MEXICO CITY (Process).– Starting in 2015 in the United States, the immigration issue was positioned as a matter of paramount importance in the national political arena, but not in the correct way.
The then candidate for the presidency of that country, Donald Trump, discovered that the anti-immigrant, and specifically anti-Mexican, discourse had the capacity to revive the genes of racism and xenophobia that unfortunately have persisted for decades. He knew how to lead those ideological extremes towards a successful electoral and government agenda based on that negative profile.
At that time, there were no large flows of migrants arriving at the southern border of the United States, neither Mexicans nor Central Americans, compared to the current ones, which are much higher. But it didn’t matter. The message was that any irregular arrival at that border constituted a threat to national security and was the source of all possible crimes. In other words, before any large-scale migratory wave, the anti-immigrant myth and the parallel social conviction of the supposed threat were first built, thus making Trump’s electoral campaign tremendously successful.
For this political project, evidence of some “threat” on the border with Mexico was necessary, to show the public convincing videos and photographs. Trump started talking about migrant caravans breaking into the United States, before there were any caravans. He started talking about violations of the sovereignty of that country, before there was any intention; there never was such, not before, not now. It didn’t matter: the message and the false threat were the goal to encourage nationalism and imperialist pretensions.
At that time, without large migrant flows, Trump was already campaigning announcing that he would force Mexico to build a large wall on the border. He deliberately left out that there is no greater or better partner in the world for the United States than our country; but Trump dedicated himself to insulting and despising Mexicans and “other Mexicans”, as he called Central Americans. He still does it, also with open mockery of the Mexican government officials who accepted all his impositions on immigration policy (starting with the Secretary of Foreign Relations who has just resigned).
For electoral reasons, to take advantage of the dispute for the Presidency of the United States, the Trump campaign and later his government artificially positioned the immigration problem as a great issue, as the great issue that managed to divide the United States electorate and was particularly welcomed by racist and xenophobic ideologies that still float in the air. The migration issue as the central issue of the political agenda – if not the main one – became the axis of polarization and electoral decision. It still is to this day.
As an issue of enormous political weight, migration and refuge thus began to occupy a stellar space, determining the political and government landscape in the United States. Paradoxically – and this is the second relevant issue – having migrant populations side by side as actors with limited political capacities to resist and vindicate an inclusive and civilized public and legislative agenda.
Against this marginalization there is a great battle promoted by migrants, by their organizations, by a multitude of civil organizations and by the descendant populations of Mexican and Latin American origin, particularly. It is not about any threat or conflict, but simply about the procurement and exercise of rights recognized by the laws of the United States and international agreements.
For its part, it should be noted, the current government of Mexico simply closed its eyes and decided not to intervene, as the National Development Plan made explicit by formally declaring that it is not their business.
In this way, migration is now the great political issue, but migrants are barely invited and with all possible restrictions. This happens in the United States and in other destination countries that have a strong right-wing nationalist, xenophobic and racist political spectrum.
But it also happens in Mexico, in our own way. We must see ourselves in that mirror, because we suffer from a serious migratory, social and human rights problem that is continuously violated.
Regarding the Mexican population abroad, for example, the emigrants and their descendants –who are also Mexicans–, in essence we continue to ignore their political rights and all others, without even adequately assessing their contribution to the economy and social well-being of the country. country. Words are one thing, facts are another. The Mexican State has been incapable of drawing up a permanent strategy, on a broad scale –it must be on a huge scale– to at least formalize the pending nationality recognitions and move from there towards the institutional framework that fulfills their rights, in principle the political ones (the task has figures of millions of people). At the very least, a powerful agenda that respects, values, and promotes the cultural expressions of Mexicans abroad as an inherent part of the national cultural diversity is essential.
As in the United States, in Mexico, migration and refuge can be highly visible as political issues and government discourse. But, as in the United States, in Mexico the migrant population –Mexican and from other countries– has also been marginalized from the exercise of the most basic rights. We replicate a serious and unjustifiable paradox of exclusion that has broad historical repercussions. We can deeply regret it or decide to correct the course, in a real way, in the facts. We have heard enough of words.
*PUED/UNAM professor, former INM commissioner.
