Drake University
Throughout the first half of this semester, we have been learning about Mexican immigration to the United States and the effect it has on family members who remain in Mexico. To further our understanding, we went to Amatlan for a four day rural home stay. We listened to an immigration panel, with three men from the community that had immigrated to the United States. Each panelist was able to share his story describing why he chose to go to the United States and for how long he was there. Of the three panelists, two were in the United States undocumented, and the third received a work visa to work in the tobacco fields in the summers. All three of the men worked in the United States to support their families back home in Amatlan. After our panel discussion, our host families from the community came to pick up their students and participate in small group discussions on immigration and how it has impacted their lives. In my small group discussion, three women talked to us. All three were directly impacted by immigration as their husband, child, or father had gone to the United States illegally and then returned. One of the women has most of her family living in the United States, and does not get to see them often because of their undocumented status. All of the women know at least one person living in the United States undocumented. I felt it was an honor to have the opportunity to hear these men’s and women’s stories.
During our stay we also heard from the matriarch of the community, Doña Irene Ramirez. Doña Irene is a 74 year old lady who never married and still works in her own cornfields. She took our group, up into her corn fields, and gave a talk on the impact NAFTA has had on her farming and the struggles it has caused her each year. She does not truly own these cornfields, as they are communal land, but she is the one who takes care of the farming and maintenance of the land. In Amatlan, there is no private property but rather communal land. This is due to the belief that land cannot be picked up and moved; instead the whole community shares the land. The NAFTA treaty called for all the farmers to pay a fee each year to farm their land, and in return they would receive help from the government for farming. Doña Irene has never paid the fee to farm her land and is very proud of that. She also told us that she has tried growing genetically modified corn, but found that the corn is not as rich and good as the natural corn she grows in her fields. Also because of NAFTA, she can not sell her crops because of the inflation of prices and how much she has to sell it for to make a profit.
The trip to Amatlan was a great learning experience and really opened my eyes to the struggles and the impact on families caused by immigration and the role of the NAFTA agreement in the community. The trip also caused me to think about certain questions such as: what should be done in Mexico to help the families that are forced to go to the United States? What can we learn from Doña Irene and her view on how NAFTA works with Mexican farmers?
Photo: Students enjoying their time in Amatlan
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarInteresting post, Meira. After reading your comments about the panel of undocumented workers, I was reminded of our conversation with the Unión de Pueblos de Morelos (UPM) while we were in Amatlán. Like the panelists and host families you mentioned, many of the UPM members spoke of their fathers, husbands, sons, and daughters’ experiences as undocumented workers in the United States. When we broke into small groups that included female representatives of UPM, several of the women shared their husbands’ stories of working in the United States illegally. Despite their differences, all the accounts had similar themes including fear for their husbands’ safety and disillusion with U.S. immigration policy. In fact, during the discussion one woman pointedly stated, “Mexico receives you with open arms. The United States should do the same [for us].” Although it was difficult to hear this woman’s critical comments about the United States, attempting to respond and explain the actions of my country was even more challenging. Even though it was trying at times, I appreciated our dialogue with the UPM members, for immigration is a complex issue that will only be solved through open and honest discussions like these.
ResponderEliminarI think it's great that you have the opportunity to hear about issues with immigration from the other side. In the US, many people seem concerned with current immigration rates (especially illegal immigration), but most don't look for the reasons for that immigration. I think most people are willing to say "Mexico's poor and the US is rich, so of course they're coming here!" and leave it at that. To your questions at the end, I would add, what should be done in the US to help these families? I’ve worked with Fair Trade organizations, and they often claim that agreements such as NAFTA are written in the US’ favor. To what extent are we culpable for our own “problem” with illegal immigration? Once we understand that, we might realize how changes to NAFTA could work to everyone’s benefit. (Of course, in the meantime, we also need to address our treatment of Mexican immigrants in general, but that’s probably another topic…).
ResponderEliminar-Rachel, CIEE Thailand
Along with Rachel I too think it is always very rewarding and eye opening to hear about illegal/legal immigration to the United States from the other side's perspective. I find it interesting that in Thailand many rural members within the country are moving to Bangkok or major cities to make more money, like the Mexican people going to the United States. While staying with many different places all over Isaan we have discovered that it is a major trend for farmer/poorer people's children to move to Bangkok to make more money for them. During our first unit we staying in a farming community Yasothon, where a large majority of the children were currently working in Bangkok, leaving many of the parents scared that they were going to be the last generation farming in their family. We also recently visited the Khon Kaen city’s landfill where many of the workers there left their family farms to dig through enormous amounts of trash in very unsafe conditions, all because they were paid more as scavengers. Luckily I have been very fortunate to have never experienced the need to move away from my family and friends to make more money, but also because I have never experienced this feeling/need it is very hard for me to understand why anyone would want to leave a beautiful farm, like the one I stayed at in Yasothon, to a disgusting, overflowing landfill to make more money, but still be very poor.
ResponderEliminarApril- CIEE Thailand
Hola Merida,
ResponderEliminarDevelopment leads to economic prosperity, which is manifested in terms of power to the international community, all countries have a desire to develop. The WB and the IMF both stress neo-liberal policies as a mode of economic growth and punish countries for not adhering to these standardized policies. Something that I found to be extraordinarily interesting here in Thailand is that the policies development is meant to help actually create a huge stratification between the rich and the poor, in the long run these policies end up harming already marginalized groups. The 1950’s mode of economic growth privatizes business, marginalizes the poor, liberates government from the responsibility that it has with its people, and makes countries vulnerable to the international community. In the end it makes me, a strong supporter of development through the abovementioned policies, question who development really benefits? Does it really increase standards of living for the poor? If so, are the increased standards of living something that they really desire or is it a belief that the western world has constructed?
At a home stay I was hosted by a family that was relatively well off they had a sink, a kitchen table with four chairs, a sink with running water, and a western toilet with a shower head. Although by my standards she had a better standard of living she did not use any of these items while I was there. She washed the dishes outside with a bucket when she had running water in her sink, and she would eat in the floor when she has a table. This made me realize that even if development does occur through the implementation of such neo-liberal policies, then is what we think people want and need accurate? Are the things that we think make life easier what make other people’s life easier? Moreover, growth and development depend on the country and culture, thus development cannot be standardized like everything else.
Esther
I think that this is an especially interesting discussion to be having in light of the recent immigration reform in Arizona. It is fairly clear that in America our discussions are tinged with xenophobia, although less so than in other countries. In England, for example, the current debate is almost scary and the terms that are being used to limit who can come into the country say a lot about how national policies are formed. The idea of selecting individuals based on their economic contributions or on their religion, and reviewing citizenship that has been previously granted are all nearly absurd thoughts. The path between developing and developed countries has a lot to do with brain drain, but I think Esther’s comments also shed a different light. Americans are unlikely to travel to Thailand and find a way to stay in the country illegally, but Thai people aren’t sitting at home pining for the amenities of a Western society. The main thing that actually forces people to stay across borders is money. They abandon culture and family for money.
ResponderEliminarHi Meira,
ResponderEliminarGreat timing for this post! I think that the people who have posted before me have touched on several important aspects of the debate on immigration in the United States. I was especially interested in the concept of communal land that you mentioned in this post. Here in Thailand we have come across several communities fighting for land rights. Many of the community members we have talked to do not hold land titles. Before, when these communities were first established land titles were not necessary. The land was owned by the family that maintained it. Now as development projects like dams, mines and cash crop farming have come in, these land titles have become crucial. Without the documents proving that the community has rights to the land, corporations implementing these development projects are able to take the land from the community without any form of compensation. As transnational corporations and international policies begin to move into rural areas in Thailand and in Mexico, communities must wield the legal structure that is being used against them.