- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mexican President Obrador Issues His List Of Demands
Posted on 1/8/24 at 5:10 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 1/8/24 at 5:10 pm to Indefatigable
First, the problem with Mexico's geography has to do with their choice of where they are centralizing to. Because of the separation from the coastal areas to the capital by three mountain ranges, Mexico City is particularly isolated with respect to being a capital city. The distance and elevation issues aside have made centralization efforts difficult since even before European contact. And again, it is why centralization projects are a consistent theme in Mexican presidential elections.
Second, Mexico, it appears, is going to take the Turkish route with respect to migrants, which is to use them as a negotiating tool to get some other concessions, while also never seeking to really address the migrant issue at all. That seems like the worst-case scenario, as because the Mexican state is prone to instability if not for the massive economic investment the US has put into the country, it would be in a far worse position. US investment has curbed immigration from Mexicans into the US mostly, as well as made Mexico into a trillion dollar economy, which I think is why more investment is among the list of demands.
Lopez Obrador's letter to President Trump when Obrador was elected also highlighted interesting points about how approach the border, following the EU model of turning the border into an economic zone, which incentivizes Mexican cooperation along the US border by tying their cooperation to the spoils of investment. Again, this model has been used to great effect with the EU, and I'm pretty sure the volume and amount of trade between Mexico and the US is large enough to justify streamlining the border in such a way as to maximize economic interactions.
That is the way forward, not by taking the EU's approach to Turkey, which has allowed Turkey to continually use migrants as a political tool, nearly 10 years after the migrant issues first appeared. Being antagonistic isn't going to be a net benefit to the US and will likely cost more than codifying the approach the US has already taken.
Second, Mexico, it appears, is going to take the Turkish route with respect to migrants, which is to use them as a negotiating tool to get some other concessions, while also never seeking to really address the migrant issue at all. That seems like the worst-case scenario, as because the Mexican state is prone to instability if not for the massive economic investment the US has put into the country, it would be in a far worse position. US investment has curbed immigration from Mexicans into the US mostly, as well as made Mexico into a trillion dollar economy, which I think is why more investment is among the list of demands.
Lopez Obrador's letter to President Trump when Obrador was elected also highlighted interesting points about how approach the border, following the EU model of turning the border into an economic zone, which incentivizes Mexican cooperation along the US border by tying their cooperation to the spoils of investment. Again, this model has been used to great effect with the EU, and I'm pretty sure the volume and amount of trade between Mexico and the US is large enough to justify streamlining the border in such a way as to maximize economic interactions.
That is the way forward, not by taking the EU's approach to Turkey, which has allowed Turkey to continually use migrants as a political tool, nearly 10 years after the migrant issues first appeared. Being antagonistic isn't going to be a net benefit to the US and will likely cost more than codifying the approach the US has already taken.
This post was edited on 1/8/24 at 5:14 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News