Immigration & Sovereignty in the United States of America / #criticalthinkers #democracy #empathy #socialresponsibility #positivedisruption

In a round table discussion with American citizens from Chile, Puerto Rico, Colombia, and Mexico, and me, being born in California to caucasian parents of Anglo-Saxon and Cuban descent, and a father to my children who’s mother is of Guatemalan and Central American heritage, I seeked to bring the conversation towards the dire democratic need to bring greater gravity and intellectual responsibility to local and national discourse on immigration into the United States of America. Everyone brought forth their view points and we were all in accord throughout the talk. Below is a capsule of the sentiment and feeling shared by all involved in the conversation.

……………..

Allowing the entrance of sixteen million Central Americans during the Obama presidency was an act of compassion, as much as it was a political move to change the demography of America. Surely, these sixteen million immigrants will find a path to citizenship, grow families, and within fifty years, triple in size, creating a massive voting bloc. It is wholly responsible that attention be given to securing the nation’s southern border, and channel further immigration from Central America through legal processes. That said, it is important to understand what has led to the exodus of Central Americans into North America. 

Throughout the twentieth century, the United States of America exacted wealth, goods and labor out of Central America, in effect, creating Banana Republics, or countries who’s sole economic output was completely dependent on the U.S. purchase of their fruit. During this time, the United States government allowed and collaborated with leaders of these countries and tacitly allowed the near-slave labor of the lower classes, especially, the indigenous populations. Educational empowerment of these laborers was not a priority, only their laborious output towards the undiversified economic system they sweated and toiled under. Dictators, and socially-narrow minded political leaders were allowed to rise, human rights grievances were ignored, and countries like Guatemala entered an economic system wherein they became subservient laborers to North America. Civil wars, paramilitary groups, and the absence of a functioning education system that was inclusive for all members of each countries societies were virtually non-existent for the lower economic classes, and this aided the inability for the smaller Central American nations to have cohesive, democratic societies. This situation weighed down the possibility of  labor and entrepreneurial economic development, tilting the social-economic balance to favor those closely connected to the government and main industries, even creating what is known as latifundia’s, or economic fiefdoms where economic and political power was kept out of reach for the ‘common folk.’ This construct of living rendered social and economic conditions of stagnation that perpetuated until the end of the twentieth century, seeing the worst manifestations of itself between the 1930’s and 1980’s. 

Seeing the fallacy of this economic arrangement, in the 1990’s the economic focus of Costa Rica and in a lesser way, Guatemala for instance, began to turn inwards, looking to diversify and become more self-sustainable. This led to a new pivot in trade practices between Central America countries and the United States in the 1990’s, effectively bringing an end to an economic system based on exporting one fruit mainly only to one country. Furthermore, the creation of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) in 1994, including the introduction of sweeping governmental economic reforms in Central America did not directly increase the economy of these nations, but renegotiated trade to favor the more established countries of Mexico, the United States of America, and Canada, primarily favoring established farms and distributors of goods, at the expense of small farmers. Even so, the reality of NAFTA, sounded an alarm of social-political-economic mindfulness at the local, grass-roots level for those at the bottom of the agricultural and economic goods ladder. These small farmers and laborers began to realize that they needed to critically raise their voices, in order to begin the process of safeguarding their livelihoods. Thus, NAFTA indirectly positively promoted the beginning of a more strident local community activism in Central America, helping to introduce for the first time ever, the beginnings of a social-political identity that was not in total servanthood to the United States of America. Be that as it may, the stunting of decades of the economic relationship with its North American neighbor left the region far behind the technological and industry-focused achievements found in the U.S., which was commercially poised to enter the digital computer age.

In 1999, I visited Guatemala, and what I found was a land and people rich in culture, heritage, energy, hope, crime, destitution, unruliness, and institutionalized racism towards the indigenous population. At once yearning to move forward while being weighed down by its past, Guatemala,  is a vibrant story filled with pain, sadness, social change, and economic class oppression. I saw indigenous mothers, in the full colorful garb associated with their Mayan culture resting on the streets with their children. My brother-in-law at the time, Tito, a good man, wanted me to see Guatemala in all its truth. I saw men renting babies and asking for money at stop lights at three in the morning. I saw great movement, division and the feeling of everyone together in a fishbowl both interconnected and yet quite divided. He took me, his entire immediate family and mine in this car down the most poverty-stricken streets with open sewage systems, and he took me to the cultural landmark of Peten, outside the capital to see the Mayan ruins left by the former civilization. To this day, the juxtaposition of the shared humanity found in that countries culture haunts my heart, and even brings me to tears. 

I understand why its people, as do the people of other Central American countries yearn to live in America. For all our faults, for all our imperfections, we have a system of life that continues to be the freest of all in the world. In the United States, we prize education as the best investment towards creating individual opportunity. Things are far from perfect in the U.S. There is a current ideological struggle to exact competing visions of what kind of country we are to have. Their is a shortage of advocating critical thinkers who could be participating in the creation of refreshing our democracy; even holding both ideological political camps accountable to sensible, intelligent discussion on the issues of the day. This is less so in Central America. Their social, economic, and political development is far behind the democratic ideals that we are always on the cusp of achieving in large scale ways in the United States of America. That is to say, the manner of local and national conversations on what is talked about, by whom, and with the degree of intellectual honesty and profoundness that should be had is not in full bloom. Nay, it is but a seed in the minds of its people.

So it is, in my round-table discussion with the American citizen of Chile, Colombia, Puerto Rico, and Mexico, we all agreed that the U.S.A. has taken much from Central America, and has given back little. Yes, allowing sixteen million Central Americans into the United States of America during the Obama administration will eventually create a formidable voting bloc and ethnically impact the face of North America this century. The move by the current Republican administration of President Donald J. Trump has already signaled a willingness to create a path of citizenship to immigrants who are documented and undocumented residents in the land, and to continue to allow immigrants to enter. Howbeit, the continuance of immigration is to now move through a more responsible process of legal migration. This will curtail the massive influx of new and future immigration, giving the U.S. respite to assimilate those here already. As it is, the United States began the process of ‘giving back’ to Central America in a massive way, with the opening of its southern border. It did this by not strengthening adequately its border patrol, and through the subtle political directive from the Obama administration to the countries judiciaries (its courts) to create a sanctuary status across our land.

It is pivotal to keep in mind that the American economic trade relationship with Central America during the twentieth century played a crucial role in creating the economic poverty of countries like Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, Belize, and great swaths of Mexico. Of course, the leaderships of these countries also played an important role in maintaining a social-political order which placed social, political, and economic down pressure on the ability for people to move upwards on the social, political, and economic ladder. It would not be fair then to obtusely label the United States of America as the only creator of the issues being put forth here. Past Presidents, like Mexico’s Ernesto Zedillo and Vicente Fox were of the pedigree of leaders who did not prioritize the upward mobility of its people, but who’s actions as a collective whole, did not ultimately change the status quo, but kept it largely intact.

Where does all this leave the U.S? Should we ostracize each other forever, seeking to displace one another from finding a middle way to move forward on so many issues. I believe that it is time for a new era of democracy in the United States of America, where parents and educators lead in the mindful awareness that developing ourselves to be critical thinkers who are not politically tribal, and can bring sober discussion points to local and national conversation on the issue of immigration and all other issues besetting us is required.

Critical thinkers create democracy. Critical thinking is easy and difficult to achieve. It requires selflessness. This is altruistic, and social-political altruism is difficult to achieve when we are surrounded by the special interests of short-sighted individuals and organizations who seek  their own welfare foremost, before what is most practical for the rest of the country. Critical thinkers who participate in democracy go out of their way to show impartiality. These are not given to the sensationalism of issues, but are known for being fair and balanced in their approach. They mediate also discussion and bring forward salient points oft ignored in the twenty-four hour news cycle. Critical thinkers are writers who flesh out the things left unsaid which directly have led to the creation of current circumstances. These are not given to ‘crowd thing’ or (forgive me) ‘herd mentality,’ but are welcomed voices and minds that ‘call out’ what is right.

The compassion and political move to weaken the southern border security is in the past now. How do we move forward in the present and future? Do we continue to allow unrestricted entrance into the U.S.? The elected leaders and judicial judges of the land who partook in this system played a role of compassion, even as they understood the political ramifications of allowing so many immigrants to enter in such short time. I empathize with the Central Americans at the bottom of the social-economic ladder, even as I understand that the inception of sixteen million people will change the face of the land, and that we must control the flow of further immigration. The need to fortify the southern border is necessary in light of the past and present compassion being exercised by the Democratic and Republican administrations of Obama and Trump. We are a sovereign country. The wall system of actual physical walls, and strengthened border security needs to be put in place. Greater attention to rebuilding the U.S.’s crumbling infrastructure, the creation of jobs through the support of innovation and critical thinking citizens has to become central to its focus. The pockets of poverty, and myriad social maladies that are existent have to be dealt with, before continuing to allow another massive immigration wave to enter. We should also look to help our southern neighbors to develop their educational infrastructure to help create the conditions for new industry and social mobility from the ground up.

Parents and educators are on the front lines in prioritizing the development of advocating critical thinking generations of American citizens who will streamline the quality of the conversation on the local, national, and global points of discussion. In the absence of this kind of altruistic form of democracy, I posit that we are always just one step away of letting democracy begin to stagnate. In conclusion, the discourse on immigration or any other matter that besets us is best had in the light of many critical thinking individuals participating and helping steer such discussions to be sensible, intellectually rich and honest. The historical performance on each issue which these critical thinkers advocate on will be an important parameter or measure through which we, as a nation, ascertain the vibrancy of our democracy.