Trends in Migration Interrupted

Migration rates from the Mexico to the U.S. are at a standstill according to Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Eric Martin and Nacha Cattan write in their April 24 article for Bloomberg entitled "Calderon Says Mexico Reduced Net Migration to U.S. to Zero," (see http://tinyurl.com/czltpd4) that Latin America's second-largest economy boasts that improved education, employment, and healthcare opportunities have lead to fewer Mexicans migrating north to the United States. At a meeting in Washington, President Calderon attributed to these achievements to the overall results gained by both sides through the NAFTA agreement that was signed over 20 years ago. In addition, the president also made claims that the U.S.'s own tough stances on immigration have made the country a much less desired place to work and live for immigrants, illegal and legal ones. One area in particular, agriculture, has been hit hard by these policies and as a result has lost a significant portion of its competitive nature. 

These recent developments have produced a divergence from the trend of the last four decades, when over 12 million Mexicans migrated to the United States. Officials at Pew's Hispanic Center say out of the international economic crisis a weak job and housing market in the U.S. as well as lower birth rates in Mexico are prominent factors in this decline in migration. Along with this the U.S. has seen a decline in the number of undocumented Mexicans fall from 7million in 2007 to 6.1million in 2011. President Calderon maintains that these changes have resulted not only from Mexico's improvements in various sectors but also speaks to the health of its economy and country.

This article left me wondering whether this new divergence will continue to disrupt the migration trends and eventually become a new trend itself, and more importantly what impact that will have on the U.S. economy and society. And Mexicans continue to leave their homes and jobs in the United States for the "greener" pastures that President Calderon describes are evolving in his country, will the Mexican government be able to support and provide these programs for long term sustainability.While the President of Mexico seems to boast of the accomplishments that NAFTA and other economic improvements has spurred for Mexican society I truly wonder if their government is preparing themselves for the incoming force of "immigrants." Much like the U.S.'s experience and chief complaints about influxes of large immigrant populations is that they require and absorb many different resources. Restructuring and improving employment, education, and healthcare are only a few of many steps that will be required to provide for these influxes of people. Specifically my concerns are with the implications that this may have for the education system in Mexico. If Mexican families are to travel back to their homeland how will this interruption affect the schooling of their children. In recent years a lot of attention has been paid to immigrant students and their adaption to schooling in the U.S. context. I'm curious if similar situations will evolve if and when these American born children return with their parents to Mexico what problems they might incur with adjustment to the Mexican education system. In the end, I think that the Mexican government needs to realize the extent to which they will have to take these improvements that are alluring these populations back to Mexico and start preparing themselves for the incoming needs that these populations will bring with them.

Colombia is Making International Moves

April 23, 2012 - TIME Europe

http://ti.me/JfMWyb

If the developed nations were playing a game of chess against the underdeveloped nations, you could bet that Santos just called checkmate on behalf of Latin America. His presence is being felt all over the world right now. 

Since the 6th Summit of the Americas (April 14-15, 2012 where 34 Heads of State and Government addressed the Sixth Summit central theme, "Connecting the Americas: Partners for Prosperity"), the news sources are still hooked on reports related to Colombia and education -- this comes on the heels of Shakira's visit and subsequent speech alongside USA President Obama and Colombian President Santos. Please refer to my post: Shakira: Pop-star, Humanitarian, Colombiana. Eyes remain fixated on the country in light of President Obama's recent meeting with the Caribbean Presidents hosted in Colombia, see the article in the Leeward Times of the West Indies: http://bit.ly/ICALKw, but I am writing today about TIME Magazine's piece (see link above) written by, of all people, Shakira, on President Juan Manuel Santos, one of TIMES top 100 influential people of the year. The story came out April 18, 2012 and in it, Shakira writes:

The President and I agree that improving education in our country is the best way to mitigate poverty, inequality and violence. Education allows all of us the possibility of a better nation, with a more productive workforce, a better-informed citizenry and a more peaceful people.

Shakira reminds readers that President Santos is dedicated to initiatives in early childhood education, such as the program Cero a Siempre. The short narrative seems to suggest that Santos, member of a prestigious Colombian family, and formally in the coffee trade business, also famous for making headlines capturing FARC members and for climbing the ladder politically until he reached Presidency in 2010. Self-proclaimed "philanthropist" Shakira supports her nation's educational goals, in which Santos promises, through the launch of this program, to double the number of children under 5 who receive early education, from 600,000 to 1.2 million. Of course I hope it doesn't take para siempre to make this increase.

This boom in media coverage internationally of President Santos has me asking who is promoting his agenda and why? Note the cover above that is circulating throughout all of Europe this week. It is my hope that his goals for Colombia remain rooted on a model that will succeed with backing from the rest of the world, but without the dependency we see on Eurocentric ideology for educational development. This coverage also suggests an appeal for some sort of approval from the developed world. Furthermore, Shakira's emphasis on the working habits of individuals has me questioning what education will look like in a future Colombia, what kind of education will work best? What do the leaders know about implementing educational initiatives that are successful in poor, rural areas? I agree that education helps strengthen a nation, but I do not support a system that only works to support a modernist productive society of workers, in order to create workers. 


For a most interesting interview regarding Cuba's noticeable and continued absence at the Summit of the Americas. The summary provided states: "Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenhemier believes the first step to bringing Cuba back into the diplomatic community is to invite them to observe future summits." Mexican cars in Brazil, the evolving notion of democracy, natural resources going to China and India, US and Castro relations, and continued media coverage of President Santos in Miami are covered in NPR's Talk of the Nation, April 18, 2012.

Solidifying 'Amistad': Relations between U.S. & Brazil

Just two weeks ago, Brazil's President Dilma Roussef made her way to Washington, D.C. to meet with President Obama. Mimi Whitfield of the Miami Herald writes in her April 6 article entitled "Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff prepares for Washington visit"(see http://tinyurl.com/7zzz23o) that devoid of the pomp and circumstance of a traditional state visit, this trip was directed towards business discussions that serve to follow up President Obama's trip to Brazil just last year. While it was not clear what specific topics would be on the agenda, the White House did state that Rousseff’s visit will be an opportunity to “continue efforts to grow commercial, economic, education and innovation ties’’between the two largest democracies in the Western hemisphere.

The article continued to outline its speculations regarding the topics that both parties involved could be interested in speaking about. Based on both Obama's previous visit as well as Rousseff's current track record, several main topics emerged. The most prominent, due to the economic situation that the U.S. is currently in, would be trade in Brazil. In recent years China has surpassed the U.S. as Brazil's main trading partner. Though China's goods have flooded the Brazilian market the quality of these goods has been criticized and has in some ways hurt the Brazilian economy. It is the hope of the U.S. to renegotiate their trade agreements with Brazil in order to show Brazilians that we provide a stable and willing market for their goods, and vice versa. In addition the important topic of visas will hopefully be discussed. As it stands now both countries have strict visa requirements for both Americans and Brazilians traveling from one country to the other. Supporters of ridding this policy have stated that not only would travelers be able to freely come and go as they please, but it was also promote and ease the burden of companies doing business in these countries. On a related note, the loosening of these travel restrictions would also benefit  education initiatives supported by both Roussef and Obama that aim to provide exchange programs for students. These initiatives plan to "send 100,000 students from the United States to study in Latin America and bring 100,000 students from Latin America and the Caribbean to study in the United States." It is objective of these education initiatives to not only provide opportunities for these students, but to also share resources and strengthen partnerships within the hemisphere.

In conclusion, many speculate that this meeting will not only strengthen the ties between these two super powers, but will also hopefully result in the re-evaluation of the roles of each of these countries in the U.S.- Brazil relationship. As in many of the cases of U.S. foreign relations, the U.S. is perceived as the senior partner in these relationships. U.S. officials have stated these two countries should be perceived as equal partners. Many hope that a new understanding in the relationship between the U.S. and Brazil will provide the leverage to needed for new ties and agreements to flourish between these two great nations.

After reading this article I was very curious about the outcomes of this meeting and whether or not the topics that were presented in the Miami Herald article were actually discussed by President Roussef and Obama. I therefore followed up by reading an article printed shortly (April 9) after the meetings had finished. As per a brief issued by a White House correspondent entitled Obama: 'Enormous Progress' in US-Brazil Relationship (see http://tinyurl.com/7vemxa6) published in the Voice of America, Dan Robinson summarized the main interests that both President Roussef and Obama focused on during their discussions. As the Miami Herald had anticipated economic and trade ties were an important topic that dominated these meetings. However, President Obama concentrated on Brazil's image of a leader in bio-fuels and the U.S.'s own stance as a potential customer for Brazil's oil. President Roussef also recognized these opportunity for cooperation as well as promote production and export growth in her own country. In connection to the economy, global affairs were discussed in particular the international financial crisis. From the article, it was here that there appeared to be disagreements between the U.S. and Brazil in regards to tactics to stabilize the European debt crisis. President Roussef stated that she was concerned about certain monetary policies that were being drafted to resolve the problem that she thought could hurt both developed and developing nations. While the White House officials could not speak directly to President Obama's reaction to her statements, they emphasized that these concerns as well as others would be addressed at the sixth annual Summit of the Americas in just a few days.

Overall, after reading both of these articles I was struck by the how these two sources really shaped the stories that they presented. While they both recognized certain topics like trade and the economy as inevitable topics of discussion the rest of their presentation regarding these meetings were in line with their own opinions and objectives. For example, in the Miami Herald article the topic of visas took up a good portion of the article, probably equal to that of trade and the economy. Much of this stemmed from the fact that this is a particularly important topic in South Florida where hundreds of thousands of Brazilians visit every year. I can only imagine that this could also be linked to the number of international students that attend universities in the state of Florida. In comparison the article from Voice of America tended to stray away from particular issues about U.S.- Brazil relations that concerned particular groups and communities. Instead I felt that even less information was provided in this article and that much of it was politically correct rhetoric that did not speak to Obama's proclamation of "progress " between these two nations. It will be interesting to see how the "progress" in this relationship will show in the next few months or so, especially as Obama embarks on his re-election campaign. A reaffirmed relationship with Brazil could indeed affect how his foreign policy is perceived by voters, especially since much of it has been based on the improvement of the U.S. and global economy.