The Mex Files

Entries categorized as ‘Bill Richardson’

Birthers, Mexican style

4 August 2009 · Leave a Comment

Who knew, when I was putting together Gods, Gachupines and Gringos that I pegged Mexicans as ahead of the U.S. … at least in wacky birther conspiracy theories.

Footnote # 117, page 279

The gods, gachupines and gringos all seemed to converge in 2005. The trickster god Tezacatlipoca seems to have inspired some historical research. A historian working on a biography of Vincente Fox uncovered a court document in which the president’s father, José Luis Fox Pont, claimed he was an American citizen, not a Mexican. This would have been a very serious matter, if—as it appeared—the sitting president had been ineligible for the office in the first place. The Fox administration’s official explanation was that one provision of the “Bucarelli Agreement” permitted American citizens to have compensation claims for lands expropriated by the Mexican government heard by a arbitrator rather than the Land Court. Arbitrators were generally much more generous than the courts, and Fox Pont—or his lawyers—had a logical reason to commit perjury. When questions about Fox Pont’s citizenship (and, by extension, the legitimacy of his son’s government), refused to go away, Fox Pont’s birth certificate “miraculously” surfaced in Guanajuato. Citizenship requirements were much more fluid at the time, and there is no proof that Fox Pont’s father, José Luis Fox Flach ever officially took out Mexican citizenship. George Romney, the American politician, was born in Chihuahua of U.S. parents, claimed U.S. citizenship through his parents. But, whether Romney OR Fox Pont was a Mexican or a gringo is still an open question.

Mexican Presidential qualifications are a bit stricter than those in the U.S., which only require being a “natural born citizen, or a citizen…” which since the 1790s has meant anyone born to an American citizens, or since 1935 to at least one citizen who had lived in the United States for five or more years.   George Romney probably was a U.S. citizen, though having been born in the Muncipio de Galeana, Chihuahua in 1907,  I’m assuming at least one of his parents was born in the United States and had lived in the United States for more than five years (U.S. Code Title 8, Sec. 1401).  On the other hand, I’ve never seen either of the late Mr. Romney’s parent’s birth certificates.

It used to be a requirement that both of a Mexican president’s parents had been born in Mexico, but the law was changed to only require one parent to be Mexican born just in time for Fox (whose mother was born in Spain) to run.  When the questions about Vicente Fox’s father’s citizenship were first raised, it was a lot of fun (in an academic way) but not taken seriously by anyone.

I also wrote about George Romney (and his son Mitt), as well as Mexico-City bred Bill Richardson back in January 2007, never expecting that there really would be a foreign born U.S. presidential candidate (the old guy with the crazy running mate)… but definitely a “natual born” citizen just like the Hawaiian dude.

By the way, if for some reason you needed a phoney birth certificate, Kenyan birth certificate blanks can be downloaded at this PDF file.  But why would anyone do that?

Categories: Barack Obama · Bill Richardson · Crack-pots · George W. Romney · Gringo(landia) · John McCain · Mitt Romney · Vicente Fox

Trouble ahead in U.S. – Latin American relations?

14 November 2008 · 1 Comment

Forrest Hylton, who writes primarily on Colombia and Venezuela, is pumped about the possible selection of Colombian-born Dan Restrepo as an Obama Administration Latin American affairs specialist, possibly as Undersecretary of State for Latin American Affairs.  In his “Real News” interview, Hylton praises the theoretical appointment of Restrepo as a rebirth of the Kennedy Administration’s Agency for International Development.

Mexico, which in the 1960s was much pricklier about United States “assistance” never suffered through the tender mercies of the A.I.D., but several other Latin American nations did.  Even with the best of intentions, A.I.D. was never designed to assist countries so much as to further U.S. strategic and business interests:

Throughout its existence USAID had to respond to critics from the right, who complained that foreign aid was a waste of taxpayers’ money, and those from the left, who argued that the agency was guided more by ideological anti-communism than by the need to alleviate poverty. USAID officials responded by pointing out that four-fifths of the agency’s funds for foreign assistance were spent on goods and services provided by American businesses, and that the total amount of U.S. foreign aid was low, falling below 0.2 percent of the gross national product in the 1990s, placing the United States last among major donor countries. Ideological concerns were often apparent in the selection of recipients. For example, South Vietnam alone absorbed more than 25% of USAID’s worldwide budget in the 1960s.

I thought it had disappeared into the “dustbin of history” but it has been in the news lately, at least in Latin America, as a cover for U.S. attempts to subvert the Bolivian government, and to finance a fascist separatist movement in gas-rich regions.

Restrepo comes from the rarified world of “beltway think tanks”, but probably isn’t a bad choice, and may not be listened to at all.  Hylton may be jumping the gun, or engaging in wishful thinking.  Bolivian commentators note that the Obama transition team’s Latin Americanists include Greg Craig, who is also defending former Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada in his attempts to avoid extradition back to Bolivia to stand trial on genocide charges.  Sanchez de Lozada — an unreconstructed “neo-liberal” is now connected with yet another Washington “think tank” — the Inter-American Dialogue (so are a lot of ex-Presidents, including Jimmy Carter).

Neo-liberalism (which involved the wholesale sell-off of Latin American national resources to foreign buyers, basically to prop up the U.S. consumer culture) was the prevailing doctrine of U.S. policy at least since Ronald Reagan was in the White House.  While a few pieces of neo-liberalism — like NAFTA — had some positive affects (at least allowing Mexico to get out of debt… though at a cost of impeding Mexico’s overall growth, and impoverishing the middle class), the nations that are in the best position financially are those that are eschewing the neo-liberal model for a more state control and spending.  At best, the neo-liberalism of the past allowed them to pile up huge foreign reserves, that are acting as a cushion for necessary investments in infrastructure development and self-financed projects that avoid the problems with U.S. “assistance” programs.

The Huffington Post today reports that one of the most flaming neo-liberals is under consideration for Secretary of State … Hillary Clinton.  During Ms. Clinton’s recent primary Presidential campaign, several Latin Americanists worried about her stance towards the region.  Stephen Zunes, in Foreign Policy in Focus, dismissed her world-view as no different from her husbands, or either of his two predecessors.  Zunes slyly noted she has more in common with Ronald Reagan than George McGovern (who, to my recollection, never had a Latin American policy to speak of):

In Latin America, Senator Clinton argues that the Bush administration should take a more aggressive stance against the rise of left-leaning governments in the hemisphere, arguing that Bush has neglected these recent developments “at our peril.” In response to recent efforts by democratically elected Latin American governments to challenge the structural obstacles which have left much of their populations in poverty, she has expressed alarm that “We have witnessed the rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts of Latin America.”

Apparently wishing that the Bush administration could have somehow prevented the elections of leftist governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and elsewhere, she argues that “We must return to a policy of vigorous engagement.” Though she has not clarified what she means by “vigorous engagement,” regional examples in recent decades have included military interventions, CIA-sponsored coups, military and financial support for opposition groups, and rigged national elections.

She also supports Bush’s counter-productive and vindictive policy towards Cuba, insisting that she would not end the trade embargo – recently denounced in a 184-4 vote by the United Nations General Assembly – until there was a “democratic transition” in that country. She has even backed Bush’s strict limitations on family visitations by Cuban-Americans and other restrictions on Americans’ freedom to travel.

I certainly hope this is not true (the Mex Files — if we’re listened to at all — recommends Bill Richardson), and more bad choices are emerging. Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is widely reported to be the next Secretary of Agriculture.  It’s a step in the right direction to appoint a governor from an agricultural state to this position, Vilsack’s enthuastic support for (and from) bio-tech industries and corporate agricultural giants does not suggest any changes in U.S. farm policy.  Although President-Elect Obama has talked about some adjustments to NAFTA, they were mostly campaign rhetoric, and never suggested a fair trade deal for Mexican agriculture.  Since we don’t know who will be heading the Immigration and Customes Enforcement (ICE) bureau of Homeland Security (or who will be Secretary of Homeland Security)… and no perceived changes in agricultural policy is expected (meaning more emigration from rural Mexico), we can only hope it’s an improvment over Julie Myers… but then, anyone would be an improvement.

There are other appointments yet to be names, beyond those at Homeland Security that immediately affect Mexico.  Secretary of Energy (no one seems to mention that Mexico is the third — sometimes second — largest foreign supplier of U.S. oil), “Drug Czar”, Attorney General (who would presumably have a say in how gun-running and money laundering cases are prioritized).  Of course, whomever is in charge of the various U.S. government departments, two things have to be taken into consideration.  Mexico — and Latin America — are still vitally important to the United States, and are likely to be short-changed, no matter who runs the U.S. government.

Categories: Agriculture · Americas (outside U.S. and Mexico) · Barack Obama · Bill Clinton · Bill Richardson · Bolivia · Border Fence · Border Issues · C.I.A. · Economy & Business · Food and Drink · George W. Bush · Gringo(landia) · Hillary Clinton · Homeland Security · Human Rights · Indocumentados · Multinationals

New Mexico Republican’s His-panic Attack

25 September 2008 · 1 Comment

All over the press right now is the outrageous statement by Bernadillo County, New Mexico Republican Party chairman Fernando C de Baca that:

The truth is that Hispanics came here as conquerors, African-Americans came here as slaves.

Hispanics consider themselves above blacks. They won’t vote for a black president.

The comments by C de Baca (a common New Mexico variant on the family name “Cabaza de Vaca”) have set off a blogswarm (and media-storm) of reaction leading up to C de Vaca’s resignation as county chair on Thursday.

Two things need to be pointed out.  The BBC article (written by Jon Kelly) quotes C de Vaca (who Kelly misnames as “de Vaca”) in a much longer look at New Mexico’s Latino community’s support for Barack Obama.  The most prominent Latino politician in the country right now is Bill Richardson, the state’s governor.

Secondly, “Hispanic” has a different meaning in New Mexico (and probably the correct one) than in the rest of the U.S.  New Mexico’s “hispanics” — who sometimes call themselves “Spaniards” do not see themselves as Latin-Americans, but as the descendants of the conquistadors — a separate people from the Mexican-Americans, and from the confusing census data category of “Hispanic” which includes anyone of Latin American descent, regardless of “race” or other factors.  Some New Mexico “Hispanics” no doubt will not vote for an African-descended presidential candidate, but then again, at least the older ones won’t vote for a Democratic Party candidate anyway.

And, New Mexico is a strange state, when it comes to ethnic politics.  I know someone who was involved in New Mexico politics, who talks about visiting one of these “hispanic” communities, where he was told there were two “anglos” in town… “but they’re both black.”  Depending on the user, “Anglo” could mean native English speaker or “white.”  Mexican-Americans are often lumped with recent Mexican immigrants as “Mexicans,” though some Mexican-Americans call themselves “Chicanos” — a term of deadly insult to the “Hispanics,” who look down upon the Chicanos as rubes and “Indians.”  And a lot of the native Americans (a sizeable portion of New Mexico’s electorate) speak Spanish, not English, and are sometimes called “Hispanics”… though they have no European ancestry.

The BBC got the story right, though the context wasn’t clear.  Commentators in the U.S. are just spinning their wheels over someone who is — and according to my New Mexico sources, always was — an asshole.

Categories: Americas (outside U.S. and Mexico) · Bill Richardson · Bureaucracy · Crack-pots · Gringo(landia) · Indigenous People(s) · La Raza (Mexican cultures and peoples) · Media · Political bloggers · Right Wing Idiots · Spain

Miss USA, Memín, Speedy and José Vasconcelos

2 June 2007 · 3 Comments

The defense of Miss U.S.A., Rachel Smith, have been coming mostly from the “usual suspects,” trying to spin some anti-immigrant message into her tribulations (Smith’s costume — an homage to Elvis — and a pratfall on stage made her a joke to the Mexican press, and she was loudly booed during the event). Smith’s defenders have used the incident to justify their own anti-Mexican prejudices (“see, the folks who paid money to attend some silly event — broadcast mostly in English — and who didn’t like this particular contestant, or, like most of the planet, doesn’t care for the U.S. administration, were rude. Therefore it follows that Latin Americans are a lesser breed”… or some such nonsense).

Hardy Brown, the publisher of Black Voice News On-Line (Riverside, California), picked up a deeper, more serious, undercurrent to the dissing of Ms. Smith, one I never really thought about until I read his excellent editorial on the event.

This booing of Miss Universe has not sit well with many Blacks who have called and voiced outrage against the booing as well as the illegal immigration issue currently before congress. Some have expressed opinions like if that is the way some feel then we should finish the “Berlin Wall” on the Mexico border. Some have said if they feel this way about Black people now what do you think they will feel once they become a citizen. Some expressed reservations that many Black have expressed in the past and that is many Mexicans want to vote and only for their own. Some voiced concerns over the fact that many of the Black elected officials have remained silent on this issue and believe Blacks will suffer greatly from this legalization of between 12 and 20 million illegal citizens.

Brown is the dean of black newspaper publishers, and knows a hell of a lot more American race issues than I do, so I’ve got to give his words serious consideration. I didn’t pay much attention to the contest anyway, other than noticing that the out-going (abdicating?) Miss Universe rode a bike with Mexico City’s mayor one morning to publicize the city’s alternative transportation campaign.

Until I read his Brown’s editorial, it never crossed my mind that the Panamanian born Ms. Smith was presented as a black contestant. Nor am I certain that the Mexican audience saw her as one. The Miss Universe on a bike, Zuleika Rivera is Puerto Rican. It’s a given folks from the Caribbean and other parts of Latin America are at least of some African ancestry, and no one really thinks much about it. An African-American teacher working in Merida once told me she was more often taken for Brazilian, or assumed to be from Veracruz (until they heard her gringo accent).

Mexicans don’t seem particularly bothered by African ancestry, and I’ve written before on some Afro-Mexican heroes: Morelos, Alvarez and Vicente Guerrero. The “go to guy” on Afro-Mexicans, Ted Vincent, has written extensively on others, including Lazaro Cardenas, whose grandson, Lazaro Cardenas Batel — the present governor of Michoacán — is married to Mayra Coffigny, an Afro-Cuban.

When Cardenas Batel was a candidate for Governor in 2002, his PAN opponent tried to make an issue of Coffingy, who took an unusually activist role in her spouse’s campaign. Not because she is black (though the New York Times reported it as “racism”) but because she had been a member of the Cuban Communist Party and — the PANista appealing to the conservative Catholic vote — because Cubans have strange and unMexican religious practices. He may very well have been ham-handedly trying to use a code phrase for “black”, but it didn’t play out very well, and only the U.S. press saw it that way. In the Mexican press, the guy was a joke. And lost overwhelmingly — running against a Cardenas in Michoacán is like running against a Kennedy in Massachusetts.

An Ecuadorian I knew — being an extremely handsome guy — was used to receiving a lot of attention from foreigners in the gay friendly Zona Rosa cafe where he worked. He found it highly amusing that a would be gringo admirer tried wooing him with tales of his love of … and admiration for … Haitian! By color he was “negro,” though his face was Indigenous and his build the classic Greco-Roman European ideal… but to some silly gringo, all black, non-English speakers must be Haitians. To himself, and to his clients, his “raza” was Ecudoriano (and, if it matters, his sexual orientation was “straight”).

Our English-speaking, Protestant culture makes racial distinctions that are unnatural to “la raza” (which I dearly wish right-wing commentators would look up in a decent Spanish dictionary. It means “peoples,” and not “race.”). Mexican-American racism is an unfortunate by-product of assimilating to OUR ways and attitudes, at least partially.

None of which means that Mexicans — or Latin Americans in general — are totally and blissfully unawares of “race”, just that its not seen the same way it is in English-speaking countries.

Certainly, in places where there is a clear color difference, like Venezuela, or Cuba, race matters, though it’s only a part of class consciousness. The darker people tend to be the poorer people, and — according to the bigots, the deservedly poorer. Opposition propaganda in Venezuela makes no bones about suggesting Hugo Chavez — because he is black — is subhuman. And I’ve criticized the Cuban government for having a nearly all-white leadership. But, then again, the folks who were on top tend to stay on top, and it’s still a huge deal in this country when a non-white person — Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Condaleeza Rice — reaches a responsible leadership position.

In Mexico, for historical reasons, there are very few identifiably “black” Mexicans. Some, like in Veracruz or Tabasco State are blacker than others, but outside of a small community in Guerrero State, and more recent immigrants from the Caribbean or Brazil (or Africa… I’ll come to that in a minute), nobody you can say is black in our understanding of the term. The Guerrero Afro-Mexicans do claim discrimination, and do make a good case, but the discrimination is based more on their being an isolated, rural, under-served community with the same complaints of similar isolated pockets of rural indigenous communities (which the Mexican statistician consider the Guerrero community… who are said to be descended from runaway slaves during the War of Independence).

Of course, I can’t say that persons of African descent are immune to discrimination. I lived in a Mexico City neighborhood that has always attracted foreign immigrants. Spanish refugees from Franco, Jews fleeing Hitler, Argentines and Chileans during the 70s and now, Brazilians, Jamaicans, Cubans, Russians (!), Congolese, Kenyans and even a few Ethiopians. One of my neighbors made a few remarks to me about the “bad Negroes” in the area, but to this day I’m not sure if he was talking about the Jamaicans who rented my apartment before I did, or blacks in general. He’d had a problem with the Jamaicans who apparently were unkind to his little dogs, and got a bad reputation in the neighborhood for hanging out on the street smoking marijuana and drinking beer (respectable Mexicans smoke marijuana inside or at the park!). His dislike did extend to the Congolese guy who ran the Internet cafe down the street, but if I heard anything about the Africans, it had to do with their relative exoticism.

When Mexicans are using racist language, you’re more likely to hear references to Indians than anything. I’ve told the story many times of hearing a very European looking drunk called “indio sucio” by very Aztec looking people expressing disgust not with his “race”, but with his filthy, low-class ways (Basically, the term was used the way people in the U.S. use “white trash”… declasse, in-bred, stupid people).

I once tried following up the story of a British doctor who claimed she was pulled off a bus in the Yucatan because she is black. She very well could have been pulled off a bus, but it may have been that she was taken for Belizian or Honduran, and suspected of being either a smuggler or an illegal alien. And, I had serious doubts about the doctor when she started making claims about the same treatment in Atlanta and California. They could be true, but I had nothing to go on.

Black foreigners working in Mexico have told me they thought they were more likely to be questioned by immigration than I was, but those of us with mostly European features just don’t stand out from the crowd the way an Ethiopian or Kenyan does.

But, Hardy is responding to not Latin American, but North American concerns. His readers raises serious, and important concerns about African-Americans and Mexican-Americans.

Race certainly matters in the United States. Though writing about his more common “Indian” heritage than multi-racialism, Californian Richard Rodriguez catches the essential difference between Mexican and U.S. concepts of race when he writes in Days of Obligation (1992, Penguin):

In New England the European and the Indian drew apart to regard each other with suspicion over centuries. Miscegenation was a sin against Protestant individualism. In Mexico the European and Indian consorted. The ravishment of fabulous Tenochtitlán ended in a marriage of blood — a “cosmic race,” the Mexico philosopher José Vasconcelos has called it.

I always feel obliged add a “footnote” about Vasconcelos. He ended his career as an apologist for Hitler and was a thoroughgoing anti-Semite. In Raza cosmica, though, Vasconcelos was speaking of the spiritual value of Latin American “race mixing” in general, and not just the majority Euro-Indigenous Mex-Mix.

Our culture… and the Black Voice News readers… values racial identity. When Hardy reports that his readers worry that “many Mexicans want to vote and only for their own,” I’m wondering if this is any different than ethnic politics as it’s been played out in American elections forever.

And certainly, our sense of racial identity is used to divide people who otherwise share class interests… keeping poor blacks and poor whites from voting for their common interests in the former Confederacy for example.

I speculated elsewhere (privately) that African-American fears of Mexican immigrants (and Mexican fears of African-Americans) are manipulated for economic reasons. The infamous Memín Pinguín incident was more than a little convenient for the Bush Administration, seeking to head off a possible “black-brown” opposition.

T here’s no getting around the fact that Memín is offensive to African-Americans. The NAACP was understandably outraged when it a Mexican domestic postage stamp featured the popular cartoon character (a Cuban boy with the exaggerated features common in 1930s African-American cartoon characters) was brought to their attention.

The Mexican Ambassador at the time couldn’t understand the issue, pointing out that Speedy Gonzales is thoroughly enjoyed by Mexicans. Mexican-Americans may find him an offensive stereotype, but Mexicans love el raton rapido. I was on a long bus ride where the driver was asked to replace the video he’d popped in (a really awful low-budget cop movie, with a lot of gore and sex) because there were children on the bus. He replaced the video with one of old cartoons… everybody likes Bugs Bunny and Pepe le Pew, but the whole bus started cheering and applauding when Speedy came on.

The upshot of the Memín affair was that Jesse Jackson DEMANDED a meeting with President Fox — and got one. Jackson is no fool, but I think he was used. To the U.S., it was presented as a righteous response to racism. To Mexicans, it played as another gringo interfering in Mexican affairs, and — perhaps worse — another in a long line of meddling puritanical northerners. Not standing up to demands from a private citizen of the U.S. was the start of Fox’s skid in Mexican opinion polls.

For the Bush administration, it was an easy victory: Under assault for its own racial and class insensitivities — and faced with the very real prospect of an organized push by civil rights organizations and labor unions to organize multi-racial class-based actions, presidential press comments to the press, and demands for a response from the Mexican government, and expressed outrage from a U.S. Ambassador who’d never shown any interest in his career in African-American issues is disinguenous.

The irony is that the people who booed Rachel Smith were wealthy, well-educated people, unlikely to emigrate. They have probably read Vasconcelos, but still treat their dark-skinned maid as a lesser being. It’s the dark-skinned maids relations, who probably read Mimín who leave.

The tragedy is that they go to a country where race matters very much, and where sophisticated, thoughtful people feel a need to react to the symptoms and not the disease — racism, inequality and poverty. And puritanism.

Categories: Americas (outside U.S. and Mexico) · Barack Obama · Bill Richardson · Ciudad de México · Clueless gringos in Mexico · Economy & Business · Emigrant labor/remittances · Gringo(landia) · Guerrero (State) · Hugo Chavez · Human Rights · Indocumentados · Jose Vasconcelos · José Maria Morelos · La Raza (Mexican cultures and peoples) · Lazaro Cardenas · Media · Mexican History 1810-1824 (Independence) · Mexican History 1921+ · Miss USA Rachel Smith · Organized Labor (Sindicatos) · Politica (Mexicana) · Provincia · Religion · Speedy Gonzales · Tabasco (Estado de) · Tony Garza (U.S. Ambassador to Mexico) · Venezuela · Veracruz · Vicente Fox

Most right, but … WTF???

8 February 2007 · Leave a Comment

Although the Mex Files deals with U.S. politics now and again, this is (theoretically) a Mexican cultural and news site … and was originally set up in Mexico, and still listed as Mexican blog written mostly in English (a sincere ¡GRACIAS! for the nomination for a minor category Koufax Award, but I’m not eligible). 

I don’t think I’ll be asked, but the Mex Files does not endorse candidates.  Last Presidential election, I didn’t bother to vote (I would have had to vote absentee in Texas, and it was a foregone conclusion that George W. Bush would get the state’s electorial votes. The other guy’s main virtue was he was relatively sane by comparison, but he was an ignoramus when it came to Latin America). 

Having said all that, I’m gonna post again about Bill Richardson.  Richardson happened to grow up in Mexico City, which is more or less within the boundries of this site, and besides, it was an excuse to talk about the Mormons of Chihuahua.  I don’t think a Governor, with diplomatic and cabinet officer experience (and coming from a rich family) would be a unlikely choice for a candidate (and there are several — maybe too many — “interesting” choices right now). 

Anway, Richardson gave a speech Thursday (08 February) to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which was apparently well-received, establishes his “creds” as an international expert and said a lot of right things (reported in the Dallas Morning News):

Richardson, now governor of New Mexico, said demonstrating a commitment to multilateral cooperation could start by expanding the U.N. Security Council from its current five permanent members to 10. He said he would grant membership but not veto power to Germany and Japan and representation to Asia, Africa and Latin America, perhaps with countries in those regions rotating the seat.

He also called for the United States to join the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on curbing such emissions “and then go well beyond it.”

He said that would mean sacrifice to cut oil imports from 65 percent of fossil fuel use to 10 percent in 15 years. He said it would require a massive public and private investment in renewable technology and a drastic increase in automobile fuel economy standards. “This has to be led by a president,” Richardson said.

Richardson also said to win the war against Jihadism, the United States must first live up to its own ideals.

“Prisoner abuse, torture, secret prisons, renditions, and evasion of the Geneva conventions must have no place in our policy,” Richardson said. “If we want Muslims to open to us, we should start by closing Guantanamo.”

All very good (as is his support of medical marijuana in his own state)… I like Richardson (but, I like a lot of the “Ds” so far).  But why did he have to add this (picked up from a Jornada report) at that Center for Stategic and International Studies speech… Mexican blogs in English noticed:

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said Thursday that Mexico would have to restrict citizens moving to the northern border in order to reduce emigration to the United States.

Would this mean President Calderón (or “legitimate president Lopez Obradór”) can request we be moved off the southern border to reduce gun running and money laundering?  Sounds a tad imperalist to me, not to mention I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has something to say about the free movements of people.  Uh… Bill… you were a U.N.Ambassador. 

I hope this was just an observation, and not something the crazies are gonna start suggesting.  I can see Tom Tancredo DEMANDING something like this.  Anyway, it’s too DAMN EARLY to talk about the November 2008 Presidential Elections.  Why can’t the U.S. do like Mexico and have closely contested, probably fraudulent elections in a 90-day campaign and let us talk about something else (oh… global warming, agricultural policy, etc.) until then. 

Categories: Bill Richardson · Border Issues · Ciudad de México · Environment · Gringo(landia) · Human Rights · Indocumentados · Universal Declaration of Human Rights · World (outside the Americas)

A Mexican President of the U.S.?

25 January 2007 · 8 Comments

22-July-2007: I’m not sure why this post suddenly became so popular in the last few days, but I’m glad people enjoy it. Keeping the Mex Files going is practically a full time job, and I can barely afford it. The Mex Files is written from a very rural, isolated corner of the U.S./Mexican border (the Texas Big Bend) where there aren’t a lot of outside economic opportunities. I do a little free-lancing for the local papers, and live modestly. But, my own bills — compounded by the problems caused by a mentally ill neighbor I helped out who wrote me several large bad checks to cover her expenses — mean I’ll have to discontinue the Mex Files unless more financial support is available.

I need to raise a few hundred dollars immediately, and about 12,000 over the year. That’s only $30 a reader, given 400 “regulars” — and maybe some from people reading this…

If you prefer to send a check, money order or make other arrangements, please write me at “richmx2 -AT- excite -DOT- com” and include “Mex Files” in the subject line.

Back to the original post:

With the U.S. Presidential election not until November 2008, there are already a few “foreign” candidates being talked about. Barack Obama, with a Kenyan father and Indonesian step-father, grew up in Indonesia, though he was born in Hawai’i. John McCain was born in Panama (although the “Panama Canal Zone” was U.S. territory at the time).

 

Bill Richardson ONLY had a Mexican mother (though I believe his father had been born in Nicaragua) … so isn’t that exotic. Richardson, a former congressman, cabinet officer and diplomat, and present Governor of New Mexico, may be the first “Hispanic” to be a serious candidate for U.S. President, but he isn’t the first Mexican.

 

Richardson was raised in Mexico City, but was born in California. The U.S. consitution requires presidents to be “natural born citizens,” but doesn’t quite spell out what that means. At any rate, Richardson, like Obama, was definitely born in the United States. His mother waited out her pregnancy in Pasadena California because his father wanted to assure that his child was a U.S. citizen (the Richardsons were wealthy New Englanders at base… though whether they were thinking of presidential requirments is doubtful).

 

There might have been a consititutional question had George Romney been elected in 1968. Romney, a liberal Republican (not a contradiction in terms in his day) had been President of American Motors Corporation (Romney, ahead of his time, introduced compact cars to America), a successful Michigan Governor and a serious contender for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 1968. He had a good record on civil rights, especially admired for making low cost housing available in his state and for promoting racial integration. History might have been very different if he, not Richard Nixon, had been the Republican candidate in 1968.

 

What destroyed Romney’s candidacy was his admisssion, after a trip to Viet Nam that he had been misled by the media. Unfortunately, he used the word “brainwashed” — leading the “spin meisters” of the time to question his competence and sanity. Romney’s religion (he was a devout Mormon) was also somewhat against him (though, in those far off days, the Republican Party was open to minorities, as long as they were well-heeled minorities… and Romney was a very wealthy man). And… there were lingering questions about his elgibility for the office.

 

Citizenship was largely a matter of where you lived (and were born) until recently. In Mexico, where the President must have a Mexican-born father, there were questions about Vincente Fox’s elgibility for office, too (Fox’s grandfather was an American, and his father once claimed U.S. citizenship when the large estates were broken up: foreign claims were arbitrated under a different court than the court that heard Mexican claims). And, there is no question that Romney was born in Chihuahua in 1907 and that his parents and grandparents were Mexicans.

 

The Romneys were (and still are) are leading family in the Mormon religion. The sect, starting in New York State ended up, via Iowa and Missouri, in Utah, then part of Mexico, in 1846. After the Mexican-American War, Utah became part of the United States. Being mostly English-speaking and of northern European heritage, most Mormons adjusted to U.S. culture without much problem. However, in 1852, the Mormon prophet Brigham Young, announced that the sect would accept polygamy. By 1862, the U.S. government had outlawed the sect, attempting to end the practice.

 

While the sect was again allowed to worship openly in the U.S., Mormons had begun emigrating to Chihuahua where they were allowed to practice their religion – and, coincidentally, Porfirio Diaz was encouraging agricultural settlements. The Romneys were among the leaders of the Colonia Juarez community, which was one of several flourishing Mormon colonies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (Borderlands has a good short history of the Mexican Mormon colonies. Notice the importance of the Romneys).

 

In 1912, President William Howard Taft, after his Ambassador touched off the violent phase of the Mexican Revolution (Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson engineered a coup against the democratic reformer Francisco Madero, which led to the Constitutionalist and Zapatista uprisings against Victoriano Huerta), “ordered” U.S. citizens to leave Mexico. Romney’s parents did, talking young George with them. But, it was Romney’s GRANDPARENTS who’d emigrated, willingly, to Mexico. While citizenship was a lot less formal in the 19th century, it still appears that George’s parents considered themselves Mexican citizens, as did most other Mormons – most of whom stayed in Chihuahua and eventually sided with Pancho Villa, like every other good Mexican in Chihuahua.

 

My guess is that George Romney today would be a dual national. Romney’s son, Mitt Romney, the former goveror of Massachucetts, is a contender for the Republican nomination for President in 2008. So, I’m wondering if he can, like Richardson, claim to have a Mexican parent. Or, if George really was a Mexican, is Mitt the “anchor baby”?

Categories: Barack Obama · Bill Richardson · Chihuahua · Ciudad de México · George W. Romney · Gringo(landia) · John McCain · Mexican History 1824-1910 · Mitt Romney · Mormons · Pancho Villa · Porfirio Diaz · Provincia · Religion · Richard Nixon · Vicente Fox · William Howard Taft