Former Mexican President Vincente Fox opened his address to the Richmond Forum last night with an encomium to the Juans, the Marias, the Joses and all the other brave Mexicans who have immigrated to the United States to work hard and build a better life for themselves and their families. It was a heart-felt and effective gesture (and one that he probably has used all over the United States, wherever he has plugged his book, “Revolution of Hope: The Life, Faith and Dreams of a Mexican President.”) Though speaking in English and not his native language, Fox was engaging and charismatic. It was easy to see how he became the first Mexican politican to break the political monopoly of the Institutional Revolutionary Party.
For Americans, Fox is an especially effective advocate for the Marios and Marias in the United States because, unlike many Latin politicians, he loves the U.S. and he holds this country up to its own ideals. His grandfather was an Irish-German who sought his fortune in Mexico during the second half of the 19th century, worked hard and became a large landowner before a revolutionary government expropriated 90 percent of his property. A successful corporate executive who rose to the head of Coca-Cola Mexico before his entry into politics, Fox also is an unabashed champion of free markets and free trade, which he regards as the tonic to the authoritarianism and economic nationalism that prevented Latin America from sharing in global economic progress for most of the 20th century.
Fox speaks of the “American Dream,” which is shared by all peoples of the Americas, not just the United States of America. “Immigrants are people that come here to work, come here to contribute to this economy and to this great nation. Immigrants are loyal to the land that opened their arms to them,” he said, as reported by the Times-Dispatch. (Bizarrely, the T-D devoted its lede and half the article to the fact that Fox thinks the U.S. should pull out of Iraq, a point that was utterly tangential to his discussion of free trade and immigration.)
Far from throwing up walls between Mexico and the U.S., Fox wants to see the two countries grow closer together. He would like to build upon the North American Free Trade Agreement by negotiating common customs agreements between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada, much as the European Union has done. He would like to see all North Americans share a common passport. Ultimately, he suggests, they could share a common currency.
Mexico has made tremendous economic progress since a massive devaluation of the peso in the 1990s caused massive economic suffering, Fox said. The key has been a stable currency and open borders that ended the country’s economic isolation and forced Mexican enterprises to adapt to global competition. Mexican standards of living have risen dramatically since then, he said.
Fox acknowledges that the United States has a legitimate issue with people who enter the country illegally, but he says the answer isn’t building walls. Congress needs to develop mechanisms, like guest worker programs, that allow Mexicans (and other Hispanics) to work and reside legally in the U.S., and then return home.
In sum, Fox appealed to the best part of the (U.S.) American character in asking for more sympathy for his fellow countrymen. He did not label the anti-illegal movement as xenophobic or racist. As such, he was a far more effective ambassador for his people than he would have been had he embraced the hostile, don’t-give-an-inch rhetoric so widespread in the pro-illegal movement.
I have a question for those who profess so much concern for the plight of Hispanics: Why don’t they support an extension of the NAFTA free trade agreements to Central America, the Caribbean and Latin America, as Fox advocates? Why shouldn’t the United States help other countries to follow the path of Mexico, reform their economies and create a sustainable prosperity — so people don’t have to leave their homelands in the first place?
Don’t white, liberal elites feel compassion toward Hispanics when they’re stuck in their home countries, victims of self-defeating government policies and U.S. trade barriers? Or is it only when Hispanics come to the United States, where they can be herded onto the liberal plantation and help Democrats lock up electoral dominance for the next 50 years, that they are worthy of sympathy?