Mexican Billionaires Cause Immigration
By Gabriel Buelna

As the son of Mexican immigrants and avid observer of everything Mexican, I noticed last week that Forbes magazine announced that Mexican telecom magnate Carlos Slim Helu had overtaken Warren Buffet as the world’s second richest man at $53 billion. The richest man on the planet is still Microsoft’s Bill Gates at $56 billion. In a country with a per capita income of less than $6,800 a year and with half the population living in poverty, the question is whether this is good or bad for Mexico and begs the question. “Why we should care in the United States.”

To put Slim’s earnings in perspective, his $53 billion is equivalent to roughly 7% of Mexico’s annual economic output. His empire includes an airline, a cigarette company, music, internet service, mobile phone service and telephone giant Telmex. The latter was bought from the Mexican government in 1990 by a group of investors led by Slim. The purchase was made during the tenure of former Mexican President Carlos Salinas De Gortari, whose term ended with Mexico’s largest currency devaluation, the loss of millions of jobs and Gortari’s self imposed exile in Ireland. Essentially, the company was bought under dubious circumstances.
To put Telmex’s grip on the Mexican economy in perspective, nine of ten landlines in the country are under its control, with its influence now reaching throughout Latin America with 100 million subscribers. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Mexicans pay some of the highest phone rates in the world with a notoriously low quality of service.

So why should we care here in the United States about Carlos Slim, his billions and high Mexican phone prices? It is not Mr. Slim’s billions we should be concerned about. In fact, if Mexico’s billionaires were creating new products and jobs, I would admire them. The fact is, billionaires like Slim hold back economic growth, by choking off small and medium sized business, with their control and protection by government. According to the Small Business Administration, small business accounts for 52 percent of all U.S. workers. In Mexico, small and medium sized businesses don’t have an opportunity to succeed because companies like Telmex control the government levers, choking off any small business threatening their monopolies.

Each year, millions of Mexicans are forced to immigrate to the United States. Suffering through dangerous, humiliating circumstances, simply to work and send money back to their families. Once here, Mexican and other Latin American are extremely hard working and entrepreneurial, creating jobs throughout the economy. Under the right circumstances, this business energy could be occurring in Mexico or whichever home country they arrive from.

Slim is quoted as saying that "Poverty isn't solved with donations" and noted that jobs are created by growing businesses and not by hand outs. I do believe Mr. Slim is correct, creating and nurturing Mexico’s small and medium sized business would create the millions of jobs it needs. For Mexicans to be dynamically participate in their own economy, fair opportunities with adequate government support must be given. Until this happens, we will continue to see immigration and poverty.

During the same news cycle as Slim’s dubious honor was released, Mexican President Felipe Calderon signed a law eliminating prison sentences for libel or defamation. While I am shocked such laws even exist protecting Mexican officials, I applaud Calderon for moving toward eliminating barriers to Mexican democracy. For Calderon, signing such laws is easy compared to the heroic steps he will need to take if he intends to reduce poverty in Mexico by eliminating the monopolies and characters controlling it. He will need to break up Mexico’s monopolies and invest in government monitoring to assure competitiveness continues throughout the Mexican economy.

Democracy is not simply about voting, it’s about creating institutions that keep the economy and all aspects of life moving forward in a rhythm. While Mr. Slim is not alone in his monopolistic tendencies, he is an example of the Mexican mindset of holding down the masses for the benefit of an extreme few. The next time a Mexican businessperson makes the top ten richest persons in the world, I do wish it would be for creating new software, products or services that all Mexicans are proud of. Just as Mexico has come a long way in creating transparent elections, it to can help create an environment where Mexicans can feel free to grow and prosper and not feel obligated to immigrate to the United States. When they do visit the United States, the trip should be for pleasure and not painful.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, PhD, MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://gabrielbuelna.blogspot.com/

NOTE: If you are a member of the media and would like to re-print this article, please e-mail gbuelna@sbcglobal.net

Please read great article on Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez

http://www.nydailynews.com/latino/2007/04/11/2007-04-11_vaya_con_dios_alberto_gonzales.html

Slim nears Gates on world-richest list

Carlos Slim nearing Bill Gates is not positive for Mexico in general and the Mexican people in particular. With phone bills some of the highest in the world, Carlos Slim has done more to cause poverty and immigration to the United States than any other institution within Mexico. His earnings are embarrassing and not positive news for Mexico.

What Mexico should do is breakup TELMEX and other monopolies and allow Mexican entrepreneurs and investors to flourish . This would create the millions of jobs Mexico needs for its citizens not to have to immigrate.

Read article here

Gingrich Takes Latino Asset
by Gabriel Buelna

I almost fell out of my chair when I heard former House Speaker Newt Gingrich state children should speak English and not “the language of the ghetto.” Gingrich said this to reinforce his point that bilingual education should be abolished in the United States. Gingrich even appeared on television speaking Spanish in an attempt to quell the storm brewing around his comments. While discussion and disagreement about language and how children should learn English is valid, Gingrich’s attempt to stem bilingual education by describing Spanish as “ghetto” is a blatant attempt to demoralize a significant portion of this country’s residents. Dubbing Spanish, or any other non-English language, as “ghetto” is tantamount to economic oppression.

As the architect of the 1994 Republican Congressional takeover, Gingrich coordinated Republican campaigns and taught Republicans techniques to manipulate the media in order to take control of Congress. Gingrich is savvy in the use of the media as a political tool and when he came up with his ghetto language platform, he knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that by offending Latino sensibilities, he would gain ground among the core of the Republican Party, especially in early primary states. Gingrich’s speech was designed to use Latinos to test his political platform to assist him in deciding whether to make a run for the presidency.

Gingrich, like former California Governor Pete Wilson has probably caused Latinos to reflect on our role in American society and how it might change. Wilson’s anti-immigrant policies led millions of Latinos to fear their legal status and thus immediately apply for citizenship. Gingrich’s comments will not go away in a day, week or month, but will be entrenched in the Latino mind, because they hit a nerve. The core discussion left by the comment is how Latinos view the use of language and what it means to us.

Those of us with children understand the dilemma. As first generation Latinos, my wife and I speak to our children in Spanish. However, they speak and read perfect English and interact with friends in both languages. Essentially, they live in a bilingual world that includes watching the novela La Fea and the cartoon Handy Manny. We designed it this way because we both know the personal and professional benefits that being bilingual brings.

The professional implications of being bilingual in our economy are simple. You either speak Spanish or you don’t move forward in certain sectors. From travel and entertainment to construction and manufacturing, speaking Spanish is mandatory in a globalized economy. As international commerce continues to grow in breadth and speed, the ability to communicate in multiple languages is not a luxury, but a necessity. If Gingrich had wanted to be helpful, he would have acknowledged this reality and urged Latinos to increase English proficiency, while maintaining Spanish. To advocate for speaking one language instead of maintaining bilingualism not only stratifies our society in a caste-like manner, but also disenfranchises those who would have an increased skill-set by maintaining their bilingualism. The effect of Gingrich’s plan was to simultaneously ostracize large segments of our society and to decrease their future earning power by eradicating a highly sought after skill.

While I’ve never heard Latinos regret learning English, I have heard them regret not being taught Spanish. I’ve even heard non-Latinos regret their parents not teaching them Spanish and have encountered non-Latinos teaching their children Spanish. There is no need to defend learning English. Most countries in the world have their populations learning English in one way or another. The world has become smaller due to rapid communication and multilingualism, yet Mr. Gingrich has framed bilingualism among Latinos not as an asset, but as a liability.

Gingrich’s comments come from a generation that saw limited global competition. Ten years ago, no nation challenged the economic superiority of the United States. China and India were mere footnotes in trade. Realities are now different and in order to compete globally, linguistic diversity of every kind will need to be a priority. Every demographer knows Latino children of today will be the workforce of tomorrow. Mr. Gingrich may rationalize that he is not going to get the Latino vote anyway, so it is fair to use them as some bizarre litmus test for the Republican machine. Not only is this not fair, it is divisive and short-sighted.

The past eighteen months have seen nationwide debates on immigration and immigration reform. Progress in these debates will only be made when true understanding is desired by both sides of the issue. Mr. Gingrich does not speak from a position of understanding, let alone authority, and his comments have permeated the Latino community making them more resistant to Republican attempts at dialogue. It is time to make progress in absolving this country’s ambivalence towards immigration and this progress needs to be rooted in a sincere, open-minded approach to the issue. We need not fear diversity, but embrace it as part of our national strategy.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, PhD, MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge.

Note: If you would like to re-print article or post on your website, please e-mail me at gbuelna@sbcglobal.net