Greater Los Angeles Area or AKA Mexican Los Angeles Context and Analysis

 

GREATER MEXICAN LOS ANGELES-TIJUANA CORRIDOR

By

Dr. Olga M. Lazin, UCLA


Greater Los Angeles Area expands up into Tijuana, Mexico. There is a corridor of light, if watching from the plane, as I often fly from L.A. to Tijuana, all marking a bustling and well lit area, night and day. There is constant mvement of people and good on this itinerary.

My argument in this book is that Los Angeles is the Ïsecond largest cityÓ of Mexico and involves the greater cross-border metropolitan area ranging from Ventura in the North to Ensenada in the South, and from Riverside in the East to the Pacific Ocean in the East. San Diego is excluded from this area linked by the Los Angeles-Tijuana Corridor, according to Wilkie, because the main road link bypasses that port, which has a history of  being hostile to Mexican immigration.

Many problems cannot be resolved for the U.S.-Mexico border until Gran Los Angeles-Tijuana is treated as a case study and pilot project for change.

I organize my analyis here to:[1]

  1. Redefine the Gran Ciudad de Los Angeles as

a region that includes San Diego and suggest

that this Region be called the

“Gran Los Angeles-Tijuana Latino

Metropolitian Region”

I use the term “Latino” rather than Mexican

to stress how Central Amerians face

“Mexicanization” in order to protect themselves.

  1. Analyze methods to reduce the need for so

many border crossing that are not necessary.

3. Examine ways to resolve legal issues affecting

U.S.-Mexican relations, taking up the case of

Ex-Braceros, whose forced savings while working in the USA have not yet been paid amounts that are now overdue by a half-century in time.

I.

Definition of Gran Ciudad Los Angeles-Tijuana Latino Metropolitan Region

My analyis here is based upon and goes beyond the research of James W. Wilkie, who in his path-breaking study linked Los Angeles to  Tijuana as two parts of a “Mexican” Greater Los Angeles (GLA), which each day sees many Mexicans cross the border to work in

Los Angeles and vice versa.

According to Wilkie:[2]

The important interactions that link Greater Los Angeles and Tijuana have led some scholars to see GLA as the border city to Tijuana, not San Diego. Because this region is not a geographic one in that it omits San Diego, we can call it a virtual region.[3] This North American ÏregionÓ that has yet to be fully identified and analyzed is important because it is a virtual one where in land, air, and sea bridges link Mexican Los Angeles to Tijuana. This region can be seen from the air at night as a brilliant ribbon of car lights that bridges the two cities.

The unbroken 75-mile ribbon is U.S. Interstate Highway 5 which at Los Angeles links by land also to the U.S. Interstate Highway 405 connecting toward West L.A. Outside San Diego, this land bridge links also to U.S. Interstate 805 that directly connects Tijuana and Los Angeles, thus bypassing San Diego. . . .

U.S. 805 bypass of San Diego shows us that for much of the population in Tijuana the real border city is Los Angeles.  Hence the development of a virtual region that ignores San Diego and the border, both of which are seen as impediments to fast travel.

The 130-mile freeway between Greater Los Angeles and Tijuana is more than a U.S. Interstate Highway, it is the corridor of international transportation for

(1)  Mexican legal and ÏundocumentedÓ laborers who work in Los  Angeles and live in Tijuana;

(2) Mexican family members seeking to be with their loved ones who reside in one city or the other;

(3) exporters and importers who shuttle (alongside trucks loaded with goods) between Los Angeles and Tijuana, especially to and from Maquila plants;

(4) investors, consultants, and business and industrial managers who commute between the two cities;

(5) U.S. tourists who seek a one-day visit to  ÏOld MexicoÓ;

(6) U.S. citizens who seek alternative medicine, usually not yet approved for use in the USA;

(7) U.S. teenagers who can legally drink alcohol in Tijuana before they reach age 21 and thrill-seekers looking for the ÏTJÓ that is more myth than reality;

(8) international smugglers;

(9) criminals who conduct their nefarious activities in Los Angeles and then cross the border to seek refuge in Tijuana (or vice versa).

Tijuana is important to Mexican Los Angeles for two major reasons that go well beyond the above eight examples:  First, Tijuana has become a major air transportation hub for Mexicans in Los Angeles who cannot afford to pay international air fares as they go and come from their homes throughout all Mexico. Flights from Mexico City to Tijuana often include free or inexpensive bus travel on to Los Angeles as part of the airfare.

Second, Mexican families divided between Los Angeles and Tijuana tend to jointly hold their fiestas in Tijuana, which they see as their cultural refuge. It is at these gatherings that information is passed on that creates social networks for jobs and opportunities. Tijuana may be a Ïborder cityÓ but also it is a city of Mexico, its Mexican culture constantly being replenished by persons arriving from all over Mexico either enroute to crossing the border or to seek work in Tijuana’s ÏKlondikeÓ atmosphere.

Mexican Los Angeles is not so much a geographic area as much as it is a spirit that penetrates all aspects of life. It is the Mexican chef in every ethnic restaurant (be it Korean, French, Polish, ÏAmerican,Ó or South African, as a somewhat exaggerated joke goes).  It is the three Mexican television channels, the many dozens of video-rental stores and cinemas, the nearly two dozen radio stations, and the circulation of Mexican newspapers. It is the Mexican landscapers and gardeners who tend every section of the city. It is the Mexican nannies and maids who staff the hotels and hospitals as well as the houses of the middle and upper classes throughout Los Angeles. It is the Mexican day-workers who wait for construction work on certain street corners every morning to be contracted by the day and then carried to every corner of Greater Los Angeles to do the physical work for low pay that few ÏAnglosÓ are willing to do. It is the Mexican extended family getting ahead by pooling the earnings of all. It is the Mexican mothers and grandmothers who keep alive the big chain stores in downtown Los Angeles as they buy clothes for their many children (each woman averaging 3.5 children), who are often in arms or in tow.

With about 2 million Mexicans in Tijuana and perhaps 6 million Mexicans in Greater Los Angeles (depending both on the season and the economic situation in Mexico and the USA), I estimate that the population in the Mexican Los Angeles-Tijuana Virtual Region totals about 8 million÷

That the  Mexican Los Angeles-Tijuana Virtual Region will gain increasing importance is due to the fact that the growing Central and South American population that makes up the region looks to the Mexican Consulate General’s Office in Los Angeles to provide a place of cultural meeting. While it may seem odd to watch Mexican Independence being celebrated by non-Mexican Latin Americans, I have observed how groups from each country of Latin America sing the Mexican songs at the Mexican Consulate, but also they place the flag,  art, and food of their own country in the midst of Mexicanidad. All the non-Mexicans present are pleased to recognize the importance of the Mexican community in protecting the interests of all Latin Americans, many of whom use Tijuana as their entry and exit port to their own countries.

It is convenient for Latinos to identify with Mexicans because many Anglos do not themselves make a distinction between Mexican Latinos and non-Mexican Latinos. Where in

1980 Latinos constituted 28 percent of Los Angeles County proper, by 1990 the share had increased to 38 percent. By 1997 that share reached 44 percent.

The 1997 total number of Latinos (including White and non-White Latinos) in Greater Los Angeles changed between 1990 and 1997 as follows: 16 percent increase in Los Angeles Country, 35 per cent in Orange County (to 761 thousand or the fifth highest number in the USA), 36 per cent increase in San Diego County, 53 percent increase in Riverside Country, 33 percent increase in Ventura County, 41 percent increase in Ventura County.

According to Wilkie:

In the meantime, the White population (excluding Latino Whites) fell from 71 percent in 1970 to 54 percent in 1980, 41 percent in 1990, to 34 percent in 1997.

If we take into account the fact the Tijuana is booming as it attracts ever larger investment for export of goods to the USA, the Mexican population  will, within a few short years, constitute more than half of the people living in the Greater Los Angeles-Tijuana Virtual Region. The second largest city of Mexico is indeed what we matter-of-factly  call ÏLos Angeles.Ó

Revising Wilkie’s Vision  of Greater Mexican Los Angeles

Although I do agree with much of what Professor Wilkie says about Greater Los Angeles-Tijuana, I do not agree with him on two grounds.

First, his view does not take into account the role of Central Americans, whose names are included in the many the Spanish surnames found in the U.S. census data. Central Americans see themselves as involved in becoming Chicanos as well as involved in the “homogenization of Latino/a communities in the U.S.”[4]

Quote from La Gente

Second, I see the need to include San Diego County, which I do not see as bypassed by the Tijuana-Greater Los Angeles  Corridor as defined by Wilkie.

I  here revise his data in Table 1.

Table 1

Revised View of Wilkie’s Concept of

Greater Los Angeles (GLA) – Tijuana (T)

To Include San Diego

Total Population in the Year 2000

and

the Sub-Total for Mexican Population in the Virtual Region

Mexican Los Angeles – Tijuana (MLA+T)

Category   Population                                     Millions        Percent                        Method

A. Total Greater Los Angeles (GLA)1    19.2                 90.6%

B. Total Tijuana (T) 2                               2.0 9.4%

C. Total GLA+T                21.2          100.0%                (C=A+B)

D. Mexican-Born Mexicans in GLA3 3.7                           52.1%

E. U.S.-Born Mexicans in GLA3 3.4 47.9%

F. Total Mexican Los Angeles4 7.1                100.0%                (F=D+E)

G. Mexicans in Tijuana                               2.0 (B)

H. Sub-Total in MLA+T                9.1                                    (H=F+G)

(Mexican Los Angeles-Tijuana)

I. Mexican Share of GLA+T                                                            42.9%      (I=H/C)

_____

1.   Includes the following counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and

Ventura. Although wilkie excludes   San Diego County, I include  it her.

Data are taken from Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation–see:  <http://www.laedc.org/stat_popul.html&gt;.

2, Includes Tijuana, Mexicali, and Ensenada. Figure may vary by 25% or more,

depending upon the season and economic conditions in Mexico and the USA.

3. See Methodology in Wilkie.

4. The term “Mexican” includes  persons  whose  mother  language  is Spanish (such as

Mexican Americans),  Chicanos,  Latinos, Hispanics)  who  identify  with  Mexican culture, without  regard  to lingusitic   ability, and it  also includes here Central Amerricans who have come to idenfify themselves as ÏMexicanÓ in order to gain protection of the larger populaltion, all of whom use the Mexican Consulate to celebrate events.  See text.

Source: Revising  James W. Wilkie, “On  Studying  Cities  and Regions:  Real and Virtual,” Afterword,  p. 557,  en James W. Wilkie  y Clint  E. Smith,  eds., Integrating Cities and Regions: North America Faces Globalization (Guadalajara   y Los Angeles: University  of Guadalajara, CILACE, UCLA Program on México, 1998),  pp. 545-566,   also available  in  México and the World,  <profmex.com>, Volume 2, Number 4  (1997).

——————————————————

In  my view  depicted in Table 1, Mexican Los Angeles  consists  of about 9.1 million perons, including San Diego County and his 1.0 million Mexican population. This data can vary by seasons and economic opportunities.

Mexican Los Angeles, then, makes up 42.9% of Greater Los Angeles and Tijuana, and not the 44.0% given in Wilkie’s article in Mexico and the World.

Both of these estimates differ from the 49.3 (a typographical mistake) give

in Wilkie’s “Afterword” in Interating Cities and Regions, .pp. 536 and 557. These articles are cited here in Table 1.)

Even if Wilkie justifies well the usage of his concept

ÏMexicano Los Angeles-TijuanaÓ

we can better define the area by using the term

ÏLatino Los Angeles-Tijuana.Ó

This latter term gives the sense of a great variety of citizens coming from each country in Centro and South America, without doubt using the term ÏMexicanÓ which encapsulates the:

1. The city of Tijuana as an axis of cultural diversity that includes Los Angeles;

2. The Mexican Consulate in Los Angeles as main center of the Latinos in Los Angeles.

In 1980 Latinos constituted 28 percent of Los Angeles County proper, by 1990 the share had increased to 38 percent. By 1997 that share reached 44 percent.

The 1997 total number of Latinos (including White and non-White Latinos) in Greater Los Angeles changed between 1990 and 1997 as follows: 16 percent increase in Los Angeles Country, 35 per cent in Orange County (to 761 thousand or the fifth highest number in the USA), 36 per cent increase in San Diego County, 53 percent increase in Riverside Country, 33 percent increase in Ventura County, 41 percent increase in Ventura County.

According to Wilkie:

In the meantime, the White population (excluding Latino Whites) fell from 71 percent in 1970 to 54 percent in 1980, 41 percent in 1990, to 34 percent in 1997.

If we take into account the fact the Tijuana is booming as it attracts ever larger investment for export of goods to the USA, the Mexican population  will, within a few short years, constitute more than half of the people living in the Greater Los Angeles-Tijuana Virtual Region. The second largest city of Mexico is indeed what we matter-of-factly call ÏLos Angeles.Ó

I here revised Wilkie’s view to include San Diego, thus  vision suggesting that the Mexican population of Los Angeles-Tijuana is around 9 million. This data can vary by seasons and economic opportunities.

II.

Making Border Crossing Less Necessary

Let us take up the cases of ÏavoidableÓ border crossing  by many Mexicans who only seek immediate access to ease the need for such great amount of cross-border traffic. What are needed are U.S. and private parcel services to build structures that are open to citizens of each side without the physical need to cross the border.

Thus, it is imperative to build services such as coordinated

  1. el Servico Postal de los Estados Unidos’
  2. los servicios de Federal Express y United Parcel Service.

Such facilities would have a highly controlled Ïinternal frontierÓ, with mail and parcels undergoing inspection inside the facilities. This proposal was originally made by PROFMEX as part of its Ford Foundation grant to study the cross-border management of the El Paso-Ciudad Ju∑rez Greater Metropolitan Area. (Ver, por ejemplo, Samuel Schmidt y David Lorey, Recomendaci€n de Cursos de Acci€n para la Administraci€n de El Paso/Ciudad Ju∑rez (El Paso: Centro de Estudios Inter Americanos y Fronterizos, Universidad de Texas-El Paso, El Paso Community Foundation, 1994).

In 2001 Ken Ellingwood highlighted the slow Mexico-U.S. mail service in his article ÏU.S. Mail Delivers—for Tijuana Residents: Correspondece: Saying the Postal System in Mexico is Slow and Inefficient, Many Rent Boxes Across the Border,Ó  Los Angeles Times, December 10, 2001. Ellingwood notes that mail box rentals in San Ysidro alone total 26,000—almost all rented by Mexican citizens who cross the border daily to check their mail and use U.S. postal facilities.

Clearly the common post office would be easier to operate only for letters, but customs officials could arrange to monitor the transfer of packages as well, thus avoiding the need for thousands of vehicles to cross the border after long waits and much waste of gasoline by idling engines.

III

U.S.-MEXICO LEGAL ISSUES

Second, there is a need for coordination of Mexican-U.S. agencies to avoid the need for legal action against the U.S. and Mexican Governments. Two pending legal cases are illustrative with regard to Mexican citizens who seek,  through U.S. lawyers and the U.S. Court System, the return of their Ïforced saving fundsÓ deducted from Bracero salaries paid to them during the period from 1942 to 1964.

In the first legal case, the document speaks for itself:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA             Case No.: 1 :OlCV00942(TFH)

Judge: Thomas F. Hogan

ISIDRO JIMENEZ DE LA TORRE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, [Government of Mexico], et al.,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM AND POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

[on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all persons, and the heirs of all persons, who, pursuant to the Agreements, worked in the United States in the agricultural and railroad industries between 1942 and 1964, and had portions of their wages withheld pursuant to the savings fund provisions of the Agreements].

Plaintiffs respectfully submit this memorandum and points and authorities in support of their Motion . . . against The United States, John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States, Elaine Chao as Secretary of Labor of the United States, Paul O’Neill as Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, Colin Powell as Secretary of State of the United States, Kevin D. Rooney as acting Commissioner of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, Donald H. Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense of the United States, Ann M. Veneman as Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, [and against]

The Republic of Mexico, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [of the] United Mexican States, [as well as against]

Wells Fargo Bank, Banco de Mexico, S.A., Banco de Credito Rural, S.A. y Patronato del Ahorro Nacional, S.A. (collectively referred to as “Defendants”).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This action arises from a series of Executive Agreements (“Agreements”) entered into between the United States and Mexico between 1942 and 1964. Pursuant to the Agreements, over 300,000 Mexican nationals entered into contracts with the Defendants that enabled them to come into the United States and work for American employers in both the agricultural and railroad industries. These Agreements were  . . . adopted by the Federal Defendants located in the District of Columbia. The Agreements contained numerous provisions designed to protect the rights of the Mexican laborers.

One such provision was the savings fund provision, which was included in all of the Agreements between 1942 and 1948, and which required ten percent of the wages earned by the Mexican nationals to be temporarily withheld by the Defendants. [Bold letters added here.] These sums were to be returned to the Mexican nationals upon the termination of their employment in the United States, and their subsequent return to Mexico. All of the Agreements, aside from the Agreement of February 20, 1948, required that all withholdings pursuant to the savings fund provisions would be directly transferred from the farmer‑employers to the Federal Defendants.

[The Agreement of February 20, 1948 differed in that it required the farmer ­employers to issue checks directly to the braceros upon completion of their contracts, thus paying to them directly their savings funds that had been withheld.]

It was the responsibility of the Federal Defendants, located in the District of Columbia, to transfer these sums to either Defendant Wells Fargo Bank or the Foreign Bank Defendants. Similarly, the Agreements consistently required the Foreign Defendant Mexican Government, through its Consuls located in the District of Columbia, to take all possible measures of protection in the interest of the Mexican workers.

Despite these numerous protective measures, the Mexican nationals who worked pursuant to the Agreements have not received the sums withheld from their wages. As alleged in the Amended Complaint, dated June 4, 2001 (“Complaint”) . . . Defendants have breached their contractual, fiduciary and trust duties arising out of these Agreements in that they have failed to return the sums withheld from the Mexican nationals pursuant to the savings fund provisions. Accordingly, this action seeks an accounting in order to ascertain from the Federal and Foreign Defendants the location(s) of such sums and the amount owed to each Mexican national. . . .

Pursuant to the Agreement of August 4, 1942, the United States was responsible for the safekeeping of the Savings Fund of the agricultural braceros  and for the transfer of those sums to the Mexican Agricultural Credit Bank, also known as the Banco de Credito Agricola, S.A. In addition, the Agreement of August 4, 1942 also provided that the Mexican government through the Banco de Credito Agricola would assume responsibility of the security of the monies withheld pursuant to the Savings Fund provision.  .  .  .

The Agreement of August 4, 1942 was amended in April 26, 1943  . . . [to provide] that the United States would be responsible for the safekeeping of the Savings Fund of the agricultural braceros  and for the transfer of those sums to the Wells Fargo Bank and Union Trust Company for deposit into an account maintained by the Bank of Mexico, S.A. Pursuant to the 1943 Agreement, the Bank of Mexico, S.A. was directed to transfer the withholdings to the Mexican Agricultural Credit Bank, also known as the Banco de Credito Agricola, S.A.,  . . . the Mexican government through the Banco de Credito Agricola would assume[ing] responsibility of the security of the monies withheld pursuant to the Savings Fund provision.  . . .

The Savings Fund provision  of the Agreement of April 26, 1943 remained in effect until February 20, 1948, when a new agreement . . .between the United States and Mexico . .  .  altered the process in which the Savings Fund money was to be transferred by providing that employers were to withhold ten percent of the agricultural braceros’ wages and provide each bracero with a signed acknowledgment of the amount withheld. Upon termination of the employment contract, the employer was to provide each bracero with a certified or cashier’s bank check bearing the stamp of the Defendant United States Immigration  and Naturalization Service, for the amounts withheld. Pursuant to the Agreement of February 20, 1948, the Mexican government, through its Consuls, was to take all possible measures of protection in the interest of the Mexican workers participating in the bracero program. Additionally, the [same] Agreement, provided that the United States government, through the United States Employment Service of the United States Department of Labor, was to render aid to the Mexican braceros in obtaining full compliance with the terms of the agreement between the United States and Mexico. . . .

A subsequent agreement between the United States and Mexico entered into on August 1, 1949, . . . called for an end to the Savings Fund deductions for Mexican agricultural workers. However, on information and belief, Mexican laborers who worked in the agricultural industry in the United States between 1949 and 1964 continued to have a portion of their wages withheld by their employers despite the Agreement of August 1, 1949. . . .

Deductions for the Savings Fund were also taken from the wages of Mexican nationals working in non‑agricultural industries, such as the railroad industry. The first agreement between the United States and Mexico dealing exclusively with the non‑agricultural braceros was entered into on April 29, 1943.  . . .  This Agreement contained the same protections for the non‑agricultural worker as the Agreement of August 4, 1942 provided tor the agricultural worker. . . .

Under the auspices of the Agreements, hundreds of thousands of Mexican nationals labored in the agricultural and railroad industries in the United States between 1942 and 1964.

These workers had millions of dollars withheld from their wages pursuant to the Savings Fund provisions of the Agreements.

The bracero program was based upon a course of conduct that can be fairly characterized as peonage and indentured servitude. [Bold letters added here]

Class members were typically provided with inadequate, subsistence housing or alternatively, were denied any form of housing. Class members were typically required to endure unsanitary conditions, including but not limited to, the absence of showers and bathroom facilities. Additionally, class members were frequently provided with inadequate nutrition and when provided with meals, were often given food that had spoiled. . . .

Plaintiffs, a former bracero and an heir of a former bracero, and the Class members have not received monies withheld from their wages pursuant to the Agreements. Further, Plaintiffs and the Class members have not received an accounting stating how much money was withheld and the whereabouts of said sums

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan accepted the above motion to file the case as a class action as requested, and service was made on September 4, 2001. Plaintiffs attorneys Patricia D. Ryan, Landon Gerald Dowdey, and Milberg, Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP are now taking testimony in Mexico from braceros and their families.

In the second case, on  April 5, 2001, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, filed a class action case in U.S. Federal Court on behalf of former Mexican workers contracted to work in United States from 1942 to 1949. Lieff Cabraser seeks

to recover wages withheld for placement in savings funds that were not returned to the workers. . . .(called “Braceros,” a Spanish reference to those who work with brazos or “arms”), [who] were hired beginning in 1942 to assist the United States in response to the depleted national workforce caused by World War II. . . .

Under a bilateral agreement between the United States and the Government of Mexico, forced savings accounts were created for the Braceros. Into each account, a portion of the Braceros’ wages were deposited. The purpose of these accounts was to ensure that the Braceros would return home to Mexico upon termination of their contracts. <www.lieffcabraser.com/braceros.htm>.

Beyond these legal steps being taken in the USA, the Mexican Congress has launched an investigation into the funds.

Therefore, a think tank should be established, to unite the efforts of the Mexican and U.S. sides in order to resolve the issue.

Seg˙n La Opini€n de Los Angeles (19 de abril de 2001):

La C∑mara de Diputados nombr€ por unanimidad una comisi€n especial que se encargar∑ de buscar decenas de millones de d€lares correspondientes a miles de mexicanos que laboraron en Estados Unidos entre 1942 y 1964, bajo el llamado Programa Bracero y que inexplicablemente desaparecieron por entre los resquicios de las cuentas del gobierno.

La instancia legislativa deber∑ llevar a cabo una investigaci€n sobre el misterioso destino de los recursos del denominado Fondo de Ahorro Campesino, creado por el gobierno de M»xico mediante la retencion del 10% de los salarios recibidos por los braceros que durante aquel lapso trabajaron en territorio estadounidense.

El dinero debÃa haber sido devuelto a los interesados cuando regresaran a sus comunidades al vencimiento de su contrataci€n en campos agrÃcolas y tendidos ferroviarios de Estados Unidos. . . .

Los bancos de M»xico involucrados en la recoleccion de este fondo han dicho no tener la multimillonaria suma de d€lares y sostienen que tampoco saben nada del destino que este jugoso monto tom€.

Con la aprobacion del punto de acuerdo por parte de las distintas fracciones parlamentarias, la denominada Comisi€n Especial para Seguimiento a los Fondos Aportados por los Trabajadores Braceros estar∑ en condici€n legal de extender y profundizar sus indagaciones tanto como sea necesario. . . . [incluyendo llamar] a comparecer a todos los funcionarios que estuvieron involucrados en el manejo directo e indirecto de estos valiosos flujos monetarios, en un proceso que comprender∑ los ˙ltimos 30 anos. . . .

[Ser∑n] interrogados principalmente los bur€cratas de mediano y alto nivel que se desempe“an en las distintas entidades del Poder Ejecutivo, desde luego de las SecretarÃas de Relaciones Exteriores, Hacienda y la ProcuradurÃa General de la Rep˙blica. ì

Conclusion

Taking into account all of the above issues that involve many governmental agencies (but fall outside the the purview of any one agency), it is clear that there is need to establish a base to provide a coordinated analysis and response to complex matters facing the Mexicans who live in such places as Gran Los Angeles-Tijuana as well as Mexicans who have lived in the USA but returned to Mexico.

Let us suggest here, then, that INAMI takes this opportunity of developing new legislation about its role to expand its sphere of action, thus enabling it not only

1.  to negotiate directly with its counterpart agency in the USA;

but also

2. to serve as the coordinator for binational issues facing

Mexicans who live under the laws of both the Mexico and the USA;

3. to establish an independent INAMI “Think Tank” that can

offer the necessary analysis to suggest response to new             problems that continually are being identified in U.S.-            Mexican relations.

Clearly there is need to prevent the accumulation of long-term problems such as the Fondo Bracerco and to find a more efficient system than that of involving the court systems of both countries in protracted and costly litigation. Further, there is a need to reduce pressure on border crossing for “simple” matters such as using the U.S. Postal Service.

Hopefully, INAMI can fill the vacuum now facing both countries wherein no single agency attempts to coordinate issues not only crossing many ministires but across a border that is increasingly an arbitrary line daminaging society and economy in two interlinked countries–the USA and Mexico.

Olga Lazin Ó 2011

_ 

Los Angeles

Los Angeles

_


[1] This article  draws upon my article  originally  presented  in Spanish  at the

the 2001 Forum in Los Angeles  held by Mexico’s National Institute  of Migration,  UCLA Faculty  Center, July 13, 2001 (For the Spanish-language proceedings, see Mexico  and the World,  Volume 6, Number 2.)

[2] Pp. 534-538 cited in source to Table 1, below.

[3] Includes the following counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. Excludes Mexicans and Latinos in San Diego County, which may number up to 1 million. Data are taken from Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation–see:  <http://www.laedc.org/stat_popul.html&gt;.

[4] Karen Salazar, “Chicana by Definitin, Not Identification,”  La  Gente, DATE???

Advertisements

About DrOlgaLAZIN

Published writer and university lecturer. 25 years in Education. My website: http://www.olgalazin.net My books are here: http://www.olgalazin.net/books.html Also on Amazon.com check out my books in English, and Spanish.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s