translated from Spanish: Migration: Mexico has Trump; Spaina Africans

The editorial of the newspaper El País de España on Friday 13 September was an example of the politicization of international conflicts and one more case of journalistic misunderstanding of more complex problems. The paper concludes that Trump has Mexico tied to restrictive immigration policy. However, the problem is much more complex. And the Spanish newspaper should be the first to understand it: throughout 2019 Spain showed the world that it has a wall in Melilla containing the illegal crossing of people from Africa, that illegals have crossed with violence and assaulted with gases and weapons Punches to guards and that migrants in the interior of Spain end up as manteros or street vendors with products displayed in blankets that they can pick up quickly when the police arrive. All criticism of the Mexico-US migration relationship is true, right and unobjectionable… although incomplete. The anti-Trump furore has obscured the analytical capabilities of journalists and observers and have not deepened Trump’s racial reasons that would in any case fuel his white supremacism, but which also have to do with the characterization of the state and society U.S. as national security bodies. The US has dazzled as a beacon of freedom, even if it is the only radical empire in operation that has crushed freedom in dozens of countries; have given to desire for the comfort of their standard of living, but sustained by the exploitation of other peoples, societies and economies; and they want to demonstrate the ease with which you can become rich, but without acknowledging that the engine of well-being is greed and exploitation. In this sense, the US is an empire on the outside and an empire in the interior. Trump longs to build a retaining wall on the Mexican border, it would be similar to the Melilla fence in Spain, to filter the insenters of migrants; and Trump has closed the border with Mexico to force asylum seekers to comply with established immigration rules, just as Spain has. And migrants who want to be gringuitos have crossed the border by running and attacking American policemen, just as this year at least three times there was a violent crossing of the fence and attacked civilian guards with guns and even debris as an instrument of aggression. Both Trump and Spain want migrants to comply with established security rules. The difference between Spain and Mexico is that Mexico has a historic asylum policy based on open doors, while Spain has a traditional migration strategy based on the legal filter. Indeed, the Mexican government was wrong to whip up the entry of Central American migrants to the US because it fabricated a predictable crisis: Washington would never approve of opening borders without controls, if we understand that the state and society are institutions national security of an empire that is supported by the exploitation of others and that the others are increasingly rebelling against the exploiter. The latest U.S. message was very clear: The Supreme Court backed Trump’s immigration policy of restricting the income of migrants. And now Mexico does not know what to do with more than 200 thousand migrants who were stationed in the country by the promises of the government of López Obrador to give them legality, citizenship, employment, social security and welfare, but in a country with 80% marginalization, 20% of people in poverty and xtrema, 57% of the workforce operating in informality, a migratory pressure towards the US of 10% of the population over the past decade, an average annual GDP of 2% over the past 35 years and an increase of one million new workers who are incorporated each year economically active populations and only a third find employment in the formal sector. The EU-Mexico migration crisis is a matter of national security, not humanism or generosity. Mexico preferred to help Central Americans reach the US border to depressurize their migration crisis on its border with Central America. But the strategy failed him, the US locked his doors and Mexico stayed with Central Americans who do not want to be in Mexico because the crisis of social and violence is the same as in their countries, with data revealing that some of the asylees have already created bands of the that increased Mexican insecurity. Anti-Trump sentiment has prevented a strategic analysis of the migration crisis on the Mexican border. Trump deserves all the insults he is told, but the strategic approach is imperial, anti-terrorist and national security of an American social system that relies fairly on the exploitation of others, on the military invasion of other nations and on the exploitation of all other countries. Trump won in 2016 because his supremacist racial proposition was shared by most Americans and in 2020, at the ballot box, the phenomenon of immigration panic could be repeated to the invasion of tales of thousands of poor migrants from other countries to share an already distributed wealth and with American plaintiffs in the first places of waiting to enter that paradise.



Original source in Spanish