Mexico in Focus

Boycott to Arizona's products. Is that useful?

Mexican legislators and civil organizations are desperately calling for a boycott against Arizona’s products.

They are asking Mexicans not to buy any products originated in Arizona and to avoid travel to the state.

The Institute of Mexicans Abroad (IME), a decentralized agency of the Foreign Ministry proposed a boycott to any sports events involving the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Sun Devils teams. They are also asking Mexicans to avoid traveling with US Airways, which is based in Phoenix, and also to cancel any tourist activity in the state.

These are just a few of the ways that Mexicans are expressing their rejection to the new Arizona immigration law.

Every time we hear about a boycott, the question that immediately arises concerns its real impact.  Let’s take a glance at the numbers.

According to an Arizona Republic article, 80 percent of Arizona trade in Mexico is with its border state, Sonora.   Arizona exported $5.9 billions in goods and services to Mexico in 2008. However, much of that was parts that are assembled in Mexico and then sold back again to the U.S., as finished products. Those exports accounted for 2.4 percent of state’s economic output.

If we talk about Mexican tourism to this state the situation is not much different. A study done by the Arizona Office of Tourism for the years 2007-2008 showed that 99 percent of the Mexicans that visited Arizona in that period were from Sonora. The majority of them crossed to shop in the malls.

However those visits were important to Arizona’s economy because close to 23,400 wage and salary jobs in Arizona were directly attributable to Mexican visitor spending.

“Through local purchases of supplies by businesses and the spending of income derived from visitor-related jobs, these visitors generated almost 7,000 additional jobs in Arizona in 2007-08. These jobs account for a total income of $837.24 million and $3.61 billion in sales”, the report indicates.

The report also states that each day, an average of 65,000 Mexican residents go to Arizona to work, visit friends and relatives. “They spend over $7,350,000 in Arizona’s stores, restaurants, hotels and other businesses, and thus contribute substantially to Arizona’s export trade with Mexico”.

Reading these numbers, it is clear that Arizona’s and Sonora’s economies are as tied as El Paso’s and Ciudad Juárez’s economies. So if the calls for a boycott reach the ears of the people from Sonora, Arizona could feel the pinch.

However, the boycott is not going to generate a reversal of the law. In the end it is just a political statement from Mexicans worried about the consequences of the law.

In the meantime, President Felipe Calderon will meet with President Barack Obama May 19. The Arizona immigration law is expected to be in the agenda.

 

What does an undocumented person look like?

Do I look like one? Do you look like one?

What does an undocumented person from – let’s say Argentina – look like? Do they look different from people from Mexico, Brazil, Colombia or even China?

Are all the undocumented people in the United States brown skinned and short as has been portrayed by the decades-long stereotype.

I’m wondering how Arizona’s police will identify undocumented people when the new state immigration law goes into effect in approximately 90 days. Under the new legislation, local law enforcement officials will be authorized to arrest a person if they believe he/she may be in the country illegally.

Activists around the country have expressed their outrage and concerns about the potential of racial profiling that this new law will bring.  They also fear it could reinforce patterns of discrimination and hate against immigrant communities. I believe they are right.

There are too many studies – from both extremes of the social spectrum – that analyze either the contribution or the cost that undocumented immigrants represent for states and cities. There are also many stories documenting the cost that lawsuits against municipal ordinances or state laws related to immigration will inflict on local governments.

The Farmer’s Branch case in Dallas County is one of the most recent examples of this:  In November 2006, the city council approved an ordinance that prevents landlords from renting homes to undocumented immigrants. The ordinance was challenged by a group of citizens because it was approved in a closed meeting session, which is against state law.  The ordinance was then taken to the polls, and approved on May 12, 2007.  However, civil rights groups sued the city, arguing that the ordinance caused them economic harm. As a result, a U.S. District Court Judge granted a temporary restraining order, preventing the ordinance from going into effect.   Four years have passed and the ordinance is still in the middle of a legal battle. 

In Arizona, several civil rights organizations have announced their attempts to sue the Arizona government as well. If they do it, the legal battle will be also very long.

My point is that the social and economic cost of implementing this new local immigration law could be higher than taking the first steps for comprehensive immigration reform.  Immigration is at heart a federal issue. So wouldn’t it be better to start discussing it now?

According to several estimates, there are 12 million undocumented people living in the U.S. right now.  A new law, such as the one that Arizona enacted, is not going to stop people from coming here, nor is it going to send them back to their country of origin.

Immigration reform could open a path for legalization to the majority of these people, and at the same time, could give the federal government an opportunity to implement changes in the migration policy that would regulate the flow of immigrants and secure the border.

Perhaps Arizona’s law will serve as a timely reminder to the U.S. Congress of the need to address the immigration issue as soon as possible.

 

Worse things are coming

Every time that something terrible happens in Ciudad Juárez, we tend to think that nothing worse can happen. But as much as we think that, we realize that we haven’t reached the point yet where nothing worse can happen.

The killing of eight people yesterday –seven of them members of the police forces and one bystander– was a sign that the drug war has reached a point of no return. It also made evident that the federal police forces are not well prepared or well trained to face an enemy able to surprise and ambush them in the middle of the day and in a transited street. More than 300 bullets were shot during the confrontation, which gives us an idea of the brutality of the attack.

More than 5,000 federal police officers were sent to Cd. Juárez two weeks ago to take the lead in the city’s security and to replace the Mexican Army troops in the patrolling of the streets. The attack yesterday is the first one of its kind and represents one more open challenge from the organized crime to the state's institutions.

The tragic event is also a painful reminder about the vulnerability of Cd. Juarez’s citizens, who in spite of being surrounded by police and army forces, cannot feel safe at any place or time. Ironically, being close to a police vehicle can be now more dangerous than driving on a lonely road.

But we haven’t seen the worst yet. After Friday’s attack, the only thing that we can expect is an intensifying of violence and consequently the loss of many, many more lives. The question is until when.

Finding pearls in Ciudad Juárez

Positive stories about Ciudad Juárez are the exception and not the rule these days.

In the bloody accounts of daily killings, we are not paying enough attention to what many non-profit organizations and private and social groups are doing to make a difference in the lives of the citizens of Juárez, and especially in children’s lives. 

When listening to one of these stories, it’s impossible not to admire the courage and dedication of the people who are fighting to rescue the city from organized crime and to recover its soul.

A local radio reporter from NPR, Monica Ortiz Uribe, found this interesting story that I want to share with you.  Listen it and enjoy it.

A kidnapping victim's story

The life of a young man from Ciudad Juárez changed dramatically last Friday.

The 21-year-old man, whose name I’m omitting for obvious reasons, was kidnapped when he was leaving a convenience store where he had gone to pick up something to eat.

During the three days that he was held, he was hooded and unable to speak.

“I thought the worst. I thought they were going to kill me,” he said. “Thanks to God, it didn’t happen.”

He was a victim of a ”secuestro express” or express kidnapping, which means that the victim is held for a few hours or a few days.  The victims are usually from the middle class and the amount demanded for their release is not too high.

When he was held captive, the kidnappers called his parents several times demanding the money. “They smacked me vigorously in the back of my head because they wanted my parents to hear them beating me,” he said.

The kidnappers demanded $500 and when the money was paid, the young man was released in Anapra, far away from where he lives.

After the experience, his parents decided to hire a bodyguard.  The bodyguard now waits for his return to Juárez while he attends his classes at a local college.

“I don’t have any wish to go out now,” he said. “I don’t feel confident anymore. It’s not that I’m afraid all the time, but something has changed.”

One of the things that he said he learned after the experience is that, “social class doesn’t matter anymore. You don’t need to be rich to be a victim. Just the fact that you have a nice car puts you at risk.”

He wants people to know that living in Juarez is very difficult now.  “I am not going to let these people take away my desire to live life to the fullest,” he said. “I just want people to be very careful.”

In the end, perception matters

Following up with the idea of perception, and after reading all of your comments on my last entry, I found the results of the most recent poll about how Mexicans perceive their country in terms of security and violence.

The poll was conducted by Consulta Mitofsky a public opinion research firm, and Mexico Unido Contra la Delincuencia, a non-profit organization that promotes justice, safety and laws against crime.  Here are some of the most compelling results:

– 78 percent of citizens are afraid of being robbed or attacked, and 72 percent are afraid of being kidnapped.

– Four out of every five citizens consider the security conditions of today are worse than the previous year.

– 47 percent said that the government’s strategy to fight organized crime has been successful, while 36 percent considered that the strategy has failed.

– 74 percent approve of the involvement of the Mexican Army in the war against drugs, but 39 percent think that organized crime is winning the war. 

When asked about the future of the country, the majority of those interviewed (42 percent) said that things are not going to change in the future and 22 percent said that things would get even worse. Only 23 percent said that, in the end, the government would win the war.

Politicians should look at these numbers when they talk about the violence in Mexico as an issue of “perception.”  Trying to minimize or to deny this reality only affects their credibility and trust.

Based on these results, it is clear that Mexicans “perceive” that their country is not a safe place. They are worried about the problem, but what is most concerning, they don’t see a solution in the near future.

What's your perception of Mexico?

There is a saying in Mexico that people use to describe the denial of a painful reality: Quiere tapar el sol con un dedo, which means wanting to cover the sun with a finger.

And that is what government officials are trying to do when talking about the drug trafficking related violence in Mexico, which according to the most recent figures, has left more than 22,000 people from 2006 to date.

The most recent attempt of doing so came on this Wednesday, when the Mexican Tourism Secretary, Gloria Guevara said that insecurity in Mexico is a question of “perception”. She said that the violence associated with drug trafficking and the travel alerts released by the American and other foreign governments have not affected the flow of tourists to Mexico.

I’m wondering what exactly does Guevara understand as “perception”.

Dictionary.com defines perception as “the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding”.

 How do we choose where in the world to travel for vacation if not based in cost and perception?

 My “perception” of let’s say, Acapulco is now influenced by the fact that today six people were killed in one of the most populated and famous avenues of the port, the Miguel Aleman Boulevard.  A group of hit men killed a lawyer and his driver. During the attack they killed four other by-standers.  A day before the police found the dismembered bodies of two people on the main highway to Acapulco.

It is true that you can still travel to Mexico and be safe. You still can travel to Acapulco or any other touristic place and enjoy the beaches, the food and the people. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you perceive Mexico as a safe place. 

Now I’m curious about what you readers “perceive” of Mexico as a destination.   Do you perceive it as a safe or as a dangerous place to travel? 

No soda or potato chips anymore?

School recess is usually time for children to play, get together with friends and to have something eat .

Back in the old days (actually, not really that long ago), there were little grocery stores inside elementary schools in Mexico. There, you could buy snacks such as chips, cokes, chicharrones, "gansitos" (a snack cake filled with strawberry jelly and covered with chocolate), "Miguelitos" (sugar chili powder) and many other sweet and high-caloric candies.

Even though we bought all of that stuff, I don’t remember any obese children in my elementary school. Most likely, there was one or two “gorditos,” but the term obesity was not even a part of our vocabulary.

But things have changed radically in recent times. Today, Mexico has the honor of being in first place in the world in terms of obesity: 7 out of each 10 adults are considered obese and 4.5 million children between the ages of 5 to 11 years old are overweight.

One single fact can summarize the seriousness of the problem is:  the average Mexican citizen consumes an estimated of 160 liters of soda per year, the equivalent of almost half-a-liter per day.  Mexico is also in first place in the world in per capita consumption of soft drinks.

It’s no wonder that diabetes has become the primary cause of death in the country. In 90 percent of the diabetes-related deaths, being overweight is considered as an associated factor.

Because of the magnitude of the problem, on Tuesday Mexican legislators approved a new bill that attempts to attack the causes of obesity. The  new law makes it mandatory for schools to provide children with at least 30 minutes of daily physical exercise and it also bans junk food or “comida chatarra” from all schools.

The bill is admirable, but probably it won’t be enough to stop the obesity epidemic that is affecting Mexico. If they really want to attack the problem, they should Institute stronger regulations for the advertisment of junk food, asking producers to fullfill similar requirements to the ones that were imposed on tobacco companies.  Legislators should also think about establishing special taxes for the production and selling of soft-drink products.   But all of these things won’t be enough if the federal government doesn’t include a nationwide serious campaign to promote healthy food consumption habits.

Unfortunately, the increased use of technology is not helping and we, as a nation, are getting far too used  to sitting in front of our computers to study or even to play.  If you ask a kid today what does he/she prefer to do, either going out for a run or playing “Halo,”  it is not hard to determine what his answer would be.

Yes, you guessed it. He would prefer to sit on the couch, controller in hand, to see how the world will collapse as an epidemic of obesity takes over the planet.

 

If Zapata would be alive...

This Saturday is the anniversary of the killing of Emiliano Zapata, one of the most respected Mexican Revolution heroes. Supporters of president Venustiano Carranza killed the leader of the Liberation Army of the South in 1919. Zapata is remembered as the hero who fought by for agrarian causes and indigenous rights.

If Zapata would come back to earth, these are some of the things that he would see:

- Seventy percent of the 25 million rural habitants live in extreme poverty, which means they can barely satisfy basic needs as food, housing and clothing.

- The majority of the people who work in agriculture have an average of 2.5 hectares, the equivalent of 6 acres. In comparison, in the U.S. the number is equivalent of 44.4 hectares or 109 acres per person.  With such a small piece of land, a farmer can’t get enough products to even feed his own family.

-Since NAFTA, the countryside has suffered from government negligence. Incentives and policies to develop Mexican agriculture almost disappeared after NAFTA and they were substituted by free market policies. As a result of that, the national production of basic grains declined and imports grow more than 100 percent in the last decades. According to a World Bank document the free trade policies caused that 25 percent of the countryside population migrated to urban cities.

- Migration has become one of the choices for impoverished peasants. Some states as Oaxaca, Michoacán, Zacatecas, Guanajuato, San Luis Potosí, Puebla, among others, are some of the states that expel more migrants to the United States every year.

- For those who can’t migrate, working for the drug traffickers has become a choice too.

When Zapata started his fought 100 years ago, the situation of the countryside was even worse. Obviously, as a result of the Revolution a few things changed and some Mexican peasants were able to see better times. But today nobody can feel proud about the poverty and oblivion in which the majority of peasants live.

If Zapata would come back to earth, probably this time he wouldn’t be killed. Most likely he would just die of sadness.

Is the bloodshed coming to an end?

According to an exclusive Associated Press news article released today, the Sinaloa Cartel, headed by Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, has taken control of Ciudad Juárez, which means that they have edged out the Juárez Cartel.

U.S. intelligence sources told the news agency that there is evidence that Guzman is winning Mexico's drug war.

If this information is correct, does this mean it’s the end of the bloodshed?

Most likely no.

As an U.S. agent and the city’s mayor, Jose Reyes Ferriz, told AP, the leader of the Juárez Cartel is not likely to give up the fight entirely. They will still fight for the retail sales in the city.

In addition, the war between the Sinaloa Cartel and the Juárez Cartel is not the only confrontation between cartels. In several states and major cities of the country, several drug organizations are fighting to control territories. In northeast Mexico, the Gulf Cartel and the Zetas are fighting, and in Michoacán, La Familia – a powerful group with ties to the Sinaloa Cartel – is also fighting the Zetas.

Not a single day goes by without news of drug-style executions. Just today, two people were killed and their bodies hanged from a bridge in the city of Cuernavaca in the south of Mexico. The killers left a message signed by El Cartel Pacifico del Sur threatening those who work for the Beltran-Leyva Cartel.

So, the bloodshed is not going to end soon.

However, if the Sinaloa Cartel has gained control of Cd. Juárez this means that they will set the rules for the drug trafficking operations in the vast territories that they control. Although the government won’t admit it, for them it will probably be easier to negotiate with one consolidated group than with several organizations fighting each other.

It is interesting that the AP story came just a few days after one of the leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel, Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada gave an interview to Proceso – one of the most popular magazines in Mexico – where he said the government is not winning the war on drugs. He added that drug trafficking is deeply rooted in Mexican society, and he offered to put the reporter in touch with Guzman, one of the most-wanted men in the world.

It seems that the Sinaloa Cartel it was more than ready to be in the spotlight.