most part from a humanitarian standpoint, was deemed a complete and utter failure.

President G.W. Bush has wanted to put this type of program into place not just for agriculture jobs but all various industries in 2000. September 11^th, 2001 halted this program's implementation until now. That is one of the two reasons why illegal immigration has skyrocketed in the last sixteen years.

The first reason for the migration increase is due to NATFA which was implemented in 1989. Farmers in Mexico have opposed and still oppose NAFTA because the heavy agriculture subsidies for farmers in the United States have put a great deal of downward pressure on Mexican agricultural prices, forcing many farmers out of business. Wages there have decreased by as much as 20 percent in some sectors. This is main reason for the migration north to take these lowly waged jobs in the US is that the migrants were still paid ten times more than staying in Mexico. When one is starving and has to feed their family, no matter how difficult or dangerous it is to make the journey north, people are going to take the risk to survive.

The second reason for the abrupt increase of illegal flow is the beefed-up security on the border implemented by Homeland Security. While it was difficult and dangerous to enter the US prior to 9-11, many migrants could work in the US for a while, and return home to regroup with their families. After 9-11, crossing and returning back over the border got to be a near impossibility. If a Mexican can raise thousands of dollars to pay a coyote (a border smuggler) to get across the border, that Mexican is not going to risk that financial investment to go back to Mexico to regroup with his family. Instead, they stay in the US without the true option to go back to Mexico due to the strict border patrol since 9-11. Due to the huge financial upfront obligations to get to the US to work, there are NO incentives for nationals have to return and live in their homeland and help make it a better place to live and raise a family. Instead, the opposite is true; bring the remaining family members up north to regroup the family in the US.

President Fox is part of the problem. Like Bush, he is corporate leader. Let's not forget that he was supervisor of Coca-Cola's (An US Corporation) operations in Mexico, and then in all of Latin America. He is the enabler for US corporations to use Mexican people, its natural resources, and its lands to be toxic dump sites. Remember, he is not a "typical" Mexican, he is elite. He is in the privileged class. And as long as he lets US corporations continue to exploit Mexico and he personally gets a piece of the action - he will be able to stay in power (via the US) and he will be US big business's puppet.

Believe me, the last thing the US corporations wants to see is organization of the Mexican people through self empowerment though its Mexican resources (like its petroleum). US Corporations want this type of economic instability with immigrants flocking to the US and continually depressing the overall middle-class US citizen wages and marginalizing working unions. If Fox wanted to help his people, he would revoke NAFTA. If Fox wanted to help his people he could do what Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is doing with their petroleum by nationalizing it and giving back down to the poor in land reformation, health programs and literacy programs. But one can see how the US corporations feel about these actions if a leader tries to empower their nation to be self-sufficient. This is a direct threat to their profits and shareholders and immediately these types of leaders "need to be removed for the US national interest and security". These are not US citizen interests and securities, but corporations' FINANCIAL interests and security.

Why do you think there has not been a strong self independent Central of South American country since the imposed Monroe Doctrine? Any populist leader that places its peoples before US corporations is immediately proclaimed as a villain and US military is deployed to complete the political coup.