The much-needed reforms initiated by the Trump
Administration are met with two types of criticisms. The first and least
used is that the reform is bad policy, for one reason or another. The
second often-used type is that the proposal causes negative emotions, bad
vibes, and sends inappropriate messages.
Nowhere is this more evident than in arguments against
building a wall on our southern border and implementing stricter border
enforcement. From a purely practical standpoint, increased border control
is vitally important for both Mexico and the America. Both countries benefit
by slowing the flow of narcotics across the border. There is no reason to
assume that terrorist bombers transiting Mexico will always wait till they
reach America. To a terrorist, a gay disco in Mexico looks about like an
American or French gay disco.
The real benefit to the wall is stopping illegal
immigration. In recent years the flow of Mexican nationals has been
out of America and back to Mexico. The vast majority of people illegally
crossing our border are from Central American countries. They illegally
enter and illegally cross Mexico. By removing easy to access to America,
the wall reduces this problem for Mexico.
Obviously the Wall is all good. Right?
"No." say the critics. A wall makes Mexico feel
bad. It reminds Mexicans that they lost half their territory in the
Mexican American war of 1846-1848. Many Mexicans feel this was an unjust
war of imperial conquest. Unfortunately some liberal Americans display
their sensitivity and assuage their guilt by agreeing.
It's time to put that war in proper perspective. Here
are three perspectives, ranging from the most obvious to the slightly more
nuanced.
1. All American and Mexico did was exercise normal military
force to rationalize the arbitrary and irrational boundaries imposed by
European Imperialists. This point will not be persuasive to people who
think that military force should never be used to take control of
territory. When I hear them, I always wonder how thrilled they'd be if we
were still ruled by England and Mexico ruled by Spain.
2. Anyone can claim territorial sovereignty. Wishing
does not make it so. Modern examples are Liberland and Sealand.
Liberland is a small plot of land between Serbia and
Croatia that is part of a complicated border dispute between these
countries. Sealand is a WWII antiaircraft platform off the coast of
England. Countries have been established in both places. Passports
have been issued, and various other signifiers of sovereignty
established.
The validity of these countries would be established only
if other countries recognized them. None do. One can read all the
principles of International Law starting with Grotius and finally come to the
conclusion that countries are recognized when they demonstrate control over and
the ability to protect their territory. Neither country can do either.
Most everyone today concedes neither Spain nor Mexico
exercised more than minimal control over the territory ultimately ceded to the
United States.
The Russian American trading company established a
full-fledged Russian settlement in northern California. Spain couldn't
stop them in 1812 and Mexico couldn't expel them. The Russians
voluntarily left in 1842 but only when the settlement was no longer
profitable.
Had Mexico retained nominal claim to California when gold
was discovered, there would have been a long line of invaders including
England, France, Russia, and of course the United States. We know from
the subsequent French invasion that Mexico could not have repelled any of
them.
In 1862, with America embroiled in the Civil War France
invaded Mexico and installed an random Austrian nobleman as emperor.
Mexicans courageously resisted and actually won a battle at Puebla. We
celebrate that victory on their behalf every Cinco de Mayo.
At the conclusion of the Civil War, America reasserted the
Monroe Doctrine and assisted Mexico in forcing the French to leave. We
often express our gratitude for French aid during our Revolutionary War.
It would be a pleasant surprise to have some Mexican gratitude for our help in
booting out the French.
3. Mexico wanted the war with America. Mexican
politicians engaged in escalating rhetoric and actions that helped provoke the
war. They thought the war would be fought in the area around Texas and that
they would win. Their goal was to reclaim Texas and parts of the former
Spanish Empire. Mexico wanted to reclaim Florida, New Orleans and the
rest of what we know as the Louisiana Purchase.
Here is where we get a glimpse at just how capricious our
two nations’ boundaries were. Spain originally claimed Florida but lost
it to England in the French and Indian War. To compensate its ally,
France gave Spain all of Louisiana, including New Orleans. It was during
Spain's rule that most of the "French Quarter" was built.
We have to keep our eye on the ball now. With American
independence, England abandoned Florida and Spain reoccupied her. Spanish
rule lasted till 1818 when Andrew Jackson exceeded his orders and invaded
Florida.
Meanwhile, France decided that New Orleans would be helpful
in defending its sugar rich cash cow, Haiti. In two secret treaties,
Napoleon reacquired Louisiana in return for supporting Spain's favored rulers
for various Italian principalities and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. The treaties
were signed in 1800 and 1801.
When the Haitian revolt succeeded, France needed money to
replace its lost sugar revenue. Napoleon got his money by selling us
Louisiana in 1803. The agreement was formally implemented 26 days after
Spain formally returned Louisiana to France.
Most of the decisions about North American borders were
made by Europeans. They were made to serve European interests and were
influenced primarily by events in Europe. We see a similar situation in
the Middle East. After WW I, Europeans drew new boundaries and created
new quite arbitrary countries in the process. Virtually everyone agrees
that the ethnic and religious violence in the area is inflamed by the hubris of
European imperialist mapmakers. We will see more conflict till these borders
are made rational. There's no reason for ancestors to have respected the
work of European mapmakers who divvied up the New World. There was every
reason to make sense of the positioning of our two countries.
The border between Mexico and America now is well established
and universally recognized. It is in the interest of both countries that
the border be respected and protected. A border wall does both.
