Transcribe
Translate
El Laberinto, 1971-1987
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
-7- groups are involved in the process? and (2) What are their interest in its outcome? Answers have both international and domestic dimensions. At the broadest level, illegal immigration across the border involves the interests of two nations, Mexico and the U.S. A well-worn cliche is that pressure at the border arises because the U.S. is a rich country and Mexico a poor one. The situation, however, is much more complex. Heavy pressures for migration to the U.S. emerge not because Mexico has an underdeveloped and stagnant economy, but because the economy is in a process of rapid transition toward development. The period prior to the Mexican Revolution saw very little migration to the U.S. despite a situation of permanent poverty and economic stagnation. Reasons for this can be found, in part, in the effective control exercised by a rural aristocracy. A fundamental consequence of the Revolution was the freeing of the rural lower classes from feudal ties, making the geographic mobility in search of better opportunities possible. Contrary to popular myths, if Mexico were at present a stage of social and economic development similar to that of the less advanced countries of Latin America, wetback migration would tend to be of lower magnitude than it is now. During recent years, Mexico's economy has been on of the fastest growing in Latin America. Gross national product increased an annual rates above 6 percent during the past decade, with per capita income growth exceeding 3 percent per year. This was the fastest rate of growth among major Latin American nations and one of the very few to exceed the Alliance for Progress goal of 2.5 percent per year set at the beginning of the decade. Economic development by itself does not give rise, of course, to migratory pressures. While the character of Mexican development cannot be examined in detail here, the crucial point to be noted is that it has taken place within the framework of state-regulated capitalism. National corporatism shares with other capitalist strategies the fundamental trait of favoring primarily the organized upper and middle sectors to the detriment of lower groups. consumption and investment resources are heavily concentrated, at least in the initial stages of a growing commercial industrial bourgeoisie. Fruits of development take considerable time, within this capitalist framework, to filter down tot he lower classes. It is for this reason that, while Mexico exhibits one of the most dynamic economies in the developing world, income distribution remains heavily skewed in favor of the upper sectors. Essentially, the post-revolutionary era has liberated the poor from quasi-feudalistic ponds and exposed them to the advantages and conveniences of the developed world without providing the means of satisfying the newly-created demands. Mexico has mobilized its lower classes withou being able to fully integrate them into the process of national development. Results have been the heavy migration to urban industrial centers such as mexico City and Monterrey and the growing pressure at the border. Thus, massive lower-class immigration to the U.S. functions as a safety valve, relieving the pressures of mobilized surplus labor in a transitional economy. Mexico benefits from wetback flow in two ways. First and most important, it alleviates the tension and cost of income maldistribution. It provides the poor with an alternative and it buys some time for the capitalist strategy adopted to attain eventual economic maturity. Second, remittances from Mexican immigrants in the U.S. are inconspicuous but potentially important factors in the external trade balance.... For (U.S.) employers, wetback migration has the double advantage of providing a pool of abundant, cheap labor and of holding wages of domestic workers down by sharply increasing the supply of available manpower. Wetback labor is not subject to the usual legal [arrow pointing right]
Saving...
prev
next
-7- groups are involved in the process? and (2) What are their interest in its outcome? Answers have both international and domestic dimensions. At the broadest level, illegal immigration across the border involves the interests of two nations, Mexico and the U.S. A well-worn cliche is that pressure at the border arises because the U.S. is a rich country and Mexico a poor one. The situation, however, is much more complex. Heavy pressures for migration to the U.S. emerge not because Mexico has an underdeveloped and stagnant economy, but because the economy is in a process of rapid transition toward development. The period prior to the Mexican Revolution saw very little migration to the U.S. despite a situation of permanent poverty and economic stagnation. Reasons for this can be found, in part, in the effective control exercised by a rural aristocracy. A fundamental consequence of the Revolution was the freeing of the rural lower classes from feudal ties, making the geographic mobility in search of better opportunities possible. Contrary to popular myths, if Mexico were at present a stage of social and economic development similar to that of the less advanced countries of Latin America, wetback migration would tend to be of lower magnitude than it is now. During recent years, Mexico's economy has been on of the fastest growing in Latin America. Gross national product increased an annual rates above 6 percent during the past decade, with per capita income growth exceeding 3 percent per year. This was the fastest rate of growth among major Latin American nations and one of the very few to exceed the Alliance for Progress goal of 2.5 percent per year set at the beginning of the decade. Economic development by itself does not give rise, of course, to migratory pressures. While the character of Mexican development cannot be examined in detail here, the crucial point to be noted is that it has taken place within the framework of state-regulated capitalism. National corporatism shares with other capitalist strategies the fundamental trait of favoring primarily the organized upper and middle sectors to the detriment of lower groups. consumption and investment resources are heavily concentrated, at least in the initial stages of a growing commercial industrial bourgeoisie. Fruits of development take considerable time, within this capitalist framework, to filter down tot he lower classes. It is for this reason that, while Mexico exhibits one of the most dynamic economies in the developing world, income distribution remains heavily skewed in favor of the upper sectors. Essentially, the post-revolutionary era has liberated the poor from quasi-feudalistic ponds and exposed them to the advantages and conveniences of the developed world without providing the means of satisfying the newly-created demands. Mexico has mobilized its lower classes withou being able to fully integrate them into the process of national development. Results have been the heavy migration to urban industrial centers such as mexico City and Monterrey and the growing pressure at the border. Thus, massive lower-class immigration to the U.S. functions as a safety valve, relieving the pressures of mobilized surplus labor in a transitional economy. Mexico benefits from wetback flow in two ways. First and most important, it alleviates the tension and cost of income maldistribution. It provides the poor with an alternative and it buys some time for the capitalist strategy adopted to attain eventual economic maturity. Second, remittances from Mexican immigrants in the U.S. are inconspicuous but potentially important factors in the external trade balance.... For (U.S.) employers, wetback migration has the double advantage of providing a pool of abundant, cheap labor and of holding wages of domestic workers down by sharply increasing the supply of available manpower. Wetback labor is not subject to the usual legal [arrow pointing right]
Campus Culture
sidebar
