Have you ever had a conversation with your neighbor over an issue that seemed clear-cut to you but not to your neighbor?  Or, have you ever offered what you considered fair a resolution to a problem only to find out that the person you are negotiating with is offended?  When this happens, the other person is perceived as unreasonable or even irrational.  So often, this is the case between Mexico and the U.S.   How we can live together as neighbors for so long, but still not quite understand the other’s position?

Take for example the recent issue of immigration reform being pushed by the Mexican government and the controversy caused by the response by a cadre of U.S. congressmen who wish to tie this issue to the privatization of Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), Mexico ’s national oil company.

Mexico has tried hard during Mexican President Vicente Fox’s reign to work out a formal immigration agreement with the U.S. for the millions of Mexicans who migrate north in search of economic opportunities.  Fox has touted his efforts as an attempt to protect and gain some type of legal status for illegal Mexican immigrants entering the US .  With more than $10 billion dollars per year that Mexican citizens living and working in the U.S send back to Mexico , the immigration issue also is important to Mexico from an economic standpoint. 

At face value, the Mexican position is rational.  As a developed nation, the U.S. needs affordable labor.  As a developing country next to the world’s largest economy, Mexico is in a position to supply this labor in the form of millions of its citizens, whose economic opportunities are limited within Mexico .

Now consider the U.S. ’s viewpoint.  In order to achieve competiveness and efficiency, billions of dollars need to be desperately poured into Pemex’s aging infrastructure over the next several years.  The Mexican government isn’t currently in a position to finance these improvements.  Therefore, isn’t it logical that the private sector, which includes U.S. companies with exactly the types of expertise needed by Pemex to improve its infrastructure and produce its petro-chemical products, be allowed to do this?  More so, if Mexico badly wants an immigration accord with the U.S. for its own internal benefit, why not tie this accord to the privatization of Pemex, thus securing benefits for U.S. companies?  After all, aren’t we North American Free Trade Agreement partners, whose markets should have no barriers between us?  It is at this point that a little cultural and historical understanding is needed to shed light on why each side’s “logical” position becomes an insult to the other side. 

From 1876 to 1910, Mexico was ruled by Porfirio Diaz, a strong-armed dictator, who believed that Mexico would best be brought into the future by inviting foreign influence into the country to develop the railroad, petroleum, mining, agricultural and other industries.  The foreign companies came into Mexico by droves and quickly started controlling many of its major industries. 

Meanwhile, millions of native Mexicans suffered, as their lands were claimed by foreign companies, and many ended up as virtual slaves on their former lands.  During Diaz’s reign an infamous saying was coined:  “ Mexico , mother to all foreigners and stepmother to Mexicans.”  By 1910, over 80 percent of Mexico ’s lands were owned by approximately 500 families, many directly tied to foreign money.

Lazaro “Tata” Cardenas, who served as Mexico ’s president from 1934 to 1940, was a general who fought in the Mexican Revolution (1910-1917).  Revolutionaries such as Cardenas had been inspired to rise up against Diaz in order to return Mexico to the Mexicans.  What resulted in the next seven years was one of the bloodiest wars of the 20^th century.  After the war, a new revolutionary government was formed that was keenly suspicious of foreign influence.  The new Mexican economy was shaped to insulate itself from foreign investment and influence.

To this day, Cardenas is arguably the most popular Mexican president of modern times for his concern over land distribution and carrying out the reforms of the Mexican Revolution.  However, he is most remembered for standing up to the foreign oil companies, who remained after the Mexican Revolution.  These companies were heavy-handed with their Mexican employees and snobby towards his government.  In 1938, he nationalized the oil industry, kicking out the foreigners and nearly provoking a war with the U.S.   President Franklin, following the U.S. ’s “good neighbor” policy that it had with Latin America at the time, chose not to act upon requests by U.S. oil companies to intercede. 

This bold move made Cardenas a hero for all time in Mexico because he stood up to the foreign powers that had played such a role in mobilizing the nation towards revolution earlier in the century.  Under Cardenas , Pemex became the official state oil company, solely responsible for production of fossil fuels and for providing the nation with fuel and oil. 

Oil in Mexico is a symbol of nationalism that supercedes capitalism and even logic.  On one hand, the average Mexican will complain about the high price of fuel and oil in Mexico , especially compared to the rates just across the border in the U.S.   These same people also will whine about the inefficiencies of the Pemex operations and the quality of the fuel. 

However, a majority of Mexicans do not favor privatizing Pemex, due to the strong feelings of nationalism that Pemex represents to the majority of Mexico .   In fact, when Mexican Secretary of the Economy Fernando Canales recently stated that Pemex needs private sector participation, many people were outraged.  It appears that a majority of Mexicans would favor their current disadvantageous position with Pemex rather than privatize.

Therefore, it is unimaginable to most Mexicans that the U.S. would have the gall to suggest that the most visible symbol of the nation’s nationalism and sovereignty be tied to an immigration accord.  Likewise, most Americans, steeped in capitalism and efficiencies that lead to low prices, don’t understand the Mexican point of view, especially when Mexico is asking for U.S. action on the immigration issue. 

In Mexico , the past can be more important than the future, and history is the filter by which understanding is gained.  In the U.S. , the past is but a footnote to the “now” and to our future.  Thus, after centuries of co-existence as neighbors, here we are acting as if we have just met after living thousands of miles apart.  In my native state of New Mexico , the situation is as irrational as trying to explain to my non-native New Mexican friends why chicken enchiladas should never be ordered with red chile, and why salsa goes well with pizza.