Obama: Proposals and Context

President Barack Obama’s presence allows us to delve into two important topics to which he has alluded: immigration reform and education. On one hand, he has emphasized his support for immigration reform, even though he pointed out that he had wanted something else, despite everything considered to be progress. The proposal, made by eight legislators, four Republicans and four Democrats, has to go through the deliberation process in Congress. Additionally, it has to be recognized that this topic was practically taboo just a few years ago. This changed, to a large extent, following Obama’s victory in the election and the important participation of Latinos. It would seem that Republicans fear losing elections and have therefore been flexible with their stances. However, the conditions proposed for undocumented workers are no panacea.

First, they have to wait 13 years to begin the process of becoming citizens, pay fines and pass exams in English and citizenship. All the while, Republicans continue to insist that the border security must continue to be strengthened, while Obama notes that it has never been more secure. What are Republicans trying to do? They seem convinced that increasing border security is the way to detain future undocumented people, although this is an erroneous strategy. History has already shown that when the strategy was applied after the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was enacted, the flow of workers increased dramatically. Thus the problem is that the government did not give the necessary visas to satisfy the demand of an economy experiencing extraordinary growth. Understandably, undocumented workers are undocumented by the “grace” of U.S. politics. Of course, as we have already noted, it was a good strategy for employers, who utilized this labor group for work in very dangerous conditions, thereby increasing their earnings and economic growth. It should be noted that the programs for temporary workers have various problems, including the workers not receiving the same social benefits as other employees. These circumstances lead to temporary employees becoming second-hand workers, and employers try to keep these workers at this status for 13 years.

Another problem is that not all undocumented workers qualify for temporary start-up programs. What effect will this reality have? Is it to say that once they are localized, it will be easier to deport them?

The emphasis that Obama has put on education is interesting: He considers it the key for Americans to be able to compete in a globalized world. He proposes that 100,000 Mexican students come to the U.S. to earn their doctorate degree or study as post-doctoral fellows, mainly in the sciences, mathematics, technology and engineering, while at the same time, favoring exchanges with U.S. students. No one could be against that which encourages the creation of human capital. Quite the contrary. However, why would the U.S. accept this enormous amount of Mexican students? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to take into consideration the context in which the U.S. has made this proposal.

The U.S. faces a decline in its fertility and consequently a reduction in its work force. Without immigration, the population of the U.S. will decrease, which will affect its economic growth. You cannot forget, as Douglas Holtz-Eakin says, that population growth translates into faster growth of the gross domestic product. On the other hand, the U.S. has structural problems in its education sector. Universities are very expensive, and both Hispanics and blacks live in significant poverty, a combination that becomes an obstacle for people in these communities to continue their studies. As a result, the student population is reduced substantially. It is not strange that, under these circumstances, the world subsidizes the U.S. with its most talented students and that the countries of origin do not take them back.

Mexico sends its students to the U.S. and supports them, as the country should in order to encourage better grades. However, the government does not enact the necessary changes to integrate the students when they return, like more research centers for sciences and technology and universities do. Because of this, young people have no other option than to stay in the neighboring country, and Mexico is, in essence, subsidizing the U.S. with its talent.

The Mexican government does not give education the same weight. It is enough to remember the 100,000 “rejected” youth. The government did not show an ounce of emotion, while the situation was not only a tragedy for the youth, but it also delayed the possibility for development in the country even more. The enormous problems that teachers are confronting with respect to education reform have to be considered, as well as the government’s authoritarian response.

The next stage is not promising: It includes possible deportations, rejected students and indigent teachers. If Mexico continues to apply the neoliberal dogma that dominates its politics and economy, terrible outcomes are ahead.